Comments on: Rapped on the Head by Creationists http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:28:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: A Recommendation | Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-212143 A Recommendation | Cosmic Variance Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:34:09 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-212143 [...] Now, as it turns out, Allyson has commented on Cosmic Variance before, but I hadn’t noticed. In particular, she had fun things to say following Sean’s Rapped on the Head by Creationists post. [...] [...] Now, as it turns out, Allyson has commented on Cosmic Variance before, but I hadn’t noticed. In particular, she had fun things to say following Sean’s Rapped on the Head by Creationists post. [...]

]]> By: Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-166887 Arbitrary Chronological Signifiers | Cosmic Variance Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:17:50 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-166887 [...] Rapped on the Head by Creationists [...] [...] Rapped on the Head by Creationists [...]

]]> By: The God Conundrum - 香港綜合討論區 UDB Forum http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-130685 The God Conundrum - 香港綜合討論區 UDB Forum Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:08:37 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-130685 [...] 回覆: The God Conundrum For the past two thousand years, theology has struggled to reconcile these two apparently-conflicting conceptions of the divine, without much success. We are left with fundamentally incoherent descriptions of what God is, which deny that he 「exists」 in the same sense that hummingbirds and saxophones do, but nevertheless attribute to him qualities of 「love」 and 「creativity」 that conventionally belong to conscious individual beings. One might argue that it's simply a hard problem, and our understanding is incomplete; after all, we haven't come up with a fully satisfactory way to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, either. But there is a more likely possibility: there simply is no reconciliation to be had. The reason why it's difficult to imagine how God can be eternally perfect and also occasionally wistful is that God doesn't exist. In fact, in this day and age the flaws in Aristotle's cosmological proof (just to pick one) are perfectly clear. Our understanding of the inner workings of the physical world has advanced quite a bit since the ancient Greeks. Long ago, Galileo figured out that the correct way to think about motion was to abstract from messy real-world situations to idealized circumstances in which dissipative effects such as friction and air resistance could be ignored. (They can always be restored later as perturbations.) Only then do we realize that what matter really wants to do is to maintain its motion at a constant speed, until it is explicitly acted upon by some external force. Except that, once we have made this breakthrough, we realize that the matter doesn't want to do anything — it just does it. Modern physics doesn't describe the world in terms of 「causes」 and 「effects.」 It simply posits that matter (in the form of quantum fields, or strings, or what have you) acts in accordance with certain dynamical laws, known as 「equations of motion.」 The notion of 「causality」 is downgraded from 「when I see B happening, I know it must be because of A」 to 「given some well-defined and suitably complete set of information about the initial state of a system, I can use the equations of motion to determine its subsequent evolution.」 But a concept like 「cause」 doesn't appear anywhere in the equations of motion themselves, nor in the specification of the type of matter being described; it is only an occasionally-appropriate approximation, useful to us humans in narrating the behavior of some macroscopic configuration of equation-obeying matter. In other words, the universe runs all by itself. The planets orbit the Sun, not because anything is 「causing」 them to do so, but because that's the kind of behavior that obeys Newton's (or Einstein's) equations governing motion in the presence of gravity. Deeply embedded as we are in this Galilean/Newtonian framework, statements like 「every effect has a cause」 become simply meaningless. (We won't even bother with 「A causal chain cannot be of infinite length,」 which completely begs the question.) Conservation of momentum completely undermines any force the cosmological argument might ever have had. The universe, like everything in it, can very well just be, as long as its pieces continue to obey the relevant equations of motion. Special pleading that the universe is essentially different from its constituents, and (by nature of its unique status as all that there is to the physical world) that it could not have either (1) just existed forever, nor (2) come spontaneously into existence all by itself, is groundless. The only sensible response such skepticism is 「Why not?」 