...
In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.
Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?
“Certainly,” Professor Dawkins replies. “It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures.”
He raises his hand, just in case a reader thinks he’s gone around a religious bend. “It’s very important to understand that these Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution.”
Could they be immortal? The professor shrugs.
“Probably not.” He smiles and adds, “But I wouldn’t want to be too dogmatic about that.”
This is not the first time Dawkins has said stuff like this. In a universe 13 billion years old with trillions of Earth like planets, it's not only possible that these god-like entities have evolved but it's much more probable than not that they're out there right now observing us. You can't prove that they exist but logically it seems like a safe bet. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they have intervened in our planet's history over the last few thousand years? Not at all. Why wouldn't they? Possibly they'll intervene again. Something like prayer then wouldn't be a waste of time then would it? And belief in something like an Afterlife wouldn't be so absurd either. I am not sufficiently brilliant to understand Dawkins's parsing on this. He refuses to believe in god but he accepts the possibility, even probability, that there may be gods or god-like entities watching us. What's the difference? If a Christian were to accept that his god didn't come before the universe but evolved from it would Dawkins accept him as a fellow believer/non believer?
...
I'd also like just one interviewer to ask Dawkins what he thinks of his fellow Oxford professor, Nick Bostrom's work, in which he claims that almost certainly we are living in a Sim universe.
35 comments:
At the beggining of The God Dellusion Dawkins sets out a scale for atheism that ranges from 1-10. He placed himself at 9, saying that he cant 100% guarantee there is not some sort of god like entity.
However I think his main issue is with Religion and its variations of gods. Whenever you compare the gods portrayed in religion to the reality of life and the world we live in, it does not add up. Therefore he usually makes it clear the life forms he refers to as God could not be anything like Allah or God.
I thought an atheist was an all in stance, either you do or you don't, specially among those who make the claim to be one. Myself, I certainly don't think humans are the supreme entity.
I think I'm agnostic, but I'm not committed to it. just had a flick through Dawkins new book, it looks good with lots of pictures.
Tim
If Billy Graham say is a one, I'd put Dawkins about a four. I'd put myself at about an eight. I just dont see the difference between these god like entities and gods who mess around with us and accept our prayers etc.
Sean
Apparently there's a scale. And I think he's pretty low down on it. In fact he should really call himself an agnostic, like everybody else.
Frank
I'm agnostic too. I think atheism is a bit too strong a stance and not very logical.
I think callin yourself an atheist makes you sound like a student trying to be clever. I am interested in how science teachers in school who are religious teach evolution and all things science. How do they reconcile the two?
Frankie
Well I dont understand that at all really. How can you believe the Bible is literally true and still teach science? Its silly.
I had a geography teacher who believed in the literal truth of Noahs Ark. I used to have endless arguments with him about it. How could you get 10 million different species into a rather small boat, I wanted to know, but he just believed it because it was in the Bible.
Frankie
Actually the more interesting argument against Noahs Ark is this: if the water was deep enough to cover the highest mountain (Everest) that would mean there was so much water and water vapour in the atmosphere that you would drown in the air.
I am an agnostic with an interest in theological thought, and I tend to like religious people as having a kind of bigger picture sense of reality than people who hold celebrities of one sort or another as their highest idea of celestial beings.
I've liked this short poem by Czelaw Milosz since I read it:
If there is no God
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother’s keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying that there is no God.
Of course, I read this to my book group once and they thought it was some kind of confession of faith.
I am often misunderstood.
Seana
Its a very nice poem.
You know I'm a big fan of Hitch but I think he goes overboard when he says that religion poisons everything. Would India or Bali really be more interesting places without their pluralistic, diverse religion/religions. Would Japan be as fascinating a place without Shinto?
It actually came up at a very interesting discussion we were having at the Penny tonight with one of our former County Supervisors. I think he would agree with me if I abbreviated it by saying that religion doesn't poison everything, but it very easily poisons politics. And I suppose the reverse is true as well.
If there are higher beings out there watching us, why don't they enlighten us? They could post comments here, for example.
I went to a christening in a beautiful 1000 year old church last week and i was thinking the best thing about religion is the churches that were built. Without them we would live in a boring Ikea like world.
How do you know they haven't, Mark?
Is there a point on the scale where belief starts to affect your actions?
If people didn't tell me what they believed there are very few times where I could tell by their behaviour - it really seems to come down to what justifications people use for their actions.
Nice point John, I've thought the same thing several times.
I'm agnostic to the core, but if the plane starts going down I'll pray like a banshee!!!
Mark
Maybe they're nudging in a certain direction or maybe they just dont intervene a la Star Trek or maybe we're the first intelligent civ in the galaxy
Frankie
Its always a bit depressing when a 500 year old church gets turned into a furniture warehouse or a disco. I suppose Dawkins, Hitchens etc. would love that though.
