BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:43 PM

"Random had a perfectly good meaning before the computer scientists started tying it to tables or seed generators."

They really didn't have much choice, language being the messy thing that it is - they needed something precisely definable and repeatable ... after all when you start using computer simulation, you need to lock down quite precisely just what you are doing.... I remember someone scoffing at me that nowadays we didn't need to actually do any working out what is going on in the real world to design wind instruments, that we didn't need to worry about concepts like Helmholtz resonance etc. Just grab a 'good' computer simulation ..... that's actually so arrogantly ignorant of what computer simulations really do (and how poorly they really reflect The Real World), as to be laughable....

I remember someone getting frustrated with a traffic flow simulation for a multi-lane highway, where the real measured figures were annoyingly different from the best 'simulation that could be produce,

Well it would have been ok if the road had been straight, you see - but when multi lane roads go around corners, the inner and outer paths are different lengths.... Those who know how LP records and CD/DVDs work can start laughing now.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE
"But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones."

That's right, and that's yet another reason for avoiding using the term to characterize the occurrence of mutations. One may become confused... ;-)
UNQUOTE

I seem to remember the Old Foole rambling on about not smearing multiple different semantic concepts (meanings) onto the one semantic label (word) ... -> GIGO ... :-)

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM

A 2000 related science article:
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 03:30 PM

"More formally, in statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern..."

But if it's a process requiring inputs, those inputs must be identical otherwise this doesn't apply. I'm saying that it's next to impossible to provide identical inputs into biological systems. There's far too much going on.

"But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones."

That's right, and that's yet another reason for avoiding using the term to characterise the occurrence of mutations. One may become confused... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:36 PM

Random had a perfectly good meaning before the computer scientists started tying it to tables or seed generators. WIkiDictionary remarks: " The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:

"Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

"Also, in statistics, as:

Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.

"Closely connected, therefore, with the concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy, randomness implies a lack of predictability. More formally, in statistics, a random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated. For example, the rolling of a fair six-sided die in neutral conditions may be said to produce random results, because one cannot compute, before a roll, what number will show up. However, the probability of rolling any one of the six rollable numbers can be calculated, assuming that each is equally likely.

"Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

"The term is often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties, such as a lack of bias or correlation. Monte Carlo Methods, which rely on random input, are important techniques in science, as, for instance, in computational science.[1] Random selection is an official method to resolve tied elections in some jurisdictions[2] and is even an ancient method of divination, as in tarot, the I Ching, and bibliomancy. Its use in politics is very old, as office holders in Ancient Athens were chosen by lot, there being no voting.
"

The psychological aspect hinges on the individual's ability to predict the motion around him, and the ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion.

But as you can see from the above the purely statistical definitions are not the only "right" ones.


A

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:28 PM

Steve Shaw

I was only trying to be honest. Science tries not to deal in certainties.

Rather different from earlier pronouncements like -

Anyone who thinks there's anything random in evolution doesn't understand evolution. Not in the slightest. The word doesn't belong in any discussion of evolution.
and -
A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

You go one to say -

in the cases we're talking about so it's impossible to state that the outcomes are non-deterministic.

No. If you are going down to the subatomic level it is not just possible to say that the outcomes are non-deterministic, it is mandatory.

Haha, you asked me to look up unpredictable.

You got me bang to rights there Steve. Clearly invalidates everything I've said. Have you looked up random?
If you can't be bothered, do you agree with TIA's definition -

mathematical meaning is: not deterministically predictable, but following a probability distribution?

If not, what is your definition?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

[The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

A bit vague and hedged with caveats to be proposed as the default position, however humbly.]

I was only trying to be honest. Science tries not to deal in certainties.

[In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

I'm sorry, but your discomfort with randomness is your problem. If you are going to include stimuli down to the subatomic level, you have to accept that we live in a non-deterministic universe.]

No, you're seeking refuge in the unknown. Input values can never be made to be identical (at least, we can never be sure they're identical) in the cases we're talking about so it's impossible to state that the outcomes are non-deterministic. Not in this case. It's the trouble with all biological systems, as many a frustrated physicist has dicovered.

[OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Try looking up random.]

