h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It sounds like this will come as no surprise to most of the posters here, but Blanchard is not getting much better.

He's spent the early chapters giving a 'brief history of atheism' that is probably most generously described as 'idiosyncratic'. Any philosophic system that says humans cannot know absolute truth he blasts as self-contradictory ('how can you be sure you can't be sure?'). Any atheist system he attacks on the grounds that all morality then becomes relative (without noticing that religion is open to the same problem).

Naturally, he regards evolution as an 'atheist philosophy' and includes it here. In two chapters on it, he doesn't mention genetic evidence once. He quotes Dawkins and Gould out of context to make it sounds as though they can't explain the 'Cambrian explosion' (anyone who's read their books will know they can, and Blanchard has nothing else to say on the subject). Ditto for 'gaps in the fossil record' - he even denies that anyone has observed speciation!

There's a lot more, but you're probably getting the idea that there's no comparison between him and Dawkins. In fact, I've found myself repeatedly thinking 'If you can't make a point honestly, is the point worth making at all?'

Still only a quarter of the way through. No doubt it will get better later

Gif

WelshGenghis,

Actually there are many possible explanations for the origin of the universe - that's the problem!

Dawkins even mentions one that does involve something analagous to Darwinian evolution.

Gif

I'm reading 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence_for_Belief
He, like me, has no problem with evolution and Christianity. Not all Christians regard evolution as an 'atheist philosophy'.

btw - I guess you atheists won't be convinced by Collins!
But he is a very eminent scientist.

lo Giford.

(thanks far answering my question sensibly btw, instead of just going of on an "i hate God rant")

Occam's Razor is just "when faced with 2 theories, choose the simpelest one". that dosn't prove anything. because it can still be wrong, George Bush is simple, yet hardly right.

as to the teleological arguement comeback "so who created god" (as he must be more complex than the universe in order to create it, and something that complex couldent have happend by chance). God is acknowladgeed to be the first cause, if you think of the saying "there is always a bigger fish" well, Gods the biggest fish. there are no greater entitys, otherwise God wouldent be God. perhaps there is a greater being to the one who created this reality, but that means its God.


oh and i agree with Random Mood i dont know any christians who have a problem with evolution. Even the Pope said that "the bible isn't 'how the world was made' its 'how to get to heavan'."

the way i think of it is that sicence is the gathering of facts, religion is the interpritation of those facts.

Occam's razor is the principle that an explanation which takes into account all available evidence, and requires fewer auxiliary hypotheses is more likely to be correct than one which requires more.

As originally stated by Bill of Occam: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily"

Standard contemporary version: "Take the simplest solution"


The teleological argument from analogy in favour of an intelligent designer maintains the universe is so vast and complex it must have been created.

Evolutionary theory does not, in and of itself, prove or even imply the non-existence of a designer. However, it clearly demonstrates that such a being is not _required_ in order to account for life's complexity, which is all that is necessary to defeat the design argument.



Btw, I've always wondered why the 'intelligent design' notion typically declares that the hypothetical creator is a single, unique individual. Why can there not be a multiplicity of creator beings -- a 'celestial committee' if you will? I mean, just look at the playtypus...

>>Any philosophic system that says humans cannot know absolute truth he blasts as self-contradictory

How bizarre. I wonder if we're allowed to assume that, say, dogs probably cannot know absolute truth. Whatever absolute truth is. Again, Dawkins is very good on our limitations. We can't even really imagine how quantum physics works. We're not built for it.

As for Collins...I'm afraid some regard his eminence as overblown - although he's a well known scientific *administrator*. Even if it weren't...I'm afraid he still has to make a decent case. Obviously, Dawkins is also eminent, but that's beside the point. He also presents unassailable arguments. All Collins manages is "Nevertheless, there is a god. (Specifically the Christian one, by the way)."

I was discussing atheism with a friend earlier this evening (also politics, blues, Louis Armstrong, architecture, post-modernism...etc.) He told me of an encounter he'd seen on telly at the weekend between a scientist (I forget who) and that dreadful fool Ann Atkins. He asked her "Why believe in the Bible". She said "Because of the evidence." He said, "What evidence?" She said "The evidence!!!". I'm wondering if the religious have a different understanding of the word 'evidence'.

With that in mind, can I invite Random Mood to summarise Collins' evidence?

>>Btw, I've always wondered why the 'intelligent design' notion typically declares that the hypothetical creator is a single, unique individual.

Because they're not Hindus?

iirc, the Hindu mythology is polytheistic, but has, I think, only one creator divinity.

Or maybe two

Anyway, the popular standard seems to be a singular 'un-caused' creator

(Incidentally, the fuzzy notion of a triune god merely adds another layer of hocus to the pocus)


I'm curious why the single creator entity idea became predominate.

Perhaps because of the "don´t multiply entities unnecessarily" part.

Oh gawd! See can? See worms? Yeah - Hindu gods are all aspects of the same divine. Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the mainainer - but you can't have creation without Shiva the destroyer. Om mani yadda yadda.

