Determinism is Dead. Long Live Determinism!
Faith and Philosophy
| June 21, 2008
| Tim
A century ago, most scientists believed the universe was deterministic -- meaning that if we could just know where everything was, and where it was going, we could use mathematics and physics to predict precisely what would occur. (And no doubt, we would soon be able to make such predictions.)
Determinism thus implied that both human beings and indeed the cosmos itself were mere machines -- there was no room in science for ideas like free will or a soul, or an influence from something outside the material universe.
However, like many materialist dogmas, determinism hasn't panned out.
The first chink in this bit of materialist armor came in the form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: The very act of examining a subatomic particle changed it; thus we could only learn a particle's location or momentum, but not both. Of course, the uncertainty principle didn't undo the idea of a mechanistic universe -- it simply placed a few limits on our knowledge, where very small effects were concerned.
Next came the "hidden variables" question raised by quantum mechanics, where we discovered that particle pairs can appear in empty space with no preceding events or causes in this universe. This idea so offended Einstein (an ardent determinist) that he protested: "God doesn't play dice with the universe!" Alas, Stephen Hawking retorts: "Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."
As Einstein's remark indicates, this was indeed an unsettling idea, which attacked the very foundations of determinism: the idea of a clockwork universe, where every event had a definite, calculable cause. On the other hand, quantum effects are small-scaled -- it was believed that such small effects could never have large consequences. So social planners, Utopians, and science fiction writers didn't need to take much notice: we'd soon be able to predict and control the weather, and perhaps even (as Asimov suggested in his Foundation Trilogy) do the same with individual or societal human behavior.
Sadly, again, the materialists were again wrong: Not long afterwards, chaos theory reared its Medusa-tentacled head, teaching us that many of these Utopian dreams, such as accurate weather prediction were not to be. Tiny effects, chaos theory said, can have huge impacts: the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China can change the weather weeks from now.
The father of cybernetics himself, mathematician Norbert Wiener, insisted that attempts to model the weather by crunching physics equations with computers, as if meteorology were an exact science like astronomy, were doomed to fail. Quoting the old nursery rhyme that told how a kingdom was lost "for want of a nail" (which caused the loss of a horseshoe that kept a knight out of a crucial battle), Wiener warned that "the self-amplification of small details" would foil any attempt to predict weather. One pioneer in computer prediction recalled that Wiener went so far as to say privately that leaders of the work were "misleading the public by pretending that the atmosphere was predictable. [1]
(I myself independently stumbled upon this: I was writing, for fun, a simple planet/sun simulator and discovered that although when two bodies were present a stable orbit always resulted. Yet with three bodies I got completely different results when I adjusted the simulation step interval -- even a little bit. At first, I wondered what I was doing wrong, but then discovered that changing one of the bodies' initial coordinates by a bezillionth of a unit radically altered the results. There was no absolute way to say what happened with a given configuration: an extra pebble on a planet could apparently make the difference between its being spit into space or crashing into another.)
The genie was now permanently loosed from the bottle: Limits on our ability to measure things, and very, very tiny events (including quantum-scaled events) could, in certain systems (weather, the human brain, systems having three planetary bodies) change the outcome in large and inherently unpredictable ways. For those paying attention, determinism was, effectively, dead.
Alas, not everyone has been paying attention. A few weeks ago, The Boston Globe carried an article in which Peter Dizikes, a science journalist, lamented that most people still don't 'get' chaos theory -- and popular culture isn't helping. It seems the need to believe in determinism doesn't die easily (which, I guess, is understandable, given how many political views rest upon deterministic assumptions):
[MIT meteorologist Edward] Lorenz, who died in April, created one of the most beguiling and evocative notions ever to leap from the lab into popular culture: the "butterfly effect," the concept that small events can have large, widespread consequences. The name stems from Lorenz's suggestion that a massive storm might have its roots in the faraway flapping of a tiny butterfly's wings.
Translated into mass culture, the butterfly effect has become a metaphor for the existence of seemingly insignificant moments that alter history and shape destinies.... In 1990's "Havana," Robert Redford, a math-wise gambler, tells Lena Olin, "A butterfly can flutter its wings over a flower in China and cause a hurricane in the Caribbean. They can even calculate the odds."
Such borrowings of Lorenz's idea might seem authoritative to unsuspecting viewers, but they share one major problem: They get his insight precisely backwards. The larger meaning of the butterfly effect is not that we can readily track such connections, but that we can't. To claim a butterfly's wings can cause a storm, after all, is to raise the question: How can we definitively say what caused any storm, if it could be something as slight as a butterfly?
And the "butterfly effect" doesn't merely apply to weather, of course:
Moreover, Lorenz also discovered stricter limits on our knowledge, proving that even models of physical systems with a few precisely known variables, like a heated gas swirling in a box, can produce endlessly unpredictable and nonrepeating effects.[*] This is a founding idea of chaos theory, whose advocates sometimes say Lorenz helped dispel the Newtonian idea of a wholly predictable universe.
[* Again: even a simple simulation of gravity among three astronomical bodies displays this characteristic indeterminacy.]
Quite aside from the question of whether things are predictable, we have the philosophical implications of determinism. If we are but meat-machines (predictable or not) with no soul or "free will", then why is it that even the most ardent believers in this notion (atheists) live in complete contradiction to their alleged beliefs?
Of course, we're glad for this atheistic "hypocrisy": I could imagine nothing scarier than a person who really felt (and consistently lived out) his or her belief that killing other people was no more or less morally important than killing a plant or crushing gravel. Saying human beings are "special" or "interesting" doesn't give me much comfort either, being a subjective, aesthetic preference. (Undoubtedly, some human beings will be less "special" or "beneficial" than others. And indeed, some environmentalists take this to its logical conclusions, arguing global complexity (diversity) is more important than human complexity -- so a lot of humans need to go!)
Denyse O'Leary quotes an interview where Richard Dawkins is confronted this with "hypocrisy" -- where he says one thing and lives quite another. To his credit (unlike many novice atheists who don't even apparently understand their own alleged belief system) he recognizes and confesses the contradiction -- though he also seems to admit being a bit confused about the subject:
Questioner: ... you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn't to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book from the initial condition of the big bang it was set that this would be the product of what we see today.
Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It's not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I've ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write, has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn't seem to make any sense. Now I don't actually know what I actually think about that, I haven't taken up a position about that, it's not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism....
You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won't start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that's what we all ought to... Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is "Oh they were just determined by their molecules." It's stupid to punish them. What we should do is say "This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced." I can't bring myself to do that.
No, Richard: Neither can I. But only one of us lives his life in complete contradiction to the metaphysical stance he proclaims as truth.
Denyse also cites a couple of wonderful bits from G.K. Chesterton, written back when materialism was still widely accepted -- and daring to disagree was "unscientific" or "a contradiction", rather than something you'd read from a science reporter at The Boston Globe:
Some Determinists fancy that Christianity invented a dogma like free will for fun -- a mere contradiction. This is absurd. You have the contradiction whatever you are. Determinists tell me, with a degree of truth, that Determinism makes no difference to daily life. That means - that although the Determinist knows men have no free will, yet he goes on treating them as if they had.
The difference then is very simple. The Christian puts the contradiction into his philosophy. The Determinist puts it into his daily habits. The Christian states as an avowed mystery what the Determinist calls nonsense. The Determinist has the same nonsense for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper every day of his life.
The Christian, I repeat, puts the mystery into his philosophy. That mystery by its darkness enlightens all things. Once grant him that, and life is life, and bread is bread, and cheese is cheese: he can laugh and fight. The Determinist makes the matter of the will logical and lucid: and in the light of that lucidity all things are darkened, words have no meaning, actions no aim. He has made his philosophy a syllogism and himself a gibbering lunatic.
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" who constantly imposes his will across creation. Today (check again in a century) science believes that we are constantly surrounded by subtle events which have no cause emanating from our universe -- and some scientists even speculate (contradicting to the idea that such events can have no effect) that our entire universe may have originated from such an event.
What do these events mean? Is each a point at which our universe splits (again and again) into a near-infinity of other possible universes, with each possibility being played out in an alternate reality? Or are these events, perhaps, the way "God" (the causative force of the universe) continually and subtly manifests his "will" upon our spacetime continuum?
Aren't both suggestions equally speculative, and equally unprovable?
If so, then what's the difference?
The former, a flavor of multiverse theory, was created for philosophical reasons: to enforce the "principle of mediocrity" which insists there's nothing "special" about human existence. Of course, while insisting on the allegedly tremendous importance of this philosophical principle, the materialist also lives in complete contradiction to its much larger implications: treating human life as quite special indeed, and "free will" as real.
Of course, the other conjecture I suggest above also has a philosophical motivation. But I admit it freely, and at least it accords with my own beliefs, as well as even the actual, lived-out beliefs of the very atheists who would undoubtedly object most strenuously to it.
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" ...
Is this a mistype? This sounds like pantheism.
