Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, August 27, 2011, 22:12 (4815 days ago)
He is going to college to become a philosopher-http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
DAVID: He is going to college to become a philosopher-http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/-I find this article quite moving, as it brings back memories of long ago. As a child, you trust in authority ... your parents, your teachers and, if you're exposed to it, all the paraphernalia associated with religion. It was when I hit puberty ... or rather, puberty hit me ... that I became aware of the fallibility of them all. I was lucky enough to have loving, kind-hearted parents, and a fine education, but I felt bitter disillusionment when I realized that the self-important and often grim certainties of the synagogue were based on ancient texts that could only have been written by humans as fallible as myself and all those around me. I feel the same profound scepticism when current circumstances compel me to go to church. I could see no evidence of a loving God in a world still recovering from a devastating war (among my earliest memories is of the air-raid shelter at the side of our little semi-detached house in suburban London), and I became a teenage atheist. -It was not until my late teens that I read The Origin of Species, which knocked me for six. I'd expected this book to provide the ultimate evidence that there was no God and no need for a God, but on the contrary I found several mentions of the Creator ... as if his existence was actually taken for granted. This was a shock. My edition (I still have it) is undated, and it appears that at least some of these references were added on, perhaps to appease Darwin's wife, who was religious. But as I discovered later, Darwin finished up as an agnostic, and denied ever having been an atheist. Besides, there were already other pointers: comments such as this one, on the evolution of the eye:-"How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life first originated." (Difficulties on Theory).-This rang loud alarm bells in my youthful mind. The theory of common descent was wonderfully logical, and breathtakingly simple, as was the theory of natural selection. But neither concept explained origins. "Natural selection," he wrote in the same chapter, "can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur." Atheism, I reasoned at my tender age, therefore depends on chance origins and chance variations. It took a lot of swallowing then, and it takes a lot of swallowing now. The huge advances in our knowledge of genetics seem to me to confirm the main elements of Darwin's theory, although the gradualism he insisted on has to be in serious doubt. Epigenetics suggests astonishing capabilities of adaptation to changing environments, which may even be found to explain certain innovations, but this mind-numbingly complex mechanism can only function within existing creatures, and so the concept of evolution through generations is in no way affected. We are not discovering WHETHER evolution happens, but HOW it happens.-Like Leo Behe, I decided to try a different approach in my quest for truth, so I went to see the oh so wise Senior Tutor at my Cambridge college and told him I wanted to read philosophy. He asked me why, and when I told him, he gave me a reading list. "Come back when you've read these books," he said, "and if you still want to read philosophy, I'll give you the green light." (Or words to that effect.) I wish I could remember the titles, but it was all so long ago. I read the books. And they took me not one inch further in my quest for truth. So I did not read philosophy. Maybe Leo will follow the same route.-The agnosticism I embraced in my very late teens has not changed, which may be a sign of my early maturity or my subsequent immaturity. I have, though, tempered my resentment towards religion ... though not towards its absurd ceremoniousness, dogmas and intolerance ... because it seems to me that whatever force it is that brought us to life is ungraspable. Religions I take to be metaphors for that force, and as we cannot understand it, we reduce it to terms that we CAN understand ... the "stories" towards which Kent and others are so rightly (in my view) sceptical. To rely on those ancient writings is no more sensible than to believe that those who govern us today are blessed with infinite knowledge and wisdom. However, there may be grains of truth in all the religions, and there may be dimensions of existence beyond those that our limited range allows us to perceive. Anyone who has experienced the profound mysteries of consciousness, love, creativity, oneness will recognize that there is something that transcends our material selves and our material universe. What that something is we shall probably never know.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by David Turell , Sunday, August 28, 2011, 15:42 (4815 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: He is going to college to become a philosopher > > http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/&... > I find this article quite moving, as it brings back memories of long ago.-I am moved in the same way > Atheism, I reasoned at my tender age, therefore depends on chance origins and chance variations. It took a lot of swallowing then, and it takes a lot of swallowing now. We are not discovering WHETHER evolution happens, but HOW it happens.-Which is also why I never was atheistic > > Like Leo Behe, I decided to try a different approach in my quest for truth, so I went to see the oh so wise Senior Tutor at my Cambridge college and told him I wanted to read philosophy.-Here we differ. I consulted my Rabbi (while I was in college, with only 3.6% Jews, instead of 30% in New York), to learn more about being Jewish. I developed a strong attachment to my Jewish background, without becoming very religious. > Anyone who has experienced the profound mysteries of consciousness, love, creativity, oneness will recognize that there is something that transcends our material selves and our material universe. What that something is we shall probably never know.-Here is where we differ. Those 'profound mysteries' beg for an explanation. Since the universe runs on and by information, there must be a UI to make the perfect laws to allow the universe to allow life, and the amazing codes that run life. Inorganic material contains a small amount of information compared to the voluminous, infinitesimal amount of information in biochemistry. May I be so bold as to suggest that your lack of background in this area of chemistry has caused you to stop on top of the picket fence. -As for your previously expressed upset over the cruelty in the world, this comes from your Jewish background: God or whatever 'something' is behind all this should be 'loving'. We can't know that. It is human wishful thinking. The UI makes information and rules, but morals are our responsibility. Here I am with the Humanists. There is no God of reward and punishment; there is only self-reliant humaness that realizes in a cruel universe and dangerous world we must rely on each other. At some point WE have to be in charge, given the opportunity, the gift of life, to make the most of that life, while we are here.-Another way to view it is the UI is the inventor. We are the product, but we are not Pinocchio. We can understand our need for the 'profound mysteries' and ensure a cooperative humaness. WE must be in charge of ourselves.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