It's certainly true that we don't yet know whether the universe is eternal or whether it had a beginning, and we certainly don't understand the details of its origin. But there is absolutely no obstacle to our eventually figuring those things out, given what we already understand about physics. General relativity asserts that spacetime itself is dynamical; it can change with time, and potentially even be created from nothing, in a way that is fundamentally different from the Newtonian conception (much less the Aristotelian). And quantum mechanics describes the universe in terms of a wavefunction that assigns amplitudes to any of an infinite number of possibilities, including — crucially — spontaneous transitions, unforced by any cause. We don't yet know how to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, but someday we will — physicists are working on the problem every day. The analogy to a penthouse apartment atop a high-rise building is quite apt. Much of the intricate architecture of modern theology is built on a foundation that conceives of God as both creator and sustainer of the world and as a friendly and loving being. But these days we know better. The Clockwork Universe of Galileo and Newton has once and for all removed the need for anything to 「sustain」 the universe, and the 「creation」 bit is something on which we are presently closing in. In fact, although it is rarely discussed in history books, the influence of the conservation of momentum on theological practice is fairly evident. One response was a revival of Pyrrhonian skepticism, which claimed that it was simply wrong even to attempt to apply logic and rationality to questions of religion — claiming that you had 「proven」 the existence of God could get you accused of atheism. The other, more robust response, was a turn to natural theology and the argument from design. Even if the universe could keep going all by itself, surely its unguided meanderings would never produce something as wonderfully intricate as (for example) the human eye? The argument doesn't hold up very well even under purely philosophical scrutiny — David Hume's devastating take-down in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, interestingly, actually pre-dates William Paley's classic statement of the argument (1779 vs. 1802). Hume, for example, points out that, even if the argument from design works, it allows us to conclude next to nothing about the nature of the Designer. Maybe it was a team? Maybe our universe is a rough first draft for a much better later universe? Or even just a mistake? (Okay, that has something going for it.) But then, of course, Darwin's theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven't given up entirely; you'll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have basically abandoned the project of 「proving」 God's existence, which is probably a good move. But they haven't given up on believing in God's existence (suitably defined), which is what drives atheists like Dawkins (and me) a little crazy. Two thousand years ago, believing in God made perfect sense; there was so much that we didn't understand about the world, and an appeal to the divine seemed to help explain the otherwise inexplicable. Those original motivations have long since evaporated. In response, theologians have continued to alter what they mean by 「God,」 and struggled to reconcile the notion's apparent internal contradictions — unwilling to take those contradictions as a signal of the fundamental incoherence of the idea. To be fair, much of Dawkins's book does indeed take aim at a rather unsophisticated form of belief, one that holds a much more literal (and wholly implausible, not to mention deeply distasteful) notion of what God means. That's not a completely unwarranted focus, even if it does annoy the well-educated Terry Eagletons of the world; after all, that kind of naive theology is a guiding force among a very large and demonstrably influential fraction of the population. The reality of a religion is manifested in the actions of its adherents. But even an appeal to more nuanced thinking doesn't save God from the dustbin of intellectual history. The universe is going to keep existing without any help, peacefully solving its equations of motion along the way; if we want to find meaning through compassion and love, we have to create it ourselves. [...] [...] 回覆: The God Conundrum For the past two thousand years, theology has struggled to reconcile these two apparently-conflicting conceptions of the divine, without much success. We are left with fundamentally incoherent descriptions of what God is, which deny that he 「exists」 in the same sense that hummingbirds and saxophones do, but nevertheless attribute to him qualities of 「love」 and 「creativity」 that conventionally belong to conscious individual beings. One might argue that it’s simply a hard problem, and our understanding is incomplete; after all, we haven’t come up with a fully satisfactory way to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, either. But there is a more likely possibility: there simply is no reconciliation to be had. The reason why it’s difficult to imagine how God can be eternally perfect and also occasionally wistful is that God doesn’t exist. In fact, in this day and age the flaws in Aristotle’s cosmological proof (just to pick one) are perfectly clear. Our understanding of the inner workings of the physical world has advanced quite a bit since the ancient Greeks. Long ago, Galileo figured out that the correct way to think about motion was to abstract from messy real-world situations to idealized circumstances in which dissipative effects such as friction and air resistance could be ignored. (They can always be restored later as perturbations.) Only then do we realize that what matter really wants to do is to maintain its motion at a constant speed, until it is explicitly acted upon by some external force. Except that, once we have made this breakthrough, we realize that the matter doesn’t want to do anything — it just does it. Modern physics doesn’t describe the world in terms of 「causes」 and 「effects.」 It simply posits that matter (in the form of quantum fields, or strings, or what have you) acts in accordance with certain dynamical laws, known as 「equations of motion.」 The notion of 「causality」 is downgraded from 「when I see B happening, I know it must be because of A」 to 「given some well-defined and suitably complete set of information about the initial state of a system, I can use the equations of motion to determine its subsequent evolution.」 