Religions > Atheism > In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 08:07:53 PM |
| Object: |
In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God. |
From the article:
---------------------------------
Actually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several
years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still
an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he
had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in
having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on
Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was
aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David
Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy
Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite
Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May
where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator.
In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face
of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to
explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led
Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
09 Apr 2005 10:33:11 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
John S. Wilkins wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:07:53 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------
Actually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several
years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still
an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he
had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in
having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on
Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was
aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David
Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy
Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite
Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May
where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator.
In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face
of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to
explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led
Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html
If he's so famous, how come I never heard of him until he exposed his
ignorance of science for all to see?
Mitchell Coffey
*Sigh* Again, I note that Flew is one of the main philosophical
thinkers, particularly famous in philosophy of religion and thus in
theology, of the past century. His paper "Theology and Falsification" in
1955 set up a real problem for revelatory and faith-based theology.
It's online here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html
That was earth-shattering? Had all the decent philosophers been
killed in WWII? I'm sure I could pull quotes from half a
century previous by Twain about the perfidy of "Our Heavenly
Father." If you give two footnotes to the equivalence of an
assertion and its double negation, you obviously have too much
space and not enough to say - not easy in a five paragraph text.
--Jeff
Not earthshattering, but it raised in very clear terms why the idea of a
God cannot be tied to empirical content without it having some testable
consequences. It affected philosophical theology in greater proportion
than the length of the text.
I personally think it is jejune *now*, but in 1955 that was not the case.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
10 Apr 2005 06:24:25 PM |
|
|
In article <d3a6po$1drd$2@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
"John S. Wilkins" <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
John S. Wilkins wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:07:53 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------
Actually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for
several
years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was
still
an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early
2004 he
had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to
Aristotle in
having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on
Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time."
He was
aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David
Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist,
and Roy
Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite
Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last
May
where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a
Creator.
In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden
Face
of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible
to
explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what
led
Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html
If he's so famous, how come I never heard of him until he exposed his
ignorance of science for all to see?
Mitchell Coffey
*Sigh* Again, I note that Flew is one of the main philosophical
thinkers, particularly famous in philosophy of religion and thus in
theology, of the past century. His paper "Theology and Falsification" in
1955 set up a real problem for revelatory and faith-based theology.
It's online here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.
html
That was earth-shattering? Had all the decent philosophers been
killed in WWII? I'm sure I could pull quotes from half a
century previous by Twain about the perfidy of "Our Heavenly
Father." If you give two footnotes to the equivalence of an
assertion and its double negation, you obviously have too much
space and not enough to say - not easy in a five paragraph text.
--Jeff
Not earthshattering, but it raised in very clear terms why the idea of a
God cannot be tied to empirical content without it having some testable
consequences. It affected philosophical theology in greater proportion
than the length of the text.
I personally think it is jejune *now*, but in 1955 that was not the case.
Some people are still blind to this, and it is a high priority of
certain classes of clergy to keep their sheep from recognizing this.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Cates" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 10:35:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:44:59 +1000, "John S. Wilkins"
<john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:07:53 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------
Actually, Flew has been rethinking the arguments for a Designer for several
years. When I saw him in London in the spring of 2003, he told me he was still
an atheist but was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists. By early 2004 he
had made the move to deism. Surprisingly, he gives first place to Aristotle in
having the most significant impact on him. "I was not a specialist on
Aristotle, so I was reading parts of his philosophy for the first time." He was
aided in this by The Rediscovery of Wisdom, a work on Aristotle by David
Conway, one of Flew's former students.
Flew also cites the influence of Gerald Schroeder, an Israeli physicist, and Roy
Abraham Varghese, author of The Wonder of the World and an Eastern Rite
Catholic. Flew appeared with both scientists at a New York symposium last May
where he acknowledged his changed conviction about the necessity for a Creator.
In the broader picture, both Varghese and Schroeder, author of The Hidden Face
of God, argue from the fine-tuning of the universe that it is impossible to
explain the origin of life without God. This forms the substance of what led
Flew to move away from Darwinian naturalism.
-----------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/29.80.html
If he's so famous, how come I never heard of him until he exposed his
ignorance of science for all to see?
Mitchell Coffey
*Sigh* Again, I note that Flew is one of the main philosophical
thinkers, particularly famous in philosophy of religion and thus in
theology, of the past century. His paper "Theology and Falsification" in
1955 set up a real problem for revelatory and faith-based theology.
It's online here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/theologyandfalsification.html
Flew is regarded as a good thinker - *I* so regard him. He made a big
mistake in this case (and we are still waiting to see his book) but that
does not detract from his real contributions.
http://www.mises.org/schlarbaum/flew.asp
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Poly" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 12:32:15 PM |
|
|
"Don Cates" <catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup
of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits
the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
Antony Flew is a philosopher, and, when he is commenting on
that discipline, 'attention must be paid' -to quote another
"famous" person. Aside from that, what one does after that
attention is paid is up to each individual. We do have free
will, you know.
Dawkins is, with all due respect, a popularizer. Nothing
wrong with being a popularizer, of course. A really
charismatic popularizer can mean lot for any religion. But
in Dawkins' case, when he has tried to present philosophical
arguments, he has often fumbled the ball.
The rather mundane fact here is that Antony Flew, a
philosopher who once was an atheist, finally got around to
reading Aristotle, and that experience apparently made him
think about some things that he hadn't paid much attention
to before. All I can say is good for him - widening one's
view is always good, whether anybody else agrees with it or
not.
It could be that Dawkins has not even perused anything by
Aristotle, much less read it. So what? He isn't a
philosopher and clearly doesn't really give a fig about the
subject. It isn't a part of what he wants to popularize.
Just like the creationists who don't pay any attention to
the science they are commenting on. Why should they? They
aren't scientists and they don't care about it.
