I gave a talk in Madison in April. They recorded it! Now you can watch it too!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I gave a talk in Madison in April. They recorded it! Now you can watch it too!
Ballsacks?
Glad I’m not the only one who noticed
Woo Hoo, the wisatheists finally released videos my favorite event so far this year: Freethought Festival, and seeing PZ in person for the first time!
Now I can watch all the speakers that I missed!
Science is compatible with religion in general in theistic universes
and incompatible in atheistic universes.
Science might be be temporarily compatible with religion even in atheistic universes if the inhabitants haven’t accumulated enough knowledge yet to be reasonably sure that they are in an atheistic universe.
And in the other direction, science can temporarily appear to be incompatible with religion in general even in theistic universes, if too many of the inhabitants of the given theistic universe fall prey to false religions.
And of course, being compatible with religion in general does not mean that it is compatible with a particular religion.
This doesn’t parse. Since no universe has a creator (who created the creator?), they are all atheistic. And there is no evidence for imaginary deities. FM is doing the typical presuppose a deity bullshit for a later gottcha.
Irrelevant. Creators of universes can themselves be created by all sorts of means, or exist without a meta-creator.
How do you know ?
May I ask you to stop making up bullshit and putting it in my mouth ?
Worth watching for the crocoduck tie alone. The rest is gravy. But not on the tie.
Heh. And here I was just reading a blog that says science and religion go together like chocolate and peanut butter:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2012/07/02/simplifying-the-data/
Where is your evidence for this statement? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Only if you stop putting bullshit in your mouth…
How do you know?
In other words, where are you getting these assumptions from? What evidence points you in this direction? If it’s coming from your own imagination, then why should we even bother listening to you?
How can these creators be created? By what means? Also, by what means did this creator create our universe? You can’t just snap your fingers and say, “God did it!” and be done with it. How did this creator do it? If you have no idea, then you have no proverbial leg to stand on.
frankensteinmonster: “herp herp derp derp! yam yam yam!”
Didn’t you just watch the video?
*Sees PZ’s wedding picture*
The 19th century called and wants its mutton chops back.
it is logically possible.
they are contained in the very concept of creating something. Like ‘X creates Y’. there is no reason to exclude universes nor gods from being X or Y.
Didn’t I ?
It is very relevant, as it reveals the question begging or gets someone supposedly defending The Perfect Christian God to shoot themselves in the foot by saying something like
You also have a very loose notion of compatibility, implying that you consider them compatible if the scientific knowledge base doesn’t contradict a given religion’s beliefs. That’s not the full picture of what we speak of when bringing up compatibility. Look first at the methods (or, in the case of religion, the “methods”).
Of course there is a reason. Because there is no evidence that the universe could be considered a “creator” (per se), no coherent argument proving that the universe needs an external creator, and no case for “gods” being something that actually exists.
This is the first lie in the bible. If the bible is the word of god then god is a liar and an unworthy moral source. If god inspired humans to write the bible then god inspires lying and fails phenomenally as a source of morality.
LOLWUT ?
with methods it is just the same as with the beliefs. May or may not be compatible.
Explain. Why for example one can not say that the cosmic microwave background was created by the universe when it was young ?
frankensteinmonster @ #4:
Universes can be created by all sorts of means, or exist without a creator.
Fixed that for you. And all I needed was this handy razor. Always remember: Parsimony is your friend!
You didn’t fix anything. that is what I said my very first post here.
I am afraid, you are using it wrong. it applies to the preference of (scientific)hypotheses only. Not to statements of purely deductive-analytical nature.
Necessary but not sufficient.
You used statements of purely deductive analytical nature ? Where? All you’re done so far is spout nonsense, adding non-existent invisible sky people where none were necessary.
Laplace got it right when he told Napolean why his equations didn’t include god – they didn’t need any gods to work just fine – just like the universe we live in.
?
If a created universe is logically possible, then some of all logically possible universes are created. What is insufficient there ?
All you are doing is reading things into my posts. things I didn’t write.
Funny how those claiming a creator never show how or attempt to describe how creators are created. Nothing but presupposition.
And they never want to consider why parsimony negates the idea of a created creator, which is nothing but unnecessary and illogical baggage.