Dhw: Anyone who has experienced the profound mysteries of consciousness, love, creativity, oneness will recognize that there is something that transcends our material selves and our material universe. What that something is we shall probably never know.-DAVID: Here is where we differ. Those 'profound mysteries' beg for an explanation. Since the universe runs on and by information, there must be a UI to make the perfect laws to allow the universe to allow life, and the amazing codes that run life. Inorganic material contains a small amount of information compared to the voluminous, infinitesimal amount of information in biochemistry. May I be so bold as to suggest that your lack of background in this area of chemistry has caused you to stop on top of the picket fence. -By all means take your courage in both hands and make your bold suggestion! Only tell me then how you account for the professional biochemists who stand solidly on the atheist side of my picket fence.-DAVID: As for your previously expressed upset over the cruelty in the world, this comes from your Jewish background: God or whatever 'something' is behind all this should be 'loving'. We can't know that. It is human wishful thinking. The UI makes information and rules, but morals are our responsibility. Here I am with the Humanists. There is no God of reward and punishment; there is only self-reliant humaness that realizes in a cruel universe and dangerous world we must rely on each other. At some point WE have to be in charge, given the opportunity, the gift of life, to make the most of that life, while we are here. Another way to view it is the UI is the inventor. We are the product, but we are not Pinocchio. We can understand our need for the 'profound mysteries' and ensure a cooperative humaness. WE must be in charge of ourselves.-There is no difference between us here. Already as a teenager I rebelled against the Judeo-Christian image of a loving God. I regard myself as a humanist, see no necessity for religion in the establishment of moral codes, cannot fathom the nature of whatever gave us life, and am content with the idea that what I do with my life is my own responsibility, though I recognize that much human suffering is caused by forces beyond our own control.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by David Turell , Monday, August 29, 2011, 13:53 (4814 days ago) @ dhw
Only tell me then how you account for the professional biochemists who stand solidly on the atheist side of my picket fence.-Like surgeons who have faith they can fix everything, atheist biochemists believe in abiogenesis as the only answer to life's appearance, and evolution, by chance, created the extremely complicated processes of life. Follow Sandwalk and see what Moran writes. Dawkins is God. Pure faith in chance!
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
DAVID: May I be so bold as to suggest that your lack of background in this area of chemistry has caused you to stop on top of the picket fence.-Dhw: [...] Only tell me then how you account for the professional biochemists who stand solidly on the atheist side of my picket fence.-DAVID: Like surgeons who have faith they can fix everything, atheist biochemists believe in abiogenesis as the only answer to life's appearance, and evolution, by chance, created the extremely complicated processes of life. Follow Sandwalk and see what Moran writes. Dawkins is God. Pure faith in chance!-I have never disagreed with you over the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and evolution by chance creating the extremely complicated processes of life. It is also one of my own main arguments against atheism. However, you have suggested that it is my ignorance of biochemistry that causes me to stay on my picket fence, and I am pointing out that there are professional biochemists who totally reject your interpretation of their/your findings, so ugh ugh, why pick on poor old dhw, who doesn't? It is my inability to believe in chance, balanced by my inability to believe in an unknowable and self-generated intelligence, that keeps me on my fence.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 17:54 (4812 days ago) @ dhw
> I have never disagreed with you over the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and evolution by chance creating the extremely complicated processes of life. It is also one of my own main arguments against atheism. ................It is my inability to believe in chance, balanced by my inability to believe in an unknowable and self-generated intelligence, that keeps me on my fence.-You leave two possibilities to ponder. Either the universe or universes is/are eternal, or there is an eternal super-intelligence which is eternal, and these are first causes. I can not identify anything else prior to the Big Bang. From these two beginnings,we humans have developed an intelligence that we can identify as arising from within us. It has appeared from a beginning of inorganic matter! If you consider that an impossibility, then you must consider an intelligence that pre-dates our human intelligence.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
DAVID: You leave two possibilities to ponder. Either the universe or universes is/are eternal, or there is an eternal super-intelligence which is eternal, and these are first causes. I can not identify anything else prior to the Big Bang. From these two beginnings,we humans have developed an intelligence that we can identify as arising from within us. It has appeared from a beginning of inorganic matter! If you consider that an impossibility, then you must consider an intelligence that pre-dates our human intelligence.-Which of course I do. And I come up with the following exquisitely absurd argument: our own intelligence is so complex that it can only be the result of an act of creation, whereas the immeasurably more complex intelligence that created it cannot have been the result of an act of creation. Welcome to Wonderland.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by David Turell , Wednesday, August 31, 2011, 15:24 (4812 days ago) @ dhw
> Which of course I do. And I come up with the following exquisitely absurd argument: our own intelligence is so complex that it can only be the result of an act of creation, whereas the immeasurably more complex intelligence that created it cannot have been the result of an act of creation. Welcome to Wonderland.-That is not Wonderland. It is the recognition of 'first cause', a philosophic gift from our ancient Greek Friends. If everything has a cause, there must be an uncaused first cause. There can not be an infinite regression to nothing.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
