[LB Note: Materialists, who presume to deny the existence of a supernatural god might, these days, be too sophisticated to make shrine to a thing—yet they still have their gods. See, for example, The Selfish Gene.]
IV. Let us turn now, O King, to the elements in themselves, that we may make clear in regard to them, that they are not gods, but a created thing, liable to ruin and change, which is of the same nature as man; whereas God is imperishable and unvarying, and invisible, while yet He sees, and overrules, and transforms all things.
Those then who believe concerning the earth that it is a god have hitherto deceived themselves, since it is furrowed and set with plants and trenched; and it takes in the filthy refuse of men and beasts and cattle. And at times it becomes unfruitful, for if it be burnt to ashes it becomes devoid of life, for nothing germinates from an earthen jar. And besides if water be collected upon it, it is dissolved together with its products. And lo! it is trodden under foot of men and beast, and receives the blood of the slain; and it is dug open, and filled with the dead, and becomes a tomb for corpses. But it is impossible that a nature, which is holy and worthy and blessed and immortal, should allow of any one of these things. And hence it appears to us that the earth is not a god but a creation of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
LB said: Materialists, who presume to deny the existence of a supernatural god might, these days, be too sophisticated to make [a] shrine to a thing—yet they still have their gods. See, for example, The Selfish Gene.
Erm..... Huh?
Materialists tend to mock theists for, at some point, attributing certain observable phenomena to an unknowable act of God. However Materialists routinely invoke unknowable acts of nature, even if it runs counter to scientific evidence. This is called blind faith.
In The Selfish Gene Dawkins attributes purposive and sovereign power to the gene. He is forced to keep repeating that we could use "more respectable" language, but the foundational assumption and basis of his arguments, as well as it's very title, clearly infer that the gene is Dawkins god; a personal god (i.e., motives/intentions) with omnipotent power—God to the rest of us.
So then Dawkins is a barbarian—without the stomach for confrontation—but, on the other hand, a better haircut and wardrobe.
LB said: However Materialists routinely invoke unknowable acts of nature, even if it runs counter to scientific evidence. This is called blind faith.
Really? What exactly is an 'unknowable act of nature' and why (indeed how) can a scientist use such things - if it runs counter to scientific evidence - without being called on it by other scientists?
LB said: In The Selfish Gene Dawkins attributes purposive and sovereign power to the gene.
That's not the way I remember it or understood it. Indeed I remember him saying on multiple occasions that genes *cannot* have purpose - because they're inanimate bits of DNA. By definition thay cannot be something that can have intention.
LB said: but the foundational assumption and basis of his arguments, as well as it's very title, clearly infer that the gene is Dawkins god; a personal god (i.e., motives/intentions) with omnipotent power—God to the rest of us.
Again that is not my reading of Dawkins or Darwinian evolution. The gene is central to the Theory but has not been elevated to the position of god [laughs], it's just very important in the scheme of things. I think one of the points he was making is to say that evolution does not act on individuals - but on their genes. In this sense the genes 'look after themselves' rather than us who merely carry them around - hence they are 'selfish'.
I remember him saying on multiple occasions that genes *cannot* have purpose - because they're inanimate bits of DNA.
Yes, that is what he says—then he goes on to attribute purpose to the gene—then says you can't—then he does it again. It's all very schizophrenic. Many critics in the scientific community (e.g. Martin Gardner) and the philosophical community (e.g. David Stove) have pointed this out.
In this sense the genes 'look after themselves' rather than us who merely carry them around - hence they are 'selfish'.
How do they "look after themselves"? You (or rather Dawkins) can't get away with building argument on such an admittedly bogus premise, then wave away criticism of the premise and continue with the argument. Scare quotes don't give one license to contradict oneself. Why doesn't Dawkins build his argument in "respectable" terms? Is it because he can't?
What exactly is an 'unknowable act of nature' and why (indeed how) can a scientist use such things...
Good question, I asked myself that many time while reading Dawkins. Here's an example from The Selfish Gene.
"At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself."
How does this differ from "God did it" except for the subject of the sentence?
LB asked: How do they "look after themselves"? You (or rather Dawkins) can't get away with building argument on such an admittedly bogus premise, then wave away criticism of the premise and continue with the argument.