<<"Gods the biggest fish. there are no greater entitys, otherwise God wouldent be God.">>

Ok, so God's the biggest fish, the first cause. Some problems with that. First, why would the biggest fish be the first cause? As Dawkins points out, in our experience big fish are dependent upon little fish for their existence. So it seems more likely that the littlest fish would be the first cause.

Secondly, we have another word in our language for the biggest fish: universe. The universe includes everything and there is nothing outside it, except, according to the faithful, God. So which do we choose? Well, we know the universe is here, so I'd pick that. Why choose more?

The point in all that was still that God as the word for ultimate creator being still comes packaged with assumptions. You can't rely on linguistics to make your point like that. Just because you can say it, doesn't make it real.

No, its not proof though. Its just a beyond reasonable doubt sort of thing.

It's the argument for existence through imagination, isn't it? Just because you can imagine a big god fish, bigger than the universe, it doesn't mean there is one.

Of course...it doesn't mean there isn't, either. Except that by imagining something bigger than the universe, you've shown that your imagination is faulty. It's unable to comprehend that the universe really is everything.

If wishes were fishes...

Hi Gloaming,

Wondered if you'd pick me up on those points! I deliberately left them fairly basic rather than launch into a 30 page uninvited essay.

Occam's razor is, in my opinion, probably the most misunderstood philosophical idea around, which is part of the reason I wrote A21648783!

As you correctly point out, Occam doesn't allow us to say that one idea is definitely correct. What it does allow us to do is to discard alternative ideas - since they are unsupported by the evidence and there are an infinite number of them, the chances of any one of them being correct are infinity to 1 (i.e. zero). Unless you can come up with evidence to support God's existence, we can use the Razor to 'trim' him from our minds, along with fairies, pink elephants and orbital teapots.

I follow your logic on the teleological argument, but you still don't seem to have an explanation for how God comes into existence. If you can't explain how God exists, your argument is no better than the 'uncaused Big Bang' you're arguing against. Remember too that you need an argument that cannot be applied to the universe itself, or we're back in Occamistic territory.

I've found these arguements compelling. They are why I now refer to myself as an atheist and not as an agnostic.

Gif

Since Gif's mentioned the orbiting teapot, allow me to expand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot (mention of dawkins there, too)



I discussed TGD with someone else last night. She's an atheist and is rather enjoying it. But she pointed out that, while he's not actually foaming at the mouth, he is relentless in not giving quarter. This may make him appear angry to believers. Plus, he has a deadpan, throwaway humorous style which may go over some heads.

We both agreed that he's not really out to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. Partly he's kicking at a wasps nest to see who comes out. Mostly...his project is to make Atheism publically acceptable. If books like his are found cut-price on Tesco's shelves, it will be increasingly untenable to argue that for a priveleged position for faith. He won't win any converts - but he (we) may be able to start putting the faithful in their place.

I mean...do you see how significan is:

>>I discussed TGD with someone else last night

People are talking publically about Atheism.

>> ...not been much impressed with what I've seen published of the anti-Dawkins case yet. <<

I for one have never tried to be 'anti' Dawkins. Unlike the Prohibitionists who tried to universally outlaw alcohol I realise that the establishment of any 'anti' mindset will only reinforce, justify and qualify that which is being antied.

~jwf~

Speaking of tinned annelids: 'Om mani..', etc., is Buddhist, iirc

>> ...regards evolution as an 'atheist philosophy'... <<

Possibly he does so intuitively because it is an easy (even necessary) add-on to the Big Bang theory which is, by definition, atheistic.

And while I may only speak for those who have no grasp of higher and/or theoretical maths I have to say that accepting the Big Bang Theory as a Universal Truth would require of me a greater leap of Faith than Biblical Creationism.

And for what it's worth, the BBT really has no interest or appeal beyond maths. It has no storyline, no beautiful garden, no animals, no snakes, no apples, no sex and makes no provision for a day off once a week. At least Creationism is a better story even if it doesn't answer the question. And it fires the imagination while representing real things in a real world.

But back to the idea of evolution (as the probable progress from whatever unknown and unknowable factors initiated Creation) I was delighted to find that there are hints of it, an intuitive sense that it is real, in the following description from "The Civilisation of the Maya".

"...the supreme god, Hunab Ku, the great creator of the world...(is) easily recognised, as he is depicted with two rivulets of tears streaming from his eyes. These, as they flow outward and away from his form, gradually change into fish, flowers, a variety of animals and, last of all, into human beings."

See, even savages were, at some instinctive level, aware of a progress of change, of evolution. And far from being atheists they had a whole pantheon of gods. That their Supreme god is portrayed as weeping (caring or just regetful?) is eerily reminiscent of the joy so many find in the tearful Jesus (or Hay-Zeus as I prefer to think of him).


~jwf~

Whatever!

A Buddhist walks into a burger bar and says "Make me one with everything."