Actually, it would be closer to "panentheism", in the strictest technical sense of the word. (Though I broadly reject what most contemporary proponents of the idea are doing with it.)
"God did this [created the world and mankind] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own [Greek] poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'"
(Paul, in Acts 17:27-28)
It's a simple implication of the characteristic of omnipresence: if God is everywhere, then it's also fair to say that he's all around everyone. It's also not unheard of to hear God referred to as the sustainer of creation (e.g. certain Catholic doctrines).
Pantheism is the belief that all is God -- in which you could never have a real notion of sin. (Since everyone is actually God, but God has somehow forgotten this.) That's quite distinct from merely saying that God is everywhere, or has access to all parts of space.
That makes sense. Thanks!
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons. It is interesting to note that of the three objections, all of them are about knowledge.
Also, the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
People are just machines. So what? You seem to think that is bad- but if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! It seems to be an absurd statement, but if killing people is only a temporary problem because of an afterlife, than murder is more excusable- it is only a mild inconvinience. Needless to say, your life isn't consistant by that principle.
By contrast, if people are machines, if you break them they aren't coming back- our repair skills aren't that good.
Also, the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
Please consider that this is an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot see a pattern is not de facto proof (in the academic sense) that no pattern exists.
Your conclusion is an assumption based off of your own beliefs, definitions and mental constructs and not based off of an analysis of the material world. It is very hard to prove that a thing does not exist.
I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, but to point out that you are speaking based on quite a bit of faith. This reinforces what Tim said about religious people tending to realize when they are speaking based on faith, while atheists assume that they are speaking based on established and proven fact, even when they are speaking on faith.
Also, please explain why you think "A clockwork universe" refers to something different than "A deterministic universe." As far as I can see, they refer to the same thing.
the alternative to determinism ISN'T free will- it is randomness.
Determinism is an all-encompassing statement about how the world works. As such, it can be undone by many things: The existence of a deity, the existence of anything supernatural, the existence of a soul or free will, or (yes) even mere randomness.
The idea there is only one "alternative" to determinism (your belief, apparently) is as absurd as saying there is only one "alternative" to Christianity. Christianity can false if God doesn't exist, or isn't good, or even if he is both but some other faith describes God more accurately. Similarly, other worldviews have more than one condition which could falsify them. Determinism is no exception.
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism?
Ryan is right: I simply used "clockwork universe" as a synonym for determinism. I believe that is the customary meaning (if not, please provide evidence). Even Richard Dawkins, above, seems to disagree with your unique definition. You should write to him about that.
But even if not, you should engage the actual argument being made, rather than redefining it to your tastes.
People are just machines. So what?
I believe that was explained above. Please read.
May I remind you I've asked you repeatedly for evidence for this belief of yours? So far, you don't seem to have any. As Ryan, says, it seems you accept this idea only on "faith" -- and seem have far less evidence supporting your beliefs than most theists have for theirs. This is consistent with my ongoing experience of atheism as a highly irrational, deeply faith-based belief system.
if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! ... Needless to say, your life isn't consistant by that principle.
Um, Samuel? That chain of 'reasoning' is yours, not mine. I don't subscribe to it, for reasons I'll explain in a moment. Your argument here is not a necessary implication of the belief we have souls -- but what I've stated, above, is a necessary implication of determinism. Even Richard Dawkins admits as much.
You might consider thinking about and addressing that argument, rather than pretending it hasn't been made.
if people have souls, it is perfectly okay to kill them! It seems to be an absurd statement, but if killing people is only a temporary problem because of an afterlife, than murder is more excusable- it is only a mild inconvinience.
For the one killed, yes, that would be true -- but certainly not true for his or her loved ones, or for the society which might have benefited from that individual's contributions. The other problem with murder, from a theistic view, is not that experience ends once the body dies -- thus denying the self further experiences. (Theists are fully aware they believe in an afterlife.)
Instead, it is taught that only God has the power to decide when human life should end: it's not something one person may typically independently and arbitrarily decide for another. There are select times when killing is allowed (such as after being justly convicted of murder) -- otherwise, people must be allowed to live out the days of their lives. Wrongly taking away the years of life assigned to another is not a lesser offense than stealing his or her property.
By contrast, if people are machines, if you break them they aren't coming back- our repair skills aren't that good.
And that would be a problem, or refute Richard Dawkins' statement, why, exactly? All you're saying is that when a person is dead, they're dead. That's also true of chickens, cows, pets, and even certain old machines whose parts are no longer available. Saying that doesn't get us to some distinction as to why we should treat humans as something fundamentally different than animals or non-repairable machines.
You made a similar argument with your earlier "but they feel pain!" objection. It doesn't seem you've yet considered or responded to the flaws pointed out in that argument either.
It is an argument from ignorance- there are, quite literally two possible options.
1) Are actions are entirely determined by our nature and our nurture (note, even if we do have a soul it is included in nature- after all, it would be as inherent a part of you as your brain).
2) Actions have a component not determined by nature and nurture.
The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons- a determinist may or may not have that as a possibility, but the future is entirely determined by the past.
Let me give you an analogy. You are dumped in a holo simulator of... say a Denny's. Each time it runs for a set period of time, and then it wipes you memory and starts over, making sure to reset your body (blood sugar levels, urgency to use the bathroom, etc). Now, one of two things can happen.
1) Each round can be the same- you enter the restaurant, wait for a server, sit down, look at the menu, pause and choose an order. Each time you do every action the same way, taking the same amount of time. An external observer would think you are a robot based on the constancy of your behavior.
2) Each round is differant. Your pauses are differant, your order is differant, your expressions are different. Congradulations- you have schizophrenia!
A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism. Supernatural could be covered by determinism. Only free will and randomness aren't- free will because it is the opposing concept and randomness because it is its opposite. It is worth noting is the randomness is low enough level, people would still be deterministic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
What do you know- the definitions are differant... again. You seriously need to learn how to use a dictionary- you get a wrong definition EVERY time.
Here is the evidence. Not to mention that you seem to believe that machines don't have souls. Please provide evidence for that assertation- wait you can't- souls don't exist. I'm not the one pulling assumptions on faith.
You do realize that your whole justification is a piece of nonsense? I'll explain so you can understand-
1) When you die you go to an afterlife.
2) Said afterlife is great if you are a good person, bad if you are evil.
3) Most people are good.
4) People continue to have experiences in the afterlife.
5) People meet up with their loved ones in the afterlife.
6) God is all knowing and powerful so all is according to his plan.
So, in short, yes, people will be unhappy, but it will be a short problem. I mean, a short sacrifice is acceptable for a long term gain? Even if people in this world suffer, they more than make up for it in the next. Heck, killing someone and their family painlessly would eliminate your objections- they all wake up in heaven, no worries! Stealing property on the other hand causes them a hastle, worry, pain and suffering.
There are only several possible objections to that.
1) The afterlife sucks.
2) People have a "destiny"... which you can amazing overule. Irrelevant to benefits though
3) People have free will... which I showed was a nonexistant even with God and souls and the supernatural.
4) There is no afterlife.
5) There is something special about this world (see 1- the afterlife sucks)
That is it. None of them are workable except for 4, which is what I use. Note that there are people who actually argue this way and you can't refute them using your arguments. You choose 4 or you choose the Vox Day way.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html
Why should we treat people decently? Because I'm not a sociopath who is intent on the destruction of all that is true and good? Because I have a part of my brain that whispers to me "Sam- be a good guy. Look at their faces. You want them to like you!" Because I don't enjoy being an evil psychotic monster who feeds on fear and pain?
Basically, morality is the price I pay for living in a group. It was programmed into our heads by long millenia of social existance, where the moral people worked together, the assholes where blackballed when they showed up and the psychopaths were... well, just read this
http://www.executedtoday.com/2007/10/31/1589-peter-stubbe-sybil-stubbe-and-katharina-trump/
You believe in an afterlife and either randomness or freewill- which means death isn't a big deal and you could do ANY behavior at any time. Needles to say, ethics is a problem for you, not me.
It is an argument from ignorance-
What is an argument from ignorance? You like saying this (quite often) but you've never justified your allegation. More words you like to chant when unpleasant evidence appears?
there are, quite literally two possible options... 1) Are actions are entirely determined... 2) Actions have a component not determined by nature and nurture.
Gee, no kidding. That's the entire thesis of the article above.
The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons- a determinist may or may not have that as a possibility, but the future is entirely determined by the past.
Samuel: I realize you like to have your own "private definitions" of words and phrases -- definitions which have nothing to do with the way I clearly used the term above, or the way others have used it. Fine, and so nice of you to share.
But it's as if I wrote an article on the how fruitflies attack citrus fruits, and you responded by trying to redefine "citrus fruits" to mean "tangelos." (a) You're showing how deeply out of touch you are, (b) you're also not advancing the conversation.