I don't criticize other people's religion, be they
creationists or atheists. I rather expect a certain
enthusiasm when people speak of their religion, whatever it
is, because a religion without personal enthusiasm isn't
much of anything. And I have no problem with a lack of
rigor in their commitment either, since religion isn't
supposed to be a logical construction. However, that
enthusiasm and commitment does have to stop short of
coercing anyone else into accepting it.
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much. The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two. Resorting
to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a sign of
desperation and lack of depth. I admit this is all sheer
speculation on my part since I do not follow the atheist
persuasion myself. But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
--
Poly
Please post in same thread.
Correct address before sending email.
All messages must have a verifiable return address.
Among the repulsions of atheism for me
has been its drastic uninterestingness as
an intellectual position.
- John Updike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 06:26:10 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 10 April 2005 1:32 pm
NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com wrote:
The rather mundane fact here is that Antony Flew, a
philosopher who once was an atheist, finally got around to
reading Aristotle, and that experience apparently made him
think about some things that he hadn't paid much attention
to before. All I can say is good for him - widening one's
view is always good, whether anybody else agrees with it or
not.
A world famous philosopher at the top of his field and he "finally got
around to reading Aristotle?" I seem to remember Aristotle is one of the
basics, or has the teaching of philosophy has changed in the last 30+
years?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Cates" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 10:44:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Don Cates" <catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup
of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits
the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
Antony Flew is a philosopher, and, when he is commenting on
that discipline, 'attention must be paid' -to quote another
"famous" person. Aside from that, what one does after that
attention is paid is up to each individual. We do have free
will, you know.
Dawkins is, with all due respect, a popularizer. Nothing
wrong with being a popularizer, of course.
[snip a bunch of similar stuff that also has nothing to do with the
subject]
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
Fot the "world's most famous atheist". Not the most famous that has
read Aristotle, or the most famous who is a good philosopher, or the
most famous who had a brief (check it out) flirtation with ID, but
just the 'most famous'.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Schaffner" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 07:46:43 AM |
|
|
(Don Cates) writes:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Don Cates" < > wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup
of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits
the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
Antony Flew is a philosopher, and, when he is commenting on
that discipline, 'attention must be paid' -to quote another
"famous" person. Aside from that, what one does after that
attention is paid is up to each individual. We do have free
will, you know.
Dawkins is, with all due respect, a popularizer. Nothing
wrong with being a popularizer, of course.
[snip a bunch of similar stuff that also has nothing to do with the
subject]
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
Fot the "world's most famous atheist". Not the most famous that has
read Aristotle, or the most famous who is a good philosopher, or the
most famous who had a brief (check it out) flirtation with ID, but
just the 'most famous'.
I thought that was Lance Armstrong.
--
Steve Schaffner
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cheezits" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 08:33:48 AM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner <sfs@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote:
catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Don Cates" <catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
[etc.]
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
Fot the "world's most famous atheist". Not the most famous that has
read Aristotle, or the most famous who is a good philosopher, or the
most famous who had a brief (check it out) flirtation with ID, but
just the 'most famous'.
I thought that was Lance Armstrong.
I thought it was Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 03:02:23 PM |
|
|
Steve Schaffner wrote:
catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca (Don Cates) writes:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"Don Cates" <catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup
of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits
the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
Antony Flew is a philosopher, and, when he is commenting on
that discipline, 'attention must be paid' -to quote another
"famous" person. Aside from that, what one does after that
attention is paid is up to each individual. We do have free
will, you know.
Dawkins is, with all due respect, a popularizer. Nothing
wrong with being a popularizer, of course.
[snip a bunch of similar stuff that also has nothing to do with the
subject]
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
Fot the "world's most famous atheist". Not the most famous that has
read Aristotle, or the most famous who is a good philosopher, or the
most famous who had a brief (check it out) flirtation with ID, but
just the 'most famous'.
I thought that was Lance Armstrong.
Perhaps it should be Pat Tillman.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL
(no registration required)
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 12:45:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much.
Methinks you miss the point. What bothers most of the people here, as
far as I can tell, is that certain theists are trumpeting the
confusion of one particular philosopher (who is, one should point out,
basing his supposed conversion on the logical fallacy of argument from
personal incredulity, regarding a field in which he has no expertise,
biology) as not only a refutation of atheism but a vindication of
Christianity (which Flew has gone to great lengths to point out he
still utterly rejects).
The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two.
C.S. Lewis, his claims to the contrary, was never an atheist, as is
obvious from perusing his writings in any depth; and his apologetical
works are laughable at best to anyone with the slightest grasp of
logic and reason: he has a marvelous way with words, but he has
difficulty negotiating a single page without falling into an obvious
and easily refuted fallacy. Not a bad author of fantasy, but a dismal
failure as a philosopher or theologian.
Resorting
to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a sign of
desperation and lack of depth. I admit this is all sheer
speculation on my part since I do not follow the atheist
persuasion myself.
You seem to be under the misconception that there's something more to
being an atheist than not believing in god/s. This is incorrect.
But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
Atheism isn't part of the "nature of religious experience", it's the
absence of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Poly" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 08:08:54 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:15qi5192k608j5m5ah7b8mn81qomom53md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much.
Methinks you miss the point. What bothers most of the
people here, as
far as I can tell, is that certain theists are trumpeting
the
confusion of one particular philosopher (who is, one
should point out,
basing his supposed conversion on the logical fallacy of
argument from
personal incredulity, regarding a field in which he has no
expertise,
biology) as not only a refutation of atheism but a
vindication of
Christianity (which Flew has gone to great lengths to
point out he
still utterly rejects).
First, Flew seems to have built his turn around
Aristotelean metaphysics, not around Christian theology. So
why would an obviously incorrect conclusion be so annoying?
