Irrefutable logic?

I caught this article discussing who created God. Interesting. Of the three premises in the article, they address only two:

1. Does the universe have a beginning? (Most agree it does.)
   
2. Denial of cause and effect (Something about quantum mechanics, and about something being created out of nothing.)

The third premise in their proof is not addressed at all. I quote it here: "God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause." (Emphasis theirs.) A few times they use the words "God, by definition ..." as if simply saying something is so, makes it so. Don't we wish!

This is their conclusion:

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant [sic] be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

Avoid a theistic conclusion? I don't even have to get into the debate. This is a false dichotomy, because there are more than two alternatives, and you only need a theistic conclusion if you accept their third premise, which they totally ignore. Furthermore, this "argument" is nothing but red-herring-style hand-waving, trying to push the point in contention away from evidence of God to evidence of ... something else (something about the problem with "simultaneous creation" or creation out of nothing, or something). The "analysis" they present isn't simply or merely tentative, it's totally beside the point.

The more crucial aspect of their argument is that whole "and here a miracle occurs" thing. For those who already believe God created the universe, this may be easy to accept. For the rest of us, it's a little too great a leap of logic. Or something. I'm not saying the universe didn't have a creator--I really have no idea how it began--I'm just saying, don't define God as not needing a cause (eternal, unbounded, and all that) and then use that unfounded and unproven assertion to "prove" that he/she created the universe. I could just as easily say it was invisible giant turtles, because by definition something has to hold the universe up. I mean, if they don't exist, then how does it keep from falling?

Refute that.

Subjectivity (and objectivity) of thought

I came across this short post quoting Owen Flanagan from The Problem of the Soul. He mentions subjectivity of thought in regards to evaluating science against other "forms of discourse":

My view is that if you are going to claim that all forms of discourse are equally subjective, you better have real familiarity with all the forms of discourse you aim to level.

But science really isn't a subjective form of discourse. It's horrendously objective, which seems to be the biggest complaint against it, these days. Or maybe it's because it isn't. Hard to tell. Point is: one cannot have it both ways. If everything is subjective, then everything is equally dismissible out of hand. Opinions, then, would be the only things that matter. But if this is not the case, then anything said to be objective can be scrutinized. Subject to objective measurement and comparison, as it were.

If science is a subjective form of discourse, then disagreement about science and religion (for example) are simply differences of opinion, and we agree to disagree. No problem. But I see developments, particularly here in the US, that seek to bring religion into the classroom and teach it as if it were science. Objectively. Or maybe subjectively. Hard to tell. I'm pretty sure science is not subjective mumbo-jumbo, because it doesn't depend on whether I believe in it, or not. It's going to work (as long as you do it right) every time. (Let me posit that most aspects of religious practice do not "work" so predictably. But perhaps we're just not doing it right.)

Having religious beliefs is fine. They can help make you a better person, but of course religion is not the only path to being good, and it doesn't guarantee you'll actually be better (or even good). If they make you feel better, then they are a "good thing" on that basis. I have no disagreement with that. But religion is not the only way.

Speaking of belief systems, some argue that science is just as much faith and belief as religion. It's not, mostly because of the continual testing and verification. Evolution, for example, doesn't survive because the Darwin Priesthood says it must. It survives and grows because it makes predictions that are relentlessly tested, and the supporting evidence is so wide-spread--from many, many different disciplines--that it becomes virtually impossible to fit in another equally plausible hypothesis (that doesn't include the same features). It's no wonder scientists laugh when creationists try to get their ideas "equal time" in the scientific discourse.

By way of example: I sometimes laugh when I encounter people who don't understand how computers work. Many times they follow "rules" that make no sense, claiming that if they don't do them just so, then the computer won't work. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in what they're saying, but two unrelated things are still unrelated whether we think they are, or not. When I look at the code, I can tell what it does, and I'm certain it's doing only what I observe. It doesn't matter how much you think otherwise, it simply cannot be working for the reasons you think. This is the dichotomy I feel when folks try to take things and ascribe supernatural causes to them. While I may not be a scientist "looking at the code" of biology (for example) there are many who are, and do observe what's happening. If we can explain nature in unequivocal terms (such as the things a computer does) then no amount of imaginary fancy will change a thing. My computer will not suddenly start working if I yell at it. Or pray at it, either. Can you imagine the chaos if praying to the computer actually worked? (I want a $1,000,000 salary. Pay it to me!)

