Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Ryft]

Do you read base scientific papers on everything you have an opinion on?

I am not sure why "scientific papers" are especially relevant. Nevertheless, if I suspect that some school of thought fails to answer a specific criticism, then I will certainly avail myself of whatever reputable publications it has produced that apparently contradicts such a suspicion—especially if someone alludes to the fact that such contradicting evidence exists. Does this somehow mean reading every base paper on everything in that field? Of course not. That simply does not follow. It means reading relevant publications specific to my suspicion or objection or what have you. I hold that the validity of an opinion is a function of the degree to which it is an informed one, and the quality of that which it informs it.

That I have not read the original articles on some theological issues DOES NOT make my POV on some of these things any less valid, especially considering I have dealt with them ad nauseum by proxy.

So if you had a quick look at some article published by some person on the internet hosted by who knows what entity that some average Joe referenced in an informal discussion, you feel this contributes substantively to the validity of your point of view, then? Particularly if this was done multiple times? Hmm. Well, all right then.

[Tiberius]

And finally, Adrian. Thank you, for the third time in a row, for posting the wiki I assure you I have read (at the very least, 3 times now).

I don't care if you have read it or not. In my first post, I gave the wiki link (not knowing you had read it) to give you something to read that would answer all your questions. The second time, I posted an extract to show you what Dawkins actually said about the experiment. I then explained what he had said in other words for you! The third time was a repost because you failed to even respond to my actual response to you.

In short, you are making this argument out of nothing. The first time I didn't even realize you had read the wiki, and the 2nd and third times I only referenced one quote out of it (which also could be taken as a quote out of the actual book!). Are we not allowed to make references anymore? That could be a problem...

I cannot continue such a discussion, whether or not anyone 'will think any less of me'. You can all think what you want, I will not base my decisions on that. I was taken aback by the brevity and rudeness of your first post. I have been treated to some very un-compelling argument, and immature behavior by you for a little while, and so I decided this was the breaking point. I told you as such, and you chose to act ruder and make a existent, but fickle rebut.

There we go, play the victim yet again. I admit, I was rude in my first post, and for that I apologize. However in my second post (apart from a minor jab at you missing the point of the experiment), I was clear, and not insulting. I apologize (again) for the minor jab in that, but please address the points I made. You say my argument is "un-compelling" and "fickle", yet these are not reasons to not respond. I find your arguments fickle and un-compelling, and these are precisely the reasons I respond to them...because you are wrong in your assessment of the experiment. I should note (without trying to sound insulting) that every time you do not respond to my points, instead trying to play the victim or attack me in some other way, you look more and more like you have nothing to say to defend your view. If you want to discuss this (and you seemed to when you proposed your take on the experiment), then you need to accept criticism and either defend your point or admit your error.

I posed the weasel question as a tiny open thought for us to share what we think. Now I do not want to discuss this, or likely much else with you any longer, as I feel it is a waste of time (for both of us).

Why? I agreed with you at some point in it; it isn't a very good approximation of evolution, but then it was never meant to be, that was my point. If you don't want to discuss things with people, perhaps you shouldn't be on a discussion forum!

I would point out that this is circular. I posted some open ended questions and my personal thoughts, and you replied with disdain and disrespect.

Disdain? Yes
Disrespect? Yes
Posted a link to an article (which I didn't know you had read at the time) that answered all your questions / misconceptions about the experiment? Yes

Admittedly I probably should have written something more at the time, but I thought a read through of the wiki article would be enough to correct your views. Evidently I was wrong, hence my further response.

Then you accuse me, in your most recent post, of not 'discussing' of whining and 'playing the victim'.

Yes, because you were. When you have asked me to respond in more detail, I have done. When I have asked you to respond to my points, you have refused. You cannot deny this, and in doing so, show that I am willing to discuss this, whilst you are not (in fact you admitted this above).

You need to take responsibility for the way people react to your provocation. You tout your 'pure argument' but every post you have posted included the wiki that I assured you in the first place I had read.

No, the first one was a post to the wiki. The second and third used a quote from Dawkins to illustrate my point.

