(July 11, 2009 at 9:13 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Dawkins gave rather a good description of the god that was presented to me in childhood. An image that was good enough to lure me into holy communion at the age of seven (since then I've been highly allergic to these flavourless holy cookies). Nowadays it seems that an advanced course in theology is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of the christian god, to find the really, really, real christian god.

With more than 3000 denominations it certainly is possible these days to snack your own christian religion in a cafetaria model that draws from all these denominations and every personal flavour you like to add. If you attack Dawkins on his imagery than you also are obliged to attack 99% of mentioned denominations. The more liberal image of the christian god is only trailing liberal cultural developments on social and moral issues. The trouble is, the christian god lacks definition, but when someone like Dawkins adresses key elements that are present in most, scorn is the warm embrace of christianty.

Dawkins is no more interpreting god than any of the thousands of christian denominations.

Seems there are as many ways NOT to believe in god as there are to believe in god. Funny how that evens out.

(July 9, 2009 at 1:07 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(July 8, 2009 at 9:14 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What gets me is the way these theists dismiss the contradictions so evidently there in their bible.

Theists who simply dismiss these allegations are unimportant on the issue, but what do you make of those scholars who have taken the time to refute the allegations (which is very different from dismissing them)? There is a wealth of publications on these refutations which spans centuries (from at least the mid-17th century, so far as I know; e.g., Joannes Thaddaeus, c. 1662). Would I be correct in assuming that you have interacted with at least a couple of reputable publications and are, therefore, dispensing an intellectually honest conclusion that is responsibly informed? For instance, can you name a publication, cite an example of one of its refutations and prove how it fails?

I haven't read the articles directly any more than I typically read scientific papers but I see no particular need to given that I have experience of dozens of idiots willing to tell me all their intricacies ... it goes like this:

Me: Subject X (usually a reasonably detailed description as part of some ongoing debate).
Theist: Go to this web page and it will answer all your questions on subject x

So I go, I read and I find that not only does it typically not get even marginally close to dealing with subject x it fails as a coherent or rational argument to boot with the result that I now refuse point-blank to do theist URL's or references and insist they post their own.

(July 9, 2009 at 1:07 am)Arcanus Wrote: Or is this just gratuitous invective boldly engaging in the Prejudicial Language fallacy?

Well I wouldn't call it that but I have the sneaky feeling you're going to say just that so let's cut to the chase ... why don't you explain these specific arguments and then we can all dump on them?

Kyu

Hey,

I did not go into into in in depth when I called Dawkins an asshole. Let me please add that Arcanus, you have written an absolutely fantastic post about the topic. It was thorough, and intelligent. I told Kyu long ago that I didn't like Dawkins because I found his arguments to be weak, and his comparison of extremists to normal believers. He didn't like that. If I remember, he said I shouldn't call someone a jerk because I didn't like them, and I told him that was a cart/horse misplacement.

I agree wholeheartedly that Dawkings does everything you said. He writes entire books that would make you think that no one has ever had a positive relationship with God. What did you think about the 'Methinks it is like a weasel," thing? That struck me right away. He was trying to show the ability of evolution to appear to have a designed result (If I remember correctly). I thought it was laughable that he could write a computer program that chose the best 'mutation' and started over with it... And then go on about the lack of design. In that experiment he is God, the computer is complex reality, and the outcome is fixed. I don't think anyone here thinks that the world has an end result we are working towards, so why couldn't Dawkins write the program to not pick the every best 'mutation', and also not delete all the others and start over 'clean-slate' with the best. That is also a very poor representation of evolution. I just always thought that little experiment he did was absurd.

Good post, well written, and very intelligent. I wish I could have been as thorough when I denounced Dawkins, but alas I am mentally handicapped...

Thank you,
-Pip

(July 11, 2009 at 5:52 am)Arcanus Wrote: If I don't stop soon, I'll end up writing an entire book. But before I close this off, I want to underscore what is perhaps the greatest irony of all. His book is titled The God Delusion, and he opens the discussion with his feeling that 'delusion' is most fittingly understood in this context as a "persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." Yet in the entire 400-page tome, he does not present a single solitary piece of evidence that contradicts God-belief! There is a lot of material that allows for skepticism and disbelief, but absolutely nothing that proves God-belief as false with strong contradictory evidence. Not a thing.