Haha, you asked me to look up unpredictable. There are many reasons why things might be unpredictable, randomness being just one. You want it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Above posted before I'd seen Steve's replies.

Steve Shaw

OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Try looking up random.

The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

A bit vague and hedged with caveats to be proposed as the default position, however humbly.

In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

I'm sorry, but your discomfort with randomness is your problem. If you are going to include stimuli down to the subatomic level, you have to accept that we live in a non-deterministic universe.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

Foolestroupe

If your 'practical difference' claim simply means that you are confused and assume that 'random causation' "a" always produces 'random outcome' "A"...

Unfortunately, Steve has undermined the idea of cause by arguing that the reason for differing outcomes is different circumstances. It's impossible, to all intents and purposes, for either us or the environment to get identical conditions for both, when you think right down to subatomic particle level. It is impossible for 'random causation' "a" to always produce 'random outcome' "A" because 'random causation' "a" only ever occurs once. The cause and the outcome are inextricably linked.

But now if input "a" always produces a different output ('random' - 'non-deterministic') then we can learn nothing by studying it anyway ...

Rather the point I was trying to make.

unless the output displays a statistical output curve, in which case it is still consistently deterministic.... just that we can only assign a percentage certainty to the outcomes...

That is not what Steve is saying. He posits "a cause for the particular way of recombining".

Only for muddled thinking.

A pity you feel the need to resort to that sort of talk.

You may scoff at the pedantic,

Certainly not!

but if you do not refrain [Ooo er!] from confusing what the terms (words) mean and use one term (word) indiscriminately when there are several semantic concepts (meanings) involved in the arguments ... then ... GIGO.

I'm quite happy with TIA's definition of random (look for it yourself). It's Steve who seems to be working to a different one although I can't quite work out what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

"'I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise.'

Please provide one."

Well, we could just say what we know. Mutations are known in many cases to be encouraged by mutagenic agents such as radiation and some chemicals. The extent to which most or all mutations are triggered by these or by other environmental stimuli, possibly right down to the subatomic level, is not clear, but it would be reasonable to hypothesise that most, if not all, are so caused.

In my view, "random" sits very uneasily among that lot.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 11:10 AM

"Unpredictable doesn't mean random.

Er, I think you will find that it does. Look it up."

OK, I looked it up in four places. It doesn't mean "random."

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE
It's just the wrong word.

Seems to work fine.
UNQUOTE

Only for muddled thinking. You may scoff at the pedantic, but if you do not refrain from confusing what the terms (words) mean and use one term (word) indiscriminately when there are several semantic concepts (meanings) involved in the arguments ... then ... GIGO.

As per previous statement...

QUOTE
I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on. It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause. I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterizing the way mutations arise.
UNQUOTE

That's perfectly clear to me, but then I am pedantic.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:42 AM

I wonder if there is a true test of a Christian.

"Take all your goods and give them to the poor - nope, Senator Joe wouldn't have approved of that one.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" - don't think so really.
"Thou shalt not kill" - ok until a war comes along, then the clergy are there urging our lads over the top.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods" - not if your in business.
"Love thy neighbour" - unless he's black, or brown, or Irish, or Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or a Traveller.....
"Suffer the little children" - taken too literally by some of the clergy.

Any offers?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM

AH ...

Knew I had not directly searched for those links myself, but had taken them from another poster.

From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:31 PM

Who Posted
QUOTE

Try Evolution 101. (This whole site is one of the best ones available on the topic.)
UNQUOTE

The link was on the "Evolution 101"....

I just went there and made a few comments on a few pages - the urls of which I posted direct.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:23 AM

"You have simply replaced random outcomes with random causes which makes no practical difference."

It IS the VERY and critically important practical difference....

If your 'practical difference' claim simply means that you are confused and assume that 'random causation' "a" always produces 'random outcome' "A"... but in that case it is a one to one relationship, and so the idea that the outcome itself is 'random' (and unrelated to the input, irrespective of whether THAT is 'random' or not) is shot down....

But now if input "a" always produces a different output ('random' - 'non-deterministic') then we can learn nothing by studying it anyway ... unless the output displays a statistical output curve, in which case it is still consistently deterministic.... just that we can only assign a percentage certainty to the outcomes...

