Sam Harris Weighs in on Francis Collins

Were it not for the parochial numerical popularity of Francis Collins’ specific deranged delusion, in a sane society he would now be undergoing professional therapy, and restricted from accessing sharp objects.

The guy is a totally infantile nutcase in at least one area of which I am aware.

The concept of allowing a PROUD lunatic to run anything more than a warm bath is a travesty of reason.

____________
P.S.: Your comment “Preview” system is quite the best that I have encountered.

atheists who say that science and religion are incompatible hurt the cause for science. But it’s not because the atheists are wrong. Instead, it’s because it’s just too hard a pill for most people to swallow.

Tough. Science doesn’t tell us what we want to hear. Science tells us about reality. Insofar as religion conforms to reality there is no incompatibility and religion needs to shift to fit, never the other way round.

The greater the difference between superstitious nonsense and fact, the more extreme it will seem to hold onto the superstition. I see no reason to sugar coat reality.

I’m for atheists with megaphones screaming the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately twisted facts, half truths, superstitious nonsense and benevolence (often with caveats) seem to me to be the redeeming features of our worlds otherwise morally bankrupt religious practitioners.

Slide 1 had me gasping in disbelief. Don’t these religious guys understand that sky god(s) fit into the same category as tooth fairies and leprechauns as far as science goes?

Let’s stop this sugar coated pill nonsense. God created the earth 13.7 billion years ago? Who is writing this bible? Can I have my turn and take a red pen to it please? Now how shall I start it? In the beginning man created god….

Collins should be required to sit through weekly sermons at a traditional fundamentalist Baptist church during his tenure at the NIH. Perhaps that would remind him of the “mile” most people take when you give them an “inch”.

I have faith he will not use his position to evangelize

… He’s done it before.

From the Publishers Weekly review of The Language of God:

Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist who once headed the Human Genome Project, adapts his title from President Clinton’s remarks announcing completion of the first phase of the project in 2000: “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.” Collins explains that as a Christian believer, “the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.” This marvelous book combines a personal account of Collins’s faith and experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of more general topics of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution. Following the lead of C.S. Lewis, whose Mere Christianity was influential in Collins’s conversion from atheism, the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God-and even the possibility of an occasional miracle-can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that “science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced” and “God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.” Collins’s credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God.

It appears you are confusing the concept of “naturalism” (which entails atheism) with “methodological naturalism”, “an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one’s metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events” (see wikipedia).

One can conduct science utilizing the epistemological view of methodological naturalism regardless of one’s beliefs as to the ontological reality of naturalism simpliciter. In fact, to argue otherwise, as Harris does, is to embrace not science but “scientism”, “the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences” (see wikipedia).

“Scientism” involves a “faith” commitment to science as a philosophical presupposition that is no different from religion.

“I understand what you are saying, but it is too threatening to my current belief system.”

This is what I imagine to be going through the minds of many people after reading your post ayer. Accepting that religious people are capable of scientific achievement at the highest levels in today’s world is a frightening idea for many atheists. Many people’s reasons for being atheist come from an emotional rejection of those who are religious because of the very fact they don’t understand science and reality. To have someone as brilliant as Francis Collins be religious as well confuses and scares many atheists.

ayer,

No it’s you that seems to be confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Harris makes it clear that religious people like Collins can use methodological naturalism so your charge is completely baseless. What Harris, Hemant, and others are actually saying is that it’s incoherent to use methodological naturalism to gain knowledge occasionally, and to also use faith, unsupported belief, in others for absolutely no reason other than they want something to be true.

Tom,

You think that atheists aren’t well aware that the most insensible, illogical faithheads can also be brilliant scientists? There have been scientists like Isaac Newton who had really absurd beliefs. Collins is just one recent example of someone who can compartmentalize two modes of thought, one highly rational, the other as irrational as you can get.

ayer,

It is not incoherent to apply methodological naturalism to the sorts of questions which science is suited to answer…

Did you read Sam Harris’s article? Do you think the problems he has with Francis Collin’s religious views are answers to questions which science is not suited to answer? Because it seems clear to me they are questions science is suited to answer. Not only that but religion is definitely not suited to answer those questions, or any questions.

…and to apply philosophical reasoning to questions inherently outside of science’s purview (e.g., why is there something rather than nothing? are there objective moral values? etc.). Your implication that only scientific reasoning qualifies as “rational” is a paradigmatic example of “scientism”.

