34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

The movie "Contact" from the book by Carl Sagan is one of my favourites...except it throws out Number 22 on your list as a conversation stopper for the archetypal scientist characer, Ellie. She flounders around looking for an answer to proving her deceased father loved her.

If love was intangible, remembering birthdays and anniversaries and her favourite wine would not be important. Weddings wouldn't occur.

Many of the "arguments" overlap greatly with one another--to the extent that they are essentially repeats. If each argument comes from a different source, quoting and citing that source would bring home the fact that it is not Berkshire who is being repetitive, but the arguers.

'Many of the "arguments" overlap greatly with one another ...'

The last version of this document I saw was titled "21 Unconvincing Arguments for God", so the author must have added the last 13 as a response to recent personal or national debates. In particular, 29 is (I think) from Aristotle, and 30-34 answer common talking points of cdesignproponentsists.

I don't think citing sources for arguments will necessarily help; because of the religious echo chamber, these arguments seemingly come from myriad sources, and in fact might demonstrate parallel evolution in action. A taxonomy might help, but I interpret the purpose of "X Unconvincing Arguments for God" to be a cheat sheet for atheists debating theists, or perhaps a DSM for theistic delusions of rationality.

If I might blogwhore just a teensy bit, I once discussed this whole ridiculous notion of "perfection" here. Feel free to point out the errors of my ways.

To quote the Unreal Tournament announcer: "Mo-mo-mo-MONSTERKILL!"

To quote Oolon Colluphid: "Well That About Wraps It Up for God"

Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may be an illusion.

Bullshit.

Free will is an illusion only if you define it in absolutist terms, to mean something like "the ability to defy all natural laws at will," or "the ability to imagine something literally unthinkable and then to do it."

I've even heard people insist that if you can't defy gravity, or simply DECIDE to walk through a wall, you don't have free will. People who say it would invariably conclude that anybody in a wheelchair automatically doesn't have free will, because they can't walk, despite wanting to. Why even have a discussion about the phrase if you're going to pop out with such stupid arguments?

Yet most of what I hear about free will seems to demand such a definition.

To hear an atheist make such a statement, it seems to me I'm hearing the same type of unexamined holdover from religion that causes people to say you can't have morality without God, because God is the source of morality.

So: Free will only comes from God, and without Him, we can't possibly have it. Therefore, those people who don't believe in God can't believe in free will.

Uhhh ... no.

Atheism itself is a demonstration of free will.

I define free will to mean something less absolutist, something like "the ability to be a conscious individual capable of making one's own choices, especially in the face of pressure to conform."

I say free will is something we're all probably capable of, but only under certain difficult conditions, conditions which most of us probably don't attain. It's sort of like getting a PhD, or finishing a marathon. It takes an immense amount of work, and a lot of us just aren't up to it.

Free will takes reason, introspection, awareness of your own nature, awareness of the nature of your social and natural environment, plus the determination to be an individual.

Free will happens outside the herd. Most of us don't go to the trouble. We're content to be just like everybody else - to eat the fast food, covet the hot car, keep up on the latest fashions, praise Jesus (or Allah) right along with everybody else, watch the popular shows, watch the commercials and buy the shit advertised, get our tattoos, hate the right outgroups, and allow our knees to jerk every time our political and religious leaders hit us with their little rubber hammers.

In other words, acting and reacting automatically to the forces that act on you is the opposite of free will. (You can find legions of them among the conservatives, the follow-alongs, the silent, the obedient, the strident dullards who think George W. Bush is the greatest president who ever lived.)

If you're NOT acting and reacting automatically, if you're THINKING about what you're doing and why, if you're evaluating everything based on criteria you yourself have worked out, you're exhibiting at the least the first half of free will.

Free will, to me, is really about being Human, as opposed to being Beast. Nothing wrong with the beastly parts of us, but if that's all you're living in, all you're living as, if you're not bothering to use that most Human of gifts - independent Reason - you're cheating yourself and everybody around you of the best and most complete You that you could be.

Free will is not an illusion. It's just that a lot of people - certainly those who don't believe in it - never get to have it.

The major weakness I see is that despite the introductory premise setting things up as a matter of skepticism, many of the discussions go on to unnecessarily make strong assertions of their own, like saying that a god would not have created a universe in a high state of disorder.

In my opinion, those sorts of things should be avoided. They are virtually never necessary to demonstrate the inadequacy of the claims they are responding to, and they commit the arguer to having to defend all sorts of crazy assertions for which there is no possible evidence to work with.

I also think that his usage of Stenger is pretty clumsy. While I certainly like VS's arguments, a lot of them in this context are far too technical right off the bat, and they are also far too certain in their presentation of the physical principles they are asserting. Many of Stenger's arguments involve just explaining speculative possibilities, not definite truths about the universe. Again, the skeptical position is far easier to explain and far stronger in these sorts of questions. You don't really need to understand physics at all to understand the logical flaws in fine tuning and first cause arguments.

Also, the discussion of the ontological argument needs a lot of beefing up. The ontological argument is far trickier than we often give it credit for, especially in its new modal form, which even some atheist philosophers agree is logically sound (the problem is figuring out exactly what's wrong the premises, and honestly, I don't think there's a really knock-down answer as of yet).

I'd be cautious of the negative gravitational argument, in light of our lack of understanding of dark energy and dark matter. There is also no reason to conclude that god would have introduced positive energy. The first law of thermodynamics is a wonderful response.

I dislike reason #15. The corollary of "Some atheists are just incapable of belief; don't blame them" is "Some theists just have to believe; don't blame them." It seems to me a negation of free will.

Don't forget that most or all of these arguments are also discussed in detail at Iron Chariots. :)

Hank, I'm not sure I understand you. Almost no one has ever disputed that there is a weak form of the term free will by which we mean that we are autonomous agents capable of being dropped down in a situation and making choices for ourselves.

The only concept that's ever really been in dispute IS the absolutist idea: the idea that free will means more than simply the ability to make a choice, but rather that our choices are unbounded by our natures. It's hard to define exactly what this version of free will really means or implies, and of course, that's it core weakness: it's probably unintelligible. How can a chooser be free from their own nature? How can a will be free from itself, and yet still call its choices its own? Free Will is basically defined by negation (no, we are not bound by our natures, no God is not responsible for our choices, because we have this X that decides independently of who and what he made us), but never actually defined or explained directly.

We can explain how a choice is made causally at least in theory, and through the study of the brain, we may someday be able to explain this specifically in humans. It's not clear that advocates of Free Will (the strong version) can do anything like this: they can't explain, even in theory, what Free Will is and what exact role it plays in choicemaking. If what they are talking about is a real concept, then they should be able to explain how choices are made without Free Will and then with Free Will, and what difference it made in the process. But they don't seem able to do this, or even come close. And while Free Will is a favorite idea of many Dualists (who insist that a person is more than just the mechanistic operation of the brain), it's actually just as much of a philosophical headache for them, because whatever they propose a person really IS, they still are stuck having to provide the same explanation, only in terms of souls or what have you. And there they are even worse off, because of course they have no way at all to examine what a soul is or how it makes choices in the same way we can examine what a brain is.

It's possible that even just asking the question of how choices get made "with" Free Will is deadly to the idea of "Free Will." Once you start explaining the concept, you are committing yourself to some sort of causal chain of events... which is exactly what Free Will was denying or trying to escape responsibility for.

Minor criticism:

"Even today, it is probable that in England and France..."

Surely this should read "In the UK and France" or, less accurately (but still more accurately than "England") Great Britain and France.

Bad: My point is that a discussion of "strong" free will -- if that's what it's called -- isn't even worth having.

We already know the answer. Believing that you can contravene natural laws by an act of will (or by appealing to a god) is really just another religion.

Which is pretty much what you said, I guess. :D

I don't like it that the discussion leaps to the absolutist, and concludes no such thing can exist (or that only Jesus can give it to us), when there's SO MUCH to gain from considering it in real terms.

This guy made that same error. I'm an absolute atheist, but nothing in me thinks free will doesn't exist.

As to "weak" or "strong," I think I'd much rather think of them as "realistic" free will as compared to "absolutist" or "mystical" free will. It isn't strong if it's impossible; it's weak as hell.

I'm not particularly fond of calling altruism a selfish act ("People do good for others because it makes themselves feel good"). First, it robs the word "selfish" of predictive power: if you tell me, "John is a selfish man," I should be able to predict something about John's future actions. Will he help James change his car tire? No, he is too selfish to do that — but wait, yes, because helping James will make John feel warm and fuzzy.

Second, I don't think that model of altruism is well-founded in modern neuroscience.

Third, it elides Dawkins' key observation, that our kindness to total strangers may be a mis-firing or a byproduct of neural mechanisms crafted by natural selection in an age when all the people one met were close relatives or potential reciprocators. Altruism doesn't necessarily increase the fitness of our genes today; it helped increase the fitness of our forgotten ancestors' genes thousands or millions of years ago.

Fourth, the idea that we make ethical judgments by calmly weighing each option in mind, dispassionately calculating a utility function and choosing the option of maximal goodness is completely absurd. That's not the way people behave. We decide such matters emotionally, intuitively, instinctively, relying upon the truthiness in our gut. This often causes serious problems, but it's the way our machinery works.

From Argument (34): The fact that the universe started with maximum disorder means that a god could not have created it, because a purposeful creation would have had at least some order to it.

Not so. It's not trivial, but entirely possible to write a program who's output is completely random. A stronger argument is that any sufficiently large collection of randomness is required to have some sort of ordering.

Another argument that can be added to the list is the following:

The Bible has the greatest copying fidelity of any known work. - The Bible has been published more times than any other work (actually, the IKEA catalog takes that prize) and its copying fidelity is unmatched. This is proof of God's existence.

Showing how the Bible has always had numerous copies present to check the fidelity against is trivially easy. Other works from that era have not had the benefit of mass production - the printing press is less than 600 years old. When there is only one or two copies of a work that would take you six months to acquire, checking for accuracy is difficult at best. When every parish, monastery and most homes have a copy, checking for accuracy is easy.

This could be the longest Pharyngula post ever.

I like the systematics, and sometime the specifics, but of course there are points that jumps out as less well argued or even curious. Perhaps a reference list had made it easier to parse those points - and the list is too long to argue that references is diluting the presentation.

Gods as the ultimate free lunch (and as christians would have it, the ultimate false choice) is a good start.

But the interesting list of leaps of faith describes some major religions anthropomorphic gods and finally focuses on abrahamic gods which detracts from it. Similarly later arguments reuse this conception of gods (to great effect, admittedly). I think it gives religions too much to focus on some specific religions delusions.

Then we have the pure apologetics arguments at the end.

Likable is Victor Stenger's argument (#28) against non-existence (symmetry breaking), more so than Sean Carroll's (IIRC that non-existence is outside the support of the knowable ensemble). I assume Stenger takes the observed fact that symmetries are broken (say CP invariance) then they don't have to be preserved (say CPT invariance) and promotes it as a principle with some predictive power. [Stenger is now on my "must read" list.]

But the point on the argument from first cause drops the ball - first cause isn't a scientific description, and the very next argument on physical laws is part of a complete answer. Also, I can't imagine what "the six physical constants of the universe" in point #31 refers to. Perhaps it is a partial list of the most important constants - more savvy religious persons use to include the Standard Model constants of the particle zoo for good reasons.

Finally I have a minor quibble with point #34. Stenger's argument, albeit excellent, isn't necessarily valid in a larger multiverse setting. If I understand it correctly some models of eternal inflation speculates in a prespace where regions spontaneously started to inflate when they happened to exhibit low enough entropy with some small probability. (But I hasten to add, if religious people reads this, of course with high likelihood. :-P) IIRC Andrei Linde has a review article describing those models. But that is still no 2LOT violation.

Another unconvincing argument for god I've heard a lot (I come from a very fundamentalist background) is that every culture in the world ever found has some kind of independent deity(ies).

I have no idea if this is empirically true, but my usual counter to this is something along these lines:

1. Perhaps that means the human brain is wired to have delusions about deities?

2. Perhaps religion is a cultural virus (I put it this way because most fundamentalists haven't heard of memes) that propagates itself quite nicely.

3. Perhaps developing a religion is the best way of dealing with a difficult environment before people develop empirical science: enshrining certain behaviours into your religion is a better way of making sure they're propagated.

I thought the argument of free will is more pragmatic than the philosophical semantics of choice. More like the deterministic or not nature of the universe, rather viewing it at the scale of us as humans.

How can anything fundamental that we know not be subject to the laws of quantum mechanics? I mean, every particle has its probability wave, but for more than just a few particles, it is all but impossible to come up with a significant probability.

So, fundamentally, we can say that every particle's movement is pre-determined by probabilities, but in practice it is utterly unpredictable. Whatever our neurons lead us to act on, is a product of a practically unknowable chain of events.

Sorry to sound like Deepak Chopra, I hope it was clear enough.

I presume the author of this piece has already read Sean Carroll's "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists". If he hasn't, I recommend it.

Several commenters have drawn a conclusion that I can support - the arguments are too technical (too much Stenger), and the more forceful general arguments becomes diluted. But one can argue at length how a text should be efficiently presented. There is also a value showing independent arguments that comes to the same conclusion.

Btw, Hank Fox mentioned walking through walls, and that reminded me about an error in the list, of the sort that gnaw on you. Point #2 claims it is impossible to walk through walls. Quantum mechanically it isn't impossible for even macroscopic "classical" objects to tunnel through a finite barrier, they too have (a minimally spread) wavefunction associated with them. But the likelihood of observing it during our universe lifetime is vanishingly small.

Free will is an illusion only if you define it in absolutist terms, to mean something like "the ability to defy all natural laws at will," or "the ability to imagine something literally unthinkable and then to do it."

