Slashdot Mirror
Calculating God
The Scenario
In a nutshell, Calculating God is the story of paleontologist Thomas Jericho's encounter with two alien species which visit earth, and which reveal that the cataclysmic events that shaped Earth's evolution (meteor impact, mass extinctions, etc.) all happened simultaneously on their home planets as well. Both aliens have come to the conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed to support life, and that God the Creator is the direct cause of all these cataclysms. Those shattering events, they believe, led to the development of intelligence. Jericho, an atheist, is forced to come to grips with the aliens' undoubtedly superior scientific knowledge and their theistic conclusions at the same time he is diagnosed with cancer which the aliens are unable to cure despite their technology. Meanwhile, the imminent death of a nearby star threatens to wipe out all life on Earth and all the aliens' home-worlds in a supernova. Will it take a miracle to save them all, or is this a divinely ordered cataclysm?
What's Bad?Most of the touchy issues concerning evolution and intelligent design were handled very fairly. However, I still believe that the two extreme fundamentalists (from Arkansas, no less) are caricatures and stereotypes rather than genuine religious extremists. Being a somewhat liberal evangelical Christian, I personally know quite a few people who can be fairly characterized as religious extremists -- and they definitely would not take the actions that the book's characters take. So the subplot concerning them is weak.
I was also somewhat put off by the breezy, colloquial writing style, which included numerous pop-culture references. While this style made the book fun and easy to read, it will also date this book considerably in the years to come, and books with ideas of the high caliber presented here ought not to date themselves so quickly. Other religiously themed SF books, like Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and Walter M. Miller Jr.'s A Canticle For Leibowitz will stand better through time than this novel, filled with Twilight Zone, South Park, and Star Trek references. That's a shame. Sawyer has a unique take on these issues, and this book ought to stand for a long time to come as a great contribution to both SF and the intelligent-design debate.
Neither of these flaws takes too much away from the enjoyment of the book, however.
What's Good?Plenty. First and foremost, this book is a novel of ideas, and the ideas are potentially explosive. Sawyer handles them fairly, though those committed to a naturalistic viewpoint may think he concedes too much to the intelligent design side, while young-earth creationists and others will not like his somewhat unorthodox views of what the Creator is like. He explains arguments on both sides very clearly and completely, usually through the debates that Thomas Jericho (the unbeliever) and Hollus (the alien believer) constantly have over the existence of God. Those of you who are interested in the arguments developed in the book would do well to check out not only Dawkins and Gould but also Michael Behe, whom I believe is the main source for the intelligent-design material; Sawyer even cites his book by name inside the novel.
This book would be boring, however, if it contained nothing more than debates between two characters about science and religion, which is why Sawyer adds a personal, tragic element to the story in the form of Thomas's terminal lung cancer, contracted from breathing in dust during his paleontological studies. The ideas he debates about God, the meaning of life, and morality thus take on a brutally personal dimension and are not merely abstract mind-games; one chapter that describes his anguish over his impending death is particularly convincing (though the mood does spill over into sheer melodrama at times). Thomas has a wife and a young adopted son, and to leave them behind in death is almost more than he can bear. What happens to his beliefs and his outlook in life by the novel's end is probably the most realistic outcome I've seen in books of this sort. (No, I'm not telling you what it is. It's a major spoiler ...)
So What's In It For Me?This book, though it is by one of Canada's foremost science fiction writers (Sawyer also wrote the Hugo-nominated novel Factoring Humanity) with impeccable hard SF credentials, is sure to cause some controversy here on Slashdot -- but you should read it as an example of how even explosive issues can be handled in a civil, fair and enlightening way. This book may not be destined to be a classic of the genre, but it still stands a chance to help Sawyer finally earn his well-deserved Hugo.
Purchase this book at Fatbrain.
The answer is... forty-two!
There's a couple of problems with this:
I just read the same book. The jacket summary seemed really interesting and the book was very good--but the former didn't really describe the latter.
I also thought the "fundies" were a little overdone, especially since they didn't really contribute to the climax. On the other hand, the author is from Canada: if all you know of these whackos is what you read in the papers, the characters seem realistic.
I thought the biggest flaw in the book was the ending which was a little...overused. Personally I liked the pop-culture references, especially since they are VERY recent (some of them from late 1999).
Based on "Calculating God", I also read "Illegal Alien" by the same author. His previous work as a crime novelist (which I haven't read) really shows through: An alien is accused of murder. The book reads like Perry Mason meets E.T. Highly recommended although again, the ending is slightly weak.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I still believe that the two extreme fundamentalists (from Arkansas, no less) are
caricatures and stereotypes rather than genuine
religious extremists.
