bohm: No. Here's where you miss the point: I'm not, repeat, am not insisting that there's a failure somewhere in the mainstream scientific thinking. I'm insisting that mainstream scientific thinking realizes and admits that there are limitations to our theories and therefore (pay attention now), it is not right for some proponents like Dawkins to make assertions that mainstream scientific thinking does not promote. He can wax prosaically all day long about what happens and it won't make any difference to the weakness of his conclusions. It's not about liking Dawkins on any particular subject. It's about accepting whether or not a proposal is sound and derivative of evidence, regardless of whether or not Dawkins agrees or disagrees.
Posts by Etude
-
85Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
sizemik: I'm happy to agree to disagree as well. But mainly, I was considering Dawkins' work ("The God Delusion") as a whole to ascribe to him how time after time he makes the same conclusions from interesting propositions without demonstrating what he claims is the Darwinian Imperative. He says:
"Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion. The question gains urgency from standard Darwinian considerations of economy. Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. Nature is a miserly accountant, grudging the pennies, watching the clock, punishing the smallest extravagance...If an animal habitually performs some useless activity, natural selection will favour rival individuals...But my preoccupation in this chapter is with Darwinian ultimate explanations. If neuroscientists find a 'god centre' in the brain, Darwinian scientists like me will want to understand the natural selection pressure that favoured it." The God delusion, pages 163, 166, 167
I just don't see that he clearly demonstrates the Darwinian process via which these "impulses" came to be so pervasive in humanity.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
bohm: " And its a moot point to point out science do not provide a complete account of reality; ofcouse it does not, everyone is aware of that. "
I understand that in a sense, it seems an obvious conclusion of Science. But unfortunately, it seems to me that due to its patent obviousness, its significance is ignored. It becomes the big elephant in the lab nobody wants to talk about. I just went through this exercise and I feel like my head is about to explode. It was covered on this thread: Re: REALITY may not be what you think .
My experience with Science is that, the more we learn the less we know. This is why it's important to ask the hard questions. We challenge theism by asking who made God and who made him who made God and so on, or simply say that He always existed. Once we believed that the universe had always existed, a no less privileged proposition. Now we have established its age and have gone on to asking what was before it came into being. That there are no forthcoming answers does not mean we should stop asking or that we should jump on the most convenient band wagon for comfort.
Clearly, as I stated right after your post (4745) (our posts got crossed), the type of faith that allows us to accept Einstein's field equations is not what they justify in church. But it is a contention of many physicists that there are instances where the application of Einstein's field equations and the physical laws associated with them simply break down and have no meaning, particularly at the nanoscopic level, rendering matter to statistical chaos. How then do we trust that the laws are uniform and really are universal? How can we account that those laws are responsible for the world we live in (including Abiogenesis and Evolution) if we can't explain their "exceptions"? We either have to find a different framework or revise our previous conclusions. We have done that many times, most notable since Isaac Newton.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
bohm: To answer your question a briefly as possible: Science doesn't work that way. It is the venue of science to explain, via a verification process, that what we observe, believe or postulate is true. If we can't trust and abide by that method, then each of us is free to conclude anything we want.
The long answer to "why is that 'mere acceptance (scientific faith)' a good way to summarize that" is that, 1) I don't know. I'm simply stating that to me it makes sense that someone in-the-know would put it that way and that as a physicist, he's in a good position to questions our "mere acceptance" of physical laws. 2) It is indeed correct that we simply do not know yet. That's the very reason I tend to take Dawkins explanations with a grain of salt. The fundamentals aren't there yet. That doesn't mean there aren't any. But with our limited knowledge come limited answers. Any conclusions we make beyond what can be positively established is probably influenced by our own desire for it to be so.
For example: Dawkins suggests that one of the reasons individuals have a propensity towards "religion" is due to an innate sense of "trust", which is critical in the development of children. This, according to Dawkins, makes them "primed" for absorbing societal and religious teachings which can be manipulated by religion. He parallels this to the moth instinct for navigation by the light of the moon and stars which also cause it to fly into a burning fire. The problem is that, while the comparison is clever indeed, the known traits of moths' (and other species') navigation capabilities are clearly embedded in genetics while the same, at least the sense of "trust", cannot be plainly demonstrate genetically in humans.