Great talk, PZ. Not that I could deliver anything like that nor as eloquently but the only thing I would add regarding the argument that other belief systems have done bad things too is that communism isn’t exclusive from religion in that it’s totalitarian. It’s members must believe it and not based on reason but on authority. Any system, that discourages or even demands that it’s members not think freely should all be lumped together. It’s not really enough to say that it’s not an argument that your belief system is good for the world just because other non-religious ones aren’t.
frankensteinmonster isn’t claiming a creator.
Trick question:
Is science compatible with deontology?
Which if you say it aloud is funny
So order to do any science properly, you must first assume there is no god and base all conclusions on that premise even on matters not related to science?
No, I have never read that in any science book that refers to scientific methods.
.
Used that way, I am afraid, it negates any statements about logical possibility or of something. I am sure it is not the right way of using it.
frankensteinmonster is claiming that
If xe is using theistic in any normal sense then xe is claiming that some god or other exists, and if said god is not the creator then what use is it?
LILAPWL:
As for the compatibility of science with deontology, since the word derives from the Greek for duty and science (or study of) then it is hard to see how science can be incompatible with deontology (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Scientific testing of ideas does assume that no magical, supernatural being is going to interfere and alter results on a whim. If it were possible for a god to intervene at any moment, in any way it desired, no test or experiment would be meaningful or valid.
Gee, FM sounds like it is channeling Rajkumar and SciFi/Shiloh from the TZT with talk about possibilities and logical necessities. Of course, not one iota of evidence showing what it means, so the channeling is effective.
Nope.
To say “science is compatible with religion in general in theistic universes” is not to claim that the number of theistic universes is larger than zero.
The set of theistic universes may still be a null set.
:) Okay, I should have been a bit more specific:
Is science compatible with deontological ethics?
Maybe I’m just slow today, but methinks deontology implies that FM needs to do hir duty and study fricking the sciences before pontificating any further.
Just because some statement is logically consistent doesn’t mean it has any relationship with reality.
a. No dog has five legs.
b. A dog has four more legs than a non-existent dog.
c. A non-existent dog can be called “no dog.”
d. Therefore a dog can have nine legs.
The thing is, that one can use similar words to say different, even opposite things. I am afraid that judging the content of my posts by comparing word usage statistics is just not enough. You might try to understand the actual meaning of what I am writing.
True, but I didn’t say it has. are you too reading something in my posts that I didn’t write there ?
Your example is not even logically consistent, though.
At (c) you’re doing a fallacy of equivocation with “no dog”,
because back at (a) you’ve got a statement which is logically equivalent to “all dogs do not have five legs”,
and at (c) your no-dog is not equivalent to all dogs.
What you did there was wordplay, not valid logic.
FM, you implied that theistic universes exist, not just that they were logically possible. You did the same thing with creators of universes.
from wikipedia :
depends whether the rules will be considered scientific hypotheses or axioms. let’s consider an example “Rule x : Do the good thing X !’
.
In the first case, it might be considered equivalent to to the hypothesis ‘X is good’ and thus be scientifically tested and be either rejected or accepted.
.
In the second case, we might consider it to be an axiomatic definition of ‘the good thing’ Then we might still test whether this definition is in agreement with how the people are using this phrase and for example come to conclusion, that their use is in agreement with the definition, or it is not, and people use the string ‘the good thing’ in an completely different meaning, thus invalidating the definition.
.
The third case is the dogmatic option that says “it is THE definition of ‘the good thing’, and even if all people use it differently, they are all wrong”. But this case is incompatible with the very methodology of science, in which language and definitions are made to describe reality better, and not the validity of reality being judged by preconceived fixed definitions.
No I didn’t.
So, to explain what supports the first hypothetical turtle, we add another hypothetical turtle, in which case, this, or we simply throw our hands in the air and say ‘well the turtle exists because it exists’. The latter being the very problem (of explaining the origin of the universe naturalistically) that the turtle was introduced to ‘solve’ in the first place—the turtle hypothesis merely places the problem one further step back.
As a matter of castles-in-the-air logic, there’s no way of disproving it, but without sightings of actual turtles, what advantage does adding the complication of turtles provide?
That’s perfectly silly! It’s a Boltzmann turtle, of course.