The really great thing about most of the fundies I've met is that they ARE charicatures of an Xtian fundamentalist.
Being a fundamentalist Xtian, in the cases I'm familiar with, involves adherance to doctrine - and the sterotype of a fundie is someone who blindly obeys said doctrines.
I haven't read the book, but I don't see any problems at all with that particular characterization.
Being a somewhat liberal evangelical Christian, I personally know quite a few people who can be fairly characterized as religious extremists -- and they definitely would not take the actions that the book's characters take. So the subplot concerning them is weak.
Heh.. this just makes me giggle.
--
blue, slashdotting for spirituality without religion.
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
One thing I love about SF, be it hard or soft, is that you can explore a lot of different themes - and I'm glad to see theological questions explored as well, and it sounds like the book is well written.
It's nice to see SF that DOESN'T play it safe. I'd like to see more hard-bitten, go-for-the-gut, what's-it-all-about SF, hard or light.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Buy your books from www.elgrande.com they're cheaper than almost any other place. Just find your book on amazon.com or something, then take the ISBN number and search for it in elgrande. Calculating God's ISBN number is 0312867131 so just do an advanced search for it on elgrande.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Doesn't it seem that these debates alwats center around "God or 'The Gods' is just an explanation of things not understood by a primative people that needed an answer to the question why".
I don't think the concepts of science and God need to be mutually exclusive. The Sentiment that God created everything does not have to mean that he waved his hand and POOF, we had life. All things need a way of working out and a way of developing. The concept of God setting the wheels in motion, defining the rules to it all (science), and guiding the progress is just as likely as life just spontaneously formulating out of a bunch of amino acids hanging out together on the lava rock.
Many things are difficult to explain. Try being a guy and explaining women, or vice versa. Personally, I think only God could do it!
While I like reading sci fi with intelectual charecters, I rarely get any philosophical insights out of them that aren't better enjoyed as raw philosophical discussion.
IMHO of course, and it could be a fun read just for the plot.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
I heard a while ago the reason was that he wanted a regular, largish number, looked out the window, thought "Forty two" and that was that.
Here's a quote from Douglas Adams, On god, By the way:
"I don't beleive there is a God. I don't say 'I dont beleive in God' because that implies there is a God for me not to beleive in."
He said it on a TV interview on the canadian Space Channel, during a special called "Originals from Space"
----
Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
God, root, what's the difference?
We are near to become God. Except for one thing. God is good, or at least so it is said. And we are by no means good.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
My question requires a little explination first.
One hurdle that must be cleared when discussing these issues is the language barrier. While I cannot speak for everyone, my experiences involve this:
Logic places strict definitions and requirements on words in the English language, elements which may not be as stringent in everyday life. The concepts of knowledge, truth, reasoning are good examples.
I, as a person who views religion through the glasses of a scientist evaluating a theory, see no compelling evidence for any of the major religions. This is not the say there is no God; there very we may be. I just have no knowledge of his existence, and therefor do not assume it. I draw my fundimentals about the universe through logic and science, methods which have long proven histories of successfully uncovering mysteries of our universe. Because of this, when I speak I speak according to the rules of the system; mainly I talk under the stringent definition of logic.
When discussing (using the strict definitions) complex issues with individuals of a less logistic background, I make concessions required by logic such as "yes, we don't know everything about the universe and therefor cannot disprove your 'theory' when your 'theory' does not make any measurable claims about the universe." These "concessions," while valid in the extreme, are then canabilized and used to "explain" why science in whole should be scraped and we should all take a literal view of King James.
This lack of common definitions eventually boils down even the best discussions to a game of semantics, and is one reason why I am not as inclined as I used to be to talk about religion.
So my question is this:
How does the book deal with the issue of logic? Do both characters obey the strict definitions? Do they both avoid them? Does man A become annoyed at man B because he's not playing fair logic? Are the differences exploited by the author to advance his own viewpoint?
Are there any books that fairly deal with this issue?
What do you think?
http://kered.org
Label that being as "God."
QED
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
No, no, no... The equation is 'pie are square'. Thus, clearly, God != pi. Pi is a subset of God. :)
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
In St. Thomas Aqunias' Summa Theologica, he outlines one of the "proofs" that god exists as a principle called "Order and Design".
He says that the order and design behind nature points to a sentient force creating it with a structure in mind.
This structure can be expressed in mathematics. (Mathematics is the language of nature... nature... 1.. 1.. 2... 3.... 5... 8...)
Viewed in this context, "unexplainable" things detract from the "proof" of existence of god. Unless of course you believe that the abnormalities are either
1) actually part of the pattern created, and we just cant see how yet.