Your failure is to assume they’re reasonable questions to begin with, and that there’s a rational approach to answering them. Your implication that religious faith qualifies as “rational” is irrationality.

(e.g., why is there something rather than nothing? are there objective moral values? etc.).

Bullshit. There are many such questions, but the ones that are off-limits to science are exactly the ones that no rational-minded person could give a flying leap about.

What you show here is that if you assume a “supernatural” realm, which is defined as that which can’t be explored with natural means, then you can ask all sorts of questions about this supernatural realm that cannot be answered by science. You forgot a few: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, “How much gold can a leprchaun hide ‘under a rainbow’ [LIC Logic-in-content]”, “Do Jewish people go to Baptist heaven?”, etc., ad nauseum.

I’ll look at your two examples a bit closer… first note, though, that when challenged to provide questions outside the scope of “science”, the two questions you gave are EXACTLY the response given by ALL “science-religion-kum-bye-ah-ists”. The reason is that they are the only two examples, of ALL POTENTIAL QUESTIONS, which your camp could come up with that don’t sound stupidly religious.

“why is there something rather than nothing” This assumes there is no model of reality which naturally entails a macroscopically 4-dimensional universe similar to our own. I hate to pop your bubble, but scientists have been working to develop such a model for decades. On one front, they’ve been building massive machines to collide particals together at increasingly high energies, effectively tearing the fabric of our universe apart and catching ever more instructive glimpses of this underlying model of reality. On another, they’ve worked out the mathematics of sophisticated string theories, multi-universe interpretations of quantum mechanics, and theory-of-everything’s which combine QM and relativity in ways that require years of math and physics to grasp. Maybe we should call all of these mathemeticians, theoretical physicists, and other super-genius scientists (these are the men and women who ace their SAT’s in kindergarten and got headaches from their diffEQ profs for working too slow) and inform them that they’ve made a mistake, that it’s a ‘god question’ they’re trying to answer, so they can turn off their accelerators, walk away from their chalkboards, find a good church, and get their answers directly from Genesis.

“Are there objective moral values?” assumes a supernatural medium exists for holding some singular list of “objective moral values” which is independent of Homo sapiens (or any other social bilogical species) and utterly beyond the scope of the natural exploration, ie. it can only be investigated using some sort of supernatural communication channel, also assumed to exist. Furthermore, this question is the quintessential prime example of a question whereby assuming a supernatural answer exists directly interferes with any exploration of the natural means by which human morality may have developed.

Despite all this, I still think Collins is a good choice for the head of the NIH because I have faith he will not use his position to evangelize

Faith indeed. Especially in the face of plenty of contrary evidence, right there in the article, that he did use his previous position to evangelize. A lot.

The problem with religion which gains knowledge through “revelation” is that revelation is a personal subjective experience (if it actually exists at all). It all boils down to “He said, she said”. It can’t be validated in any way with another individual. Others can only accept it by yielding to authority. Methodological naturalism is a knowledge gaining process where two or more people can share in the knowledge without having to merely accept arguments on authority. Experiments can be duplicated and reasoning followed.

I get crazy ideas all the time. Getting them is part of the creative process. Methodological naturalism is also an epistemological strategy to be able to prune away bad the ideas and leave the good ideas. If one subscribes to the notion of revelation, how is one able to separate true revelations or good ideas from bad ideas? Some religious people will answer “Reject non-scriptural ideas.” I submit that there are a lot of bad ideas in scripture precisely because people back then didn’t know how to separate bad ideas from good ideas. One can’t use scripture as your pruning mechanism.

I would hope that Collins would recognize that ideas gained through “revelation” are nothing more than conjecture. Conjectures can’t be elevated to “theory” until there is supporting evidence.

Aj,

I’m glad we appear to be in agreement that:

1) there are certain questions outside of science’s purview; and

2) some of those questions are within the purview of analytical philosophy of religion (as practiced by both theists and atheists) using the tools of reason

And Francis Collins (though it seems not Sam Harris) would be in complete agreement with us.

ayer,

…analytical philosophy of religion…

Analytical philosphy is practiced by religionists but it is not religious in nature.

…though it seems not Sam Harris…

You are wrong. Sam Harris is a graduate philospher who has a epistemological position that you disagree with, so you continue to misrepresent his position.

