I hadn't meant to blog this morning, but I saw this one and thought I'd set yet another theist who just didn't get it straight. Feel free to go over and add you own two cents worth of reason. It's fun! It's free!
Atheism: Does it make sense or is it an uncompromising, fundamentalist religion?
I'm not going to respond to the other blogs any more. The readers have taken them so far down rabbit trails that the subject matter and purpose of the blogs have gone way over their heads. Instead, I will pose this points for all of you evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, atheists, and agnostics to consider:
You claim that you cannot trust the bible because it was written by men, yet you trust and seem willing to be martyred for fallible textbooks written by... men. Think about that one for a moment.
You claim tolerance when you can't even tolerate us speaking up against a THEORY.You wonder why the Bible never changes, when textbooks and evolutionary 'discoveries' change all the time to stay 'current'. Here's my quesetion: Which scientific statement in the bible needs to be updated? Answer: They are all current, yet were written 4,000 years ago. Hmm...
You wonder how theists can believe that there is something outside of time and space and matter, yet you wholeheartedly, uncompromisingly believe that matter came from nothing. Question: Where's the evidence for that?
You wonder why Christians are always trying to 'shove the Gospel down your throat', yet would not stand idly by if someone was in danger and you were the only one around to rescue them. Answer: Chew on this - If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?
Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer? We are adamant with you because we can't comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can't figure out why you would reject that offer.
Everything in you screams "Oh, I don't want to die", yet you celebrate death (evolution would mean death brings forth the next kind, whereas Creation dictates God breathes life, and life is a gift not to be taken for granted).
Rather than answer me point-by-point, pick the point that bothers you the most about this blog, and respond to it FREE OF CURSING OR INSULT. I just received a message from one of you saying you don't use insults, then replying to my response with cursings and blasphemy. Come on, act your age and let's reason together.
Here's what we do know: You're going to die, and we care enough about you to rescue you from the grips of Hell. Is that not compassion?
Also, please proofread your responses to make sure they make sense to the other readers. Thanks.
With all the presupposition I can muster, God bless!!
Atheist's Nightmare
I must say you know absolutely nothing about not only atheism, but your own religion. You are so wrong that I cannot possibly do this point-by-point. Okay, let's begin the education (cracks knuckles....).
"You claim that you cannot trust the bible because it was written by men, yet you trust and seem willing to be martyred for fallible textbooks written by... men. Think about that one for a moment." No. I accept provisionally theories (the definition of which you, as many other fundies, do not actually know, as I will get to in a moment...) which explain sets of observations. The Bible has all the hallmarks of being written by men and none of those I would expect if it were a god's word. It has changed drastically to the point where we do not actually know with any certainty what parts were actually contained in it! Atheism, on the other hand, is simply an acceptance of the null hypothesis in the lack of any evidence to the contrary that there is no supernatural being.
"You wonder how theists can believe that there is something outside of time and space and matter, yet you wholeheartedly, uncompromisingly believe that matter came from nothing. Question: Where's the evidence for that?" This seems to me to be the First Law of Thermodynamics argument. The problem is that the sum total of the mass-energy of the universe is exactly 0. As to what initiated it, we do not know. So what? To immediately jump to a supernatural origin is what is known as premature curiosity satisfaction. The so-called Big Bang model predicted the results of several to incredible accuracy. Two of these are the hydrogen/helium ratio and the cosmic microwave background. Question: what part of the Bible predicted the observed expansion of the universe? While we do not have all the answers yet, at least we are willing to admit it instead of making convoluted arguments as to how scientific discoveries 'fit' into the Bible somehow.
"You wonder why the Bible never changes, when textbooks and evolutionary 'discoveries' change all the time to stay 'current'. Here's my quesetion: Which scientific statement in the bible needs to be updated? Answer: They are all current, yet were written 4,000 years ago. Hmm..." The Bible has changed considerably, as I've said. Any textual critic would tell you that. As for the "scientific statements" in the Bible (there are no correct ones), how about rabbits and coneys chewing cud? (They do not.) How about a description of the Earth as flat? (It is not.) A bat is not a bird, etc. For a more full description of biblical 'science' gaffs, see here. The reason that Science changes is due to our ever increasing knowledge base leading to asking new questions. Question to you: what new discoveries in Science have been made stemming from the Bible? Answer: none in the last 2,000+ years. Hmm....
"You wonder why Christians are always trying to 'shove the Gospel down your throat', yet would not stand idly by if someone was in danger and you were the only one around to rescue them. Answer: Chew on this - If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?" There is a big difference between pulling someone from a burning building (a very real, immediate threat) and some perceived, nebulous future threat. Let's change the question around. Would you kill someone if you thought that they would some day years later attempt to cause you harm and claim self-defense in the same way you might kill an armed intruder invading your home that meant you immediate physical harm?
"You claim tolerance when you can't even tolerate us speaking up against a THEORY." You are under the impression that a Theory is just some sort of idea pulled out of thin air. Nothing could be further from the truth. A Theory in Science is something that 1) explains a set of observations; 2) makes testable predictions which can verify the theory; 3) explains new data as it comes in; 4) is falsifiable (that is, it can be shown to be incorrect). Natural Selection is a Theory, explaining a huge amount of data from comparative morphology, molecular genetics and paleontology. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has absolutely none of the attributes just described. Nothing makes a scientist like myself angrier than someone ignorantly saying "Well, it's just a theory." We fell embarrassed for people that say that. The biggest difference between Religion and Science is that in Science our Theories can change if a better explanation can be found. This has happened a number of times. Two that come to mind are the development of the Relativity and Quantum Theories. Along with Natural Selection, these Theories changed the way in which we look at the world and even the universe. Religious dogma, on the other hand, is brittle and incapable of taking in new ideas and prefers to place its fingers in its ears and annoyingly go "La-la-la-la-la!"
"Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer?" The reason people insult you for 'witnessing' to them (what an odd term) is because they are insulted. What it says to them is that you think you have a superior moral system (you do not, by the way). By trying to convince someone to convert to your world view you are insulting theirs. You bring insults onto yourself and haven't the foggiest why. Such is the blinding effect of religion. Not everyone shares your beliefs, even other Christians. 'Witnessing' is disrespectful every bit as much as if you were asked to dinner and insulted your host's cooking . Actually, it's more disrespectful because you are rarely invited.
"Everything in you screams "Oh, I don't want to die", yet you celebrate death (evolution would mean death brings forth the next kind, whereas Creation dictates God breathes life, and life is a gift not to be taken for granted)." I have found this to be the opposite. Knowing that I have only this one life to live I cherish every moment of it. I am willing to lay money down on a bet that I have accomplished more in this life to this point (roughly half way) than you will in the whole of yours. When I leave I will go to the same place I was before I was born: oblivion. Religious people are quite happy to hasten the process for some reason.