Nor does he provide one single piece of evidence that proves the FSM-belief 'as false with strong contradictory evidence either', shocking! I know the book's not about the FSM, it's about God; but if it was about the FSM; if it was called 'The FSM' delusion and how it's delusional to literally believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created and governs the universe, and just like with God he failed to provide evidence of absence... (for what there's absence of evidence of!!): Would you also be saying that you couldn't call actually believing in the FSM delusional because there's no evidence against its existence either?

So if I believe there is a monster under my bed, is that not delusional because you have no evidence to disprove it, because I can just say it's invisible, inaudible and completely intangible and undetectable by any means whatsoever? Am I not delusional for believing in this hypothetical monster because there's no 'strong contradictory evidence' against it??

If however; that would make me delusional, despite the lack of 'strong contradictory evidence', then why is it not the same with God?

EvF

(July 11, 2009 at 9:32 pm)Pippy Wrote: Hey ...

Evolution DOES produce life that look (at least superficially) designed so Dawkins is correct to say so.

Like I believe I said earlier although some atheists find Dawkins too aggressive it is nearly always the theists that have issues with him and one cannot help but suspect it has more to do with their vested interests than any truly rational objection.

Dawkins doesn't write like a weasel (of course we all have our opinions, that yours and arcanus are wrong is neither her nor there except in fairy ga-ga land) because I am fairly sure the simulations used DID NOT have a programmed end result (it could well have been a test condition but that isn't the same as a programmed end-result), they have rules that mimic the real universe and in them life is seen to develop.

Kyu

(July 11, 2009 at 9:32 pm)Pippy Wrote: What did you think about the 'Methinks it is like a weasel," thing? That struck me right away. He was trying to show the ability of evolution to appear to have a designed result (If I remember correctly). I thought it was laughable that he could write a computer program that chose the best 'mutation' and started over with it... And then go on about the lack of design. In that experiment he is God, the computer is complex reality, and the outcome is fixed. I don't think anyone here thinks that the world has an end result we are working towards, so why couldn't Dawkins write the program to not pick the every best 'mutation', and also not delete all the others and start over 'clean-slate' with the best. That is also a very poor representation of evolution. I just always thought that little experiment he did was absurd.

Why don't you actually read up on things before you post rubbish about them? It's a good tip, because if you actually do know what you are talking about, you don't come across like an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

Hey,

@ Kyu: Thank you for replying.

Quote:because I am fairly sure the simulations used DID NOT have a programmed end result (it could well have been a test condition but that isn't the same as a programmed end-result)

I can only disagree with this one point. I think the program did have a programmed end result, namely its namesake "Methinks it is like a weasel,". The fact the the program carefully chose the one mutation that was in any way closer to the target phrase, and then started with only that phrase makes it very programmed (compared to the complexity of a more realistic model of the mutation process). I know that Dawkins did not state that it was an example of biological evolution, and did call it an 'artificial' selection process. I am just saying that I find the experiment to be strange and almost senseless. That it leaves a lot of room for speculative haberdashery. That even as a philosophical experiment it seems only to prove that something designed to produce a finished product, should indeed do such. That is just my interpretation of it though.

And, of course, Adrian. Thank you for helpfully posting the wiki for what i am referencing, I have read that page before. I heard about the experiment in Kitty Mitchels "Fire in the Equations", and also read Blind Watchmaker. I was pulling it out of the attic that is my memory. I appreciate that my question is 'rubbish' to you, and that you think (again) that I sound like an idiot.

Just for one sentence, I will try to drop the standards, and act as I feel you are; Why don't you actually post either a response to the question, or views on my opinion, or anything at all that is constructive to the overall conversation? (you may not come across as something with nothing intelligent to say)

Please, unless it is making some other, larger point, refrain from offering me any more of these 'tips'. I think they are just rudeness bordering on assumed ignorance and wiki links any ways.

And just so that the conversation does go somewhere... What about if the program did not select based on a final result, and just flew randomly? I think the experiment doesn't really prove that our random world could appear to be patterned, but that if it were truly random, the world as we think we know it could not exist as it seems too...? Some thoughts, what do you guys think?

Thank you kindly,
"Who says I like right angles any ways?",
-Pip

Well if you want a response, here it is.