Aj: “Sam Harris is a graduate philospher”

Actually, Harris only has a bachelor’s in philosophy; he is pursuing a PhD in neuroscience which he has apparently not finished yet; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)

Jonathan,

Three cheers for quoting out of context. Read the whole paragraph, and the two paragraphs that follow and then perhaps you’d understand Harris’s actual argument. In areas concerning Collins’s belief in God he lapses from from thinking like a scientist.

Also, at least some of those examples make Harris’s point. There’s plenty of areas where those people had batshit beliefs that came about because religion made it difficult for them to think like scientists in those areas. Isaac Newton is a gold mine of lack of scientific thinking, including: alchemy, astronomy, myths, numerology, and prophecy.

ayer,

Which makes him a graduate, because he graduated with a degree. It also makes him a philosopher because that was the subject he studied.

Tom,

You believe he is a top scientist? That’s a flip-flop if I ever saw one. You seem to judge him to be a top scientist by someone else’s standards than your own, because you have made it clear he is not a top scientist in your view.

Please quote me something I have written that can be interpreted as denying Collins is a top scientist in my view.

In areas concerning Collins’s belief in God he lapses from from thinking like a scientist

Wasn’t hard

Oh, and all your posts are in support of Harris’ article.

I interpret this position. You would be inconsistent with your statements if you believe Collins is a top scientist. Is he more of a top scientist than Richard Dawkins? Who’s at the tippy-top?

Tom,

Wasn’t hard

Apparantly the task is beyond you. Perhaps it’s a semantic problem. What do you consider is the definition of “top scientist”. Mine would be achievements in a scientific field, in this case genetics.

Jonathan,

n order for Harris objections to be true, he would have to pull out one example where Collins’ allowed his belief in God to fudge his science.

You’re the one playing language games. You’ve decided to compartmentalize “his science” so statements when he talks about God that Harris brought up as examples don’t count under your narrow definition. In his field, genetics, Collins so far as been a first class scientist and Harris even preemptively defended himself by stating so. Yet this isn’t enough for some, they have to deliberately misinterpret Harris because they have disagreements with other arguments but don’t have any counters to them.

I’m surprised you didn’t quote the slide that I find the most ridiculous and inflammatory.

The one where collins argues that if morality is a product of evolution and not God-granted, then good and evil don’t exist.

Slide 5: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”

Why is he using his position as a scientist to make such statements? There are a number of very qualified scientists looking into the evolutionary adaptation of ethics and morality.

Why is he summarily concluding that these traits did not evolve? Upon what scientific basis does he draw this conclusion?

Oh that’s right, none. He draws it based on religious views. If I had religious views and I used them to speak out of term about the work of the NIH, calling their whole line of work false because of what I learned at Sunday Services… I would be considered a poor scientist indeed.

It is Collins speaking out of turn on the science of others and saying he has specific authority to dismiss their science, or declare it out of the bounds of scientific inquiry, because of his religious beliefs that is out of place…. not the fact that he *has* religious views. Remember, he delivered this lecture at Berkeley, not in a church.

Also, his reasoning is crap. Whether moral law or social norms, or maternal love or even the concepts of fear, hunger or the feelings of hot or cold are “side effects of evolution”, that does not mean they aren’t real, meaningful or useful things to be aware of in the real world.

Lots of things are side effects of evolution. That doesn’t mean they have no utility or meaning to us as humans. How could a scientist ever argue such a thing?

The human eye is a “side effect of evolution.” That doesn’t mean that light and dark don’t exist, and that eyesight is just an illusion.

I do wonder if, in a parallel universe without religion, the brilliant and eminent scientist Francis Collins could make such a fundamental logical mistake.

Is it the religion that causes him commit this error?

I find it unlikely that anyone who is a self-professed Christian can ignore their religious beliefs in the commission of their job. Gawd wouldn’t approve one bit. In fact, from what I’ve read he’d be furious enough to kill something or demand a blood sacrifice, or both.

Miketheinfidel,

The notion that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” is entirely meaningless is bizarre, and the very fact that we are debating it proves it is not “meaningless.” It is a question dealt with extensively by Leibniz ( http://tinyurl.com/n6n5ue ) and many others, and easily flows from the principle of Ockham’s razor.

On the objectivity of morals, I agree with you and with Collins–on atheism morality is completely relative and subjective (not that this is a point in favor of atheism). But it sounds like you need to have a debate with Siamang above, who is offended that Collins would dare assert that on atheism the concepts of objective good and evil are illusory (!)