Who said anything about an advantage?
(Other than the prima facie fact that turtles are cool.)
Oh, you mean your meaningless statements of irrational possibility and rational necessity? They don’t make sense except maybe to someone who has studied sophist philosophy. Maybe a philosopher used to word salads might find them informative. As a scientist they are meaningless drivel without a reality check. Have you done one yet?
You’re in the wrong loop, Nerd.
FM didn’t bring up necessity.
Wrong; the reality check is that there’s no evidence that the set of theistic universes has more than zero elements.
PZ, The trick so that you don’t have to follow JT. I watched your video first (not intentionally, just the order of my RSS feeder).
But can you define “good” in empirically measurable terms? How are you defining “good”? Surely you’re assuming what you need to prove, that what is and isn’t “good” is a question of objective fact which is susceptible to empirical enquiry?
(If you’re a fan of Daniel Fincke, you may indeed think that “goodness is a factual matter“, and that statements about moral values can be understood as statements of fact. I don’t agree with him.)
I always forget. Are they the ones that live on Vegemite sandwiches, which they hunt on the night of the full moon, or are they the ones with the spectacle-shaped growths on their shells?
I meant as an explanatory device. Though I agree; just being damned cool is a pretty good reason for existence.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think frankensteinmonster actually claimed that a god exists.
Rather, as far as I understood hir, xe was saying that if a god did exist, religion in general would be compatible with science (though specific religions might not be, because it would still be possible for people to fall prey to false religions). By contrast, if there is no god, religion in general is incompatible with science – though it might temporarily appear to be compatible because of gaps in our scientific knowledge.
This seems to me to be trivially true and a fairly pointless observation. I don’t really see how it adds to our understanding. But it isn’t wrong, as such.
(frankensteinmonster, are you the same person as Frankosaurus / Professor Frink, btw?)
People have to have an intuitive definition of ‘good’ in their heads when they are saying that something is ‘good’ and something not. Science can observe this and provide us with an explicit model of it.
Vegemite, probably? Not sure. I’ll have to pray about it.
Aye but I don’t see any reason to think that it’s being proposed as an explanation.
Then why even bring them up and posit them? That’s what I don’t see.
Indeed. But if it’s not proposed as an explanation, and there’s no evidential basis to suppose it exists, then then its compatibility, or lack of, hardly matters.
I imagine it’s simply part of an attempt to give a comprehensive answer to the question “are science and religion compatible?”
But hopefully FM will answer you.
True, true. I expected that the first response to my post would be like …and all bachelors are unmarried, duh !. I was really surprised when people started putting theistic apologetics in my mouth instead.
No, I am quite sure that I am NOT. Provided that someone didn’t tamper with my memories, of course ;)
Regarding turtle support, I always supposed that they just kind of swim through space. It’s the four elephants that actually support the world.
Duh.
dalehusband said:
No. You must first not assume that there is a god.
Ok. I apologize.
Walton said:
I suppose what made me think FM was at least suggesting the existience of a god was this, emphasis mine:
That statement invalidly presupposes that there is such thing as a “theistic universe.”
No it does not,
no more than the statement “unicorns have horns” presupposes that there exists such a thing as a unicorn.
However, there does exist such a thing as a unicorn.
By a minimal definition of “unicorn”, anyway.
What’s the formal minimal definition of a “God”, anyway?
I suggest “person with magical superpowers” (and I can suggest some minimal definition of “magical superpowers” . . maybe something like “the ability to deliberately bring about results alone and in very short amounts of time that would require many humans many many years and very specialized tools to achieve” — this could be refined further if problems are found with it.)
I usually phrase it as “invisible person with magical superpowers” when responding to theists, although I would be the first to admit that invisibility is not a necessary minimal trait.
Theists either don’t challenge my definition, or don’t respond when I support my definition as referring to their God.
Hmmm, I didn’t read it that way. I understood it as a hypothetical: “in a universe with a god, X would be true” and “in a universe without a god, Y would be true”. As far as I understood it he was talking about hypothetical possible universes, not claiming that such universes actually exist.
Given that we exist in a theistic universe, and on a theistic planet no less, this is a safe enough assumption – as long as you remember that theism describes a belief in at least one god whether any such gods exist or not.