If you don't mean either of the above, I have no idea what you could mean....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:18 AM

Foolestroupe

Are you really sure that I posted them?

Here you go

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:10 AM

Steve Shaw

Unpredictable doesn't mean random.

Er, I think you will find that it does. Look it up.

I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on.

So what is going on?

It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause.

Not without cause, but not deterministic either.

I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise.

Please provide one.

It's just the wrong word.

Seems to work fine.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

Unpredictable doesn't mean random. I dislike the word random to describe mutations because it communicates wholly the wrong idea about what's going on. It implies that they are somehow spontaneous and without cause. I'm saying that that message is highly questionable, and that we need a different way of characterising the way mutations arise. It's just the wrong word.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:05 AM

"Sorry FT but since you posted this link and this link "

Are you really sure that I posted them? But then perhaps, my Mind isn't what it used to be, it used to be my Liver, I think....

I did look at and comment on at least one of them...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Steve, thank you for replying to the point I was making at last.

You are now echoing what Uncle DaveO said -

And WHICH specific change in many cases appears not to be "caused" by the stressor impinging; the result is "caused" all right, I think, but by such a multitude of environmental and cellular facts as to ultimately unpredictable, thus random.

The sequence is "caused" by something but each cause is effectively unique. You have simply replaced random outcomes with random causes which makes no practical difference. The mutations that feed the system leading to altered phenotypes for natural selection to work on are still random.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 07:19 AM

"Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That is what I am questioning."

Suppose we have a sequence that goes CGTAGGT on two identical DNA strands. Say we irradiate the strands and they both, er, mutate (yeah, I know...) One strand ends up as CGATGGT and the other ends up as CGTGAGT. We can strongly suspect that the radiation triggered the mutations (you could do controls of course to confirm that) but it's a bit harder to explain why they ended up different and not the same. Maybe we bent over backwards to ensure that they were irradiated identically and that all other conditions were identical for both. But therein lies the rub. It's impossible, to all intents and purposes, for either us or the environment to get identical conditions for both, when you think right down to subatomic particle level. All that jiggling and shooting about and jostling of atoms and molecules in the surrounding medium... The most reasonable position to take would be that they recombined differently because they were subjected to ever so slightly different environmental conditions. I don't think it's reasonable, just because we can't actually pin down the cause, to assume that was was no cause. I suppose that if you repeated the experiment thousands of times there's a chance that you'd find the numerical spread of the new combinations fitted some kind of statistical "randomness", but, even if that were so (and it might not be), it would elucidate precisely nothing about what was going on (as I probably haven't). It wouldn't show that there were no causes, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 06:57 AM

"Well Steve, while the (tabloidesque)articles I posted (you know, the ones you took a quick look at) were in science news articles, the journals where they were publiched were noted.

Could it be that they were not in keeping with your 'scientific beliefs/opinions'?"

Not at all. I get suspicious when I read such loose writing in supposedly learned journals and I did point to two examples of this that I picked up in just a quick flick-through. They were both howlers that, at worst, should have been picked up by a competent editor and, at best, not written at all. Popular science writing has its place as long as we remember that that's all it is.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:12 AM

Ed T

"Please leave God out of this discussion"

The thread title is "True Test of an Atheist"

Sorry Ed, I was referring to the discussion that Steve and I are having which is nothing to do with the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM

Foolestroupe

Steve and I are different people - perhaps FOOLestroupe is just ignored...

Sorry FT but since you posted this link and this link I assumed that you did not share Steve's deterministic view.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 05:02 AM

Steve, I have no problem with anything you have said since my last post except that you totally fail to address the point I am making.

Initially I asked for clarification of your statement -

A mutation is miscopying of heritable material. If you want to demonstrate that any such miscopying is random you're going to have to show that there was no cause.

Foolestroupe intervened on your behalf but failed to answer the question. I then asked "Are you and Steve claiming that there is a cause for the specific new order of bases after the miscopying?" to which you replied -

Why not? There would be a cause for the initial impetus to change and a cause for the particular way of recombining.

