Reflectorites
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:51:15 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
CC>A while back Stephen Jones claimed that atheists had no choice
>but to believe in evolution. I gave two alternatives, one based on
>the idea that the universe might be infinite (though, obviously, it
>would only need to be very large for my argument to work). I did
>not claim that either of these alternatives was in fact true, though
>Stephen consistently treated my exposition of them as claims of
>their truth ...
I am not sure what Chris' point is here. Obviously Chris cannot
believe two contradictory things are true - or can he? :-). That I try
to understand and fairly state a position I am critiquing does not
mean that I think it is true.
In any event Richard confirms my point "that atheists had no choice
but to believe in evolution":
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist *or*
>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presumably Richard thinks Chris' two alternatives are either a form of
"evolution", not "rational", or not "well-informed"?
In fact Chris himself agrees with Richard on this:
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:40:19 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>RW>I would say that any rational, well-informed person, whether atheist *or*
>>theist, has no choice but to believe in evolution.
CC>Given the evidence, yes. However, *if* naturalistic evolution were to be
>found to be truly inadequate to explain life on Earth, such alternatives as
>I proposed would then become candidates for more serious consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------
So Chris himself must think that (at present at least), his two alternatives
are either a form of "evolution", not "rational", or not "well-informed"?
BTW given naturalism's ability to explain away any lack of evidence by
proposing that there is an explanation but they just haven't found it yet,
how does Chris expect that naturalism would ever know "*if* naturalistic
evolution were to be found to be truly inadequate to explain life on
Earth"?
Richard's other point that:
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>Stephen's point is a red herring anyway (surprise, surprise!). Most atheists
become atheists as a result (in part) of accepting evolution; not
the other way around.
--------------------------------------------------------------
also confirms my point "that atheists had no choice but to believe
in evolution", because my argument does not depend on whether they
became atheists after accepting evolution or vice-versa. The point
is that *as atheists* they *now* have "no choice but to believe in
evolution".
CC>I began and nearly finished a rather lengthy response, but decided
>that it would be more to the point to simply state my views on
>this and refer to his remarks only on an as-needed basis.
>
>First, a probabilistic argument: If there is a small but non-zero
>probability in an average good-sized chunk of the Universe that
>intelligent life would be accidentally formed spontaneously during
>some specified period of time, then it is a simple matter to
>calculate that, given a sufficiently large number of such chunks of
>space and time, such intelligent life will almost *certainly* occur.
That does not necessarily follow. Below a probability bound (e.g. Borel's
10^-50; Dembski's 10^-150), an event will not happen by chance:
"The French mathematician Emile Borel (1962, p. 28) proposed 10^-50 as
a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be
precluded, i.e., any specified event as improbable as this could not be
attributed to chance. Borel based his universal probability bound on
cosmological considerations, taking into account the opportunities to
repeat and observe events through the history and expanse of the universe.
Borel's 10^-50 probability bound translates into 170 bits of information. I
have proposed a more stringent universal probability bound of 10^-150
based on the number of elementary particles in the universe, the Planck
time, and the duration of the universe until its head death..." (Dembski
W.A., "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information", January 1997.
www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html).
CC>Now, *if* our universe is sufficiently large and/or old, and if it is
>*possible* for intelligent life to form, then it *will* almost
>certainly do so. This intelligent life, having by sheer chance come
>into existence, might then have "seeded" Earth with life and may
>have continued to manipulate life on Earth to this day.
Chris would have to do the sums on: a) how probable is the spontaneous
generation of life; b) how large is the universe; and c) how probable is the
origin of "intelligent life". It is meaningless speaking of a "sufficiently
large and/or old universe"; and "if it is *possible*" without having at least
a ballpark estimation of *how* "large/or old"and *how* "possible".
CC>I do not believe that this theory is true, but it *is* an alternative
>to a theistic design theory, *and* an alternative to conventional
>naturalistic evolutionary theory.
If by "theistic design theory", Chris is talking about *intelligent* "design
theory" then he is using the wrong name. The ID movement is open to,
and in fact includes, non-theists like Todd Moody. I will assume that Chris
is talking about the *intelligent* "design theory" as espoused by the
Intelligent Design (ID) movement.
In that case, the Earth being "seeded" with life is not an alternative to ID
theory. ID theorists could believe that - Mike Behe mentions that as a
possibility in Darwin's Black Box. Indeed, the Earth being "seeded" with
life it is not even an "alternative to conventional naturalistic evolutionary
theory".