I've even heard people insist that if you can't defy gravity, or simply DECIDE to walk through a wall, you don't have free will. People who say it would invariably conclude that anybody in a wheelchair automatically doesn't have free will, because they can't walk, despite wanting to. Why even have a discussion about the phrase if you're going to pop out with such stupid arguments?

Yet most of what I hear about free will seems to demand such a definition.

ISTM that this is the kind of free will that people actually believe in when they offer it as an argument for dualism, however much they may deny it. For example, if you say to them, "If God doesn't want people to do x, then why didn't He just make it impossible", guess what answer you're going to get back?

But for some reason they don't think things that really are impossible are relevant to the discussion. Our inability to teleport surely limits our opportunities for misbehavior, yet theologians don't get their panties in a bunch over that.

Free will is just another pick-and-choose belief for dualists. Before you try to refute it as an argument for something, you've got the bigger task of pinning them down on what they actually mean by it. Good luck on that.

I also have a quibble with #8. Evolution does select for a superior competitor...but it's entirely possible that the superior competitor is religion itself. When people use #8 against me, I usually reply there are lots of very adapted things that we try to eradicate: the common cold, rats, cockroaches... you get the point!

Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may be an illusion.

Bullshit.

Free will is an illusion only if you define it in absolutist terms, to mean something like "the ability to defy all natural laws at will," or "the ability to imagine something literally unthinkable and then to do it."

Count me as an atheist that is unconvinced that we, as humans, make any choices at all. Was I free to choose to post this or not, or was my choice utterly constrained by the laws of physics as they apply to my brain? I honestly don't know.

I doubt that we have free will, even in the definition that you claim is incontrovertible and accepted by everyone.

There is one extra leap of faith necessary to make the list in the second point complete.

#10: For this particular individual, simultaneous omnisciency and omnipotency are not a logical impossibility.

It will take me a while to read and consider all of these comments, but I do appreciate them and will no doubt make some changes accordingly. It sounds like, at least in some cases, clarification is more necessary than alteration.

But I wanted to address an early comment: that there is repetition, or at least overlap, in this list. Yes, there is. But I have listed them as separate arguments because, as someone pointed out, that's how they are presented to me.

So, for example, there is overlap between "Ethics/Morality" and "Altruism." But I always hear them as separate questions: "If you don't believe in God, where do you/we get morality from?" and "If there's no God, how do you explain altruism when evolution requires us to be selfish?"

The person who called this a "cheat sheet" for atheists has it right, though I hadn't though of it that way before. Thanks, everyone, and keep those comments coming! Feel free to e-mail me directly as well: augustberkshire [at] gmail.com

Free will does not help the cause of religion -- well, Christianity, at least. An omniscient God already knows, before you are born, whether or not you are going to be "saved" or not. The only variable would be if God himself tweaks the initial conditions of your birth (DNA or environment) or intervenes (miracles) afterwards to change your fate.

In such a scenario, any concept of free will, as Christians would have it, is merely an illusion.

(13) Fear of Hell - what a horrible belief! The insane people who believe it love to abuse their children with this disgusting nonsense. They love to threaten people with torture in hell when they don't agree with their stupidity. Most of these nuts think only their religion can save them from the wrath of their loving god. It's pure insanity and hell believers should be locked up before they harm somebody.

Free will does not help the cause of religion -- well, Christianity, at least.

It doesn't help any religion. Even if it were rigorously demonstrated the free will exists, what bearing would that have on the reality of divinities?

However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.

Wasn't secular, or at least not marketed as such. The relief on top of the (uh...) pillar shows Hammurabi receiving plates with the laws written on them from the sun god (probably Shamash), and Wikipedia says...

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC - 1750 BC) believed that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."

At least one even older codes of law is known, written in Sumerian and dating from the Ur-III dynasty -- the 21st century BC. The discussion page of the article mentions a few more.

Re: (12) "Heaven" (Fear of Death)

"Going to heaven" doesn't solve anything. What if you get to heaven, then decide to rebel against god?

Strike "at least". There are several minutes between the last sentence and the second-to-last sentence of my previous comment.

On another note, Stenger's interesting idea about symmetry-breaking shifts the problem rather than solving it: There is something rather than nothing because perfect symmetry is unstable. But why is it unstable? Maybe because of the 2LOT, but then why does the 2LOT exist, and so on. Still, however, this is progress.

On #33... I like the concept of Stupid Design- some structures are so retarted that evolution could never let them still exist, therefore, an incredibly incompetent Stupid Designer must have made them.

#2 is a little overly reflective of a monotheistic, mostly christian perspective, although I'm not even sure all christians think of their god as all-loving. However, there are polytheistic religions who believe in a spiritual realm populated by eternal beings, but it isn't necessary that any of them be all-knowing or all-powerful. I really like this argument, I would probably just stop after #6, or explicitly acknowledge that continuing after #6 is positing additional leaps of faith more specific to monotheism.

What? No Counter to the Argument from Bananas, as perfected by Kirk Cameron?
Not to be outdone by the country's greatest christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga:
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/two-dozen.htm
Let's hear you refute Colors and Flavors!

Wow, check out the argument from Natural Numbers from that Plantinga link. I suppose you really have to be as intellectually sheltered as a theologian philosopher to think that argument has any merit. It's basically saying that because numbers are concepts employed by minds, and because there are numbers human minds cannot count to, then there must be an infinite mind floating around somewhere that can, as if really really big numbers were something that just had to be constantly conceived of or they would evaporate, or something.

Just think: these guys actually get TENURE for coming up with this batty stuff.

Shouldn't the Argument from Bananas be refuted by Alvin Plantain?

or, for that matter, Simon or Theodore Plantain?

#22 - I don't think your description of love is sufficient to nullify the concept of intangible ideas. There are intangible concepts which we constantly reference. Like love, we may at some point identify common brain functions that relate to ideas like "justice", "charity", "beauty", etc., but the fact that a physical brain is used to process these thoughts does not rebut the conceptual existence of intangible thought.

I think argument #22 needs no rebuttal. God is certainly something that can be imagined. The non-existence of god does not imply that the intangible concept of "god" must not exist. The trouble is that #22 isn't intended as an honest argument. It generally takes the form of "intangible concepts can be said to exist -> therefore Jesus". And that's a non-sequitur.

Or sometimes it's the familiar two-step: worship a fire-and brimstone man in the sky who performs miracles and raises the dead, but if this belief is challenged then defend a god so abstract and meaningless as to be a tautology. Then return to the original belief when the mean old rational person goes away.

Here are two more "stupid designs" to add to #33:

First, what idiot placed the uterus just above the bladder, so that a fetus would be able to kick or head butt you in the bladder for nine months? Not very smart. (On a related note, you've probably heard the joke that God is a civil engineer, because only a civil engineer would place a recreation area so close to a sewage treatment plant.)

Second, what kind of imbicile would run a nerve just below the surface of the skin, right at your elbow? That is just plain moronic. Even my orthopedic surgeon, who is not (to the best of my knowledge) omniscient, figured out a better place for it to go -- tucked behind a muscle, safe from cubital entrapment.

Argument #34 - most of the time I've heard the Argument from Misunderstanding Thermodynamics, it's been in specific reference to life.

Generally, it's misinterpreted to mean that increase in order is impossible. Obviously, this interpretation is refuted by a kid and a Lego set.

A closer interpretation would be that reducing entropy requires energy. And if you look really, really closely, you'll find that living things do, in fact, consume energy in order to build and maintain body structure. On a larger scale, life on earth is maintained by energy input of the sun.

So a theist using this thermodynamics argument takes the position that there is no such thing as "eating" or "the sun". I'm not sure how to rebut such devastating claims.

I can't believe they missed my favorite counterargument to Pacsal's wager: false dichotomy.

Pascal starts with the premise: either there is no supernatural afterlife, or there is one, and it is roughly as believed by Sect A. Given the almost infinite benefits possible, the equities favor believing. But what happened to Sects B, C, and D, that say if you believe in what Sect A is pushing, you will life forever only to endure unspeakable ceaseless torture beyond the imaginings of the cruelist sadist? This changes the odds. Still want to bet on A, knowing that you have potential losses beyond imagining? Hey, I'm content to life a regular life and then die. I find the idea of an afterlife, which could be heaven or hell based on criteria that are rationally unknowable, not very comforting. Nobody ever wins this game but the house.

Argument #11 (Medical Miracles) - It's also worth pointing out that our bodies have built-in systems for healing injury and fighting infection and cancer. The effectiveness of these systems is not an argument for god.

If you really want to delve into the problem of evil, it'll take more than a couple of token sentences to persuade someone who believes that humans were given enough freedom to screw up a perfect world.

God started to intervene in my life yesterday with a personal message directed right at me, via the car radio. But he screwed it up with bad timing. It was not a persuasive demonstration of omnipotence, I'm telling you. He's quite an underachiever.

[Link]

Actually, Argument #(22) -- "God is Intangible, Like Love" -- is a formulation of one of the most powerful and basic intuitions theists use to convince themselves that there must be a God, so it's not surprising to find it in apologetics, both popular and sophisticated (ie Plantinga)

Human beings have problems making sense of abstractions. The fact that you can't hold love (or numbers or liberty or emotions or thoughts) in your hand or see them under a microscope seems to nudge our brains into conceptualizing these things as different, higher kinds of substances -- like air or light, only airer and lighter. Spirit-stuff. Life energy. When category errors are made by intellectuals, you can get Platonic forms.

The idea then behind this particular argument seems to be that thoughts, emotions, values, and abstractions are not physical, material things, so they are spiritual things. Mind is a force. Love is a force, or a kind of energy, or a spirit. So atheism makes no sense. If you can believe that you have feelings and thoughts, then God is not much of a leap. They're all the same kind of "thing that's not a thing."

One of my own favorite rebuttals to this argument (when presented in simple form) is to turn it around on them and explain that "God is like Love" is really an atheist argument.

Love is not an invisible substance, floating around and coming in through windows. Not really. Love is an emotion, and behaviors that express that emotion. It's not Cupid or Aphrodite. If God is like love, then you're telling me God is a word used for emotion. It's just a way of feeling, and we symbolize it with a God-person the same way we symbolize romance with cupid.

Is God just a feeling? No? Then stop arguing for atheism.

Ok, this rebuttal doesn't get to the category error at the heart of the issue -- but it usually makes them drop this argument.

And I think August did an excellent job with the list, given the scope of the task, the small space it was put into, and the fact that it is trying to address both the simple, popular arguments and the more complicated theological ones. Each one of these Arguments for God has had books written on it. No "cheat sheet" is going to finish the job. This is a good place to start.

"The Bible has the greatest copying fidelity of any known work"

This is pretty much flat out false.

The best claim version of this claim would refer to only the Old Testament, and the reason is simply because the Jews were a single people who kept their sacred documents extremely carefully protected. Of course, even this isn't necessarily enough to make it "the greatest" since it all matters on what you count. Unless you tack on "any known ANCIENT work" then you're already being silly. When does modernity start? Chinese scholars copies texts laboriously and carefully, are they in the running?

Looking at the New Testament, on the other hand, the argument is simply crazypants. There exist hundreds and hundreds of different textual variations in copies of the NT: some minor, some major.

Of course, the argument is pretty much irrelevant anyway. Of all the texts ever copied, one HAS to be the most accurately reproduced over the most length of time. If it were a race, it wold be Judaism, not Christianity, that would win, since the NT has nowhere near even the same class of fidelity.

And what the heck does that have to do with whether what it says is true anyway? About the best it would show is that those who consider it sacred are obsessive about copying errors.

I'd be careful on the banana argument. Lots of smart people have been slipped up by that one.

Argument #35:
PYGMIES AND DWARFS!!!

The only thing that these arguments prove is that there is no proof that a God or gods do or even can exist. However, it does not prove that a God or gods cannot exist; I hope people are not trying to use these arguments for this purpose.

Only 34?

Lets pull together another 18 and create a deck of cards of science and philosophy's most wanted and reasoned arguments? Perhaps proceeds from sales could be contributed to further logic, reason and science education in the education system? Just think, the gift of reason (which keeps on giving) for that somebody special....and just in time for the holiday season!

As arguments to convince others, all 34 may well fall short. Many are flatly contradicted by data from the natural world, and some of those which are not (such as #30, #31) are amenable to future falsification. And, taken as a whole, Berkshire's conclusion is inescapable: "Religious people have a tough, if not impossible task to try to prove a god exists, let alone that their particular religion is true."

Quite right. You can't probably can't reason your way to faith, much less compel others purely through logic to faith. But one needn't wade through a sea of arguments to reject that proposition. So why provide a list of 34, if not for polemical effect to the contrary? This reminds me of creationist links of things that (to their minds, at least) can't be explained by evolution: they may or may not be relevant to the question of whether the claim can be accepted as credible.

For example, it's one thing to claim that a particular argument 'proves' God's existence, and quite another to say that such-and-such is/is not a valid argument towards God's existence. Taking #6 as illustrative, it is completely inadequate as a proof of God's existence, obviously. However, #6 has not been refuted per se. Rather, it's been shown to be inconclusive--which is trivial. As we all know, personal reports of religious experience are immune to objective examination. We can reject such claims based on the lack of consonance between the consequences and observed phenomena, or else on grounds of incoherence, but that's not the same thing as falsifying the claim.

With that in mind, in the mind of the believer many of the other 33 raised are likely to be seen through the filter of argument #6. If you find #6 compelling, you will tend to nod your head at arguments like #10 and #11: even though counter-explanations exist, you will tend to choose the explanation which is consonant with #6.

It is an interesting question as to whether rejection of #6 might similarly bias one against accepting #10 or #11: my 'hunch' is that skeptics are less likely to do that, and more inclined to accept/reject such propositions independently of one another, but I don't know of any evidence off-hand that would support my intuition. Does anyone here have any suggestions?