Jonathan,

You have no reason to doubt.

Apart from the areas Collins think God is responsible for therefore according to his assumptions no scientific explanation is logically necessary.

In fact, my point in listing the people did, is that it helped them.

In the case of Isaac Newton with: alchemy, astronomy, myths, numerology, and prophecy?

MiketheInfidel,

The Ockhamian bias in favor of simplicity does point to nothingness as the default state of affairs: nothingness is by definition simpler than our mind-bogglingly complex universe. Since the default position of nothingness does not prevail, the “something” cries out for an explanation, as Stephen Hawking recognized when he asked “Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” He clearly does not consider it a “meaningless” question.

It is fine for you to embrace the subjectivity of morals, as long as you are willing to confront the fact that you have no basis for asserting that your morality is in any way objectively superior to, say, Nazi morality–which is an absurd position to be in.

Your view would be news to the profession of analytical philosophy: ” “nothingness” has been treated as a serious subject worthy of research for a very long time. In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of “nothing”, a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed.” source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

And on your view of morality, Nazi morality cannot be judged as objectively inferior to any other morality since it “worked best” for them subjectively.

Even if we presume that there are questions that science can’t answer, what makes anyone think that religion can? Even if some non-science sources have some good answers to these questions about morality, why must it be Christianity? Why not Ayn Rand or Raelism or Scientology? Why do we need religion to figure out that it’s a good idea for society not to kill, rape, and steal from people? Since when is the questions about the origin of the universe not a scientific question? That’s news to the big bang theory. And I could easily turn around the same question about why there is something rather than nothing on Christians. Presuming God exists, why is there a god rather than no god? Answer that if you think religion can answer it. And what exactly is “scientism?” Anyone who doesn’t agree with ayer?

And on your view of morality, Nazi morality cannot be judged as objectively inferior to any other morality since it “worked best” for them subjectively.

And the rest of civilized society worked together to destroy them for it. We judged them as inferior and acted accordingly.

Neon Genesis,

Even if some non-science sources have some good answers to these questions about morality, why must it be Christianity?

It doesn’t have to be Christianity; Christianity must make its case like any other explanation. The point is that for certain questions (“why is there something rather than nothing?” or “are there objective moral values?”) that explanation cannot be a scientific proof. We must make what philosophers call an “inference to the best explanation” using the tools of reason.

Why do we need religion to figure out that it’s a good idea for society not to kill, rape, and steal from people

Are you saying you believe that those things are objectively wrong? Then what is your basis on atheism for that assertion? Miketheinfidel certainly disagrees with you.

Since when is the questions about the origin of the universe not a scientific question? That’s news to the big bang theory.

The Big Bang theory describes how the universe came into existence; it says nothing about why it came into existence. The most that cosmologists can say is that it is not past eternal and thus had a beginning (as demonstrated by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i15/e151301

Since spacetime itself came into existence at the Big Bang, the cause must be spaceless and timeless–but it is beyond the reach of scientific observation.

Presuming God exists, why is there a god rather than no god?

If you presume God exists, then our questions about the origin of the universe are answered. I guess at that point we could have some interesting theological discussions about God, but this atheist website would be out of business.

And what exactly is “scientism?” Anyone who doesn’t agree with ayer?

No, the definition is the one I cited in my earlier post: “the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.”

It doesn’t have to be Christianity; Christianity must make its case like any other explanation. The point is that for certain questions (”why is there something rather than nothing?” or “are there objective moral values?”) that explanation cannot be a scientific proof. We must make what philosophers call an “inference to the best explanation” using the tools of reason.

But you’re still not answering the question. Since you admit there is no one true way to answer these questions, why turn to religion for these answers?

Are you saying you believe that those things are objectively wrong? Then what is your basis on atheism for that assertion? Miketheinfidel certainly disagrees with you.

My thoughts on objective morality have nothing to do with my question and you’re trying to drag this off-topic. My question is why do we need religion to tell us how to be moral? As Christopher Hitchens would ask, name one positive moral value that a religious person can do that an atheist can’t do just as well without religion.

The Big Bang theory describes how the universe came into existence; it says nothing about why it came into existence. The most that cosmologists can say is that it is not past eternal and thus had a beginning (as demonstrated by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin:

Why must there be a divine purpose behind the universe? Asking why are we here is like asking why is the letter A the first letter in the alphabet. Because it is.