But a concept like 「cause」 doesn’t appear anywhere in the equations of motion themselves, nor in the specification of the type of matter being described; it is only an occasionally-appropriate approximation, useful to us humans in narrating the behavior of some macroscopic configuration of equation-obeying matter. In other words, the universe runs all by itself. The planets orbit the Sun, not because anything is 「causing」 them to do so, but because that’s the kind of behavior that obeys Newton’s (or Einstein’s) equations governing motion in the presence of gravity. Deeply embedded as we are in this Galilean/Newtonian framework, statements like 「every effect has a cause」 become simply meaningless. (We won’t even bother with 「A causal chain cannot be of infinite length,」 which completely begs the question.) Conservation of momentum completely undermines any force the cosmological argument might ever have had. The universe, like everything in it, can very well just be, as long as its pieces continue to obey the relevant equations of motion. Special pleading that the universe is essentially different from its constituents, and (by nature of its unique status as all that there is to the physical world) that it could not have either (1) just existed forever, nor (2) come spontaneously into existence all by itself, is groundless. The only sensible response such skepticism is 「Why not?」 It’s certainly true that we don’t yet know whether the universe is eternal or whether it had a beginning, and we certainly don’t understand the details of its origin. But there is absolutely no obstacle to our eventually figuring those things out, given what we already understand about physics. General relativity asserts that spacetime itself is dynamical; it can change with time, and potentially even be created from nothing, in a way that is fundamentally different from the Newtonian conception (much less the Aristotelian). And quantum mechanics describes the universe in terms of a wavefunction that assigns amplitudes to any of an infinite number of possibilities, including — crucially — spontaneous transitions, unforced by any cause. We don’t yet know how to describe the origin of the universe in purely physical terms, but someday we will — physicists are working on the problem every day. The analogy to a penthouse apartment atop a high-rise building is quite apt. Much of the intricate architecture of modern theology is built on a foundation that conceives of God as both creator and sustainer of the world and as a friendly and loving being. But these days we know better. The Clockwork Universe of Galileo and Newton has once and for all removed the need for anything to 「sustain」 the universe, and the 「creation」 bit is something on which we are presently closing in. In fact, although it is rarely discussed in history books, the influence of the conservation of momentum on theological practice is fairly evident. One response was a revival of Pyrrhonian skepticism, which claimed that it was simply wrong even to attempt to apply logic and rationality to questions of religion — claiming that you had 「proven」 the existence of God could get you accused of atheism. The other, more robust response, was a turn to natural theology and the argument from design. Even if the universe could keep going all by itself, surely its unguided meanderings would never produce something as wonderfully intricate as (for example) the human eye? The argument doesn’t hold up very well even under purely philosophical scrutiny — David Hume’s devastating take-down in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, interestingly, actually pre-dates William Paley’s classic statement of the argument (1779 vs. 1802). Hume, for example, points out that, even if the argument from design works, it allows us to conclude next to nothing about the nature of the Designer. Maybe it was a team? Maybe our universe is a rough first draft for a much better later universe? Or even just a mistake? (Okay, that has something going for it.) But then, of course, Darwin’s theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven’t given up entirely; you’ll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have basically abandoned the project of 「proving」 God’s existence, which is probably a good move. But they haven’t given up on believing in God’s existence (suitably defined), which is what drives atheists like Dawkins (and me) a little crazy. Two thousand years ago, believing in God made perfect sense; there was so much that we didn’t understand about the world, and an appeal to the divine seemed to help explain the otherwise inexplicable. Those original motivations have long since evaporated. In response, theologians have continued to alter what they mean by 「God,」 and struggled to reconcile the notion’s apparent internal contradictions — unwilling to take those contradictions as a signal of the fundamental incoherence of the idea. To be fair, much of Dawkins’s book does indeed take aim at a rather unsophisticated form of belief, one that holds a much more literal (and wholly implausible, not to mention deeply distasteful) notion of what God means. That’s not a completely unwarranted focus, even if it does annoy the well-educated Terry Eagletons of the world; after all, that kind of naive theology is a guiding force among a very large and demonstrably influential fraction of the population. The reality of a religion is manifested in the actions of its adherents. But even an appeal to more nuanced thinking doesn’t save God from the dustbin of intellectual history. The universe is going to keep existing without any help, peacefully solving its equations of motion along the way; if we want to find meaning through compassion and love, we have to create it ourselves. [...]

