Sun - April 22, 2007

On Harris and Sullivan


First off: the complete debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan is here as a PDF file, and here is the original link to the debate on 'BeliefNet'.

The debate shows more than anything else the different cognitive styles of the religionist and the scientist. Sam's comments and remarks ask for precision and clarity, while Andrew is content to evoke imagery. It is never clear how much Andrew really believes in the pictures he paints and the metaphors he composes - and this is precisely the point of religious moderation. Example:

"I do believe in the empty tomb as much as I believe in the cramped manger. They go together--marks of an appearance in human history as mysterious as the divine must always be to human minds."

Is a "mark of an appearance" the same as a real event? I get the feeling that Andrew resists playing the videotape in his mind of what he must believe happened. He would rather just have his story, with its lessons and its meanings (there's nothing wrong with liking a story, but imagine a serious debate 500 years from now between an atheist and a Harry-Potterite), and not have to acknowledge what it implies about the actual events that occurred 2000 years ago to real men and women living in Palestine. But let's put a hidden camera in Jesus's tomb, along with some flood lights, and let it record... you see a body wrapped in a shroud, it stays there decomposing for a few days, and then... what? What, according to Andrew, is on the damn tape? A "mark of an appearance in human history" or a flash of light and a choir of angels? Andrew will never publicly or privately commit an answer to this question, as it forces the absurdity to the surface -- which is of course Sam's preferred tactic. Every single time Sam asks Andrew to take a stand on something miraculous, Andrew dithers.

The debate was a good example of a believer honest enough to at least engage with the strongest arguments for atheism, and it will probably be remembered as the one of most civilized, productive exchanges on this subject - but the outcome was the same as it always is.

Posted at 12:18 AM     Read More   |

Wed - December 28, 2005

Schönborn weighs in again


Christoph Schönborn here appears to be trying to distance himself from the Intelligent Design movement (a good thing, but then it's always a good idea to leap off of a burning, sinking rowboat if you find yourself in one), while at the same time showing that theologians really cannot make contentful statements about the world that do not tread on the 'magisterium' of science:

"If [the Darwinian biologist] takes a very narrow view of the supposedly random variation that meets his gaze, it may well be impossible to correlate it to anything interesting, and thus variation remains simply unintelligible. He then summarizes his ignorance of any pattern in variation by means of the rather respectable term “random.” But if he steps back and looks at the sweep of life, he sees an obvious, indeed an overwhelming pattern. The variation that actually occurred in the history of life was exactly the sort needed to bring about the complete set of plants and animals that exist today. In particular, it was exactly the variation needed to give rise to an upward sweep of evolution resulting in human beings. If that is not a powerful and relevant correlation, then I don’t know what could count as evidence against actual randomness in the mind of an observer."

We will ignore for a moment the fact that a man with no science training is claiming to be pointing out a real, observable pattern in biology that has eluded the myriads of hard-working biologists thus far, and just consider his argument. It was refuted long ago by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, with his example of a genetic algorithm that generates a sentence of Hamlet ("METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"). Would Schönborn remark with holy awe that the variation generated by Dawkins's program was exactly the sort needed to create that sentence? Of course, the variation created by the program could have created any other sentence, but that's precisely the point: the variation is random, but the outcome is subject to selection. If you flipped a fair coin 20 times, and got the result "HTTTHHTTHHTTHTHHTTHH", would you think a divine hand had guided the result? After all, the coin flipped in exactly the right way to give you HTTTHHTTHHTTHTHHTTHH! There's no τελος in this sequence - but what makes him think there is a purpose for, say, moss? (Other than to make more moss).

Only his religion. It is unfortunate but unavoidable that Schönborn, one of the strongest intellects in the Catholic church (as his writing shows, I admit), can produce nothing but a question-begging argument here. Paraphrasing, it is this: "my religion says that humans are here as part of a purpose; therefore whatever steps led to human existence must have had purpose behind them." He fails to provide anything but handwaving arguments for his thesis that this purpose is observable by science reason and not faith alone - falling back on some lamentable rhetoric:

"[the modern biologist] is free to define his special science on terms as narrow as he finds useful for gaining a certain kind of knowledge. But he may not then turn around and demand that the rest of us, unrestricted by his methodological self-limitation, ignore obvious truths about reality, such as the clearly teleological nature of evolution."

