What Atheists Should Learn From Religion

04/13/2012 03:38:42 PM · #126

Frankly it's nearly impossible to guide you guys along a philosophical argument. Plantinga is saying that Dawkins is making a mistake akin to an argument there is no God because we see no evidence of him in the fossil record. The fallacious assumption there would be that God is a material being and, thus, must have evolved. Since we see no evidence of this we have no evidence for God. The complexity argument is analogous (note that that means, "similar, but not exactly the same"!)

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 15:39:16.

04/13/2012 03:51:21 PM · #127

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1. The medical staff screwed up. 2. The medical staff was competent, but life signs were too weak to register but later managed to recover despite the hostile conditions..

We all enjoy making positive claims...

Psst... those can be proven as possibilities.

04/13/2012 03:54:48 PM · #128

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But of course God isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts. God is a spirit, an immaterial spiritual being, and therefore has no parts at all.

Bzzzt! Positive claim. Prove it.

This is a logical claim. God, by any common definition, is not material (the philosophical definition). It's axiomatic.

There is nothing logical about it. You're describing attributes and characteristics of a thing without any evidence whatsoever. It's equally axiomatic and philosophical to ascribe those traits by any definition to a spaghetti monster.

04/13/2012 03:59:45 PM · #129

Please explain to me why I should even allow myself to be guided by someone who would imply that intangibles like ideas, years, and processes have no parts.

Someone who at least has the vestiges of being intelligent should be able to steer clear from that sort of implication, handily.

You are the one who said immaterial things don't have parts. "God isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts." Not a link, not someone else, you. You directly state that he has no parts because he's immaterial. This has nothing to do with divinity, it's an assertion about the nature of the immaterial.

Then, on top of that, you're completely overlooking the classic Christian description of a god, which has at LEAST two parts, God as spirit, God made flesh.

I simply won't be guided by incoherence.

04/13/2012 04:04:36 PM · #130

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Plantinga is saying that Dawkins is making a mistake akin to an argument there is no God because we see no evidence of him in the fossil record.

BS. Dawkins is merely pointing out that the watchmaker analogy assumes a creator with an understanding of parts, materials, manufacturing, transmutation and a host of other elements considerably more complex than the thing supposedly too complex to have evolved.

04/13/2012 04:07:21 PM · #131

"But of course a program isn't a material object at all and hence has no parts. A program is an idea, an immaterial creation of the mind, and therefore has no parts at all. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) software doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, a program is not complex."

See how absurdly that reads?

Software (and software design) evolves. Yet it's immaterial. Your entire assertion is baseless.

See:

- Best practices
- Genetic algorithms
- The rise and fall of syntaxes

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 16:10:40.

04/13/2012 04:07:47 PM · #132

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
1. The medical staff screwed up. 2. The medical staff was competent, but life signs were too weak to register but later managed to recover despite the hostile conditions..

We all enjoy making positive claims...

Psst... those can be proven as possibilities.

So prove them...

04/13/2012 04:12:31 PM · #133

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Plantinga is saying that Dawkins is making a mistake akin to an argument there is no God because we see no evidence of him in the fossil record.

BS. Dawkins is merely pointing out that the watchmaker analogy assumes a creator with an understanding of parts, materials, manufacturing, transmutation and a host of other elements considerably more complex than the thing supposedly too complex to have evolved.

Did you read the article or just my quote?

He points out more than this. If his only point is to say God is complex, then what of it?

Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true - in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God - but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

04/13/2012 04:24:43 PM · #134

Here's the formula used to calculate a Mandelbrot set:

z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c

This is not complex. It's about as simple as a formula gets. The next value is the current value squared plus a constant.

Yet it has two discrete parts, a set of results that are bounded and calculable, and a set of results that are unbounded and incalculable, a distinction based solely on the value of c. It also produces some of the most wildly complex, mind-boggling, and beautiful images known to man, when plotted and made physical. I am sure you have seen them.

Yet it doesn't actually exist in any concrete sense. It's an idea.

There. I think I've successfully muddied the waters when it comes to complexity, materiality, the ability of simple things to create insanely complicated things, the ability of complex things to produce simple things, and the coupling of corporeality to divisibility enough to suggest that the way we usually think about these things as a species is pretty much horsedroppings.