Dhw: I come up with the following exquisitely absurd argument: our own intelligence is so complex that it can only be the result of an act of creation, whereas the immeasurably more complex intelligence that created it cannot have been the result of an act of creation. Welcome to Wonderland.-DAVID: That is not Wonderland. It is the recognition of 'first cause', a philosophic gift from our ancient Greek Friends. If everything has a cause, there must be an uncaused first cause. There can not be an infinite regression to nothing.-You can argue with equal logic, and equal inconsequentiality, that if everything has a cause, there cannot be an uncaused first cause, and so there has to be an infinite regression to something. The 'first cause' argument is a philosophical placebo. A child comes to you with a mysterious ailment. "Ah," you say, "that's called ploxyboxyosis. Just take this pill and you'll be OK." So there's no mystery after all, the child sucks the sweetie, and lo and behold, all is well. The thinkers have a problem: There is no effect without a cause, but we haven't a clue what started it all (if anything did start it all) so we'll call whatever it was (or wasn't) "first cause". Now that it has a name, we know what it is. Then we give the patient a dose of God, and he'll stop worrying about it.-This is not a way out of the logical impasse I have described above, and it explains absolutely nothing. Why not admit that we're confronted by an insoluble mystery, and join me on the fence of the don't-knows-can't-knows? Oh, and beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Regression to something
by David Turell , Thursday, September 01, 2011, 20:22 (4810 days ago) @ dhw
> You can argue with equal logic, and equal inconsequentiality, that if everything has a cause, there cannot be an uncaused first cause, and so there has to be an infinite regression to something.-Exactly. 'Regression to something' equals "first cause" If there is nothing at first, there will be nothing now (Vic Stenger to the contrary). > > The 'first cause' argument is a philosophical placebo.-No, it is not. It is a logical concept.- > Why not admit that we're confronted by an insoluble mystery, and join me on the fence of the don't-knows-can't-knows? Oh, and beware of Greeks bearing gifts.-You are right. The first cause is an 'insoluable mystery', but it must be there lurking in the distant past, and a gift from the Greeks.
Regression to something
DAVID: If everything has a cause, there must be an uncaused first cause. There cannot be an infinite regression to nothing. -Dhw: You can argue with equal logic, and equal inconsequentiality, that if everything has a cause, there cannot be an uncaused first cause, and so there has to be an infinite regression to something.-DAVID: Exactly. 'Regression to something' equals "first cause" If there is nothing at first, there will be nothing now (Vic Stenger to the contrary).-No, NOT exactly. A regression to something would indeed equal a first cause, but an INFINITE regression to something equals a regression to something to something to something...ad infinitum, i.e. no first cause. I repeat, both arguments are equally logical and equally inconsequential, by which I mean they lead us absolutely nowhere.-Dhw: The 'first cause' argument is a philosophical placebo. DAVID: No, it is not. It is a logical concept.-It is a logical concept used as a philosophical placebo.-Dhw: Why not admit that we're confronted by an insoluble mystery, and join me on the fence of the don't-knows-can't-knows? Oh, and beware of Greeks bearing gifts.-DAVID: You are right. The first cause is an 'insoluable mystery', but it must be there lurking in the distant past, and a gift from the Greeks.-That is not what I said, because that presupposes the existence of a first cause, which is what theists seize on in their convoluted attempts to prove the existence of God. Atheists have every right to ask where God came from, and the magic formula "first cause" is meant to remove that crucial question from the discussion. It doesn't. Since you agree that the mystery (i.e. of the unknowable past) is insoluble, logically you should join me on the fence, but you acknowledge that your ultimate position is based on faith, and of course I accept that.-However, now that we're crossing logical swords (only in play, I assure you), let me pursue my initial Wonderland point, because your "first cause" doesn't address it. We agree that our conscious, intelligent mind is so complex that we can't believe it fashioned itself by chance. However, you do believe that there is an immeasurably greater conscious, intelligent mind that was not designed. If in your view complex intelligence is proof of design, how can you then argue that even more complex intelligence is NOT proof of design? Alternatively, if you can believe in a supreme form of intelligence that was not designed, why can you not believe in a lesser form of intelligence that was not designed? This is not a defence of chance, but a question concerning the logic by which you reconcile two diametrically opposed arguments.
Regression to something
by David Turell , Friday, September 02, 2011, 22:32 (4809 days ago) @ dhw
> However, now that we're crossing logical swords (only in play, I assure you), let me pursue my initial Wonderland point, because your "first cause" doesn't address it. We agree that our conscious, intelligent mind is so complex that we can't believe it fashioned itself by chance. However, you do believe that there is an immeasurably greater conscious, intelligent mind that was not designed. If in your view complex intelligence is proof of design, how can you then argue that even more complex intelligence is NOT proof of design? Alternatively, if you can believe in a supreme form of intelligence that was not designed, why can you not believe in a lesser form of intelligence that was not designed? This is not a defence of chance, but a question concerning the logic by which you reconcile two diametrically opposed arguments.-We will go round and round until we tire. Our consciousness and intelligence is a part of the UI. Somewhere way back in infinite regression there is a something, a first cause, which has always been, not designed, but always present. An eternal UI is that something. Contrarily, if way back there is only eternal matter, what caused it? And how did that inorganic matter figure out how to make consciousness from organic matter? The UI can inject consciousness into humans as a part of the coded advance of evolution, arranged by the UI. I don't care if it is infinitely long ago, that is the only way I can accept a start to the process. I'm not arguing within my arguments. Start with my first premise of a first cause, and all the rest fits together nicely.