Note to future cardinals: when you have to use "obvious" and "clearly" in the same sentence, and then cannot spell out anywhere in the rest of the essay what it is that is supposed to be clear and obvious, you may want to re-examine your thesis.

Posted at 12:20 AM     Read More   |

Wed - December 21, 2005

Agnosticism Meta-Thread


AGNOSTICISM META-THREAD

There is a discussion at Majikthise about agnosticism (which I've discussed previously), and I thought I would write about it. Rather than weighing in at the site itself, I am going to try to analyze the discussion (i.e., start a metadiscussion -- most likely with myself, consdering the low rate of traffic here). The point is to try to understand what sorts of things people say, and why, when the topic is agnosticism versus atheism. I plan to analyze more such comment threads in the future, to see if any common patterns come up. (Of course, I'm only doing this because I've noticed common patterns in the past.)

I will state my biases first: I consider atheism a more rational position than agnosticism, because it is more consistent with our natural habit to disbelieve propositions for which we have zero evidence. (A "slogan" for this attitude could be: if you don't disbelieve that, then what do you disbelieve?) Also, to "leave the door open", as the agnostic does, strikes me as symptomatic of a kind of subconscious Pascal's wager, wherein the self-described agnostic just can't bring themself to close the door completely on the possibility of deities, an afterlife, etc.

So - what I take to be the thesis of Lindsay (the blog owner)'s post is: Even though one cannot prove the negative proposition "No deities exist", in the absence of any positive evidence the default position to take should be atheism and not agnosticism. The reason for this is that this is the default position we always take on other propositions that have the same amount of (i.e., zero) evidence. It is only in theological discussions that the option of "agnosticism" even comes up. This is expressed finely by Lindsay's last sentence:

"If we talk about belief in God the same way we talk about belief in other propositions, then it's perfectly natural to call yourself a non-believer."

So, to the comments.

•The blog entry dates from 11:36 PST, Sunday, Dec. 18 2005.
•As of Sunday night, 20:00 PST there were 52 comments. On average that's one post every 12 minutes, over a 10-hour period.

Some themes of discussion (which I seen many times when this subject has come up previously):
•"(some) Atheists are religious too" / "Atheism is as much a religion as theism" (Egarwaen, Aeolus, 1984_Was_not_a_shopping_list)
•Nitty-gritty details of how, exactly, agnosticism, atheism, etc., are defined (lack of belief in god? belief that there are no gods?) (Matt P., Patrick, bob koepp)
•Other creative "Russell's teapot" situations (phone company killing JFK) (Lindsay, David)
•"I've had mystical experiences"/"Mystical experiences are a good reason to hold out for belief in deities" (Mnemosyne, 1984_Was_not_a_shopping_list, dan)

Analysis of examples of give-and-take, excerpts:
(1) Matt P. --> "..[as] a person self-describing as agnostic does not hold such a belief [in a god] .. he or she seems to me to be clearly an atheist"
Egarwaen -->"Untrue. They can be unsure whether or not God exists... This is different from belief or disbelief."
Matt P. --> "I agree, that is different from belief or disbelief. The querent, however, in my experience tends to be asking only about belief or disbelief, not the reasoning the respondent used to arrive at that position."
(no further response from Egarwaen).

This excerpt illustrates the class of "nitpicking" exchanges; we'll see how often these come up later.

(2) Jesse M. "all minds that we know of are tied to physical structures like brains, and are a product of evolution, so the idea of an eternal disembodied mind is a radical departure from this."
1984: "But what about the example of the email packet being sent by wireless ... if these energy packets can be converted and transmitted, then, do they not exist independently of a physical body..."
Jesse M. "You are talking as though "energy" is somehow less physical than matter, which makes me think you are conflating "energy" in the sense used by scientists with some more spiritual usage of the word."
1984: "The "energy" I'm trying to isolate here is the energy of a hypothetical God's mind, which, you reliably inform us, is a physical item."
1984: "since thought itself is intangible and invisible, is it not conceivable that God's thought took a similarly alien form...?"
Jesse M.: "I don't see anything logically impossible about such a disembodied mind, and it's how most people think of God, but as I said there's no precedent for it in anything we've experienced."
1984:"Yet if energy is actually a physical thing, ... the thought energy of the mind _is_ such a physical substrate. I think that, rather than leading to a disembodied mind of God, it suggests that every mind _is_ a body."
Jesse M.: "but why call such an entity "God" rather than, say, "an alien superintelligence"? "
(after several further posts bringing up other topics:)
1984: "OK, I'm going to ruminate on that last one."