That is what I am questioning.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:32 AM

OK then, you "evolve" into an atheist and a mutated gene is the culprit? But the semantical outcome is the equivalent of a religion? And the God forsaken Spanish Inquisition silenced Albert Eisenhower with a four ponged soft pillow? Finally, your arguments are beginnning to make a certain kind of sense, I think.

I apologize to any to whom my previous terse little summation and attempt to understand where we were in this thread was somehow offensive and definitely at odds with the tone of gentlemanly discourse this discussion has taken. I'll let the dust settle a bit more and let a little sleep clear the cobwebs. Night all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 02:04 AM

"How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments

... suggest that in environments that vary over time in a non-random way, evolution can learn the rules of the environment and develop organisms that can readily generate novel useful traits with only a few mutations."

QUOTE "learn the rules" UNQUOTE ... haha! Semantic tricks again....

Ah - I am reminded of 'the matchbox computer to play hexpawn', which I built once.... :-)

You get lots of matchboxes with the various pictures of all the possible playing positions of the pieces on the outside. Inside each one you place various counters or pieces of paper that reflect all the possible moves from the position on the outside of the box.

You then play the game many times. Many, many times. Many, many, many times. (Sorry - old BBC Radio Comedy Show gag line...)

Each time that you strike a position when the 'computer' loses, you 'prune the tree' of that possible outcome by removing the losing move selector. Eventually, the computer will only win, or draw. You can also prune paths leading to the draw position if you wish to 'force' (as per magician's forcing) the outcome.

Theoretically, this paper pontificatesguesses that if 'natural selection' prunes out the unsuitable outcomes, then the 'organism had learned' - interesting semantic trick ....


"employed computer simulations of evolution of simple computational 'organisms'. "

Ha! - Pilots trained on computer simulations of planes still crash and die when the real physical entity does things that were not pre-programmed - thus one must take great care before pontificatingguessing how the real world will behave...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Oct 10 - 12:18 AM

"Well, Ed, I had a quick look at those rather tabloidesque links you put up. I get a bit suspicious when I read about "genes evolving" (they don't: genes mutate, organisms evolve) and "evolution learning" (it doesn't: it's blind and has no goals and there's no underlying intelligence to "learn" anything). Hope you don't think I'm chucking the baby out with the bathwater and all that, but I think I'll stick to more learned sources"

Well Steve, while the (tabloidesque)articles I posted (you know, the ones you took a quick look at) were in science news articles, the journals where they were publiched were noted.

Could it be that they were not in keeping with your "scientific beliefs/opinions"?

Where have you posted links to your, so called, "learned sources"? What I have seen is mostly opinion, much like that posted by others taking an oposing position (my opinion). Not that there is anything wrong with that.

It is easy to talk the talk.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:49 PM

"Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves."

Nonsensical gibberish - but got a quick laugh.

Examples please?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 10:28 PM

Some of the Athiests in this discussion seem to be conflating the arguments, of their opponents here.
No wonder they are lost lambs, they cannot tell the sheepdogs from the wolves.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:40 PM

Now I can't get the damn thing out of my mind... but it's somehow relevant to this thread ... :-)

Ximinez: Now, old lady - you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly - *two* last chances. And you shall be free - *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.

Dear Old Lady: I don't know what you're talking about.