Regression to something
DAVID: We will go round and round until we tire. Our consciousness and intelligence is a part of the UI. Somewhere way back in infinite regression there is a something, a first cause, which has always been, not designed, but always present. An eternal UI is that something. Contrarily, if way back there is only eternal matter, what caused it? And how did that inorganic matter figure out how to make consciousness from organic matter? The UI can inject consciousness into humans as a part of the coded advance of evolution, arranged by the UI. I don't care if it is infinitely long ago, that is the only way I can accept a start to the process. I'm not arguing within my arguments. Start with my first premise of a first cause, and all the rest fits together nicely.-Humans have been going round and round this subject ever since your buddies Plato and Aristotle, if not earlier. Philosophy is a game with words and concepts ... what else can it be when the mystery is insoluble? I can well understand Matt's preference for science, despite his love of Nietzsche. However, since you and I suddenly find ourselves alone in the universe, I'm happy to go on playing the game if you are ... though of course you're free to knock over the board if you've had enough. -1)	The regression can't be infinite if there is a first cause.-2)	Your question concerning what caused eternal matter is no more and no less valid than the atheist question of what caused eternal intelligence. If you can argue that a UI has been there for ever, you might just as well argue that matter has been there for ever.-3)	Eternal matter has two priceless advantages over eternal intelligence. The first is that we know as surely as we know anything that matter exists. No-one can know with equal certainty that there is any form of intelligence outside our own. Secondly, all our observations and experience suggest that matter is constantly changing. There would seem to be no limits to the forms it can take. If the first cause was intelligence, it must have created matter. From what? But if matter has always been there ... I am now taking the atheist side ... its apparently limitless capacity for taking on new forms must eventually and inevitably have enabled it to come up with the mechanism for life and evolution. The "infinitely long ago" may have witnessed an endless series of big bangs and universes, and ours just happens to be the one in which at long, long, long last matter formed a living globule capable of evolution. That is the only way the atheist can "accept a start to the process" of life and evolution. Start with the premise of eternal matter changing into an infinity of forms, and "all the rest fits together nicely".-Won't you join me on the fence?
Regression to something
by David Turell , Saturday, September 03, 2011, 15:18 (4809 days ago) @ dhw
> Won't you join me on the fence?- Can't do that. Matter is energy on the outside, mind is energy on the inside to quote MY philosophy prof. All matter is really energy in different forms. Alan Guth cannot be ignored. He claims that this universe is 'something from nothing'. He explains that if one adds up all the forms of energy, positive and negative in our universe, the total answer one reaches is zero!-This sure makes the Big Bang a creation. The UI is pure energy and has existed forever into the past. -All of this reasoning is what has made the theoretical cosmologists conjure up, impossible to prove, multiverses to get rid of the supernatural God idea.-Your rump is the closest part of your body to my way of thinking. That fence of yours is really pure energy, thanks to the UI.
Regression to something
DAVID: Matter is energy on the outside, mind is energy on the inside to quote MY philosophy prof. All matter is really energy in different forms. Alan Guth cannot be ignored. He claims that this universe is 'something from nothing'. He explains that if one adds up all the forms of energy, positive and negative in our universe, the total answer one reaches is zero!-This sure makes the Big Bang a creation. The UI is pure energy and has existed forever into the past. -All of this reasoning is what has made the theoretical cosmologists conjure up, impossible to prove, multiverses to get rid of the supernatural God idea. Your rump is the closest part of your body to my way of thinking. That fence of yours is really pure energy, thanks to the UI.-First of all, let me put on my theist hat, because I really dislike the word "supernatural". It has far too many woolly associations, and it also presupposes a complete knowledge of Nature. Let me repeat, then, that if there is a God who designed our world, that to me indicates science and not magic. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" sounds like a wooj-wooj, but you yourself have pointed out again and again that life is a carefully planned, scientific design. I am, I must confess, completely bewildered by your equation: all positive + all negative forms of energy = 0, therefore the Big Bang was a creation. Presumably all those non-believing professional physicists and cosmologists don't understand it either. -I'm not sure why you call both the UI and my fence "pure" energy (I wouldn't dare apply the epithet to my rump). "All matter is really energy in different forms." OK, then, let's agree that energy "has existed forever into the past". That doesn't make it a conscious intelligence. Your philosophy prof at least seems to have distinguished between these DIFFERENT forms of energy, but once we accept the distinction between mind and matter, we go straight back to square one. Did energy in the form of matter precede energy in the form of mind, or vice versa? Round and round we go...That's philosophy for you.-******-I shall be away until Thursday, and will catch up when I get back.