"You're going to die, and we care enough about you to rescue you from the grips of Hell. Is that not compassion?" No, it's just disrespect for my beliefs. Worry about yourself and I will worry about my own fate. You don't have the right to take that responsibility onto yourself.
"We are adamant with you because we can't comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can't figure out why you would reject that offer." Let me say this really slowly so you can understand. All religions bear the hallmarks of being totally man-made. Therefor there is no gods, no heaven, no hell (what kind of a god would create hell? not a loving one...), no redemption, no.... If the Bible is God's word, wouldn't you think that he would have made his words immutable and immune to the huge number of copying errors made by scribes? There are more errors in the manuscripts than words in the whold of the New Testament! What atheists don't understand is why you would believe in a deity just because a book says so! I've said it before, just because the National Enquirer says Bat Boy exists doesn't make it so!
I am not one of those atheists that will insult you or curse at you (unless you really tick me off). That there are atheists that will do that is true, just as there are theists who will do the same, but they are a minority. People are people. Most atheists are (unfortunately) silent. Thankfully, this is changing due to people like you.
In Reason,
Unashamedly Atheist
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spirituality. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Faith and Science
In my last blog on the MySpace version, I had the following comment:
"None of this can ever be proven. So what must you have in your theorys? FAITH. You really have no evidence of transitonal fossils, Have not found the missing link between human and ape....."
My rebuttal was scathing, and rightfully so. First, Science does not deal in proof. Never has, never will. Science is about explaining observations, coming up with a provisional explanation which explains the data. As to this person's assertion that there are no transitional fossils, that's baloney. Go to any museum of natural history and you will see (literally) tons of them. There are many lineages which have demonstrated the progression to new forms. The development of the horse, dinosaurs to birds, the whale from land to sea mammal, and many others have been clearly delineated. Indeed, Evolutionary Theory predicted that such intermediary forms existed and where they would be found in the fossil record. This is the ultimate test of any theory and in this the Theory of Natural Selection has been astoundingly successful. The human evolutionary lineage is also remarkably fleshed out, despite this person's belief. It is very difficult to find such fossils, though we have and continue to add to our knowledge when a new fossil is found.
This commentor also ignores (or is perhaps unaware of) the fact that while the fossil record is of great interest in the verification of Evolution, it is not all that important. Darwin did not have fossils to work from when he wrote his great opus, the 'Origin of Species'. He was using comparative morphology. Just as important has been the development of molecular genetic techniques to look at and even time branching in the phylogenetic tree. Using the molecular clock, for instance, molecular genetics has shown that champanzees and man have a common ancestry which split some six million years ago. All of this data fits together elegantly. When you have different techniques from completely different areas fitting together like that you know you have a very robust theory.
Could the Theory of Natural Selection be wrong? Yep. What is the likelihood of it being wrong? About the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a 747. ToE is correct far beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. Any protestations by those that take the a literal interpretation of the Bible are simply the weak, desperate cries of those drowning in a sea of the untruths they seem incapable of divesting themselves of.
But I did say one thing in response that was incorrect: that there is no faith in Science. As Sam Harris has pointed out, there is faith at some level in Science. But this kind of faith can not be equated with religious faith. Let's take a look at a couple of examples to illustrate this point. Let's say that I want something from a department store and I need it by this evening, but I have no time to go out and get it. So, I ask a reliable friend to take some of my hard earned cash and buy it for me. I certainly would not ask a complete stranger to do this, so why do I ask my friend? Simple. This friend has a track record of doing similar things for me. This is faith. I have faith that my friend will accomplish the task that he/she has agreed to do.
Now, let's take a look at the second example. Let's say the manual for my SVT Focus says that my car can fly. Truly fly long distances, not just when going over hilly terrain. But it also says that it will only do this when there is no one in the car, and no one is looking. Any reasonable person would be skeptical about this, wouldn't they? But if you take a literal interpretation of the manual, you would say that it does. Why? Because it says so right in the manual, of course! The correctly skeptical person would require evidence that the manual is correct, but a literal interpretationist does not. Is this literal interpretation faith? Absolutely not. It is BLIND FAITH, a completely different animal. It is belief without substance, and is therefore totally unreliable. Can blind faith ever be correct? Sure it can. By accident. But look at the number of faiths in the world today, which falls in the thousands. Let's say that one is correct. Even if you are a believer you have only a small chance of being right. Those odds drop vastly farther when dead religions are included in the calculation.
There is a vast difference in the type of faith that is in Science from that which Believers hold. In fact, we have confidence in Theories (note the use of 'T' here) because they explain observations, make testable predictions, and are falsifiable. Faith is more about the methodologies used in Science, not in the actual theories themselves. Blind faith can be correct only by accident, and is NEVER right.
"None of this can ever be proven. So what must you have in your theorys? FAITH. You really have no evidence of transitonal fossils, Have not found the missing link between human and ape....."
My rebuttal was scathing, and rightfully so. First, Science does not deal in proof. Never has, never will. Science is about explaining observations, coming up with a provisional explanation which explains the data. As to this person's assertion that there are no transitional fossils, that's baloney. Go to any museum of natural history and you will see (literally) tons of them. There are many lineages which have demonstrated the progression to new forms. The development of the horse, dinosaurs to birds, the whale from land to sea mammal, and many others have been clearly delineated. Indeed, Evolutionary Theory predicted that such intermediary forms existed and where they would be found in the fossil record. This is the ultimate test of any theory and in this the Theory of Natural Selection has been astoundingly successful. The human evolutionary lineage is also remarkably fleshed out, despite this person's belief. It is very difficult to find such fossils, though we have and continue to add to our knowledge when a new fossil is found.
This commentor also ignores (or is perhaps unaware of) the fact that while the fossil record is of great interest in the verification of Evolution, it is not all that important. Darwin did not have fossils to work from when he wrote his great opus, the 'Origin of Species'. He was using comparative morphology. Just as important has been the development of molecular genetic techniques to look at and even time branching in the phylogenetic tree. Using the molecular clock, for instance, molecular genetics has shown that champanzees and man have a common ancestry which split some six million years ago. All of this data fits together elegantly. When you have different techniques from completely different areas fitting together like that you know you have a very robust theory.
Could the Theory of Natural Selection be wrong? Yep. What is the likelihood of it being wrong? About the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a 747. ToE is correct far beyond any doubt, let alone reasonable doubt. Any protestations by those that take the a literal interpretation of the Bible are simply the weak, desperate cries of those drowning in a sea of the untruths they seem incapable of divesting themselves of.
