Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd.

    Not really. It's based on the lack of evidence combined with probability theory. It works like this:

    There is zero evidence for or against anything existing outside our universe.
    Therefore, any one thing being true is as probable (or improbable) as anything else.
    There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true.
    Therefore the probability of god existing are 1/infinity (or very, very small indeed for the non-mathematicians).

    kelly1 wrote: »
    Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

    It's true that the scientific method is restricted to observable (or testable) phenomena. But that doesn't confer the right to make presumptions or claim specialist knowledge about what you call "the transcendent" onto philosophers and theologians. They make careers out of it, but let's not confuse that with the truth. Such people are engaging in the speculation business.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:
    - The source of consciousness
    - Origins of life.
    - Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
    capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
    why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

    Firstly, he's a biologist. None of the areas you cite relate to his specialism. From time to time he speculates about these things, just as we all do, but he's honest enough to say he doesn't know and acknowledge his speculations as such.

    Secondly, You seem to accept 'religion' as the default answer. That is intellectual dishonesty. Religion no more 'adequately deals with' such questions than anything else, it just provides a set of neat and tidy but entirely speculative and often demonstrably false answers to us humans who are notoriously bad at saying we don't know something.

    kelly1 wrote: »
    He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

    - Who created the Creator?
    - He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
    being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
    - That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
    - That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

    Why aren't these valid questions? I'm slightly confused Noel, you seem to be saying that no question can be asked that doesn't already have an answer. What's the use of that?

    kelly1 wrote: »
    This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.

    It's absolutely nothing like that. Planetary movement was testable and the 'obvious' truth was finally accepted (despite massive resistance on the part of religious types who couldn't stand the apparent threat to their faith posed by the Earth turning out not to be the centre of the universe) thanks to the overwhelming evidence.

    As you've already pointed out yourself, there is no testable evidence for god. Dawkins is just saying that he chooses not to put faith in arbitrary speculations in the absence of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with that?


  • Options
    #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Dawkins claims
    I don't want to come across very rude here Noel, but if this is what you've taken away from reading whatever you've read of Dawkins, then I can confidently say that you do not understand what he has written.


  • Options
    #34
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Not really. It's based on the lack of evidence combined with probability theory. It works like this:

    There is zero evidence for or against anything existing outside our universe.
    Therefore, any one thing being true is as probable (or improbable) as anything else.
    There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true.
    Therefore the probability of god existing are 1/infinity (or very, very small indeed for the non-mathematicians).
    That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?
    rockbeer wrote: »
    It's true that the scientific method is restricted to observable (or testable) phenomena. But that doesn't confer the right to make presumptions or claim specialist knowledge about what you call "the transcendent" onto philosophers and theologians. They make careers out of it, but let's not confuse that with the truth. Such people are engaging in the speculation business.
    Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be. Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.
    rockbeer wrote: »
    Firstly, he's a biologist. None of the areas you cite relate to his specialism. From time to time he speculates about these things, just as we all do, but he's honest enough to say he doesn't know and acknowledge his speculations as such.
    No, he's not that honest. He's clearly biased. In the God Delusion, he claims the origins of life and consciousness are "one-off events triggered by an initial stroke of luck". Why doesn't he say, "I don't know"?
    rockbeer wrote: »
    Why aren't these valid questions? I'm slightly confused Noel, you seem to be saying that no question can be asked that doesn't already have an answer. What's the use of that?
    It's clear that he hasn't read the views of theologians on philosophers on these quesitons. He's fabricating a straw-man.

    Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?

    What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?

    Why does he claim that God's existence can only be answered by science
    when he should know full well that science can only deal with the physical and can say nothing about the immaterial. He's going back to the old (refuted) logical positivism days.

    Why suggest that life could have come from other planets when you then have to explain how life arose on these planets.

    Why suggest the existence of multiverses without any evidence for same?
    rockbeer wrote: »
    It's absolutely nothing like that. Planetary movement was testable and the 'obvious' truth was finally accepted (despite massive resistance on the part of religious types who couldn't stand the apparent threat to their faith posed by the Earth turning out not to be the centre of the universe) thanks to the overwhelming evidence.
    My point is that his suggestion that life came from other planets or that the anthropic principle can be explained by a multiverse, is comparable to the invention of epicycles.
    rockbeer wrote: »
    As you've already pointed out yourself, there is no testable evidence for god. Dawkins is just saying that he chooses not to put faith in arbitrary speculations in the absence of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with that?
    That would be fine if he left it at that, but he doesn't. He's on a crusade to rid the world of religion and he admitted that his intention is to convert people to atheism. He shows every sign of bias.