Regression to something
by David Turell , Sunday, September 04, 2011, 22:44 (4807 days ago) @ dhw
Alan Guth cannot be ignored. He claims that this universe is 'something from nothing'. He explains that if one adds up all the forms of energy, positive and negative in our universe, the total answer one reaches is zero!-Alan Guth is one of the leading theoretical cosmologists in the world. He invented the inflation theory. > > I am, I must confess, completely bewildered by your equation: all positive + all negative forms of energy = 0, therefore the Big Bang was a creation. Presumably all those non-believing professional physicists and cosmologists don't understand it either. -Note the comment about Guth above. Most of his compatriots in cosmology agree with him. > > I'm not sure why you call both the UI and my fence "pure" energy (I wouldn't dare apply the epithet to my rump). "All matter is really energy in different forms." OK, then, let's agree that energy "has existed forever into the past". That doesn't make it a conscious intelligence. Your philosophy prof at least seems to have distinguished between these DIFFERENT forms of energy, but once we accept the distinction between mind and matter, we go straight back to square one. Did energy in the form of matter precede energy in the form of mind, or vice versa? Round and round we go...That's philosophy for you.-The first verses of Genesis follow the Big Bang. "1:3 is the opening act of the story of creation". (In the Beginning Of, by Judah Landa,2004) "Let there be light". Light is energy. At first there is always energy. Energy can stay as energy or can become any form of matter. Matter is made up of various particles of energy. An atom is made up of smaller particles of energy down to quarks and force fields mediated by particles. I don't think you undertand this. My philosophy prof was only stating fact. Energy is energy. It is a zoo of particles in various families, positively charged, negative, or with no charge. Matter is on the outside and energy particles are on the inside, is another way of putting it. Of course, he was defining 'mind' as pure energy, as it is. Yes, energy goes all the way back, and has always existed, either as my UI or as a potential set of quanta as the way the space in our universe is formed, a false vacuum (Stenger).-Your rump is energy, how energetic is for you to say. That picket fence is energy. Finally, energy may change but always exists. The total of all energy in this universe is constant. It can be neither created or destroyed. Guth is allowed to use his formula. So finally my statements are not confusing: Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or a false vacuum of space has always existed and a quantum perturbation went poof and our universe appeared. We MUST be part of something eternal.
Regression to something
by BBella , Monday, September 05, 2011, 06:05 (4807 days ago) @ David Turell
Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or...<-I hope this doesn't add to the confusion, but would like the above clarified: Your statement seems to say to me that the UI was and is outside the Big Bang and the universe it created with energy. Is that how you meant it? Or are you saying the UI, which is energy, became the Big Bang and evolved into the universe as we now know it. If so, could the above also be simply said: Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it's intelligent energy?
Regression to something
by David Turell , Monday, September 05, 2011, 15:00 (4807 days ago) @ BBella
Either a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or...< > > I hope this doesn't add to the confusion, but would like the above clarified: Your statement seems to say to me that the UI was and is outside the Big Bang and the universe it created with energy. Is that how you meant it? Or are you saying the UI, which is energy, became the Big Bang and evolved into the universe as we now know it. If so, could the above also be simply said: Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it's intelligent energy?-Yes, I believe God (UI) is both within and without our universe, and your final sentence is right on the mark.
Regression to something
DAVID: [Either] a UI (energy) made the Big Bang and created this universe out of energy, or...-BBella found this concept difficult to understand, and as one of several alternatives wondered if David meant: "Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it's intelligent energy." -DAVID: Yes, I believe God (UI) is both within and without our universe, and your final sentence is right on the mark.-I too have struggled with this idea, and wonder if an analogy might help us. In some ways, I'm able to be within and without myself: I can observe myself, and I can do things to myself ... trim my beard, scratch my head, get my rump to rest on my picket fence. So if God is all the energy there is, the suggestion seems to be that he manoeuvred a chunk of his own energy into exploding, thereby forming matter, and that he subsequently manoeuvred small chunks of that matter into the formation of living creatures, leading to a continuous process of evolution. -I'm not sure to what extent this fits in with process theology, but to me it is at least comprehensible. Of course the analogy must sooner or later come up against the prime question: did the conscious will (my little chunk of God) that enables me to do my thing precede the rest of me, or did it arise out of the same materials that form my beard, head, rump? Was there a conscious will (i.e. God's) before the Big Bang ... if it happened ... or is conscious will (i.e. ours) the chance product of the Big Bang? Round and round we go....
Regression to something
by David Turell , Friday, September 09, 2011, 17:47 (4802 days ago) @ dhw
Was there a conscious will (i.e. God's) before the Big Bang ... if it happened ... or is conscious will (i.e. ours) the chance product of the Big Bang? Round and round we go....-You may spin like a top. I don't. Of course, if you are spinning fast enough, you will become a gyroscope and hold your position on the picket fence in fine form.
Regression to something
by BBella , Saturday, September 10, 2011, 06:40 (4802 days ago) @ dhw
"Energy is what created the Big Bang and all that IS, so I therefore believe it's intelligent energy." > >Of course the analogy must sooner or later come up against the prime question: did the conscious will (my little chunk of God) that enables me to do my thing precede the rest of me, or did it arise out of the same materials that form my beard, head, rump? Was there a conscious will (i.e. God's) before the Big Bang ... if it happened ... or is conscious will (i.e. ours) the chance product of the Big Bang? Round and round we go....-If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become.
Regression to something
BBELLA: If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become.-Agreed. If there is a God, I would find it/her/him easier to understand in terms of deism (not intervening) and process theology as explained to us by Frank ... i.e. learning all the time. I can picture God experimenting with life, jettisoning some forms and improving others, just as we humans do with our own designs. Omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't give him much fun. So just as there is no telling what we will become, there is no telling what God will become. And if there is no God, there is no telling what the blind, impersonal powers of Nature will become. Aren't we lucky to live in such an exciting world? (I might change my tune if I happen to get hit by a falling tree.)