But if Chris' argument is about the "sheer chance" aspect then his "seeded"
aspect is superfluous. If his claim is that life could arise by "sheer chance"
anywhere in the universe, then the simplest assumption is that it arose on
Earth.
In that case I would agree that "sheer chance" is an alternative to ID, but
not to "naturalistic evolutionary theory". Dawkins himself in The Blind
Watchmaker invoked the "sheer chance" option as part of "conventional
naturalistic evolutionary theory":
"What is the largest single event of sheer naked coincidence, sheer
unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our
theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life? ... we
can, if we want to, spend virtually our entire ration of postulatable luck in
one big throw, in our theory of the origin of life on a planet. Therefore we
have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as
an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are)
to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of
luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to
suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based
replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We
can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory provided that
the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100
billion billion to one." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991.
pp.141,146).
CC>The second alternative to both theistic design theory and
>conventional naturalistic evolutionary theory is that life *evolved*
>somewhere else and then "seeded" Earth, etc. This is an
>alternative because, even if one believes that there have never
>been naturally-occurring conditions for the evolution of life on
>Earth, it does not mean that one may not believe that conditions
>elsewhere in the Universe may have been suitable to the evolution
>of life.
Again, the above are not "alternatives" to ID theory or "naturalistic
evolutionary theory".
[...]
CC>Is the Universe infinite? Stephen claims that it is not, though there
>is no known way of proving this, even if it happens to be true.
I don't claim to be able to *prove* that the Universe is not infinite. I merely
posted *evidence* against the claim that it was infinite.
CC>He is confusing what scientists typically *call* "the Universe" with
>what the Universe might in fact *be*.
Not really. If the claim is that "the Universe" is infinite, then I assume that
the claim is that this universe, extends infinitely.
CC>Even if we assume that our
>local "miniverse" did indeed come from a "Big Bang" some dozen
>or more billion years ago, this does not mean that it is all there is
>to the *actual* Universe. Even some scientists think that our
>universe may be nothing more than a blip in a vast "multiverse."
>What I've read on this view suggests that they believe that each
>"miniverse" would be isolated from all the others, so the question
>of where life came from in any *one* of them would not be well
>answered by my first alternative to theistic design theory.
>However, *all* of this area of scientific investigation is so
>*deeply* speculative that there is no trusting such theories at all,
>one way or another. An alternative to the mutually isolated
>multiverse theory is the theory that each miniverse is merely
>spatially or otherwise *remote* from other miniverses, just as
>most stars are spatially remote from each other (in relation to their
>sizes, etc.).
See above. The same arguments against an infinite universe apply to an
infinite multiverse or an infinity of universes. Namely, if it existed an
infinite time ago, it would not exist now, unless the claim is that matter
is eternal and the evidence is that it is not.
There is a version of this argument that the universe is not eternal,
expressed in terms of the second law of thermodynamics:
"For example...the second law of thermodynamics states that for
irreversible processes in any closed system left to itself, the entropy (loss of
available heat energy) will increase with time; thus the universe, viewed as
such a system, is moving to the condition of maximum entropy (heat
death): but (and this is the significant aspect of the matter for our purposes)
if the irreversible process had begun an infinite time ago-if, in other words,
the universe were uncreated and eternal-the earth would already have
reached maximum entropy; and since this is not the case, we are driven to
the conclusion that the universe is indeed contingent and finite, and
requires a creative force from the outside to have brought it into
existence." (Montgomery J.W., ed., "Christianity for the Tough Minded",
1982, p.26)
CC>Stephen argues that whether the Universe is infinite or not is
>scientifically untestable. I'm not sure about this, but I think he
>may be right on this. But it doesn't matter; I used the notion of an
>infinite universe merely to make the exposition of my argument
>easier. Essentially the same probabilistic considerations apply to a
>universe that is merely *so* large that its size raises the *overall*
>probability of the spontaneous occurrence of intelligent life to
>near certainty, given that there is any possibility at *all*.
AFAIK I didn't say that "whether the Universe is infinite or not is
scientifically untestable." I think it can be tested that this universe, which
is necessarily part of an infinite universe, or an infinity of universes, is not
eternal. The matter in this universe is decaying slowly and is not eternal, at
least in the state of matter.