This excerpt illustrates the class of "One guy trying to shoehorn his admittedly poor understanding of physics into a framework that legitimizes his favorite beliefs; and another guy patiently going along with it". It is characterized by goalpost shifting -- note how Jesse M. raises many points that 1984 does not consider (points which are indeed germane to the original blog post); 1984 prefers instead to talk about thought energy and god's brain. Significantly, 1984 accomodates a complete reversal in a position which he had held to be important (at first, minds are nonphysical; then Jesse convinces 1984 that they are in fact physical) yet 1984's overall outlook does not change.

Some miscellaneous numbers:
Number of 'nonserious' posts (jokes, platitudes, rants): 7/52
Number of posts mentioning the Holocaust: 2/52
Number of posts mentioning Richard Dawkins: 8/52
Number of posts in which a person changes their opinion as a result of being convinced by another post: 1/52

Concluding remarks:
First, it should be remarked that the comments on a blog can in no way reflect poorly on the blog itself; however, they can reflect well upon it, as good minds are a scarce commodity. These comments do reflect well on this blog, since there is little or no sign of flame-war. However, it is not my goal to be critical or praiseworthy about any particular blog, but rather to try and study the way in which people talk about a particular narrow subject. This first excursion has been entirely subjective; I would like to write some small programs to do some more objective analysis (i.e., how soon is Dawkins mentioned; what percentage of the posts refer to personal mystical experiences, etc.)

Posted at 08:58 PM     Read More   |

Tue - August 2, 2005

What could be more ridiculous


..than Bush's endorsement of "intelligent design" creationism? I'll tell you what: we scientist-types should petition high schools to teach the controversy over the heliocentric "theory". But do it seriously, without ever admitting that it's an agenda. Say that the geocentric model deserves equal time. Really, we should do it! We could even ask the Discovery Institute for help.

And I have a question. Why are we blogging, instead of marching?

Posted at 08:27 PM     Read More   |

Sun - June 12, 2005

Mum on the Designer?


Abstract:
The "know-nothing" stance of IDists toward their posited Designer is intellectually untenable.
Some quotes to ground the essay:
------------------
"The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory. This question is thus left as a religious or philosophical question outside the scope of intelligent design theory." (IDEA Center FAQ)

"ID leaves the identity of the designer open" -Michael Behe, from NPR interview on Feb. 13 2002

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01)

"You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."--William A. Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002 (reference from June 2005 post on The Panda's Thumb)
--------------------
As we can see here, there are sophisticated (Dembski) and not-so-sophisticated (Behe) approaches to avoiding the question of the Intelligent Designer's identity. But the question is forced upon the IDists by their own rhetoric -- since they ask to be taken seriously, and couch their argument in scientific language, I think we anti-IDists do owe them that much.

IDists place their argument on a knife's edge between vacuity and falsehood, and our side is holding it up by not addressing it on its own terms. There has been much debate over the merits of even engaging with ID rhetoric in public, as to do so may be seen as legitimizing. No scientists testified for evolution at the recent hearings in Kansas. As a scientist myself, I wonder whether this is the correct tactical move. I think that the ID position is easy enough to deal with that a reasonably erudite treatment should suffice to put to rest its objections.

For the present discussion, then, I will address myself to the lack of precision that IDists have brought to the question of the Designer's identity. From the quotes above, we can readily see that the spokesmen of the ID movement have not fleshed out any description of the Designer upon whom their entire line of objection rests. They are content to leave unspecified any and all properties that the Designer has, save for the activity of designing. What I will argue is that this stance is completely untenable - the IDists' Designer necessarily has limitations that undermine the IDists' own position.