#27 and #29: I am not impressed by the arguments made here against ontology or causality. The 'perfect skyscraper' has more in common with Plato's world of Forms than the Perfect imputed by Anselm, and the possible non-existence of apparently ludicrous examples of 'perfect forms' is not an argument per se against the existence of the Perfect.
I note in passing that rejection of #27 is potentially devastating to the multiverse scenarios that have been proposed to address the 'fine tuning' arguments...

Similarly, the 'fact' that quantum particles pop into existence without an apparent cause can not be used to deny the possibility of causation. Arbitrarily defining 'God' as either an Uncaused Cause (the believer's 'cheat') or (as Dawkins cleverly does) the 'Ultimate 747' says nothing about whether or not causation occurred.

Finally, I observe that #28 is not so much an argument as it is an interesting question.

there was one great paper, that showed, that universe is not fine tuned at all - you could vary many parameters, ans still get one you can live in... But I lost it long ago... does anyone know anything similar ?

The Nth Unconvincing Argument for God:

The kids were driving me crazy with all their questions about 'Why?' and 'From where?' and 'What makes that big noise that comes with the rain?'. So one day I just told them that there is a big ugly man in the air who does not like it when children pester their parents. That shut them up, I can tell you. They are now so much more easy to care for, and I am feeling rather clever.

Scott Hatfield,

personal reports of religious experience are immune to objective examination.

I don't see how they're different from any other claim. Are you saying experience has a supernatural basis? Otherwise, how are claims of revelation different from any other situation where I claim supernatural intervention and then stubbornly persist in the face of material explanation? The laws of physics hold still hold for the brain.

Warning! Long comment with many points:

=== Joke responses to previous post =====

#39

Second, what kind of imbicile would run a nerve just below the surface of the skin, right at your elbow? That is just plain moronic. Even my orthopedic surgeon, who is not (to the best of my knowledge) omniscient, figured out a better place for it to go -- tucked behind a muscle, safe from cubital entrapment.

If you didn't have the "funny bone" what would prevent your from shoving your elbow into rotating fan blades?

First, what idiot placed the uterus just above the bladder, so that a fetus would be able to kick or head butt you in the bladder for nine months?

That's God's way of keeping pregnant women in the home and out of the public eye where the sight of them would be indecent to virtuous men. (Meant to be sarcastic but scarily close to some actual attitudes I've run across.)

==== An argument for the existance of God which I've never heard =====

A few years ago I came up with an argument for God. I've never seen other folks express it though which kind of surpises me:

Argument 35: Human beings are sentient and conscious. (Well, *I* am and as the symmetry of simplicity and universality, I assume all others are rather than my perceived world is some complicated charade just for my consciousness.) Much has been specualated as to the nature of sentience and consciousness and the consensus seems to be it is a by product or result of complexity of brain biology. We can't predict *why* or *how* a complex system such as a brain *would* result in a consciousness thus it seems likely any system of sufficient complexity should result in consciousness. Surely a galaxy of stars, gravity, viewed over eons is, if not as complex as a brain, as complex as a cell, and the universe as a collection of galaxies is as complex as a brain. Hence it is likely conciousness exists in "larger" complex systems. Wouldn't this consiousness be accurately be called a "God"?

Now bear in mind, that argument is provided as an excercise only. I came up with it a few years ago (long before The God Delusion and I had ever heard of the term "New Atheist") while debating a liberal believer as to why I didn't believe. This liberal believer was not a brain-dead young earther nor a "man in the sky with a white beard" believer and very quickly the discussion got to the "Well, what's the definition of God" level and I was put to task for believing in Mathematics (I *do* believe pi is a transendental number with a precise constant value) and not believing in god which made me wonder what the hell she was talking about. I'm still not sure what she was talking about but it's pretty sure if we're going to debate the exsistance or non-existance of god we have to define our terms. This giant conscious "God" may or may not exist (galaxies and the universe are probably too orderly and not as "complex" as cells and brains to be concious) but if it does it's clearly of no more concern to us or us to it than a blood cell is aware of me or I am aware of my individual blood cells and thus is a "useless god".

===== Observations that some of these arguments can be seen as arguments against God ===
I find many of these arguments to be applicable as arguments against God.

1) God of the gaps: restricts god to a mechanics of unknown physics. This makes have an impersonal force. If god is collapsing quantuum waves or the gravitational force of dark matter or whatever other gap, "he" is no more personal or deserving of a personal pronoun than say, gravity or friction. Gravity and friction are both pretty darned important but it'd be bizarre to pray to the law of Gravity or to have a personal relationship to friction.

7) Most people believe in God: this is actually the very first argument the convinced me to be an *atheist* when I was eight years old. Most people believe in God but they believe different things about him. Neolithic cave men (in my eight-year old mind these were figures in paint and religiously performing rites to animal and weather spirits) far predated any modern beliefs. If any human religious belief corresponds to a true religious reality, it's impossible that humans that it was a lucky guess. (That is to say, if a family locked in one house make up stories about the people in the house next door whom they never see or have any evidence of, it'd be impossible for the locked family to guess the name, ages, proffessions, number, and biographies of the unknown house utterly by chance.) So if any religious belief reflects a true religious reality the religious reality had to show itself. (As I was 8 years old, I wasn't familiar the story of the burning bush or other revelations. I believed people believed things, as I did, because people told them so.) As there was no reason to believe one account over another, religious belief as diverging folklore, i.e. fiction or mutation of an irrecoverable initial event, made more sense.

8) Evolution wouldn't allow false beliefs: If one begins think about beliefs in terms of evolution at all, it gets "interesting" to hypothesis how beliefs and evolution interact at all. Plants evolve and can't think at all so have no beliefs. Cats and dogs can think but clearly can not think as we do at all. Jellyfish probably can't think but insects function so ... differently than we do. This forces one to question *why* (evolutionary thinking) do we think and to what degree is it *true* (reflective of reality). Cats and Dogs can not do math at all (or play backgammon; trust me, I tried once when I was desparate for a game partner) and we can. Why? "Clearly" we think so we can make beneficial (for our survival) decisions. But if simple math can yield simple solutions to common problems ("Did we get enough apples for everyone? Let's count, do subtraction, and find out") Complex and rare problems solving skills are *not* likely to come about through evolution. ("Light can be a particle *and* a wave?" "The earth is *round*?" "(A + B)^2 *isn't A^2 + B^2?") Likewise intuitive ideas applied outside the immediate world of survival are quite likely to be false. ("Things are either one thing or another and have well defined edges, so that should apply to sub-atomic particle", "The geometry of the universe should be Euclidean", "Measuring quantities, speeds, and most things are linear so population growth is linear as well") Unless an idea has direct and immediate application it is unlikely to have evolved and is, unless otherwise proven likely to be false. God doesn't come into our individual lives and guide us on a regular on a live or die and regular basis, so as an *evolutionary* belief, the belief in God is probably intuitive and false.

9) The God part of the brain: We (maybe) have a lobe in the brain prone to giving us "religious experience". Supposedly this lobe (or gland or whatever it is) is activated when we have a religious experience and if artificially activated results in a religious experience. Evolutionarily this lobe (or gland or whatever) serves a purpose (if it exists) but I'm not going to speculate what it might be. But we don't have any "reality lobe" to percieve reality. Doesn't this imply God and religious experiences are *not* part of an external reality but a reaction of an internal mental effect?

12-13) Heaven and Hell: can historically be traced. One can historically follow the history of religious thought and see how it changes historically. This casts doubt as to religions objectivity and veracity. At least to me it does. This doesn't *disprove* religion by any means but does force me to analyze belief and put it through empirical test.

27) Perfect being must exist: Not only can this argument be shown to have logical falicies (begging the question, presupposing its conclussion, and abuse of ambiguity between ontological existance and real existance [by the way, there's a type in the arguement; it should read such an indestructable skyscraper must not exist.]) but a perfect being can ontologically be shown to be inconsistant. "Can God create a rock he can not lift" points out the inherant limitations of the concept of omnipotence. This is semantics but it points out the impossibility of our concepts of perfection and absolutes. A "perfect" being can not exist.

==== Frustration of the "First Cause/Something vs. Nothing" arguments (frustration whether one is for or against god) ===
Sidebar:
28) Why is there something rather than nothing?

I think this question is the nub. However I can not concieve of there possibly being a satisfying answer. Whatever answer we can come up with, it seems we'd be able to direct the question to it. (God did it: Who made God? Big Bang: What caused Big Bang? Pre-universal physics render physical laws obsolete so questions of time and cause and effect are invalid: Okay, but what *happened?) Maybe I simply can't concieve of a satisfying answer and there is one, but I doubt it. I think ultimately everyone will have to just accept it. *sigh*

=== invalidity of rebuttal to "Something vs. Nothing" argument =====

According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger, symmetrical systems tend to be unstable. They tend to decay into less symmetrical systems. Now, Nothing - the lack of anything - is perfectly symmetrical, and thus highly unstable.

Um, is it just me, or is this gobbledeegook? Doesn't the statement "symmetrical systems tend to be unstable" imply the symmetrical systems in question are non-empty. I mean the reason they are unstable is because the elements must be in balance and balance must be maintained. If there are no elements there is no balance to be maintained. Surely an empty (and therefore trivially symmetric) would be trivially stable (nothing to break down to).

=== applying similar logic as the rebuttal to "something vs. nothing" argument to prove preposterous result: All marbles are blue, and a pleasant reminisence to woozy's salad days====
Treating a trivial instance of a property as a non-trivial instance is the basis of many mathematical "joke" proofs. Example: Proof by induction that all marbles are blue.

Proof:
A) I have a blue marble.
Lemma B) All marbles are the same color.
Ergo: All marbles are blue.

Proof of Lemma B) All marble are the same color.

Given all the marbles in the world, you can pick two and put them into a bag together to have a bag of two marbles.
Lemma C) Given a bag of marbles, all the marbles in the bag are the same color.
Ergo the two marbles are the same color. As this is true of any two marbles picked and we can pick any possible pair of marbles (either via axiom of choice, or because there exist only finite marbles), all marbles must be the same color.

Proof of Lemma C) Given a bag of marbles, all the marble in the bag are the same color.
We will prove this via a proof by induction.
A proof by induction requires to steps:
Initial Step: Show proposition is true for the case n = 1.
Induction Step: Show that if the proposition holds for some number n, then it must also hold for the number n + 1.

If one can show these two steps, one can conclude the proposition is true for all positive integers. (Because it is true for 1. So it is true for 2 = 1 + 1. So it is true for 3 = 2 + 1. And so on ad infinitim.)

Initial Step: All the marbles in any bag of 1 marble is the same color.
Proof: Trivial. As there is only one marble in the bag, it must be the same color as itself.

Inductive Step: If all the marbles in any bag of n marbles are the same color, then all the marbles in any bag of n + 1 marble are the same color.
Proof: Take a bag of n + 1 marble. Take a marble out and call the removed marble "Barney". The remaining marbles are now in a bag of n marbles. Therefore all the remaining marbles are the same color. Put "Barney" back in the bag and remove a different marble. "Barney" is now in a bag of n marbles so all the marbles are the same color so "Barney" is the same color as all the others. Thus all the marbles in a bag of n + 1 marbles ("Barney" and n other marbles all the same color) are the same color.

QED.
Possible problems with this proof:
a)There are infinite number of marbles and axiom of choice is therefore demonstably false as not all marbles are blue.
b)Marbles can and will change color when placed into or removed from bags-- (Schroedinger's marbles?).
c)It's fucking bullocks!
d)Proof assumes the integer n in the inductive step is non-trivially greater than one whereas the initial step (the basis for the inductive step) *is* trivially equal to 1. (In the instance, 1 is "trivial" in the sense that all marbles in a bag of 1 marble are the same becase there are no other marbles for 1 marbe to differ from!)
(Heh, Heh, In 1981 when I was a freshman in college, Professor Tony Tromba gave me a beer for pointing that assumption out.)

I just don't see how this discussion helps the cause of keeping "intelligent design" out of science classrooms. People who believe in God or gods are typically firm in their beliefs, and the natural tendency that I've observed in my fellow humans when their closely-held principles are challenged is not to embark on an introspective reassessment of their worldviews, but instead to dig in their heels and also to do what they can to raise the stakes. Mayhaps we evolutionary biologists are also subject to the same instinctive reactions?

I'd like to see more posting of rational arguments with the focus on why "Creation" or "intelligent design" has no place in science curriculum, and less "there is no evidence for a higher power and those who believe in one are morons".

The reality is that science curricula (at least in US public schools) will be constrained by the opinions of our legislators who will, in turn, be elected by the general public. Alienating large segments of the general public will not do our cause any favors.

I'd like to see more posting of rational arguments with the focus on why "Creation" or "intelligent design" has no place in science curriculum, and less "there is no evidence for a higher power and those who believe in one are morons".

Well, that is a rational argument as to why creationism shouldn't be taught in science class...

In any event, different people have different motivations -- you may be concerned with the short-term issue of ID in schools, but some other folks here, including our genial host, take the longer view that without a major secularization of US society, we will continually face this kind of idiocy in the culture.

28) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Using this one to invoke God is strange. It seems to presume that the natural, normal thing one ought to expect to have is Nothing. No matter, no energy, no time, no extension, no empty space -- no, not even a void. I have trouble even thinking of that as coherent, let alone Possibility #1.

Still, assume it is a logical possibility, and the question still fails to impress me as an argument for God. Just take it rationally, as a thought experiment. How many possible permutations of reality could there be, conceptually? How many ways are there that "something" of some kind might exist?

That number is astronomical, if not infinite. Take reality as we know it and start tweaking everything. Take a minute ago or a million years ago and tweak and tweak and tweak. We've got -- for all intents and purposes -- a virtually infinite library of possibilities, of possible worlds. Infinity to the infinity power.