Besides, there is also a logical problem with an *actual* infinite series:
"The fact that the universe had a beginning can be given both
philosophical and scientific support. One important philosophical
argument ... involves the impossibility of crossing or traversing an actual
infinite number of events one at a time. It is impossible to cross an actual
infinite (X0). For example, if a person started counting 1, 2, 3, . . ., then
one could count forever and never reach a time when an actual infinite
amount of numbers had been counted. The series of numbers counted
could increase forever without limit, but it would always be finite. Now,
suppose we represent the events in the history of the universe as follows
(best with monospaced font):
-X0 ... -3 -2 -1 0
Past ----------------------------------------- Present
The present moment is marked zero, and each moment in the past (e.g.
yesterday, 1500 B.C) is a point on the line. Now if the universe never had
a beginning, then there is no end on the left side of the line. Rather, it
extends infinitely far into the past. If the universe had no beginning, then
the number of events crossed to reach the present moment would be
actually infinite. It would be like counting to zero from negative infinity.
But since one cannot cross an actual infinite (regardless of whether you
count to positive infinity from zero or to zero from negative infinity), then
the present moment could never have arrived if the universe were
beginningless. This means that since the present is real, it was only
preceded by a finite past, and there was beginning or first event!"
(Moreland J.P. ed., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994, pp.18-19).
CC>Stephen's wonderful claims of near-omniscience about the nature
>and scope of the Universe are ironic coming from someone who
>urges radical skepticism concerning ordinary naturalistic evolution
>on Earth.
I don't make "claims of near-omniscience about the nature and scope of the
Universe" nor do I have "radical skepticism concerning ordinary
naturalistic evolution on Earth". If either can be shown to be true, I would
believe them both.
For example, when I joined the Reflector in 1995 I did not believe in
common ancestry. But I was convinced by evolutionists' arguments that it
was true. In fact AFAIK I am the only person on the Reflector in the 5
years I have been on it, who ever was convinced by the other side's
arguments on a major point!
CC>The great mass of high-quality support for evolution
>from facts here on Earth is rejected
I note that Chris does not state what this "high-quality support for
evolution" is! In fact Chris does not even say what "evolution" is.
Perhaps Chris is talking about the "General theory of evolution", i.e.
"the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single
source which itself came from an inorganic form". But in that case, the
evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider
it as anything more than a working hypothesis":
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed
over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed.
This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " and can be
demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is
the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single
source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called
the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not
sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a
working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about
speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the
development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future
experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory
of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will
satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut, G.A., "Implications of Evolution",
1960, p.157)
CC>while the view that *all* the
>Universe there *is* came into existence from a Big Bang, that our
>little "ball" of a universe probably no more than 40 billion light
>years across (*maximum*) is absolutely all there is to *the*
>Universe. For all I know, this may be true, but there is no reason
>to believe it, given established observational facts. In any case,
>the "this is absolutely all there is" theory of the universe is
>certainly *not* an established fact, so Stephen cannot logically
>use it as strong argument against my alternative to theistic design
>theory.
I am not sure what Chris is now arguing as his alternative to ID theory. If
he wants to make a claim as to what he actually does believe I will see if I
think it is worth debating. I am not interested in debating hypothetical
positions that nobody actually holds.
[...]
CC>Stephen does incidentally bring up a good point about testability,
>with respect to the work of Behe, et al. It is this: *If* Behe (or
>someone) *could* successfully eliminate naturalistic evolution
>(*and* all other naturalistic mechanisms) as the path of
>origination for some feature of living things (such as some
>molecule, for example), then it would be evidence for *some* sort
>of design.
I note Chris' qualifier "*and* all other naturalistic mechanisms". Of course
naturalists can always appeal to unknown, no longer operating, or yet to be
discovered naturalistic mechanisms. Thus Chris' naturalistic position can
never be falsified *in Chris' mind*.
CC>For example, if the first ten million digits of pi were
>found encoded in a blatantly obvious way into a single unbroken
>string of human DNA, I think this would be very good evidence
>for design of some sort (though it is vaguely conceivable that
>some naturalistic process in effect *calculated* pi via molecular
>means and left the result in human DNA, but this seems *so*
>unlikely that I'd go for design in such a case, especially if there
>was also some sort of mechanism for ensuring that *exactly*
>these ten million digits were protected from corruption).