Second, he comments on a field in which he has "no
expertise", does he? So what? The question is whether he
gets it right or not, not whether he meets some arbitrary
definition of "expertise", which I'm sure is not universally
acknowledged anyway.
Third, you can't seriously expect that some people who do
believe in God are going to ignore something like this, are
you? It's just too juicy to let pass.
Finally, "what bothers most of the people here" is what
usually bothers people anywhere: asking questions that they
don't have good answers for, but that they think they
should.
The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such
as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two.
C.S. Lewis, his claims to the contrary, was never an
atheist, as is
obvious from perusing his writings in any depth; and his
apologetical
works are laughable at best to anyone with the slightest
grasp of
logic and reason: he has a marvelous way with words, but
he has
difficulty negotiating a single page without falling into
an obvious
and easily refuted fallacy. Not a bad author of fantasy,
but a dismal
failure as a philosopher or theologian.
Your attention is re-directed to the following notice:
"Resorting to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a
sign of
desperation and lack of depth."
You seem to be under the misconception that there's
something more to
being an atheist than not believing in god/s. This is
incorrect.
It isn't a misconception, because there is clearly more to
it than that. As I said, I don't criticize other people's
religion - or, if you prefer a different term, their belief
system or their worldview. But I don't trivialize them
either.
But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
Atheism isn't part of the "nature of religious
experience", it's the
absence of it.
Now that is actually quite funny. Except I'm not sure if
you are trying to be funny or serious. But since I do enjoy
a laugh, I'll take the former.
--
Poly
Please post in same thread.
Correct address before sending email.
All messages must have a verifiable return address.
Truth is one, and bad metaphysics seldom pays, even in the
interests of science.
- Etienne Gilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 05:27:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:08:54 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:15qi5192k608j5m5ah7b8mn81qomom53md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much.
Methinks you miss the point. What bothers most of the
people here, as
far as I can tell, is that certain theists are trumpeting
the
confusion of one particular philosopher (who is, one
should point out,
basing his supposed conversion on the logical fallacy of
argument from
personal incredulity, regarding a field in which he has no
expertise,
biology) as not only a refutation of atheism but a
vindication of
Christianity (which Flew has gone to great lengths to
point out he
still utterly rejects).
First, Flew seems to have built his turn around
Aristotelean metaphysics, not around Christian theology. So
why would an obviously incorrect conclusion be so annoying?
Actually, Flew seems to have built his turn around the misconception
that life is too complex to have occurred from natural processes,
something on which he has since admitted he has "been misled".
Second, he comments on a field in which he has "no
expertise", does he? So what?
The problem with doing so is that it leads to embarrassing situations
precisely like the one that Flew finds himself in now. There's a
reason we don't normally find philosophers holding forth on matters of
biology, and that reason is that they normally don't have any sort of
background in the field.
The question is whether he
gets it right or not, not whether he meets some arbitrary
definition of "expertise", which I'm sure is not universally
acknowledged anyway.
The problem with pontificating on a subject one has no expertise in is
that one is more than likely to get it wrong.
Third, you can't seriously expect that some people who do
believe in God are going to ignore something like this, are
you? It's just too juicy to let pass.
It's not too juicy to get the facts straight. Did you actually read
what I wrote? I stated that my specific problem was with certain
theists who want not only to imply that Flew's conversion to a vague
sort of deism is somehow not only a refutation of atheism, but a
vindication of Christianity, which is a disingenuous position at best.
Finally, "what bothers most of the people here" is what
usually bothers people anywhere: asking questions that they
don't have good answers for, but that they think they
should.
The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such
as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two.
C.S. Lewis, his claims to the contrary, was never an
atheist, as is
obvious from perusing his writings in any depth; and his
apologetical
works are laughable at best to anyone with the slightest
grasp of
logic and reason: he has a marvelous way with words, but
he has
difficulty negotiating a single page without falling into
an obvious
and easily refuted fallacy. Not a bad author of fantasy,
but a dismal
failure as a philosopher or theologian.
Your attention is re-directed to the following notice:
"Resorting to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a
sign of
desperation and lack of depth."
The above is not an ad hominem. It's an observation that Lewis's works
are riddled with logical fallacies; showing him to be a failure as a
philosopher or theologian.
You seem to be under the misconception that there's
something more to
being an atheist than not believing in god/s. This is
incorrect.
It isn't a misconception, because there is clearly more to
it than that.
Such as? Atheism qua atheism is simply the absence of belief in
deities, and implies no other philosophical or political position on
the part of any given atheist.
As I said, I don't criticize other people's
religion - or, if you prefer a different term, their belief
system or their worldview. But I don't trivialize them
either.
It is not trivializing anyone's worldview to get it correct. As per
the above, there are as many individual atheist worldviews as there
are individual atheists. The only thing you can derive about a given
atheist from the term is that he or she doesn't believe in deities.
But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
Atheism isn't part of the "nature of religious
experience", it's the
absence of it.
Now that is actually quite funny. Except I'm not sure if
you are trying to be funny or serious. But since I do enjoy
a laugh, I'll take the former.
Your smugness and condescension is duly noted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheist now believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 12:32:09 AM |
|
|
Poly wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:15qi5192k608j5m5ah7b8mn81qomom53md@4ax.com...
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 17:32:15 GMT, "Poly"
<NOTpoly_math@NOTdespammed.com> wrote:
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much.
Methinks you miss the point. What bothers most of the
people here, as
far as I can tell, is that certain theists are trumpeting
the
confusion of one particular philosopher (who is, one
should point out,
basing his supposed conversion on the logical fallacy of
argument from
personal incredulity, regarding a field in which he has no
expertise,
biology) as not only a refutation of atheism but a
vindication of
Christianity (which Flew has gone to great lengths to
point out he
still utterly rejects).