In fact, your last post was the prior one copied and pasted. That is 'pure' argument?

I only copied and pasted it because you didn't respond to any one of the points I raised in it. It was "pure argument" because it was a copy of the second response, where I detailed my rebuttal to your original questions.

I know you will champion yourself as victor of this strange battle, since I resorted only to insults and personal attacks. You won't even see the reality of your own behavior, and how I only responded with similar (but still more polite and respectful). You can act however you like, but when I mirror you own actions, try not to loudly call me on it, it is (in the end) arguing against yourself. That is why I do it, it is a trick.

I'm not a victor here; there has been no discussion for me to be a victor of. I freely admit I was out of order, and I apologized on multiple occasions (I'll even apologize now if you want). Fact is, even when I insulted you, I made points in response to try and get back to the discussion. Whenever I did this, you responded with similar insults and refused to comment on my points. Only one of us was trying to continue the discussion, and it wasn't you.

In short. You started it. Please, don't accuse me of lying, unless you can show solid proof.

You claimed my second post that I wrote "I think pippy is a big idiot" over and over. I did not. I referred to you once at the beginning (calling you ignorant), and from then on I never referred to you at all. I answered all of your points, without once referring to your or your arguments as "idiotic"; I simply stated my objections and reasoned out the response. But please, if you think you can find examples in my response where I said "I think pippy is a big idiot" over and over, present them. I honestly cannot see how anyone can read things into it like that, given that the vast majority of my post was all about explaining the experiment and evolution (nothing to do with you at all).

As far as this discussion, and the train wreck we are forcing upon the others who inhabit this site, I consider it fully closed. Thank you.

I don't consider it closed. I actually think this discussion is interesting, and I'd love to continue it with you. As for a "train wreck", I don't see quite how. People can respond to it if they like; it's not as if we are getting in the way of anything.

And Adrian, let's agree to disagree and not make it so personal? We should try. Myself as well.

Agreed, so let's start over and have you respond to the points I raised in response #2 and #3?

[Purple Rabbit]

[

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.

Certainly. But that is not any kind of criticism because such is the case for pretty much any subject. An advanced course in astrophysics is needed to deeply comprehend the structure and nature of the cosmos. Who do you think would have a more accurate understanding about the cosmos: (a) a high school dropout, or (b) an astrophysicist with an advanced degree? Now, we cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field, but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter.

This is preposterous. So the christian world fills the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete. To appreciate the real god you need to have an IQ that matches someone doing advanced astrophysics. The god concept is unattainable for the uneducated and the intellectually restricted. You are rowing the boat upstream, my friend, for statistics show that higher education means lower rates of belief in the supernatural. You suggest that there is a relation between the complexity of nature and the complexity of god, but the more science advances and the more the complexity of nature unfolds the more the gap between that complexity and the emptyness of what the god concept offers shines through. The god concept as invented by academic theology is not capable of explaining any detail of the complexity of nature at all. Nada, zilch, nope, nothing. There is not a shred of relevance of all academic theologian effort on questions still open in the study of nature. And that while is claimed that god created it purposefull with omniscientic capabilities. The scenario that unfolds here is not that god is complex but that the god concept is too empty to keep up with the magnificence of nature and that academic theology is indulging in an perverted attempt to reclaim authority with a claim of complexity of the god concept.

Dawkins is no more interpreting God than any of the thousands of Christian denominations.

And he is basing his interpretation upon... what? Theological ignorance, which he proudly admits. That is the salient point.

Emptyness is what you get if you try to sum up the tenets of christian dogma without comprimising certain flavours in advance. It is the incompatability of christian denominations and flavours within them that mock up the place, not ignorance of its reviewers. How would you reconcile Schillebeekx with Anselm, Gregory of Nazianzus with George Fox, Willbur Fisk (who opposed abolitioners) with Hugh Price Hughes. In an environment where there is no final touchstone of reality, anything goes. If you claim that some advanced consistent and coherent god concept can be found in this mess, then please let me now. But one thing though, I will not wait for you to write the next conclusive and comprehensive work on the meaning of the god concept that requires the brilliance of an advanced atrophysicist to read but offers no verifiable statement regarding the plain reality we live in.

