Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Tripe]

their opinion deserves to be heard as much as any other pundit for any issue.  Take that however you will.

Sure they can have their opinion, if they want to express that opinion they can do so on any street corner. What they do not have a right to is:

* A salary for teaching something that is not science.
* The license to produce no testable research.
* A free pass to escape peer review of their claims
* The protection from hoots of derision for their moronic creationist beliefs and it's pitiful attempt to disguise it as bogus science.

But they can have any opinion they like.

Not everything is a matter of opinion.

Again (and back on topic), why did they go up against atheists in this movie? It would have been more logical to debate with theist-evolutionists if only evolution and folks getting into trouble for mentioning God in a science class were the only topics of debate. If they wanted to make a documentary about proving God, then it would be more logical to involve atheists. The more we involve them in our silly  theological debates, I think the more we make a bad case for ourselves as believers.

From Dim's link:

Expelled makes a big point of connecting atheism to advocacy of evolution, reinforcing the "conspiracy" theme that atheist scientists are actively repressing intelligent design advocacy. The movie sets up an unnecessary dichotomy between science and religion by pretending that a selected group of atheist scientists represent all scientists. Associate Producer Mark Mathis admitted in an interview that religious scientists like Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a practicing Catholic, were deliberately excluded from the movie because their views would have "confused the film unnecessarily"

The film's as full of falsehood as ID itself.

[torgosPizza]

I think the process is God.

The process of adapting to your surroundings and passing on your adaptation as a genetic mutation... is God?

It would be convenient, if it were true. But I don't think it is, mainly because the majority of believers disagree with you too. There is such a mind-bogglingly vast plane of differing opinions on the subject, that it's hard to keep them straight. Your view is more aligned with how Einstein and Jefferson thought, that any supernatural force merely guides the natural order. Their god did not interfere in the lives of its creations; and its creations felt no need to praise it for doing only what came naturally.

Unfortunately, the majority of people claim to not only know that a fatherly God of the Judeo-Christian faith exists, but that they also know what it wants, what it approves of, and that it will judge them when they die. Since this is the agreed-upon definition of God, that's what we are debating.

[bratpop]

Aren't we all God, really? And aren't our dogs the opposite of God?

[Tripe]

One of mine certainly is.

[bettertomorrowamy]

The most I might agree to there being a god is that "he" created the point in space-time that ruptured and formed our universe and it's laws.  Anything that happened after that happened due to probabilities of occurances.  The only reason I would agree to there being a God at that point is because anything before that moment is unknown.  So any reason is just as good as any other reason.

[Tyrant]

I think the process is God.

The process of adapting to your surroundings and passing on your adaptation as a genetic mutation... is God?

It would be convenient, if it were true. But I don't think it is, mainly because the majority of believers disagree with you too. There is such a mind-bogglingly vast plane of differing opinions on the subject, that it's hard to keep them straight. Your view is more aligned with how Einstein and Jefferson thought, that any supernatural force merely guides the natural order. Their god did not interfere in the lives of its creations; and its creations felt no need to praise it for doing only what came naturally.

Unfortunately, the majority of people claim to not only know that a fatherly God of the Judeo-Christian faith exists, but that they also know what it wants, what it approves of, and that it will judge them when they die. Since this is the agreed-upon definition of God, that's what we are debating.

   Well, I wouldn't call it any more 'unfortunate' than I would call someone who lacks faith or has one different from mine 'unfortunate'. Nor do we (well, those of us with any sanity anyway) 'know' anything at all. We 'believe'  which intones a more subjective rather than objective context. If we knew anything, we wouldn't need faith (or to explore, or experiment, or debate, etc). I believe you've said yourself on many occasions that none of us know anything and you would be absolutely right. We can, however, have ideas about things.

   

[Lemming Howard]

I think the process is God.

The process of adapting to your surroundings and passing on your adaptation as a genetic mutation... is God?

It would be convenient, if it were true. But I don't think it is, mainly because the majority of believers disagree with you too. There is such a mind-bogglingly vast plane of differing opinions on the subject, that it's hard to keep them straight. Your view is more aligned with how Einstein and Jefferson thought, that any supernatural force merely guides the natural order. Their god did not interfere in the lives of its creations; and its creations felt no need to praise it for doing only what came naturally.

Unfortunately, the majority of people claim to not only know that a fatherly God of the Judeo-Christian faith exists, but that they also know what it wants, what it approves of, and that it will judge them when they die. Since this is the agreed-upon definition of God, that's what we are debating.