But I did say one thing in response that was incorrect: that there is no faith in Science. As Sam Harris has pointed out, there is faith at some level in Science. But this kind of faith can not be equated with religious faith. Let's take a look at a couple of examples to illustrate this point. Let's say that I want something from a department store and I need it by this evening, but I have no time to go out and get it. So, I ask a reliable friend to take some of my hard earned cash and buy it for me. I certainly would not ask a complete stranger to do this, so why do I ask my friend? Simple. This friend has a track record of doing similar things for me. This is faith. I have faith that my friend will accomplish the task that he/she has agreed to do.
Now, let's take a look at the second example. Let's say the manual for my SVT Focus says that my car can fly. Truly fly long distances, not just when going over hilly terrain. But it also says that it will only do this when there is no one in the car, and no one is looking. Any reasonable person would be skeptical about this, wouldn't they? But if you take a literal interpretation of the manual, you would say that it does. Why? Because it says so right in the manual, of course! The correctly skeptical person would require evidence that the manual is correct, but a literal interpretationist does not. Is this literal interpretation faith? Absolutely not. It is BLIND FAITH, a completely different animal. It is belief without substance, and is therefore totally unreliable. Can blind faith ever be correct? Sure it can. By accident. But look at the number of faiths in the world today, which falls in the thousands. Let's say that one is correct. Even if you are a believer you have only a small chance of being right. Those odds drop vastly farther when dead religions are included in the calculation.
There is a vast difference in the type of faith that is in Science from that which Believers hold. In fact, we have confidence in Theories (note the use of 'T' here) because they explain observations, make testable predictions, and are falsifiable. Faith is more about the methodologies used in Science, not in the actual theories themselves. Blind faith can be correct only by accident, and is NEVER right.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Connection Between Religion and Morality is an Illusion!
As Sam Harris said in his speech to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, we never respect stupidity in our society unless it is religious stupidity. People that believe stupid things are not necessarily stupid, though some certainly are. Nor are they necessarily lunatics, though undoubtedly some of them are.
LoL! So, because the Bible is old, and inconvenient, it's just some fantasy? A respected woman I know once said this, in reply to the Bible and Christianity being false:
"If I'm wrong, then what does it matter? I have taken great comfort in these teachings. And if I'm right, what will happen to you?"
Judaism should not exist at all? By what standard? If there is no God, or even the word of God passed onto us through such things as the Bible, who's to say what should and shouldn't be? When there is no clearly defined Good, and no clearly defined Evil, everything becomes acceptable. Without God, without his word, there is no evil, and there is no good. Any person could do anything that they so desired without punishment, because there is nothing to hold them to any obligation. Ask yourself why it is that you would think it is wrong to murder an innocent person. Ask yourself why it is cruel to sexualy molest young children. Without God, these things are not wrong.
"The worst thing the Devil could have done is prove he didn't exist."
Don't disbelieve in something just because it is unpopular, or inconvenient. Disbelieve something if it is false, illogical, and unfounded.
Ah, Pascal's Wager (if in a rudimentary form)! As if that argument for belief hasn't been destroyed many, MANY times over… First, which god should you believe in? You can't believe in them all. And if you are wrong you have lived the whole of the one life you get based on a lie. Is it just me, or is that not a horrible fate?
There are many things in the Bible we now take to be shockingly immoral which seem to be part of everyday life in the time that the original codices were written. Take slavery, for instance. In no place in the Bible is slavery condemned, yet a civil war in
The idea that religion has anything to do with being moral is a lie. How can performing acts of good be respected when they are done out of fear of punishment? How can anyone really say they are moral on the basis that if they disobey dogmatic rules they will not be rewarded in the end? As Sam Harris said, religion gives bad reasons to be good, where good reasons available.
I also agree with Harris that the only rational basis for a system of morals is a concern for the well-being and suffering of others. To say that "without God, without his word, there is no evil and there is no good" is plainly wrong. I feel good when I open the door for a disabled person. I felt outrage with the knowledge that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds and Shiites, people that he had an obligation to protect. Yet I do not believe.
I firmly believe that murder is wrong. I also firmly believe that molesting children is immoral. In neither of these moral calculations have I invoked any deity, let alone the Christian god. According to this person's view, I should not feel that way. I should be raping, mugging, murdering with abandon. Yet I am not. If the Bible and belief in God are the sole sources of morality, then why are responses to moral and ethical dilemmas virtually the same whether you are a believer or non-believer? This has been studied in great detail, and those interested should consult Marc Hauser's Moral Minds.
This misconception that only a belief in God can make us good must be dispelled. I don't disbelieve because it is unpopular (and just when was Christianity unpopular in the last century?) or inconvenient. I disbelieve because any religion is false, illogical and unfounded, not to mention irrational.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Deepak Chopra on The God Delusion - Part IV
To recap Deepak Chopra's objections to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion:
- In Part I Chopra claims that it is Dawkins' assertion that if Science can not explain the existence of something, that something does not exist. Hogwash. Apparently, Chopra does not understand Ockham's Razor: anything not required in an explanation is superfluous and must be cut from the final synthesis. God is not required to explain anything, and therefore has little chance of existing.
- Part II is just a superfluous reiteration of his statement in Part I.
- In Part III Chopra attempts to debunk materialism through the anthropic principle and the existence of Quantum Mechanics. The anthropic principle has taken a huge blow recently with the publication of the results of simulating the universe in the total absence of weak nuclear interactions. Quantum Mechanics is not only itself a part of materialism, it was BORN from materialism. In essence, Chopra debunks himself.
Time for Part IV, where Chopra asserts that Dawkins believes that:
The universe is neither intelligent nor conscious. Science doesn't need those ingredients to explain nature and its workings. Starting with atoms and molecules governed by strict physical laws, we will eventually explain everything.
Seeing as there is no evidence in support of an intelligent or conscious universe, I can not see how Chopra is able to refute this, and he doesn't disappoint. Instead, he makes an ad hoc attack: "This argument has to be made in a very loud voice with total conviction to sound plausible. Dawkins holds that humans are conscious because chemicals randomly collide in the brain to produce a phantom we ignorantly call the mind. This is a fashionable view and in fact is the logical outcome of arch materialism. Where else could mind come from if not molecules, assuming that molecules are the basis of the brain and therefore of reality itself?"