I don't mean to be blunt, but I frankly don't care about the multitude of odd definitions which seem to fill your reality. And I don't think other readers (heh, both of them) will either. So please stick to the topic at hand: If you can't understand what is being said, then please ask. Otherwise, I'm asking kindly that you use the definitions in play, instead of spending all your energy trying to change them.
Sadly, this is a trait I see rather frequently in atheists: the belief that reality itself, or an argument about it, can be altered by redefining words in whatever manner pleases the atheist. It is, after all, the core impulse behind Flew's insistence that "atheism" take on the meaning he understood as "agnosticism", and Dawkins' insistence that we all call atheists "Brights."
And rather telling, also, as it's nothing more than the impulse to resort, at each turn, to straw man fallacies -- from those who insist they're "rational."
A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism.
Again, no. Please read the definition that normal people use. When something is "determined by preceding events or natural laws" there is no room for intervention by something supernatural, including God or a soul.
I shouldn't have to spend a half-dozen paragraphs pointing out that you're again speaking, quite literally, nonsense. And I don't mean "stuff I disagree with" -- I mean trying to change the meanings of words to taste.
'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.
'Unimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone, 'important - unimportant - unimportant - important - ' as if he were trying which word sounded best.
What do you know- the definitions are differant... again. You seriously need to learn how to use a dictionary- you get a wrong definition EVERY time.
Samuel: did you even read these? They completely disagree with the definitions you're asserting. In contrast, "determinism" matches exactly how I'm using it, and "clockwork universe" is at least largely consistent (I don't mention a creator who put it in motion, and Wikipedia's definition is historical, not contemporary.)
Another argument by fiat?
Not to mention that you seem to believe that machines don't have souls. Please provide evidence for that assertation- wait you can't- souls don't exist. I'm not the one pulling assumptions on faith.
Well, you're tangling up two assertions. The first is whether machines have souls. I cannot prove they don't, and presume you can't either. But, unlike you, I admit that I believe many things I cannot prove, and cannot provide evidence for.
You, on the other hand, said you only believed things you could prove, or things for which you have evidence. Of course, you don't.
So the difference here is your statement about your own beliefs is, in fact, false. It's not just unsupported by evidence -- it's provably false. As such, it would also appear I have more evidence for my beliefs than you can offer for yours. Which is especially funny, given your insistence about the alleged importance of evidence for you.
The second issue is whether souls exist at all. Here you say again "souls don't exist". Again, I have asked you for evidence for your assertion. Again, you seem to think that simply repeating your belief is a form of evidence.
It is not.
You do realize that your whole justification is a piece of nonsense? I'll explain so you can understand-
Then you go on to write as if you're assuming, again, that I don't know that theists believe in an afterlife which allows people to continue having experiences -- presumably proving that theism allows murder.
Samuel: I just addressed this argument above. Please read it: murder is wrong, in a theistic view, NOT because experiences end at death, but because we're not allowed to arbitrarily "play God" with the lives of others.
Simply repeating your argument (again) that the soul continues (as if I was unaware of this belief among theists) doesn't refute this counterpoint. You speak as if everyone else were dense, but it seems that -you- are having serious trouble hearing and responding to the points of others.
Why should we treat people decently? Because I'm not a sociopath who is intent on the destruction of all that is true and good?
Do you think the American "progressives" were sociopaths "intent on the destruction of all that is true and good"? Your argument seems to be that as long as people have good intentions, they won't do evil, or treat people like animals.
But history says the opposite: The "progressives" thought eugenics was a great idea because they shared your belief that humans were simply a kind of machine. And they certainly did have good intentions, and were trying to increase, not decrease the amount of truth and goodness in the world.
And although parts of society rejected their views, generally they were (and still are -- Margaret Sanger and HG Wells, for example) lauded as wonderful "enlightened" leaders. Society didn't keep them in line at all: rather, they were in the process of changing society itself.
Basically, morality is the price I pay for living in a group.
Agreed, but (a) there are people who don't let groups of people determine their morality (many of them are powerful leaders), and (b) there are groups whose morality entails treating people as mere machines -- discarding inconvenient, trouble-making, or malfunctioning ones.
(This is an argument that I see from repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")
Again, none of your protests here refute (or even touch on, in most cases) the point above: that materialism necessarily implies that people are no different than other machines. Even if it were true all groups required you to act otherwise, that doesn't imply their demand is sensible or true. If they say: "Act like human beings have intrinsic, objective value, or we'll shun you!" that doesn't imply their view is true, nor that you should necessarily humor their delusion. It also doesn't imply that a person who disagrees will act that way when no-one is looking.
And of course, many atheists don't: When they've subject to society's rule, they go along, but when they get into power, well, anything goes. And the same is true for societies (groups) which have bought, as a whole, into materialistic beliefs.
It was programmed into our heads by long millenia of social existance...
Again, your beliefs are refuted by the plain evidence: Look at history. Is it more filled with people acting decently towards one another, or is it, rather (especially outside of Europe and the US) more filled with genocide, oppression, and the belief that "might makes right"?
Do you have any idea how rare democracy has been, historically, and how fragile and vulnerable it still is today?
You believe in an afterlife and either randomness or freewill- which means death isn't a big deal and you could do ANY behavior at any time.
Samuel: You might want to learn some basic attributes of theism before lecturing about what it teaches. Here you seem to think that I can do "ANY behavior" simply because I believe life continues after death.
Really?
Ever hear of "judgment"? It means that the force which created the universe has a moral aspect, and is not at all indifferent to wrongdoing. Most theists (and many non-theists, oddly) believe in this concept. So they can't simply do "ANY behavior" -- bad behaviors carry a penalty.
Again, even if your argument WERE true of theists, it still doesn't refute the argument about materialism. You seem to think that if I say: "Your yard is a mess" that "Well, someone else's yard is a mess too!" is a refutation.
No, it isn't. You might both have problems. If there's some person whose beliefs allow or even encourage bad behavior, that doesn't refute the charge that yours do also.
So to summarize: You've offered novel definitions of "clockword universe" and "determinism". You & I both claim that the others' definitions are wrong. I have offered evidence (even quoting the definition) to this effect, you simply insisted it was so.
You still haven't provided evidence for your belief that no supernatural exists, implying that you believe things without evidence, and insist otherwise. Which means you believe not merely faith-based or unproven ideas, but many provably false ones.
You ignored my rebuttal to your "theists can do anything!" argument, and repeated it again. But, to your credit, you finally attempted to rebut the implication that determinism would allow an atheist to treat people as machines by saying that society wouldn't let the atheist do that, and also by insisting that good intentions will prevent this. I refute both arguments by pointing to history, and pointing out that societies sometimes adopt the same views.
Nor did you apparently even attempt to refute my argument that determinism -- meaning the definition used by myself, Dawkins, and as defined in the dictionary -- has been roundly refuted by science.
Batting a zero here so far, Samuel.
I answer in order of your responces.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance- he fails to show how there are any alternatives to determinism and randommness. So technically it isn't an argument from ignorance, just him repeating himself louder. So technically, not ignorance, just "complete lack of argument". The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA- I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
You do realize that is also my point? If we weren't using common assumptions, communication would be impossible. However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't realize free will is an impossiblity.
I was and AM using the wiki definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe
Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes.
You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you! Honestly, I have NO IDEA what you are reading- but it ISN'T my responces. We aren't "Being productive" because YOU keep on making shit up.
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist. Have you considered the fact he was wrong? You do realize that almost noone had heard of him before he became a deist- not to mention the fact that atheism has that meaning as part of its STRUCTURE. Honestly, I have kept asking you to give a word that means "lacks a belief in God" that isn't atheism or agnosticism (which was invented by Huxley). You have not do so to know. I am forced to assume you are taking that mans ONE statement and assuming it is gospel truth and that EVERY other usage EVER is wrong.
Seriously, which is more likely? That there is a major atheism which diseminated a new definition and you are the only person who caught on to the conspiracy? Or that Flew himself doesn't know much about atheism- he is a philosopher who changed his mind because of the design argument! If you are an atheist and can't rebut the design argument... honestly, I have no clue how you can do that for decades.
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE? You begining to see a pattern here? There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism- supernatural things are simply those not bound by physical laws. I'm not refering to physical laws- I'm refering to logic.
And again you accuse me of not reading the definitions, and again my usage is accurate. I said
"You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons. It is interesting to note that of the three objections, all of them are about knowledge."
And your objection, while consitantly calling me an idiot has failed to show that this is wrong.
Wiki says "philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences", which, low and behold matches mine. I can't go into any more detail- you are, quite literally not seeing the same things I am, because they are exactly the same!
You keep on accusing me of faith because you are to foolish to realize you have repeatedly mischaracterized my arguments. It is so nice to make things up to fit your preconceptions- I should try it some time.
Souls don't exist because the supernatural doesn't exist. Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls- the fact that everything can be adequately explained by materialism is a big point.