Posted at 01:53 AM     Read More   |

Sun - June 5, 2005

On the emptiness of "Intelligent Design" creationism


Much of the effort spent staving off the increasing noise coming from ID quarters centers around negating specific objections its proponents raise. While this is easy and satisfying to do, it is not enough. Rather than waiting to fend off the latest attack, it is time to go on the offensive.

'Intelligent design' has a weakness that will contribute to its undoing, and that has simply not been thought through by its proponents. It is precisely the same weakness that falls to the common child's question, "If God made everything, then who made God?"

Since Behe and Dembski and their followers like to use the example of Paley's watch, I will use the same example and show how it undermines the very thing they're arguing for. The watch argument goes like this: since a watch is such an improbable thing to find lying around - unlike, say, a rock - its mere existence hints at the existence of a further entity, namely, the agent that designed the watch. The complexity and functionality of the watch could not have come into being by accident, but must have been -- intelligently designed.

Paley and the Behe-ists now take this argument a step further. They say that a watch designer - in other words, a human - is also a very complex object, so complex that it too could not have come into being by accident. Eyes, brains, flagella, and the rest of them are just like watches in that their existence implies the further existence of an agent who designed them.

So far, the list of entites that imply the existence of designers has two members: watches, and watch designers. Both of these things imply the existence of an entity that designed that thing.

So, Behe is commited to the belief that there are watches, watch designers, and watch designer designers. There's an obvious question in front of us now: are there also watch designer designer... designers?

The affirmative answer seems as well-formed a proposition as any, so let's explore both its negation and its truth. If there are no WDDDs, it must be the case that WDDs do not logically imply the existence of WDDDs. Since Paley and Behe etc. have given us the sufficient conditions that imply design, it must be the case that WDDs do not satisfy these conditions. Therefore, WDDs are not complex but are rather simple, like rocks and other things that do not imply design.

If, on the other hand, WDDs are complex entities like WDs and Ws, then we must be committed to the existence of WDDDs. And now we get to ask the same question about WDDDs. Are they complex? Does their existence imply the existence of a WDDD.. D?

The astute reader will see where I am going with this. IDists are logically bound to claim either one of two things: either the "Designer" they believe in was itself designed by a meta-designer, or the "Designer" was something simple that does not need such an explanation. I have the feeling that they would choose the "simple" option. If that is the case, I have good news for them -- a very lucid and compelling case for a "simple" option was laid out almost 150 years ago, and they can go learn about it at any of the top-tier educational institutes in the world.

Posted at 12:52 AM     Read More   |

Tue - May 31, 2005

A new logo for the Discovery Institute


One philosophy of the image mosaic is "The composite elements represent an aspect of the 'true face' of the larger image".
With this in mind, I give you...

(link to original image)
(link to full-size image)

I don't know what to think about them. Do they know they're full of crap but excuse themselves from intellectual integrity in service of their spirituality and some dimly imagined greater good? Have they succumbed to the all-too-human tendency of self-delusion when confronted with the emotional upheaval that would be entailed by giving up their religion? Are they maniacal theocrats who expect to get a reward in the new Taliban-style government they're trying to usher in? Are they just stupid? I think these are all valid questions.

Whatever the case may be, it is my position that 'intelligent design', as its proponents have attempted to present it with varying degrees of clarity, must fundamentally be a non-materialist doctrine. I'm writing an essay on it, but the main point is this: the maxim "every apparent design has a designer" threatens an infinite regress. It must be circumvented by either natural means (which Darwin figured out) or by ...magic, I guess.

Posted at 12:11 AM     Read More   |

Tue - May 17, 2005

Give 'em Hell, Pedro


I just thought I'd put it out there, I saw on redstaterabble that the Kansas evolution hearings are all available as FREE audiobooks from audible.com. Put "kansas evolution" in the search box. You have to register, but it's worth it - and I think we need to give some props to Irigonegaray for the great job he's done.