Where else indeed? "Common sense finds it hard to take this argument seriously, because it leads to nonsense. The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt. Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious? If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together--along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals--suddenly makes them intelligent. The bald fact is that Dawkins defends an absurd position because he can't make the leap to a different set of assumptions." What is he saying? That a human body is composed of just carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen and sulfur? It was once said that the human body is composed of about $6 of these chemicals. But this ignored that the synthesis of complex molecules is very expensive. The $6 figure was rather myopic. This is no different than Chopra's view. Consciousness comes from the enormously complex biochemistry and structure of the human brain, a result of evolutionary processes. The only assumption in Dawkins position is that consciousness is explainable via naturalism.
So what are Chopra's assumptions?
"--Consciousness is part of existence. It wasn't created by molecules.
--Intelligence is an aspect of consciousness.
--Intelligence grows as life grows. Both evolve from within. --The universe evolved along intelligent lines."
This is meaningless drivel. Is an amoeba conscious? It exists. Molecules exist, but are hardly conscious. Intelligence requires consciousness; it is not an aspect of it. Intelligence grows as life grows? I don't even know what that means. The universe evolved along intelligent lines? No. The universe is exactly as we would expect it to be in the absence of design. The big difference between Dawkins' and Chopra's positions is that in Dawkins' case, materialism is his starting point. He has no conclusion to influence his path. Chopra's on the other hand (and this is true of creationists as well) starts with his conclusion: the universe is conscious. It's his base assumption and his final answer, at which he arrives not from empirical evidence, but personal prejudice.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Soul Cravings
I have just finished listening to the webcast on The Things That Matter Most (hosted by Rick Davis and Leal Arrington) with guest Erwin McManus. His new book, Soul Cravings, is discussed:
We can spend our whole lives trying to satisfy the one insatiable part of our being, our soul craving. Our capacity for spiritual experience both proves our need for something greater than ourselves and leaves us wanting when we fill it with anything but God.
Erwin McManus makes the case that we can find evidence for God and eternity within our own souls and persistent desires for love, destiny and meaning. And this evidence is even more compelling than the empirical evidence from textual criticism, archaeology, fulfilled prophecy and the hard sciences.
Well, what I expected was the usual gloss-over on exactly just what a soul is and just when was it that the existence of said soul was established. I said in an earlier blog that the this sort of gnostic evidence is tacit to an admission that empirical evidence, where it does not totally refute theistic positions, is nonexistent so we have to fill the void with emotional arguments.
Only one person has ever been needed to destroy such nonsense: David Hume. As Hume said, "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." Couldn't have said it better myself. How does one 'know' that they have a soul? You may feel that you have one, but could this not be an illusion? You bet. Humans evolved to see patterns, even where there aren't any. So-called inner knowledge is so subject to bias and interpretation that it is completely useless.
Can Evolution explain Love? The hosts and their guests seem to think that propagation of genes involves only sex. In some animals this is true, but not for mammals. Our young are born at a stage of development where they are still completely helpless and need rearing to survive. In fact, how can rearing be explained without the existence of something like Love? It can't, of course. So what did their guest prove? Nothing. These people need to read a book on Evolution NOT approved by the Discovery Institute. Obviously, they have never heard of Hamilton's Rule.
But my favorite part was an attempt to counter an argument made by Brian Sapient, founder of the Blasphemy Challenge, based on the Argument from Evil: the existence of hell shows that God is not a god of love and therefore the Christian god does not exist. What McManus says is that because Sapient does not believe in hell, his argument is disingenuous. "One minute you say that you don't believe in God because of hell, then say that you don't really believe in hell. So you can't use hell as an argument if you don't believe in hell. Let's say that there's no hell. Now prove to me there is no God." How many things are wrong with this? What Brian Sapient is doing is pointing out the inconsistencies in the framework that McManus et al are proponents of. Sapient's belief in hell is irrelevant. If there is no hell, then the Christian position falls apart since it depends largely on the existence of hell. This is just stupidity.
I gave this a fair listen to, as I promised. I did have some presuppositions, but the hosts and their guest could have dispelled these had they so chose. For instance,
We can spend our whole lives trying to satisfy the one insatiable part of our being, our soul craving. Our capacity for spiritual experience both proves our need for something greater than ourselves and leaves us wanting when we fill it with anything but God.
Soul Cravings is a powerful, down-to-earth exposition that interprets our need for community, meaning, and destiny as common sense apologetics pointing to the existence of and our need for God. The book will deeply stir the reader to consider and chase after the spiritual implications of their soul's deepest longings.
The show summary was as follows:Erwin McManus makes the case that we can find evidence for God and eternity within our own souls and persistent desires for love, destiny and meaning. And this evidence is even more compelling than the empirical evidence from textual criticism, archaeology, fulfilled prophecy and the hard sciences.
Well, what I expected was the usual gloss-over on exactly just what a soul is and just when was it that the existence of said soul was established. I said in an earlier blog that the this sort of gnostic evidence is tacit to an admission that empirical evidence, where it does not totally refute theistic positions, is nonexistent so we have to fill the void with emotional arguments.
Only one person has ever been needed to destroy such nonsense: David Hume. As Hume said, "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." Couldn't have said it better myself. How does one 'know' that they have a soul? You may feel that you have one, but could this not be an illusion? You bet. Humans evolved to see patterns, even where there aren't any. So-called inner knowledge is so subject to bias and interpretation that it is completely useless.
Can Evolution explain Love? The hosts and their guests seem to think that propagation of genes involves only sex. In some animals this is true, but not for mammals. Our young are born at a stage of development where they are still completely helpless and need rearing to survive. In fact, how can rearing be explained without the existence of something like Love? It can't, of course. So what did their guest prove? Nothing. These people need to read a book on Evolution NOT approved by the Discovery Institute. Obviously, they have never heard of Hamilton's Rule.
But my favorite part was an attempt to counter an argument made by Brian Sapient, founder of the Blasphemy Challenge, based on the Argument from Evil: the existence of hell shows that God is not a god of love and therefore the Christian god does not exist. What McManus says is that because Sapient does not believe in hell, his argument is disingenuous. "One minute you say that you don't believe in God because of hell, then say that you don't really believe in hell. So you can't use hell as an argument if you don't believe in hell. Let's say that there's no hell. Now prove to me there is no God." How many things are wrong with this? What Brian Sapient is doing is pointing out the inconsistencies in the framework that McManus et al are proponents of. Sapient's belief in hell is irrelevant. If there is no hell, then the Christian position falls apart since it depends largely on the existence of hell. This is just stupidity.