Since spacetime itself came into existence at the Big Bang, the cause must be spaceless and timeless–but it is beyond the reach of scientific observation.

If God is beyond science, isn’t that as good as saying God doesn’t exist?

If you presume God exists, then our questions about the origin of the universe are answered. I guess at that point we could have some interesting theological discussions about God, but this atheist website would be out of business.

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of a hypothetical question. My point is why does your question about why is there something rather than nothing apply to the universe but it doesn’t apply to your god and why are you avoiding answering my questions?

No, the definition is the one I cited in my earlier post: “the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.”

Since when has Sam Harris advocated this view? Nowhere has Sam Harris argued that science is the only way to answer everything. He in fact advocates atheistic Buddhism in The End Of Faith as an alternative spirituality to supernatural religion and argues that we cannot live by reason alone. Unless you can demonstrate some evidence that Harris believes in “scientism”, then you should retract this false claim.

Your sweeping dismissal of centuries of philosophical work by both theists and atheists reminds me of the sweeping dismissal of science by some religious fundamentalists. Both exhibit an unfortunate anti-intellectualism.

I am not dismissing philosophy. What I am dismissing is superstition and magical thinking that has no evidence for existing. Unless you can demonstrate one instance where I dismissed all philosophy, then I think you should retract your false claim. You keep avoiding my question why do we need religious “philosophy” to answer these questions that science can’t? What makes religion any better of a candidate than say, Ayn Rand or Bertrand Russell (I’m not saying I advocate Ayn Rand, she was just the first example of non-religious philosophy that popped in my mind). And how am I anything like a fundamentalist Christian? Last I checked, I wasn’t trying to force my views on people through government laws nor am I claiming all religious people have no moral values nor am I denying religious people equal rights. But if I simply ask why do we need religion, this apparently makes me a fundamentalist even though you still have not answered this question.

Aj,

Dismissing the entire field and profession of philosophy of religion (as practiced by both theists and atheists) exhibits an anti-intellectualism reminiscent of fundamentalist dismissal of science as a path to knowledge.

Here is a link to an atheist web site describing the legitimacy and relevance of philosophy of religion for both theists and atheists:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1292

If you presume God exists, then our questions about the origin of the universe are answered.

Only because your presumption itself is a presumed answer.

Epic logic fail.

I guess at that point we could have some interesting theological discussions about God, but this atheist website would be out of business.

Why don’t you answer the question instead of ducking it: presuming God, why is there a god rather than no god?

It’s the same question as “why is there a universe rather than no universe?”

Well, except for the fact that we actually DO know there IS a universe.

Who made everything? God.
Who made God?

Nobody, God just exists.

Is almost the same as:

Who made everything?

Nobody, everything just exists.

Almost the same. Except the first version posits an invisible magical man without a shred of evidence.

Epic logic fail.

The point is that questions like “why does the universe exist?” and “are there objective moral values” cannot be answered scientifically. Thus, the fact that Collins seeks to answer them through non-scientific means has no bearing on his qualifications to be head of NIH.

It certainly does have bearings if Collins is going to claim it’s a proven fact that God created the universe 13 million years ago if you admit this is something that cannot be determined by facts. Did you bother to read the article?

The point is that science cannot answer the question “are there objective moral values?” So, again, the fact that Collins attempts to address this question through non-scientific means has no bearing on his qualifications to be head of NIH.

Again, if you admit it can’t be proven, then it does have bearings if Collins claims he has proven it as shown in the quotes in the original entry when you admit we can’t know it.

Ok, so you are not interested in addressing why the universe exists instead of just nothing. The fact that Collins is interested in addressing that question has no bearing on his qualifications to be head of NIH.

When did I say I have no interest in the question? For someone who claims to know the Truth about morality thanks to religion, you seem to love making a lot of dishonest claims about people that are not true. Maybe you should try actually caring about truth sometime.

Uh, no, because science is not the only way of seeking knowledge, and is ill-suited to questions that are inherently metaphysical. Your statement is an undiluted example of “scientism.”

So, what other ways are there of proving God’s existence? Please don’t tell us it’s faith.

How is this question relevant to whether Collins (because of his desire to address inherently nonscientific questions such as “why does the universe exist instead of nothing?” or “are there objective moral values?”) is well-suited to be head of NIH? That issue is the subject of Harris’s article and Hemant’s original post.

It is relevant because you’re saying religion and scientific facts are two different ways of knowing something and that neither one can say anything about each other while at the same time, making factual claims about religion.