  • Options
    #35
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be. Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.
    Not quite, science seeks to find the answers for the things it doesn't understand. While many religions seek no further understanding of their domains.
    If theology is the exploration of divinity and religion it goes beyond simply reading the bible and assuming that is the some total of knowledge on the topic. In that regard the two are similar if performed correctly.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?
    If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?
    I'd assume he's referring to the typical ideal of the personalised Christian god, how would you define a 'simple' god ?


  • Options
    #36
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »

    If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.
    Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?

    The big bang can be considered a change of state as well.


  • Options
    #38
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    robindch wrote: »
    I don't want to come across very rude here Noel, but if this is what you've taken away from reading whatever you've read of Dawkins, then I can confidently say that you do not understand what he has written.
    I haven't read any of his works but I have seen a good few of his debates and interviews. I know where he's coming from.

    Can you tell me how I have misrepresented him?


  • Options
    #39
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?

    Would that not be the universe as we know it though? The beginning of all the things we see and don't see in our known universe, as in energy, energy conversion from one state to another, speed of light, other constants and variables and laws etc, and also (probably or possibly) time itself as we know it.
    How that energy "ball" got there or got triggered or what existed outside it or how long it was there etc I haven't seen an explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.


  • Options
    #40
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Biro wrote: »
    Would that not be the universe as we know it though? The beginning of all the things we see and don't see in our known universe, as in energy, energy conversion from one state to another, speed of light, other constants and variables and laws etc, and also (probably or possibly) time itself as we know it.
    How that energy "ball" got there or got triggered or what existed outside it or how long it was there etc I haven't seen an explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

    What is outside that ball though is not our universe. Thats the way I understand it no? Anything outside this was not 'our' universe? Thus rather than our universe being eternal, it began.


  • Options
    #41
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    The big bang can be considered a change of state as well.
    I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Can you tell me how I have misrepresented him?
    Well, every one of the points you made above is based upon a misunderstanding of Dawkins' position. There are too many to respond to individually (and most of them have come up before), but to pick on at random:
    kelly1 wrote: »
    That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
    Dawkins does not say this and has specifically pointed out that if god does not influence the universe (ie, using your terminology, he's entirely transcendent), then science cannot comment upon whether he exists or not. And that it's entirely a matter of individual belief.

    Dawkins also points out (as I did a few posts ago here), that from the logical (and therefore, scientific) point of view, the existence of the christian deity cannot be disproved.

    He does, though, say that if god does influence the universe (say by answering prayers, or moving mountains or having neighbors meet at petrol pumps in the USA), then we should be able to detect that influence somehow. He doesn't say how we can detect it, nor under what conditions, nor what we should conclude if we do detect it, but I think you'll agree that something that has a physical effect is, in principle at least, open to detection.


  • Options
    #43
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

    He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

    - The source of consciousness
    - Origins of life.
    - Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
    capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
    why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

    Open questions in science are not an argument for God.


  • Options
    #44
    rockbeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?

    Probably ;)

    But seriously... on one level it's a silly argument, but it serves very well to put religious belief into context i.e. an attachment to something which, looked at objectively, is highly unlikely to be true. Such an argument has no bearing on my existence becausde I exist within this universe and there is evidence for my existence.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be.

    Not yet but it isn't out of the question.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.

    Could you please spell out precisely the "faith-based assumption" that you think lies behind science?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, he's not that honest. He's clearly biased. In the God Delusion, he claims the origins of life and consciousness are "one-off events triggered by an initial stroke of luck". Why doesn't he say, "I don't know"?

    This is a reasonable assumption given that there are a number of plausible mechanisms by which such a one-off event might have occurred. I refer you to the Blind Watchmaker for a lengthy discussion of one of these. I believe there are various others. He is honest about the fact that none of these has reached the theory stage as yet.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's clear that he hasn't read the views of theologians on philosophers on these quesitons. He's fabricating a straw-man.

    Theologians and philosophers have nothing but unfounded speculation to offer on these questions, unless you're reading something the rest of us don't know about.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?

    But that is no explanation at all. Dawkins is pointing out the inherent absurdity of arguing that the universe couldn't have come into existence from nothing but god could have done.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?

    Because god does 'complex' things like talking (apparently), creating stuff, laying down elaborate moral codes, sending his son for ritual sacrifice and 'smiting' people for no good reason. The fact that you are happy with the contradiction that this implies probably means little to Dawkins.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why does he claim that God's existence can only be answered by science when he should know full well that science can only deal with the physical and can say nothing about the immaterial. He's going back to the old (refuted) logical positivism days.

