Evolutionary Perspectives (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond and Douglas Adams) 4of4

[dwaynedibbly]

Adams rambles on a bit in this, let the bigboys talk.

[1tabligh]

Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?

[theinquisitor]

@1tabligh, I would say that it's more intuitive to suppose that, but I think that's got more to do with our innate biases as creative beings ourselves.

Douglas Adams explains this point in detail and why it leads to our inferring design in the complexity of nature in his lecture at this conference. There's a link to it in the description box.

Also, explaining the universe with a creative being means you need to explain the origin of that creative being with another being and so on.

[1tabligh]

Also, explaining the universe with a creative being means you need to explain the origin of that creative being with another being and so on

______

The Source of All Being is Free of Need for a Cause

The followers of materialism pay much critical attention to the principle that God does not stand in need of a cause. They say if we suppose the Creator to be the origin of the world and the one who bestows existence upon it, all phenomena deriving their origination and continued ....

[1tabligh]

existence from him, what cause has freed him of need for having a creator; what agent has caused him to come into being?

In a lecture given to the London Atheist Society, the wellknown writer, Bertrand Russell, said: "One day, when I was eighteen years of age, I was reading the autobiography of John Stuart Mill. One sentence in particular caught my attention: Mill wrote that one day he asked his father who had brought him into existence, and his father had been unable to answer." ...

[1tabligh]

The reason for this was that he immediately posed the question: who brought God into being?

Russell then adds: "I am still convinced that that simple sentence exposes the sophistry of the primary cause. For if everything must have a reason and cause, the same must apply to the existence of God. If, on the contrary, something can exist without reason or cause, that thing might be either God or the world, and the whole discussion becomes meaningless." ....

[1tabligh]

Unfortunately, certain Western philosophers who accept the existence of God have been unable to solve this problem. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer has said the following in this connection: "The problem is that, on the one hand, human reason seeks a cause for everything and, on the other, refuses all circularity. It neither perceives nor comprehends an uncaused cause. When the priest tells a child that God has created the world, the child asks who has created God." ...

[1tabligh]

Elsewhere he says: "The materialist tries to convince himself of a world that exists in and of itself, eternally and without cause. However, we cannot believe in something that has neither beginning nor cause. The theologian takes matters one step further back by saying that God created the world. But the child asks him the unanswerable question: who created God?'' ...

[1tabligh]

We can raise precisely the same objection against the materialists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?

You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy;

what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"

[theinquisitor]

@1tabligh

I find copy/pasted responses to be lazy and bad form. It doesn't make me inclined to put much effort into a response when your effort consisted of CTRL+C, CTRL+V.

You could have just asked me to google: "The Source of All Being is Free of Need for a Cause" and asked me to read the resulting article.

But briefly, the infinite regress is indeed a problem for a causal view of things, and putting a god in there that magically doesn't need a cause is just special pleading.

[theinquisitor]

It seems to me that if the answer to the problem of infinite regress is an uncaused cause, then there is no reason that it has to be an anthropomorphism. Our self-centered biases alone are reasons enough to be very suspicious of that idea.

Perhaps we don't fully understand the nature of time and causality, which is likely given our recent discoveries about relativity and quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, it seems that causality as we understand it may not even exist.

[1tabligh]

You could have just asked me to google: ...

________

google: Our Philosophy

[theinquisitor]

@ 1tabligh, well I'm glad you didn't try to put an entire book into the comment section. At least you've gone from lazy and bad form to just lazy.

[1tabligh]

Ever heard "You can take the donkey to a watering place, but you can't force him to drink!"?

You still don't get it, do you?

I have already in my inbox more then 6000 replies from wannabes monkeys, teachers, profs, scientists etc!

What makes you think, you are a special wannabe monkey?

No wasting time quibbling in vain!

google: Tradition of Myrobalan Fruit (Hadithe-Halila)

[theinquisitor]

You ever heard of the saying, "you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

[dwaynedibbly]

@1tabligh curb your ego fella.

[1tabligh]

@dwaynedibbly How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[20cigarrosconfiltro]

@1tabligh The same way god created himself and gave himself his all mighty powers and created faulty humans so he could send them to hell if they don't believe stupid BS. Maybe god exists, maybe not. So far there's no proof. I don't understand how people can believe in a biblical god. My guess is that if god exists, we will know him through the laws of nature, which are in itself awe inspiring.

God created everything is no answer. Maybe god wrote this post too.

[1tabligh]

@20cigarrosconfiltro

His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence.

If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.

