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

toxxin, you have been demanding definitions.

Why not give a few of your own?

If they are better, then that would be incredibly helpful.

B

I'll accept your challenge. What would you like me to define?

Take a track through the backlog of this thread, and pick anything that you have been demanding I redefine.

My personal bandwidth is down to 3 minute packets at the moment.

B

Not quite, Toxxin.

I'm saying that when we discuss religion, we generally do it in the context of a god-shaped hole. Questions like "What do you believe in?" and "What religion are you?". So this hole *is* real, but it could be a function of the way we talk rather than being a function of our psyches.

Similarly, we regularly ask "What football team do you support", but the football team-shaped hole is quite obviously a social thing rather than a genetic thing.

Any clearer?
-Martin

Probably not.

*sigh*

B

I'm afraid it still isn't real to me because I'm a philosophical agnostic and I can't stand football. Nevertheless, I'm fascinated by the topic of religion and I was taught by Swinburne who has to be one of the top living philosophers of the subject.

By heck Ben! I could feel the reverberations of that sigh all the way over here!

> "I'm a philosophical agnostic"

And by giving that answer to the question "What's your religion", you're validating the question as being meaningful, and hence the hole as being real in some sense.

By contrast, if the hole did not exist, your response might well be "What's religion?" or "I don't know" or "I don't think it's relevant to my life" or "none". And some people do respond like that, and for them there is no hole.

-Martin

In that case, my interests are so wide-ranging that I must have a sort of multi-purpose crater rather than a God-shaped hole!

!

B

In a much earlier note, I asked about the possibility of evolution in the human species. Toxxin came up with this answer:



Quite an authoritative statement. One could be forgiven for believing that the writer was well versed in evolutionary theory and practice.

Today, on a bio-scientific news site - http://human-nature.com/nibbs/ - I came across the following:

Fifteen generations, eh? So if a human generation is around twenty-five years, it is possible that evolutionary changes could (begin to) happen over as short a time as 375 years. Hmmm. What was it Toxxin said? Ah, yes: "The odd million years is evolutionary peanuts for a species as long-lived as ours."

Toxxin, it appears your knowledge of evolution is considerably less than you would have us believe. I had accepted your answer at face value, and might well have repeated it, in good faith, to others. For everyone's benefit, could you try to check your facts a little more thoroughly before you wade in with authoritative statements of what is right and what isn't?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<...I was taught by Swinburne who has to be one of the top living philosophers of the subject.>

I've never heard of Swinburne, but that's my ignorance, and does not reflect on your worthy tutor. I'm sure the teaching was of the highest quality. But, if you need to name-drop to convince us how much you know, I wonder if your learning reached the same high standards?

I suspect that, even if I was taught football by David Beckham, my skills would still be minimal. I just don't have the aptitude, you see. Oh well.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think you will find that the mutations in Drosophilia are artificially accelerated by the use of irradiation. If you have a single example of a new characteristic since we became human, fire away.

I think you will find that the mutations in Drosophilia are artificially accelerated by the use of irradiation. If you have a single example of a new characteristic since we became human, fire away.

OK. You ain't heard of the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy Christian Religion at Oxford University. Fair enough.

You wouldn't know that he approved of the award of first class honours with my philosophy degree. Fair enough.

I mentioned him as a counterexample because someone seemed to want to say that using scientific method was inevitably anti-christian or some such. He always uses scientific methodology to the opposite effect.

Guess there should be 'of the' in there somewhere. Blame the 3 horses (lager).

OK, having read the entry, I'm going to work my way through the thread with observations on the posts, and hope that my view on the entry becomes clear as a result. Note that I'm writing *this* paragraph after reading the entry, but before reading the posts, so some things I say early on may be dealt with later, so stick with it.

Toxxin was reported to have written:
"Let's just suppose that all folks have 'belief', because that is what would be the case if it had evolved."

Not the case. Freckles, red hair and sickle cell anaemia evolved, but I don't have any of them.