Ximinez: Right! If that's the way you want it - Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions!
~~~~~~~~~~

and a fuller version of before...

Reg: Trouble at t'mill.
Lady M: Oh, no! What sort of trouble?
Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on't treddle.
Lady M: Pardon?
Reg: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on't treddle.
Lady M: I don't understand what you're saying.
Reg: One of the cross beams has gone out of skew on the treadle.
Lady M: Well, what on earth does that mean?
Reg: I don't know! - Mr. Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

[the door flies open and in come three Cardinals in red robes]

Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise!... Surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency! Our three weapons are fear, and surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Hmf... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surpr... I'll come in again.

[They leave]

Reg: [gamely] I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[They burst in again]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:31 PM

I just could not resist ...

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again..."

— Graham Chapman

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:10 PM

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

- Albert Einstein, Response to atheist, Alfred Kerr (1927), quoted in The Diary of a Cosmopolitan (1971)


The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 09:03 PM

Slag said, in part, with some prefatory sidestepping:

I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?

First, you say "sole basis" (one thing, barring any other factors), and then give two parts to your thesis. Not a big deal; we can work with it.

But taking those two parts as if they were one, you're positing an extremely simplified line of thought. Without having given a great deal of study to your proposed analysis, I thought at first that you might just be coming into the ballpark. EXCEPT that--

"The inability of scientific reasoning to prove", etc. puts the shoe on the wrong foot. The function of scientific reasoning is not really "to prove" anything; it is to test hypotheses. If a hypothesis passes the experimental testing, it is commonly said to have been "proved", which sounds definite and sound, but really what's happened is that, based on that test or experiment, the truth of the hypothesis is considered more likely.

If you or another thinker hypothesizes "the existence of a seperate [sic] plane of existence" (whatever that may be), it is I suppose conceivable that scientific reasoning might seek to test that hypothesis--not "prove" it. I don't have any idea how that might be done, however

And "prove" as it is used in modern English means to cause a particular view of a question to be adopted, based on objective grounds. That would be the function of metaphysicians (or possibly theologians) in the case of "a seperate [sic] plane of existence".

However, if there could be evidence which conclusively proved "the existence of a seperate [sic] plane of existence", that would not of itself prove the existence of a god therein. Buddhism posits what I think could be called a separate plane(s) of existence, but without a god to its name, for instance.

If you are interested in synthesizing a simple statement of "the basis of atheism", try going back to the drawing board, Slag.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM

"re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level."

Well, Charlie Darwin knew nothing about the genetic level and I'm more than happy to stick with his model of natural selection, which is that it acts on expressed characteristics. He worked it all out even though he'd never heard of genes, and he was able to do so because natural selection does not act on sequences of bases on a long-chain chemical in your cells, but on your expressed physical and physiological attributes. To us today that means the phenotype. That man-eating tiger doesn't analyse your genome before he goes for you. He sort of notices that he can run faster than you. The wonderful thing about Darwin's big idea is that it's embarrassingly simple, and it is by no means out of date.   


"I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?"

Nope, not correct at all. Way too negative, and I'm not keen on your veiled pejorative when it comes to science. We ask for evidence for any assertions made, which is a highly rational stance. We know that there is much still to be discovered. But we find it puzzling that believers don't want to ask questions. When you're dealing with a being who's supposed to explain everything, yet who is completely inexplicable himself and who breaks all the laws of physics, we feel that asking questions and demanding hard evidence is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM

"I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a separate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct? "

I appreciate your sincerity, but you really have that ass-backwards. The 'religious' are unable to 'prove' (except in their own mind, by convoluted semantic jumbling and smearing of concepts) any of their complex convoluted mumbo jumbo, which by their OWN definition 'is beyond human understanding' (told you I was brought up fundamentalist Lutheran!), so they just accept it 'in their hearts' on 'faith'. To see a current topical example, you might like to wade through Conrad's thesis on 'FREED Folk Music' where he insists as a matter of 'faith' that getting stonkered with gallons of 'bier' on every musical occasion is necessary for 'the release of his muse'... :-)

The one with 'faith' KNOWs, the atheist just 'not-know's - as I said "What part of No is so difficult to understand?" which has now become a fairly standard answer to the "Creationist/ID proponents' whose intellectual flailings about remind the student of the history of scientific progress of things like 'the aether', orgonne, the musical theory of the crystal spheres of the rotations of the planets, the history is littered with ineffectual attempts to grasp understanding..