[doctorfreakus]

@1tabligh Why would anyone answer your question about matter since noone on earth has ever claimed that? Studying evolution has brought mankind closer to god but calling "matter-energy" god has not. Close minded fundamentalists drive people away from god. You are twisting the words you put into people's mouths so you can ask questions that don't make sense. Read:Masturbation. Which God is also against -so stop it! Why don't you not look both ways before you cross the street CauseGodCreatedMatter

[doctorfreakus]

Is it not more logical to say that Red is Yellow than to attribute Red to being Green? Next time I'm landing in an airplane, I pray the pilot ignores the "scientific" instruments, closes his/her eyes/brains and prays for a safe landing. Studying and appreciating Creation is an insult to God. God doesn't like people studying and appreciating his work. He likes to keep it on the DL (because?...

[antichrist1909589]

Adams had a good point about religion and money but i disagree with the statement that without everyone's belief in money things wouldnt get done i think that things would get done more so because we wouldnt have money holding people back this is of course in s theoretical world where their is not such thing as scarcity for the majority of resources on a global scale.

[fordogtrainers]

@antichrist1909589 you simply did not listen very carefully :-) , he did not give a general commentary about the world and its use of money, he just said that the simple belief in the value of money creates human situations that will not otherwise happen.

Try listening to it again and you might find some more gems of understandings, I know I did .

[TheBenEEeee]

I wish Adams wasn't so dominating in this part of the talk, as a moderator he should have allowed for the other speakers to reply more - I would have loved to hear what Pinker and Dawkins' thoughts in response were.

[Tuppington]

idk i think adams had a really interesting thing to say in this part. pinker just bloviated IMO. dawkins rocked, as always.

[nethyc]

Douglas Adams was a giant. It is such a loss that he ended up missing the future and isn't here to explain to us what is going on here.

[theinquisitor]

Indeed. Douglas Adams was a man who really knew where his towel was.

[Dhannyewllmetal]

Look how his religiosity is. We see a man believing that his faith is so more coherent than the one of the other he feels down in the right of being arrogant and ironic. Do you see the consequence of the ("pseudo") atheism? The people become uncommunicative, arrogant and, to the I contradict than it is waited of a rational person, HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT. After all, God doesn't exist. He then, continues to have faith: "in the beginning it was it anything, the nothing exploded, and here we are us."

[nethyc]

What is your definition of faith? I think you and DA are using the same term but with with different meanings.

[MikeDrewYT]

The evolved wisdom of the Balian(?)agricultural calendar is essential, but the fact that it was intertwined with traditional supernatural beliefs is not essential to its development. It merely reflects the human mind's propensity to ascribe agency to all manner of phenomena, as discussed earlier in the exchanges.

[nethyc]

"Balinese" A South East Asian island. Part of Indonesia.

[niceonetom]

worst moderator ever!

[anneirenealien]

I wanted to cry when it ended...

[Tapecutter59]

Yes it's a pity the discussion stopped there. The traditional Bali agriculture is an excellent example demonstrating that religion is the direct ancestor of modern science and that before we replace traditions that have been refined over centuries and produce a reliable outcomes we should first ask...

1. Why they work.

2. Why is the replacement an improvement.

[nethyc]

I disagree.

Religion is not a parallel to science. It's problematic comparing them. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. The system which Adams describes as an artificial god and Dawkins might call evolved elements of culture is also a system of acquiring knowledge.

It includes things we call part of religion, but not all of them (eg the Balinese gods are not part of this entity). Lots of thing that aren't religious are part of it. For example, money, manners & middle managers.

[Tapecutter59]

nethyc: "Religion is not a parallel to science"

I'm not saying it is, but many religious ceromonies were built up around some natural (and usefull) phenomena, such as determining the soltice/equinox dates. Religion is primative science/philosophy, you don't have to accept it's explainations but it's arrogant and unscientific to dismiss it's usefull results.

[C7H5BiO4]

I say, a life completely limited to imprisonment in the minute ability of the conscious mind to govern/create is surely preferable to a life of creativity, accomplishment, love, and wide-eyed discovery. Of course controlled science will inevitably explain most of what we intuit now, so we mustn't intuit anything at all.

[SILTOF1LTO]

This conversation was headed in a very important direction and I'm disappointed it was cut of

[bersa888]

The fact that J.S. Bach could have used his strong believe in god as his "mental crutch" for writing music - although in honest, naive fashion, since he believed it to be a truly direct gift/inspiration from above - is indeed quite fascinating and possibly just such a case...

[robotaholic]

I liked how you should enforce riggor in your psychological yet scientific theory of mind from Pinker. But also the memetic theory can't be ignored because it has riggor also from Dawkins.