Posted at 10:00 PM     Read More   |

Mon - May 2, 2005

On Ruse


Okay - I overwhelmingly disagree with Ruse (Boston Globe article) - but he might have a point, which I will try to spell out better than he does; and if this isn’t his point, then I want to make it anyway: For many people, verbal acts are primarily social, not propositional. In other words, let's say I utter the following sentence: "There is no evidence for creationism". Most of us here would see this as the simple declaration of a proposition, which we might reflect on for a second, then pass the judgement that the proposition is true. But many people (including, apparently, Behe, Dembski, et al.) instead identify it as a social act: an attack on their status, as sure as if we had physically pushed them around in public. The common response to status attacks is to attack back, not to reflect. People do not even engage with the content, which is why it is so frustrating to argue with creationists.

Do you see what I’m saying? I’m emphatically not agreeing with Ruse that certain people should watch what they say or that we shouldn’t attack -- I feel the need to disclaim because I’ve seen arguments erupt the moment anyone is perceived to be considering biting their tongue about evolution, which I definitely am not. Nor do I think we’re intentionally attacking anyone’s status. My point is just that humans have a several-million-year-old history of being social primates, and only a few thousands of years of being explicit logical thinkers (and then only a small minority of us). If people like Behe and Dembski can only interpret our arguments as status attacks and not logical arguments, what can we do?

I think the following is a valid question:
"Which strategy is likely to cause a greater increase in the percentage of people who accept evolution:
(1) Calling creationists stupid, and religion a virus; or
(2) Using subtler arguments specifically designed not to attack peoples’ status?".

(This question is orthogonal to the question of the truth of evolution, by the way - so people who ask it are not thereby saying anything about evolution itself.)

I know the immediate reaction to talk like this: “Why should I tailor my comments just because someone gets upset?”. But unlike Ruse, I’m not saying “should” here - say what you want, but you may just have to accept that if you say X, your audience will respond as if attacked, and that will have a certain effect, and it’s no use saying “They shouldn’t respond that way!”; just as it’s no use complaining that a little dog shouldn’t be barking at you because you smiled at it, baring your teeth.

Personally, I do choose (1), since I agree with both statements and I’m not going to hold my tongue about anything, and since I don’t know which strategy is better, I’m going to go with my instincts. But if some people answer (2), and say (or believe) the normal mealymouthed stuff about religion and science not conflicting, that doesn’t automatically mean that they think atheists should keep quiet as a matter of principle; they may just think that strategy (2) will garner a higher return. I don’t think Ruse sees it this subtly in terms of strategies; I think he’s said some pretty detrimental things too. (He doesn’t even consider what most of us probably think, that his strategy (3) of actually co-editing a book with Dembski is far worse than anything Dawkins has ever done!).

On a certain intarweb site, I will berate people who say religion and science don’t conflict, since it's an intellectual arena and I am vocal with my disagreements. I do not, however, take the further, unwarranted step of thinking that these people are having a net negative effect on the percentage of people who accept evolution. I don’t know if that’s true or not. And in public letters to the editor, etc, I’ll save most of the vitriol for the creationists, not mealymouthed scientists.

Posted at 02:14 PM     Read More   |

Tue - April 5, 2005

Center for Naturalism


Visit the website of the Center for Naturalism, a nonprofit organization. Daniel Dennett (my favorite philosopher) is on the advisory board. They just started up recently; I'll have to look more in-depth later.

Of particular interest:
"Naturalism as a guiding philosophy can help create a better world by illuminating more precisely the conditions under which individuals and societies flourish, and by providing a tangible, real basis for connection and community.  It holds that doctrines and policies which assume the existence of a freely willing agent, and which therefore ignore the actual causes of behavior, are unfounded and counter-productive.  To the extent to which we suppose persons act out of their uncaused free will, to that extent will we be blind to those factors which produce criminality and other social pathologies, or, on the positive side, the factors which make for well-adjusted, productive individuals and societies."

This is very good. See especially the Progressive Policy Implications discussion.

On the content-addition front, I would add (again, I guess) that progressives must adopt a naturalistic stance not only to people and society in general, but to our political antagonists. It is no use saying over and over "Come on, just think about it! How can you believe those things?" - though that is what we are strongly inclined to say. No, the way forward is less intuitive but I'm sure includes such things as teaching by example, being compassionate and understanding, thinking deeply, availing ourselves of scientific knowledge, etc, as well as arguing.
One more note: "Naturalism" is precisely the right word here. It activates much better frames than some other near-synonyms.

Posted at 06:03 PM     Read More   |

©