Instead of presenting clear evidence for their divine claims, they merely repeat Christian dogma and try to discredit the approach and person of Dawkins.

Non-sequitur. Presenting clear evidence for divine claims is irrelevant in a critique of Dawkins' claims.

Non-sequitur. To conclude that I thought it relevant in a critique of Dawkins' is missing the point. I was simply commenting on the attempts thusfar made by the vast army of apologetical authors to discredit Dawkins' TGD..

This is quite basic. The old trick on the burden of proof again.

It is not much of a trick. Dawkins shouldered the burden of proof and failed to meet it.

How did he shoulder the burden of proof? By staking the claim that belief in the existence of God is a delusion. Does he succeed at meeting this burden by assessing the state of evidence for belief in God, as you allude to? Absolutely not, because even if there is no evidence whatsoever for belief X, that does not prove it delusional. Remember, Dawkins affirmed—correctly—that a delusion is a false belief persistently held in the face of evidence that contradicts it. That is a very basic element of the definition: that the belief is false. "Not proven true" does not mean "proven false" (see argumentum ad ignorantiam). Yet proving that X is false is precisely what Dawkins' claim required of him.

Dawkins is not evaluating the claim of existence of god(s) as an issue seperated from any context or definition, he’s evaluating the proof for a god concept with specific characteristics. It is the belief in any definite god concept as a whole that his verdict is about. All such god concept are made up of multiple claims about characterics and capabilities of the god in question. To state that the belief in this god concept is delusional is legit when
a) there is strong evidence that contradicts a number (but not necessarily all) of claimed characteristics and capabilities of that god and
b) there is no positive evidence for remaining characteristics.

Dawkins is not required to give a rigorous deductional proof of non-existence when there is no direct evidence for his existence. IOW in the absence of hard positive evidence for existence or non-existence of specific gods, the label ‘delusional’ is valid when is shown that contradictory evidence of certain claimed characteristics of the god concept is disgarded by believers.

It pretty much compares to the claim that fairies exist. If fairies have no specific characteristics, i.e. they have no definition, then indeed there would be no ground to call the belief in fairies delusional. However if fairies are claimed to be macro-sized material entities with magical powers such as the capability of flight through walls and other material objects and appearance out of nowhere, then these definitional claims can be subjected to research. In the absence of verifiable evidence (i.e. validated pictures of fairies, live captures of fairies) in favour of the existence of these entities, disgarding evidence that contradicts the possibility of flight of material objects through walls indicates delusional belief.

Dawkins indeed shows this for a number of claims present in the mainstream god concept. To name a few:
The claim that the bible is the word of god and shows his impeccable moral
The claim that the bible is consistent throughout showing divine origin
The claim that god answers prayer
The claim that god's existence is traceable through the supposed irreducible complexity in nature
That there is evidence of god's purpose with man in nature (anthropic principle)

Requiring a higher standard of evidence will certainly keep away the delusional predicate from believers in gods and fairies, but disgards common sense arguments about the difference between special pleading and non-biased assessment of evidence. There is no direct evidence of god's existence and the claims of indirect evidence either are contradicted by clear evidence or bear the marks of cherry picking.

[Pippy]

Hey,

Kyu.

Er, I am expecting the VERY SAME standards for both .. try paying attention for once in your life Pip!

I think you are expecting opposing standards for each situation, that is why I said so. You accuse myself and others of being uninformed and having an invalid opinion because we do not read your precious 'science papers', that you never seem to name a publication. That makes the reading of 'accepted' science papers a catalyst for having a more valid point. That we do not have as valid a point on you on any scientific topic because we do not read 'papers'. Then you say your point is no invalidated by the failure to read theological 'papers'. It may not be invalidated by your lack of research, but you have set up a personal double standard. That it validates and informs to read science papers, but you need not read about theology, as it is more easy just too make it up.

That you don't have to read about theology, because you have dealt with it 'ad naseum by proxy', sounds like me saying I don't have to read science journals, because I live on earth (just not in latin). You said I couldn't know science except through your journals, so I forward that you can't know theology by proxy. I am on a different continent that you, have you been proxy to me before? To assume you know everyone based on a few is dangerous, foolish, lazy and a little ignorant. That is just what I think. Thank you.