2) Intervention by god (miracles)
However, if the chaotic events are just random, with no order or meaning, and you use this to dispell the notion of God, then you have fallen into Descarte's world, and cant prove anything outside of your own mind, because there is no certainty of anything.
... hi bingo
David Hume, a Scot philosopher who lived in the 18th century, basically said that "no matter what I see or what you tell me, I could never believe in a miracle, because it is totally contrary to my normal experience". This idea has been picked up by a lot of people who avow a pseudo-scientific "faith" that requires atheism. The best you can do with this is a kind of deism. (Deism is the belief in a "clockmaker God", who created the world and then left it to run its course.)
But what if you did see such complete evidence for the miraculous that you MUST suppose it actually happened? Would Hume or his successors suppose that they had lost their mind before they conceeded a miracle?
Anyway, it sounds like these are the topics that this book explores. I look forward to reading it.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
OK, I haven't read the book, but from the reviewer's mention of Behe, I'm assuming it appeals to his argument from irreducible complexity of biologicl systems. The gist of the argument is that a biological system that is sufficiently complex enough in Behe's sense cannot have evolved into its present state. Therefore, we have evidence for an intelligent designer. It is amazing that seemingly rational people can make a leap from something that science is (currently) unable to explain, to something that is unexplainable in principle, namely god, as the explanation. Positing god doesn't "explain" anything at all. It simply ends all discussion of how things happen by claiming that god did it. (And don't ask where god came from.) Reminds me of that old cartoon of the two mathematicians standing in front of a blackboard full of equations done by one of them. In the center of the board are the words "and then a miracle occured" and the mathematics continues on. The one mathematician is saying to the other, "I think you need to be a bit more explicit here."
1 word: autotheism.. no time to explain now, have to catch my ride.. it comers down to: everyone is god for him/herself..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I agree, especially with your second point, and it's really been pissing me off in fact, that amongst the general public there is this passive assumption about god.
I think there are too many people who probably wouldn't admit to being religeous, yet come up with this stuff whenever they have a problem. The sad part is that it's usually a deep and serious problem, like a death in the family, that brings back the god thing.
Gods are *not* the only solution to what you don't know! There is a whole world out there on the horizon that we don't know about, and yes, it is confusing, and it can look like magic, but even magic isn't everything, or to paraphrase as you have done: whatever it is you don't understand is not reason for a god. If I were a god I would probably be offended to be seen in such a limited way: the thing you don't understand is just one small part of all of this world.
To try and explain better, look at the example of a web page: you might have a designer, who might write the site in a certain way, and plan the site's ending for a certain date, but that designer also has a life, and a home to go to, and a host of other things, each of which *also* make that person unique.
Similarly, the designer might one day decide to shut down the web site, but the users will just go on and make another, if the content is good enough, so even the designer loses control over it all.
GOd based stuff is like microsoft.com: they decide what goes up & down and you can't change it. I'd rather be like slashdot.org: you can change anything you want about the site (or even more in themes.org!), and if they one day sadly close, you can make your own!
It's the same with all this. If you really believe in god then understand that gods need all the help they can get, so please go out and do your bit for the world: be strong and creative and believe in what you can contribute, but it's *not* about gods! They are just designers.
You, the observer are the person who is responsible for the things you see and can't explain, or for the problems and good things in your life: not someone else! I wish all these people who turn to god in hard moments could understand this. Even christianity teaches something like this: help to those who help themselves. Well, it's more than that. You won't get help from anyone BUT yourself. It's when you take responsibility for your world that you become like a god yourself!
With this responsibility comes a good side though: you decide where to go to from here.
Any serious comments on this, please write me directly: I feel very strongly about this, but there's not enough space to explain it all here.
The problem is that, depending on the kind of god you postulate, Occam's Razor does a fairly neat job of eliminating all the evidence for that god. What's left is generally a god that is so watered down that it pretty much can be ignored.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
I went to a Behe lecture at U of Delaware a while back. Very interesting.
For those of you interested Behe is a biochemist who examined basic cellular functions. His belief and book on intelligent design (called Darwin's Black Box) was derived from his research.
The basic idea is that while macroscopic evolution works, biochemical evolution is a lot sketchier. This is a problem since you need biochemical evolution before you can even get to the standard evolution we've all grow up with. I.e. for the eye to evolve you need a cell sensitive to light which is not an easy thing biochemically.
Basically his conclusion is that many biochemical functions require a lot of unique biochemical parts (lets say more than ten different complex molecules). If one part is removed (which is done in lab rats by playing with their genes) the process stops working completely. This means that these functions cannot gradually evolve from a less functional form (as Darwin postulated but did not prove) but have to simply appear at much higher improbability.
He then compares biology to a mouse trap. A mouse trap needs all its parts to work and was made not evolved. Likewise blood clotting needs all its biochemical parts to work, so it was most likely made not evolved.