His "misapplication" of such traits is what leads to negative results, like religion. He makes the same argument about "dualism". He says that we are all born "dualists" with the ability to think of "other", such as an imaginary playmate. That also sets us up for the "otherness" of religion. So to him, religion is a by-product of errors in specific "modules" that are misdirected. The problem is that this is contrary to his assertion that Natural Selection is "ruthlessly efficient". Above all, he describes no experiment via which this can be established.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
bohm: I apologize for inferring that the faith in the laws of physics according to Paul Davies is the same to what the apostle Paul subscribed to. My bad. What Davies contends is "that science has its own faith-based belief system", not that its faith-based system is the same as that of theists.
He feels that for the most part scientific "faith" has been verified. But all of that has happened without much questioning of the laws themselves. His question is:
"But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do?"
For him, this is how it goes:
"The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.”
That is highly unsatisfactory to me and apparently to him. Attempts at explanations and not just mere acceptance (scientific faith) of the laws of Physics and the proposals for a frame work that can contain their existence, such as the Anthropic Priciple, remain just as unsatisfactory. Here's his quote:
"The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse."
Finally he states: "Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith— namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence."
Sorry for insinuating that the scientific faith Davies speaks of is like the theists' faith. But, if you read about him, you'll conclude that he's no intellectual slouch, hence why (in my opinion) Dawkins doesn't take him head-on. His reasons for needing answers (and by inference our unqualified acceptance of the laws of physics) includes that "there has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them". He's referring to a process which is responsible, at least in this universe, for the rise of Abiogenesis, Evolution and Natural Selection. It's difficult to justify what happened without explaining how it happened. That's how you get from A to B.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
sizemik: My contention is (and I fail to see language manipulation) that Dawkins credibility as a scientist or at least as an expert on the subject he purports to write about should be (must be) more than litany of point for or against something. You missed that his point in writing "The God Delusion" is not just to show that God is a delusion but why Natural Selection has endowed us with something that appears damaging and that we have absolutely no need for. That idea of proof is what he calls "The Darwinian Imperative". So he DOES attempt to address process, at least in this case although unsuccessfully in my opinion, but fails to do it in other areas. For example, he makes a good case in the mention of "irreducible complexity". It caused me to do some research which ended up supporting him. However, the Dawkins' statement I cited about our reason for being is not my manipulation of language. It is verbatim.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
bohm: Absolutely correct! HOWEVER (excuse for raising my voice), it DOESN'T mean that we can't have a clue about where life came from; that we can't at least determine where it DIDN'T come from; that for lack of evidence we MUST choose the most likely outcome.
I feel there is a better argument for the non-existence of God than for the existence of God. But that doens't automatically afford me the right to conclude the opposite: that God does not exist when because Science can somehow prove it or explain it. It may be true, but I have no way of knowing it presently. I fell that science will definitively answer the question some day. But until then, I must remain as Paul Davies who said:
"When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour."
As he matured, he realize that our acceptance of the "laws" of physics require the a similar type of faith that a theist requires for his belief in God. There is a reason for that. That statement is positively abhorent to people like Dawkins. However, I've have yet to see an attempt by Dawkins to challenge Davies on that account.
-
112
Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?
by metatron ini've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.
changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!
after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.
-
-
Etude
metatron: I can't but compare to what the Mormons achieved. There came a point where, instead of being isolationists and a pariah to everyone else, they radically altered their views (without vivisecting their core) and became a force to be reckoned with.
I don't think the JWs want to down-size. I think that in order to remain viable, they know that they have to be more significant, not just in numbers but also in influence and visibility at some level. I think that their present course (slimming and trimming) is setting them up to become something new.