And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls... which means that you completely ignored my point AND you admitted you hold this belief for no reason whatsoever.
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so. In other words, divine command theory. See Vox Day for why this is insane.
As long as people have good intentions AND a view of reality that matches reality, THAN they will do good. It isn't hard you know.
Actually progressive were the middle class looking for ways to control the poor. They used a variety of social programs in the hope of reducinbg support for socialism and eugenics in an effort to eliminate the feeble minded. Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality, they managed to commit lots of evil. But don't worry- guess who stood up to them? The church? Not really- in Germany they managed to stop the killing of the handicapped AFTER they got through the first hundred thousand. No, there were two groups that managed to stop it- the communists who rejected it as mad and decadent borguis science and one other country- England- had it stopped by a libertarian member of parliment. Interestingly enough, labor supported the first bill as an effort to cull the weak of their consitituents could get a bigger share of the pie, but it passed with no teeth and was shot down the second time.
Or, short version- your knowledge of history is, again, depressingly shallow. You declare eugenics is due to determinism despite the fact that 1) this is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
and 2) it is almost certainly false- Hitler, the Ur example was NOT a determinist.
It is important to note another mistake you made- sure, Sanger and Wells had those views. So did Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson- here, link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#History
People with a) are sociopaths and psychotics- we need to watch them. Also includes extremely selfish bastards- we need to watch them too. What? You think you can just make people learn it?
b) I treat people as machines, as does my namesake. Heck, I'm pretty sure alot of people with aspergers do to. It isn't a problem. Sure, it is annoying when our knowledge about other people's programming is lack, but with enough practice we can make it indistuishable from the heuristic.
I also find this... insane
"(This is an argument that I see from repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")"
Seriously, where did you hear this? Atheism ONLY implies there are no Gods and hence all theistic religions are worng. Technically Scientologists are atheists- but they use a theistic system of morality. You seem to be arguing that materialism and rationalism have that consequence. Aside from an http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
it also wrong because it is false. I follow rationalism and materialism and guess what? I am moral. You deal with that by accusing me of using faith either due to misusing words or blatantly making things up.
People don't have intrinsic value. Did I ever say that? No, I didn't. You are attacking a strawman, again. The only reason I deal with people having value is rule utilitarianism.
Atheists are in power in every communist country ever, and almost all of Western Europe, as well as Japan. Interestingly enough, the communist countries did poorly and the Western European ones are doing great. Maybe it is because... THEY AREN'T COMMUNIST! Seriously- don't be so dense. It is freaking obvious that atheism isn't to blame given that much of Europe has atheist ruler or (my personal favorite) many of the communist countries got WORSE after theism came back- Yugoslavia is a rare valid example.
I'm going to call you an idiot again, because, quite simply, you say idiot things. You seem to think that "Is it more filled with people acting decently towards one another, or is it, rather (especially outside of Europe and the US) more filled with genocide, oppression, and the belief that "might makes right"?"
This is an easy one- the decently part. What? You expected violence to be the overwhening majority? While I may think most people are good only for turing food into shit, I do realize that people spend most of their time acting decently toward each other. Heck, look at the world now- we have sporadic wars and violence, but for the vast majority of people things are normal every day. Sure they are poor, but if violence and oppression were constant, you'd soon run out of people due to infighting. Look at the US- we have police brutality, murders, abuse, etc- but for the overwhelming majority of the time things are perfectly normal.
Democracy is rare for a variety of reasons. It was, however the first form of governance- hunter-gahter tribes use (and some still do use) direct democracy, where all adults vote on all issues and the majority rules. Democracy became rare later because of rising inequality and because monarchies evolved from them- first you have a big man, than a boss, than a chief, than a king, etc. It grew out of the need for security (from outsiders, but also each other- people had to learn how to avoid murdering complete strangers) and public works, and worked best with a central authority. Democracy reared its head due to realization that the system sucked if you aren't the King.
So you only act good because you will be punished. Acting good because of fear of punishment ISN'T morality- it is selfcontrol.
The universe has no moral aspect and is indifferant to our behavior- I take that back- Indifferant gives us WAY too much credit. To get an idea of how much we are completely unrelated, imagine the universe... the size of the universe. Humanity, if you scrunched it up really well, could fit into a sufficiently large cave- we can pack ever into Burma is we give them only elbow room as it is. We are insignifant to the Earth as it is- sure, we muck around with the atmosphere, but that only is a problem for life. The rock itself is completely unaffected. The closest we got was Three Gorges Dam- and that is only measurable with our most delicate instruments.
I wasn't refuting theism with the argument with morality- I was showing your argument was bunk. This is ironic because you are rejecting the fallacy of consequences, as you should, even though you have used it repeatedly.
Mu beliefs don't encourage bad behavior- you repeatedly strawman them. Here is a hint- were the communists bad because they were atheists? Or where they bad beccause they were communists and their ideas didn't mesh with reality?
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct, ignore, starwman and attempt to literally BS your way to victory while claiming that nothing I have said has any value... and ignoring the fact your responce bears only a cursory resemblance to anything I said.
You accuse me of using novel definitions when I use the ones given by wiki (If you can't see it, realize that I paraphrased- the wording doesn't have to be exactly the same for it to mean the same thing).
Than you accuse me of not presenting any evidence the supernatural exists. That is right- you want me to prove a negaitve. About, of all things, Hogwarts. Well, I can't prove Harry and his friends are an author of J K Rowlings imagination to your satisfaction and that is probably because you wouldn't accept any proof. In case you aren't aware, the suppernatural is anything that violates physical laws- since physical laws, by default, apply to everything, you have to show they exist, otherwise, by default they don't. I'd go into more detail, but you are quite literally asking me why I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, magic, BFM, FSM and a whole host of other things. And you accuse me of faith for not believing in them and saying they don't exist!
Than you accuse me of flip flopping on morality and machines. I do treat people like macines- I'm doing it right now. I'm hoping the learning and input center is not so corrupted that you can process the data and come to a valid conclusion.
As for "theists can do anything" look at history as you are so fond of saying. For the most part, theists, not atheists, are kept in line by societal sanctions.
I refuted it in the first responce. You said it wasn't the definition used by science. I'll clarify because you seem not to get it- all your objections are based on KNOWLEDGE. Uncertainty is knowledge, choas is knowledge (you can't seek up the situation the same each time- if you could you get the same results)- in fact the one that isn't is quantum mechanics. Of course, that is randomness and (surprise surprise) it has absolutely no effect on people- it occurs in vaccums. And pops out of existance as fast is it popped in. I'm willing to admit the universe is random, not deterministic, but that itself has no effect on people being deterministic.
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
I'm not the one batting a zero here. I have to say though that our conversatins have made me begin to enjoy life more- who knew editting a term paper could begin to seem fun? Thanks.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance...
You are correct. I completely wrong in my allegation here: didn't see Ryan's argument. My apologies! I'll leave that to you & him.
It is very hard to prove that a thing does not exist.
I agree: so when we say we're sure certain things don't exist, we are often admitting we believe things without evidence.
The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument.
That magic wishes away what problem, exactly? Be specific please.
Samuel, earlier: You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism? Determinism is the idea that future actions are completely based of prior actions, with the implication that if we had perfect knwoledge than we would be able to make perfect predicitons.
Ryan: Also, please explain why you think "A clockwork universe" refers to something different than "A deterministic universe." As far as I can see, they refer to the same thing.
Samuel: The differance between a clockwork universe is we can make the predicitons
Samuel, now: I was and AM using the wiki definition... Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible... Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes.
First, you say deterministic and "clockwork universe" are different -- never mind that the question is how I used the word (I assured you it was simply meant as a synonym), not what you'd like it to mean.
Then, you say the difference is we can make predictions in a "clockwork universe" but not necessarily in a "deterministic" one. But how is this distinction supported? The "clockwork universe" is defined as one where (quoting the Wiki article) "everything is determined". Yet the dictionary definition of determinism is that acts of will or nature "are causally determined".
And of course, if things are determined, then why can you make predictions in one case, but not in another? This is your assertion, so the burden here is on you to explain or justify it.
Samuel: A God would be covered by determinims. A soul would be covered by determinism. Supernatural could be covered by determinism.
Tim: Again, no... When something is [quoting dictionary] "determined by preceding events or natural laws" there is no room for intervention by something supernatural.
Samuel: You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you! Honestly, I have NO IDEA what you are reading- but it ISN'T my responces.
I am reading your responses and the dictionary. You INSIST that belief in the supernatural are all allowed under "determinism". I am quoting the definition in play, from the dictionary, which says determinism means that events are "casually determined by natural laws" -- meaning nothing supernatural can influence an outcome. (Natural and supernatural being different, of course.)
If that wasn't clear enough, Wikipedia adds: "Causal determinism is associated with, and relies upon, the ideas of Materialism and Causality". Last I checked, materialism was the opposite of believing in or allowing for the supernatural.