Anyway thats the gist of his work. I hope this is on topic an not treated like flame bait.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
What he meant by implying that god was interchangable with magic in this quote is this: In a world with primitive technology, a person with sufficiently advanced technology will be godlike. Think about it! What would people in the stone-age say about you if you had a paraglider, a rifle (with ammo, to shoot animals with) and a box of matches? You would be godlike to them, because you can kill things at a distance by pointing at them with a stick and go 'boom' (Sounds a lot like Zeus striking people down with lightning, doesn't it?). You can fly (on a good day
You would probably be seen more as a great sorcerer with a special connection to that society's existing gods than as a god yourself. Think about it again. You carry around this powerful staff made of an unkown material that is unlike any other, cold and smooth to the touch. Why the god's must have forged it and given it to you as a sign of their favor! They have also given you wings of cloth and tiny fire sticks. If we make you our king, the god's will bestow more of these goodies upon all of us.
Does this
Wrong! According to the Bible God Himself defines pi to be exactly 3.0... a whole, positive integer. Don't believe me? Check out 2 Chr.4:2 and 1 Kg.7:23 and do the "math"
2 1337 4 u!
But as I mentioned in a previous post it's not only about unlikely events. It is also about design parameters, what makes x a designed object and y not a random object. For example, the light-sensitive structure of the eye is irreducibly complex, it could not have come about via small single steps or it would not function. Behe uses the illustration of a mouse trap. Take one piece away and you don't have a mouse trap anymore. So we have future usefulness rather then past usefulness. Very intriguing.
Sorry, but you are wrong about the eye. There are examples of creatures with "eyes" of all sorts from single light-sensitive cells, right up to complex eyes and all the steps in between. The eye is clearly not "irreducibly complex" because all the intermediate steps also exist in nature.
This is a very old saw that the "Intelligent Design" community persist in trotting out. The fact that it is demonstrably false only shows that you ID folks really ought to try to understand scientific rationality if you want to argue against it.
Sailing over the event horizon
The point I was trying to make is that naturalism IS an assumption. Ultimately, given enough evidence "God spoke and BANG it happened" is an adequate explanation. The problem people face is that they have not SEEN that mode of operation in a direct, tangible way.
The successors of David Hume would deny that such proof is ever possible. I think it is possible, and have even seen it on a small scale.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Those who are serious about "calculating god" might try starting with the work on the combinatorial heirarchy. A good discussion of the combinatorial heirarchy is given by the inventor of bit-string physics, Pierre Noyes, in this paper.
Seastead this.
...it's a symbol without a referent.
Nobody can talk about God because nobody can point to a thing and say "There! That's God, that's exactly what God is! That's what I'm talking about."
Instead you get a lot of self-contradictory and logically flawed babble.
To make it worse, terribly few people seem equipped to argue semantics.
Most people think questions like "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" are facetious, when they get to the heart of what "God" means.
For example, the above question is about the definition of omnipotent. Would a thing you call "God" have absolute power over himself, the power to abandon omnipotence by making a thing greater than himself, or just absolute power over the physical universe we observe, him not being in or of the "universe" proper.
If what you speak of as "God" is of the physical universe, could an extremely powerful alien with advanced technology be "God"? How about an extremely powerful alien who created the universe and holds it in a container on his "shelf", like we might keep an ant farm?
Is "God" the anthromorphisation of the effects of religion?
There are a whole pile of these questions, and if you can't answer them, even you don't know what you're referring to when you say "God". Devout believers of different religions, agnostics, and atheists arguing with each other might all hold the same view, but just be talking about completely different things.
I do think that two important pieces of the argument from design are being left out in your summary. The first is that objects that appear to be designed do imply some sort of designer.
Nonsense. What about the "face on Mars" picture? This was an image from the Viking orbiter that looked remarkably like a carved face on the surface of Mare. To some, it even looked like the face of Christ! It had to be designed, right? It sure looked like it - even to me. By your argument, it therefore must have been designed.
Of course, when the Mars pathfinder probe flew over the same spot a few years later, and photographed the same region, it became clear that the particular angle of the light that had caused a random jumble of rocks to look like a face.
The second is whether that designer needs to be some sort of deity. The complexity of life does imply that there is some sort of design process at work.
Again, no. There are lots of examples of extremley complex systems that arise out of random formation processes, without any form of designer. I strongly suggest you study Chaos Theory, and Emergent Systems Theory, especially how Neural Nets work. A complex system does not imply a designer.
Which isn't to say all complex systems lack designers, just that complexity is not in itself any indication of the process that formed the system.