]]> By: Wonderful overview of the fuss about The God Delusion « Memoir and news comments http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-129254 Wonderful overview of the fuss about The God Delusion « Memoir and news comments Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:09:52 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-129254 [...] But then, of course, Darwin’s theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven’t given up entirely; you’ll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have basically abandoned the project of “proving” God’s existence, which is probably a good move. [...] [...] But then, of course, Darwin’s theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven’t given up entirely; you’ll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have basically abandoned the project of “proving” God’s existence, which is probably a good move. [...]

]]> By: The God Conundrum | Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-129027 The God Conundrum | Cosmic Variance Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:17:33 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-129027 [...] But then, of course, Darwin’s theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven’t given up entirely; you’ll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have given up on “proving” God’s existence altogether, which is probably a good move. [...] [...] But then, of course, Darwin’s theory of natural selection undercut the justification for the design argument just as thoroughly as classical mechanics undercut the justification for the cosmological argument. Indeed, the unpurposeful meanderings of matter in the universe can produce the wonderful intricacies of the human eye, and much else besides. Believers haven’t given up entirely; you’ll now more commonly find the argument from design placed in a cosmological context, where it is even less convincing. But for the most part, theologians have given up on “proving” God’s existence altogether, which is probably a good move. [...]

]]> By: Cosmic Variance http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-116554 Cosmic Variance Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:08:48 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-116554 <strong>A Recommendation</strong> OK, I usually don’t do this, but I just had a great blogosphere moment and thought I’d share. While checking the recent comments on my Café Scientifique: Season Two post, I came across a contribution by Allyson. Now, as it turns out, All... A Recommendation

OK, I usually don’t do this, but I just had a great blogosphere moment and thought I’d share. While checking the recent comments on my Café Scientifique: Season Two post, I came across a contribution by Allyson.
Now, as it turns out, All…

]]> By: Drew http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-114461 Drew Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:01:58 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-114461 I personally believe in God and the creationist theory that God made the earth and all that but I also believe in evolution and the whole primortial earth thing also. First of all, if the big bang theory is true, where did the matter for the big bang come from and what caused it. Because the four fundamental forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces the electromagnetic force and gravitation; they would eventually reach an equilibrium and the big bang would not happen. So some outside force had to cause it to go boom. Also in Genesis, God made man and everything in seven days, but you have to remember God is outside of time, seven days to him could be well over 50 billion years to us. And what did he make before he made the animals. He made the earth and then he could let natural processes take over. Then he made the animals, the dinosaurs and all that. They die, and he makes human, and there is no proof that Adam and Eve had to have looked like us, thats just in art. Even if they did they were cast out of Eden, therefore God could have punished them by making them into neanderthals. I personally believe in God and the creationist theory that God made the earth and all that but I also believe in evolution and the whole primortial earth thing also. First of all, if the big bang theory is true, where did the matter for the big bang come from and what caused it. Because the four fundamental forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces the electromagnetic force and gravitation; they would eventually reach an equilibrium and the big bang would not happen. So some outside force had to cause it to go boom. Also in Genesis, God made man and everything in seven days, but you have to remember God is outside of time, seven days to him could be well over 50 billion years to us. And what did he make before he made the animals. He made the earth and then he could let natural processes take over. Then he made the animals, the dinosaurs and all that. They die, and he makes human, and there is no proof that Adam and Eve had to have looked like us, thats just in art. Even if they did they were cast out of Eden, therefore God could have punished them by making them into neanderthals.