Many people argue that understanding the science behind certain "non-sciency" things sorta ruins them. I understand that falling in love is chemical, but it still feels good at the time. I understand what made the mountains and the weather, but I can still marvel at a magnificent vista. I'm just amazed by it all, no matter what the cause. Knowing why and wanting to know more ruins nothing. If you have to have mysterious supernatural explanations for things in order to feel good, then fine, go have them. Just don't try to tell me that your fantastic imaginings are on par with scientific findings.

... when people listen to Jenny, children die. It's really that simple.

The title above is a quote from one of my favorite medical blogs, Whitecoat Underground. PalMD is very informative, so give him a look. He also writes for Science-based Medicine, also very good.

Whitecoattales suggests we contact Oprah about her monumentally bad idea of giving Jenny McCarthy a television venue for mindless/braindead rantings. So I put my two cents in. Let her know the mistake she is making.

I've asked this question before: If these anti-vaxxers don't trust medical science and scientists, then in order to be satisfied, whom do they think will do the research to come up with the "safe" vaccines they say they will support? How will they know when these "safe" vaccines are developed? How will they know they work? Where will the money come from to fund this all-important research? (Hey, Jim C.--how about coughing up a few hundred million for this? Sorta put your money where your mouth is, you ignorant fuck.) And lastly, how many children have to suffer in the meantime? She thinks this suffering is the "price we have to pay." Any of you have small children? Do you think this is a reasonable price?

Weigh in!

Really excellent posts on science and religion

Read the Coyne article in the New Republic. Then read PZ Myers' commentary on Coyne.

As scientists we have to think about the incompatibility between religious belief and the reason of science. For me, the money quote comes from Richard Feynman:

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

One comment I've heard about atheists is that they just won't shut up. That they're just too pushy, loud, disrespectful, and obnoxious. They are vocal, certainly, but their weapons are "only" words that espouse ideas. Surely one's faith isn't shaken by ideas, is it? Or is it? Mine was.

Self inspection is hard, and I'm no exception. But it's clear, the scales eventually have to fall from our eyes, or we fall short of being true scientists. Well, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

This is all just food for thought in a hungry world. Enjoy.

"Origin" Virgin blogging his reading of Darwin

This is interesting. An evolutionary biologist is reading Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and blogging about it as he reads. The contents of the book are in the public domain and you may find them online, here. Since I am a skeptic and continually thirst for more knowledge, I will do my utmost to read along with Dr. John Whitfield, to see, so to speak, what all the furor is about. And to gain knowledge, too.

So come along if you're interested. No matter what your beliefs, this should be fascinating.

Watch ring found in Ming Dynasty tomb

In the news this week is the mention of a Swiss-made watch ring (a watch integrated into a ring, or rather, a watch worn as you would wear a ring) found in a 400-year-old Chinese tomb. Problem is, "[l]ocal experts say they are confused as they believe the tomb had been undisturbed since it was created during the Ming dynasty 400 years ago."

So, has someone traveled back in time, or what? That an archaeologist joked about it only serves to confuse the gullible even more.

I know the answer, and of course it's no. The watch ring is old, and it's very likely someone was in the tomb sometime in the past 100 years. Probably closer to then as opposed to now. It seems fairly safe to assume that unless you have personally watched the tomb entrance every moment for the past 100 years, or so, and you can be certain no one has entered or exited, that some time traveler has NOT left his/her ring in the tomb. Actually, more than a fairly safe assumption.

But this story does make good fodder for a D20 Modern Time Travel campaign episode. After we visit the Nazis during WWII, and maybe visit the space station (on the far side of the moon) back in 1270 (I think that's when it was).