[pfisterbaby]

Steven Pinker made a very important comment in this discussion regarding the methods we use to explain phenomena such as music and dreaming. It is important to remember Dawkins comment about trying to force evolutionary facts into wholes that they don't fit into. With every branch upward into more profound evolutionary complexity new and seemingly inexplicable phenomena arise. My opinion is that, as our understanding of human psychology grows, things like music will become less mysterious.

[hanschrist]

The discussion was filmed on location (Muffathalle in Munich) by "Zeitfilm" from Hamburg and streamed live on SPIEGEL ONLINE which in 1998 was poor quality. The video(s) shown here seem to be from the low quality live stremaing. Better quality audio and video should be available directly from "Zeitfilm".

[hanschrist]

Hi inquisitor. The original filming of the discussion was made by Joerg Altekruse who runs the small film company "Zeitfim" in Hamburg. It was shown on the internet live in 1998, where it lost quality. You could contact Zeitfim to get hold of a good quality version.

[jrocinsane]

He's wrong about money. It has 3 primary uses: unit of account, medium of exchange, and store of value. This makes a money economy possible.

[theinquisitor]

I don't think he would disagree with your statement. I think his point is just that the physical objects of money, coins, notes and credit cards, have no intrinsic usefulness the way a bottle of water or a pair of shoes does. They're only useful because of our mutual agreement to use these as tokens of value. It's our valuing of these tokens that is entirely the cause of their usefulness, which is different to how food or a tool is useful.

[jrocinsane]

This isn't actually true. The government can give money a value beyond "mutual agreement" by demanding taxes be paid in the national currency. Money is no more subject to our evaluation of it than any other commodity (shoes for example).

And money does have as much intrinsic usefulness as shoes. The 3 characteristics of money I listed give it a utility as real as that of food or shoes. Money is a technology that facilitates exchange, growth, and consumption.

[theinquisitor]

I think there is a real distinction though. The usefulness of shoes comes from their physical characteristics and is independant of the society they are used in. Money can only be useful in a society that accepts the usefulness of money. Shoes would be useful in any environment, like if you were stranded on a desert island, wheras money wouldn't. The usefulness is not instrinsic, it's imbued. An apple is useful whether we believe it is or not, money is only useful if a society believes it is.

[jrocinsane]

I understand your point, but it's incorrect. The usefulness of money is not dependent on a society's beliefs, at least not any more than shoes. A society that didn't want money (or shoes) would have no use for it, but you don't need to "believe" in it for there to be a demand for money.

A primitive person transported to the present would not accept money in return for goods because he doesn't think it is valuable, but nor would he see the value in oil or shoes or computers.

[theinquisitor]

Well if you were to transport a pile of money and a pile of shoes back to the distant past, I think they'd be more likely to use the shoes the way we do and the money would certainly not be used the way we use it. It might take them a little while to figure out what the shoes are for, but they'll never understand what the little discs of metal and pieces of paper are for. This is because the shoes are useful because of their physical structure. Do you not agree that this is a real distinction?

[jrocinsane]

This I agree with completely. American dollars or British Pounds are only useful within the context of our modern monetary system.

But the exact same applies if you transport a cell phone to the past--they will never understand it and can't use it without microwave towers and related infrastructure. That doesn't mean that cell phones don't have an 'intrinsic' value or use, just that their use and value is dependent on other developments and is context specific.

[theinquisitor]

True, but for a different reason. The reason a cell phone works when it is in the right infrastructure is because of it's physical structure, wheras the usefulness of money in the right infrastructure is entirely a mental construct and has nothing to do with the physical structure of the coins and notes. You could make the units of money out of anything that's difficult to replicate, even bits of data on a computer, but a cell phone requires a particular physical structure to be what it is.

[Dannythebruce]

The problem in the debate arises because, when defined strictly by context, "intrinsic value" is a slippery concept, in that we can simply imagine any context where any given 'thing' has no value, except those that meet our most basic physiological needs (air, water etc). This can seem to rule out even objects of great "practical value", because their value is still in some sense contingently derived from a particular situation, and not valuable by necessity across all possible situations.

[Dannythebruce]

And so, you can't actually draw a principled distinction between a mobile phone and a note of currency. Both function as they were designed to because of their very specific physical properties (regardless of the fact that something fulfilling the functional role of a unit of currency has many more possible instantiations that something fulfilling the functional role of a mobile telephone) and both derive their value (realise their functions) only in specific contexts (infrastructures).

[Dannythebruce]

However, you can draw a principled distinction between a mobile phone, and say, air, water or food. This is because it would seem impossible to imagine any *realistic* situation where we don't require these things by necessity. Shoes are a comparative luxury, and certainly not valuable in every context.