My God isn't necessarily an Awesome God.

Aren't we all God, really? And aren't our dogs the opposite of God?

I/ve owned some awesome dogs,  however.

[AmandaGal]

I think the process is God.

The process of adapting to your surroundings and passing on your adaptation as a genetic mutation... is God?

It would be convenient, if it were true. But I don't think it is, mainly because the majority of believers disagree with you too. There is such a mind-bogglingly vast plane of differing opinions on the subject, that it's hard to keep them straight. Your view is more aligned with how Einstein and Jefferson thought, that any supernatural force merely guides the natural order. Their god did not interfere in the lives of its creations; and its creations felt no need to praise it for doing only what came naturally.

Unfortunately, the majority of people claim to not only know that a fatherly God of the Judeo-Christian faith exists, but that they also know what it wants, what it approves of, and that it will judge them when they die. Since this is the agreed-upon definition of God, that's what we are debating.

I wouldn't expect it to be any different than a "mind-bogglingly vast plane of differing opinions on the subject."  If there is a god, than by definition It is something we could never understand fully.  It's like asking a dog to comprehend Dr. Seuss.  He may understand some of the words you say, but the content is well beyond him.  We believe we're a bit smarter than dogs, but I can't prove it.

Not being Christian, I'm probably not the best to respond to this but I can see someone as guiding the natural order and having expectations and judgments.  It's like a scientist.  When you begin a study, you set up the rules for it.  This is who will be excluded.  This is how the drug will be given.  This is what the end points will be.  This is what specific things we're looking for.  If this happens, the data will be thrown out, etc.  Then you give the drug and stand back.  You observe and at the end, you collect your data and draw your conclusions. 

I don't believe in heaven or hell or in a judgmental god, because I can't comprehend how it would work, looking at the natural rules which I believe are clues that god has left here for us.  I will also humbly say I could be wrong.  I can see how Tyrant could be right too.  I can see how you could be right and this the whole issue could be a sham.  The reality of something bigger than us, outside of our rules and our knowledge, is too big for any of us to comprehend, imho.

[BathTub]

Another point that has come up, I have seen quite a few posts where people have come away with the false impression that Richard Dawkins believes aliens created life on this planet.

[BBQ Platypus]

The reality of something bigger than us, outside of our rules and our knowledge, is too big for any of us to comprehend, imho.

I agree thoroughly with this statement.  There are a great number of things that are beyond human comprehension, due partially to the limits of physical storage of information within our brains.  I can actually PROVE this statement, more or less (although my proof works best for pantheistic or panentheistic conceptions of God).

I remember one of my earliest thought experiments as a child of about 9 or 10 (although I didn't know what a "thought experiment" was at the time, nor the full ramifications of the experiment).  It was a simple question:  What would happen if someone tried to write a book covering the complete and unabridged history of absolutely everything in the history of the universe?  The answer is just as simple: you'd run out of ink (and paper).  Indeed, even if you were to convert ALL of the matter in the universe into ink and paper (or even if you had a limitless supply), and used the space on the paper as efficiently as it could possibly be used, you would still not be able to cover everything.  This is because, in order for the account to be truly complete, you would have to include every detail of the writing of the book itself, no matter how minute - every keystroke the writer takes must be written about, as must the number and location of the subatomic particles that make up each letter, and each letter dedicated to describing the descriptions of the previous letters, on and on, ad infinitum.

What I didn't really take into account at the time was that this applies to ALL forms of representation of information (even if you don't include data about the way in which the data is stored).  Let's say you're trying to represent all of the physical aspects of a particular subatomic particle - its size, orientation, relative position, the number of smaller subatomic particles out of which it is made up, and all that stuff.  The problem here is that the amount of physical space required to store that information - no matter how efficient the form of information storage is - will inherently be larger than the particle itself (unless you take shortcuts, in which case you won't have complete information about the particle).  The "information" about the particle is already "stored" within the particle itself in the most efficient possible manner, simply by virtue of existing in that state (and, as a result, being measurable).  The same applies for every such particle in the entire universe.  In short, complete knowledge of the Universe is unknowable, because representation of this knowledge would require more matter than exists in the entire universe - an infinite amount, in fact.