-
85
Did Life Originate By Chance or Intelligent Design? Or is There a Third Option?
by JimmyPage inwhen discussing the argument of how life originated the wt always boils it down to being chance vs. intelligent design.. no scientist in their right mind believes it happened by chance.
nor do most scientists believe that life is a product of god.. there is a solution that the wt completely ignores and that is... natural selection.. how many here who believe in a creator have honestly examined what natural selection really is?.
(i've been reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins and was very surprised when i came to the chapter that actually mentions the watchtower society's arguments for intelligent design.
-
-
Etude
NewChapter: Sorry you missed it.
This IS Dawkins' reasoning. See "The God Delusion" Chapter 4, page 137 --
"Just as we did with the Goldilocks orbits, we can make the point that, however improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here."
Whether it's the "origin of life" or its development (Evolution), Dawkins attributes an event to causation tacitly and not with much logic. That's the point I'm trying to make of such statements, rather than making a challenge to what did or did not happen.
Dawkins wrote quite a lot about the Anthropic Principle. I considered his introduction of this subject matter some of the most difficult concepts of the book. See "The God Delusion" Chapter 4, see sections:
1. "THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: PLANETARY VERSION"
2. "THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: COSMOLOGICAL VERSION.
I never contended that there isn't evidence regarding some type of evolutionary change. What I contend is that how it happened is far from established, going from A to B, etc.
sizemik: " Dawkins is commenting on "origins" not process " Precisely. He really does not emphasize process. But as a naturalist and a Botanist, he well knows that any science needs the riggor of proof and an established repeatable process for verification. That is his main intent (even though I feel he does not succeed) in explaining the "delusion" of god by some means, either the moth suicidal instinct, memes or whatever.
" Dawkins is saying simply that the fact that we are here proves we must have originated somehow " Even you must admit that this statement is very similar to what a theist may say: "The fact that we are here proves that God must have created us somehow". In either case, the "somehow" does not rise to the level of proof that a natural science requires.
-
112
Are They Cynically Shutting Down The Organization?
by metatron ini've raised this idea before but recent events seem to support it.
changes in the watchtower may be guided by more than a need for cash flow: they may simply be liquidating/shutting it down as discreetly as possible.. of course, this doesn't mean they stop working on their upstate ny country club - but it could mean that the throrough going exposure and disproof of their beliefs on the internet, when it emerged, took many of them by surprize, as it did many of us!
after awhile, they generally gave up trying to make any sense of their doctrines - and coupled with cash flow issues - moved towards a quiet retreat.. take a look at a few things:.
-
-
Etude
metatron: Your take on this issue tickles my brain, especially the part about replacing a bunch of publishers with racks of servers.
I've long suspected that the WTBTS was on its way towards a major change and a re-assessment of itself in a new direction. I know that a lot of attrition there had to do with the advancement of technology. Today is a long way from ancient Mann and Cotter printing presses.
But what really made me realize that they would inevitably face some major changes was that the increase in their ranks failed to meet their expectations. Every year when I read their Year Book, I failed to see how their "Good News" was delivering, in spite of their glowing accounts of converts.
In addition, the explosive growth of the Mormons and their significant influence in almost every industrial, political, financial facet of life must have made them envious. It stands to reason that, judging by growth alone, God's blessings were going to the Mormons.
It's possible that the new crop of GB members is thinking in another direction. I don't put it past them, now that they are the FDS, the pull some of the tricks that the Mormons have pulled, such as having major "revelations" that turn some of their long-standing positions a complete 180º. Some of these, of course, include the acceptance of blacks into the priesthood and the abolition of polygamy.
I think that the WTBTS (really the Jehovah's Witnesses organization) wants to be more "significant" or "impacting" or "legitimate". I think that's why they decided to become a United Nations NGO. Of course, these changes take time and I don't doubt if they have been cleverly plotted to occur at prescribed instances. I'd watch the bastards carefully in this respect. It may well be that at one point, we will be directing our concerns towards an entirely different animal than the one from whose jaws we once escaped.