First, Flew seems to have built his turn around
Aristotelean metaphysics, not around Christian theology. So
why would an obviously incorrect conclusion be so annoying?
Allow me to quote from the paragraph you are responding to: "What
bothers most of the people here [...] is that certain theists are
trumpeting the
confusion of one particular philosopher"
I pesonally don't much care that he converted, altho it annoys me that
he converted for an elementary fallacy. It's the crowing of certain
theists who claim this individual case is significant, or that Dr. Flew
is somehow a cult leader, upon whose opinion rests the beliefs of
millions of atheists.
Second, he comments on a field in which he has "no
expertise", does he? So what? The question is whether he
gets it right or not, not whether he meets some arbitrary
definition of "expertise", which I'm sure is not universally
acknowledged anyway.
If he were an expert in it, then his opinion would have to be responded
to in some way. It is not an expert opinion, therefore it is annoying
that others are harping on this as tho it were significant.
Third, you can't seriously expect that some people who do
believe in God are going to ignore something like this, are
you? It's just too juicy to let pass.
True. Are you seriously expecting us to not be annoyed?
Finally, "what bothers most of the people here" is what
usually bothers people anywhere: asking questions that they
don't have good answers for, but that they think they
should.
What questions have been asked for which we have no answers?
The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such
as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two.
C.S. Lewis, his claims to the contrary, was never an
atheist, as is
obvious from perusing his writings in any depth; and his
apologetical
works are laughable at best to anyone with the slightest
grasp of
logic and reason: he has a marvelous way with words, but
he has
difficulty negotiating a single page without falling into
an obvious
and easily refuted fallacy. Not a bad author of fantasy,
but a dismal
failure as a philosopher or theologian.
Your attention is re-directed to the following notice:
"Resorting to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a
sign of
desperation and lack of depth."
It would be ad hominem to say that he has a bad quality, therefore hos
arguments are wrong. No, Raven1 said that the *arguments are bereft of
logic, and unpersuasive. The arguments are wrong, therefore Lewis had a
bad quality (he was a crummy philospher). The opposite of ad hominem.
If the premiss is right, the conclusion follows. This is not a fallacy.
You seem to be under the misconception that there's
something more to
being an atheist than not believing in god/s. This is
incorrect.
It isn't a misconception, because there is clearly more to
it than that. As I said, I don't criticize other people's
religion - or, if you prefer a different term, their belief
system or their worldview. But I don't trivialize them
either.
Ermmm... what more would there be?
Atheism is a philosphical belief, but it is not a belief *system. There
is nothing else logically, necessarily attached to it.
But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
Atheism isn't part of the "nature of religious
experience", it's the
absence of it.
Now that is actually quite funny. Except I'm not sure if
you are trying to be funny or serious. But since I do enjoy
a laugh, I'll take the former.
Fine. We'll be laughing *at you, not with you.
Aside from these peurile claims of assult by laughter, can you
substantiate any of these vague assertions? E.g., what else is in our
belief "system" except for non-belief in gods? And why are you posting
this nonsense to talk.origins? Many of the scientists and
science-friendly people there are theists. Or is your brand of
Christianity hostile to science?
It's been my observation that a number of people are *extremely
uncomfortable at the thought that 5-15% of the population seem
perfectly happy without religion or god beliefs. So much so that they
have to deny it.
--
Poly
Please post in same thread.
Correct address before sending email.
All messages must have a verifiable return address.
Truth is one, and bad metaphysics seldom pays, even in the
interests of science.
- Etienne Gilson
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 05:13:11 AM |
|
|
Poly wrote:
Third, you can't seriously expect that some people who do
believe in God are going to ignore something like this, are
you? It's just too juicy to let pass.
Of course not, we know there are many people dishonest enough to use it
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
10 Apr 2005 06:43:20 PM |
|
|
Poly wrote:
"Don Cates" <catHORMELes@ms.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message
news:4259472f.25631375@news.cc.umanitoba.ca...
Phui. So he is well known (and respected) by a subgroup
of
philosophers and theologians. Do you claim that he fits
the subject
description of "world's most famous atheist"?
Antony Flew is a philosopher, and, when he is commenting on
that discipline, 'attention must be paid' -to quote another
"famous" person. Aside from that, what one does after that
attention is paid is up to each individual. We do have free
will, you know.
Talk to Dennett about that :-)
Dawkins is, with all due respect, a popularizer. Nothing
wrong with being a popularizer, of course. A really
charismatic popularizer can mean lot for any religion. But
in Dawkins' case, when he has tried to present philosophical
arguments, he has often fumbled the ball.
But a larger than expected number of philosophers have been influenced
by him on matters evolutionary - in particular David Hull and Kim
Sterelny. Of course, you mean philosophical arguments outside the
question of evolution.
The rather mundane fact here is that Antony Flew, a
philosopher who once was an atheist, finally got around to
reading Aristotle, and that experience apparently made him
think about some things that he hadn't paid much attention
to before. All I can say is good for him - widening one's
view is always good, whether anybody else agrees with it or
not.
I'm pretty sure that Flew has read Aristotle before this. I know this
because he spends a considerable part of _Introduction to Western
Philosophy_ (Chs IV, VII) discussing him.
I think what has happened here is that Flew has been blinded by
quasiphysics, not metaphysics.
It could be that Dawkins has not even perused anything by
Aristotle, much less read it. So what? He isn't a
philosopher and clearly doesn't really give a fig about the
subject. It isn't a part of what he wants to popularize.
Just like the creationists who don't pay any attention to
the science they are commenting on. Why should they? They
aren't scientists and they don't care about it.
True, I can find no mention of Aristotle in Dawkins.