So, just as a matter of logical analysis, the odds of something over nothing are pretty much infinity to one. If those were my odds in winning a lottery even I would buy a ticket, and I'm pretty cautious (and cheap). Infinity:1 is not much of a gamble. How HIGH would the number of theoretical "somethings" have to get before it no longer seems like a miracle that there is -- as it turns out --something rather than nothing?

I'd like to recommend "300 Proofs that God Exists." Here are the first three:

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(2) Reason exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I just don't see how this discussion helps the cause of keeping "intelligent design" out of science classrooms.

And I just don't see why you assume that it's supposed to do so.

I'd like to see more posting of rational arguments with the focus on why "Creation" or "intelligent design" has no place in science curriculum

Allow me to introduce you to the "search this blog" feature, up there at the upper left. Also to the Google.
But other than demonstrating that "it ain't science" (which has been done, in spades), what other rational arguments are necessary?

...and less "there is no evidence for a higher power and those who believe in one are morons".

I'm sure Dr. Myers would join me in inviting you to feel free to skip blithely over any posts that are not what you'd like to see.

Alienating large segments of the general public will not do our cause any favors.

Your concern is duly noted.
Again.

...different people have different motivations -- you may be concerned with the short-term issue of ID in schools, but some other folks here, including our genial host, take the longer view that without a major secularization of US society, we will continually face this kind of idiocy in the culture.

Regardless of one's motivation, I stand behind my argument that offending and alienating large portions of the population does more harm than good.

Many of us have mothers (or grandmothers) who at some point have stated that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". My stance is that we need to keep ID out of classrooms so we can focus on drawing students and the greater public into the fascinating world of evolutionary biology (and science, in general) and present them with all of the compelling evidence that has become foundational to our disciplines.

And I know many religious people who embrace evolutionary theory (my parents included) and who have no desire to bring religious discussions into classrooms. I am deeply concerned that the anti-religion movement among many scientists is going to force people to decide that because they hold religious beliefs then they must vote against science at the polls. If that becomes reality, I'm afraid we're in for quite a wild and unpleasant ride.

Free will is a delusion.

This is one of the emotionally challenging aspects of Atheism, much like the purpose of life, or absolute morality.

Given -ANY- initial conditions, there can be only one course for the future. This is one of the few axioms of the scientific method.

Chaos provides that this future often unpredictable (and initial conditions are unmeasurable in detail), but there is NO choice in the process.

For a theist, one could imagine sub-quantum miracles changing fate, but even this could hardly be considered an individual's free will.

Atheists (including PZ) seem to avoid this topic, as it can be so depressing.

Everything is an emergent property of random collisions, sometimes ordered locally by a little energy. This is the essence of evolution.

Should we be looking for arguments?
God exists or not withing any of us
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2311958

PZ is not trying to get atheism taught in classrooms. He is not claiming that if you believe in evolution, then you need to be an atheist. He is not suggesting that arguments against the existence of God be used as the political strategy against Intelligent Design. Theistic evolutionists are welcome allies. That's how I understand him. I could be wrong, but don't think so.

However, the claim that "evolution is consistent with religion" is only true if you compartmentalize, rationalize, draw lines, and refuse to take religion seriously, as beliefs about the way the universe really works. And I suspect the longterm failure to address this will lead to increasing pseudoscience, the continued denigration and marginalization of atheists, and the continued elevation of faith over reason. Atheism needs to be a "live option" in society, or you will see the same sorts of problems as in creationism pop up again and again (ie alternative medicine).

I think that you may underestimate the religious. They don't all need to be pandered and condescended to. Discussing the "unconvincing arguments for God" is taking the hypothesis seriously. And there are a lot of religious people who are serious enough about their beliefs that they are capable of regarding God as a hypothesis. They are not offended. They can recognize real respect when they see it.

Here's an argument I discussed recently on my blog - the argument from extra belief. A believer will sometimes try to support their argument for their belief in God (or indeed, anything they desperately wish to be true, like that they are psychic) by stating (and re-stating) how strongly they feel their belief is true.

This argument would seem to be so weak that it's hardly worth even discussing, but many people that use this argument appear convinced that "But, I really, really believe it!" is in fact a strong and convincing, even unrefutable argument, so I guess it does require refutation.

I have heard this one (in various guises, usually after an initial few arguments are countered in obvious ways) at least 5 or 6 times over the years.
I am often tempted to respond "and I really, really believe you're an idiot", but I usually manage to refrain.

There are several obvious replies. For example, that strength of belief is not strength of evidence, and may only reflect how badly they are mistaken. Victims of con artists, long after irrefutable evidence that they are victims has been presented to them, may continue to hold to the feeling that there is some other explanation, simply because the strongly believed the person was genuine. If I believe really strongly that I can fly, it won't help me at all once I step off the roof (though unfortunately, people make money essentially selling books that would seem to tell you exactly the opposite - if you believe it enough it will become true).

- -

A further problem with Pascal's Wager (and many of the other arguments) is simply that it is an argument for trying to believe in some god (one that offers the kind of deal proposed in the case of the wager), but they provide no indication that the believer's particular preference is actually better than any option that's around - or indeed that there aren't infinitely better options that the believer is ignorant of. If I come across a God that promises that in return for my belief, not only will I get an infinite reward, so will all my descendants, then that's a *better* deal than Pascal's, and by Pascal's argument I should take that deal instead. I guess this relates to argument #20 - these kind of arguments are always false dichotomies.

other than demonstrating that "it ain't science" (which has been done, in spades), what other rational arguments are necessary?

How about: "Many people hold true to the beliefs of their familial predecessors, and that is OK. We encourage discussion of these beliefs in History and Cultural Studies classes because they do have immense value historically and culturally. However, these issues are not relevant to scientific discussions" ?

Or if, as Tulse suggests, the goal is a major national secularization, then consider: "Scientific inquiry is not contrary to your personal religious beliefs. In fact, science has revealed many facts that can serve to deepen your admiration for the cleverness of your higher power".

Any successful zealot (no matter their philosophical inclination) would surely agree that the way to win over the masses is to convince them that the new way of thinking simply complements and enhances their own long-held traditions.

Scott, Scott, Scott,

personal reports of religious experience are immune to objective examination.

Not necessarily. If a statue starts 'bleeding' it can be examined. Now if you are talking about insane ideas like people hearing voices and such by themselves,completely alone then you are likely correct.

At which point we must just use some common sense and ask if this veru common and very contradictory idea is even remotely convincing and why it would be to someone not amazingly credulous.

I think that you may underestimate the religious. They don't all need to be pandered and condescended to. Discussing the "unconvincing arguments for God" is taking the hypothesis seriously. And there are a lot of religious people who are serious enough about their beliefs that they are capable of regarding God as a hypothesis. They are not offended. They can recognize real respect when they see it.

Really? Is this merely a demonstration of respect? It seems to me that discussing the "unconvincing arguments for God" simply serves to perpetuate the misconception that it is possible to conduct scientific examinations (hypothesis testing) of religious/supernatural beliefs.

This would suggest that religion is, in fact, an appropriate topic for science classrooms. I strongly disagree, hence my inclination to post on this topic.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Using this one to invoke God is strange. It seems to presume that the natural, normal thing one ought to expect to have is Nothing.

Not to mention the disembodied spirit beings that are also supposed to have existed along with the "nothing".

Cassandra (#65), I don't really disagree with you. But still, the only rational argument for keeping ID/C out of the science curriculum is that it's not science. The rest is just softening the blow on those who don't get it.
And (as you know) PZ Myers's personal blog is not where the fight to keep ID/C out of the science curriculum is being fought...it's where PZ Myers posts stuff at his personal whim and the rest of us get to argue about and/or have fun with it.

Hank Fox #6:

It sounds like what you call "free will" I call "spunk", "character", "backbone", etc. But this is surely not the "free will" August Burroughs is talking about; he's talking about the philosophical concept. I am surprised to see you have found people to think free will has something to do with physical restraint of one's bodily actions, as if a bound prisoner is a good example of not having free will. But that's not what the philosophical matter of free will is about.

As I understand it, free will means the ability of a person's or conscious animal's behaviors, unlike the behaviors of rocks and water droplets, to be, to any degree uncaused, that is "free" from a causal sequence, non-deterministic. And that doesn't seem to be consistent with a materialist view of persons. We act because of our brain states, and our brain states are that way because of other circumstances. There is never a new causal force (an "I") that enters into causality, though it can be handy to think of the "I", the consciousness, as a thing, the source of this (erroneous) volition, and we often do in our folk conceptions of these things.

(August Berkshire, not August Burroughs...confused him with Augusten Burroughs. Apology to Mr. Berkshire)

Many of us have mothers (or grandmothers) who at some point have stated that "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"

I've been waiting for someone to try that one. Argument from tradition and authority is never a good idea. Have you ever stopped to consider what an inappropriate saying it is - particularly for this situation?! The flies aren't harmlessly caught by the honey to be converted into nicer, more useful members of the animal kingdom (in the opinion of the catcher). They're being trapped to kill them.

Scientists aren't the ones trying to con victims. Nor are they trying to wipe them out (on the whole). Rather they're (generally) trying to rescue them from the religious leaders who are conning them. The manipulative honey users are the televangelists, the preachers and the DI IDers. They're the bad guys - in case you haven't noticed. We shouldn't be stooping to their level.

Sven(#68), internet blogs are becoming increasingly influential in regard to the voting public, and I recently read that Pharyngula is the third most popular blog in Minnesota (after two right-wing conservative ones). The discussions here undoubtedly present opportunities for fun arguments, but each post is online, and accessible to anyone with a computer and ISP.

As always, the price of fame is a large audience. Some of whom may be religious, many of whom may be "on the fence" about ID/C in the science classroom, and most of whom are likely to be eligible voters. I posted my concerns because I'm worried about the ramifications come election time, not because I can't appreciate a fun debate.

We need 632 more points... or maybe just 8!

So, Cassandra, what do you propose that we do? Should we all simply stop criticizing religion altogether?

I recently read that Pharyngula is the third most popular blog in Minnesota (after two right-wing conservative ones).

damnit, PZ, work harder!

:p

I posted my concerns

you did?

I must have missed it.

what were they again?

simply serves to perpetuate the misconception that it is possible to conduct scientific examinations (hypothesis testing) of religious/supernatural beliefs.

is that one of your concerns? because if it is, you don't need to worry.

not only is it possible to conduct scientific examination of the foundations for religious belief, it already has been done several times using a couple of different approaches. Results were suggestive, not necessarily conclusive (lots more work to do yet), but it has been done.

I can dig up a few references for you, if you like.

would that alleviate your concerns?

Have you ever stopped to consider what an inappropriate saying it is - particularly for this situation?! The flies aren't harmlessly caught by the honey to be converted into nicer, more useful members of the animal kingdom (in the opinion of the catcher). They're being trapped to kill them.

I've never heard of anyone trying to catch and reform flies, but I'd love to learn more about it!

I always perceived the wisdom of the saying to lie in the fact that flies can be enticed by something that they find appealing, and not by something that they don't. With this interpretation, I think the analogy does pertain to the discussion of how to increase secularization (or at least acceptance of evolution as an topic to be taught in public schools).

Ichthyic:

Yes, I'd love to see the references! I'll surely let you know whether or not they alleviate my concerns.

Actually, Cassandra, the first times that I heard that there was no real historical evidence that Christ ever existed, I felt cheated. And I was cheated. How could it be that every single media outlet and public speaker I had ever heard or read had soft-peddled, ignored, or concealed that fact? "Christ" was treated like a real person: "What did Jesus wear? Where did Jesus walk? What did Jesus eat? What would Jesus have seen? And all the time they were tippy-toeing around a sacred cow asleep in the middle of the road, so as not to offend "the natives."

and then later when I found that there was plenty of textual and circumstantial evidence that he was a muddled cross between "my inner power" and Greek Cynic ideals, with a large dash of the classic hero myth thrown in, I was relieved. There was a source for this idea and it's a human and understandable source. The first generation says, "I know my Saviour wants this and that." The next generation says, "Christ would have done so-and-so." The next generation invents Mary and Joseph (first heard of about 107 AD). Then details accumulate, the way Paul Bunyan acquired Babe the Blue Ox and Buddha was found as a child formin little clay animals and breathing life into them.

So let's do our children a good turn. Let's not cheat them of the truth. And let's not give evil old men a cloak of sanctity to wrap themselves in.

Yes, I'd love to see the references! I'll surely let you know whether or not they alleviate my concerns.

give me a few minutes to dig through my links collection.

PZ,

I listed my suggestions in post #65.

So you do want us to stop criticizing religion.

Who's going to do it, then?

here's a couple of fairly recent endeavors, Cassandra:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=589469&page=1 (popular news discussion of some recent research)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

I think that our job is to fill our classrooms with students who we can teach about science and evolution (without having to address any religious counter-arguments), and to do interesting research that gets picked up by the media. And whenever the subject of religion comes up, in my Utopian vision, all scientists would respond that it simply doesn't pertain because faith is not subject to empirical testing (although I am eagerly awaiting some references that could possibly change my perspective).

I don't want to get banned from Pharyngula, I just wanted to express my concerns about alienating too many voting constituents (yes, those are the concerns I mentioned earlier). I'm glad that it sparked some discussion, and I don't know what points contest Pierce R. Butler was referring to, but I hope we win!

oh, and here's another related overview:

http://www.atypon-link.com/AAP/doi/pdf/10.1375/twin.2.2.59

"Transmission of Religion and Attitudes"

enough work has been done in this area to warrant an entire issue of that journal being devoted to it.

I think that our job is to fill our classrooms with students who we can teach about science and evolution (without having to address any religious counter-arguments),

uh, then you don't mind if we address those here, right?

so, erm, what's your beef with Pharyngula again?