If you are correct that Harris believes in addressing such nonscientific spiritual questions outside of the scientific method, then he should have no problem with Collins as head of NIH, because that is exactly the position that Collins takes.

Again, you are missing Harris’ point. The point is not that Collins is looking outside of science to find these answers but he’s pointing out Collin’s hypocrisy when he claims God created the universe 13 million years ago and that we can’t have morals without God like all those evil atheists but when pressed to prove it, he back peddles and says God is outside science and can’t be proven. Either God can be proven or he can’t but don’t make factual claims about the nature of the universe and morality in one breath but when asked to prove it, change your argument and say it can’t be proven.

So if the Nazis had won and destroyed us, then their morality would be superior since they “judged us inferior and acted accordingly”–i.e., “might makes right.” Interesting.

As opposed to “God makes right because God is the biggest kid on the block.”

Had the Nazis won, our ideas of morality wouldn’t even be relevant anymore.

Allow me to repeat myself:

The point is that for certain questions (”why is there something rather than nothing?” or “are there objective moral values?”) that explanation cannot be a scientific proof.

This is just an assertion, not a known fact. You seem keen on confusing the two.

Since spacetime itself came into existence at the Big Bang, the cause must be spaceless and timeless–but it is beyond the reach of scientific observation.

Assertion, not fact.

The entire concept of a TIMELESS CAUSE is logically incoherent! Cause and effect require time.

Everything within the universe had a beginning. This does not support the assertion that the universe had a beginning. In fact, if TIME began with the universe, then the universe did NOT have a beginning.

Miketheinfidel,

Had the Nazis won, our ideas of morality wouldn’t even be relevant anymore.

You make my point. This is one of the more disturbing implications of atheism. I’m glad I don’t have to defend it.

Everything within the universe had a beginning. This does not support the assertion that the universe had a beginning. In fact, if TIME began with the universe, then the universe did NOT have a beginning.

I’m sorry, but you are just wrong on the cosmological evidence here. Borde, Guth and Vilenkin (all atheists, I believe) have demonstrated that the universe cannot be past eternal and thus had a beginning:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v90/i15/e151301

See also Vilenkin’s recent book, “Many Worlds in One”, relevant excerpt here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LAmJ3nLWGkcC&pg=PP1&dq=vilenkin+many+worlds&ei=zH5vSpbUE57CzQS0raTbDg

One can complain about scientism until the cows come home, but frankly, I think we should speak out just as loudly and at length about religionism — the view that religious philosophy has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, “religious,” “mythical,” “spiritual,” or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences.

The point is that questions like “why does the universe exist?” and “are there objective moral values” cannot be answered scientifically.

Well, of course “God-Shaped Hole” questions can’t be filled with scientific answers.

The idea is this: We need a god in order to fill our god-shaped hole, and we know that we have a god-shaped hole because the problem is such that only a god can fill it.

If you presume God exists, then our questions about the origin of the universe are answered.

You have an answer to a question, but not a solution to a problem.

If you presume 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, then our questions about the origin of the universe are answered.

I guess at that point we could have some interesting theological discussions about God, but this atheist website would be out of business.

I admire such humility in a theist.

Aj,

I see–you bristle at the word “anti-intellectual,” yet feel free to refer to my “irrational beliefs” and “pseudo-intellectual pursuits.” Physician, heal thyself.

Ian,

Well, of course “God-Shaped Hole” questions can’t be filled with scientific answers.

Since you agree that such questions don’t have scientific answers, then you should also agree that Collins’ desire to address those questions outside of science has no bearing on his suitability to be head of NIH.

MiketheInfidel,

Obviously those moral standards are continuing today, right? They definitely haven’t been superseded or anything.

I see now–whether slaughtering innocent people is immoral depends on the century in which it occurs.

But we know time DID begin, at a specific point. So something that existed forever had a beginning.

I see now–spacetime popped into existence out of nothing and caused by nothing

AJ, Neon Genesis, Siamang, Mike, Ian: it appears you are confusing the concept of metaphysical theism with methodological theism. Allow me to explain:

Methodological theism enables one to behave as though some god or other exists, whether or not one truly believes as much; this allows one to undertake such important activities as visiting atheist blogs and making inane comments that exhibit an ostentatious and rather ironic smugness, a comic obtuseness, transparently fallacious reasoning, and numerous indications that one is entirely unable to comprehend what others have written.