I don't criticize other people's religion, be they
creationists or atheists. I rather expect a certain
enthusiasm when people speak of their religion, whatever it
is, because a religion without personal enthusiasm isn't
much of anything. And I have no problem with a lack of
rigor in their commitment either, since religion isn't
supposed to be a logical construction. However, that
enthusiasm and commitment does have to stop short of
coercing anyone else into accepting it.
It may be a comment on some people's atheism that this
turn(??) by a single individual seems to disturb them so
much. The same reaction seems to come forth from that same
quarter with respect to other 'turned' individuals, such as
C.S. Lewis and Alister McGrath, just to name two. Resorting
to ad hominen and other fallacies is usually a sign of
desperation and lack of depth. I admit this is all sheer
speculation on my part since I do not follow the atheist
persuasion myself. But I still find the whole situation an
interesting aspect of the nature of religious experience.
My perspective is that FLew doesn't perturb atheists that much, if at
all. However, he gets cited as authoritative in this regard by many
religious believers, and atheists are perturbed by that, and respond. My
feeling is that if every atheist read Flew's book (which, let us note,
has not been published yet, so we don't actually know what his argument
is, if any) they would not be greatly affected much one way or the other.
[My vote goes to Dawkins]
I didn't know we were holding an election.
Sure. Most Popular Metaphysician. They get to lead the first dance in
the Lobster Quadrille.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 04:51:47 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Poly wrote:
We do have free
will, you know.
Talk to Dennett about that :-)
I have, actually (at least, I recently read "Elbow Room"), and
if I might crave your momentary attention, I'd like to ask you to tell
me whether I understood him correctly:
Dennett is a compatibilist, meaning that he feels that free
will can exist in a deterministic universe. He does this by looking at
the process that humans (or other decision-makers) use to analyze the
world and decide upon a course of action; and calling this "choice".
Now, this decision-making process can be quite complex and
sophisticated, so any comparison to, say, computer programs, should
not include the word "mere". We know from everyday experience that
there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the (coarse-grained)
state of the world and a person's behavior (that is, just because it's
Friday doesn't mean that I'll eat fish for supper).
In a deterministic univese, the decision-making process is
ultimately determined by the laws of physics. So the result can, in
principle, be predicted in advance (e.g., by simulating the universe
on faster hardware).
So if "free will" means the ability to choose one's course of
action, then the way Dennett resolves this is by defining "choose" to
mean "run the (perhaps ultimately deterministic) decision-making
algorithm". I don't find this satisfying, because I want "free will"
to include the ability to surprise even God, in however small a
fashion.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
This message was typed in front of a live studio audience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 05:04:37 PM |
|
|
"Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:d3erhj$m88$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Poly wrote:
We do have free
will, you know.
Talk to Dennett about that :-)
I have, actually (at least, I recently read "Elbow Room"), and
if I might crave your momentary attention, I'd like to ask you to tell
me whether I understood him correctly:
Dennett is a compatibilist, meaning that he feels that free
will can exist in a deterministic universe. He does this by looking at
the process that humans (or other decision-makers) use to analyze the
world and decide upon a course of action; and calling this "choice".
Now, this decision-making process can be quite complex and
sophisticated, so any comparison to, say, computer programs, should
not include the word "mere". We know from everyday experience that
there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the (coarse-grained)
state of the world and a person's behavior (that is, just because it's
Friday doesn't mean that I'll eat fish for supper).
In a deterministic univese, the decision-making process is
ultimately determined by the laws of physics. So the result can, in
principle, be predicted in advance (e.g., by simulating the universe
on faster hardware).
So if "free will" means the ability to choose one's course of
action, then the way Dennett resolves this is by defining "choose" to
mean "run the (perhaps ultimately deterministic) decision-making
algorithm". I don't find this satisfying, because I want "free will"
to include the ability to surprise even God, in however small a
fashion.
Dennett also has something of a 'verificationalist' position - he points out
that there's no way in principle to distinguish between 'actual' free will
and 'illusory' free will - that is, between deterministic and
non-deterministic choice. Therefore he claims that this distinction is a red
herring and the things we should actually be interested in (principally
moral responsibility) have nothing to do with physical determinism.
Danny
(I seem to have been talking about Dennett here a lot recently)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 06:34:55 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
Dennett also has something of a 'verificationalist' position - he points out
that there's no way in principle to distinguish between 'actual' free will
and 'illusory' free will - that is, between deterministic and
non-deterministic choice. Therefore he claims that this distinction is a red
herring and the things we should actually be interested in (principally
moral responsibility) have nothing to do with physical determinism.
Oh, absolutely. But, at least for me, free will usually comes
up in discussions of whether it is compatible with an omniscient god.
While the compatibilist approach works in the general case,
it's not very satisfying in this particular situation. In particular,
if God created the world, and God is omni-everything, then God foresaw
all the evil that people would choose to do, but did it anyway.
And according to some theologians, God punishes people for the
evil that He foresaw that they would choose to do.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
?tahw woN .ksid drah ym pu dekcab ev'I ,thgir llA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnow believes in God. |
11 Apr 2005 06:47:17 PM |
|
|
"Andrew Arensburger" <arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu> wrote in message
news:d3f1iv$ok4$1@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
In talk.origins Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
Dennett also has something of a 'verificationalist' position - he points
out
that there's no way in principle to distinguish between 'actual' free
will
and 'illusory' free will - that is, between deterministic and
non-deterministic choice. Therefore he claims that this distinction is a
red
herring and the things we should actually be interested in (principally
moral responsibility) have nothing to do with physical determinism.
Oh, absolutely. But, at least for me, free will usually comes
up in discussions of whether it is compatible with an omniscient god.
While the compatibilist approach works in the general case,
it's not very satisfying in this particular situation. In particular,
if God created the world, and God is omni-everything, then God foresaw
all the evil that people would choose to do, but did it anyway.