I was using the *analogy* to illustrate my previous point - that Evolution by Natural Selection selects the genes and not the individuals carrying them around. If a particular gene is good at increasing its 'market share' there will be more copies of that gene in future generations. It really doesn't get much simpler that that.
LB said: Scare quotes don't give one license to contradict oneself.
I think calling 'xxxxx' scare quotes is rather overstating things just a little....
LB said: How does this differ from "God did it" except for the subject of the sentence?
What...? Saying that chance events occur is just like saying 'God did it'? [laughs] I think not! Chance events do indeed occur (unless you think that *everything* is preordained). Although we don't know for sure, before evolution had anything to work with it is likely that a chance event - or actually a number of similar chance events - producing a molecule that could (after a fashion) replicate itself. Over time - because of the selective process - this became more efficient. About 3.5 billion years later here I am typing this....
If a particular gene is good at increasing its 'market share' there will be more copies of that gene in future generations. It really doesn't get much simpler that that.
You're talking economics not biology. Economics involves rational beings making calculations and projecting expected future results from historical data which genes, you agree, can't do. So why the endless string of metaphors? How does a gene know what will increase it's market share? How does an initial mutation develop into a more pronounced advantage without predictive insight given the fact that mutations are almost always deleterious? Can you answer this without invoking a rational, determinative intelligence (in quotes of course). I know you're not a scientist, but if you can refer me to some books or other resources that answer questions I'd be glad to know what they are.
I think calling 'xxxxx' scare quotes is rather overstating things just a little....
Well than I'll call the regular quotes. The point is why not express the argument in real terms instead of placeholder terms that imply precisely what one are attempting to refute?
before evolution had anything to work with it is likely that a chance event - or actually a number of similar chance events - producing a molecule that could (after a fashion) replicate itself.
"...the probability of forming a single gene product (one that is functionally equivalent to the ubiquitous protein cyctochrome C) as one chance in 1075...Given this probability, if the primordial soup contained about 1044 amino acids, a hundred billion trillion years would yield a 95% chance for random formation of a functional protein only 110 amino acids in length (a single gene product)...The universe is about 15 billion years old. This means that less than one trillionth of the time has passed that would be needed to make even one of the 250-350 gene products necessary for minimal life, or one of the 1500 gene products necessary for independent life."
-Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology
That's not what I call "likely".
Well than I'll call the regular quotes. The point is why not express the argument in real terms instead of placeholder terms that imply precisely what one are attempting to refute?
Wow!
Well then, I'll call them regular quotes....precisely what one is attempting to refute?
LB said: How does a gene know what will increase it's market share?
It doesn't. There's nothing within the gene that is capable of knowing.
LB said: How does an initial mutation develop into a more pronounced advantage without predictive insight given the fact that mutations are almost always deleterious?
a mutation is either deletarious, neutral or advantageous.
Neutral mutations may accumulate over time but don't really affect things.
Deleterious mutations should appear in a population then disapear as they are no longer passed onto future generations - because the carriers tend to die out before they can breed.
Advatageous mutations spread in a population because they increase the chances of reproduction and, therefore, their spread. Once a mutation becomes widespread it becomes the new base level and new advanateous mutations will build on that producing things like the eye.
There is no need to put forward the idea or a guiding hand to explain evolutionary improvement.
LB said: I know you're not a scientist, but if you can refer me to some books or other resources that answer questions I'd be glad to know what they are.
Well, there's Dawkins (obviously) but if you don't like him you can always try Steven Gould. I haven't read any of his stuff yet but I understand he's very good. Failing that any decent evolution text book should give you most of what you need.
LB said: That's not what I call "likely".
Yes, I've come across nonesense like that before. The odds against *anything* happening can seem *huge* depending on how you look at things and your knowledge of probability, large numbers and things like chemistry. Also the odds of getting a perfect bridge hand are pretty large - but the odds of getting *any* bridge hand turn out to be exactly the same. It is easy to *say* that the odds against a particular event happening is 1 in XXXXXX but actually *showing* that is the case is a whole other matter. The odds of us engaging in this conversation are probably astronomical - yet here we are....
Post a Comment