]]> By: tom-mcgee.com: the blog » Blog Roundup http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-113371 tom-mcgee.com: the blog » Blog Roundup Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:33:23 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-113371 [...] Physicist Sean Carroll’s Cosmic Variance spoofs the high state of terror alert presently being accorded to liquids. Rapped on the Head by Creationists is a devastating and hilarious indictment of the whole “intelligent design” movement, worth quoting: [...] [...] Physicist Sean Carroll’s Cosmic Variance spoofs the high state of terror alert presently being accorded to liquids. Rapped on the Head by Creationists is a devastating and hilarious indictment of the whole “intelligent design” movement, worth quoting: [...]

]]> By: John http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-113208 John Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:53:49 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-113208 Ah. Sorry about the misinterpretation and over-defensiveness. Sometimes this area is just too touchy. Ah. Sorry about the misinterpretation and over-defensiveness. Sometimes this area is just too touchy.

]]> By: Jim Harrison http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-113183 Jim Harrison Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:36:28 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-113183 John-- I wasn't addressing your post so much as the general argument that since science requires assumptions (faith, sorta), it resembles popular religion. I wasn't attacking religous people, who are welcome to whatever they wish to believe and are guaranteed to be unimpressed with my arguments in any event. I'm simply trying to understand how religion and science work. Like every attempt to come to the truth (small t), it is very much a minority endeavor. You write "When someone is dealing with their personal life, I don’t know of a convincing argument that accuracy should be their goal." I completely agree. John–

I wasn’t addressing your post so much as the general argument that since science requires assumptions (faith, sorta), it resembles popular religion. I wasn’t attacking religous people, who are welcome to whatever they wish to believe and are guaranteed to be unimpressed with my arguments in any event. I’m simply trying to understand how religion and science work. Like every attempt to come to the truth (small t), it is very much a minority endeavor. You write “When someone is dealing with their personal life, I don’t know of a convincing argument that accuracy should be their goal.” I completely agree.

]]> By: John http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-113142 John Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:11:18 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-113142 Lest you think I am just incapable of hearing reason, I hasten to add that perfectly sensible things can be said that actually do address the argument I made- as John Baez and David Corfield demonstrate in comments <a href="http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31671132&postID=115526759414612776" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I would greatly appreciate discussing this more in that thread or in this one. Lest you think I am just incapable of hearing reason, I hasten to add that perfectly sensible things can be said that actually do address the argument I made- as John Baez and David Corfield demonstrate in comments here. I would greatly appreciate discussing this more in that thread or in this one.

]]> By: John http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-113139 John Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:38:09 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-113139 Jim, <i>it is disingenuous in the highest degree to lump religious belief in with the commonsensical assumptions needed to do science</i> I apologize for being disingenuous. I would prefer you to think of me as confused. I am still young and foolish, but I should probably know better. <i>Religious belief is sui generis since its content is relentlessly counterfactual. People aren’t immortal. The universe isn’t haunted . The dead stay dead. Prayer has at most a psychological efficacy.</i> Completely accurate but not an argument against what I said. If the goal of belief (as is my own goal and I'm sure is yours) is to be accurate, then these would be deadly flaws. When there is a pragmatic situation at hand- like education policy or space policy- there is a very good reason to be accurate. When someone is dealing with their personal life, I don't know of a convincing argument that accuracy should be their goal (despite having a personal conviction that deluding myself would be a bad thing). Also, this is not all mutually exclusive. I can set different goals in answering different questions. When pondering physics or math, I can apply the very well motivated "commensensical" assumptions required of these fields. When I ponder things like my reason for being, perhaps you will permit me to be a little more hokey. Maybe pondering these things is just silly, but in this context, it does no harm. You can also accuse me of being off topic because these scientific-religious debates are about pragmatic questions where convincing arguments for science do exist. There you would be right. I don't mean to discount science's successes or its superiority in resolving the vast majority of debates. If it means anything, I may yet be a physics major, and I would generally be considered an athiest and certainly don't believe in the things you cited as religious (immortality, ghosts, resurrection, effectiveness of prayer beyond the psychological). I just think caution may be called for. Sometimes things that are "at most psychological" are very, very important to people and sometimes that is enough to make them worthwhile. Science has proven itself enough in the minds of enough people that we don't need to trample over religion. A cultural war is not what we need because if people are pushed hard enough, then science is in actual danger. Jim,