I don't understand why this is so hard: If the dictionary/common definition excludes anything but natural laws, and you insist otherwise (allowing, say, the supernatural), then you're using a different definition.
That's why I keep saying that.
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist.
I've already cited the article. I even went to the trouble of quoting it for you, and providing you with a hyperlink. I'm sorry if you've been somehow unable to read that response or are unwilling to provide counter-arguments besides "You lie!!!"
Have you considered the fact he was wrong?
Wrong about what? About whether he was wanting to redefine the word? Wrong about how people used it at the time? Again, Samuel, I've already explained this: I was alive at the time, myself. I know how it was being used: I was debating atheists even back then. I was also reading the classic apologists such as Russell, who used the word the exact same way. (And I have asked you to do the same if you doubt me.)
I've said all this to you before.
You do realize that almost noone had heard of him before he became a deist...
Are you out of your mind? Samuel, he's one of the more influential atheists in history. As I've pointed out to you already, when you quote your cherished definition of "atheism" (or see an atheist web site talking about "the presumption of atheism"), you're quoting him. That's how influential he was (especially among atheists), Samuel. You called yourself a "strong atheist"? Again, that's Flew's invention. First, you quote his definition, applying it to yourself -- and then you say he was a nobody!
Look, read his Wikipedia article for yourself. "Prominent atheist"... "fame"... debated C.S. Lewis, etc. Was regularly called to represent the atheist side in public debates, much like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris does now.
Look at a pre-2004 blurb from his book "Atheistic Humanism" (1993): "one of the world's most distinguished philosophers" ... "one of the world's best-known philosophers". Know the "Prometheus" book line? The didn't pick unknown losers to write their stuff. Sure, he was still only a philosophy prof (not a pop star) but to say he was an unknown, and not one of the leading atheist voices of his times, is utterly false.
Tim (on other thread): ... "infidel", "unbeliever", "doubter", certain shades of "heathen", etc -- if you need single-word terms. And of course, the easiest one-word term for nonbeliever is... (drum roll) "nonbeliever." (Doh!) But there's no reason to think an idea must be conveyed in only one word. Plenty of ideas fail to have a single word which sums them up in any particular language.
Samuel: Honestly, I have kept asking you to give a word that means "lacks a belief in God" that isn't atheism or agnosticism (which was invented by Huxley). You have not do so to know.
See above, please. And, again, even so: why does it matter? In English many words have multiple meanings, and there are many concepts which need a short phrase to represent them. And I have no idea why you want to exclude "agnostic", since that was (for most the 20th century) the word people actually used. The fact Huxley defined it as something else doesn't prevent that from being a fact.
Seriously, which is more likely? That there is a major atheism which diseminated a new definition and you are the only person who caught on to the conspiracy?
Well, I'm certainly not the only person to have caught on. Many atheists and theists admit there are two different definitions out there now. The only question is which usage dominated before the split, and which one is still the common person's most likely understanding of the term.
Look at the historical etymology yourself: "571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" Read Betrand Russell's essay: "Am I an Atheist or Agnostic?" (1947). Which ever you'd prefer to categorize him as, note that he views and speaks of them as distinct categories, not synonyms. Madeline Murry O'Hare (1962): "Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any." G.K. Chesterton (1874-1963): "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative." Issac Asimov (1982): "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have." Carl Sagan: "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." Douglas Adams: "'I'm very firmly agnostic,' said Douglas in 1984. 'I have terrible rows with my girlfriend who is a convinced atheist. This seems to me irrational. There's no evidence either way.'" Etc.
My point isn't about who's atheist, agnostic, or believer: simply note the way they're using 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Again, I know this because I've read lots of old books by old atheists and Christians. Up until the mid to late 1980s, everybody was fairly clear about using "atheism" to mean an assertion of God's nonexistence, and agnosticism (typically) to mean that one wasn't sure.
When you insist history was not this way, I laugh because I was alive then, Samuel.
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
A straw man is when you answer a different argument than your opponent is making. A change in meaning becomes fallacious if, by doing so, you're trying to change what your opponent is saying in order to make their argument weaker, so that you can seem to "win".
For example, when you attempted to defined "faith" as belief in contradiction to evidence, and then used that definition as to represent what believers meant when they talked of "faith", that was a straw man.
When you insisted I meant "invented" by saying most Western atheist's beliefs had 'originated' in Christianity -- and I explained repeatedly I did not -- and then attempted to refute "invented" -- that was an example of the straw man fallacy.
When I quoted Chinese scholars admitting that the educated elites were generally atheistic, and you insisted I must have meant "culture", and then suggested that "culture" must exclude illiterate persons (and thus felt you were refuting some point I'd made), that was an example of the straw man fallacy.
When you attempted to argue that I believe in an afterlife -- but omit that I also believe in a judgment -- and then use that to omission imply my beliefs permit me to arbitrarily kill anyone -- that is a straw man. (Though perhaps unintentional, in that case.) You are not arguing from my actual beliefs, but a mistaken set of them you have imputed to me in order (you think) to "win" an argument.
But if you simply just think I'm using a word wrong, but don't attempt to substitute your meaning for what I'm saying, then that's not a straw man. That's just a disagreement about the best definition.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE?
Again, you're mistaken about your history: When determinism (in the modern sense) was most popular, most atheists believed the universe was infinitely old. They didn't believe there had to be a first cause at all -- to the contrary, they felt it would undermine their view.
For example, Bertrand Russell:
"The grounds in favour of determinism appear to me overwhelming..." [link]
"There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination." [link]
I should probably have included it in the article above, but the discovery of the big bang (an apparent "first cause") was one of the things which undermined or refuted determinism -- rather than being, as you imagine above -- an intrinsic part of its definition.
Look at yourself: You have assured me of your belief in determinism, and also went to great pains to attempt to refute any first cause argument (leading you to that "closed universe" gaffe!). Well, now we learn, since (according to you) the very definition of determinism implies a first cause, you should have been attempting to PROVE, not refute a "first cause" scenario! :-)
You begining to see a pattern here? There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism...
Yes: The emerging pattern is that I explain, repeatedly, that "determined preceding events or natural laws" (from the dictionary, again) excludes the supernatural (see the word "natural"? -- as does "laws") and you continue to ignore my response.
There is nothing about supernaturalism that exempts it from determinism- supernatural things are simply those not bound by physical laws.
Yes, that's right: supernatural things ARE NOT bound by physical laws. So if something is "determined by laws", that's a statement it is NOT therefore being influenced by anything supernatural.
And your objection, while consitantly calling me an idiot...
I don't believe I've ever called you an idiot. Though, in all honesty, I can see how a reader might infer it from my rebuttals. ;-)
In truth, I think you're an otherwise reasonably intelligent (though poorly-educated, for which I blame our schools, not you) person who is positively allergic to admitting error.
It is so nice to make things up to fit your preconceptions- I should try it some time.
You mean when you insisted hunter gathers valued monogamy? Or when you insisted that "culture" couldn't include peasants? Or when you insisted Flew wasn't influential? Or when you insisted that astrophysics taught there was nothing outside our universe? Or insisted I had misunderstood Godel? Or above when you insist I have repeatedly called you an idiot?
Yes, you really should try to "make things up" some more. You're much too grounded in reality. ;-)
Souls don't exist because the supernatural doesn't exist.
I am the Easter Bunny!
All your bases are belong to us!
War is peace! Love is hate! Teaching is dead!
Love your form of "proof"! It consists of saying something over and over without offering even a smidgeon of evidence.
Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls...
Okay! I'll see your "other people" and raise you: "WELL, then MY other people REFUTED your other people's arguments! So there! Ha!"
LOL! Yes, we don't have to think for ourselves, do we? It's so funny to say you need evidence or proof for everything and then just say: "Well, I guess someone else has solved this problem for me." Yeah? Well there are Christian apologists who, I'm sure have told me your beliefs are false, so I'll just take their word for it.
Is that "faith"? Then why it's it "faith" when you do the exact same thing, Samuel?
You're so cute.
Tim: The first is whether machines have souls. I cannot prove they don't, and presume you can't either. But, unlike you, I admit that I believe many things I cannot prove, and cannot provide evidence for.
Samuel: And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls...
Again, I admit I can't prove this one. Not in the slightest. I can't even offer evidence for this belief of mine. Didn't you read that? There it is. Please try again. I admit I take it on faith that machines have no soul. But of course: I've never pretended there's anything wrong with having faith in some unprovable things.
But you pretend you do not. So if you don't take things on faith, then it is YOU who must explain, and provide evidence for, why machines have no soul, if you believe that.
Is this really so hard for you to understand?
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so.
Yes: I completely admit that I take the belief we shouldn't murder people somewhat on faith. That's why I call it a "religious" belief. Unlike most atheists I've chatted with, I know what I can prove and what I can't. I admit I take things on faith, they pretend they don't.
Contrast this with your own assertion that you should believe nothing without evidence -- and your ongoing inability to provide evidence for much of what you believe. Better to simply admit "I can't prove this" than actually contradict your own beliefs at every turn.