And according to some theologians, God punishes people for the
evil that He foresaw that they would choose to do.
Not a philosophical problem that particularly bothers me, I have to admit :)
A reasonable argument for atheism, or at least for the branch of agnosticism
which says 'if God exists, we wouldn't have the first idea who he is or what
his motives are, so why bother worrying about it'. But the world isn't
exactly short of such arguments. Dennett's book, I think, takes an essential
atheism as a baseline position that's hardly worth mentioning...
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
11 Apr 2005 09:00:58 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
Dennett also has something of a 'verificationalist' position - he points out
that there's no way in principle to distinguish between 'actual' free will
and 'illusory' free will - that is, between deterministic and
non-deterministic choice. Therefore he claims that this distinction is a red
herring and the things we should actually be interested in (principally
moral responsibility) have nothing to do with physical determinism.
Oh, absolutely. But, at least for me, free will usually comes
up in discussions of whether it is compatible with an omniscient god.
While the compatibilist approach works in the general case,
it's not very satisfying in this particular situation. In particular,
if God created the world, and God is omni-everything, then God foresaw
all the evil that people would choose to do, but did it anyway.
And according to some theologians, God punishes people for the
evil that He foresaw that they would choose to do.
I guess that position pretty much gives me license to do whatever the
hell I want, doesn't it?
I could defend myself merely by saying "I was just fulfilling my destiny."
--
"God Forbid we should actually test anything."
Creationism
"The curses of Deuteronomy 28 will plague America until we return to God
(Ps 9:17). Wealth and military might are not substitutes for God-given
character and blessing. Freedom comes, not from democracy, but Jesus
Christ. The outline below lists our wars & keys to victory. May God lead
us in the strategic and tactical prayers that are required!"
Capitol Hill Action Network, 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
11 Apr 2005 06:33:35 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Poly wrote:
We do have free
will, you know.
Talk to Dennett about that :-)
I have, actually (at least, I recently read "Elbow Room"), and
if I might crave your momentary attention, I'd like to ask you to tell
me whether I understood him correctly:
Dennett is a compatibilist, meaning that he feels that free
will can exist in a deterministic universe. He does this by looking at
the process that humans (or other decision-makers) use to analyze the
world and decide upon a course of action; and calling this "choice".
Now, this decision-making process can be quite complex and
sophisticated, so any comparison to, say, computer programs, should
not include the word "mere". We know from everyday experience that
there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the (coarse-grained)
state of the world and a person's behavior (that is, just because it's
Friday doesn't mean that I'll eat fish for supper).
In a deterministic univese, the decision-making process is
ultimately determined by the laws of physics. So the result can, in
principle, be predicted in advance (e.g., by simulating the universe
on faster hardware).
So if "free will" means the ability to choose one's course of
action, then the way Dennett resolves this is by defining "choose" to
mean "run the (perhaps ultimately deterministic) decision-making
algorithm". I don't find this satisfying, because I want "free will"
to include the ability to surprise even God, in however small a
fashion.
Well that may be Dennett's view (I must confess free will stopped
interesting me when I realised I didn't believe in an entity *capable*
of predicting my actions), but it is certainly mine. The *meaning* of
"choose" is "to make a decision that follows from the state of one's
cognitive system, internalised or evolutionarily aquired values, and
one's assessment of the present situation". It helps me that most of the
time my actions are only approximately what others predict. Noise is
inherent in any macrolevel description of the state of the universe or
part of it.
If there could, in principle, be a Predictor of Me, well, I will
consider what my stance towards that is when I encounter it.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
15 Apr 2005 04:21:04 PM |
|
|
John S. Wilkins wrote:
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Poly wrote:
We do have free
will, you know.
Talk to Dennett about that :-)
I have, actually (at least, I recently read "Elbow Room"), and
if I might crave your momentary attention, I'd like to ask you to
tell
me whether I understood him correctly:
Dennett is a compatibilist, meaning that he feels that free
will can exist in a deterministic universe. He does this by looking
at
the process that humans (or other decision-makers) use to analyze
the
world and decide upon a course of action; and calling this
"choice".
Now, this decision-making process can be quite complex and
sophisticated, so any comparison to, say, computer programs, should
not include the word "mere". We know from everyday experience that
there is no simple one-to-one mapping between the (coarse-grained)
state of the world and a person's behavior (that is, just because
it's
Friday doesn't mean that I'll eat fish for supper).
In a deterministic univese, the decision-making process is
ultimately determined by the laws of physics. So the result can, in
principle, be predicted in advance (e.g., by simulating the
universe
on faster hardware).
So if "free will" means the ability to choose one's course of
action, then the way Dennett resolves this is by defining "choose"
to
mean "run the (perhaps ultimately deterministic) decision-making
algorithm". I don't find this satisfying, because I want "free
will"
to include the ability to surprise even God, in however small a
fashion.
Well that may be Dennett's view (I must confess free will stopped
interesting me when I realised I didn't believe in an entity
*capable*
of predicting my actions), but it is certainly mine. The *meaning* of
"choose" is "to make a decision that follows from the state of one's
cognitive system, internalised or evolutionarily aquired values, and
one's assessment of the present situation". It helps me that most of
the
time my actions are only approximately what others predict. Noise is
inherent in any macrolevel description of the state of the universe
or
part of it.
If there could, in principle, be a Predictor of Me, well, I will
consider what my stance towards that is when I encounter it.
Are you not capable of predicting the majority of your actions, just
before you make them? Are there not some of your actions you can
predict hours,
or even days before you make them? Indeed, is it not arguable that
part,
if not all, of the notion of
uniformity that we ascribe to the universe follows from that ability
to predict, at least in a general way, attributes of oneself, and
ones surroundings?