-Pip

[Ryft]

This is preposterous. So the Christian world fills the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete ... [snip rest]

First, this has zero relevance to the point I made. An advanced course in X is needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of X. You can substitute X with nearly any subject (as I said, "such is the case for pretty much any subject"). Advanced courses are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of biology, of history, of mathematics, of literature, etc. Advanced courses in biochemistry are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of life's building blocks. In precisely the same way, advanced courses in theology are needed to comprehend the deeper meaning of God. This was supposed to be practically self-evident: to delve deeper into a thing requires advanced learning about that thing.

"We cannot all take advanced courses in this or that field," I said, "but that is why we rely on those who have. If I am going to speak about 'X', I had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter." Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

Second, anything children learn is incomplete, in virtue of them being still children. Third, Christianity has never pretended to be an all-encompassing discipline. Christianity does not teach Algebra, but then English Literature does not teach Biology. Would you rage against Geology for filling the heads of millions of children with information that is incomplete because it taught them only Geology?

You are rowing the boat upstream, my friend, for statistics show that higher education means lower rates of belief in the supernatural.

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

Second, that says something about what they are being educated with, and nothing about the supernatural (in the very least because their education likely had nothing to say about the supernatural). I should not be surprised that if someone is taught extensively about A, B, and C, but not a thing about D, they would exit their education affirming A, B, and C while demonstrating remarkable ignorance about D.

You suggest that there is a relation between the complexity of nature and the complexity of god

No, I didn't. I suggested that delving deeper into X requires advanced learning about X. At no point did I ever suggest that no matter what you substitute X with it will all be equally complex. Your apparent distate for anything that so much as smells like Christian theism is causing you to hallucinate, seeing arguments no one made. It is almost embarrassing to observe.

The God concept as invented by academic theology is not capable of explaining any detail of the complexity of nature at all. Nada, zilch, nope, nothing. There is not a shred of relevance, of all academic theologian effort, on questions still open in the study of nature. And that while ... [snip rest]

First, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I had made. See above.

Second, this is all true given your presuppositions. However, your presuppositions are not a given.

Emptiness is what you get if you try to sum up the tenets of Christian dogma without compromising certain ... [snip rest]

So my point stands unrefuted: Dawkins not only admits ignorance about theology in his writing about theological issues, he is proud of said ignorance. Furthermore, the fact that you seem unaware of Christian orthodoxy (i.e., theological tenets affirmed across every Christian tradition and denomination) merely testifies to your own theological ignorance. With my point unrefuted and your apparent ignorance exposed, there is not much left to say.

If you claim that some advanced consistent and coherent god concept can be found in this mess, then please let me know.

You are content to believe that none can be found. I feel no pressing need to disrupt that.

... the god concept that ... offers no verifiable statement regarding the plain reality we live in.

In order for a God concept to offer a "verifiable" statement regarding "the plain reality we live in," it would have to conform to the presuppositions of your worldview (e.g., what constitutes reality, verification criteria, etc.), which you have not provided, which likely preclude the supernatural even prior to investigation, and which I am given no reason whatever to accept as coherent in the first place.

To conclude that I thought it relevant in a critique of Dawkins' is missing the point. I was simply commenting on the attempts thusfar made by the vast army of apologetical authors to discredit Dawkins' The God Delusion.

First, if it was not relevant to critiques of Dawkins' claims, then it was... err, irrelevant. Excellent. Second, apologist authors discredit Dawkins' claims by evaluating Dawkins' claims. "Presenting clear evidence for divine claims," I said, "is irrelevant in a critique of Dawkins' claims." My point again stands unrefuted.

To state that the belief in this God concept is delusional is legit when (a) there is strong evidence that contradicts a number, but not necessarily all, of claimed characteristics and capabilities of that God and (b) there is no positive evidence for remaining characteristics.