Contrast, also, with Dawkins, who is sure we are just machines, but then admits he lives in complete contradiction to his own assertion. Better to have a philosophy you can live with, than constantly contradict your core beliefs.
Actually progressive were the middle class looking for ways to control the poor.
Undoubtedly, many "progressives" were middle class, then, just as they are now. But I wouldn't call the leaders -- physicians, social activists, scientist, and famous writers -- "middle class."
Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality...
Afterwards, they always say: "Well, it was pseudoscience!" But at the time, it's always: "You are so ignorant! You're opposed to science!" Today we see the same thing: Oppose global warming, you're "against science." But a century from now, the same kind of people who backed it today will sniff: "Well, that was just pseudoscience" -- while promoting another fad.
But don't worry- guess who stood up to them? The church?
Well, yes, actually:
[Margaret Sanger] said the cancellation [of an event designed to promote black abortion] resulted from “concerted action on the part of representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.” She even accused the church of threatening officials with the withholding of promised federal and state funds needed to hold the Exposition. [1]
The Catholic Church opposed eugenics from the outset, and helped to ward off eugenic social legislation in much of Europe. However, the Catholic viewpoint held little sway in Protestant America. With Buck vs. Bell providing the full approval of the U.S. Supreme Court, state legislatures continued to enact new eugenic sterilization laws up until WWII. [2]
Pope Pius XI of the Roman Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making the more Catholic regions (such as Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritime provinces) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta[citation needed] and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround. [3]
This provision is a particular aid to the Roman Catholics, who have been combating the sterilization law. Although Hitler himself is a Roman Catholic, that church, as everyone knows, has been the source of a large part of his opposition, and it has taken a strong stance... But the Nazis seem, as this scientific leadership becomes more and more prominent in their councils, to be avoiding the misplaced emphasis of their earlier pronouncements on questions of race, and to be proceeding toward a policy that will accord with the best thought of eugenists in all civilized countries and against sterilization in Germany. [Journal of Heredity, 1934]
Not really- in Germany they managed to stop the killing of the handicapped AFTER they got through the first hundred thousand.
I wasn't aware that the Roman Catholic church was actually in a position to control Germany policy. Too bad: lives could have been saved, no?
Samuel: You declare eugenics is due to determinism... it is almost certainly false- Hitler, the Ur example was NOT a determinist.
I should be clear: while most prominent eugenicists were atheists (and thus determinists) you are right: there were a few who had some kind of religion -- generally of a "progressive", "liberal", or "new age" variety. Hitler strikes me as being in the last category.
My argument is that deterministic/materialistic thinking was a significant factor in eugenics, NOT that all eugenicists were determinists.
this is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html
Not in the slightest: You have to pay attention to context. You had said that good intentions were sufficient to prevent people from treating each other like machines. So I pointed to eugenics as a counter-example, and noted that eugenicists had good intentions. There's nothing fallacious at all there.
The link you cite (please read it, Samuel) explains that appeal to consequence is fallacious when you argue bad outcome proves the opposite is true, or vise-versa. I haven't done that. I'm not saying (nor have I said): "The badness of eugenics disproves determinism." (To the contrary, I'm only saying it's harmful here. My refutation of determinism is contained in the article at the top of this page.)
Tim: And although parts of society rejected their views, generally they were (and still are -- Margaret Sanger and HG Wells, for example) lauded as wonderful "enlightened" leaders.
Samuel: It is important to note another mistake you made- sure, Sanger and Wells had those views. So did Teddy Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson...
Please the context, again, Samuel. You had insisted that society would stop people from doing bad things. I pointed out counter-examples, and noted they were praised, not shunned.
Adding a few more famous and well-loved names to this list only strengthens my point, Sammy.
(Wow! You sure got me there! Gee, I can't put anything past you, can I?)
I treat people as machines, as does my namesake.
Promise me you'll inform prospective girlfriends of this view when you meet them? I'm sure they'll admire that quality deeply. (Or do you mislead people about your views when convenient, Samuel?)
Heck, I'm pretty sure alot of people with aspergers do to. It isn't a problem.
LOL! Well, you're the first person I've met who defended his approach to life by likening it favorably to a cognitive deficit or mental illness.
I also find this... insane:
... "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!" Seriously, where did you hear this?
Both you and the last atheist to visit before you did. When I pointed out that materialism could lead some people to treat humans as mere machines, you said that society would stop you from doing that!
Atheism ONLY implies there are no Gods and hence all theistic religions are worng.
Yes: I know. "Atheism teaches nothing." You insist that you treat people like machines because you know there's no supernatural -- but hey, ATHEISM doesn't teach that. Nor do atheists! Nope. No implied beliefs here, none at all.
People don't have intrinsic value. Did I ever say that?
No, but it's fun to hear it from you.
(a) Guess that's another thing you believe which you haven't inferred your atheism.
(b) Right! That's precisely my point. Atheists like you end up believing people have no intrinsic value: only utility. If their existence helps you, they get to stay. If not, well, no big deal about killing them.
That was pretty much what the eugenicists thought too: "Useless eaters", they'd call the unproductive members of their society.
Tim: And of course, many atheists don't: When they've subject to society's rule, they go along, but when they get into power, well, anything goes. And the same is true for societies (groups) which have bought, as a whole, into materialistic beliefs.
Samuel: Seriously- don't be so dense. It is freaking obvious that atheism isn't to blame given that much of Europe has atheist ruler
Samuel: You're going to have to start reading what I actually write. I didn't say that atheism produces bad economics. I didn't even say that atheists were all bad leaders (nor that religious people were all good).
I simply said that when atheists get into power, without any checks on their behavior, many of them act badly because there are no restraints on their beliefs. European leaders aren't even in the position I spoke of, as their offices have many checks on power.
Now, as it is you're saying that Europe has been economically successful when led by atheists. Really? Looks to be having some pretty serious problems to me. Chirac was more secular than Sarkozy (a professing Catholic, I hear), and France did quite badly under Chirac. UK Labor was more materialistic than Thather or Blair -- yet the UK did better under the latter two.
Again, I don't have any specific position, but if I had to guess, I'd suggest that socialism doesn't work very well economically (neither as Socialism nor Communism), and that the more secular a person is, the more they're attracted to socialism.
But you're the one who has asserted that European countries are doing well with atheists leaders, so I'm hoping you'll provide a list of Western European and Japanese atheists who have implemented sound economic policies.
I'm going to call you an idiot again...
Well, at least now we're clear on who calls who an idiot. Projection, anyone?
After this, you argue that history is mostly characterized by societies filled with people who act decently towards each other.
Well, I guess we just disagree. I learn that throughout the history of the world, parents have usually thrown out unwanted babies, that most societies have practiced slavery, that more primitive societies were in a constant state of war, and that any form of government except oppression is a brand new thing and think history was characterized by bloodshed and oppression.
You look at that (or don't even know about it), and think people are mostly good.
I don't: I think people are mostly selfish, and that most societies have not, on the balance encouraged good values.
Guess we just see it differently.
BTW: Please read the comment rules. I've asked you not to swear on my blog. Once more, and you're gone.
Sure they are poor, but if violence and oppression were constant, you'd soon run out of people due to infighting.
Well, as long as the birth rate outstrips the murder rate, I guess that's pretty good evidence that people are good. Wow, yet another irrefutable argument, Samuel.
So you only act good because you will be punished.
Another straw man argument? There are lots of reasons to act good: I've never said theists act good only because they'll be punished. I simply answered your contention that an afterlife would allow people to kill with impunity.
Acting good because of fear of punishment ISN'T morality- it is selfcontrol.
Heh! Well, I'm not God, so I care more if people are self-controlled than what their motives are. If someone has good intentions and kills innocent people, I'm concerned about that. If someone has bad motives, but starts a company which makes everyone better off, then I'm happy about that, from a societal point of view.
The universe has no moral aspect and is indifferant to our behavior... We are insignifant to the Earth as it it
Great! Well, I thank you for admitting this. This will be very useful when I need an illustration of how often atheism leads its adherents to devalue human life and treat people as no better than objects.
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct, ignore, starwman and attempt to literally BS your way to victory while claiming that nothing I have said has any value...
LOL! You're too funny, Samuel. Look, when I think an argument of yours is wrong, I provide counter-evidence, and quote your exact words.
Than you accuse me of not presenting any evidence the supernatural exists. That is right...
No, I accuse you of not presenting any evidence the supernatural does not exist. Very different things. But in the event that was just a typo (it seems to be, given the follow up): Great! Then you now finally admit you believe things without supporting evidence. Thank you!
Than you accuse me of flip flopping on morality and machines...
Where?
As for "theists can do anything" look at history as you are so fond of saying. For the most part, theists, not atheists, are kept in line by societal sanctions.