Regression to something
by David Turell , Sunday, September 11, 2011, 15:28 (4801 days ago) @ dhw
BBELLA: If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become. > > Agreed. If there is a God, I would find it/her/him easier to understand in terms of deism (not intervening) and process theology as explained to us by Frank ... i.e. learning all the time. I can picture God experimenting with life, jettisoning some forms and improving others, just as we humans do with our own designs. Omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't give him much fun. So just as there is no telling what we will become, there is no telling what God will become. -The above discussion demonstrates how God is always presented against a background of religious just-so stories. Evolutionary theory has its own background of ephemeral just-so stories. Human nature seems to require that we invent these stories when presented with phenomena that we do not understand. In medicine it is giving a poorly understood process a name. Then we all feel better. The ancients had Zeus, Thor, Athena,etc. Native American Indians were surprising more advanced for a stone-age civilization: they had monotheism in the Great Spirit. -I'm making the point I always make: when presented with the unknowable, in your thought patterns try and make a fresh start. Ignore the just-so stories and start with what we can accept as factual material to build your veltanschauung (worldview).
Regression to something
BBELLA: If consciousness is energy like everything else that IS is energy, and since nothing stays the same but change, I would think that everything that "IS" is in a constant state of evolution/change, including that which we call God and that which we call consciousness. So, even if we knew something of where we came from, as the scriptures say, there is no telling what we will become.-DHW: Agreed. If there is a God, I would find it/her/him easier to understand in terms of deism (not intervening) and process theology as explained to us by Frank ... i.e. learning all the time. I can picture God experimenting with life, jettisoning some forms and improving others, just as we humans do with our own designs. Omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't give him much fun. So just as there is no telling what we will become, there is no telling what God will become. -DAVID: The above discussion demonstrates how God is always presented against a background of religious just-so stories. Evolutionary theory has its own background of ephemeral just-so stories. Human nature seems to require that we invent these stories when presented with phenomena that we do not understand. In medicine it is giving a poorly understood process a name. Then we all feel better. The ancients had Zeus, Thor, Athena,etc. Native American Indians were surprising more advanced for a stone-age civilization: they had monotheism in the Great Spirit. I'm making the point I always make: when presented with the unknowable, in your thought patterns try and make a fresh start. Ignore the just-so stories and start with what we can accept as factual material to build your veltanschauung (worldview).-I'm blowed if I can see any just-so stories in my discussion with BBella. You yourself actually believe in the just-so story of an eternal UI that came from nowhere and created the universe and life from nothing. Perhaps this makes you "feel better". I have no such belief, but when I consider the factual material (the mechanisms of the universe and life, the history of humankind) I conclude that IF there is a UI, the concept that fits in best is that of a scientist experimenting with life forms, but not intervening in human affairs. I wouldn't call this a Weltanschauung. Simply a speculative hypothesis.
Regression to something
by David Turell , Monday, September 12, 2011, 14:27 (4800 days ago) @ dhw
> I'm blowed if I can see any just-so stories in my discussion with BBella.-I didn't make my point clear enough. You did not use just-so stories, nor did BBella. I'll try again. God is always discussed against a background of religious imagination. Evolution is a theory filled with imagination. All I'm asking is clear your mind of the stuff we cannot know, when you try to analyze the objects of that 'stuff'. That is why I presented Berlinski. He is a wonderful example of someone who looks at all the babble, clears it out of his head and then thinks and presents his thoughts. His conclusion is that there is much more to the thought there may be a greater power, and very little true evidence for atheism. The book is a great read. He is not at my position of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but close as I interpret it.-As for "Weltanschuung" my mental view of the pronuncation got to my typing fingers. I apologize. Freud invented a great word for a concept. As I age my mind is getting to be more active than the rest of me. It has no 'sitzfleisch'.
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 29, 2011, 04:27 (4814 days ago) @ dhw
My path to atheism was of course... quite shorter. I talked before about my encounter with George Carlin. -This 9 minute segment was the one that in a flash of gnosis turned me against religion, and God... The rest of the comedy special did the rest of the work. -My religious education until this point was a lifetime accumulation of about 100 or so Sundays, and what little my mom would teach me. (Which would include such things as the Sun is a planet...)-My own path to agnosticism...-I have to say that while my thoughts are much more refined than they were when i was 15. However, outside of a philosophical (and therefore theoretical) issue of epistemology, I would still consider myself an atheist. What keeps me from that last step? Only that I truly recognize a desire within myself for something more. And this was the desire that I couldn't discuss while I carried the label of Atheist. Because if you're an atheist in today's culture: that's it. You're done. You're silly (if not an idiot) to wish that there was more to this life than this crude matter. So much of my link of religion in the latter years of my life, has been to try and find ways to justify it. And without completely rewriting the history of all religions, this has proven nearly impossible. -My other problem has been in how to justify faith. A common defensive wall for religious people, has been that faith (and hope) are necessary for humanity. -I don't argue with hope, but I don't agree that faith is something that can get us there... in what context, faith?-How is faith helpful, and in this day and age, how is it NOT anything but evil?-I still await answers for this... and yes dhw... I've resumed writing my novel...