I gave this a fair listen to, as I promised. I did have some presuppositions, but the hosts and their guest could have dispelled these had they so chose. For instance,
- A clear definition of the soul was not presented;
- Evidence for the existence of a soul was not only lacking, but its existence was assumed and that everyone would be happy with that;
- Love, a sense of community, meaning were presented as if they lead to the existence of God, yet totally ignoring other perfectly satisfactory naturalistic explanations. Leal erroneously suggested that Evolution can in fact not explain these things;
- Non-emprical 'intrinsic' evidence is posited to have as much value as empirical evidence, to which David and I say 'Hogwash!'. Theist apologists such as McManus or Plantinga need this to be seen as the case, otherwise their arguments are completely unsupported by any evidence at all.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Inanity that is Deepak Chopra Continues....
I read Deepak Chopra's latest blog entry and felt a blog coming on. I know you mean well, Deepak, but you really should stick to things you know and understand. I just don't know what those things are, and neither do you. Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.
"I remain fascinated by orthodox defenders of Darwinism, who believe that the success of a scientific theory proves its infallibility. As a passing note, I have never denied natural selection, but the holes in current evolutionary theory are glaring." Orthodox defenders of Darwinism? Is that like the Knights Templar? And Darwinism does not exist. It is Evolution. Does the success of a scientific theory prove its infallibility? In Science there is no such thing as infallible. When a theory describing a phenomenon fails, it is either changed to include the new data or discarded in favor of a new synthesis. No scientist ever dogmatically holds onto a theory just because he/she likes it. We leave that to religion. The success of Evolutionary Theory has been emense and thus does validate it. Since there have been no serious challenges to it, it remains. But as Einstein said, there will not be any ultimate theory of everything. Evolutionary Theory will not be supplanted by a new theory any more than Relativistic Theory replaced Newtonian Mechanics.
"Responders have criticized my example of honey bees that die when they sting. I am well aware that there are drones, workers, and a queen in each hive. But the fact that the workers are sterile doesn't refute the example but only strengthens it. How can a queen bee, who is responsible for laying all the eggs, possibly know whether some hatch with stingers that are fatal or not? How can her genes know? That they somehow do know is part of the credo of sociobiology. Let's say, however, that some hives survive with workers that die after they sting while others don't survive with workers that can sting multiple times (as bumblebees can)? There is no way to attribute the survival to this adaptation, and in addition, it's only common sense that workers that can sting multiple times are far better defenders than those that die immediately. This is an evolutionary conundrum and remains one despite Darwinian efforts to explain it." Not at all. The large number of workers means that bees that die because they lose their stingers (or for any other reason) do not deplete the hive population significantly. Indeed, the loss of the stinger provides increased protection value, continuing to work long after the initial sting itself. As for how the queen bee's genes know any of this, the answer is they don't. By this bizarre statement, I can only assume Deepak is trying to figure out why workers have stingers that detach, and queens don't. This is in fact related to the diet given the pupae, which changes the hormonal mix to differentiate each type. Natural selection has selected for bee colonies where the workers lose their sting for the aforementioned reason. The workers have no genetic interest in surviving, except to protect the queen. This is in fact why the queen bee has a stinger which does not. She uses the stinger to fend off rivals. A surviving queen bee which would die after using the stinger wouldn't be around to pass on the genes. This is just one example that Deepak demonstrates of the complete and utter lack of understanding of Evolutionary Theory.
"Darwinism has hit a serious obstacle in its attempt to explain adaptations in a more sophisticated way. Survival is a conscious act, and ignoring that fact in favor of materialism is a dead end." Survival is a conscious act? Since when? I would say that even in humans it is not conscious. We evolved with behavior which produces a desire to stay alive. Not to do so is not much of an evolutionary strategy, in my humble opinion. How is instinct conscious? "It's quite self-contradictory for current evolutionary biologists to speak of adaptations that benefit the genes of a species without elucidating how a gene can know anything about the outside world. How do the genes of a queen bee, for example, absorb the information about what's happening to worker bees without some resort of intelligence?" This gave me mental whiplash. The very act of asking such a question betrays Deepak's complete and total ignorance of Evolutionary Theory. The utter inanity of thinking that genes need to have knowledge of their environment makes my head explode. Does Deepak even grasp the basic concept of Natural Selection? It is the gene that is affected by selection pressures over generations of replication, not the gene changing in order to survive in a particular environment. There is no 'absorption of information'. Genes that cause an organism to have some advantage over its rivals tends to be passed on to the next generation. What Deepak is suggesting seems almost Lamarckian, a long defunct attempt at explaining Evolution.
"Moreover, crude notions of competition and survival of the fittest are grossly inadequate. The entire field of ecology is based on cooperation, symbiosis, and holistic forces that shape life on this planet." Should I even bother to comment on what is wrong here? I don't think he understands the concept of "survival of the fittest". To be fair, most people don't. His view seems to suggest that ecology is all warm and fuzzy, devoid of competition. I got news for you, Deepak. Bambi wasn't a documentary. And what the hell are holistic forces? Natural Selection is by far the most important shaper of gene propagation.
"The deeper questions are these:
--How does competition fit in with its opposite, cooperation?" Competition and cooperation go hand in hand. Indeed, cooperation can enhance competition. If you equate cooperation with altruism, then you are misguided. Truly altruistic behavior is a myth. Birds flock for safety in numbers, where more eyes are looking out for danger, but this is hardly altruistic. Competition is occurring simultaneously with cooperation.
"--How can mutations really be random given that complex adaptations such as flight require multiple adaptations simultaneously?" Oh, my. Can you say 'Irreducible Complexity'? Sorry, Deepak, that was debunked long ago. The evolution of the wing has long been understood. Indeed, it is a prime example of convergent evolution. If it was so difficult, then this would not be the case. It is incorrect that multiple adaptations had to occur simultaneously. This would only be true if the wing were to simply pop into existence, which could not happen according to Evolutionary Theory.
"--How can we explain adaptations that don't benefit mating preferences? The honey bee is a perfect example. Worker bees take no part in mating, and it's ludicrous to think that drones prefer queens whose genes produce worker bees that die after they sting?" Another whiplash-producing statement. Unbelievable stupidity. There is no word in the English language, perhaps not in any language, to describe this. Queens do not produce offspring like we do. The form of the bee is strongly affected by diet, controlled by worker bees. The detachable sting conveyed an advantage to survival. THAT is what matters.
"--How can we explain adaptations that only come into effect after mating, such as the differing life spans of creatures after they breed? By what criteria, for example, does Nature choose for one insect to live ninety days instead of one day?" One might as well ask why lifespan of our species is increasing. As you might expect, it is due to Natural Selection. We are delaying childbirth to later on in life, thus increased longevity is selected for. (It's a common misconception that it is due to increased overall health. Medical advances have only had a small effect on our longevity.)