I don't want to get banned from Pharyngula,

well, you aren't insipid or trolling or wanking, so I don't see that happening.

I hardly think you'll be banned because you are confused about what this forum is about.

Wow. Why would you get banned for being completely tolerant of bullshit?

well, you aren't insipid or trolling or wanking, so I don't see that happening.

Thanks, that's a relief!

Thanks also for sending the links! I haven't been keeping up on the twin studies literature, so this is interesting. What these articles seem to address is that there is evidence that there may be a genetic predisposition toward religious faith/participation in religious activities. Unfortunately, this is not a good sign for those who strive to increase secularization.

I'm not a person of faith but, as I admitted above, my parents are, so I may well carry the genes. I suppose I could choose sterilization, but I'd rather instill in my future children an enthusiasm for science and evolutionary studies, and a respect for people who hold different beliefs (maybe the latter is just the religion genes talking).

There is no gene for religion. That's an oversimplification if the idea.

There is no gene for religion. That's an oversimplification if the idea.

Hey, I said "genes"! If the studies are on to something, then I am sure that the trait is at least oligogenic (if not polygenic).

I suppose I could choose sterilization

yikes! a bit drastic.

having a predisposition towards something doesn't mean it's an unalterable conclusion, by any means. Let alone the fact that these are really preliminary findings, and not all potentially confounding variables have been addressed as yet.

my point wasn't to say the issue had been decided, but only that it was capable of being researched, and suggestive studies had already begun.

even with areas of behavior, or physiology, that are much more heavily studied and found to have genetic components suggesting a predisposition, like schizophrenia for example; development and environment still play a large role in whether or not they are expressed.

It just takes work, and like you say, "instill in my future children an enthusiasm for science" would likely more than counter any existing predispositions.

Fourth, the idea that we make ethical judgments by calmly weighing each option in mind, dispassionately calculating a utility function and choosing the option of maximal goodness is completely absurd. That's not the way people behave.

No, it happens more like this:

1. Dozens of suboptimal utility functions derive possible actions.
2. Filters combine and parse down those options, probably combined with making quick comparisons with social norms and other factors, which guide which ones get rejected.
3. The remaining possibilities are further filtered, comparing them to more precise models of *correct* behavior.
4. One final model is chosen and acted on.
5. Post-hock associations are formed to substantiate and explain **why** it was the correct choice.
6. We become aware that we are acting, and what the made up explanation is for why.

Basically, the process by which a choice is made is like some flight computers in aircraft that won't fly without them. Several **different** calculations are made, based on the same data, using different algorithms, and then a simple test is applied to determine which result came out on top. We just have hundreds, thousands? or something processes deriving different results, a smaller number of processes using those original results as input, and all of them collectively deriving a more complete concept of both a) what the response should be, and b) why it happened. But every level is using incomplete data, imperfect algorithms and possibly a sort of template system, which attempts to *fit* the situation into previously known and experienced conditions and responses. We only derive **new** templates when the dissonance between what did happen, and what we thought happens, is sufficient to produce a consensus about what took place. And then the new template gets built into the framework of the closest proximate similar template, with the result that even new information gets mixed up, to some extent, with data, templates, conditions and/or events that are **not** actually correctly associated with them. So, things can trigger data that are "not" correctly associated, causing minor issues, like smelling cookies and remembering you grandmother, or extreme and unreasonable reactions, like smelling chlorine and panicking, because you feel like you are drowning. That the associations do mean something is useful, usually. But they are **not** always rational associations, and they can drive a persons reactions in a direction they would never otherwise consider, like buying those cookies, due to the positive association, when you didn't want or need them before.

The airplane doesn't *know* even in its vague way that it "chose" to trim one wing, instead of the other, to keep the aircraft flying. All it "knows" about its own choices is what to do. And if you added a system on top of that, which was intended to use "only" the final actions taken, and not the data going in, or all three sets of results, that "mind" on top of it wouldn't be any more aware of how its computers came to the conclusion they did than we do, and would, like us, have to guess, based purely on the models it built to explain the actions of those parts of itself which it has no *awareness* of.

Basically, its only non-deterministic because we lack any awareness of how the determinations where ***actually*** made, but are just building a "probable" explanation, based on incomplete understanding of most of the steps (if not all of them) in the process of reaching a conclusion.

Or, so it would seem to me. There is nothing to imply its otherwise, and the only difference I can see is whether, at distinct points in the process of making a choice, the parts of the brain forming awareness are given "hints" about the process and results, or not, and how much they get. It doesn't, to go back to the aircraft, do any good for the final process to be "aware" that there was an updraft and project, however reasonably, that this *must* have been a factor in the choices that where made by its subsystems, if it remains clueless about the exact methods used to conclude that what happens was the **correct** solution for that updraft. All it has is a post-hock projection, which presumes that the data it is aware of was responsible. And it could be just as wrong as we can be, if some other data point, response algorithm or more complex set of conditions gave rise to the result. All it has is a guess, albeit a really good one. Ours guesses might be better, depending on how much awareness comes from *our* subsystems, but its still a case of making a, hopefully, accurate guess. A guess which can be made, based on limited data, even if **we** where not the ones, as some experiments have shown, who initiated to action. We simply identify it as something "we" had to do, since our body is presumably doing it, and therefor *guess* as to what our motivation had to be, given that we *apparently* acted.

Its rather hard to figure how this produces anything but an illusion of free will, but at the same time, the only way it loses that status is **if** you stumble on some way to become personally aware of how the results where derived. If you can't determine how it happened, then to *you* its free will, even if logic, or even some future computer model, implies/proves it *is* predetermined.

Cassandra #67 wrote:

It seems to me that discussing the "unconvincing arguments for God" simply serves to perpetuate the misconception that it is possible to conduct scientific examinations (hypothesis testing) of religious/supernatural beliefs.This would suggest that religion is, in fact, an appropriate topic for science classrooms.

In US elementary and high school? No. There's a legal separation of church and state, so God is technically "off limits" -- and theists who are wise will keep it there. Atheists can't and won't touch it.

But paranormal and supernatural claims can be examined for consistency and coherency with the discoveries of modern science -- and that would include most concepts of God. There are philosophers and scientists arguing that science is not only consistent with the existence of God, but indicative of it. One can disagree with their conclusions, but it's not a logical impossibility. The insistence that it is a "misperception" to put religious beliefs under scientific scrutiny is a misconception.

Any successful zealot (no matter their philosophical inclination) would surely agree that the way to win over the masses is to convince them that the new way of thinking simply complements and enhances their own long-held traditions.

But it doesn't. Not really. Not if you don't simply view spiritual claims as matters of personal therapy, or community bonding, or tastes and metaphors. And this is why I'm concerned that the lack of respect is really on the side of those who will smile and nod and pat the heads of the religious, so that they might be "won over."

They are not like us, you know. They can't handle hard truths.They wouldn't be able to adjust, or find meaning, or be ethical, or be strong. In other words, they're not like us, who can do all those things, and then keep them safe from all that tough work. An "introspective reassessment of their worldviews?" Oh no, no. Poor things can and will only dig in their heels. Let's be practical.

Cassandra, I respect your argument. It's a pragmatic one, and has a lot to recommend it. But I still see problems -- ethical ones now, and pragmatic ones in the future. I don't know if this Separate Magisteria two-step can -- or should -- be kept up.

Cassandra:

"Scientific inquiry is not contrary to your personal religious beliefs."

In a word, bullshit. The results of scientific inquiry are contrary to the religious belief that the world was created less that 10,000 years ago, and that the earth is the centre of the universe, and that there was a worldwide flood in human history that killed all but two of every land animal...shall I go on? It is pure delusion to think that there isn't a foundational conflict between a rational understanding of the world and religion.

(While I disagree violently with fundamentalist Christian beliefs, I at least respect that they have enough intellectual honesty to recognize that science does indeed conflict with their worldview, which is why they fight it so hard.)

I don't know if this Separate Magisteria two-step can -- or should -- be kept up.

in a different thread (over on PT, which has become more an more a place where things like NOMA are looked on positively), I argued that it is impossible to rationalize NOMA (it's very easy to tear down the logic behind it), but that it still might make a pragmatic temporary band-aid or crutch when dealing with the issue from a secondary educational level.

I'm still unsure in the immediate sense if that is an accurate assessment though, and even less sure if a temporary band-aid won't end up causing even MORE damage that needs to be fixed in the future.

you might want to contribute your own thoughts on that thread:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/noma-is-alive-a.html

I think you will notice that I don't ultimately decide if we have free will or not. I do say: "Most atheists have no problem admitting that free will may be an illusion." Can't we admit that it might be? I think the jury is still out. I care to know what the answer is from the viewpoint of intellectual curiosity (I can't help it), but I don't personally care as I am having a great life and if it's unalterable determinism that's giving it to me, let the program continue!

Sorry I skipped the Argument from Bananas: "The Banana: the Atheist's Nightmare." I actually DO have a rebuttal for it: "The Coconut: The Theist's Nightmare." Imagine you're on a desert island with only coconut trees and sand. How are you going to open it? I suppose you could try bashing it against the tree itself, but then all the milk would spill, and you can't drink seawater...

I'm going to have to take a ream of paper and print all these responses out, then spend a week analyzing them. Thanks a lot (seriously)!

Tulse:

Not all religious people are Christian fundamentalists. Those who are will likely never be swayed, no matter how much one rages against them. Those who are not include people that believe a Higher Power sparked the Big Bang and may interact with them on a personal level every day, but at the same time believe in evolution by natural selection and myriad other documented scientific phenomena. These are the people that I worry about alienating from science in general by telling them that they have to choose between their faith and our science.

Sastra:

I am not suggesting a patronizing ("pat and nod") approach. I know many non-fundamentalist religious people who are aware of the differences between current scientific knowledge and literal biblical accounts and that they have reconciled these satisfactorily on their own. Demands that they align their worldviews with ours are not likely to be warmly received. That is my only point.

I think that we should present as much compelling evidence as possible, as often as possible, for evolution by natural selection, and the age of our planet, and the orbital patterns in the universe, and the paucity of evidence for a world-wide flood, etc.

I just think that it will be more effective if we take a less antagonistic approach. However it is becoming evident that the majority of contributors on this forum disagree. I appreciate having the opportunity to share and discuss my views, and I am grateful that no one suggested that I should, indeed, be sterilized (I was bracing myself for that one!).

Cassandra:

Those who are not include people that believe a Higher Power sparked the Big Bang and may interact with them on a personal level every day, but at the same time believe in evolution by natural selection and myriad other documented scientific phenomena. These are the people that I worry about alienating from science in general by telling them that they have to choose between their faith and our science.

But they really do, Cassandra -- if they believe in miracles, in the supernatural, in angels and the love of a Big Sky Fairy, then yes, they really are alienated from science already. There may be a pragmatic aspect to not pointing this out, to being dishonest and telling them that they can both believe in science and that some guy created bread and fish out of thin air, but do realize that you are actually lying. Religion by its very nature is ultimately incompatible with science and reason. Some religions may be more politically benign, or socially acceptable, or cause the practice of science less trouble, but don't kid yourself that their foundational commitments aren't antithetical to science and reason.

Tulse,

I can agree to disagree on this, but I definitely disagree.

Some Christians believe that "some guy" took a small amount of bread and fish (not thin air) and convinced a crowed that it was enough bread and fish to satisfy everyone. This might be achieved through hypnosis, or the power of suggestion, or maybe it is simply a parable (that is, a fable that illustrates a principle, which in my view of this case would be that a clever person can find a way to appease a surly crowd).

This example is not incongruous with science, nor are any of the other biblical tales that I can think of so long as one is open to the fact that they need not be taken literally.

By the way, if it's flies you're trying to catch, I recommend forgetting about vinegar and honey and using either some shit or a dead mouse.
If it's reasonable people you're after then reason seems the way to go.
Unreasonable people? I don't know. Maybe some shit? Or a dead mouse?

#70:

But that's not what the philosophical matter of free will is about.

A major part of the philosophical matter of free will is figuring out what the notion of free will could possibly be about. I highly recommend Dennett's Freedom Evolves in this connection. Essentially his thesis is that free will is a product of natural selection acting on both genes and memes. We are more free than animals, because our brains have the power to override our instincts. And we are more free than our Stone-age ancestors, because our evolving culture creates ever more opportunities for meaningful choice.

We act because of our brain states, and our brain states are that way because of other circumstances. There is never a new causal force (an "I") that enters into causality...

Dennett considers this argument a category error. The example he uses is that of a chess-playing computer. The computer's operation may be absolutely determined by the succession of electronic states in its CPU, but if we seek an explanation of why it won or lost a particular game, an account of the deterministic interplay of bits and bytes (or electrons and holes) gets us nowhere. The reasons it did what it did are to be found in the choices it made at various points in the game. The notion of rationally governed choice is essential to making sense of its behavior, and it's at this level that free will applies.

Or to put it another way, the deterministic interplay of bits and bytes may in principle be part of the causal chain of the program's behavior, but chaos theory prevents us from tracing the causal chain back that far. For all practical purposes, the causal chain stops at the level of reasoning about game states.

By the same token, the causes of human behavior are for practical purposes rooted in reason and emotion, and in general it's not possible to discern a deeper cause for any particular act. What makes us freer than our animal ancestors is that fact that our mental processes are sufficiently convoluted and self-referential to provide that sort of chaotic causal backstop. The buck stops at the level of psychology, not quantum physics, and that's what it means to have free will.

Dennett also discusses the Libet experiments alluded to in point 26 and shows why the standard interpretation ("our brain makes a 'decision' to take action before we become conscious of it!") doesn't hold water. In a nutshell, the implied distinctions between "us" and "our brain", and between "deciding" and "becoming conscious of it" don't exist in reality, and the measured discrepancy in timing between the readiness potential and the subject's reported moment of decision is most likely an artifact of the sequencing of items in short-term memory.

28) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Using this one to invoke God is strange. It seems to presume that the natural, normal thing one ought to expect to have is Nothing. No matter, no energy, no time, no extension, no empty space -- no, not even a void. I have trouble even thinking of that as coherent, let alone Possibility #1.

Really? Well, in my opinion, and what do any of us have in the end other than our opinions. Nothing seems *simpler* and more *basic* than something. Of course we know that that just *isn't* how the universe is. Imagining the universe now with something in it is easy enough, and imagining it a bit in the future and/or a bit in the past to see the something in a previous or future form is okay but to imagine the universe infinitely into the past *always* with stuff existing is hard for me becuase that'd imply stuff is *eternal* and origin-less and my mind balks at anything bein eternal and origin-less. (I can imagine things having no end but things having no beginning... just seems ... wrong ... to me.) The other option is something springing from nothing and that's weird too.

Nontheless, I have to accept that the universe just doesn't work in a way that *doesn't* make my mind balk because mind balking or not, here it is!

God, or any *other* answer is simply shifting the question circularly and is no answer at all. I can't imagine any possible answer other than my premise that "nothing" is somehow more natural than "something" is simply not valid. (and it probably isn't...)

But, c'mon... isn't the "symmetric systems are unstable, and nothing is the most symmetric system there is so we should expect it to be the most unstable" simply B.S. for "Fuck, Stop being a smart-ass asking meaningless and unanswerable questions"?

But, c'mon... isn't the "symmetric systems are unstable, and nothing is the most symmetric system there is so we should expect it to be the most unstable" simply B.S. for "Fuck, Stop being a smart-ass asking meaningless and unanswerable questions"?

No, it's physics. You might disagree with Stenger's interpretation but there's a lot more to the argument than your summary.

I am grateful that no one suggested that I should, indeed, be sterilized (I was bracing myself for that one!).

you're kidding, right?

for one, where on earth did you get the idea that that would be even a remote possibility,

and two

how do you "brace" yourself for that??

again, uh, yikes.

you must have been hanging out in some awfully seedy rhetorical bins before coming here.

But, c'mon... isn't the "symmetric systems are unstable, and nothing is the most symmetric system there is so we should expect it to be the most unstable" simply B.S. for "Fuck, Stop being a smart-ass asking meaningless and unanswerable questions"?

>>>>No, it's physics. You might disagree with Stenger's interpretation but there's a lot more to the argument than your summary.

I don't disagree with Stenger's physics but I do disagree with his interpretation with the spirit of the question "why is there something rather than nothing". In light of this physics the real question is "Why are the laws of the universe such that nothing is a sum and thus less natural than something rather than being simpler laws such that nothing is an absence of stuff and thus nothing is more natural than something?"

Ultimately, no matter how you word the question the answer has to be, it seems to me, it just is, okay.

But, thank you. That article *does* answer that a system with no particles yet within the current laws of physics is not a trivial system as I had assumed. However it doesn't answer the basic question as to why the laws of physics are such, rather than the far simpler laws that could be "nothing exists and there's nothing acting upon it to be unstable and there's nothing and no time and no laws except the simple law that there is nothing". Surely that, even though it is clearly not the universe, would be "simpler".

Ultimately, the question by it's nature is circular and unanswerable. But the physics, at least explain, how our current universe works which tossing a God into the mix doesn't.

By the way, if it's flies you're trying to catch, I recommend forgetting about vinegar and honey and using either some shit or a dead mouse.

The creationists already follow that plan too though. They keep producing and shovelling around lots of the former but tend to substitute dead (or lame) duck religions and arguments for the latter.

Meanwhile, it's only the elite/crack squad of scientists and atheists who are seriously trying to rescue the spineless from the clutches of the evil religionists and their combined honey and excrement traps. That's done using vinegar or any other solution which comes to mind/hand - hopefully before the religionists squeeze or suck the life out of their victims.

Ideally, the traps can also be cleaned up or sign-posted well enough in much the same way, so that more of the spineless don't fall into them in the first place. Then any of the saved spineless with the relevant potential can fly away free, while the others can at least crawl off to a safer distance.

Cassandra:

Some Christians believe that "some guy" took a small amount of bread and fish (not thin air) and convinced a crowed that it was enough bread and fish to satisfy everyone. This might be achieved through hypnosis, or the power of suggestion, or maybe it is simply a parable (that is, a fable that illustrates a principle, which in my view of this case would be that a clever person can find a way to appease a surly crowd).

If you want to denude the Bible of all supernatural acts by reinterpreting it as "allegorical" or "fables", or try to find naturalistic explanations for the events described, that's fine, but then how does the Bible differ from Aesop's fables, or Little Women, or any other book of fiction that people have used as guides to life? It seems to me that the whole point of those seemingly supernatural events in the Bible is to demonstrate the supernatural power of god -- if you strip that away by reinterpreting their literal meaning, you don't really have a religion any more, just a mushy feel-good philosophy.

That's what I meant by saying that religion is foundationally opposed to science and reason -- all religions believe in the supernatural, which is contrary to naturalism. If you want to re-interpret the main document of Christianity in purely naturalistic terms, then you're right, it won't be in conflict with science, but then it won't be a religion.

Given -ANY- initial conditions, there can be only one course for the future.

Heisenberg.

This is one of the few axioms of the scientific method.

There are no axioms of the scientific method at all. The closest thing is the necessary assumption of methodological naturalism -- but this is not an axiom! It is itself a testable hypothesis, and it is tested in every single observation (of an experiment or anything else).

(31) The "Fine-tuning" of the Universe : I may have missed this point in the previous comments (I ran out of steam on the Free Will discussion). The argument of improbable correspondence of physical constants has no weight at all. Improbable things happen all the time. Take a random number generator that can generate a 10 digit number. Turn it on and note the number generated. The probability of that number occurring is 1 in 10^10 - highly improbable but there it is staring at you.

Sastra said: "I think that you may underestimate the religious. They don't all need to be pandered and condescended to. Discussing the "unconvincing arguments for God" is taking the hypothesis seriously. And there are a lot of religious people who are serious enough about their beliefs that they are capable of regarding God as a hypothesis. They are not offended. They can recognize real respect when they see it."

I agree with Sastra.

I also find that racism is actually respectful to blacks, and they should recognize the respect of racists -- I don't know how they can't see it.

I likewise find that anti-gay legislation is actually respectful to gays, and they should recognize the respect of homophobes -- I don't know how they can't see it.

I furthermore find that sexism is actually respectful to women, and they should recognize the respect of chauvinists -- I don't know how they can't see it.

The universe has a volume of perhaps 4 trillion cubic light years, with the vast majority of that space filled with vacuum just above absolute zero, and the remainder mostly occupied with spheres of hot gas several thousands of degrees, and it is billions of years old. Explain again how it is "fine tuned" for the existence of one bit of organic life that arose in just the most recent fraction of that time, and that can exist within a very narrow temperature band on the thinnest of shells around one infinitesimally small smidgen of matter tucked away in an unremarkable corner of the vastness of space.

It is hubris of the highest order to think that universe exists to produce us. Heck, it would be hubris for the stars to think the universe exists to produce them. Just as God seems inordinately fond of beetles, he also seems inordinately fond of unimaginably vast tracks of cold vacuum.

I also find that racism is actually respectful to blacks, and they should recognize the respect of racists -- I don't know how they can't see it.

Right, because discussing the validity of someone's argument is exactly the same as bigotry.

Moron.

I have great respect for PZ and I don't want to get flamed for trolling. I do sometimes wonder how effective this type of approach is. Won't it turn some students off of studying science if you constantly attack their beliefs? It might be better to just present them with the knowledge you have and let them make their own decisions.

Adding to 32):

From an evolutionary standpoint, the environment of the Earth is not fine-tuned to us, we are fine-tuned to the environment of the Earth.

I loved it until point 34, which is "What the Bleep" level cosmological woo-woo. Sorry. >.<

I loved it until point 34, which is "What the Bleep" level cosmological woo-woo. Sorry.

Do you have any specific objections? I have my own concerns - 'total net energy of the Universe' is not necessarily a meaningful concept, for a start - but it hardly seems that bad.

Cassandra is of the "That's not what christians really believe" school.
The vast majority do infact believe in miracles and that what's in the bible actaully happened.

Cassandra. Tell a Christian that miracles don't happen... see how that goes over.

MartinM said: "Right, because discussing the validity of someone's argument is exactly the same as bigotry. Moron."

Sorry -- I meant to say that discussing the validity of someone's argument that blacks are equal to whites is actually respectful to blacks, and I can't understand why anyone might be offended or consider that disrespectful. Why can't we discuss a list of unconvincing arguments for the equality of blacks without people getting touchy? And people get touchy too every time I start listing unconvincing reasons that homosexuality is natural and isn't a choice! I mean, I just can't understand why that's offensive, might turn people off, and add conflict to the discussion. Huh! I just don't get it!

Huh! I just don't get it

Now your being sensisble.

poke:

#55 Are you saying experience has a supernatural basis? Otherwise, how are claims of revelation different from any other situation where I claim supernatural intervention and then stubbornly persist in the face of material explanation? The laws of physics hold still hold for the brain.

No, I can't say anything one way or the other about such claims. The gullible would argue that the fact of the experience 'proves' their point of view. The subtle would admit that, just because materialist accounts of the brain's action are possible, doesn't mean that this 'disproves' the gullible's claim. And, if we simply invoke present-day understanding ('the laws of physics') without knowing how the regularities produce such experience, we are simply turning science into a succedaneum for belief. I think both of us would like to set the bar higher than that.

Uber:

#66 At which point we must just use some common sense and ask if this veru common and very contradictory idea is even remotely convincing and why it would be to someone not amazingly credulous.

One can reject a claim without having disproved it. Creationists do it all the time, and they also presume (incorrectly) that having 'shot holes' in their misunderstanding of evolution that this somehow demonstrates creation. Hopefully, you and I set a higher standard regarding both proof and accepting/rejecting a given claim than they do. Consequences of claims along the lines of #6 are amenable to investigation, but the believer typically has 'multiple outs' available to him/her to place such claims beyond 'disproof.'

PZ:

#84 So you do want us to stop criticizing religion. Who's going to do it, then?

Not me! As far as I can tell, there is no justification for privileging any particular belief/claim.

Scott-

. Consequences of claims along the lines of #6 are amenable to investigation, but the believer typically has 'multiple outs' available to him/her to place such claims beyond 'disproof

No one would deny this but the mutually contradictory claims of these 'experiences' render them mute. One sees the smae type of experiences in individuals along all religions which is ample evidence they are material in origin.

Why can't we discuss a list of unconvincing arguments for the equality of blacks without people getting touchy? And people get touchy too every time I start listing unconvincing reasons that homosexuality is natural and isn't a choice!

So we shouldn't discuss God's possible non-existence, since it might hurt God's feelings?

MartinM: No, we're obviously thinking along the same lines, but I'm just really picky about these things.

"It also turns out that the negative gravitational energy in the universe exactly cancels the positive energy represented by matter, so that the total net energy of the universe is zero"

I can see where you'd get something like this, but when you word it like that it's basically just there to look impressive. "NEGATIVE GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY ZOMGZ", etc.

To Guy at comment # 115. I presume that PZ is not advocating that anyone use this document in a science classroom to argue against a student's philosophical beliefs. I agree with your statement: "It might be better to just present them with the knowledge you have and let them make their own decisions."
I think it is a good thing that people do not all think alike and that there are a variety of viewpoints on almost any subject. Students will come to their own philosophical conclusions about where the scientific facts lead.

Argument #14, Pascal's Wager. It's probably already been mentioned, but another major problem with it is the false presentation of a 50/50 choice. The truth is that it's 1/n, where n is the number of ideologies making mutually conflicting claims about the afterlife. I can think of about 10 off the top of my head, in truth there are probably tens of thousands. The variable 'n' should be inclusive of all past, present, and future religions, since these things are decided by society after all.

I spent a long time around funnymentalist Christians when I was growing up, and those sorts of people who will one day be Church Ladies, but aren't yet, on the grounds that they haven't lived long enough. So I can actually think like them, if I work at it hard enough.

I can imagine what a proto-Church Lady would say about the "What if Pascal's Wager applies to some other god?" argument, which is, "The Christian god is the only real god," or maybe "All gods are actually the Christian god, those other people just don't/didn't know it." (I have actually heard both of these arguments used in other contexts.) I'm actually sort of stymied as to where to go from there (anywhere I can think of leads back to the "because it's in the Bible" or other question-begging)...that is, aside from punching the smarmy ass in their smug little face and walking away... (NB for the humour-impaired -- I have never punched a theist yet, but that doesn't mean I haven't wanted to.)

, "The Christian god is the only real god,"

The response being "Odd, that's just what all those other religions say about their god(s). Why should they believe you?"

"All gods are actually the Christian god, those other people just don't/didn't know it."

"So it's OK if they continue to believe as they do, because the Christian god will sort it all out?" and/or "Funny, I thought the very First Commandment was about not worshipping other gods -- you wouldn't think the Christian god would mind if he was really all gods."

"So it's OK if they continue to believe as they do, because the Christian god will sort it all out?" and/or "Funny, I thought the very First Commandment was about not worshipping other gods -- you wouldn't think the Christian god would mind if he was really all gods."

and/or "then you shouldn't mind converting to a non-christian religion as you'll still be worshipping the same god"

The variable 'n' should be inclusive of all past, present, and future religions, since these things are decided by society after all.

*cough* ALLHAILDAGON *cough*

Kagehi @ 94: More than once you use the term "post-hock". Once would suffice to disprove free will, since after being hocked one is merely a pawn.