--
\"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.\"
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
MATT: I would still consider myself an atheist. What keeps me from that last step? Only that I truly recognize a desire within myself for something more. And this was the desire that I couldn't discuss while I carried the label of Atheist. Because if you're an atheist in today's culture: that's it. You're done. You're silly (if not an idiot) to wish that there was more to this life than this crude matter. So much of my link of religion in the latter years of my life, has been to try and find ways to justify it. And without completely rewriting the history of all religions, this has proven nearly impossible.-I really can't see that a desire for something is justification for believing that it might be possible. That's putting carts before horses. Of course none of us can be entirely neutral, but my own atheism was put into question initially by my inability to swallow the idea that chance was capable of creating an amoeba and then turning it into a human (in those days, we took the amoeba to be the paradigm for primitive life forms). Subsequently, like yourself, I began to think more deeply about those elements of human activity that seem to defy material explanation, and I also read copiously about the less dogmatic religions (I too found Buddhism particularly attractive, though I would now hesitate to call it a religion) and also about the so-called paranormal. The four years I spent in Ghana ... a very different culture from our own ... also opened up new horizons. Even in those days, I don't think I was motivated by a desire for "something more" so much as a desire to know the truth. It probably wasn't until I reached my thirties that I came to the conclusion that I would never know the truth. Decades later The God Delusion kick-started me into writing my agnostic response and opening this website, so the original motivation seems to be as strong as ever! I would have thought that your discussions with David and myself alone would have shown you that you don't need to rewrite the history of all religions. You only need to go on doing what you are doing (often quite brilliantly, if I may say so) ... namely, weighing up the implications of our human experiences and the explanatory options. But if you can honestly say that the combination of chance origins and wholly material sources of seemingly immaterial experiences provides an explanation you find convincing, then you may as well call yourself an atheist.-MATT: My other problem has been in how to justify faith. A common defensive wall for religious people, has been that faith (and hope) are necessary for humanity. I don't argue with hope, but I don't agree that faith is something that can get us there... in what context, faith? How is faith helpful, and in this day and age, how is it NOT anything but evil?-Some of the religious people I know, or have known, positively glow with faith that God is loving and there is a purpose behind everything, including their suffering. This faith has enabled them to cope with what for me would be unbearable tragedy, like the loss of a child. They are also kind-hearted people, who go out of their way to help others. I share your scepticism towards their faith, but it is absurd to ignore its benefits for them and for the people who know them. I agree with you that faith is not necessary for humanity, whereas hope is, but for many people they go together, and I see nothing evil in that except when faith becomes a weapon of attack instead of a vehicle for hope and empathy.-MATT: I still await answers for this... and yes dhw... I've resumed writing my novel...-Delighted to hear it. This is probably presumptuous on my part, as I don't know how experienced you are in the field, but I would urge you to finish it, and remember that what you write is not final. Once it's finished, you can rewrite whatever you're not happy with. Take a tip from Orpheus and don't look back till you're out of there!
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 29, 2011, 13:49 (4814 days ago) @ dhw
Well, obviously the desire part has nothing to do with epistemology--That's just good ol' human nature. And desire transcends all rational bounds, as I'm sure you're aware, so I kinda disagree with you here. Desire against all odds is a tragically human characteristic. But in this, the discussion is in justifying a creator that is somehow outside of the natural world, yet can influence it in undetectable ways...-I see no way to justify that. -The meat of your post here is more targeted to my response in the Natural Selection thread. Butfor now let's say that while I share an incredulity about the origin of life, I also recognize methodological materialism as the only real means to answer these questions. So our primary means excludes the supernatural by default... so yes, I lean materialist here, because I don't see a way out.-More later... at work...
--
\"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.\"
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 29, 2011, 22:12 (4813 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, >...I would have thought that your discussions with David and myself alone would have shown you that you don't need to rewrite the history of all religions. You only need to go on doing what you are doing (often quite brilliantly, if I may say so) ... namely, weighing up the implications of our human experiences and the explanatory options. But if you can honestly say that the combination of chance origins and wholly material sources of seemingly immaterial experiences provides an explanation you find convincing, then you may as well call yourself an atheist. > -What I meant by that is, you have to radically reinterpret sacred texts if you're going to make them fit into the world we now have some knowledge about. Yours, David's, and my own respective paths don't really place much of anything at all upon sacred texts, perhaps with exception as cultural histories. -In regards to the question of chance; I think about it epistemically. If I'm asked which one I like better in this light, I have to say chance. The reason why is this:-In contrast to the Nordic myth, where Audumnla licked man out from the salt, we have an incomplete tale. It's the incompleteness that's the rub: The difference between the two, is that Audumnla tells us everything about how man came to be. But epistemically... we can't verify it. -Abiogenesis on the other hand, barely knows where its going. So why lean towards it? Because realistically, it's all we have. It's the only one that we can apply tools to, the only one that gives us... something truly justifiable. Sure. Say someone figures out how to do it. We won't know if its the way. But that really won't matter anymore will it? We'll have an epistemically complete answer. -So if you ever wondered why I lean materialist, this is why. Because it comes down to what we can epistemically justify. We cannot justify Audumnla. We can justify abiogenesis. (Note justification for me does not equate to knowledge, or the resolution of a question to an answer: We're talking purely about how well we can justify a particular claim.) -> MATT: My other problem has been in how to justify faith. A common defensive wall for religious people, has been that faith (and hope) are necessary for humanity. I don't argue with hope, but I don't agree that faith is something that can get us there... in what context, faith? How is faith helpful, and in this day and age, how is it NOT anything but evil? > > Some of the religious people I know, or have known, positively glow with faith that God is loving and there is a purpose behind everything, including their suffering. This faith has enabled them to cope with what for me would be unbearable tragedy, like the loss of a child. They are also kind-hearted people, who go out of their way to help others. I share your scepticism towards their faith, but it is absurd to ignore its benefits for them and for the people who know them. I agree with you that faith is not necessary for humanity, whereas hope is, but for many people they go together, and I see nothing evil in that except when faith becomes a weapon of attack instead of a vehicle for hope and empathy. > -The problem as I see it here in the US, is that it's all too often used exactly in that way--as a weapon. It's not as overt as it is in some Muslim countries--sometimes. Attorney General John Ashcroft spent $8k of taxpayer money to cover a statue. The entire evolution controversy here in the states, is precisely funded by a religious minority intent on Christianizing the entire Government. (Named are ID proponents who are active in this "cultural reawakening--all of them famous.") This is the main reason David draws fire from atheists that don't know what he's about at first. -> MATT: I still await answers for this... and yes dhw... I've resumed writing my novel... > > Delighted to hear it. This is probably presumptuous on my part, as I don't know how experienced you are in the field, but I would urge you to finish it, and remember that what you write is not final. Once it's finished, you can rewrite whatever you're not happy with. Take a tip from Orpheus and don't look back till you're out of there!-I'm an experienced reviser... I had a good English professor that demanded (and read) 5-6 drafts of every paper I wrote for an entire semester. It's helped me as a programmer too. (Writing good code is as much about communication as it is about making machines do work.) -But I've never written something to be published before. I'm sure I'll probably go bankrupt getting an agent to get it out.