    I think you have misunderstood him. I don't recall him saying that god's existence can only be answered by science: rather that religious questions have actual true/false answers that are as subject to scientific analysis as any other, and that theologians are no better qualified than scientists to address such questions.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why suggest that life could have come from other planets when you then have to explain how life arose on these planets.

    And of course if/when such planets are found then answers might be found for such questions. Are you encouraging him to speculate?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why suggest the existence of multiverses without any evidence for same?

    For example: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2006/11/multiple-universes.html

    If you can demonstrate you fully understand the physics involved then I'll take your denial of the evidence at face value.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    My point is that his suggestion that life came from other planets or that the anthropic principle can be explained by a multiverse, is comparable to the invention of epicycles.

    And my point is that it's not. People believed wholly in the centrality of the earth in the face of the evidence. Dawkins is suggesting tentative hypotheses for further investigation. Where's the comparability?

    kelly1 wrote: »
    That would be fine if he left it at that, but he doesn't. He's on a crusade to rid the world of religion and he admitted that his intention is to convert people to atheism. He shows every sign of bias.

    And how precisely is that any worse as a goal than your mission to convert the world to christianity?


  • Options
    #45
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.

    Well they can claim whatever they want, can't they?


  • Options
    #46
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?
    Well this is beyond my level of expertise, but I'm sure some of the regulars will be along to explain it. The point is though concepts such as time may not have been applicable preceding this point.

    I'm sure if you're interested in getting the answers to this and other facts about the origins of the universe (if any) either the space or science forums would be the place to ask. Any time I've had queries they've either provided a laymans answer or given pointers to assist in getting the answer myself.


  • Options
    #47
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Not quite, science seeks to find the answers for the things it doesn't understand.
    Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.
    You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?
    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    I'd assume he's referring to the typical ideal of the personalised Christian god, how would you define a 'simple' god ?
    A being existing as a single substance and with no parts.


  • Options
    #48
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).
    Now I'm not a scientist either, but even I can see that when science encounters an unexplained piece of data it takes it onboard and seeks to find an explanation. It may not get it right away but it will continue to chip away at it. Just because you can't see a logical explanation for something right now doesn't mean that this information will not become available at a later date. I'm not sure what your point is, that science can't explain everything right now therefore it's invalid ?
    You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?
    Why should it? Ultimately the outlook (as I understand it) isn't looking to good in the long term though :)


  • Options
    #49
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

    Your wrong :p.
    The problem is you are dumbing down the process too much.
    The way you are describing it is like a scientist walks up to cliff, stops, says "I'm going to assume that I wont fall if I continue to walk off the edge of this cliff" and so continues to walk and obvious falls to his death.
    In reality its a case of a scientist comes to a cliff, stops, throws a stone off the cliff, watches it fall, throws as identical a stone it find of the cliff, watches it, repeats this many times, then gets different size stones, different colour stones, plant life, water, throws them over hand off the cliff, throws them backwards over his shoulder off the cliff, through his legs, at different times of the day, while saying different words...etc. Finally some time later, he will get others to duplicate his experiments as exactly as they can and then if he finds that all the data matches, he will present his unified theory of falling off a cliff, which states that, with a high deal of probability, if something goes over the cliff, it will fall. Now he is not able to say with absolutely 100% proof that it will fall, but based on all the evidence acquired, I sure you can agree that its a safe assumption.

    The same goes for all the "laws of the universe" you mentioned. They werent made up by scientists but it made them feel important, years and years of evidence pointed them to these conclusions and science admits that the "laws" we have are merely are best fitting ideas for the data we have. Sure some of them have a lot of holes to be filled, but holes get filled all the time.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?

    Why should it?


  • Options
    #50
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Your wrong :p.
    The problem is you are dumbing down the process too much.
    That may well be true on both counts! :)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Now he is not able to say with absolutely 100% proof that it will fall, but based on all the evidence acquired, I sure you can agree that its a safe assumption.
    Yes it's an assumption we have to make or there would be no progress made. But it's still an assumption and unprovable.

    The big question is who does the known universe obey laws at all and why are we able to describe these laws in mathematical terms.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why should it?
    Don't take that too seriously, it's just based on intuition (and possibly on entrophy).