Metaphysical theism permits for exactly the same behavior, with the added bonus that one gets to believe one’s philosophical dissidents will burn for all eternity.

Of course, neither one says a fucking thing about reality, but that’s hardly the point.

The first cause argument is self-refuting, if everything has a cause, then the first cause must have a cause. I guess God just “popped into existence” or was “caused by nothing”, because that’s the false dichotomy you have set up.

“Magic man done it” is not an acceptable hypothesis to the origin of the universe. It answers nothing, throwing attributes at a problem doesn’t solve it. A something that can create the universe did it, that is eternal so does not need to be caused.

Ockham’s Razor, if we have two hypotheses: a) “magic man done it and he doesn’t need a cause”, and b) it doesn’t need a cause. Then the first-cause universe has one less assumption. It doesn’t mean it’s right, both hypotheses are not acceptable to me, and more importantly are not connected to any observation or anything we know.

I see now–spacetime popped into existence out of nothing and caused by nothing

Where does this stupidity come from? No one has written that they think that in this thread. I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned this before but perhaps you’d do better reading what people write in their comments instead of projecting positions onto them.

Ayer is doing nothing but dancing.

Hey folks, nail him to a question, and don’t engage anything else but that question. Unless you want to give up.

I have.

Neon Genesis,

You mean like how your god commanded King Saul to murder all the children of the Amalekites?

According to Miketheinfidel’s reasoning, since moral standards regarding the slaughter of innocents change from century to century, who are we to apply our modern moral standards to condemn that event in ancient history? But since you do condemn it, it seems you disagree with Miketheinfidel here. You two could perhaps have an interesting debate on the malleability over time of moral standards concerning genocide.

According to Miketheinfidel’s reasoning, since moral standards regarding the slaughter of innocents change from century to century, who are we to apply our modern moral standards to condemn that event in ancient history? But since you do condemn it, it seems you disagree with Miketheinfidel here. You two could perhaps have an interesting debate on the malleability over time of moral standards concerning genocide.

You’re a cute little cub scout, really. I’ve made it quite clear that we no longer find this thing acceptable because society as a whole has moved on and will use extreme force to suppress this kind of genocidal behavior.

Who are we to apply our modern moral standards to condemn events in ancient history? The only people whose moral standards matter: those who exist now.

Like I said before:

‘Relative and subjective’ is not what I said. I only said subjective. I don’t think morality is relative, only situational.

The only thing that has changed is the situation. In our situation, we’ve largely grown past the idea that tribal superstitions justify brutal genocide. It was wrong then, too, but the situation wasn’t such that they thought this was true (or that they could be stopped).

Don’t forget, though; we’re talking about a potentially nonexistent genocide. Many of the stories of the military conquests of the Israelites are myths, after all.

I’d sure hate to have to defend the idea that

1. God is a perfect, unchanging being, and
2. It was okay for God to command genocide back then, but now it’s not.

Talk about your moral relativism.

Miketheinfidel,

‘Relative and subjective’ is not what I said. I only said subjective. I don’t think morality is relative, only situational.

The only thing that has changed is the situation. In our situation, we’ve largely grown past the idea that tribal superstitions justify brutal genocide. It was wrong then, too, but the situation wasn’t such that they thought this was true (or that they could be stopped).

It appears you are confused as to the difference between “subjective” and “objective.” If you believe genocide was immoral in ancient history, immoral in the twentieth century, and immoral today, that would indicate you believe it is immoral objectively (i.e., regardless of the subjective opinion regarding the morality of genocide of any particular group–ancient Israelites, Nazis, etc.). Your moral ontology says that the immorality of genocide is an objective standard (and therefore that objective moral values exist). Why then do you say moral standards are subjective?

You then note that today our knowledge regarding the immorality of genocide is superior to the knowledge of past generations, i.e., your moral epistemology is that, somehow, today we are better able to discover the truth that genocide is objectively immoral. But that is a separate question from the ontological objectivity of that moral standard against genocide.

Does anyone else find it ironic that ayer claims to have the moral high ground because they believe in moral absolutes, not like those evil atheists that support Hitler, but has been nothing but arrogant, judgmental, and holier than thou in this entire discussion? Whether religion can answer any questions besides how many angels can balance on a pin, religion has obviously not helped ayer be a better person. I’m pretty sure Jesus taught something about plucking the shards out of your own eyes first. If there’s one thing ayer proves, it’s that whether they’re fundamentalist or liberal, Christians who claim to know the truth almost always end up being arrogant and judgemental.