--
\"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.\"
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
MATT: And desire transcends all rational bounds, as I'm sure you're aware, so I kinda disagree with you here.-My point was not that desire is unnatural, but that desire is no justification for believing that something is possible.-MATT: ...the discussion is in justifying a creator that is somehow outside of the natural world, yet can influence it in undetectable ways...I see no way to justify that.-Agreed. But I also see no way to justify belief in chance, or belief that all our seemingly immaterial experiences can be explained materialistically. Hence my agnosticism.-MATT: The meat of your post here is more targeted to my response in the Natural Selection thread.-Let me digress slightly here: please read David's latest comment under "Early embryology". You cannot simply go on ignoring the still conventional definition of NS. (You have not responded to my post of 13 August.)-MATT: ...while I share an incredulity about the origin of life, I also recognize methodological materialism as the only real means to answer these questions. So our primary means excludes the supernatural by default...so yes, I lean materialist here, because I don't see a way out.-The word "supernatural" may be misleading. The way out is to realize that Nature may vastly transcend the means we have of observing it. People are quite prepared to take seriously theories that entail extra dimensions (up to 11 in string theory) and multiple universes which we may never be able to perceive. Then why shut your mind to the theory that there is some form of natural intelligence ... a vast extension of our own ... that will for ever be beyond our means of perception? I'm not saying you should believe it. I'm saying that it offers an explanation that is no more and no less incredible than any other theory, especially in the light of our own consciousness. In my heart of hearts, I don't think we shall ever find the ultimate truth, but I love the quest for it, and for me that is an end in itself. -Dhw: ...you don't need to rewrite the history of all religions.-MATT: What I meant by that is, you have to radically reinterpret sacred texts if you're going to make them fit into the world we now have some knowledge about.-Since you don't "place much of anything" on them, except as cultural histories, why do you need to rewrite them? You go on to discuss Nordic myth. You might as well discuss any myth, including biblical, but since you and I don't believe any of them, why should we spend time on them, other than for cultural reasons (though I do think we can learn an enormous amount from them)? They are all irrelevant to the question of whether there is such a thing as a UI. -You then discuss abiogenesis (which = the spontaneous emergence of life from non-life): "it's the only one that we can apply tools to, the only one that gives us...something truly justifiable. Say someone figures out how to do it. [...] We'll have an epistemically complete answer." No we won't. We shall only know a) that life can happen, which we already know because it HAS happened, and we're here to prove it, and (b) that it needs someone to figure out how to make it happen, i.e. a form of intelligence. In any case, until it has been done, you have nothing on which to justify any kind of belief. Like Dawkins, you are living on hope (that's the word he himself uses!) that your faith in materialism will be vindicated. Agnosticism keeps all doors open. Atheism doesn't.-MATT: How is faith helpful, and in this day and age, how is it NOT anything but evil?-Dhw: I agree with you that faith is not necessary for humanity, whereas hope is, but for many people they go together, and I see nothing evil in that except when faith becomes a weapon of attack instead of a vehicle for hope and empathy. -MATT: The problem as I see it here in the US, is that it's all too often used exactly in that way ... as a weapon.-That should not blind you to the good and helpful side of faith, which I tried to describe in my post. The view expressed in your question is, in my view, horribly unbalanced.-As regards your novel, if you can get a good agent, you won't go bankrupt. Keep writing, Matt! I'll be first in the queue for your autograph (when you do a reading tour to the UK, that is).
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 18:01 (4812 days ago) @ dhw
As regards your novel, if you can get a good agent, you won't go bankrupt. Keep writing, Matt! I'll be first in the queue for your autograph (when you do a reading tour to the UK, that is).-I'll be there also (But write quickly. I have a time limit.) Further it doesn't have to be costly, or even need an agent. My first book was picked up by a publisher from about 20 submissions I made to various houses. There are publishing yellow pages in most libraries listing the houses and their interests. The second book (SvsR) sold better and was put out gratis (they accept about 20% of submissions) by PublishAmerica.com
Michael Behe\'s son is an atheist
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 29, 2011, 04:00 (4814 days ago) @ David Turell
He is going to college to become a philosopher > > http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2011/the-humanist-interview-with-leo-behe/-He&... on the right path. Assuming that because we're the only ones who make complex things, this implies we were designed is a statement to the abyss.
--
\"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.\"