Argument #14 (Pascal's Wager), 1/n, and the implications thereof.

Yes, by that logic, you should worship every god, goddess, pantheon, genius loci, fetish, or other worshippable concept that ever was or ever could be, thereby attaining n/n = 1 as your odds of worshipping the correct concept.

But in all that crowd there are also the jealous sorts, who will reject you because you also worshipped the others; the idealistic sorts, who will reject you because you worshipped them for the wrong reason; and the anti-gamblers, who will reject you for having made this "wager". (One popular view has YHVH fitting all three categories.)

So then your odds of suffering divine wrath and eternal punishment may actually exceed those of the honest atheist.

That seems like a poor reward for spending so much time and effort worshipping so many (albeit with selfish and insincere motives).

Uber:

One sees the smae type of experiences in individuals along all religions which is ample evidence they are material in origin.

I'll grant that same is evidence that some aspect of their experience is material in origin, but that is a trivial claim.

Son of Priam #112 wrote:

I also find that racism is actually respectful to blacks, and they should recognize the respect of racists -- I don't know how they can't see it.

I don't think racism (or homophobia or sexism) are good analogies to my saying that thoughtfully analyzing religion for its truth is respectful to both the religion, and the religious. There's a difference between arguing "you're inferior" and "you're mistaken."

Just because disagreement adds "conflict to the discussion" doesn't necessarily mean one person is being offensive and disrespecting the other person. Having a discussion in the first place assumes you take the other person's views seriously enough to examine them carefully. Scientists who watch colleagues rip into their pet theory get upset, just as the religious get upset over atheist arguments or atheists get upset over apologetics -- but being ignored, or deferred to, or treated like a child and avoiding any discussion at all seems more like racism or sexism to me. It denies the common ground.

If "The 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God" had been "34 Reasons Why Religious People are Demented Fuckwits" I think your analogies would be closer. When being wrong means being hopelessly inferior that's when any argument turns nasty.

Elsewhere you said that gay people "get touchy too every time I start listing unconvincing reasons that homosexuality is natural and isn't a choice." That's closer -- because I agree that they shouldn't get offended over an academic debate on the roots of homosexuality. I suspect they're more upset over where else they think it's going -- that if it's a 'choice' then they're degenerate perverts.

(6) "Revelations" of One's Own (Personal Testimony, Feelings, "Open Heart") - This is when you are personally having the revelation or feeling that a god exists. Though you may be sincere, and even if a god really does exist, a feeling is not proof, either for you or for someone else.

Persons who have had personal experiences with Jesus that give them feelings of peace and assurance will have evidence in their actions as well, which makes the definition of faith mirror that listed for love in #22.

It will do no good to ask atheists to "open our hearts and accept Jesus" (or any other deity). If we were to set aside our skepticism, we might indeed have an inspirational experience. But this would be an emotional experience and we'd have no way to verify if a god was really speaking to us or if we were just hallucinating.

I feel so very sorry for the families of atheists, who have such low regard for feelings. How do you know if you should go home each night? Don't you 'feel' drawn to your children and (perhaps) even your spouse? How do you know that is real if emotions are so meaningless? If atheists are enjoying their lives so much without faith in God and a relationship with Jesus, do they not feel that enjoyment? Is it just a rote, "well the ad said this should be fun, so I am having fun." Or do you ever 'feel,' and have faith in the feelings, of pure relaxation and an understanding that you are loved, and will be forgiven for not being perfect?

Many atheists have stories of how wonderful it felt to lose their belief in gods. As with religion, this is not proof that atheism is true.

(22) "God is Intangible, Like Love" - Love is not intangible. We can define love both as a type of feeling and as demonstrated by certain types of actions.

But feelings are NOT definitive in #6-how can they be here?

Unlike "God," love is a physical thing. We know the chemicals responsible for the feeling of love.

So is love a feeling or a physical response? Has anyone looked for the chemicals that are responsible for faith? What if you LOVE God/Jesus? Does He then exist? If love is a physical response then love of God must be a response to God, or His angel at least, right? Something has to trigger those chemicals.

I am in a PhD program where I am being trained as a scientist and can tell you assuredly that most of science is really faith. Every theory put forth comes from someone who believes they have THE answer. And then their students set about to collect evidence. There have been so many real truths debunked that most regular people have no faith in science any longer. And for many evidence-based truths, there is just as much evidence for the opposite 'truth.' An example of faith in science is beliveing that because there are bird/amphibian combinations in a pile of bones that one therafter evolved from the other. You have to make several "leaps of faith" to believe that. And the biggest is that the 'scientist' who made the discovery correctly and honorably presented it to the world, the same argument made in other posts that persons who recorded the Bible can't be trusted, yet we are talking about scientists who have no feelings to guide their decisions and believe that lying is ok. What if the bird simply ate a large lizard before dying?

One last question...Why would you put more faith in what you see than what you feel/love, if they are both real?

yet we are talking about scientists who have no feelings to guide their decisions and believe that lying is ok.

Are you going to be able to name any of them (and provide evidence)? Or is that blanket defamation from you going to remain as being against any and all scientists - making you a (currently non-convicted) criminal because defamation, contrary to the beliefs of the ignorant, does not have to be specifically directed at one individual. Rather, the more general it is made, the more people have valid claims against you!

At the moment, you seem to be the one lacking feelings (for all the people you are defaming) and believing that lying is OK (since you are most assuredly wrong and quite possibly already know this - depending on just how insane, stupid and ignorant you are).

I am in a PhD program where I am being trained as a scientist and can tell you assuredly that most of science is really faith. Every theory put forth comes from someone who believes they have THE answer. And then their students set about to collect evidence. There have been so many real truths debunked that most regular people have no faith in science any longer.

Science - you're doing it wrong.

MartinM: No, we're obviously thinking along the same lines, but I'm just really picky about these things.

Oh, I don't think it's overly picky. The statement they're making is flatly wrong; what they should say is that for certain definitions of 'energy,' certain cosmological models have a total 'energy' of zero.

An example of faith in science is beliveing that because there are bird/amphibian combinations in a pile of bones that one therafter evolved from the other. [...] What if the bird simply ate a large lizard before dying?

Wow. Just...wow.

What "scientist" graduate program are you allegedly in? I think you could probably sue them for misfeasance and get your tuition back.

Comment #139: If, windy, you are in a PhD program in the sciences then I truly fear for the future of science. I received my PhD many (many) years ago and my experience is that good science is never about faith. It makes progress by questioning everything, making hypotheses that can be falsified and doing careful observation and experimentation to confirm or - just as importantly deny - those hypotheses. Your phrase "so many real truths debunked" is meaningless in science since for a scientist there is no such thing as a "real truth". There are observations (data) and theories formulated to explain those observations. Sometimes new technology allows more precise observation and sometimes new observations are made both of which can show that the current theory is inadequate or wrong. Ain't no "truth" in science.

To Bob Henderson (#141):

Don't blame windy (NB post #138 not #139 according to the numbering currently being shown to me). The bit you are picking on was a quote (albeit using italics rather than the blockquote tag) of campbeju's post #136, on which windy was commenting.

Sent this to August:

I wanted to add an observation to #14, Pascal's wager:

You say:

"Part of Pascal's Wager states that you "lose nothing" by believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these conditions, you're acknowledging that you're willing to accept some things on faith. In other words, you're saying you're willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesn't sound so appealing when it's phrased that way, does it?"

Good points, but to me, this is skirting around his main error, which can be refuted in one sentence:

"It is equally likely that belief in God will send you to hell as send you to heaven."

Or send you to the grocery store. Or send you nowhere. Or put a dress and a clown hat on your brother-in-law. ...

Since we have no mathematical basis for any claim about God or any other supernatural possibility, ALL claims are equally likely (or, more accurately, equally unlikely), including converse claims.

Pascal conveniently favors one possibility over others by linking the belief to the outcome. But the leap he makes there negates any mathematical foundation.

I could also state: "It is equally likely that NOT believing in God will send you to heaven and all others to hell."

So I await my own final destination with as much hope and anticipation as I have for all the believers out there. Which is to say, not so much.

I am in a PhD program where I am being trained as a scientist

Please be lying. Please!

I wasn't ruling out the possibility that campbeju might be in one of those creationist institutions where they pretend to train people as scientists and just hand out bogus qualifications anyway. If the DI was running a PhD program, it would seem exactly as described, viz: telling the people they are being trained as scientists, basing it all on faith, having "theories" put forth by people who believe they know THE answer and are just seeking excuses for that and ignoring all the evidence against it rather than genuinely exploring reality.

Hence one reason why it's so important that campbeju be forced to name names and back up those assertions.

@roger (comment #15) Actually, you cannot write a program that outputs random sequences. Unless you feed the program with some (supposedly) random seeds like atmospheric noise, it will always output only a pseudo-random sequence. A quote from John von Neumann is well-suited for this post: "Anyone who uses arithmetic methods to produce random numbers is in a state of sin."

On point 21 regarding "meaning in life", not everyone seeks a distinct meaning or purpose in life. Certain existentialists would argue (and I agree) that the only meaning of life is to live. We don't seek a "meaning" for the existence of the Muon. Why should we seek a meaning for a macro organization of such particles? And, why assume that every conscious being seeks a meaning for its existence?

Any argument that says the universe "began" is wrong from the get go - no such thing occurred. At best our local hubble volume originated at the big bang, nothing more.

Bad (#35): On Plantinga, read the entry in the Philosophical Lexicon on him. Remember also that this is not Dennett being malicious - he vets the entry with the individual himself if they are alive at the time of inclusion. So Plantinga himself considers himself a medieval philosopher ...

Spaulding (#40): To be fair, the theistic misinterpretation of SLoT is that decreases in entropy require "intelligence". This is slightly (only slightly) less wrong, of course, but that counterexample doesn't work any longer.

woozy (#54): "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is answered - there could not have been nothing: "being nothing" is self contradictory. What the theist usually means is "why do the non-god parts of the universe exist?", on the mistaken and archaic view of matter as inert and passive and hence only capable of doing anything with the concurrence of something outside. Not only is this false, it begs the question against a materialist.

OK I see I touched a nerve and I apologize sincerely. I am not in a creationist program, but I like most scientists I know am in a situation where one's ability to make a living is based on providing evidence for the theories they propose. No evidence--no publishing--no job-etc. And even though you may say you are unbiased, it seems obvious that NOONE is unbiased, including Christians and Atheists, scientists and non-scientists alike--we are all biased by on our ability to think and reason. I am not saying that scientists are maliciously mis-repesenting data at every turn--I am sure most are honorable; but if we can't put faith in things written in the Bible-why can we put faith in scientists and their evidence? If it is reasonable that so many people who lived during the same time as Jesus got together and decided to 'make their stories match' and the resurrection is a hoax, why would we trust atheists who present evidence they've had time to manipulate to match their theories? My point is that belief in scientific theories also requires faith-as does atheism-faith that the evidence for God is wrong. The one person who talked about science is really supposed to be done said there are no truths--but in the reasons above the words 'proof' and 'disprove'are used--most scientists were pretty CERTAIN based on all the evidence that alcohol and coffee were bad for you not so many years ago-now their healthy effects are reported more & more each day. Feelings, that are physiologically based as described above, are present in atheists and Christian alike, and when I feel the presence of God or His angels it is undeniable. So what if the Bible doesn't match what science has found to be 'true' or 'proven' (like the images we see with Hubble)? I don't propose that I am God and can understand the discrepancies that exist between religion and science. But I do believe one day they will be reconciled for all of us. My faith is in God, and all the rest takes second seat, simply pointing to His glory. I am looking forward to understanding it all one day, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as my feelings about God and His Son. I guess Jesus was right in saying that one day knowledge would be much increased and it would be difficult to believe in Him. I won't be back to this site--it is much too distracting from my task at hand now with my studies--and I could easily get hooked--my son sent me a link to it is the only reason I knew of it--so you all can talk to each other about how stupid I am all you want. One last comment--everyone focused on my not-so-well-versed comments about science and noone answered regarding the discrepancies in the 'reasons'--does that mean that your feelings about my comments on science obscured the other comments or that they were valid observations that couldn't be easily refuted? Remember that when science fails you, God still loves all of you.

Shhhhhh.

God doesn't love anyone. God doesn't exist. Neither do angels, demons or unicorns.

Logic. You're doing it wrong.

"2. The fact is, no one even knows if it's possible for gods to exist."

No. It is testable, and uncontradicted, and useful for making predictions that: laws have lawmakers and law enforcers. Thus, it is logical that the laws of the universe have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer. And thus, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p. 462)

"2. The fact is, no one even knows if it's possible for gods to exist."
No. It is testable, and uncontradicted, and useful for making predictions that: laws have lawmakers and law enforcers. Thus, it is logical that the laws of the universe have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer. And thus, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Please, my sides hurt!

Yeah and we all know you can't have teeth without the Tooth Fairy.

You must be joking. No evidence for a maker of natural laws has been found. No test for such a maker has been proposed or made. It is absolutely useless for making predictions: any result can be assigned to the whim of your imaginary designer.

...laws have lawmakers and law enforcers. Thus, it is logical that the laws of the universe have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer.

Ahem. Political or legal laws are prescriptions and proscriptions on what people should or should not do. Natural laws are descriptions of what happens. If something appears to "break" a natural law we rewrite the law to accomodate the new observation. We don't punish the quantum particle, or whatever.

Different meanings of the term "law" -- try not to confuse them.

There is something rather than nothing because perfect symmetry is unstable. But why is it unstable?

It is observable so, which is enough for me. Besides, in cases such as a mexican hat potential (a valley of symmetric minima develops around a center peak), it is theoretically so.

But I see your point(s) re philosophy.

Doesn't the statement "symmetrical systems tend to be unstable" imply the symmetrical systems in question are non-empty.