Sailing over the event horizon
On the evolution front, I'm curious as to what would be considered "conclusive evidence"? It seems to me that anti-evolution forces have skewed our definition of that to serve their own ends.
1. Evolution is different than natural selection. We see evolution all around us as a result of livestock husbandry. That is not natural selection however (unless we consider a farmer a force of nature...) Evolution is demonstrable, repeatable and falsifiable and is demonstrated every damn day.
2. Natural selection is pretty much conclusively proved. Fossil records, genetic diversity between populations of the same species yatta yatta. It's massively documented. The "missing link" argument of creationists is specious (no pun intended) at best. There will always be a missing link. The missing link in the set {1,2,3} is 2.5... in {1,2,2.5,3} it's 2.75... ad infinitum. There is more evidence for natural selection than there is for black holes...
3. The bible makes a lot of claims about the natural world that are patently false. I would gladly let creationists teach in classrooms if they can show my an insect that has four feet (Leviticus 11:22-23).
Ultimately, if you have enough faith you can believe anything you want... it just doesn't necessarily make it true. If you're really doing the "working through" thing, I would suggest Sagan's Demon Haunted Wordl and, of course, the bible... although I'd keep a copy of Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible handy while reading it.
2 1337 4 u!
You are response has absolutely nothing to do with my post. You saw the word "eye" in my post and assumed I was talking about the fully formed eye creationist argument. That is not the ID contention.
Yes, you are right, I did misread the original post. Please accept my apologies for that. By the way, if you don't believe that the fully-formed eye is an ID contention, you perhaps ought to read more ID literature. Its the most common ID contention I can find (try searching for it on google.com)
My post centered on the light sensitive spot which is irreducibly complex and has no precursor, but even the fully formed eyes of all kinds do not have not one precursor as well, but that is a different topic.
Sorry, but I disagree with that last statement. Fully formed eyes have many thousands of precursors. This is actually the heart of the matter, not a "different topic". You make the claim that the light-sensing structures in the eye are "irreducibly complex" but I am explaining that there are many examples of related but simpler light-sensing structures in other creatures.
When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. It goes on and on like this. It fulfills the definition of irreducible complexity, and a challenge from Darwin himself:
I am not arguing that the eye is not an amazing and complex structure. But if you want to argue this is an example of "irreducible complexity" you had better define that term, because there is no reason to believe that the eye is irreducibly complex. In fact, all the evidence points the other way, that there is a clear chain of increasing complexity in the formation of eye cell structures.
From everything you have said here (I'm sure you actually have better arguments), you are confusing "complex" with "irreducibly complex".
Sailing over the event horizon
First part yes, second part no. The argument against is called the Strong Anthropic Principle, which basically states if the 'settings' of the universe were not such as to be able to support life, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus, since we ARE here to observe it, the 'settings' are within those to support life. If you have an infinitely repeating series of universes, each with different settings, you will have one universe in which our kind of life can exist, so we are here to observe it. No designer necessary.
A that a creator can not be inside or part of His creation, it logically stands to reason that He is outside of it.
This argument completely obliterates the possiblity of an interventionist god.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
... but I kept getting this stupid 216-digit error that crashed my computer. 1:39 pm, restate my assumptions: ...
... gotta go.
1. Mathematics is the language of nature
2. Everything in nature can be understood through numbers.
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.
4. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature
Oh crap, I've got another headache coming on
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Man, this irks me when I see it. When I tell people that I'm an atheist, I sometimes get the reaction, "So, you could go on a killing spree anytime, right?"
It always makes me wonder about the people who ask such questions. Do they really wake up in the morning and think, "Gosh, what a beautiful day! I think I'll go out and fire a machine gun into a crowd! Oops... God says I can't do that. Darn. Oh, well, guess I'll go fishing instead."
I enjoy playing with this computer that I could never have produced from raw materials, and living in a house I could not have built by myself, listening to music I could not have performed myself, eating food I couldn't have gathered and prepared myself, etc.
Cooperation is in our best interest. I am ethical and moral, people are ethical and moral, because the alternative is running naked in the woods fighting over scraps of food.
Sure, there are people who cheat and lie and steal and kill. But the benefits of cooperation are so obvious that we've managed to hold it together and even improve our understanding of morality anyway.
Needless to say, I don't agree that society would never have progressed without "the morality imposed by Christianity."
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Secular non-profits don't pay taxes either
Greenpeace had their tax status removed in '87. Just one example. Furthermore, I find it curious as to why Churches are granted such status...
Also from the I'm-too-lazy-to-go-look-for-more-than-one-example file is this bit about the recent baptist convention and their decision to not hire women as pastors. If I publicly announced on cnn that I refused to hire women for my business (or nonprofit) just because they were women... well, that wouldn't go over too well. This example is by denomonation, however it is the largest protestent denomination in the US and the Catholics have a similar stand (ms. O'Connor is involved with a splinter group, unrecognized by the vatican)
2 1337 4 u!