So you are saying that societal sanctions haven't kept as many atheists in line? Well, if you're arguing atheists step out of line more often (seems to be true, given that the secular have a higher crime rate) then I won't argue.
Otherwise, I find it unlikely: The more religious a person is, the more they're concerned about religious beliefs, not societal sanctions.
Tim: Nor did you apparently even attempt to refute my argument that determinism -- meaning the definition used by myself, Dawkins, and as defined in the dictionary -- has been roundly refuted by science.
Samuel: I refuted it in the first responce... I'll clarify because you seem not to get it- all your objections are based on KNOWLEDGE. Uncertainty is knowledge, choas is knowledge (you can't seek up the situation the same each time- if you could you get the same results)- in fact the one that isn't is quantum mechanics.
I don't see how that's a rebuttal. Good heavens, I don't even see how that's a coherent group of sentences. "Uncertainty is knowledge"? Well, that's a new one. I guess if that makes sense to any readers, they'll agree with whatever it is you're attempting to say here.
As best I can guess, you're trying to I've only said the future is merely unknowable -- but then you seem to contradict yourself when you admit my third point (quantum mechanics) implies something quite different. So you're not even making a coherent point here: if its wrong to focus only on knowledge, then I haven't done it, by your own admission.
Of course, that is randomness and (surprise surprise) it has absolutely no effect on people- it occurs in vaccums.
Oh! My! Gosh!
Who was calling who an idiot, again?
DUDE! That's the funniest thing you've said since you insisted your beliefs weren't based on "any logical system."
Samuel: ALL of spacetime is subject to quantum effects, not just a vacuum. (And yes, that includes inside people as well.) Look, my sneering and ignorant friend: "The laws of quantum mechanics dictate that the subatomic world is swimming with "virtual" particles. Everywhere in space, particles are constantly winking in and out of existence. For instance, around every electron there is a shroud of virtual particles that hide the electron's true charge." [source]
Why do I bother? You know nothing, and you'll just call me "idiot" again for attempting to teach you the most basic things about your own alleged belief system.
And pops out of existance as fast is it popped in. I'm willing to admit the universe is random, not deterministic, but that itself has no effect on people being deterministic.
The universe is random. People are machines. People can't be affected by randomness. How does the universe know not to affect people with this randomness, then? The universe is awash with randomly-emitted particles (tune a radio to static to hear some) which cause mutations, etc. And you're sure none of it can affect people?
(Your list of religious beliefs grows ever longer!)
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
LOL! Right! Chaos theory doesn't exist. Just like Godel's incompleteness theorem doesn't apply to you. Do you get to opt out of gravity as well? How about entropy? ;-)
Note: this is a long post and this site undoes tags after a hard return. So sorry if italics or blockquotes gets undone at any point.
I believe that I was responding to him accusing me of arguing from ignorance- he fails to show how there are any alternatives to determinism and randommness. So technically it isn't an argument from ignorance, just him repeating himself louder. So technically, not ignorance, just "complete lack of argument". The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA- I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
You made a positive assertion that there were no patterns in what you call randomness.
A positive assertion of absence is very different from saying "I don't know, but I see no evidence."
It is, in part, this difference which was the subject of the original discussion.
This puts aside for a moment whether actual evidence exists or not.
You say The magic wishes away the problem- that is the whole of your argument. When I point out it can't you shut your ears and say "LALALA-
But you must have evidence to assert something. You do not. Therefore you cannot "point out it can't"
Since you've gone and made a positive
claim, you must have positive evidence to back it up. Not just "I don't see how..." or "there is no evidence for"
This is what Tim is talking about. Ignoring for the moment the evidence contrary to your position,
you repeatedly swtich back and forth between "there is no evidence for x" and "X has been proven false." Those are very different statements and not interchangable.
However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't realize free will is an impossiblity.
You are going, again from "there is no evidence for x" to a positive assertion made without any evidence.
This is a crucial slip.
The magic wishes away the problem-
On the contrary, I'm fine asserting my position is true without invoking the violation of any known physical laws.
You do realize that is also my point? If we weren't using common assumptions,
communication would be impossible. However, you vere of for some unknown reason- you don't
realize free will is an impossiblity.
The issue is that this is an assumption based on your premises and not
something that you have proven or can prove or disprove with real-world experimental evidence.
You cannot prove it, but you take it on faith. Which is fine, except
that you don't seem to realize that you take it on faith. It is a direct product of your assumptions,
and not the product of any experimental evidence. You think it's been positively proven. What's more,
you have asserted that the universe was physically deterministic and that states could be determined with certainty by people, which is a belief which has been disproved using repeated, solid experimental evidence. Note, I am talking about physical determinism,
and not philosophical determinism in a chaotic universe (i.e. free will is an illusion manufactured
by our brain despite a chaotic universe.) But that such contrary
evidence exists doesn't even seem to interest you. If you base your views on evidence,
why not be interested in evidence which might change your views? Could you please summarize
why we believe that Quantum Mechanics and Chaos theory disprove physical determinism so that
we at least know you've heard what we're saying and understand it.
Can you provide experimental proof that
there are no patterns in randomness? If you cannot prove that ( in the
academic sense of proof) you are making an assumption here that no patterns exist
and then not acknowledging the assumption. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Samuel, you said
You do realize these ar eobjections to a clockwork universe, NOT determinism?
You said; "Clockwork universe is deterministic, determined by the laws of physics and reducible."
That is entirely true of those deterministic views of the physical universe which philosophers have put forward.
You also said; "Determinism is that there is an unbroken chain of causes."
That also precisely describes those who believe in a clockwork universe.
I suppose that you could say that "Hard determinists" (in the context of philosophy rather than physics)
hold that responsibility for our actions is an illusion, even if quantum physics and chaos theory
make such things totally unpredictable from a human viewpoint. However the context of your statements strongly suggested
that you were referring to the physical and not the philosophical definition of determinism. You asserted if
we had enough information, we could predict the future. This is like saying that if gravity didn't exist, I could float. Theoretically this may be true, but it has no possible analog in the physical world.
Some have also tried to assert a 'hidden variables' theory where quantum uncertainty was hidden from people but exposed to some deity. Of course, you have as much cause for believing that view as you do for believing that there are patterns in randomness.
Re: randomness vs. determinism
you said Let me give you an analogy.
The third possibility is that there is a pattern to what you see as randomness.
If you cannot offer material disproof of that assertion, then it
is a possibility. You don't have to believe it. You don't have to believe that it is likely. You can disbelieve it on faith.
But you need to admit that you cannot disprove it, and have no evidence that it is false. (It is quite difficult to prove false or true, so isn't helpful in the predictive scientific sense.)
You CONSISTANTLY accuse me of not knowing the definition when the sources you cite disagree with you!
Samuel - The sources Tim has cited have agreed with him. They've disagreed with you, and you've often gone back and forth between one meaning of a word and another (such as between the strong and weak meanings of the word proof or the meaning of faith.)
And theen there is the lie that Flew made up the new definition of atheist. Have you considered the fact he was wrong?
I'm willing to consider that. But if such a view is true then there should be some evidence of it. You claimed
to be an expert in history, and in arguments with theists. So this should be an easy thing for you to offer evidence for.
atheism has that meaning as part of its STRUCTURE.
Atheism has meant different things in different times. In the Roman world, Christians were considered atheists
because they didn't worship the local gods. It's important to be careful with arguing from definitions.
What we need here is historical evidence of how the word was used.
I am forced to assume you are taking that mans ONE statement and assuming it is gospel truth and that EVERY other usage EVER is wrong.
So give an historical citation that argues against Tim's assertion. Simple enough. Is it wrong to ask for evidence of your
assertions, Samuel?
Finally, redefining words is NOT a strawman (another word you missuse, like rational)- it is unacceptable only if you don't make it clear what usage you are using OR use two differant usages to hop back and forth.
I agree.
But there is at least one other instance when it is unacceptable.
If you define a personal definition for a word and try to claim that
your definition is what other people mean when they say the word, that certainly is a strawman (And not useful for conveying your meaning either. It tends to serve no honorable purpose.)
In such cases, it's important to make very clear that your definition is a peculiar and personal one and that
others disagree with it.
You really don't understand? Supernatural things ARE covered by determinism. Chain of prior occurances? FIRST CAUSE?
They can be covered by determinism, certainly. But that belief is not required.
Your assertion that quantum changes 'smooth out' is not true of all systems to the point that all systems can be predicted as if they were deterministic in the physical sense. You've asserted earlier that it was a technological problem, which led me to believe you didn't understand QM. I'm trying to figure out if you do now. Yes, some systems are newtonian. Some aren't. You do understand the butterfly effect, right, which is why QM is important to disproving physical determinism?
Could you please just acknowledge that, so I don't go on thinking you might have missed it.
Ohter people have gone into more depths about the logical problems with souls- the fact that everything can be adequately explained by materialism is a big point.
Right or wrong, you seem to have seriously misjudged the extent of how well we can currently model neural systems.