The problem comes from the notion that religion (supporting a belief in a god) could even exist in an atheistic universe (where no beliefs in gods exist) – this is impossible, and as such it is impossible for a religion to be compatible with science in an atheistic universe. This claim can only be possible in a theistic universe (in which religions can exist since beliefs in god(s) exist), however unlikely it might be.
Religion a force for Good? Its not even a force for nice.
Er, what? The statement “unicorns have horns” does presuppose that there exists such a thing as a unicorn. Else, what is it we’re talking about that has the horns?
RE: Walton, upon reread, you’re probably right. I think the problem is one of clarity rather than one of deity.
Not religion, the Navy, at least according to a commercial I saw on the teevee.
I thought they were mythical single-horned equines which are now known not to exist.
“Mythical” kind of presupposes nonexistence, though. Is there a known counterexample?
If “mythical” is struck, and “perissodactyls” is substituted for “equines”, one gets this, of course
If I understand everything, FM is saying that deontological ethics and science are compatible as long as it’s not taken absolutely (formulation 3). Formulation 1 & 2 seem to boil down to the same basic idea. Do I have that correct?
I figured it means “known to us via traditional storytelling.” I was thinking it’s equivalent to legendary, but I guess there’s a common schema by which unicorns would be legendary and not mythical, because they were believed to exist contemporaneously.
So I would say that an ancient flood story would remain a myth even if all its elements were plausible (even likely) and physical evidence located its origin in a particular local flood.
Sure, but the statement wasn’t “mythical unicorns have mythical horns,” which devoid of context presupposes that unicorns are mythical and therefore, do not exist just as devoid of context the statement “unicorns have horns” presupposes that there are unicorns.
RE: Owlmirror
And also these guys, though to be correct the tense would have to have been past (i.e. “had horns”)…
[re: unicorn-compatibilism!]
???
For values of “one” that are equal to two.
Teh Intarwebs sayeth that there are (OK, were) unicorn ceratopsids, just not that one.
Another fabulous unicorn.
The Wikipedia page you linked to emphasizes the definition as a term of art by anthropologists/folklorists; I see that it mentions the sense that I read it as having above (“popular misconception or imaginary entity”), as being specifically false/imaginary.
The trouble is, your wording was rather loose. Being more careful and pedantic, one might say something like: “The unicorn — from the Latin term meaning “one horn” — is an animal which is narrowly defined as an equid with one horn growing from its forehead (and even more narrowly defined as having mythic or legendary attributes [attracted to or only approachable by young human (female?) virgins; the horn is said to detect and/or neutralize poisons]), but which cannot be traced to any living or extinct lineage of equids, inasmuch as all of them were and are hornless, OR more broadly defined as an animal with a single horn, in which case there are more than a few extinct and living lineages to which the term could accurately apply, in some cases following neonatal horn-bud surgery.”
Saying “Harry Potter has a magic wand” doesn’t necessarily presuppose Harry Potter or magic wands exist.
You might claim existence isn’t a predicate, but even if you allow those sorts of shenanigans, I think you could still negate it in the quantifier without contradicting yourself. For example, you could say “there is no such thing as an existing-wizard.” But really we’re only concerned whether there’s sufficient evidence for a rational person to believe it, because logic doesn’t get you there by itself anyway.
Am I the only person who can’t hear the video? >_>
If not, is there an alternative recording somewhere?
Wull see, I’m never that pedantic without stimulant drugs.
I figure that natural language allows for statements like “obviously-nonexistent-entity-X has property-Y” whenever X is culturally understood to be obviously nonexistent.
That time was, for me, immediately obvious at frankensteinmonster’s #4; excusably for others, it should have been obvious to everyone by #19.
I’m gonna act like cr didn’t beat me to it, and say, hey we’re allowed to say that Harry Potter is a magician, goes to Hogwarts, and has a friend named Ron Weasely, right?
RE: Owlmirror…
Dang. I guess that’s what I get for simply going with the first picture I found of what appeared at first glance to be a single-horned dino. At least you got the point, thanks for the save.
I’m also curious how this fits into the equation…
Yay! I was there and saw him live!
If I could afford it, I would see him live again next month. Oh, well. Guess I’ll have to wait until next April…