To me, that sounds like a definition of "God" that is nothing but another name for what is described by physics, or, in other words, the universe itself.
Or maybe you've just been watching too much Star Wars ("'God'...is defined...as...THE force..."). ^_^
So be it, it's still on topic, and the heathens here who will still get it.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
This book sounds a bit like it was designed to catter to serious christians. I think most Atheists reactions to Aliens with convincing evidence which said there was a god would be "Ok, I'm curious lets figure this out." Also, Aliens with more advance technology whic could convince an Atheists her that there was a god, would probable not have made the leap of logic to assume that there was some kind of after life, i.e. planets getting hit with metiors simultaniously dose not imply after life period, it implies a big alien race which is wiping out the big stupid animals so that smaller intelegent animals will evolve.
A technical point of bad research on the authors part: I think some palentologists believe that extinction of the dinosaurs slowed the development of intelegent life since some of the small dinosaurs were well on their way to becomming intelegent.
Finally, the coolest lets thing about god books were the ons writen by Frank Herbert. There were several of these books where people created a god for some purpose or another. There was a god one about an AI becoming god and another good one about the psychological effects that a person when through as he became a god.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I think all of these posts would be referring to the Abrahamic tradition of God (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity). Greek, Hindu, and Buddhist concepts of gods in the plural have very little to do with that idea; they were imperfect, subject to the same foibles as humans, and in the case of Buddhist and Hindu gods, mortal (albeit with wicked long lifespans). Western philosophy tends to deal with the issue of divinity as it relates to the monotheistic "perfect God" idea of the Abrahamic traditions because, well, it's Western. Not true for Plato, of course, who was in the Greek polytheistic environment, but for all the more modern Western thinkers, polytheism and fallible divinity are at right angles to their reason, and tend to throw the whole thing into disaray.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Logic is good. Science is good. I use and respect both. Both are very good at what they do. What neither do is answer (or even try to answer) all of the questions that need to be addressed in order to live "the good life".
For example, there is a whole field of study called "ethics": dealing with "right" and "wrong", what people should do, what choices they should make, etc. The answers to these questions are quite important in living our daily life and living it well. Science doesn't address these questions. It doesn't attempt to. I'm not saying it should. But that doesn't make them any less important. We shouldn't go through our lives saying "I don't know if what I'm doing is right or wrong and I don't care. I have no scientific method of answering the question, so I'll just ignore it." (At least I don't think we should - it's an ethical judgement I'm making. :->)
Similarly, there is more to a good life than logic (as Spock and Data remind us). We don't use logic to love or enjoy a beautiful sunset. That doesn't lessen the worth of love or of the enjoyment of a beautiful sunset.
Theology may be a study, like ethics, for which the scientific method is not the most appropriate tool. If so, to judge a theological book on how well it used the scientific method would not be logical. Similarly, for many people religion is (like love) something that they don't pursue logically. It doesn't make it any less valuable a part of their life.
Personally. I love getting into long philosophical debates about theology and ethics, debates where logic and empirical evidence play a large role. I know I won't end up with provable answers but the process is intellectually stimulating and helps me to understand and refine my position on some of life's most important questions. I'm glad Science isn't my only tool for answering questions because then I wouldn't even see some of the most important ones.
Or so it seems to me. YMMV, of course.
Respectfully, David Tallan
>A tenet of Christainity is that "proof denies faith" and Pope JPII recently called apon young people to follow the Path of Faith, rather than the path of Reason, because it was deceptive.
I find it disturbing that many christians unfortunately do believe this. I'm a Christian, and I most certainly do not. A few weeks ago while googling around, I found this orginization and was plesently suprised to see that I'm not alone. From their mission statement (please forgive me for quoting a stinkin' mission statement :-) :
The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.
Interstingly enough, their founder became a Christian from studying science.
Be sure to check out this group's interesting article on string theory and Christianity.
It isn't necessary to "...surrender [your] personality to the political and social programs fostered by churches..." in order to be a Christian. To the contrary, my faith is frequently stregenthened by science, and in some cases "pseudo-science" that jumps through hoops in order to get around the idea of an intelligent creator. Faith does indeed require belief in things that can't be proven, but then again, the same is required to believe that the universe "just happened" (which is why many quantum physicsts at least believe in some sort of pantheistic notion of god.)
According to Douglas Adams it should read : "We are sorry for the inconvenience
Seriously, history shows that mixing theology and science is not a good idea ... as finally even Catholic Church is admitting (600 years later).