"--How can we explain the rise of consciousness out of unconscious molecules?" If you are suggesting that Science cannot explain consciousness because it has been unable to up to this point, then you are following the false dichotomy argument, Deepak. A bad argument. We only now have tools which allow us to explore the mind and thus is a field in its infancy. To explain consciousness in terms of spirituality is vacuous. If you cannot speak in scientific terms about a concept, you cannot speak intelligibly about it. There is no shame in the words "we don't know." Spiritualists make fools of themselves speaking of things like consciousness when they have not scientific data to fall back upon in support. You are no different, Deepak.
"Darwinians bluster that the answers to these mysteries already exist. This is far from true. I have debated Nobel laureates and other scientific notables on these issues." Bully for you. But you don't understand the basic concepts of what you were debating on, and I doubt you held up well against their arguments except in your own mind.
I'm not a big fan of debates on Evolution vs ID/Creation. Dawkins was told by Gould that he felt that it gave unnecessary and misplaced credibility to creationists just for showing up. That's one reason, but I have stronger ones. What is the outcome of debating this subject? Generally speaking the polarity is such that each side just hears what they want out of the debate. No minds are changed. And what does it mean to win a debate? Does that mean that the 'winning' side's version is truth? No. It just means the winner is a better debater. I've taken a side that I didn't actually agree with and kicked ass in a debate. It's not about the truth. So I don't find debates particularly useful.
Anyway, this is a man who's ideas have a significant following. But if his philosophy is built on such a weak and shaky foundation, I must conclude that everything in it is suspect and no one should pay Deepak Chopra any mind. He only strengthens my feeling that the equation below holds true:
spiritualist = flake.
"I remain fascinated by orthodox defenders of Darwinism, who believe that the success of a scientific theory proves its infallibility. As a passing note, I have never denied natural selection, but the holes in current evolutionary theory are glaring." Orthodox defenders of Darwinism? Is that like the Knights Templar? And Darwinism does not exist. It is Evolution. Does the success of a scientific theory prove its infallibility? In Science there is no such thing as infallible. When a theory describing a phenomenon fails, it is either changed to include the new data or discarded in favor of a new synthesis. No scientist ever dogmatically holds onto a theory just because he/she likes it. We leave that to religion. The success of Evolutionary Theory has been emense and thus does validate it. Since there have been no serious challenges to it, it remains. But as Einstein said, there will not be any ultimate theory of everything. Evolutionary Theory will not be supplanted by a new theory any more than Relativistic Theory replaced Newtonian Mechanics.
"Responders have criticized my example of honey bees that die when they sting. I am well aware that there are drones, workers, and a queen in each hive. But the fact that the workers are sterile doesn't refute the example but only strengthens it. How can a queen bee, who is responsible for laying all the eggs, possibly know whether some hatch with stingers that are fatal or not? How can her genes know? That they somehow do know is part of the credo of sociobiology. Let's say, however, that some hives survive with workers that die after they sting while others don't survive with workers that can sting multiple times (as bumblebees can)? There is no way to attribute the survival to this adaptation, and in addition, it's only common sense that workers that can sting multiple times are far better defenders than those that die immediately. This is an evolutionary conundrum and remains one despite Darwinian efforts to explain it." Not at all. The large number of workers means that bees that die because they lose their stingers (or for any other reason) do not deplete the hive population significantly. Indeed, the loss of the stinger provides increased protection value, continuing to work long after the initial sting itself. As for how the queen bee's genes know any of this, the answer is they don't. By this bizarre statement, I can only assume Deepak is trying to figure out why workers have stingers that detach, and queens don't. This is in fact related to the diet given the pupae, which changes the hormonal mix to differentiate each type. Natural selection has selected for bee colonies where the workers lose their sting for the aforementioned reason. The workers have no genetic interest in surviving, except to protect the queen. This is in fact why the queen bee has a stinger which does not. She uses the stinger to fend off rivals. A surviving queen bee which would die after using the stinger wouldn't be around to pass on the genes. This is just one example that Deepak demonstrates of the complete and utter lack of understanding of Evolutionary Theory.
"Darwinism has hit a serious obstacle in its attempt to explain adaptations in a more sophisticated way. Survival is a conscious act, and ignoring that fact in favor of materialism is a dead end." Survival is a conscious act? Since when? I would say that even in humans it is not conscious. We evolved with behavior which produces a desire to stay alive. Not to do so is not much of an evolutionary strategy, in my humble opinion. How is instinct conscious? "It's quite self-contradictory for current evolutionary biologists to speak of adaptations that benefit the genes of a species without elucidating how a gene can know anything about the outside world. How do the genes of a queen bee, for example, absorb the information about what's happening to worker bees without some resort of intelligence?" This gave me mental whiplash. The very act of asking such a question betrays Deepak's complete and total ignorance of Evolutionary Theory. The utter inanity of thinking that genes need to have knowledge of their environment makes my head explode. Does Deepak even grasp the basic concept of Natural Selection? It is the gene that is affected by selection pressures over generations of replication, not the gene changing in order to survive in a particular environment. There is no 'absorption of information'. Genes that cause an organism to have some advantage over its rivals tends to be passed on to the next generation. What Deepak is suggesting seems almost Lamarckian, a long defunct attempt at explaining Evolution.
"Moreover, crude notions of competition and survival of the fittest are grossly inadequate. The entire field of ecology is based on cooperation, symbiosis, and holistic forces that shape life on this planet." Should I even bother to comment on what is wrong here? I don't think he understands the concept of "survival of the fittest". To be fair, most people don't. His view seems to suggest that ecology is all warm and fuzzy, devoid of competition. I got news for you, Deepak. Bambi wasn't a documentary. And what the hell are holistic forces? Natural Selection is by far the most important shaper of gene propagation.
"The deeper questions are these:
--How does competition fit in with its opposite, cooperation?" Competition and cooperation go hand in hand. Indeed, cooperation can enhance competition. If you equate cooperation with altruism, then you are misguided. Truly altruistic behavior is a myth. Birds flock for safety in numbers, where more eyes are looking out for danger, but this is hardly altruistic. Competition is occurring simultaneously with cooperation.
"--How can mutations really be random given that complex adaptations such as flight require multiple adaptations simultaneously?" Oh, my. Can you say 'Irreducible Complexity'? Sorry, Deepak, that was debunked long ago. The evolution of the wing has long been understood. Indeed, it is a prime example of convergent evolution. If it was so difficult, then this would not be the case. It is incorrect that multiple adaptations had to occur simultaneously. This would only be true if the wing were to simply pop into existence, which could not happen according to Evolutionary Theory.