[Dannythebruce]

All that said, the strong intuition still stands: "But a coin / note / diamond etc isn't INTRINSICALLY useful!" But in reality, context is everything, and very little has so-called 'intrinsic' value in the purest sense, although some things more than others. It's simply a slippery concept.

[NyelaniousTour]

The point made in the video was actually that your belief that my note is worth exchange for intrisically useful product provides the notes value. It doesn't matter about other uses for paper or coin, only that the exchange rate is about acceptance of that exchange rate. A pile of notes is not a pile of paper, it is a trading material for a yacht. An equal size pile of paper cannot be exchanged for a yacht. The purpose of a note, therefore is not intrinsic to paper by its naure.

[Shellb08]

I agree with NyelaniusTour here.

The point which is being made is that a monetary note's value(for example) derives from a social/collective agreement on what it represents/constitutes. The object's value is defined by the boundaries of the social agreement it is situated within (eg collective use of same monetary system/exchange rate), not by it's 'intrinsic' value (eg physical properties, practical uses).

[Shellb08]

This may lead to the idea that Religion's value stems from it representing a shared/collective belief, enabling 'useful' social interactions. Religion's value is not based upon its belief in 'God' actually being real, but the actual benefits this shared belief system can bring.

[ahun00]

what is the joke at 4:48 ? i cannot hear it.

[theinquisitor]

I think he's saying "not in the USA today", but I don't really get the reference myself.

[fathead8489]

So eerie watching Douglas Adams alive and well, moderating a discussion. Humanity truly lost a great mind. What a shame.

[CognosSquare]

What a little treat. But how about that planning, having these 4 great minds and 40 minutes to spare.

They barely had time to rev up.

[brazilnut23]

thanks for the upload!

[irishmauddib]

Here is an interesting thought experiment. Play the bit again where Adams is talking about money and what it means. Substitute for money the concept of morals. Its interesting what comes out as an answer for people who claim we cant be moral without the presuposition of a god. There is "an awful lot of things that wouldnt happen" if people didnt subscribe to the ideas. Who needs a god?

[ss3012a]

Comments people are writing backwards with English bad they are. (interesting video btw ^^ )

[HarveyBirdmanTk421]

Your name you should to Yoda change....Hmmmmm!

[bryanao]

Um...I have to strongly disagee with this psychological argument for why choose what we believe.

[theinquisitor]

bryano, do you mean Dawkins' argument about the child brain being susceptible to believing it's parents? In what way do you disagree?

[bryanao]

Yes, an inquisitive mind will not be satisfied with an "because I said so" answer. If one prescribe to the belief of their parents traditions without question, then chances are their ability to ponder is either inept or it's need to the person is not felt necessary.

[theinquisitor]

I agree if there is nothing to fear in questioning, however fear is a powerful motivator to restrain your curiosity.

The warnings; "don't go near the water there are crocodiles" and "don't steal or god will send you to hell", are both the same kind of warning. The child brain has no way of knowing one of the warnings is fraudulent, and those that don't listen to those kind of warnings would tend to not survive to breeding age. So there is a seletive pressure towards credulity when afraid.

[bryanao]

Hello Inquisitor. O.K. It kind of adds to my point. If parents say; do not to go near the water because there are crocodiles, or if parents say; there are no crocdiles but the water doesn't taste good. But lets imagine, the child hasn't had anything to drink in awhile, he/she will attempt to go to the river. Many believe there are crocodiles and some think the river is empty and doesn't taste good. I don't advocate either idea.

[theinquisitor]

The point is, which kind of behavior is more likely to lead to reproductive success? Natural selection only needs a slight variation in survival rates to work. Will the children with unrestrained curiosity be more or less likely to die before reproductive age than the children who keep their curiosity at bay when afraid? Those who value knowledge above safety are not going to have as many grandchildren, and evolution will not favour that behaviour. Limited curiosity is the successful strategy.

[bryanao]

True indeed. But I think there is also a direct correlation between the educational systems approach to education and our community at large continuous failure to fix social problems, that result in a childs inability to question. I believe you understand; 'It takes a vilage to raise a child". One can't blame evolution for all of our inadeptness'.

[theinquisitor]

I agree. Education tends to focus too much on memorisation of facts rather than understanding of concepts. This is especially absurd in the days when computers have perfect memories but cannot do the things we are good at, and yet children are treated like databases, and the teachers are just entering the data. If the natural curiosity is rewarded only with "god did it" then it's no wonder that they aren't interested in learning. They have no idea how rewarding it can be.

[theinquisitor]

Simply put, curiosity killed the cat.

[bryanao]

Simply put, there are many satisfied with being parched, but many have a thirst for knowledge.

[jeremmorrow]

Excellent, this.