This applies to God* by extension when we use Spinoza's definition of God* as the foundation of existence - the essence and unity of all being, and of all possibility (which I consider to be the lower bound for complexity in regards to any divine being - not to mention a good starting point for a truly solid understanding of theology).  If we consider God* to be the essence of existence, then it isn't really a stretch at all to consider all Truth to be "God*'s knowledge."  For what is Truth but the expression of an existent condition?  If something is true, could it not be said that the Universe "knows" it by virtue of the fact that it is expressed in its physical makeup?  Thus, it can unhesitatingly be said that all human knowledge is simply a wispy, inferior echo of what God* already "knows."  We will never know as much as God* does, nor will we ever be able to understand Him/Her/It fully - compared to God*, we're all a bunch of dummies.

I think this is true even if you view things from an atheist's perspective (since it can be considered an apt metaphorical look at the nature of human knowledge, as well as the nature of...well, Nature).


* (Or Brahma, or Nature, or the Earth Goddess, or Voodoo Man, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Eric Clapton, or Almighty Steve from Accounting, or whatever monotheistic, soft-polytheistic, or nontheistic Entity, Amalgamation, or embodiment of nature to which you subscribe)

[torgosPizza]

This applies to God* by extension when we use Spinoza's definition of God* as the foundation of existence - the essence and unity of all being, and of all possibility (which I consider to be the lower bound for complexity in regards to any divine being - not to mention a good starting point for a truly solid understanding of theology).  If we consider God* to be the essence of existence, then it isn't really a stretch at all to consider all Truth to be "God*'s knowledge."  For what is Truth but the expression of an existent condition?  If something is true, could it not be said that the Universe "knows" it by virtue of the fact that it is expressed in its physical makeup?  Thus, it can unhesitatingly be said that all human knowledge is simply a wispy, inferior echo of what God* already "knows."  We will never know as much as God* does, nor will we ever be able to understand Him/Her/It fully - compared to God*, we're all a bunch of dummies.

With regard to Spinoza, here's what Einstein said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

The trouble I have is with your personification of the impersonal god that Spinoza and Einstein talked about. As soon as you say "God's knowledge" that gives it traits of sentience, which I think is putting too much of a human face on it. To be fair, I would agree that Spinoza and Einstein were closer to the target, closest than anyone in fact. Unfortunately, that again is not what this debate is about. More from wikipedia: "Given Spinoza's insistence on a completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and Evil have no absolute meaning. Human catastrophes, social injustices, etc. are merely apparent. The world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited perception. Thus we see that Spinoza's ethical and natural philosophy were far too relativistic, non-judgmental, and non-prescriptive for the needs of the social philosophers who became important in the 18th century enlightenment."

To me, it seems to be the complete opposite of what even the ID proponents are arguing for. Many of them, and the majority of people in our country, believe that the universe had a designer, who put great thought into the design, and - to go a step farther - will judge you when you die. (I am excluding those of you who this might not apply for - this is to get back to the topic at hand). While I deeply wish, BBQ, that this majority thought the same way you do, and Einstein did - that's not the way things look these days. I think things are getting more to that point, but we still have a long way to go.

[BBQ Platypus]

Well, I'm not necessarily trying to argue for a "personified impersonal" God here.  The argument of truth being "God's knowledge" is can be considered metaphorically - with it being "known" in the sense that it is expressed or expressable through nature.  Regardless of whether the God I speak of is a being capable of "thought," the "knowledge" that I speak of is not akin to human knowledge - unlike human knowledge, it is "firsthand" (i.e. the complete and infinite set of all truths on a basic, foundational level, rather than stored information based on observation of these truths).  Let me repeat that - when I say "knowledge," feel free to read it as "truth" (or "fact").  I put "knowledge" in quotation marks for a reason - it ISN'T the same as our knowledge, regardless of whether God (or Nature, or Steve from Accounting) "thinks" or not (and I put "thinks" in quotation marks for the same reason).

Also, I am more throwing Spinoza's name out there as a baseline for debate, thought, and some modicum of understanding on the matter than I am saying that I align myself entirely with his views (and also, as I mentioned earlier, as a "lower bound" for complexity of a hypothetical God entity).  I chose not to cover the subject of any other hypothetical aspect of God's nature (nor any other possible conceptions of God) because it had nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make - namely, that it's a topic beyond total human understanding.

[Tripe]

Actually I like to think of gods in the way described in Small Gods* and Divine Horsemen: Small spirits, or personified concepts or even simply the memory/reputation of an individual that gain power as more believe in them and correspondingly fade as those believers cease believing.

*though if you want a more succinct version of the theory it's in a single paragraph near the end of Wintersmith

[Bairman]

More from Richard Dawkins:

Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

[Tripe]

Very good, he reads like some of my older reletives in the letter.