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!
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)
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
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
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.
If you weren't just trying to pick knits, you would realize that this question does not require /true/ simultaneity in the physical sense, but simply thinks that happened within the same time frame according to each group's reference frames.
For what it's worth, the prohibition of simultaneity does not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Anything that exceeds the speed of light would break it (and such things appear to exist even in our limited scientific knowledge).
--
-- 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."
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
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
... 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.
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.
>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.)
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."
That doesn't help you; in fact it hurts you immensely. Now these even more complicated things need to spring into existance spontaneously, and then find a pathway back to a simpler configuration.
You're better off jumping straight to the correct answer. Probabilities get exponentially worse the more things you need to get correct at once, and by jumping straight there you are following a 'shorter' pathway.
Anyway, take a look at Tierra, for example.
Tierra isn't even close to the complexity of real life, by multiple factors of magnitude. If it was as easy in real life as it is to randomly create a viable Tierra entity, we'd be able to throw chems together in the laboratory and see life emerge without too much effort... and we don't. All we get are random amino acids (and I mean "random" in the mathematical sense, not the colloquial sense). Tierra is unutterably simplistic compared to the real world. After all, it can run on your computer... meanwhile, simulating the first millisecond of a nucleor explosion takes three months on a machine that wouldn't even notice your computer if it was added to it.
I don't think you've read the original argument (call it the Slashdot argument syndrome). While you may or may not find Behe convincing, the summary you are responding to is not enough to make a decision.
Personally, I find Behe's arguments extremely compelling, especially in light of the fact that I have never seen a rebuttal that even addresses the issues he raises, let along begin to counter them; the rebuttals generally take the form of "I declare Behe to be stupid, therefore his arguments are wrong." which is a stunningly effective rhetorical device, but not convincing scientifically. (Seriously, I've seen several, even from those who are normally more sensible then that.)
The strangest part of all is that his argument are disprovable in the scientific sense (hypothetically, evidence can be produced that would disprove his ideas, though by the very nature of the theory, it would take a huge amount of this evidence, as the points he raises cut across damn near every process that ever occurs in any organism anywhere, and most ever combination of those processes as well), far more so then most arguments of this kind. As a result of the disprovability of his arguments, Behe doesn't deserve to be 'lumped' in with the 'rest' of the people arguing against evolution.
(BTW, a better, though imperfect and still too short, summary of Behe's argument is "There exists no pathway by which a lot of critically importent molecular structures could have arisen gradually." Several simple concrete examples are given, and by their very nature one does not need to be a biochemist to see that the only things stopping him from producing hundreds of examples was time, space, and reader interest. To disprove this as a theory (as it obviously cannot be "proven" in a positive manner), one must generate example pathways that these complicated structures can follow to get where they are. It is not sufficient to handwave, which, as I said before, is all I've ever seen anyone do in response to Behe. Pointers to someone providing said legitimate pathways (i.e., solid evidence rather then personal attacks) would be appreciated.
One might simplify even further and boil his argument down as "Give an example of a biochemical structure, such as a flaggela, evolving in steps. You can't." Again, this is oversimplified and intended for informational purposes only... attacking this statement doesn't gain you anything. Read his book. Attack that... there's actual meat there. This is just the skeleton of the skeleton.)