"--How can we explain adaptations that don't benefit mating preferences? The honey bee is a perfect example. Worker bees take no part in mating, and it's ludicrous to think that drones prefer queens whose genes produce worker bees that die after they sting?" Another whiplash-producing statement. Unbelievable stupidity. There is no word in the English language, perhaps not in any language, to describe this. Queens do not produce offspring like we do. The form of the bee is strongly affected by diet, controlled by worker bees. The detachable sting conveyed an advantage to survival. THAT is what matters.
"--How can we explain adaptations that only come into effect after mating, such as the differing life spans of creatures after they breed? By what criteria, for example, does Nature choose for one insect to live ninety days instead of one day?" One might as well ask why lifespan of our species is increasing. As you might expect, it is due to Natural Selection. We are delaying childbirth to later on in life, thus increased longevity is selected for. (It's a common misconception that it is due to increased overall health. Medical advances have only had a small effect on our longevity.)
"--How can we explain the rise of consciousness out of unconscious molecules?" If you are suggesting that Science cannot explain consciousness because it has been unable to up to this point, then you are following the false dichotomy argument, Deepak. A bad argument. We only now have tools which allow us to explore the mind and thus is a field in its infancy. To explain consciousness in terms of spirituality is vacuous. If you cannot speak in scientific terms about a concept, you cannot speak intelligibly about it. There is no shame in the words "we don't know." Spiritualists make fools of themselves speaking of things like consciousness when they have not scientific data to fall back upon in support. You are no different, Deepak.
"Darwinians bluster that the answers to these mysteries already exist. This is far from true. I have debated Nobel laureates and other scientific notables on these issues." Bully for you. But you don't understand the basic concepts of what you were debating on, and I doubt you held up well against their arguments except in your own mind.
I'm not a big fan of debates on Evolution vs ID/Creation. Dawkins was told by Gould that he felt that it gave unnecessary and misplaced credibility to creationists just for showing up. That's one reason, but I have stronger ones. What is the outcome of debating this subject? Generally speaking the polarity is such that each side just hears what they want out of the debate. No minds are changed. And what does it mean to win a debate? Does that mean that the 'winning' side's version is truth? No. It just means the winner is a better debater. I've taken a side that I didn't actually agree with and kicked ass in a debate. It's not about the truth. So I don't find debates particularly useful.
Anyway, this is a man who's ideas have a significant following. But if his philosophy is built on such a weak and shaky foundation, I must conclude that everything in it is suspect and no one should pay Deepak Chopra any mind. He only strengthens my feeling that the equation below holds true:
spiritualist = flake.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Deepak Chopra: One of those 'crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack'
I don't know that Chopra is into crystals, but I couldn't resist using that great line from MC Hawking's "What We Need More of is Science." I'd heard of Deepak Chopra, but never gave him much thought till I came across a blog at one of my favorite Science blogs, Pharyngula. I followed the link to see more and was appalled by the lack of understanding, misinformation and just downright inanity I read. Let's get started with the punting, shall we?
"There's a sense of crisis in the air over the notion that reason itself is in jeopardy. The attack on reason is coming primarily from religious extremists, but the whole ethos of fundamentalism is seen as irrational. So the alarm goes out to defend science and push back unreason. This urgent call is supposed to salvage future progress for humanity and defeat the wave of barbarity that travels under the name of terrorism. But how can anyone seriously defend science as a panacea when it gave us the atomic bomb?" Interesting. Just who is it that espouses Science as such a thing? Science is a way of viewing the world to find out how it works. A toolbox, if you will. Nothing more. If you are looking for moral and ethical guidance, Science offers none. Look elsewhere. (May I suggest "secular humanism"?)
"Rationality is creating new methods of mechanized death every year. The future being planned by so-called rationalists includes robot armies and neutron bombs that can kill every enemy combatant--or civilian population--while leaving their buildings standing." I reiterate: Science is amoral. Rationality has never caused anyone to strap on a bomb with the intent to kill and maim. It is ideology, whether religious or political, which does this. And someone should take Deepak's collection of fifties sci-fi movies away from him.
" Reason isn't the savior of the future. That role belongs to wisdom." Huh? Someone wanna tell me how you can separate wisdom and reason? Or how wisdom can be applied without reason? Sounds to me if his personal philosophy is a little underdone and should go back into the oven.
" For at least two thousand years, our evolution has shifted to the following:
--We assimilate new information and evolve mentally.
--We don't evolve physically (except to grow healthier and live longer) but instead use technology to extend our physical limitations and gain more power over Nature.
--We gain a higher vision of ourselves and evolve spiritually." Arrgh! Another Science education-deficient idiot savant! Spiritual growth is not evolution! And yes, we are continuing to evolve physically! The difference now is that we are creating some of the natural selection pressures ourselves. He clearly has NO IDEA of what he's talking about here.
"Arch materialists like Richard Dawkins, despite an expertise in evolutionary biology, miss the whole point of human evolution, which is that it long ago broke out of the prison of physicality. True, modern athletes are stronger, bigger, faster, and more accomplished than those of the past, but this doesn't affect anyone's survival the way becoming a bigger, stronger, faster gazelle would." Again, Chopra shows his embarrassing lack of understanding of what evolution is. This was written by someone who thinks he knows what Evolution is, but has failed to grasp the concept entirely. And no, Richard Dawkins does not miss the point about human evolution. You do, Chopra. In fact, you miss the whole point of what evolution is: there is no point. There is no end purpose, no guiding mentality. Modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster mainly because they train. True, their genes give them an edge over the likes of (presumably) you and me, but it doesn't happen through an individual's lifetime, as he seems to think. Stupid and ridiculous. Someone give Deepak a copy of 'Evolution for Dummies' for Xmas please.
"Taking all factors together, humans evolve through the metabolism of experience. That is, we absorb everything going on in our environment, and in some rather mysterious ways, the next generation knows more and can do more than we can. I am not being mystical here. When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, Bertrand Russell famously said that he was one of three people in the world who understood it. Now a bright high school student can grasp Einstein's principles, if not his mathematics." "Metabolism of experience"? Just what the hell is that? Why do spiritualists like to use fancy terminology in their attempts to express ideas, yet fail miserably because the terms are so nebulous as to completely obscure all meaning? Could you spiritualist folk please talk plainly without the mumbo-jumbo? We in Science use jargon, it's true, but each term has a very well-defined meaning, not something that sounds like it was pulled from the posterior. If we didn't, journal articles would be books and even more boring to read than they are now.