John
Yes good point. If the voices in your head tell you to go around killing people for example. Of if you base your moral decisions on a book that was written for backward nomadic desert dwelling bronze age tribes.
Dennis
I was in a plane once that dropped out of the sky over Miami. I didnt pray but it was all right because almost everyone else on board was screaming and praying for us.
Seana
You want to come clean about your extra terrestrial origins?
Not yet.
Therefore, it has autonomy, emotional and possessive. Storr said, it is the shadow, representing the embarrassment of a single tongue Freud in Psychopathology of everyday life that
veins
Very interesting thoughts on religion, belief, and behavior. I've studied theology for a long time and have my prejudices and presuppositions, but I think it is safe to say that everyone believes in something and exhibits faith to one degree or another in their beliefs. Even those who claim to be agnostic or atheistic cannot base their beliefs solely on evidence, because it doesn't all fit. So the question is, how much does faith play a role in your beliefs, and how does it impact your behavior?
If you were to look at my life, you would call it religious. But I don't do the things I do in order to be religious, I do them because I believe it is the proper way to exist. I choose to live the way I do and work to express the values and morals that I believe I should. Many people are religious in order to feel better about themselves or because it's simply what they were taught (rather than because they have examined the options and have personally chosen to express belief in certain things). I believe both of these motivations are misguided and make for a huge group of people who are assumed to be religious but are really just playing a role that they think they are supposed to play. Others are "turned off" by these hypocritical "religious people" (who aren't really religious in the first place). Because of this, many things are poisoned by religion (because it is not authentic) and religion simply becomes another way to manipulate people and get them to do what you want them to.
I do believe that what the Bible says is true, and I believe that there are logical (but debatable) explanations for many issues where the Bible and science seem to be at odds. But the most valuable information we get from Scripture is that God loves us. He shows His love in many ways, but most pointedly through redemption (which we all long for).
I'm not the type to beat people over the head with my beliefs (which are personal, just as God intended), but couldn't help but chime in on such a fun topic. Thanks for letting us share our opinions.
I'm not religious, wasn't brought up that way, don't think that way. Was taught at a young age to ask questions and use logical arguments.
I wouldn't be praying if the plane were going down. Have lost loved ones, friends, relatives who didn't become religious.
Architecture, music and art were inspired by religions or financially supported by patrons.
However, many religions tell people how to behave, i.e., women, robbing them of autonomy
and even acting against their own interests; create guilt about things no one should feel guilty about.
How many families didn't believe their children who were abused by priests? Did nothing? Supported the church? Created so much pain and guilt and grief for those survivors. And governments caved in, too and didn't protect them.
And here, gosh, in the name of religion, science and history are rewritten in some public school textbooks, books are banned from libraries and schools. People aren't taught to think.
I found out this week that most of my favorite books are on the list of banned books. These include The Diary of Anne Frank!
(Unbelievable!) And dictionaries, not to mention John Steinbeck, Toni Morrison, etc.
Also, people can be motivated by things other than celebrities or religion. Helping other people in one way or another, for one thing.
God’s biggest issue is religion. The principal issue with religions is that they just don’t evolve. Nothing has changed in my lifetime in religious knowledge or teaching and it seems nothing has changed in the last 2000 years.
By comparison there have been major advances in all other human activity. Life expectancy from the Neolithic era to the late nineteenth century was 30 years. In the last 140 years it has more than doubled. The era of scientific and technological advancement has changed humanity much more than the entire era of prophets and religion. This can only be seen as a failure of religions to evolve and not a failure of God. Indeed philosophically we could view it that God has started a recent fight back against the religions.
The focus for religion has to be survival. Worldwide propagation of the core religious messages was complete in the 20th century. What now? Building maintenance, wages, a variety of authoritative outfits and hats. Religions may have financial plans but it’s evident they don’t have sales and marketing plans, social media strategies or indeed any God strategy.
Don’t let the impending transition of religions from moral leadership to property managers engender any doubts about God. A modern human going back 2000 years with all today’s medical knowledge, weapons and protection would certainly be considered a god. Indeed any species more scientifically and technologically advanced than another is a god. It’s inconceivable therefore with the scale and duration of the pre and post universe that God does not exist. Therefore repent and seek salvation!
Oh and Bostrom - don't get me started on pseudo philosophers.
DJD
If I really thought that the Bible was the literal word of God it would be such an amazing thing, I'd learn Hebrew and Greek in an attempt to understand those words for myself. Like the Hasidic Torah scholars I'd spend 16 hours a day just trying to get closer to the words. If you dont do that I wonder if deep in your heart you really believe that it's the literal word of God?
Anon
Can you explain the flaw in Bostrom's logic?
I know that very serious philosophers such as Derek Parfitt take him seriously.