it is disingenuous in the highest degree to lump religious belief in with the commonsensical assumptions needed to do science

I apologize for being disingenuous. I would prefer you to think of me as confused. I am still young and foolish, but I should probably know better.

Religious belief is sui generis since its content is relentlessly counterfactual. People aren’t immortal. The universe isn’t haunted . The dead stay dead. Prayer has at most a psychological efficacy.

Completely accurate but not an argument against what I said. If the goal of belief (as is my own goal and I’m sure is yours) is to be accurate, then these would be deadly flaws. When there is a pragmatic situation at hand- like education policy or space policy- there is a very good reason to be accurate. When someone is dealing with their personal life, I don’t know of a convincing argument that accuracy should be their goal (despite having a personal conviction that deluding myself would be a bad thing). Also, this is not all mutually exclusive. I can set different goals in answering different questions. When pondering physics or math, I can apply the very well motivated “commensensical” assumptions required of these fields. When I ponder things like my reason for being, perhaps you will permit me to be a little more hokey. Maybe pondering these things is just silly, but in this context, it does no harm.

You can also accuse me of being off topic because these scientific-religious debates are about pragmatic questions where convincing arguments for science do exist. There you would be right. I don’t mean to discount science’s successes or its superiority in resolving the vast majority of debates. If it means anything, I may yet be a physics major, and I would generally be considered an athiest and certainly don’t believe in the things you cited as religious (immortality, ghosts, resurrection, effectiveness of prayer beyond the psychological). I just think caution may be called for. Sometimes things that are “at most psychological” are very, very important to people and sometimes that is enough to make them worthwhile. Science has proven itself enough in the minds of enough people that we don’t need to trample over religion. A cultural war is not what we need because if people are pushed hard enough, then science is in actual danger.

]]> By: spyder http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112385 spyder Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:47:15 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112385 this is not the best news: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-acceptance-of-evolution-ranks-us-33.html this is not the best news:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/08/us-acceptance-of-evolution-ranks-us-33.html

]]> By: Count Iblis http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112302 Count Iblis Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:15:46 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112302 Bake #13 Perhaps this can be explained by the Anthropic principle. If you change the number of generations you change the number of light particles (neutrinos) during nucleosynthesis. This affects the ratio of helium/hydrogen abundance. This in turn would strongly affect evolution of stars and hence life. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507153" rel="nofollow">See here</a> for a study of properties of stars with high helium abundances. Now, you could still get the same helium/hydrogen ratio with a different number of generations if you adjust the ratio of Newton's constant/fourth power of Fermi's constant. But I'm not sure that you could get a universe in which the abundance of intelligent beings would be larger. JoAnne #28 mentioned the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027" rel="nofollow">Weakless Universe</a>. I'm not convinced that this could yield a larger abundance of intelligent beings. They claim that the absence of internal heat generation via radioactive decay inside planets and the effects that has on geological activity, in particular the generation of a magnetic field, is not very important. But it seems to me that without heat from radioactive decay, the window for life to evolve would be much shorter. After the magnetic field vanishes, the atmosphere would be stripped away by solar wind. This does happen to some extent even with a magnetic field, however geological activity also replenishes the atmosphere. If you have no magnetic field and no geological activity you end up with a dead planet. Bake #13

Perhaps this can be explained by the Anthropic principle. If you change the number of generations you change the number of light particles (neutrinos) during nucleosynthesis. This affects the ratio of helium/hydrogen abundance. This in turn would strongly affect evolution of stars and hence life. See here for a study of properties of stars with high helium abundances.