Your post above just shows further your absolute ignorance on this subject, even though I gave you the Wikipedia link (which explains everything). It just proves you are not willing to learn a thing about the subjetc you have chosen to talk about!

You say you find "the experiment to be strange and almost senseless" when admitting that Dawkins said it was not meant to be an accurate portrayal of evolution, rather an artificial selector. The aim of the experiment was:

Wikipedia Wrote:Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms "randomly" combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable (this is known as Hoyle's fallacy). Rather, evolution proceeds by hill climbing.
Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target

(emphasis mine)

Still senseless? Still strange? Somehow I don't think so. Dawkins was only showing that evolution wasn't a pure "random" method, and that selection had to be a part if it was going to get anywhere. The mechanism by which evolution selects is called "natural selection", and Dawkins program, whilst artificial, was alluring to the fact that natural selection would be doing all the selecting.

As for your assertion that the program was "fixed", you are half-right. Of course, the aim of the program was to get from a random set of letters to a sentence (which was pre-chosen). The point of the program was it was showing a possible path of evolution from a retrospective angle. In other words, it was not trying to show evolution of a random set of letters, but was taking a fixed set of letters, and saying "ok, can we get to this from a random set?". The answer is yes. By selecting the best mutations (which is what natural selection does in essence), new organisms are formed.

If you think about it for more than a few seconds, you will realise that if Dawkins hadn't set a fixed end-point, the program would be (as you said earlier) "strange and senseless". The program wouldn't be able to tell what was a "good" mutation (since it had no environment to adapt to), and so you would simply get a load of random strings. Each one would be a valid product of natural selection, but without an environment to compare them to, you cannot tell which strings are successful organisms and which are not. An environment must be used, and in this case the environment was the string "Methinks it is like a weasel".

Evolution always aims to adapt species to their environment in the best way possible. With the species "salfjbadjgbadgajgbaj" and the environment "Methinks it is like a weasel", the best adaptations will invariably produce the end result of "Methinks it is like a weasel".

In real life, there are a multitude of environments of course, which is why we have such diversity of life; however this program was very simple, with one environment; one "aim" for evolution to get to.

(July 12, 2009 at 5:40 am)Pippy Wrote:

Quote:because I am fairly sure the simulations used DID NOT have a programmed end result (it could well have been a test condition but that isn't the same as a programmed end-result)

I can only disagree with this one point. I think the program did have a programmed end result, namely its namesake "Methinks it is like a weasel,". The fact the the program carefully chose the one mutation that was in any way closer to the target phrase, and then started with only that phrase makes it very programmed (compared to the complexity of a more realistic model of the mutation process).

No ... that was a test condition ... it could have as easily been "Jesus Christ Is My Messiah!", he happened to choose that result. Not an end-goal, a test ... the difference is significant.

Kyu

(July 11, 2009 at 5:52 am)Arcanus Wrote: If I don't stop soon, I'll end up writing an entire book.

You wouldn't be the first to write a flea. All fleas sharing the problem that they fail to present clear evidence for their claims. Instead of presenting clear evidence for their divine claims they merely repeat christian dogma and try to discredit the approach and person of Dawkins.

(July 11, 2009 at 5:52 am)Arcanus Wrote: But before I close this off, I want to underscore what is perhaps the greatest irony of all. His book is titled The God Delusion, and he opens the discussion with his feeling that 'delusion' is most fittingly understood in this context as a "persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." Yet in the entire 400-page tome, he does not present a single solitary piece of evidence that contradicts God-belief! There is a lot of material that allows for skepticism and disbelief, but absolutely nothing that proves God-belief as false with strong contradictory evidence. Not a thing.

This is quite basic. The old trick on the burden of proof again. Dawkins is not the one making the claim of existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. He is simply assessing the presented evidence for it. As you may have noticed reading his stance on the theism-atheism scale he clearly does not state to know that god does not exists. Nor does he set out in TGD to proof that god does not exist. He evaluates claims being made and that what is presented to him as evidence. For instance he evaluates the claim (made by christians) that this god as presented in the bible is omnibenevolent and identifies clear passages in the bible where slavery is condoned and atrocities are demanded by that christian god. He identifies the structural blindness of believers for these passages. He identifies the inconsistency of this claim and the claim of creation by god with the suffering in the world and concludes the evidence is too poor to substantiate the claim. It is a rather straightforward assessment. What part did you have trouble with?