  • Options
    #51
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

    Not based solely on the lack of scientific evidence; on the lack of plain old evidence: scientific, historical, personal, anecdotal or otherwise.
    He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

    - The source of consciousness
    - Origins of life.
    - Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
    capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
    why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

    You're missing the point entirely. Dawkins is *not* claiming that science has answered everything. Consciousness, Abiogenesis, and the consistency of natural law are all fascinating areas of investigation with plenty of unanswered questions. Dawkins is simply saying that, instead of answering these mysteries with "God", we should investigate them, research them, and try to understand them.

    Science once "inadequately dealt" with questions of mental illnesses, the origin of the sun, and the evolution of life on earth etc. These questions were not answered with "God" and, because of that, our knowledge has grown. The moral of the story: It is completely naive to say great scientific mysteries are evidence for God.
    He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

    - Who created the Creator?
    - He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
    being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
    - That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
    - That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

    "Who created the Creator" is a rhetorical question designed to highlight just how vapid the response "God did it" is. Claiming God created the universe is as intellectually satisfying as saying angels push planets around the sun. It is a wild assertion with no evidence to back it up.

    As for the "simple substance" of God; that is horribly vague. Scientists look for simple, rigorous, unifying characteristics to understand complex phenomena. The supernatural creation of the universe doesn't have any.

    And I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "law" in science. Laws are not things which govern the universe. Instead, they are aspects of the universe, and describe its behaviour. The laws of the multiverse don't need to "come from" anywhere in the same way God doesn't need to come from anywhere. Of course, there is no evidence for a multiverse (its motivation stems from quantum mechanics and cosmology), but it serves its purpose as an example of how God is not necessary to explain the universe.

    Also: Those "fine tuning" arguments are horrible anyway. Changing the value of one constant, while keeping the others fixed would have disastrous results for the universe (from our perspective), but changing several of them gives much more leeway. Heck, we can't even say they are constants to be fine tuned at all.

    In fact, if we are going to postulate that God is causeless, why not just cut out the middle man and interpret natural law as causeless. (note the distinction between natural law, and the finite time-evolution of the universe; don't say something naive like the big bang proves nature is finite).
    His attacks on religion, which contain so much exaggeration, sarcasm and flippancy, undermine his credibility.

    Well it doesn't contain "so much". Compared to religious fanatics, Dawkins is a shining example of restraint. But I'll agree that his approach can sometimes be unhelpful.
    This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.

    This is just rhetoric. I could just as easily say you have your head stuck in a bucket of sand marked "Christianity". It doesn't get us anywhere.
    Yes but Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

    Science certainly makes assumptions (such as uniformitarianism). But they are pragmatic assumptions; scientists don't claim they *know* the universe is subject to unchanging laws. They just know that, if they work under that assumption, they get great results.

    Of course, Christians have yet to say why a universe can only be consistent if God exists, so we're putting the cart before the horse a little.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    kelly1 wrote: »
    That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?

    I do exist therefore the probability is one.

    Of course at the start of the universe the probably I would exist is probably close to 1/infinity and there are plenty of organisms who didn't make it because of that low probability. You and I got lucky.:D

    Its possible God got lucky too but until we observe its the same chance that one of us would exist...which was very unlikely...but of course for humans to exist some people would have to get lucky; for Gods to exist he would have to get lucky but as we can't observe it its remains 1/infinity.

    The anthropic principle explains this well.


  • Options
    #53
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    A Primal Nut wrote: »

    The anthropic principle explains this well.

    I'm a little rusty on this one; could you please explain it?


  • Options
    #54
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    robindch wrote: »
    Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.
    The religious community in the UK and Ireland (where these authors have recieved most attention) is not vast.


  • Options
    #55
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Húrin wrote: »
    The religious community in the UK and Ireland (where these authors have recieved most attention) is not vast.

    85% of people say they are religious in Ireland, and in Britain they number in the tens of millions. Pretty vast IMO...


  • Options
    #56
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    I'm a little rusty on this one; could you please explain it?

    In a nut shell: I believe that the anthropic principal states that the universe happens to adhere to the physical constants that are appropriate to human life. If these constants were any different, well, we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to know any better. This has lead people to theorise about a 'finely tuned' universe or the existence of multiple universes.


  • Options
    #57
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Rev Hellfire wrote:
    I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?
    Well this is beyond my level of expertise, but I'm sure some of the regulars will be along to explain it. The point is though concepts such as time may not have been applicable preceding this point.

    I'm sure if you're interested in getting the answers to this and other facts about the origins of the universe (if any) either the space or science forums would be the place to ask. Any time I've had queries they've either provided a laymans answer or given pointers to assist in getting the answer myself.

    Just spotted this.