Ciao
----
FB
First of all, you mean all-powerful.
Now that the semantic issue is done, God can't lift a stone. "He" doesn't exist in a form capable of lifting the stone. Indeed, to modify a famous quote by the late great St. Augestine, weight is a property of the universe God created.
The actual quote is in response to the question, "What was God doing before he created the Universe?" His answer was that time is a property of the universe God created, and has no meaning outside of it. (According to physics, that's true.)
Thiesm == God interferes with the universe
Diesm == God created the universe but cannot/does not interfere with it
The correct statement is "this is more diestic than I would have exected from Sagan". Sagan did not preclude Diesm, he just felt that there was no proof of a Diestic god. That's why he was an agnostic.
A rational conclusion, not the only rational conclusion. Another rational conclusion could be that life is very robust, and that it can appear and survive to self-awareness in much harsher conditions than you are willing to give credit.
Further, the strong anthropic principle still stands. Your contrived firing squad example does nothing to discount it.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Significant figures. Pi is defined, in that context, to be 3, not 3.0, or 3.00. And 3 it is, to one significant figure.
This isn't religion, this is basic engineering. A circle's circumference is three times its diameter.
Welcome to rough numbers. It's not expected to be precise. For crying out loud, it was in *cubits* last I checked.
I'm not saying everything there is literally true, but you have to be pretty wacky to ignore the decimal points.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
While I have not read or heard anything about Behe's work, the discussion here sounds like age old theological discussion to me.
I cannot speak for Christian theology. I am specialized in Indian philosophy.
There was certain period in the history of Indian philosophy when the existence of God was a popular topic. Each school was devided into two major schools--One posits the existence of God, and the other who denies.
The Behe's argument sounds almost like one famous proof of God. The proof goes like this: Everything that has a design implies an existence of intelligent being. The universe has a design. Therefore the universe has an intelligent creator.
Although the formal proof in Indian philosophy is not quite the same as that of the West (it requires examples as a part of syllogism.), the above should represent what it is expected to prove. (Also there are variations of the logic.)
Interesting part in relation to your last question is that Indian theologists, at least some, including Sankara, did not think it necessary to distinguish ``intelligent'' from ``deity.''
In a nutshell, the philosophy of Sankara claims that God is pure intellignece (Brahman/Isvara/Cinmatra). He did not even distinguish individual intelligence (Atman/Antaryamin) found in us (if we have any) from the intelligence that is the source/cause of the universe.
There is a text ascribed to Sankara although some think it is not authentic. I think it is quite likely that the text was his own for various reasons. The text contains about 50 syllogisms to prove an intelligent and personal cause of the universe. Some of them and the presentation, I think, is flawed, but still interesting and powerful.
Furthermore, there is another text written by a Sankara's contemporary that argues aginst those proofs. One argument is that the intelligence that created things that seem to imply a designer does not have to be one. Each thing can have different intelligence behind it. At this point it becomes to seem the problem of faith. If one wants to be theistic, that person will say it has to be one.
I find it interesting that the arguments already recorded something like 1300 years ago keep coming back with new clothes. There are more in Indian philosophy than just Nirvana and Karma.
--
kengo
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either. It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer. It doesn't matter that more facts are still being uncovered, or that the line between knowledge and 'I don't know' has shifted dramatically over time, meaning that the locations where the answer 'god did it' worked have shifted as well. For a philosophy that claims to have an absolute answer, this shift is not good evidence for a particular claim of enlightenment.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored. One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe. Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
...to the practical, for a moment.
For information about Robert Sawyer and his works, including samples (several short stories and selections from novels), visit his site.
I'd strongly recommend his work to anyone looking for intelligently written SF. He really seems to take the time to understand the science he writes about; a refreshing change from the usual treknology and handwaving.
Drinking will help us plan!
This thread is about how we can't meaningfully use the word "God". Listen to yourself, do you really think you've communicated anything at all to me? This is why religious wars happen.
I know what you mean, but strictly speaking it's not a valid statement.
You cannot be a scientist and a Christian at the same time. The "scientist" is not a scientist unless he applies the scientific method to his subject matter, which cannot be done to religious subjects, and the "Christian" deals in faith, which is not within the realm of discourse of science. The two cannot meet and apply validly at the same time.
When they do meet in one person (and you're definitely not on your own in that), then it is because both the scientist and the Christian have sacrificed strict consistency within their respective disciplines in order to be able to live together at the same address. It's a very common human compromise, but hopelessly invalid in any strong sense.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Why would they believe that this person recieved this item from the Gods? Why would they not believe he made it himself?
Two words: graven images, the people you visit might have some strong ideas about how their gods are supposed to look. And they might not look like you. But if you show up toting all these magical items, they will probably accept that you were chosen by them to carry all of these goodies.