04/13/2012 04:30:20 PM · #135

To expand a bit on this, however...

What chaos theory and fractals tell us is the the distinction between complex and simple is often completely illusory, and notoriously difficult to comprehend by humans. While at first glance, the Mandelbrot set seems like just about the most infinitely complicated thing you can possibly imagine, an infinitely long, infinitely crenelated border between two infinite sets of knowable and unknowable values, it is also strikingly self-similar and can be reduced to no more than 10 characters using the proper notation.

I get very suspicious when anyone leans on complexity (or lack there of, it seems) to bolster the existence of the supernatural.

04/13/2012 04:31:51 PM · #136

Originally posted by Mousie:

There. I think I've successfully muddied the waters when it comes to complexity, materiality, the ability of simple things to create insanely complicated things, the ability of complex things to produce simple things, and the coupling of corporeality to divisibility enough to suggest that the way we usually think about these things as a species is pretty much horsedroppings.

Well, I'm not making the argument. Dawkins is. Really you didn't need to bring up this example. It's sitting under his nose. What is evolution if not a process of producing complexity out of simplicity?

04/13/2012 04:40:22 PM · #137

Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared an intangible complex.

You can't have it both ways. You (more accurately, the faithful) can't say, on one hand, that the world must have a creator because it is irreducibly complex, then agree that wild complexity can come from something as simple as a 10-character formula as a natural consequence of mere existence.

It's right under Dawkins' nose because it supports his position. If there must be a creator because the world is complex, complexity itself is an sign of directed creation. The creation itself is the evidence. Yet we can plainly see this is not the case. Ten symbols (and a singular idea) can spit that stuff out all day long. To get past the somewhat demonstrable fact that everything we know could just be some simple underlying natural principles at work over time (oh hey evolution is just like that, how self-similar!) you must assert that God is a mischievous prankster completely hiding his directed influence and littering the globe (and cosmos) with boundless misdirection, since we never see this influence in any materialistic, provable way ever, and we never stop finding out new stuff that contradicts commonly held beliefs held in faith. This subterfuge is a tactic which is certainly more complicated than "it all just kinda happened", thereby necessitating a creator for him in turn.

If he's complex, he needs a creator, and it's turtles all the way down. If he's not, we don't need him to exist, and I'm just not down with using the supernatural to answer questions, so there's only one answer left.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 17:01:14.

04/13/2012 04:45:50 PM · #138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Psst... those can be proven as possibilities.

So prove them...

That's the job of the lawyers. The prosecution will either show that the staff was incompetent or the defense will show that they followed correct procedure. Is there any chance at all that the court will assume resurrection? No.

04/13/2012 04:47:51 PM · #139

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Psst... those can be proven as possibilities.

So prove them...

That's the job of the lawyers. The prosecution will either show that the staff was incompetent or the defense will show that they followed correct procedure. Is there any chance at all that the court will assume resurrection? No.

Of course not. That's not the court's job.

04/13/2012 04:51:15 PM · #140

Originally posted by Mousie:

Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared an intangible complex.

Actually, had you read the article, you'd see Plantinga goes on to say God could be considered complex informationally. The question, as I posted before, is then, "what of it?" Dawkins is the one that makes the argument that because God is complex he is unlikely.

04/13/2012 04:52:28 PM · #141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true - in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God - but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

Premises: the material exists, the immaterial exits. As positive claims, both bear a burden of proof. One is readily demonstrable, while the burden of proof remains for the other. DISbelief of gods as explanation for the unknown does not require proof any more than one would have to prove the non-existence of dragons as an explanation for forest fires. It is therefore not begging the question to assume a dragon-free universe is true.

04/13/2012 05:02:02 PM · #142

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Actually, had you read the article, you'd see Plantinga goes on to say God could be considered complex informationally.

Plantinga does not make an argument against evolution. He accepts that part completely, but claims that it's guided by a god. Leaving aside the fact that his premise falls on its face (millions of species guided to extinction?) and that he's a philosopher with no background in the subject arguing against a leading evolutionary biologist, he's also making a positive claim and therefore bears that pesky burden of proof.

04/13/2012 05:17:21 PM · #143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Between you and me, I'm the only one that has declared an intangible complex.