And, of course, you fail to adress why machnines can or can't have souls
For my own part, I'm simply ignorant on the matter. I'll venture some opinion when
they can actually make AI which behaves like a person. I feel I have good reason not to trust speculation, since it's failed and underestimated the problem so often.
Your justification for morality is we aren't allowed to play God... because God says so. In other words, divine command theory. See Vox Day for why this is insane.
When possible, could you please summarize what someone says rather than just saying 'see so and so.'
This really gives me no information. I've worked hard to try and summarize long posts for you when I could
so that you didn't have to read through the whole thing. It's only common courtesy. Thanks.
Not surprisingly, since it was a psedoscience with little basis in reality, they managed to commit lots of evil.
But alcoholism does run in families. I agree that Sanger seems to have been ineffective in her goals. The Nazi's "will to power"
didn't give them the long lasting power they hoped for. But is the only problem with eugenics that the science needs to be improved? Good intentions + good science = good eugenics?
That moral methodology may keep us from re-committing past mistakes, but not from inventing new ones.
Tim:"(This is an argument that I see repeatedly from atheists: "Of course my atheism implies X, but thankfully, this group of non-atheists will keep people with my beliefs in line!")"
Sam: Seriously, where did you hear this?
Sam, You said that you were good, in part, because you wanted others to like you. This presumes a society which
likes moral people or at least one which relies on social forces and people who are difficult to trick. That works to an extent for our society. It begs the question of why this is true in the first place. Given the modes which people are capable of
operating in (such as in the USSR or Rwanda) morality being honored by our neighbors cannot really be taken for granted.
Perhaps you wouldn't seek approval from such an immoral society. But more importantly,
would other people who were not raised in our country did not absorb its values, and shared your materialistic worldview be influenced? This is not about the truth of religion, per se, but about the results which it produces.
Atheists are in power in every communist country ever, and almost all of Western Europe, as well as Japan.
Interestingly enough, the communist countries did poorly and the Western European ones are doing great.
Maybe it is because... THEY AREN'T COMMUNIST!
In regards to the consequences of belief systems (not truth value), it seems fair to ask which is more effective at preventing
a communist takeover; Certain specific religions or no religion at all.
Czarist Russia was
nominally theistic, but seemed pretty perverse by Christian standards. And it fell. I'm sure many atheists are personally
moral. My question is; how effective are they when they apply their morality in a political setting? How well do they self-organize for moral purposes? I've demonstrated
that religion has some effect on human behavior, though it certainly doesn't reform all people who claim to adhere to it. Religion
can be a substitute for more clumsy legalistic forms of control.
I'm going to call you an idiot again, because, quite simply, you say idiot things.
Careful Sam, you've made quite a few mistakes yourself here on these threads. You used an incorrect definition of faith as
"belief against evidence," seem to have misunderstood Quantum Mechanics, misunderstood what the phrase "closed universe"
meant in an article you cited, seemed to support physical determinism from a human perspective, and so on. You didn't want me to be condescending
so I'll try and avoid it. But you are going to wind up getting tarred with your own brush. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by
calling people idiots. I've found that a shower of evidence works for most people who want to listen.
If you have it, lay it on the table please.
While I may think most people are good only for turing food into shit,
I'm honestly curious on what basis, if any, you exclude yourself from that list.
Democracy is rare for a variety of reasons.
It was, however the first form of governance- hunter-gahter tribes use (and some still do use)
direct democracy, where all adults vote on all issues and the majority rules.
I agree that tribes were more egalitarian (often in a communal sense) and often, though not always, fairly democratic.
This is from my fairly limited understanding of things. Democratic communal societies of more than a few hundred people or so tend to go awry unless they break into subgroups. And smaller societies than that are militarily vulnerable.
Democracy reared its head due to realization that the system sucked if you aren't the King.
I'm not sure if that was sufficient, though. The French undoubtedly knew that as well, but the French revolution didn't produce a democracy, despite its emphasis on 'reason' and dislike of royalty.
Here is a hint- were the communists bad because they were atheists? Or where they bad beccause they were communists and their ideas didn't mesh with reality?
I'm willing to believe that quite a few rulers in quite a few countries from democracies to dictatorships, are power hungry and self serving.
My question is what belief systems best restrain such rulers. Why were Russians so willing to tolerate political violence in the first place. It's true even today. A friend of mine who went there describes how willing
people are to pay protection money and so forth.
Lets summerize- you, confident that you are correct
We all believe our beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. But one repeated point here was the difference
between faith and proof; atheists and theists operate on faith. Theists acknolwedge it. Atheists are less likely to.
but you are quite literally asking me why I don't believe in fairies, unicorns, magic
I haven't asked why you to believe in faries. Unicorns exist
apparently. ;-)
And magic, meaning violation of natural laws, is not required for the things I've argued for.
Of course, if the randomness smooths out (which it appears to do) than the universe is deterministic.
Now, the debate over free will versus determinism took a new turn about 70 years ago with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the introduction of quantum mechanics. The Uncertainty Principle established that the basic behavior of the universe was fundamentally random. That is, the most basic processes that underlie the functioning of the universe are unpredictable. This blows determinism right out of the water. If you can't even be sure where an electron is or where it's going, then you certainly can't be sure what a complex system like a human being will do. Predestination just went down the tubes.
link
Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle lend support to free will.
link
Absolute knowledge of the forces accelerating a bullet should produce absolutely reliable predictions of its path, or so was thought. However, knowledge is never absolute in practice and the equations of Newtonian mechanics can exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions, meaning small errors in knowledge of initial conditions can result in arbitrarily large deviations from predicted behavior....
As indicated above, QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. So, for example, according to QM the fullest description possible of a radium atom (or a chunk of radium, for that matter), does not suffice to determine when a given atom will decay, nor how many atoms in the chunk will have decayed at any given time. The theory gives only the probabilities for a decay (or a number of decays) to happen within a given span of time. Einstein and others perhaps thought that this was a defect of the theory that should eventually be removed, by a supplemental hidden variable theory[6] that restores determinism; but subsequent work showed that no such hidden variables account could exist. At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.
link
The idea that the state of the universe at one time determines the state at all other times, has been a central tenet of science, ever since Laplace's time. It implies that we can predict the future, in principle at least. In practice, however, our ability to predict the future is severely limited by the complexity of the equations, and the fact that they often have a property called chaos. As those who have seen Jurassic Park will know, this means a tiny disturbance in one place, can cause a major change in another. A butterfly flapping its wings can cause rain in Central Park, New York. The trouble is, it is not repeatable. The next time the butterfly flaps its wings, a host of other things will be different, which will also influence the weather. That is why weather forecasts are so unreliable.
Despite these practical difficulties, scientific determinism, remained the official dogma throughout the 19th century. However, in the 20th century, there have been two developments that show that Laplace's vision, of a complete prediction of the future, can not be realised. The first of these developments was what is called, quantum mechanics....
It was some time before people realised the implications of this quantum behaviour for determinism. It was not until 1926, that Werner Heisenberg, another German physicist, pointed out that you couldn't measure both the position, and the speed, of a particle exactly. To see where a particle is, one has to shine light on it. But by Planck's work, one can't use an arbitrarily small amount of light. One has to use at least one quantum. This will disturb the particle, and change its speed in a way that can't be predicted.
This is summed up in the Uncertainty Principle that Heisenberg formulated; the uncertainty in the position of a particle, times the uncertainty in its speed, is always greater than a quantity called Planck's constant, divided by the mass of the particle.
Laplace's vision, of scientific determinism, involved knowing the positions and speeds of the particles in the universe, at one instant of time. So it was seriously undermined by Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. How could one predict the future, when one could not measure accurately both the positions, and the speeds, of particles at the present time? No matter how powerful a computer you have, if you put lousy data in, you will get lousy predictions out.
Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.
Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.
Other scientists were much more ready than Einstein to modify the classical 19th century view of determinism. A new theory, called quantum mechanics, was put forward by Heisenberg, the Austrian, Erwin Schroedinger, and the British physicist, Paul Dirac. .... Although quantum mechanics has been around for nearly 70 years, it is still not generally understood or appreciated, even by those that use it to do calculations. Yet it should concern us all, because it is a completely different picture of the physical universe, and of reality itself. In quantum mechanics, particles don't have well defined positions and speeds. Instead, they are represented by what is called a wave function. This is a number at each point of space. The size of the wave function gives the probability that the particle will be found in that position. ... One can have a wave function that is very strongly peaked in a small region. This will mean that the uncertainty in the position is small. But the wave function will vary very rapidly near the peak, up on one side, and down on the other. Thus the uncertainty in the speed will be large. Similarly, one can have wave functions where the uncertainty in the speed is small, but the uncertainty in the position is large.
...
|
Christian doctrine has long taught that we live and move inside "God" ...
Is this a mistype? This sounds like pantheism.
Posted by: Ryan W. on June 21, 2008 11:58 PM