I simply believe that my alternate view is more likely given the way it was framed. You look less like a god and more like a wizard if you are wielding magical objects. Now if we had the technology to embed an anti-gravity generator in your abdomen and a taser in your wrist, you would appear truly god-like since your powers are not linked to any external object.
Does this
>transcendentally powerful being exists
Which wouldn't proove the existance of God in any event.
It's a simple correlation of Clarke's Law, which states:
"Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
to apply it to read:
"Any being wielding sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a god"
We've all seen that episode where the crew of the Enterprise meets "Apollo". yes?
Or perhaps the episode of TNG where Picard foils "The Devil"?
But, okay, let's get away from science fiction. There *ARE* examples from "real life".
Wasn't it Columbus who claimed to some of the carribe islanders that he could talk to God? I read a story somewhere where Columbus was trying to bully the natives into giving up supplies for the trip home. They, of course, told him to get stuffed. Well, Chris just went back to his ship and found that there would just HAPPEN to be a solar eclipse the next day. So he went back to the natives and told him that if they didn't cough up the supplies, he'd have God take away the sun. They laughed. Along came the moon, blocking the sun, which convinced the locals to give in to Columbus' demands. And he promptly went back to the ship, told "God" to bring back the sun, and lo and behold.... here comes the sun, in it's full former glory.
Cortez, too, posed as a God. This time, when he contacted the Aztecs. Seems that they had a ledgend about an albino, four-legged god. Well, Cortez, by lucky coincidence, just HAPPENED to have horses (which were not native (and thus, unknown) to the americas) back on the ship... Couple that with European armour, and gunpowder "lightning sticks" and Cortez made a pretty good four legged albino god... long enough to concur the Aztecs anyway.
Or how about the south pacific "Cargo Cults" of post-WWII fame?
Those are just from the yop of my head. Anyone know more?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
Science is based on the belief that the world can be understood by humanity.
You're totally wrong. Science doesn't make any attempt whatsoever to understand the world, because it does not have the tools to do so. All it does is to create models that yield testable predictions, and then to test the behaviour of reality by direct physical probing to see if the provoked response is anywhere close to the predicted one. If there is a good match then the model is said to be consistent with reality, but that does not mean that reality is anything like the model at all. We have no means of determining that, because we have no way of looking inside reality, but only of testing her behaviour from the outside.
And that's why the scientific method is so powerful. A model can look like X at one point in time and like Y at another, and no scientist cares a damn as long as the models yielded predictions that were usefully close to how reality responded to the test probes at each point in time. That's why progress is so rapid in Science: old dogma can be thrown away with impunity. We could never do that if we thought for an instant that the structure of a model truly depicts the actual structure of reality --- we couldn't throw away The Truth! Not a cat's chance in hell of that happening though, especially considering that a lot of Science's models are riddled with holes. But that doesn't matter --- as long as the predictions are close enough then we can make use of them and get reality to work for us in our TVs and microwave ovens. But that doesn't mean that we have any idea at all what reality really looks like inside.
Admittedly sometimes we talk about what goes on in models as if we're talking about reality herself, but that's just shorthand. No genuine scientist that is true to the scientific method would claim otherwise. Unfortunately there are a few quacks around, and a few that have forgotten the fundamental premises of their discipline, but that's true in any sphere of endeavour.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If you don't like this, then you need to get into the debate of freedom of religion. Should Christians be allowed the free exercise of religion?
I, of course, agree with the free practice of religion. But that doesn't mean the practice of religion for free. I'm free to leave the country, but I have to pay for my plane ticket, and pay airport tax on it as well. NB. it is only because of the separation of church and state that freedom of religion exists at all.... a fast look at history has shown that when Xian theology has dominated the political sphere the freedom to be anything but a Xian (usually of a certain denomination) was severely curtailed. Usually with violence. The only way to ensure that all religions and denominations have freedom is to ensure that none have direct sway with the gov't. Tax exemption treads very close to that line. Support the Letter to the Danbury Baptists (for Americans) as the only way to ensur the 1st ammdmt.
2 1337 4 u!
"Hey I don't know if the billions will survive,
but I'll believe in God when 1 + 1 = 5"
-Bad Religion
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If God is all powerful, could he must be able to create an animal capable of beating him at chess. In that case, is he omnipotent if he can't beat an animal at chess?
This discussion is dead, but we don't know if chess is solvable at this point. God may very well know the perfect game of chess - give him the opportunity to go first, and he will win. He then can't create a being capable of beating him at chess, because that defies the implication of the definition of chess (which would be a game that one can always win of one goes first.) You contradict yourself.