This is the equivalent of a creationist saying he would believe in evolution
if an unbroken series of fossil intermediates were found stretching from
the origin of life to modern humans!
Effectively it is saying that *no evidence* would be acceptable to Chris,
so his test above is meaningless.
CC>Given the poor showing of Behe and others in this respect, it
>doesn't look like any such highly positive evidence is in the
>offing.
It only shows that for Chris, effectively *no* amount of evidence for
design would suffice.
But as I have said, there is no need for ID to try to convince the Chris' of
this world, since that cannot be done. The ID movement can simply go
around them.
CC>Further, of course, such evidence would hardly prove any non-
>naturalistic version of design theory. Non-naturalism always has a
>relatively *greater* burden of proof than any equivalent
>*naturalistic* theory, because of the radical metaphysical claim it
>makes. Conventional *theistic* non-naturalism has an even
>greater burden of proof because of the preposterousness of the
>God that must be proved also. God supposedly created the
>Universe. Since we have no evidence that *the* universe was in
>fact created, this imposes *another* burden of proof. For all we
>can tell, perhaps *some* form of our universe has existed
>infinitely. Proposing anything *beyond* a naturalistic universe is
>simply a needless exercise in superfluity.
More of Chris attempted tilting of the playing field, so that design
could never be accepted, even if it was true.
CC>Further still, even if we *accept* that there is a non-naturalistic
>basis for the Universe, there is no reason to believe that it is
>*anything* like a conventional Christian God. It may be nothing
>more than a little guy with an IQ of 100, the education of the
>average school child, and the power to create universes (perhaps
>universes over which he has *no* subsequent control at all).
This is in fact the basic ID position, that even if design is proved, it would
not establish the Christian God. But this is nothing new - Christian theologians
have always said it.
The Christian God needs to be established on evidence other than the mere
fact of design. I believe that He can be, but that is a different topic
from the mere fact of design.
Nevertheless I find it strange why Chris appears to be so worried about the
Christian God, that even though Chris claims He doesn't even exist, that
Chris still wants to downgrade him to "a little guy with an IQ of 100"!
CC>To make this clear, consider yet another of Stephen's ubiquitous
>quotations:
[...]
SJ>A chief feature of Swinburne's (Swinburne R., "The Existence of
>God", 1991) argument is his application of just such an Occam's razor
>type test to the hypothesis that God exists uncaused. He regards this as
>the simplest of hypotheses and therefore of higher prior probability than
>other hypotheses, such as the existence of an uncaused universe. By God,
>Swinburne means a being who has omnipotence and omniscience among
>his qualities. A being with infinite power and knowledge is simpler than
>one with a finite limited quantity of power or knowledge, because in the
latter case one would have to ask, 'Why is the limit just what it is?'
>Similarly the existence of an uncaused universe is a complex hypothesis
>compared with the existence of an infinite being: it just cries out for an
>explanation." (Holder R.D., "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?" 1993,
>pp.163-164)
CC>If we must ask "Why is the limit just what it is?" we must also
>ask of an infinite being, "Why is there no limit?"
I am surprised that Chris should ask this, since Chris claims to be writing a
book on the topic. Yet it sounds like Chris has never read Swinburne, who
is probably the world's greatest exponent of this `theism is simplest'
argument,.
Holder continues the above summary of Swinburne's argument from
simplicity as follows:
"Swinburne argues that a person with infinite capacities is essentially
simpler than one with finite capacities because, as we have said, in the
latter case one is forced to ask, 'Why are these capacities limited to such
and such particular values?' For example, a being who can both create and
mould matter is simpler than one who can only mould it, like Plato's
demiurge. Swinburne argues that this is the same kind of simplicity that a
gravitational attraction proportional to 1/r^2 possesses over one
proportional to l/r^2.000142. The latter is both unnatural and has
physically unsatisfying consequences. Following Dirac and Polanyi one
would believe the 1/r2 law despite experimental evidence to the contrary
(up to a point of course-certainly the reliability of the experiment would
need to be plainly demonstrable to force abandonment of so pleasingly
simple a law)." (Holder R.D., "Nothing but Atoms and Molecules?", 1993,
pp.163-164)
CC>If the existence of an uncaused universe "cries out for an
>explanation," so does the existence of an uncaused infinite being.
>*Nothing* epistemologically is gained by introducing such a
>being into the discussion. Such a being is *absolutely* useless,
>since any requirement for an explanation of a prospective fact
>about the Universe has a *corresponding* requirement for an
>explanation in the case of the infinite being.