I've input here on that before, so I'll let others have a turn, or I'll be back later, supposed to be mowing grass, really ... :-) ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE
used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution"
UNQUOTE

This is a perfect example of what I was rabbiting on before about how people easily muddle up semantic labels with great abandon, almost enjoyment, with no remorse. IME those with great 'faith' and little skepticism are the easiest to be suckered (they do it themselves) into this trap, and they really see no problems at all. Their thinking is totally clear, there is no beam in their eyes, they KNOW the facts ....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 08:00 PM

Random- a silent sprinter
re the general topic at hand: the 3 things you never discuss, religion, politics, atheism.

re natural selection: Given the Earth's sub-atomic environment, genetic mutations are inevitable. The vast majority are of no value with most being harmful. If they should afford some advantage over other "same niche" creatures then there is a possiblity that such a mutation will be passed on. That's natural selection at the genetic level.

An interesting development has been the discovery of "switching" genes. It seems that some genes have adaptives or responsive sequences built in and that certain environmental conditions will cause that segment to "turn on". It's seems it's already in there and ready to go. Pretty amazing stuff.

Back to the topic: "Religion" is some form of ritualized behavior often engaged in as an attempt to influence devine or other-worldly influences or as an act of adoration of the same. Sometimes it is seen as a routinization of experience and the actual point of the religious action is lost. That is to say, it becomes a mindless perfomance.

Unfortunately the term is used broadly to mean any spiritual experience or life altering experience as in "he got the 'religion' and doesn't do that any more" or some such. As such it ignores the distinctive aspects of an individual's experiences and unfairly categorizes him, his experience and in general, is dismissive of the same.

I may be guilty of the same coming from the other direction but aside from the anecdotal bad and worse experiences some have had with those who claim a religion, a postion in some organized religion, etc. and all the emotional fallout that ensues, I would conclude that the sole basis of atheism is the lack of empirical evidence and the inability of scientific reasoning to prove the existence of a seperate spiritual plane of existence. Would this be correct?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:56 PM

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths." Bertrand Russell

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM

Steve

I have a friend who once was brought to tears marking a paper. It rattled his religious faith as well a lot of his other life beliefs too, causing him much grief - probably a genuine example of 'life changing experiences' that our foaming at the mouth 'banter friend' was previously claiming that I know naughtynaught of too....

While writing a dissertation on evolution, the sincere student had ignored the set text books, the whole University Library et al, and quoted only from the Bible.

This friend was terrified that if he failed the paper (which really he HAD no 'intellectual' choice but to do), he would be sacked - the Uni being in an area of strong 'Religion', and what with Vice Chancellors leading public prayer meetings etc.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM

Yep, well said, Foolestroupe. I wasn't having a dig, it's just that I had that sodding moth coming out of my ears for twelve years on the exam board!

Actually, they're very pretty. We had one on an apple tree trunk last week and my wife had to look twice to see it at all. As we're in unpolluted Kernow, you won't be surprised to hear it was a light one! They're also incredibly well camouflaged on natural concrete paving slabs.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:39 PM

Well, Ed, I had a quick look at those rather tabloidesque links you put up. I get a bit suspicious when I read about "genes evolving" (they don't: genes mutate, organisms evolve) and "evolution learning" (it doesn't: it's blind and has no goals and there's no underlying intelligence to "learn" anything). Hope you don't think I'm chucking the baby out with the bathwater and all that, but I think I'll stick to more learned sources.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:38 PM

Thank you Steve, I thought you might love the 'moth' tale .... :-)

The Foole loves the role of Devil's Advocate...

hee hee....

You - the percentage of light and dark moths at birth hasn't changed, last I heard, just that the percentage of current surviving traits moves around according to whatever current pressures exist.... sorta like politicians, isn't it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

Well Dave, I hope you took in that I was being self-deprecating at the end of that post. I tend to think you did. We atheists don't deal in certainties, unlike some of those Christian chappies. I have this visceral feeling that the word "random" is often used for scenarios which we just don't understand, and I'd rather say "I don't think I understand why this event happened" than "I can't see what caused this so it must have been random." It's a potential cop-out, a bit like the God of the Gaps.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

Science to stimulate "random" thought"

Natural Selection May Not Produce The Best Organisms

Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?

How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 07:15 PM

Steve Shaw, you just said a magic word: "counter-intuitive".