Actually, had you read the article, you'd see Plantinga goes on to say God could be considered complex informationally. The question, as I posted before, is then, "what of it?" Dawkins is the one that makes the argument that because God is complex he is unlikely.

If I had read...

Nice deflection, although inaccurate... again, as I have pointed out, I am taking issue with what you are saying here. I'm not arguing with Dawkins or Plantinga. You made an assertion about complexity and divisibility, and you have failed to revisit it despite my pointed focus. I then expanded that contention into a general refutation of the need for the existence of the supernatural, and then explained that I won't substitute 'something' in for nothing, with Shannon concisely explaining my rationale in short order. Here's my point:

Dawkins does not only argue that God is unlikely simply because he is complex. He also argues that God is unlikely because, if not complex, he is unnecessary. That is what I tried to get at in my edit to the previous post, and why I brought up formulas. And again I am debating you, not articles. Which I have read.

04/13/2012 05:31:06 PM · #144

Let me put it another way.

What is the point of quoting text you don't agree with? I should be able to question you about it, even it it's Plantinga's words. You're holding forth a premise, and using a quote to discuss it, one that just happens to be favorable to your stated beliefs. Therefore I feel it's completely within my purview to pick at the underpinnings of the quote, in terms of your agreement or disagreement with them. If I can show that you don't actually agree with the logic or implications, I'd use it to suggest that perhaps an alternate argument should be offered, otherwise you're just playing devil's advocate.

04/13/2012 05:33:04 PM · #145

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, had you read the article, you'd see Plantinga goes on to say God could be considered complex informationally.

Plantinga does not make an argument against evolution. He accepts that part completely, but claims that it's guided by a god. Leaving aside the fact that his premise falls on its face (millions of species guided to extinction?) and that he's a philosopher with no background in the subject arguing against a leading evolutionary biologist, he's also making a positive claim and therefore bears that pesky burden of proof.

And of course Dawkins is a biologist with no philosophy background. Dawkins struck the first blow by trying to be the armchair philosopher. Plantinga zings Dawkins for this very fact as he opens:

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science. It is mainly philosophy, theology and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects.

But despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy (Dawkins is not a philosopher, but a biologist), much of the philosophy he purveys is remarkably jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best undergraduate, but that would be unfair to undergraduates. The fact is many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a basic philosophy class.

After all, we're arguing a philosophical point, not an evolutionary one.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 17:36:53.

04/13/2012 05:35:33 PM · #146

Originally posted by Mousie:

I completely fail to understand you. I don't disagree with Plantinga. I disagree with Dawkins. Your arguments of complexity really go against Dawkins. If you are trying to show that non-material things are complex, then you also need to show that Dawkins meant "complex" in this manner. Plantinga says there is no necessary reason to assume God is complex (especially from a material point of view), but goes on to allow for the possibility that he is informationally complex. He then points out, what does this matter?

So where does your bit fit in? Who do you think you are defeating?

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 17:37:17.

04/13/2012 05:43:29 PM · #147

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy (Dawkins is not a philosopher, but a biologist), much of the philosophy he purveys is remarkably jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best undergraduate, but that would be unfair to undergraduates. The fact is many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a basic philosophy class.

While you focus on the "leaving aside" part rather than the actual point, are you referring to the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal winner from the The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow or some other Richard Dawkins? Moreover, philosophy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. We can discuss the philosophical rationale and implications of time travel, alien abductions and Klingon-Romulan relations even if they're complete fantasy. Whoop de do.

Message edited by author 2012-04-13 17:48:42.

04/13/2012 05:50:49 PM · #148

Call me crazy, but it's my hope that you may not agree with Plantinga as much as you think, and by having a discussion between you and me about the nature of complexity and it's relevance to first cause, I could demonstrate that. I hope to show that you can't separate informational and physical complexity as cleanly as Plantinga seems to do for the purposes of extracting God from Dawkins' argument.

But if you want to get all combat-style about it, I'm defeating God?

04/13/2012 05:53:07 PM · #149

Originally posted by scalvert:

Whoop de do.

Hey we only allow accredited philosophers in here, Mr.

And thanks for ruining my dream for dragons to be real.