Now, you could still get the same helium/hydrogen ratio with a different number of generations if you adjust the ratio of Newton’s constant/fourth power of Fermi’s constant. But I’m not sure that you could get a universe in which the abundance of intelligent beings would be larger.

JoAnne #28 mentioned the Weakless Universe. I’m not convinced that this could yield a larger abundance of intelligent beings. They claim that the absence of internal heat generation via radioactive decay inside planets and the effects that has on geological activity, in particular the generation of a magnetic field, is not very important.

But it seems to me that without heat from radioactive decay, the window for life to evolve would be much shorter. After the magnetic field vanishes, the atmosphere would be stripped away by solar wind. This does happen to some extent even with a magnetic field, however geological activity also replenishes the atmosphere. If you have no magnetic field and no geological activity you end up with a dead planet.

]]> By: island http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112252 island Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:30:32 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112252 <i><blockquote><b>Science without Religion is lame... Religion without Science is Blind.</b></i> -Albert Einstein</blockquote> Without assumptions about projections our theories would be exactly one step ahead of what we can measure directly. "Lame" But if these assumptions can't be reasonably verified by empiricism or a good theory, then we might be projecting a mathematical fairy-tale. "Blind" I think that it's appropriate after the year of disrespect that was paid the the man that he take a bow to let you know that the mentioned assumptions become outright absudities at an exponentially increasing rate as time passes without proving that your assumed leaps of faith aren't just prayers.
Science without Religion is lame…
Religion without Science is Blind.


-Albert Einstein

Without assumptions about projections our theories would be exactly one step ahead of what we can measure directly.

“Lame”

But if these assumptions can’t be reasonably verified by empiricism or a good theory, then we might be projecting a mathematical fairy-tale.

“Blind”

I think that it’s appropriate after the year of disrespect that was paid the the man that he take a bow to let you know that the mentioned assumptions become outright absudities at an exponentially increasing rate as time passes without proving that your assumed leaps of faith aren’t just prayers.

]]> By: Jim Harrison http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112218 Jim Harrison Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:02:41 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112218 Everybody makes lots of assumptions and only has the time (or inclination) to challenge a handful of them. On the other hand, it is disingenuous in the highest degree to lump religious belief in with the commonsensical assumptions needed to do science (or take a walk around the block). Religious belief is sui generis since its content is relentlessly counterfactual. People aren't immortal. The universe isn't haunted . The dead stay dead. Prayer has at most a psychological efficacy. The host is a cracker. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that actions have automatic conseqences at a later time. The point is, the craziness of such beliefs is not something asserted merely by outsiders. It is an essential feature of what can reasonably be called the religion effect. You can't get the same frisson from believing in the principle of induction or by deciding that life isn't just a dream. Doctrine such as the great antiquity of the Earth and the kinship of all living things can hardly be believed in a religious way since they are almost certainly true or, at the very least, we sincerely think they are. Everybody makes lots of assumptions and only has the time (or inclination) to challenge a handful of them. On the other hand, it is disingenuous in the highest degree to lump religious belief in with the commonsensical assumptions needed to do science (or take a walk around the block). Religious belief is sui generis since its content is relentlessly counterfactual. People aren’t immortal. The universe isn’t haunted . The dead stay dead. Prayer has at most a psychological efficacy. The host is a cracker. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that actions have automatic conseqences at a later time. The point is, the craziness of such beliefs is not something asserted merely by outsiders. It is an essential feature of what can reasonably be called the religion effect. You can’t get the same frisson from believing in the principle of induction or by deciding that life isn’t just a dream. Doctrine such as the great antiquity of the Earth and the kinship of all living things can hardly be believed in a religious way since they are almost certainly true or, at the very least, we sincerely think they are.