"In evolutionary terms, it is more than possible to argue that the coleoptera (beetles) are the most successful. Is that because of their beliefs?"

Not at all. Belief is not an evolutionary advantage for a beetle (or is it?), therefore why should you expect them to have it. It IS an evolutionary advantage for humans, it seems...

Toxxin again:
"Evolved features surely apply to the whole of a species, not just certain members"

See above.

"it is very unevenly distributed among homo sapiens. Therefore it didn't evolve. QED"

Conclusive proof of the non-evolutionary nature of, say, white skin. Congratulations, you're a Creationist!

"The examples you give are variations due to a primary evolved characteristic responding to the environment. So it isn't evolved as such, but is secondary."

There's no such thing as a "primary evolved characteristic", except in the artificial sense that YOU decide whether you think something is primary or secondary. Nature doesn't care, doesn't make distinctions, just gets on with evolving stuff.

"maybe it's just our humanity in general, rather than a single characteristic. It's still a consequence though, rather than something which itself evolved. "

I can't see the distinction. If it's a consequence of our humanity, it evolved. Odd thing to say

" It could even have a negative survival value like my examples. It's the price we pay for some greater adaptive characteristic perhaps."

I think I already mentioned sickle cell anaemia.

"I'm sorry P-c, but our species hasn't actually been around long enough to figure in evolutionary timescales. The odd million years is evolutionary peanuts for a species as long-lived as ours."

Tripe. For a start, who's to say how long-lived our species is? Anyone heard of Tyrannosaurus Rex? King of the dinosaurs? Five million years, those guys lasted, then that was it.

On the other hand, it's reasonably widely accepted that evolution isn't some glacially slow process eking out tiny changes over millions of years - it's a sporadic dash followed by periods of retrenchment. "Punctuated equilibrium", they call it, or put another way, you can have a whole lot of evolution in a really short time, if the environment changes. And ours has changed a LOT, and continues to do so. Also, when you're talking about the evolution of something as insubstantial as a feature of consciousness, all bets are off. It may well take a million years or more to evolve away that useless fifth toe (I've still got mine...), but there's no reason why something as insubstantial as a hardwired need for "belief" couldn't spring up, evolve, wither and die in a matter of thousands of years, even.

"There is no evidence of any evolved differences since we became a separate species."

Back to the old sickle cell anaemia example again. Sorry, Toxxin, but do your homework. It's an evolved difference in humans, only, which allows persons of certain races greater protection against the risk of malaria at the cost of sickle cell anaemia. White folks don't get it, but then we don't live where we could catch malaria. How big a difference do you need? (Sounds like Creationists saying there are no "transitional" fossils to me - have these people never seen a flying squirrel?)

"Evolved characteristics apply to all members of a species."

No they don't. Can't be bothered explaining why. Read some books.

"the hedgehog rolls up - it's evolution hasn't caught up with the juggernaut just yet."

Oooh, bad timing. There was a story on the news only last week about the fact that evolution HAS caught up with the juggernaut, and that naturalists in Britain have observed that some hedgehogs have indeed learned to run from cars, and that this ability appears to be on the rise in the population as a whole. Evolution in action, and in response to a threat less than a hundred years old.

"the effect of religious belief on reproductive success"

Yes, religious belief leads the odd nutter to be martyred, castrated, or stay celibate (although the latter is a comparitively recent edict - many Popes fathered large families). But the effect on the MAJORITY of believers is to marry within their racial group and produce large numbers of children. Evolution operates on populations, not individuals. Martyrs exist in penguin populations, but it doesn't affect the reproductive success of penguins as whole. In fact, it AIDS the reproductive success of the population - the martyr penguins go in, bob about a bit, and if they aren't eaten by a leopard seal, everyone else goes fishing for their families. If they ARE eaten, everyone else takes a raincheck.

"I just don't accept the existence of pandemic (as opposed to secondary) evolved characteristics."

You'll have to define those terms before I can comment on that.

"It's the 'inspiring' I disagree with. I have little doubt that humans want (I wouldn't say 'need'!) to believe things that are reassuring. That's a different concept though."