As I continue to read this I am getting more and more irate. He's not being mystical? He is suggesting that the Gaia hypothesis is responsible for a high schooler's understanding of Relativity in all but name! I think a simpler explanation might be that after a small number of people study and understand the implications of new and revolutionary ideas like Relativity, the concepts can distilled into simpler, more intuitive forms that others can grasp. This is dissemination of information, NOT evolution.
"The same holds true for today's five-year-olds who can navigate through a computer better and faster than many adults of an older generation. We assimilate difficulties, solve them, and move on to a new future as more evolved humans. The evolution of the wisest holds that this cannot be a random process." Yes, it is not random, but it isn't due to some mystical bullshit either. Children are exposed to technologies at a young age, so of course they will be able to handle technologies at a younger age. These are their formative years. But the same type of problems that you have with computers, Deepak, will happen to them with some other new gadgetry. What time is it at Deepak's house? "12 o'clock! 12 o'clock! 12 o'clock!...."
"When asked if he found the cathedrals of Europe inspiring, Mark Twain answered to the effect that the architects forgot to build inspiring people to go in them. We risk leaving the same legacy to the future. What will save us is self-awareness, the key to evolution of the wisest." Wait a minute... Evolution of the wisest? What the....? Is Chokra thinking that evolution can be hijacked in any manner that he sees fit? Get a grip, Deepak. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't care about you, your beliefs or (and especially) your views on what path it should take. Cold and indifferent, but that's just the way the universe is. And, by the way, most members of H. sapiens are already self-aware. So what the hell does that mean? He promises to talk about that in a future post. I await with bated breath...
"There's a sense of crisis in the air over the notion that reason itself is in jeopardy. The attack on reason is coming primarily from religious extremists, but the whole ethos of fundamentalism is seen as irrational. So the alarm goes out to defend science and push back unreason. This urgent call is supposed to salvage future progress for humanity and defeat the wave of barbarity that travels under the name of terrorism. But how can anyone seriously defend science as a panacea when it gave us the atomic bomb?" Interesting. Just who is it that espouses Science as such a thing? Science is a way of viewing the world to find out how it works. A toolbox, if you will. Nothing more. If you are looking for moral and ethical guidance, Science offers none. Look elsewhere. (May I suggest "secular humanism"?)
"Rationality is creating new methods of mechanized death every year. The future being planned by so-called rationalists includes robot armies and neutron bombs that can kill every enemy combatant--or civilian population--while leaving their buildings standing." I reiterate: Science is amoral. Rationality has never caused anyone to strap on a bomb with the intent to kill and maim. It is ideology, whether religious or political, which does this. And someone should take Deepak's collection of fifties sci-fi movies away from him.
" Reason isn't the savior of the future. That role belongs to wisdom." Huh? Someone wanna tell me how you can separate wisdom and reason? Or how wisdom can be applied without reason? Sounds to me if his personal philosophy is a little underdone and should go back into the oven.
" For at least two thousand years, our evolution has shifted to the following:
--We assimilate new information and evolve mentally.
--We don't evolve physically (except to grow healthier and live longer) but instead use technology to extend our physical limitations and gain more power over Nature.
--We gain a higher vision of ourselves and evolve spiritually." Arrgh! Another Science education-deficient idiot savant! Spiritual growth is not evolution! And yes, we are continuing to evolve physically! The difference now is that we are creating some of the natural selection pressures ourselves. He clearly has NO IDEA of what he's talking about here.
"Arch materialists like Richard Dawkins, despite an expertise in evolutionary biology, miss the whole point of human evolution, which is that it long ago broke out of the prison of physicality. True, modern athletes are stronger, bigger, faster, and more accomplished than those of the past, but this doesn't affect anyone's survival the way becoming a bigger, stronger, faster gazelle would." Again, Chopra shows his embarrassing lack of understanding of what evolution is. This was written by someone who thinks he knows what Evolution is, but has failed to grasp the concept entirely. And no, Richard Dawkins does not miss the point about human evolution. You do, Chopra. In fact, you miss the whole point of what evolution is: there is no point. There is no end purpose, no guiding mentality. Modern athletes are bigger, stronger and faster mainly because they train. True, their genes give them an edge over the likes of (presumably) you and me, but it doesn't happen through an individual's lifetime, as he seems to think. Stupid and ridiculous. Someone give Deepak a copy of 'Evolution for Dummies' for Xmas please.
"Taking all factors together, humans evolve through the metabolism of experience. That is, we absorb everything going on in our environment, and in some rather mysterious ways, the next generation knows more and can do more than we can. I am not being mystical here. When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, Bertrand Russell famously said that he was one of three people in the world who understood it. Now a bright high school student can grasp Einstein's principles, if not his mathematics." "Metabolism of experience"? Just what the hell is that? Why do spiritualists like to use fancy terminology in their attempts to express ideas, yet fail miserably because the terms are so nebulous as to completely obscure all meaning? Could you spiritualist folk please talk plainly without the mumbo-jumbo? We in Science use jargon, it's true, but each term has a very well-defined meaning, not something that sounds like it was pulled from the posterior. If we didn't, journal articles would be books and even more boring to read than they are now.
As I continue to read this I am getting more and more irate. He's not being mystical? He is suggesting that the Gaia hypothesis is responsible for a high schooler's understanding of Relativity in all but name! I think a simpler explanation might be that after a small number of people study and understand the implications of new and revolutionary ideas like Relativity, the concepts can distilled into simpler, more intuitive forms that others can grasp. This is dissemination of information, NOT evolution.
"The same holds true for today's five-year-olds who can navigate through a computer better and faster than many adults of an older generation. We assimilate difficulties, solve them, and move on to a new future as more evolved humans. The evolution of the wisest holds that this cannot be a random process." Yes, it is not random, but it isn't due to some mystical bullshit either. Children are exposed to technologies at a young age, so of course they will be able to handle technologies at a younger age. These are their formative years. But the same type of problems that you have with computers, Deepak, will happen to them with some other new gadgetry. What time is it at Deepak's house? "12 o'clock! 12 o'clock! 12 o'clock!...."
"When asked if he found the cathedrals of Europe inspiring, Mark Twain answered to the effect that the architects forgot to build inspiring people to go in them. We risk leaving the same legacy to the future. What will save us is self-awareness, the key to evolution of the wisest." Wait a minute... Evolution of the wisest? What the....? Is Chokra thinking that evolution can be hijacked in any manner that he sees fit? Get a grip, Deepak. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution doesn't care about you, your beliefs or (and especially) your views on what path it should take. Cold and indifferent, but that's just the way the universe is. And, by the way, most members of H. sapiens are already self-aware. So what the hell does that mean? He promises to talk about that in a future post. I await with bated breath...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)