Yes, I'm a geek and I still play RPGs, at my age. I never want to think older than 25, and so far, I'm winning.

"Teach the Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution?"

First of all, hat tip to Ed Brayton and his Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog. In reference to the State of Texas school board's position on the theory of evolution:

I have to wonder--is it appropriate to teach the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" to high school students? Truly? Really? The finer points of the theory of evolution are appropriate for graduate school courses in biology. Can a high school student understand and appreciate where the current theory is, in terms that make sense given their really limited exposure? In a word, no.

So, I'm trying to parse this statement in a way that makes sense. Of course, I know the agenda behind it, and it's really a thinly veiled attempt to insert Christian faith/belief into the science curriculum. A place, I might add, where it firmly must not be. I wouldn't want Islamic faith taught as science, either.

I am a rationalist. My "faith" is not based on superstitions or stories. The theory of evolution has been researched and experimented against by thousands of scientists for more than 100 years. It's not a faith, and it does stand up to rational, scientific scrutiny. The same scrutiny and rigor that, for example, sent us to the moon. A scientist continually tries to prove that they're wrong. The only way to verify some hypothesis is to build experiments that are intended to disprove it. Because only when an hypothesis stands up to repeated, stringent attempts to disprove it, does it become a scientific theory. Theories change as we learn more, but no one would suggest that not knowing everything would, in fact, mean a theory is weak.

We do not know everything; we probably never will. Knowledge isn't a destination; it's a journey. As for how life began, how the universe began, what caused it all ... I don't know the answers, and I'm all right not knowing. If someone wants to believe that a supernatural god did all this (and we call this faith), then that's OK with me. It's just an hypothesis that, unfortunately, hasn't really been tested. We can infer its validity in the face of unknowns, but we have not tested this idea against the physical universe. For all I know it could be true, but my intuition tells me it's not.

There doesn't have to be a reason for all this--everything. That it is, is good enough for me. Because the real question is: what are you going to do with what you have? The meaning of life is to see it perpetuated, and that is all. We have minds that thirst for the answers, so in addition to perpetuating our life in this universe, we also explore the nature of the reality we sense. Perfectly OK. Not a waste of time.

I'd suggest if you've been sitting around waiting for the afterlife that you get up off your ass and get busy. You ain't got eternity to accomplish something. There's no time like now; no one better than you. Or me.

Misconceptions about atheism and the afterlife

"When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more -- that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich made these remarks in reference to the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. Let me address them in the order they occur to me:

• "Die for nothing" - I thought he died to further the causes of freedom and safety for Americans. Not so much for the Afghanis, but ... not for nothing.
• "Now he is no more" - His body and mind are gone to us, but we remember him. I never knew him, but there are many who did. (Let's ask why we remember someone ...)
  
• "Supposedly a better life" - Maybe, but there's no proof of that. It's what we call "faith."
• "Where is there to go?" - What's wrong with nowhere? Why does there have to be a better place? What's wrong with this one? It sucks, maybe, but we're here and we can make it better, can't we?
• "Worm dirt" - Everyone becomes worm dirt, eventually. The body does not continue, no matter how much you believe otherwise.
• "Don't believe in anything" - Patently false. Unless you define "anything" as belief in a god. I don't define it that way. Atheists believe in lots of things, just not the supernatural. Frankly, I don't believe in the supernatural, either.
• "I don't know how an atheist thinks" - Atheists think exactly as you do, except they don't believe in a supernatural god. They have morals, and ethics, and know the difference between right and wrong, just like everyone else. Morals don't come from a god, as far as atheists are concerned. Your mileage may vary. Why an atheist would sacrifice himself (or herself) in war or in any other thing has nothing to do with belief in an afterlife or a god, and everything to do with protecting life. That's purely humanistic, of course, and not an invalid reason for dying. Would you die to protect your child or someone you love? Absolutely.
  