I, for one, believe that the who free will thing is a dead issue,
primarily because the concept of "will" is dead. If you recall, it
was believed that there was a force called "will" that allowed people
to move body parts and the like. We stopped believing in that when
the notion of biochemistry came on the scene.
On another topic. I had never heard of Anthony Flew until the
announcement
of his religious conversion was broadcast. However, it seems to me
that the pattern of his conversion is similar to that of Mortimer
Adler's.
Like electrical engineering a la the Salem hypothesis, is there
something
inherently damaging/attractive in Aristotelian philosophy. (My guess
is that it is because Aristotle's notion of logic is flawed, packing
up all of his statements with metaphysics the way he does, but that
could be offbase.)
Now, I don't consider Morty to have been that great of a philosopher,
but
his PBS "6 Great Ideas" series was entertaining.
--
John S. Wilkins
-John
John Stockwell |
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelieves in God. |
12 Apr 2005 10:55:06 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Well that may be Dennett's view (I must confess free will stopped
interesting me when I realised I didn't believe in an entity *capable*
of predicting my actions),
Including yourself, I assume.
but it is certainly mine. The *meaning* of
"choose" is "to make a decision that follows from the state of one's
cognitive system, internalised or evolutionarily aquired values, and
one's assessment of the present situation".
Okay. As a hacker, the way I understand this is as follows:
assuming that I have access to the source code for the universe, and
want to change the way that people (or a person) behave, the best
place to do it would be to edit this function f() over here (rather
than, say, by mucking about with the code that controls electrons,
which would affect far more than just humans). And there's no function
g() that overriddes the effect of f() in every case, so f() can't just
be optimized out. So it makes sense to add a comment saying that f()
"chooses".
What's in my head makes a lot more sense than what I've just
written. Trust me on this.
[...]
If there could, in principle, be a Predictor of Me, well, I will
consider what my stance towards that is when I encounter it.
One interesting bit in "Elbow Room" was the observation that
control doesn't necessarily go the way we intuitively think it does.
Let's say there was a card sharp who was also a
Predictor-of-Wilkins, who stacked the deck in such a way that after
you cut it and dealt the cards, you would wind up with a bad hand. He
would stack the deck as a function of the way _you_ think, so in a
cybernetic sense, you would be controlling him.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesin God. |
12 Apr 2005 05:56:01 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Well that may be Dennett's view (I must confess free will stopped
interesting me when I realised I didn't believe in an entity *capable*
of predicting my actions),
Including yourself, I assume.
Of course. How do I know what I am going to do until I do it? I can
guess what I will do, based on a larger empirical data set than any
other person, but I may be selectively ignoring that data. Actions are
not specified in what Dennett calls a Cartesian theatre, such that I can
see it decided and predict it. In fact, there are ways to predict what
someone will do in a limited sense from action potentials, before they
are aware of it. But overall, I cannot calculate what I will do, only
use rules of thumb that summarise and generalise past events, which you
can do as easily as I for my behavior, if you observe me long enough.
but it is certainly mine. The *meaning* of
"choose" is "to make a decision that follows from the state of one's
cognitive system, internalised or evolutionarily aquired values, and
one's assessment of the present situation".
Okay. As a hacker, the way I understand this is as follows:
assuming that I have access to the source code for the universe, and
want to change the way that people (or a person) behave, the best
place to do it would be to edit this function f() over here (rather
than, say, by mucking about with the code that controls electrons,
which would affect far more than just humans). And there's no function
g() that overriddes the effect of f() in every case, so f() can't just
be optimized out. So it makes sense to add a comment saying that f()
"chooses".
What's in my head makes a lot more sense than what I've just
written. Trust me on this.
Worryingly, I got it, I think. No, I don't think there *is* a general
function f() that operates over human behavior, but you could
oversimplify and say there is an ensemble of routines in the import file
H that can be triggered in varying ways, and have different but
clustering trigger values in different individuals. In short, we
inherit, in different strengths, a range of default behaviors.
But culture modifies each individual program radically. We are
programmed by the past and the present. If you can isolate all relevant
variables in the present environment, and all relevant variables in the
inherited H(i), then if you also happened to have a UTM with an
unlimited running time and a sufficiently long tape, you might be able
to predict what individual i will do. Of course, a much simpler way to
make that prediction is to just run the real world program...
[...]
If there could, in principle, be a Predictor of Me, well, I will
consider what my stance towards that is when I encounter it.
One interesting bit in "Elbow Room" was the observation that
control doesn't necessarily go the way we intuitively think it does.
Let's say there was a card sharp who was also a
Predictor-of-Wilkins, who stacked the deck in such a way that after
you cut it and dealt the cards, you would wind up with a bad hand. He
would stack the deck as a function of the way _you_ think, so in a
cybernetic sense, you would be controlling him.
Observing, or receiving any signal, is to have one's inner state (the
"recevier") controlled by the external objects (the "sender").
Communication, including observation, is a cybernetic communication
relationship.
--
John S. Wilkins
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Biohumanities Project
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Tel +61 7 3365 6348
Mobile 0418 543 856
.
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesinGod. |
12 Apr 2005 06:49:00 PM |
|
|
John S. Wilkins wrote:
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <john@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Well that may be Dennett's view (I must confess free will stopped
interesting me when I realised I didn't believe in an entity *capable*
of predicting my actions),
Including yourself, I assume.
Of course. How do I know what I am going to do until I do it? I can
guess what I will do, based on a larger empirical data set than any
other person, but I may be selectively ignoring that data. Actions are
not specified in what Dennett calls a Cartesian theatre, such that I can
see it decided and predict it. In fact, there are ways to predict what
someone will do in a limited sense from action potentials, before they
are aware of it. But overall, I cannot calculate what I will do, only
use rules of thumb that summarise and generalise past events, which you
can do as easily as I for my behavior, if you observe me long enough.
but it is certainly mine. The *meaning* of
"choose" is "to make a decision that follows from the state of one's
cognitive system, internalised or evolutionarily aquired values, and
one's assessment of the present situation".
