Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Address my points instead of making up your own misinterpretations.

That's cute.

Naww, no you are.

Immanuel Can wrote:If I could find your points, atto, I would happily address them. I was asking you to help me find them.

They're on the previous page but one.

Immanuel Can wrote:Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting, so please keep a thick skin on. I'm just trying to figure out if you think "God" has any objective characteristics at all, or not. And you'll have to forgive me, but I just can't see a consistent position in what you've said prior to this. However, I'm very happy for you to clarify, and I promise not to attribute to you any other position but whatever one you choose to declare. So? Do you or don't you think "God," as you conceive of Him, has objective characteristics?

God is likely to have some objective qualities, i guess its up to us to work out which ones.

Immanuel Can wrote:Now, of course, all this is a bit of a sideline here. Atto believes in some concept of "God,"...

There are still some things i believe of course, but as to whether there is one, leaves no doubt.

Immanuel Can wrote:I don't want to lose the original thread, so I wonder if anyone has anything more to say in defence of Poor Richard and the Atheists?

No, he's pompous and arrogant and considering the binary question simply wrong.

Arising_uk wrote:I think this a touch unfair. What happened was that in the 70's he wrote a book about his subject and since then has been continuously hated and pilloried by American godbothering creationists who made him the poster-boy for everything they hate. I'm not surprised it's changed him and made him more militant.

Well I can understand why someone who has spent years studying and researching his subject would get a bit pissed off at being rubbished by a set of reactionary religious blockheads. All the same, I think he would be better served by putting all his efforts into promoting his own beliefs rather than trying to destroy those of others. That's not to say that some of the beliefs he attacks don't deserve to be destroyed but the more vigorously he attacks them the more vigorous will be the resistance of the holders of these beliefs. I wouldn't have thought that anyone who believes in creationism is very amenable to rational argument, or even common sense, for that matter.

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:What would a theist accept as evidence and reason?

Entropy. (for the reason part)

But it's not a reason for anything, it's only presented as evidence by those who have an incorrect understanding of it.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:What would a theist accept as evidence and reason?

Entropy. (for the reason part)

But it's not a reason for anything, it's only presented as evidence by those who have an incorrect understanding of it.

Could you give me an example as to the way this reasoning is not being presented coherently as to how something that 'resembles' 'God' could exist?

Of course for such an argument, one must accept that this 'God' would be a result of the universe rather than a creator of it.

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote: Entropy. (for the reason part)

But it's not a reason for anything, it's only presented as evidence by those who have an incorrect understanding of it.

Could you give me an example as to the way this reasoning is not being presented coherently as to how something that 'resembles' 'God' could exist?

Of course for such an argument, one must accept that this 'God' would be a result of the universe rather than a creator of it.

Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system. In an open system, such as that on the Earth, there is a constant addition of energy from the Sun. Including the Sun in the system, while still not a closed system, entropy is increasing because the decreased energy in the Sun more than balances the increased energy on the Earth. Many people who oppose evolution and use the 2nd law to disprove it, link it with atheism, as if a person who believes in God must not believe in evolution. I believe it's the creationists and intelligent design believers who try to claim that the argument is only 2 sided, and deny that there is any middle ground, so Dawkins is reacting mostly in defense of the attack.

Harbal wrote: Gratuitous is a strange choice of adjective to apply to atheism.

Only until one thinks carefully about it, then it becomes as obvious as this: if one is being rational, one always has evidence and logic to bring to bear on a situation. If one does, one is behaving rationally, no matter what ideology one may currently hold; if one does not, then whether one's ideology is religious or secular, one is holding it completely gratuitously.

One doesn't actually get to be a rational Atheist by default, or worse, by being overly-impressed with the public reputation of another and following him. One earns the title, if it's possible, by acting in a specifically rational way when one adopts one's Atheism -- that is, by doing so only on the basis of sound reasoning and good evidence, not on the basis of merely dismissing the competition.

The reason I would not defend Dawkins is because he is no better than a religious zealot.

I think that's quite right. He's not always that way when he's talking biology, but the minute he gets into things like Epistemology, Ethics and Metaphysics, he's clearly woefully under equipped. And that's always the danger of a PhD: that one will think because one is competent in one's own area, that one is universally competent and doesn't need to do any work in other areas to be worth hearing.

You're also astute to notice that he's oddly ardent about getting his message across.

...many religious practices and attitudes deserve to be attacked.

You and I disagree about very little about all this. We may come from different starting points, but I think I'd say this with just as much enthusiasm as you would.

attofishpi wrote:God is likely to have some objective qualities, i guess its up to us to work out which ones.

Well, that's kind of non-committal, atto. "Likely to have..." I'm not sure where that gets us. Now, if I get your right, you are not in doubt about His existence, for you say,

There are still some things i believe of course, but as to whether there is one, leaves no doubt.

So if I'm not attributing to you anything you don't believe, you believe there IS a God, but you don't know if He has any objective qualities at all...He's "likely" to have them, but not certain to do so...

Am I representing you accurately here?

Harbal wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:I think this a touch unfair. What happened was that in the 70's he wrote a book about his subject and since then has been continuously hated and pilloried by American godbothering creationists who made him the poster-boy for everything they hate. I'm not surprised it's changed him and made him more militant.

Well, he did, after all, call his more recent book "The God Delusion." When one does that, one is clearly looking for a fight, no? And one can hardly get irate when one gets what one set out to provoke. Moreover, given his book sales, I think Richard Dawkins should be quite indebted to "religious" people, as he calls them. Without them, he'd probably have passed on in considerably more obscurity. If his actual academic contribution to biology is equally notable, it's certainly not being equally noted. Nobody would have made him a major public figure on that basis, I think.