Is it? Personally, I'm not that keen on the word "inspired" myself either, but I never said whose side I was on, did I?

I'd phrase it more harshly (but that's me...) and state baldly that humans (or rather, most of them) seem to have an irrational need to believe in the supernatural. That's what this is about, isn't it?

"What if I claim that there is a Satan-shaped hole"

What if I claim there's a Santa shaped hole? It's the same thing.

I can see a bit of a blind spot developing here....

"Without consulting the dictionary it is clear that the word 'inspire' refers to breathing in"

Hmm. I can think of a few words to say here, for which you might need to consult a dictionary... but I shall restrain myself.

(and like I say... I wouldn't use "inspired" either, anyway)

Martin wrote:

"I didn't believe in Diana, nor did she inspire me. "

Amen to that. In spades.

Ben wrote:
"If it can be refuted then I will recant."

Hmm. I'll see what I can do.

"Let's have a science-shaped hole or a reassurance-shaped hole.>

Why not? The point is that people believe"

Here's the nub. It's the BELIEF, the FAITH, the uncritical, take-it-at-face-value, ignore evidence to the contrary if necessary BLINKEREDNESS that people seem capable of which demands explanation. Science isn't a religion. You don't have to believe it. If you don't believe it, try testing it. You don't need to believe in aspirins for them to work. But the weird thing is, if you believe what you're taking is aspirin, it might work even though it's actually just chalk. Which is another entry entirely.

Noggin:
"What's the difference between an 'ordinary' belief, and an 'inspired' belief?"

Crucial. Is "ordinary" the belief in, say, "red sky at night, sheperd's delight"? Is "inspired", the belief in pie in that sky when you die? (or whenever/wherever)

Toxxin again:
"So for everything (X) that people believe there is an X-shaped hole."

Yes and no. Look again at those two types of belief. One is semi-scientific - "almost every time the sky looks like that, it's nice the next day". So you come to believe that if the sky is like that, it'll be nice the next day. IF you live somewhere where the weather works like that - i.e. England. I doubt it works in Patagonia, or the Galapagos, or Baffin Island, say.

The other is irrational. And it's that tendency towards belief in the irrational, the NON-observed, in fact the unobservable, which is clearly almost universal. Its prevalence is provocative, especially to people such as myself who do not have it and don't understand it. Although I consider myself lucky to lack it, I do actually in some ways consider myself and others like me deficient in some way. It's like I'm colour blind, and everyone else has this thing going on called "colour" which not only can I not perceive, but since I've never seen it, no amount of their trying to explain it to me is going to help. I may be able to grasp it intellectually (yeah, it's like different wavelengths, I get you...) but I can't, for want of a better word, grok it. I'm NOT colour blind. But I am spirituality-blind. Or "inspired-belief"-blind. Or something.

"Occam's razor suggests the hole should be thrown out since it adds nothing to the concept of belief."

But it does. It suggests there's a REASON for it. It functions as an... inspiration, if you will for people to ask the question "why?".

Lucinda wrote:
"Evolutionary benefit. The ability to believe and argue for absurdly irrational things may be a kind of mating/fighting behaviour designed to impress the opposite gender and scare off the same gender."

Well, fundamentalists certainly scare me, but frankly if any chicks are impressed by that stuff, they're welcome to them.

"If you say no, and I ask why, then *whatever* reason you give, I can use that as evidence for a god-shaped hole that in your case is filled by science"

Ooh. Not necessarily. You might have to probe a little deeper to establish that the "no" is a more firm rejection of supernatural concepts and irrationality. I surely can't be the only one...

Toxxin again:
"Whatever anyone says can be explained by a God-shaped hole! "

Not me. But I do feel in a tiny minority, I must say, because MOST people I know who don't believe in God, per se, replace that with a belief in something else, be it Buddhism, Druidry, yoga, crystals, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster... but now I'm just being silly. The point is, I don't believe in *anything*. Few people I know of share that position, although some certainly do. I simply don't understand the ones who don't, Ben included. They all seem to have this mental category marked "stuff I believe even though I can't really explain why". Like I say, it's provocative. I feel left out, apart from anything else!