Okay. As a hacker, the way I understand this is as follows:
assuming that I have access to the source code for the universe, and
want to change the way that people (or a person) behave, the best
place to do it would be to edit this function f() over here (rather
than, say, by mucking about with the code that controls electrons,
which would affect far more than just humans). And there's no function
g() that overriddes the effect of f() in every case, so f() can't just
be optimized out. So it makes sense to add a comment saying that f()
"chooses".
What's in my head makes a lot more sense than what I've just
written. Trust me on this.
Worryingly, I got it, I think. No, I don't think there *is* a general
function f() that operates over human behavior, but you could
oversimplify and say there is an ensemble of routines in the import file
H that can be triggered in varying ways, and have different but
clustering trigger values in different individuals. In short, we
inherit, in different strengths, a range of default behaviors.
But culture modifies each individual program radically. We are
programmed by the past and the present. If you can isolate all relevant
^^^^^^^^^^ ????
More of this computer crap, eh?
variables in the present environment, and all relevant variables in the
inherited H(i), then if you also happened to have a UTM with an
unlimited running time and a sufficiently long tape, you might be able
to predict what individual i will do.
From a review of Roger Penrose's "The Large, the Small and the Human
Mind" on amazon.com:
"One of Penrose's major ideas in this chapter is his demonstration that
consciousness, although perhaps mathematical, isn't computable, in the
sense that you could program a computer to simulate it. Penrose uses the
example of geometric tilings or polyominos that are deterministic in
their coverage of the Euclidean plane, but that aren't computable, to
show this. Since, as Penrose points out, there are plenty of
mathematical concepts that aren't computable and that can't be done on a
computer, but that the human mind can understand, Penrose concludes that
there is something beyond computability in both pure mathematics and the
human brain."
How will we know when we enter a new paradigm in the 21st century? One
signpost will be when we finally stop trying to apply computer metaphors
to reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesinGod. |
13 Apr 2005 04:45:19 AM |
|
|
"dkomo" <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CZKdndkgL4Lmw8HfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
From a review of Roger Penrose's "The Large, the Small and the Human
Mind" on amazon.com:
"One of Penrose's major ideas in this chapter is his demonstration that
consciousness, although perhaps mathematical, isn't computable, in the
sense that you could program a computer to simulate it. Penrose uses the
example of geometric tilings or polyominos that are deterministic in
their coverage of the Euclidean plane, but that aren't computable, to
show this. Since, as Penrose points out, there are plenty of
mathematical concepts that aren't computable and that can't be done on a
computer, but that the human mind can understand, Penrose concludes that
there is something beyond computability in both pure mathematics and the
human brain."
Except that Penrose talks unmitigated rubbish about consciousness, so
quoting him is pointless. Computers, too, can do 'uncomputable' things in
that sense. A human being couldn't create a Penrose tiling either, we can
only see that it's possible by reasoning it out, there's no reason a
computer couldn't do the same. Let's not forget that the *origin* of the
word 'computer' is as a description of a human being carrying out a
calculation.
Penrose has been debunked so many times by so many people, it amazes me that
anyone ever quotes him. The Emperor's New Mind is such a frustrating book
because it contains what is, for me, one of the best summaries of the
history of science anywhere, and then follows it up with the most spurious
arguments imaginable.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesinGod. |
13 Apr 2005 04:51:53 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek wrote:
"dkomo" <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CZKdndkgL4Lmw8HfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
From a review of Roger Penrose's "The Large, the Small and the Human
Mind" on amazon.com:
"One of Penrose's major ideas in this chapter is his demonstration that
consciousness, although perhaps mathematical, isn't computable, in the
sense that you could program a computer to simulate it. Penrose uses the
example of geometric tilings or polyominos that are deterministic in
their coverage of the Euclidean plane, but that aren't computable, to
show this. Since, as Penrose points out, there are plenty of
mathematical concepts that aren't computable and that can't be done on a
computer, but that the human mind can understand, Penrose concludes that
there is something beyond computability in both pure mathematics and the
human brain."
Except that Penrose talks unmitigated rubbish about consciousness, so
quoting him is pointless. Computers, too, can do 'uncomputable' things in
that sense. A human being couldn't create a Penrose tiling either, we can
only see that it's possible by reasoning it out, there's no reason a
computer couldn't do the same. Let's not forget that the *origin* of the
word 'computer' is as a description of a human being carrying out a
calculation.
Penrose has been debunked so many times by so many people, it amazes me that
anyone ever quotes him. The Emperor's New Mind is such a frustrating book
because it contains what is, for me, one of the best summaries of the
history of science anywhere, and then follows it up with the most spurious
arguments imaginable.
I don't necessary follow Penrose into his theory about the brain
operating upon quantum principles. I'm interested in the claim from
those in the computer field that the brain is an **algorithm following
machine** which can be simulated by a powerful enough computer. I think
*that* is as big a load of horseshit as anything Penrose has written.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesinGod. |
14 Apr 2005 11:56:24 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't necessary follow Penrose into his theory about the brain
operating upon quantum principles. I'm interested in the claim from
those in the computer field that the brain is an **algorithm following
machine** which can be simulated by a powerful enough computer. I think
*that* is as big a load of horseshit as anything Penrose has written.
Why? That doesn't seem obvious to me at all.
An algorithm is basically just a description of a process. If
the operation of the brain can be described with sufficient precision,
it can be turned into an algorithm, and that, in turn, can be
implemented on a sufficiently-powerful computer.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
$636.95 -- Number of the Beast at Sam's Wholesale Club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Thinking Straighter: Why the world's most famousatheistnowbelievesinGod. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