I may have listed some of the fallacies he committed. And I may have mentioned something about Dawkins freely admitting ignorance with respect to theology. I suspect the former has a lot to do with the latter. At any rate, both are why "he does not present a single solitary piece of evidence that contradicts God-belief."

1. The claim that the bible is the word of god and shows his impeccable moral
2. The claim that the bible is consistent throughout showing divine origin
3. The claim that god answers prayer
4. The claim that god's existence is traceable through the supposed irreducible complexity in nature
5. That there is evidence of god's purpose with man in nature (anthropic principle)

Even granting these for the sake of argument,

1. An immoral Christian God does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
2. A partially divine Bible does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
3. Some unanswered prayers does not prove a non-existent Christian God.
4. Refuted ID arguments do not prove a non-existent Christian God.
5. Finding no divine purpose for man does a not prove non-existent Christian God.

Not one thing in his entire book accomplished its title and aim. But, again, that probably has a great deal to do with his ignorance in this arena. Like I said, if one is going to speak about 'X', one had better either have a sufficiently advanced education about it or rely on people who do. When it comes to speaking about God, Dawkins clearly had neither the former nor bothered to interact with the latter.

Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

[Dotard]

False. The Bible does not state anywhere that faith is "blind trust" in the absence of evidence, a "process of non-thinking" that is "evil." And the Bible does not state anywhere that God is petty, it does not state he is unjust, it does not state that he is sadomasochistic, etc.

The bible does not state God is petty, unjust, etc. true 'nuff. I wasn't claiming it literally claimed as such. Using the bibical stories and descriptions of this God's actions it is a reasonable conclusion.

The bible does not say "God is infancidal." It says God killed babies. A sane reasonable person can rightly conclude God is infancidal based upon his actions as described in the bible.

It's simples man.

[fr0d0]

Reading Dawkins on religion is like reading Ray Comfort on evolution.

Nabbed! (Hope you don't mind!)

Second, anything children learn is incomplete, in virtue of them being still children.

Isn't also the understanding of children able to be more complete than adults in the most important regards.

[Tiberius]

Typical, I spent 20 minutes writing a response to Pippy, and he completely ignores it.

[Pippy]

<sigh>

No, Adrian you are wrong. It is not at all typical, this is the first time I ended a conversation. Not long ago Padriac said he was done discussing a certain topic with me, and I tried to respect that. But so far on this forum, this is the very first example of me refusing to discuss anything with anyone. So I do not think that makes it in any way typical. You are still being petty and far from rational, as well as still not making any valid point about the conversation at hand.

At the very beginning, you should have responded to my question about anyone else's thoughts on the 'weasel experiment' with your thoughts on the 'weasel experiment'. You could be almost as rude as you want if you actually took part in the conversation. But your post was very clear. You stated nothing about your opinion on the test, and not much at all about your opinion of my opinion of the test. You just took a flimsy little jab. It did not connect. And so, in light of your rudeness coupled with your absolute (at the point) lack of participation in constructive conversation (other than name-calling, which is all about constructing adjectives and adverbs...) led me to react as I did. Your arguments did not get much better from there, so here we are now.

I don't feel that I am playing the victim, but that I am trying to disallow you to victimize me.

Please, make a valid point. About anything. I've seen you do it many times. I would love to talk about it. But just sit there and try to pick on me, and of course I'm gonna push back, and soon walk away. This, as you were kind enough to remind me, is a discussion forum.

I don't want to post this, I just want to re-write it to only include my argument against calling my conduct 'typical', but I will say it all. I am sorry things went like this.

Oh yeah, this counts because we are not talking about weasels anymore...
Don't let me bother you, remind yourself that I am not as cool and smart and good looking as you. I know absolutely nothing about unix code.
Thank you,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

You may not feel like you are playing the victim, but you are.

It is not discussion to say "your arguments did not get much better". You cannot make that point and think it actually counts for something. If you think my arguments are bad, explain why my arguments are bad. You are not helping anyone here.

As for making a valid point, let's try this again:

---

---

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:

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.

---

---

Now respond, either tell me why my arguments are bad, or just discuss them generally. I do not mind. What I do mind is you simply discarding everything I said for another chance to play the victim.