    Yar, the big bang is a prediction of General Relativity, which did away with the intuitive notion of time that we all hold. Einstein discovered that space and time are facets of the same thing (imaginatively called spacetime) and that space and time, as an absolute reference, doesn't exist. Time, like space, is warped by mass and energy, and is relative to the observer.

    This meant that the Big Bang wasn't simply a pregnant dot (to borrow Bill Bryson's term) floating in nothing for infinity before exploding. It was a singularity that 'contained' both space and time. To put it another way, it is perfectly valid to say that there was never a point in time when the universe didn't exist, and to point to a time before the big bang is like pointing to a place north of the north pole.

    Of course, the major problem with out Cosmological model is its failure to incorporate Quantum Mechanics, so we can't, by any stretch, say we have a complete picture of the 'beginning' of the universe yet.


  • Options
    #58
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    In a nut shell: I believe that the anthropic principal states that the universe happens to adhere to the physical constants that are appropriate to human life. If these constants were any different, well, we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to know any better. This has lead people to theorise about a 'finely tuned' universe or the existence of multiple universes.

    Actually it is sort of the other way around, it is an argument against proposing a "finely tuned" universe.

    The argument is that what ever way the universe is it will produce life that reflects the way it. Our universe produced human life because human life is the type of life that is produced in our universe. It is not surprising that we therefore find human life in the universe. The universe isn't fine tuned to produce human life, we are a result of our particular universe.

    If the universe was different then it simply would have ended up producing a different type of life (if any life at all).

    The analogy that is often used, and one I think is a good one, is the puddle of water in a hole in the ground.

    The puddle (assuming puddles are sentient now) may well ponder at how finely tuned the hole it finds itself in is. The hole fits the puddle perfectly, there is no gaps between its water and the edges of the hole anywhere, and the puddle comes right up to the top of the hole without going higher.

    The puddle may think that the puddle has been specifically designed for the puddle to live in, as it fits so perfectly.

    Of course we know that if the hole was a different shape it would in fact cause the puddle to be a different shape. If there was too much water it would simply over flow until it fits the hole. The water will ways fill the hole perfectly no matter what shape the hole is.

    So there is no point in the puddle thinking that the current shape it is is some how the shape it is supposed to be and then thinking how curious it is that the hole would some how produce that shape so perfectly, almost as if someone designed the hole on purpose.

    The puddle's shape and volume reflects the hole it finds itself it, not the other way around. The hole is not fine tuned for the puddle, the hole could be any shape imaginable. The shape of the puddle is a product of the hole.

    That is basically the gist of the anthropic principal. As human life (a particular shape of the puddle) we should not look back at the universe (the hole) and ponder about how the universe is fine tuned to us, because it all likelihood if the universe was different so would we be.


  • Options
    #59
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    85% of people say they are religious in Ireland, and in Britain they number in the tens of millions. Pretty vast IMO...
    If they do not go to any church then they are not participating in a religious community. Better to look at church attendance figures.

    People who are simply 'ethnic Catholics' or Anglicans do not count if they are not part of a believing community.


  • Options
    #60
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Húrin wrote: »
    If they do not go to any church then they are not participating in a religious community. Better to look at church attendance figures.
    To be religious does not require participating in a religious community. Hermits for example need not participate in any community and yet are considered religious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes it's an assumption we have to make or there would be no progress made. But it's still an assumption and unprovable.

    You don't quite seem to get this. Everything is an assumption and nothing is provable. Everything, from the clothes you are wearing not spontaneously combusting, to the moon not cracking open and revealing the flying spaghetti monster inside are assumptions and no one can prove them because no-one can see the future. All we have are consistent observations and models that agree with the assumptions. but they are vigorously tested assumptions, that have to agree with (or at leats not be contradicted by) reproducable observations, they can adapt to include new data, but its not like they are still kept if anything comes along and probably disproves them. Sciences prefers no answer to a wrong answer, as all you will get from wrong answers is other wrong answers.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    The big question is who does the known universe obey laws at all and why are we able to describe these laws in mathematical terms.

    (I'm assuming you mean why does the universe obey laws at all). Well science doesn't have the answer yet for why does the universe obey these laws at all, but really the best thing to say is why not? If the big bang was as explosive as the name suggests, then its possible that all existence that came out of it, came out quick and had to settle quick, and just settled in the most balanced state it could. There's no real reason to think if it happened again, we would get the same universal laws (or any at all). And I'd imagine we can express them in mathematical terms because we designed those matematical terms in such a way as to describe those laws in the first place.
    (NB: as I'm not a physicist, what I just wrote could be (and very possibly should be) considered as so much waffly nonsense:))


Advertisement