No. We know that all finite things in our experience have a cause. We also
know that all physical things in our experience are finite. So any claim that
there is something physical that is either infinite and/or uncaused would
require a special explanation.
But there is no special explanation needed for the existence of an infinite
non-physical being who brought into existence everything else. Such a
being can be simply be postulated as self-existent and there is nothing in
our experience against it.
It is such a simple explanation for the existence of everything else that
even a child can understand it. OTOH Chris's position that the universe is
either infinite, eternal and/or uncaused is so complex that most adults
wouldn't be able to understand it.
CC>Worse, the introduction of such a being always makes the original
>problems *more* complex rather than *less* complex, *more*
>elusive rather than *less* elusive, etc., because it is always
>regressive. Every time such a being is introduced to explain
>something, vastly *larger* questions are introduced along with it.
>Saying that the universe (in *some* form) has simply always
>existed is innocuous compared to saying that there's this bizarre
>infinite *being* who has always existed, a being who is infinitely
>intelligent, infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, and who
>can create universes from absolute nothingness. Perhaps Stephen
>does not regard the infinite-past existence of a being with infinite
>knowledge as being in need of more explanation than merely the
>infinite-past existence of some sort of "Dumb Stuff" out of which
>our current universe is made, but whether he is able to grasp this
>or not, it's clearly a much stronger claim that such a thing exists at
>all. We can *see* the natural universe. Any claim of such a being
>must be based either on faith or on some sort of radical
>*metaphysical* inference. So far, neither Swinburne nor Jones has
>shown any signs of justifying such a bizarre kind of inference,
>and as the remarks above show, the glib pretense that the infinite-
>being theory is simpler collapses under even mild scrutiny (and
>the situation gets much *worse* for it under more-sustained
>scrutiny).
Chris is simply not dealing with the Christian theist's argument. It is not
postulating a succession of higher beings, but only *one* infinite Being.
Period. He either exists as "infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful,
infinitely knowledgeable, and who can create universes from absolute
nothingness", or He does not. It's as simple as that.
CC>In short, design theory hot air continues to waft unexamined
>arguments our way, arguments that are only accepted, even by
>their proponents, because they refuse to examine them before
>sending them forth into the world. Stephen, once again, has let
>himself be led astray by the fact that he *wants* theistic design
>theory to be true so strongly that even quite dimwitted arguments
>(such as Swinburne's) are accepted and used without question or
>pause -- or scruple.
Now we are back to "design theory" again. At least Chris is now
calling it by a correct name!
If Chris actually believes what he writes (e.g. about Swinburne, who is a
Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, and respected even by
leading atheist philosophers like the late J.L. Mackie), using "dimwitted
arguments", then there is probably nothing that *I* can do or say that
would have any impact on Chris.
The only benefit that I can see in responding to Chris' posts is that: a) it
helps me clarify my own ideas; b) it strengthens my view that atheism is
intellectually bankrupt; and c) it might help less committed
atheist/agnostic lurkers reconsider their position.
As to Chris' claim that I want Christian theism to be true, the fact is that in
one sense I would be *relieved* if it were not true. I would *enjoy* lying
in bed on Sundays and not having to worry about trying to help atheists
like Chris! The reason I am a Christian is that I believe it to be *true*.
But OTOH Chris gives the impression of someone who *wants*
Christianity to be untrue. If he *really* believed it was untrue, then he would
be relaxed about it and not bothered with trying to convince "dimwitted"
Christians that they are wrong. But Chris gives the impression of someone
who is trying hard to convince *himself* that Christianity is wrong!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bypassing the recent wave of Creationism in the US and its criticism of
Darwin's theory, a number of objections can be made against the notion of
natural selection, some of which I will mention here. Such intricate changes
have arisen in nature, involving such immensely complex series of
mutations that mathematicians find it almost impossible to attribute these to
blind chance. Rattray Taylor mentions several instances of features which
evolved long before they were of any advantage so that they hardly can
have been caused by natural selection. Even Darwin himself was
occasionally seized by doubt while contemplating organs of extreme
perfection. 'The eye gives me a cold shudder,' he wrote." (Noske B.,
"Humans and Other Animals: Beyond the Boundaries of Anthropology,"
Pluto Press: London, 1989, p.65)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 17:52:00 EDT