If you believe genocide was immoral in ancient history, immoral in the twentieth century, and immoral today, that would indicate you believe it is immoral objectively (i.e., regardless of the subjective opinion regarding the morality of genocide of any particular group–ancient Israelites, Nazis, etc.). Your moral ontology says that the immorality of genocide is an objective standard (and therefore that objective moral values exist). Why then do you say moral standards are subjective?

You are absolutely, 100% wrong.

By our subjective standards, it was immoral then. By theirs, it wasn’t. But their standards are gone. They are no longer relevant, as I have repeatedly said. They have been succeeded by standards that work better. The standards change, but their effect on society is an objective improvement.

Your last comment is known as the fallacy of the argumentum ad hominem, one which is quite prevalent in the atheist comments on this blog.

And yours is the Fallacy of Misusing Fallacies. He attacked your arguments, not you. Calling someone arrogant and judgmental (when they are in fact arrogant and judgmental) after meticulously deconstructing their arguments, is not an ad hominem. It would only be an ad hominem if he had never bothered to address anything you said and just attacked you.

Let’s go back to the point you’re trying to cleverly dance away from, ayer (and don’t expect any response from me unless you address this point):

I’d sure hate to have to defend the idea that

1. God is a perfect, unchanging being, and
2. It was okay for God to command genocide back then, but now it’s not.

Talk about your moral relativism.

Miketheinfidel,

Calling someone arrogant and judgmental (when they are in fact arrogant and judgmental) after meticulously deconstructing their arguments, is not an ad hominem.

Just as many theists regard Christopher Hitchens as arrogant and judgmental (whereas atheists tend to regard him just as “confident” and “speaking the truth”). None of those reactions are relevant to the merit of his or my arguments.

Miketheinfidel,

I figured as much.

Neon Genesis:

First of all, it is relevant if you’re going to claim that God is the source of morality yet you don’t behave that much better than your fundamentalist brethren. Second of all, your comparison to Christopher Hitchens is invalid since Hitchens does not claim atheism is the source of morals and that we can only have morals if we’re atheists like you’re doing with theism.

Nothing prevents atheists from behaving morally. They simply have no ontological basis on which to regard their moral standards as objective, and no ontological basis upon which to regard their moral standards as superior to any other moral standards.

Of course, the reverse is true of theists: they have a basis for the objectivity of moral values, but that does not mean they always adhere to those values.

I find it ironic that you criticize my comments for being uncharitable, when the comments of atheists on this website are continuously dripping with ridicule, contempt, arrogance, etc. towards religious believers. Talk about a pot-kettle situation.

Miketheinfidel,

The “points” I was “dodging” all had to do with a debate on passages from the Old Testament, which is irrelevant to the philosophical arguments. I understand that many people here are hung up on certain biblical passages (maybe because they come from a fundamentalist background), but I have no interest in debating the Bible, the Koran, or any other scriptures.

Miketheinfidel,

Actually, your failure to address my last question on the objectivity of moral values leads me to rest my case, as my point has been made. I also agree with your previous post that this debate is getting tiresome. The atheists here appear to have many, many emotional objections to religion that make rational discourse close to impossible. A more appropriate moniker than atheists might be “anti-theists.” My sincere hope is that the participants on this board will be able to work through their anger issues.

How is obeying the creator objective morality? It’s just subjective morality with an agreement to obey what that guy over there says.

Just as “magic man did it” is not an explanation for the “origins” of the universe, “magic man says it” is no more justified standard of objective morals than the various different secular approaches to morality. It’s throwing attributes at a problem and atheists are perfectly capable of positing abstract concepts that contain moral content and give them arbitrary authority.

To say that theists have an ontological basis for morality that is somehow above any atheistic objective standard is beyond stupid and ignorant. God is a proxy for people’s morals, not the source, and there is no justification for God as a moral source in the first place. It does not follow from the attributes given to this fictional entity “God”, apart from “he is the source of morals”, that this “God” is a source of morals. It’s no more than restating the question in the form of statement i.e. “Where do morals come from?” “Where morals do come from”.

Fascinating that Harris would complain as he has admitted that he, himself, is becoming a scientist not in order to conduct unbiased research but in order to evidence his atheist presuppositions.

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-2-of.html