"Similarly, we regularly ask "What football team do you support", but the football team-shaped hole is quite obviously a social thing rather than a genetic thing."

Hmm. Another hole I don't seem to have. Mind you, it was rugby league or nothing where I grew up. Football was punishment. And I wonder about that "social rather than genetic"... has there been a time in or before human history when groups of males haven't gathered and competed physically while larger groups of males and a few females looked on and cheered? The organisation and rules may be socially determined, but the ritualistic nature of the combat and the mob mentality (not a pejorative) of the spectators is surely deeply ingrained.

Martin wrote:
"for them there is no hole."

Yay! You're talking about me!

Toxxin:
"I was taught by Swinburne who has to be one of the top living philosophers of the subject"

Ooh, attempting the old "argument from authority". Sounds like someone isn't convinced they're right and they're wheeling out the creaky old guns...

"If you have a single example of a new characteristic since we became human, fire away."

For that you'll need to define when we became human. Unfortunately, despite what philosophy students may have been told, nature is annoyingly uncooperative when it comes to drawing sharp dividing lines between species. In fact, the very concept of "species" is a human construct, and one with a VERY slippery definition. Are a lion and tiger the same species? They can interbreed... the only thing that stops them is inconvenient geography. Put them together in a zoo and you'll have ligers and tigons (these are the actually accepted names for these things) before you know it. Most people would accept that lions and tigers are different species, yet nature seems to have no use for that definition.

As for new characteristics... the most obvious one is staring me in the face every time I look in the mirror - white skin.

"You ain't heard of the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy Christian Religion at Oxford University."

And just to pick an example at random, off the top of your head I don't think you'd be able to namecheck the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard. Come to that you probably couldn't even name the Regius Professor of Chronology at St. Cedds...

"You wouldn't know that he approved of the award of first class honours with my philosophy degree. "

Wow. Anybody spot the slight insecurity exposed here?

I've been arguing robustly with lots and lots of people on this site for getting on eighteen months, and I've never felt the need to point at "important" people and go "and *he* says my exams results were *really* good!". I prefer to let my arguments stand on their own merits - or fall. I've seen a few fall (although not many) and been grateful to the people who felled them. But arguing from authority... cheap.

I'll blame the lager. Can we blame the rest of it on that...?

"someone seemed to want to say that using scientific method was inevitably anti-christian or some such"

I've been working through the thread and I've not seen anything like that. Link, please? Or just a posting number?

"He always uses scientific methodology to the opposite effect."

He uses scientific methodology to promote Christianity? Interesting. How does he perform experiments? Where does he publish results? Are the results independently tested by other researchers and peer reviewed?

Or is he a Creationist? (serious question, those guys often claim to be "scientific" even though they've barely the wit to spell it.)

Well, that's enough for now.

In summary, I don't like the phrase "inspired belief", but that rather seems to be my problem. I may have more comments later, who knows?

H.

Thank you Hoovooloo. At last some points that are clear to me instead of the incomprehensible stuff I've been trying to get to grips with on this thread. I shall get as far as the energy allows in replying to your post and if necessary, continue in another message.

It is unfortunate that you quote so much out of textual and conversational context. Had I not been asked certain questions, I would not have mentioned certain facts. It is therefore an odd kind of ad hominem argument to claim that I mention certain things as an appeal to authority or out of insecurity. They may be there as answers to questions or references to sources of info.

I don't accept that freckles, red hair and s c anaemia evolved. There is huge variation among dogs, but nobody claims them as products of evolution. We evolved a range of possible characteristics that may be expressed in individual, familial, tribal or wider groupings. Just because there's nobody quite like my Uncle Cyril doesn't make his peculiarities uniqe products of evolution, except insofar as evolution gave rise to the possibility of them.