We all, I think, intuitively feel that any event has some cause. That's part of why the Big Bang is so hard for people to swallow. And the idea that the Judaeo-Christian god was not caused or created, but existed forever, as an attempted escape from the First-Cause argument. But we (or at least I) know that many, many, many intuitive convictions or judgments turn out to have no basis, once investigated.

Many, many scientific studies are ridiculed because they inquire into beliefs or relations that almost all of humanity have historically found intuitively true: "They have to have an experiment to study THAT? Everybody knows that!" and if their findings are contrary to the intuitive opinions the findings tend to be attacked.

Steve, I think you are in essence saying that, "If we could just investigate and investigate the origins of mutations, I believe that somewhere back there we'd find a cause, because I find universal causation intuitively powerful."

And so do I; I'm more comfortable intellectually with the idea of universal causation. I suppose everyone is, at first blush.

But to say that a stressor such as radiation, asbestos fiber, or some chemical makes cellular-level (and intracellular) change statistically more common doesn't quite get to the level of causation of a particular change. And WHICH specific change in many cases appears not to be "caused" by the stressor impinging; the result is "caused" all right, I think, but by such a multitude of environmental and cellular facts as to ultimately unpredictable, thus random. We are talking about "faith" here, faith in causation, which I share; and also adopting or rejecting one or another meaning of "random" in support of one or another intuitive judgment

You close with "at least I'm not being counter-intuitive". That may be just the problem, on both sides of this particular corner of the discussion.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

I used to mark 'A' level biology essay papers for the University of London. The bloody peppered moth serially drove us examiners mad. It is not an example of evolution at all, though it is an example of natural selection at work. The dark moths were generated in small numbers well before the Industrial Revolution, but were not favoured by the environment and so few survived to breed. But a few did. The point is that the dark moths did not "evolve" as a result of soot blackening tree trunks. Dark moths were *always* there. In order for dark and light moths to evolve into two species, isolation of dark and light populations would have to occur for so long that, at the end of it all, the dark and light moths would no longer be able to interbreed. That bit is simply not part of the peppered moth story as we hear it. Now I'm not saying that the peppered moth can't evolve. I am saying that it can't evolve into two species unless isolation of populations takes place. God, I used to love scoring out bloody great long accounts of the peppered moth "as an example of evolution" with my red pen.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:34 PM

"Nobody is doing so. Clearly the results of mutations are subject to natural selection. The problem arises from the assertion that those mutations arise from some cause."

The classic case of demonstrating 'a cause' in evolution - and from earliest times of researching 'evolution' (who first documented it? - I know) was

'the little moth'
sitting on the black tree...

sorry, nearly broke into song..... :-)

In industrial England, the light colored bark trees that were blackened with soot allowed birds to more easily catch the lighter moths. The population shifted with time to darker colors. After the local soot generation stopped and the environment was 'cleaned up', eventually the population percentage of lighter colored moths was favored again.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:32 PM

Thanks for the ultra-sane urban dictionary quotes, Ed. This one is actually pretty serious:

"Correct: The decay of a radioactive isotope is random.
This is correct because nobody can predict exactly when the atom will decay. It actually doesn't follow a pattern."

This illustrates very well the point I've been trying to make. Actually, I don't know much about radioactive decay so I might not use the right words, but here goes. Saying that the decay of a radioactive isotope is random is actually meaningless. Are you saying that subatomic particles are emitted in a random way in terms of direction, or are you talking about the rate of emission of particles being random, or are you saying that some atoms of the isotope in question decay whilst others don't? And you haven't referred at all to causality. Impose a cause (such as putting billions of similar atoms next to our atom so that the critical mass is exceeded) and you will have to let go of that word random. And when you say it doesn't follow a pattern, for how long have you observed the process to confirm this? Could there not be a pattern you haven't detected?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Oct 10 - 06:28 PM

Mrrzy

I seem to remember that I mumbled on about such stuff before, particularly in 'computer games', there is a whole sub-field of computing (dabbled a bit there too!) related to generating 'random' numbers - mathematically it seems that computers can only generate pseudo-random numbers for a whole bunch of reasons that the keen student can look up for themselves, as my Uni lecturers used to say with a wry smile.

Amusingly, if you attempt to generate 'random numbers' by manual means - eg guessing, the output displays no 'random' bell curve, but is always strongly biased, a fact magicians have known and exploited for centuries. That and a bit of sleight-of-hand 'forcing' and 'distraction' is how they get their results. But people still strongly believe in spite of objective research evidence that they actually have 'free choice' which guarantees that their selection process will be 'random'.

'Religion' (and politics, which some consider to be a form of 'religion'!) depends on the beloved techniques of 'forcing' - guaranteeing particular outcomes irrespective of selections or other inputs.