My mother told me she's pretty sure there's no life after death. She thinks she died when she had her heart attack, and said death is just nothingness. Black. Nothing. They revived her, obviously, or I would not have heard what happened.

I can live with that. Heh. Death doesn't scare me any more than knowing that I wouldn't be around anymore to do interesting stuff and be with the people I love. No one wants to die, but does it matter if we live forever? Why should that motivate us more or less than knowing we can accomplish things here? Now. In this life. This life should also be important, but if we expend our energies worrying about the "great beyond," isn't that a little irresponsible? Believe in an afterlife all you want, but don't give this life short shrift.

Live in the now. Do what you can, now, with what you have. If we can do that, the afterlife will take care of itself. At least that's what my god wants.

Hat tip to Ed Brayton.

Some quick observations on the effect of circumstances on observations

Thinking about the apparent effect that unexplained phenomena have on paranormal researchers, I was reminded of an event I experienced quite a few years ago. It wasn't anything related to the paranormal, or even anything extraordinary.

I was with a bunch of middle-level managers on a team-building retreat. Yeah, this was maybe twenty-two or -three years ago. Anyway, one of the exercises was to climb a rope ladder to a large limb of an oak tree. I think it was oak because the branch was a good 18" (.5m) diameter and horizontal. Yeah, a really big tree. The limb was about 25' up (7m). Not that high, and big enough to walk along. And there were guide ropes, too.

Thing is, some of the managers were afraid of heights, and the prospect of climbing that rope ladder up to the limb and walking out along it, even with a harness and ropes around them, really terrified them. And I mean they were really, really afraid.

The phenomenon I observed was how their fear translated to others. In particular, to me. I am not afraid of heights, or of climbing rope ladders or walking along limbs. But when it came time to climb, and armed with the expectation and dread of the others, I found my heart really pounding as I climbed that ladder. Once I was on the limb it was no problem. There was really no reason to be afraid of falling. I've climbed lots of trees, and this was nothing new. The atmosphere of fear and trepidation had been very heavy among those of us waiting to climb, even among us that had no particular reason to be afraid.

I think they call this mob mentality, and it's real. So next time you're with a bunch of excited and excitable paranormal researchers walking around in the dark of some old house or building in the middle of the night, and there's a sound or something moves and everyone jumps, just remember that a major part of your fear comes not from the unexpected, but from the others.

Skeptics vs paranormal investigators

Huh. I found this entry on a blog I watch. An amateur skeptic got in "trouble" for making fun of some paranormal investigators. Easy to understand, I think. I watch Ghost Hunters for the interpersonal drama and to debunk every claim they make. Ridiculously easy.

I don't know what's in the picture in question, but the "ghost" image seems rather distinct given the overall fuzziness of the photo. OK, the photo may be enlarged somewhat so it shows the film's grain (like pixilation would for a digital photo), yet the "ghost" image seems quite distinct. It also doesn't really look unambiguously human, either, IMHO. Could be anything. That's the real test--is the evidence unambiguous?

I don't know what's in the picture, but "ghost" is the last conclusion I would ever reach. When you see hoof-prints, think horses, not zebras. Whether or not a skeptic could duplicate the shadow in the photo (as claimed), there is definitely a mundane explanation for this. We just haven't found it, yet. I wonder if it's worth the effort, even.

Fortunately, the bar is set VERY high for any paranormal investigator. I say "fortunately," because just like in real science, tests have to be constructed very carefully to eliminate the many extraneous factors that might skew the results. Given the notorious unreliability of "ghosts," (apparently so, given the "evidence" presented to date) a controlled experiment seems problematic at the very least. But necessary, as it happens. Until then, no quantity of fuzzy photos or compelling personal anecdotes can possibly turn our heads. Sorry. "Unexplained" will never equal "supernatural," just "not explained yet."

I have always said the universe is much weirder and stranger than we can imagine. But at the same time I have also imagined we would either know what something is, or have unambiguous proof that it's something completely outside our ability to know. Tall order, I would think.

If I'm asking too much, let me know. I keep an open mind, but ya still gotta prove it.