That's not to say that some of the beliefs he attacks don't deserve to be destroyed but the more vigorously he attacks them the more vigorous will be the resistance of the holders of these beliefs.

And that's the point. It's like his bus-banner campaign, which some Theists found dismaying at first, but which others quickly realized was going Theists a huge service by reopening the most important debate in the public mind, whereas it had been quite closed before. One could simply point to the bus and say, "What do you think?" and the conversation was off to the races.

So maybe we also owe Richard Dawkins some thanks.

I wouldn't have thought that anyone who believes in creationism is very amenable to rational argument, or even common sense, for that matter.

You'd be surprised -- but not if you think about it very long. If you recall the history of Philosophy. That is, unless we dismiss more than half of the entire tradition, from Anselm and Aquinas to Kant, Newton and Bacon, to Lewis, Plantinga, Craig...

thedoc wrote:Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system.

Non-sequitur. I'm afraid that objection essentially doesn't help the situation at all.

Entropy is universal, not merely planetary. It happens to entire solar systems, galaxies and cosmic "groups," not just planets.

The problem is not that merely that "the Earth" is a closed or open system: it's that the universe is. Under Naturalism, the universe (meaning "all that there is," not just "solar system") is a mechanical system of a limited-but-expanding size, governed by knowable, predictable mechanical laws...and by definition, Naturalism has to hold that there's nothing "outside" of that system by which to add any order or energy. If there were, that Entity to which the "natural" universe was "open" would have to be super-natural -- and that's ruled out-of-court by fiat.

So entropy is a huge problem for Naturalism, because it indicates that however old the Earth may be, the universe itself is not eternal, and cannot account for its own origin.

Harbal wrote:Well I can understand why someone who has spent years studying and researching his subject would get a bit pissed off at being rubbished by a set of reactionary religious blockheads. ...

I think it took a few decades before he got truly pissed-off.

All the same, I think he would be better served by putting all his efforts into promoting his own beliefs rather than trying to destroy those of others. That's not to say that some of the beliefs he attacks don't deserve to be destroyed but the more vigorously he attacks them the more vigorous will be the resistance of the holders of these beliefs. I wouldn't have thought that anyone who believes in creationism is very amenable to rational argument, or even common sense, for that matter.

I think he does spend a lot of time promoting Science and its methods. I guess he understands that he won't be changing the firm-believers minds but is writing for the undecided and offering an alternative to the open-minded wavering theist. Otherwise I guess he's just putting forward explanations based upon his understanding of science. I think it should be noted that it is theism not deism he decrys, so you can have your 'God' and eat it but 'it' can't have 'its'. Still, I take your points about his efforts.

attofishpi wrote:God is likely to have some objective qualities, i guess its up to us to work out which ones.

Of course... since you're making up all of your understanding.

Lacewing wrote: Of course... since you're making up all of your understanding.

Which brings it back to being subjective but Fish Pie probably hasn't worked that out yet.
xxx

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Most people who use the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't seem to understand that it only applies to a closed system.

Non-sequitur. I'm afraid that objection essentially doesn't help the situation at all.

Entropy is universal, not merely planetary. It happens to entire solar systems, galaxies and cosmic "groups," not just planets.

The problem is not that merely that "the Earth" is a closed or open system: it's that the universe is. Under Naturalism, the universe (meaning "all that there is," not just "solar system") is a mechanical system of a limited-but-expanding size, governed by knowable, predictable mechanical laws...and by definition, Naturalism has to hold that there's nothing "outside" of that system by which to add any order or energy. If there were, that Entity to which the "natural" universe was "open" would have to be super-natural -- and that's ruled out-of-court by fiat.

So entropy is a huge problem for Naturalism, because it indicates that however old the Earth may be, the universe itself is not eternal, and cannot account for its own origin.

All that is very true, but I was referring to those who try to claim that the 2nd law negates evolution and the origin of life, but evolution only applies to life after it has started. Evolution describes how living things change and adapt to a changing environment, a stable environment usually has very little evolution and more likely organisms exist with little change for a long time. Again these people believe that if they can discredit evolution they have proven creation or intelligent design. What they fail to acknowledge is that some believers can embrace intelligent design, and evolution is the mechanism.

Immanuel Can wrote: I wouldn't have thought that anyone who believes in creationism is very amenable to rational argument, or even common sense, for that matter.

You'd be surprised -- but not if you think about it very long. If you recall the history of Philosophy. That is, unless we dismiss more than half of the entire tradition, from Anselm and Aquinas to Kant, Newton and Bacon, to Lewis, Plantinga, Craig...

It depends what you think of as Creationism.

I think early philosophers assumed the world must have been created in some sense i.e have a cause, but not that because the world exists then you could infer a creator, let alone that the account in Genesis is true. Certainly not Newton

I think Creationism is a modern movement - its literal interpretation of the Bible would have seemed absurd to figures like Anselm and Aquinas.

Personally, I like Lewis, but I don't think he is convincing as a philosopher; and I really cannot see anything in Plantinga and Craig.

Immanuel Can wrote:...

So entropy is a huge problem for Naturalism, because it indicates that however old the Earth may be, the universe itself is not eternal, ...

How does this follow? As as far as my limited understanding goes all Entropy describes is how all the Energy in the Universe may one day be evenly distributed across it and could well stay that way eternally.