Where is the evidence that belief (in Ben's sense) is an evolutionary advantage for humans? H, you just say that it seems to be without any attempt at justifying it.

Re white skin's evolution; see above. Also what colour were the first humans? Maybe there was already a variation. We are talking about features that evolved SINCE modern humans arrived on the scene. I accept that the distinction between species is somewhat arbitrary. The more rapid changes during times of sudden environmental change are perhaps the best places to put the knife in. The interbreeding test is one criterion but this is sometimes productive even though the species concerned have different numbers of chromosomes. Whether the offspring are themselves capable of breeding with each other seems to chime better with our idea of separate species.

Not everything that is a consequence of our humanity evolved. You surely wouldn't say that the ability to play cricket evolved - yet all able bodied and minded humans have that ability, given a few lessons.

When I say as long-lived as our species I refer to the life span of individuals as should be clear from the context. More specifically, I refer to the time between generations in comparison with, say, fruit flies. So we can put a figure on that and the time for which T Rex was dominant doesn't come into it.

"... but there's no reason why something as insubstantial as a hardwired need for "belief" couldn't spring up, evolve, wither and die in a matter of thousands of years, even."

Really! Can you give one example of any such ocurrence that has been accepted by science? It seems totally implausible to me that there could even BE a hardwired need for belief. I certainly don't see that it might be a trivial matter to evolve it!

These refereces to s c anaemia are a bore. Nobody denies that there are variations in the human race. We know that a varied gene pool is a valuable asset. Just because sometimes local environments lead to preferential expression of one of the variants doesn't mean that a new characteristic has evolved. Maybe it's just my personal view that fiddling around with the existing range of variation doesn't constitute evolutionary change. Maybe it's just a verbal quibble. Let's call the variation in dog breeds a wonderful example of evolution in action. But then again, let's not.

Let's finish the first quarter(!) of H's post with the humble hedgehog.

"Oooh, bad timing. There was a story on the news only last week about the fact that evolution HAS caught up with the juggernaut, and that naturalists in Britain have observed that some hedgehogs have indeed learned to run from cars, and that this ability appears to be on the rise in the population as a whole. Evolution in action, and in response to a threat less than a hundred years old."

Is this sloppy thinking or just sloppy wording? Is it learned behaviour or evolved behaviour? These are such distinct concepts that conflating them as in the quote above is reprehensible to say the least. I say that hedgehogs long ago evolved the ability to learn. Those more adept at learning the appropriate response to motor vehicles will preferentially survive. This isn't a newly evolved characteristic any more than is the classic example of the peppered moth's response to the industrial revolution in the rise in numbers of the more highly pigmented variants of the species. Think about that when you consider white skin, freckles, s c anaemia etc. Call the peppered moth example 'evolution in action' if you like. Just don't expect me to. Like so many so-called examples of 'evolution' in this thread, it's just an example of natural selection in action. That falls far short of being an evolutionary change.

I look forward to dealing with the rest of your message, H, when time permits.

Sorry to have bored you. I've observed that people are often bored by things they don't understand. You, for instance, seem to be under the entertaining delusion that "natural selection" and "evolution" are distinct unrelated concepts, and that something can happen by natural selection without any evolution going on. Spoken like a philosophy graduate, or for that matter, a Creationist. Care to declare for the ICR?

H.

Interesting post, Hoovooloo. I won't go with the trend of super-long posts, but I can't resist one or two comments:

<...humans (or rather, most of them) seem to have an irrational need to believe in the supernatural. That's what this is about, isn't it?>

I thought that too.



Oh well said, that man! I find belief interesting, and the possible reasons or justifications for its existence fascinating.



Funny you should say that, as I'm just writing a guide entry that says it *is*, or that it is often treated as one. Go to my home page if you want to read the current draft (A861347 - "Science as religion").

Toxxin:

As good a reason as I can find to hit the "unsubscribe from this conversation" button. A shame really, as the topic is interesting, and everyone else's contributions have been worth reading, IMO.

G'bye all!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"