The problem with science is that it rests on axioms which themselves cannot be proved. Hitchens (who I like very much) says that science has got to nothing to do with faith, well I'm afraid Kurt Godel demonstrated otherwise.
Adrian.
It is an amazing thing to believe we have God's Word. But what consumes me is accurately understanding, applying, and living out what it says in an authentic and genuine way. I think this is really the point. I believe that God has communicated with us - and it is for a reason. One of those reasons is transformed lives.
God's Word is precious because it tells me about Him and how to have a relationship with Him. The words themselves are important because of the Author.
I have an undergrad minor in Greek, and a 96 hour Master of Divinity with advanced 4th level Greek and 2 years of Hebrew. I am currenlty pursuing a Doctorate in Theology.
But I agree with your point, that many who believe in God and His Word do not always exhibit a comittment and dedication to honoring what they claim to believe in. One has to wonder just how strongly that person truly believes.
Thanks for letting me rant!
DJD
You call that a rant?
I call that a very articulate representation of your argument. If that's your rant I'd be terrified to be in a debate with you!
Unquestionably Bostrom is a good academic. Bostrom’s simulation paper of course was written after the release of The Matrix film and as you point out just after the release of the computer game The Sims. Cynically one could point to other populist trends in his subsequent works.
However much of Bostrom’s subsequent work is more transparent than ‘Are we living ....’ and AWL deals with one of the main themes of Bostrom’s works - to query whether we will reach a posthuman civilisation.
Useful philosophy is generally absent from mainstream debate. This may be a failure of philosophy to sell itself or a failure of news media and business to actively seek input from philosophy. Philosophy is still trying to answer ‘the big questions’ while in most cases ignoring significant questions. For example one of the big European stories this week is the financial bailout of Greece. But is it really a bailout of Greece or is it a bailout of the banks that lent money to Greece? For lots of reasons European leaders and the global media decided on the former.
To answer your question: There is no solution to any well constrained black box reality question. If you exist in a black box and have always existed in a black box and all your sensory exploration is constrained within and by the black box then you can never provide proof of a reality outside of the black box.
To overcome the main issues with his arguments in this paper Bostrom adds further constraints. A) Posthumans: No dialogue on what Posthumans are and why an extremely advanced entity would have any need for computers let alone planet sized computers. B) Time: Ignored in the formula and overcome by stating it’s not relevant. C) Failsafe: The simulation can be stopped and rewound therefore no knowledge of the simulation can be accumulated or ever discovered within the black box since the rewind facility would be used to remove it. D) Resolution: Resolution of the simulated universe is not an issue as high level detail can be provided on demand. E) State Computer: There is no dialogue on the power of the state computer required to hold the state of everything in the entire universe such that it can be made available on demand. F) Infinite Loop / Infinite Power: Dealt with simply by allowing the simulation to be switched off if any number of simulated life forms start running ancestor simulations. G) Formulaic Problems: Bostrom is no mathematician and he doesn’t claim to be one. Consequently there are boundary issues with his formula which range from no one lives in a simulation to we definitely live in a simulation. Subsequently the original formula has been patched and re-issued with input from other mathematicians.
All the issues listed can be overcome by modifying the paper. There are no limits to the constraints that can be placed on this sort of black box problem. There are just degrees of what is reasonable. The central questions of development to a posthuman state and the existence of other posthuman civilisations are valid. Bostrom tackles this question from a number of angles in other works. My point was merely that this was not the best approach but it was topical at the time.
Anon
Paul Davies, a physicist and mathematician, takes Bostrom's theories seriously in his book The Goldilocks Enigma. And in fact he suggests several ways around the black box problem as you put it...If we find that pi starts repeating itself for example that may be proof that we're living in a sim. He's got several other interesting takes in his chapter on Bostrom.
Brian Greene, the quantum physicist, also has a chapter on Bostrom in his latest book and some solutions for your black box dilemma...but I was so bored listening to that book that I dont really remember what his arguments were.
Agree with you on the posthuman stuff in Bostrom's stuff...nothing could be less interesting than those sort of speculations.
There’s no end to your reading ... The debate is clearly topical but I’m surprised at the people who have weighed in. Where are you going when you start an academic paper with a concept (posthuman) you never define? What have you learnt when all the constraints and formula can be updated such that those running simulations have equal probability of being in a simulation and the only outcome is an infinity problem which is overcome by pulling the plug? We’ve learnt nothing. Our knowledge has not increased.
To wrap up: Multiverse Lectures with further corroborating evidence will prove challenging for most religions (but not simulation cults). The hole in the CMB (500 million light years across) is either statistically consistent with the inflation phase and expansion of the universe, the mother of all black holes or as Mersini-Houghton and her colleagues suggest possibly the effects of a neighbouring universe. (Mersini-Houghton’s use of an ice hockey stick in her lecture seems like a useful tip .... school in Albania must have been fun).
Post a Comment