You are referring to what Sean Carroll has remarked about the problem of extrapolating our knowledge of observable ensembles onto an unobserved. But I believe Stenger is discussing systems on the basis of laws, not observations.

Similarly, the 'fact' that quantum particles pop into existence without an apparent cause can not be used to deny the possibility of causation.

QM theory shows, with data of impressive certainty (~ 15 sigma, IIRC), that there are no hidden local variables when you have a full description of the observables. So there isn't much of a gap there.

It is hard for me to believe I used these arguments, as a pastor, thinking they where so convincing that the person rejecting them was clearly blinded by satan.

Now on the other hand, it like quiting smoking, the smell that was so sweet is not a vomit inducing bunch of rubbish.

The Japanese exchange student whose deformed hand was turned to normal in a matter of seconds before everyone's eyes in Don and Wendy Francisco's living room had no doubt that God existed after it happened. He accepted Jesus Christ as His Saviour 45 seconds later.
When I had the disease in my chest muscles healed and the pain disappeared at a Roxanne Brandt healing service and the pain has never returned to take my breath away convinces me of God's existence.
God is like the wind. You cannot see it but you know He/it exists by its results--what He/it does. But then He said He will not show Himself to one who does not believe in Him. I guess that leaves atheists in the cold. Sorry.

Got before-and-after x-rays on the hand healing?

If so, then we'll believe you.

Gordon: Did you even read the post? You've just offered the 11th Unconvincing Argument for God. See the post for the response to it :)

Wazza: I presume you mean we'd believe that this event had happened, not that a deity had done it.

Oh, yeah

I mean, a lot of "healings" are just psychological effects

laws have lawmakers and law enforcers

One has to wonder if that's a law.

On #25 (Altruism). Too much is conceded here. The answer gives some reasons for rejecting the claim that "evolution only rewards selfish behaviour" (reciprocal altruism, kin selection, hangover from the past when we lived in small groups, reputation), but misses several more. The most important may be the "handicap principle", which is a refinement of the rather vague "reputation" argument: altruism is expensive, so being altruistic shows you are highly fit, and worth mating with / keeping on the right side of. Another, compatible possibility is "runaway sexual selection": once a heritable trait becomes favoured by possible sexual (or more generally social) partners for whatever reason, this in itself becomes a selective advantage and the trait can be stabilised. Again, even in the small-group so-called "environment of evolutionary adaptation", being nice to strangers could well have been advantageous: a stranger is likely to know things you don't, so once our ancestors had language, a stranger was a potentially useful resource. All these possibilities have cultural as well as biological aspects. The real difficulty is deciding which of the many possible explanations for human altruism are most important.

"However, it can be argued that there is no such thing as altruism, that people always do what they want to do."

There is absolutely no reason, as Blake Stacey has already noted, to go down this road. Interpreted in a common-sense way, it's clearly false: I want to eat that last chocolate brownie, but it would be rude / make me fat, so I don't do what I want to do. If interpreted as meaning there is some perfect "utility calculator" inside us that works everything out and chooses the action that "maximises expected utility" - that's hooey, only taken seriously because of the quasi-religious status of neoclassical economics. It would require unlimited computational power, and complete knowledge of the probabilities of all possible futures. Most of the time we act on "simple heuristics that make us smart" (google that phrase for details), or by habit, or by case-based reasoning (what worked before in similar situations will probably work again), or by copying those of high social status. Moreover, recent studies in "neuroeconomics" shows specific regions of the brain used in making ethical decisions, indicating that the potential for altruism, at least, is hard-wired. Parenthetically, I think it's a pity in retrospect that Dawkins called his first book "The Selfish Gene". Easily misunderstood, and indeed in some places he seems to slip into the misunderstanding himself.

This could be the longest Pharyngula post ever.

I like the systematics, and sometime the specifics, but of course there are points that jumps out as less well argued or even curious. Perhaps a reference list had made it easier to parse those points - and the list is too long to argue that references is diluting the presentation.

Gods as the ultimate free lunch (and as christians would have it, the ultimate false choice) is a good start.

But the interesting list of leaps of faith describes some major religions anthropomorphic gods and finally focuses on abrahamic gods which detracts from it. Similarly later arguments reuse this conception of gods (to great effect, admittedly). I think it gives religions too much to focus on some specific religions delusions.

Then we have the pure apologetics arguments at the end.

Likable is Victor Stenger's argument (#28) against non-existence (symmetry breaking), more so than Sean Carroll's (IIRC that non-existence is outside the support of the knowable ensemble). I assume Stenger takes the observed fact that symmetries are broken (say CP invariance) then they don't have to be preserved (say CPT invariance) and promotes it as a principle with some predictive power. [Stenger is now on my "must read" list.]

But the point on the argument from first cause drops the ball - first cause isn't a scientific description, and the very next argument on physical laws is part of a complete answer. Also, I can't imagine what "the six physical constants of the universe" in point #31 refers to. Perhaps it is a partial list of the most important constants - more savvy religious persons use to include the Standard Model constants of the particle zoo for good reasons.

Finally I have a minor quibble with point #34. Stenger's argument, albeit excellent, isn't necessarily valid in a larger multiverse setting. If I understand it correctly some models of eternal inflation speculates in a prespace where regions spontaneously started to inflate when they happened to exhibit low enough entropy with some small probability. (But I hasten to add, if religious people reads this, of course with high likelihood. :-P) IIRC Andrei Linde has a review article describing those models. But that is still no 2LOT violation.

Several commenters have drawn a conclusion that I can support - the arguments are too technical (too much Stenger), and the more forceful general arguments becomes diluted. But one can argue at length how a text should be efficiently presented. There is also a value showing independent arguments that comes to the same conclusion.

Btw, Hank Fox mentioned walking through walls, and that reminded me about an error in the list, of the sort that gnaw on you. Point #2 claims it is impossible to walk through walls. Quantum mechanically it isn't impossible for even macroscopic "classical" objects to tunnel through a finite barrier, they too have (a minimally spread) wavefunction associated with them. But the likelihood of observing it during our universe lifetime is vanishingly small.

However, a secular moral code existed before the Bible: the Code of Hammurabi.

Wasn't secular, or at least not marketed as such. The relief on top of the (uh...) pillar shows Hammurabi receiving plates with the laws written on them from the sun god (probably Shamash), and Wikipedia says...

Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC - 1750 BC) believed that he was chosen by the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land."

At least one even older codes of law is known, written in Sumerian and dating from the Ur-III dynasty -- the 21st century BC. The discussion page of the article mentions a few more.

Strike "at least". There are several minutes between the last sentence and the second-to-last sentence of my previous comment.

On another note, Stenger's interesting idea about symmetry-breaking shifts the problem rather than solving it: There is something rather than nothing because perfect symmetry is unstable. But why is it unstable? Maybe because of the 2LOT, but then why does the 2LOT exist, and so on. Still, however, this is progress.

Given -ANY- initial conditions, there can be only one course for the future.

Heisenberg.

This is one of the few axioms of the scientific method.

There are no axioms of the scientific method at all. The closest thing is the necessary assumption of methodological naturalism -- but this is not an axiom! It is itself a testable hypothesis, and it is tested in every single observation (of an experiment or anything else).

There is something rather than nothing because perfect symmetry is unstable. But why is it unstable?

It is observable so, which is enough for me. Besides, in cases such as a mexican hat potential (a valley of symmetric minima develops around a center peak), it is theoretically so.

But I see your point(s) re philosophy.

Doesn't the statement "symmetrical systems tend to be unstable" imply the symmetrical systems in question are non-empty.

You are referring to what Sean Carroll has remarked about the problem of extrapolating our knowledge of observable ensembles onto an unobserved. But I believe Stenger is discussing systems on the basis of laws, not observations.

Similarly, the 'fact' that quantum particles pop into existence without an apparent cause can not be used to deny the possibility of causation.

QM theory shows, with data of impressive certainty (~ 15 sigma, IIRC), that there are no hidden local variables when you have a full description of the observables. So there isn't much of a gap there.

Just posting to move the names on top...

I'll never understand why people who are secure in their faith, be it that there is a higher power and he/she/it/they are a certain way, OR that there is nothing, try so hard to convince others that their belief is correct. The point of faith is that you don't need (or can't get) tangible proof.

Staunch atheists and staunch theists (whatever their religion), are two sides of the same coin and seem to have an equal investment in being correct. I see very little difference between vocal believers and vocal nonbelievers. Both seem to be unduly concerned that others share their belief regarding religion or a higher power.

An interesting read.

Just an agnostic,

I see very little difference between vocal believers and vocal nonbelievers. Both seem to be unduly concerned that others share their belief regarding religion or a higher power.

By vocal, you mean those who post here and offer their opinion and reasoning? If so, you are a member of that set, too.
Why do you assume that sustaining one's opinion implies an undue concern for one's interlocutor to share such?

PS technically, I'm an agnostic, too - but functionally, I'm a strong atheist. I don't consider this confused.

Interesting, and I think a lot of these points are good ones. Many of the conventional arguments for the existence of God are, indeed, unconvincing - particularly Lewis' trilemma, which, as the author above points out, is a weak argument because it fails to take account of the possibility that the Gospel accounts are inaccurate and ascribe words to Jesus that he never said. It's also true to point out that revelations and religious experiences, while convincing for the individual who experiences them, are so subjective as to be useless for purposes of general empirical evidence, since we can't prove beyond doubt that they aren't simply products of the mind.

At the same time, I also find some of the rebuttals above unconvincing, particularly number 25 (altruism). In my personal experience, human altruism cannot all be ascribed to a desire, conscious or subconscious, to "improve one's reputation"; indeed, I've known people who will do good things for others without any recognition, nor expectation of reward. Nor can it all be ascribed to the familial and child-raising instincts, since many people will be as altruistic, if not more so, towards their friends as towards their families. So I do think we have an inbuilt conscience, or sense of right and wrong, which is unrelated to the desire to survive and perpetuate the species. This isn't, of course, "proof", or even good evidence, for the existence of any particular God or gods. But it is, to me, a general indication that there may be something beyond the material universe, and that we are more than merely physical beings.

Walton @167: Amazing Video: Hero Dog Rescues Injured Dog On Freeway - Real-Life Drama Plays Out On Busy Highway In Chile. Also on youtube.

Staunch atheists and staunch theists (whatever their religion), are two sides of the same coin and seem to have an equal investment in being correct. I see very little difference between vocal believers and vocal nonbelievers. Both seem to be unduly concerned that others share their belief regarding religion or a higher power.

With staunch theists, this is easy to understand, since many religions teach that one cannot be saved without faith in a higher power, regardless of one's virtue and good works; so they are being, from their standpoint, altruistic in attempting to convert people. (Remember this the next time a Mormon or JW knocks on your door at 9am on Saturday morning. From their perspective, they're trying to save you.)

But as to the atheist side, I think it depends what you mean by "vocal nonbelievers". By far the majority of the people on this forum are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise non-religious, and are open and unequivocal about their lack of religious beliefs. I, as a liberal theist, am among the few exceptions. Yet I come here because I think it's beneficial to have my ideas challenged on a daily basis. I accept that I'll likely win some arguments and lose others; and hope that, in the process, I'll learn something and refine my thinking. A worldview which is never challenged or disputed, and never subjected to critical analysis, is not likely to be an intellectually strong one. So I think it's beneficial for atheists and agnostics, just as much as for religious people, to be prepared to share their opinions and discuss issues when it's appropriate to do so; and it isn't fair to brand them as "militant" or "strident" (as some do) just because they venture to express an opinion.

On the other hand, there are a small minority of people here, like Holbach and BobC, who throw vicious rhetoric at the religious and seem to harbour genocidal fantasies. However, to the credit of everyone else here, they are generally reviled or ignored, as they should be.

To draw parallels: Holbach and BobC are the atheist equivalents of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. They don't contribute anything useful to the discussion, and simply throw hate at those they view as "subhuman". In contrast, some of the other people here can be seen as atheist counterparts to, say, Rowan Williams, John Polkinghorne or Katharine Jefferts Schori. They are outspoken about their lack of beliefs - just as religious leaders are, legitimately, outspoken about their beliefs - but they are willing to have a serious and worthwhile discussion, without hurling abuse.

28) why is there something rather than nothing?

"According to physics and astronomy professor Victor Stenger, symmetrical systems tend to be unstable. They tend to decay into less symmetrical systems. Now, Nothing - the lack of anything - is perfectly symmetrical, and thus highly unstable. Therefore, Something is more stable than Nothing. Thus we would expect there to be Something rather than Nothing."

The problem is, Nothing isn't a system. And it isn't symmetrical. Is a single point symmetrical? No, unless you insist that a point is merely a 1 dimensional circle. But a point is actually 0 dimensional as well. From that it can be seen that this system spontaneously emerges. Once we have a 1 dimensional construct, all it takes is simple addition to create more and more, adding more and more dimensions as well. Symmetric systems can be highly stable. We do not know how long the Planck era of cosmology even lasted. It could have been any length of time before inflation occurred. Calculations break down at 10^-43 seconds. Time becomes rather immaterial at that point. Inevitability drove the universes true birth through inflation.

Nothing Existing also is impossible, for if it existed, that particular logical impossibility would exist as well. It would be impossible for impossibility to remain impossible, and that i think would be enough to spontaneously generate reality.

The real interesting thing as this shows the dominance of impossibility, and we ought to see reality decaying into random mess and impossible things should occur to disrupt reality and destroy it. But that is an inevitability, so therefore it would be governed by logic, and impossible things and realities would have to remain beyond that boundary. It isn't really as inevitable as all of that. Logic dictates that there would be a boundary there. Impossible things don't occur because if they did, possibility would be impossible as well. It would do a double reversal and things would be back to normal.
Just jabbering away here. My thoughts, feel free to comment or criticize.