]]> By: John http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112195 John Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:19:27 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112195 I have been guilty <a href="http://modulotruth.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">in the past</a> of using the "science also relies on faith" argument, of which it is right to be skeptical. The question is not, however, so clear to me. If you want to conclude absolutely nothing about the universe except that which you can definitively prove, you have completely avoided "faith," but you cannot accomplish anything. Maybe we will find out tomorrow that we have been brains in a vat, etc. If you want to accomplish something worthwhile, assumptions are warranted. If you want to make your assumptions as few as possible and as well motivated as possible but still be able to understand the universe, you have science. If your goals are different from understanding, and include things like seeing (probably wrongly) an overriding meaning or being comforted (probably wrongly) that there is life after death, then different assumptions that may be less motivated are required. The point, though, is that the differences of these approaches are in their goals: if the goal is as few assumptions as possible, be a nihilist, if it is understanding, be a scientist, if it is (a particular kind of) comfort, be spiritual. Sometimes science pretends that understanding is the obvious and only legitimate goal and that science is not founded on a very heavy dose of pragmatism. This is what can be upsetting to some. Of course, people other than scientists can be pigheaded. I am distressed to hear the passage Sean quoted, and his anger is justified. The abuses and overextensions of science have always been miniscule compared to the abuses of religion. I have been guilty in the past of using the “science also relies on faith” argument, of which it is right to be skeptical. The question is not, however, so clear to me. If you want to conclude absolutely nothing about the universe except that which you can definitively prove, you have completely avoided “faith,” but you cannot accomplish anything. Maybe we will find out tomorrow that we have been brains in a vat, etc. If you want to accomplish something worthwhile, assumptions are warranted. If you want to make your assumptions as few as possible and as well motivated as possible but still be able to understand the universe, you have science. If your goals are different from understanding, and include things like seeing (probably wrongly) an overriding meaning or being comforted (probably wrongly) that there is life after death, then different assumptions that may be less motivated are required. The point, though, is that the differences of these approaches are in their goals: if the goal is as few assumptions as possible, be a nihilist, if it is understanding, be a scientist, if it is (a particular kind of) comfort, be spiritual. Sometimes science pretends that understanding is the obvious and only legitimate goal and that science is not founded on a very heavy dose of pragmatism. This is what can be upsetting to some. Of course, people other than scientists can be pigheaded. I am distressed to hear the passage Sean quoted, and his anger is justified. The abuses and overextensions of science have always been miniscule compared to the abuses of religion.

]]> By: island http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112139 island Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:32:59 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112139 Nah, they'll just stick a disclaimer on your forehead. Somebody call Kathy Cox... ;) Nah, they’ll just stick a disclaimer on your forehead. Somebody call Kathy Cox… ;)

]]> By: Lauren Gunderson http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112101 Lauren Gunderson Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:48:06 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112101 I LOVE this, Sean. You rock. I wish I could get in an arguemnt like this with a creationist. Luckily I'm currently rehearsing a science play i wrote for middle and high schools in Georgia that chats about evolution (among other things scientific). Can't wait for the school boards to start tapping on my empty skull :) I LOVE this, Sean. You rock. I wish I could get in an arguemnt like this with a creationist. Luckily I’m currently rehearsing a science play i wrote for middle and high schools in Georgia that chats about evolution (among other things scientific). Can’t wait for the school boards to start tapping on my empty skull :)

]]> By: Tammy http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/08/rapped-on-the-head-by-creationists/#comment-112031 Tammy Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:46:15 +0000 http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=937#comment-112031 What I never understand in this discussion is why a dicotomy between God and Nature has been created by some. If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God, how could nature, as understood by scientists, be in contradition to God? And, how could these same people be so arrogant to assume that our minds are capable of understanding all of nature (ie. God's creation)? I would think they would take the gaps in science as an opportunity to realize humility in the presense of God's creation, but what do I know? I am just an astronomer. What I never understand in this discussion is why a dicotomy between God and Nature has been created by some. If there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God, how could nature, as understood by scientists, be in contradition to God? And, how could these same people be so arrogant to assume that our minds are capable of understanding all of nature (ie. God’s creation)? I would think they would take the gaps in science as an opportunity to realize humility in the presense of God’s creation, but what do I know? I am just an astronomer.

]]>