April 24, 2008
dawkins on space gods
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants. Parting the Red Sea -- or splitting the moon in two as Muhammad is alleged to have done -- would be child's play to those who command forces powerful enough to propel them from star to star.But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance).
more from the LA Times here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 08:56 AM | Permalink
Comments
I get his point, but why make it so messy?
Posted by: beajerry | Apr 24, 2008 9:46:55 AM
Why waste so much mental energy discussing the obvious answer to this conundrum?
There is no answer.
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Apr 24, 2008 10:11:30 AM
If Dawkins thinks natural selection isn't based on chance, then what form of intelligence does he propose is directing the process?
Posted by: Ed | Apr 24, 2008 11:40:53 AM
Ed,
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by: Jared | Apr 24, 2008 12:44:04 PM
Same old argument, new pieces thrown in. It still all comes down to first causes, and an uncaused first cause.
What strikes me strange is that Dawkins doesn't seem to provide a proper scientific case for OR against either infinite regress or an initial cause.
He seems to find the idea of either as distasteful, so where does that put us? This argument just doesn't seem to hang, nearly as well as some of his others.
Posted by: Damien | Apr 24, 2008 12:47:28 PM
What caused the Big Bang, what was before the Big Bang, what will happen to this universe when the stars eventually burn out, whether there are many more other universes - is all unknown at present. What I do know is that throwing "God" or "Gods" into the mix does not help at all. God is simply a meaningless word.
Posted by: Jared | Apr 24, 2008 1:01:08 PM
Jared: It's obviously not a meaningless word, as evidenced by the numerous mental images produced evoked by the word and even our ability to talk about it sensibly. It is rather meaningless in its ability to explain much of anything about the natural world and its origins, however.
Posted by: Phillip | Apr 24, 2008 4:07:04 PM
And Ed, your statement begs the question, for it is not immediately apparent nor logically necessary that there be any sort of intelligence directing the process of natural selection. Indeed natural selection is remarkably resilient in its capability to exist outside of any intelligence at all.
Posted by: Phillip | Apr 24, 2008 4:16:18 PM
Phillip,
Yes, the word God does stand for a vague and abstract concept that has multiple meanings and no explanatory power. One can certainly talk about "God" but I question whether one can do it sensibly given the hundreds of different meanings attributed to it. You can also talk about the tooth fairy but there is the understanding that it is an imaginary character. You are right, however in saying that the word itself is not meaningless. We can talk about God, the tooth fairy or Falstaff as though they exist even though they are purely imaginary. I like this from the Oxford English Dictionary:
"When the word is applied to heathen deities disparagingly, it is now written with a small initial; when the point of view of the worshipper is to any extent adopted, a capital may be used" [OED]
In short, I have God and you only have god.
Posted by: Jared | Apr 24, 2008 4:38:28 PM
Why are we so obsessed with Dawkins?
And by the way I think the assumption about medieval people is grossly racist (race being people of a time in this context.) Moses, jesus and Muhammad are scattered through history, and so are pagans and atheists.
Posted by: MS | Apr 25, 2008 1:07:16 AM
I feel the time is right for me to come out... I am bitheistic. Either God created the earth, or the earth created God. Either the Word created man, or man created the Word. I can take it either way and people who persist in this faux "science vs. religion" debate, in my opinion, are just wasting their very precious time on this unspeakably beautiful planet.
Posted by: old man | Apr 25, 2008 8:20:35 AM
"And by the way I think the assumption about medieval people is grossly racist (race being people of a time in this context"
I suggest the term "chronosist"
Posted by: Jared | Apr 25, 2008 9:28:59 AM
"And by the way I think the assumption about medieval people is grossly racist (race being people of a time in this context.) Moses, jesus and Muhammad are scattered through history, and so are pagans and atheists."
I think the idea is that there was a much higher prevalence of magical thinking before the popularization of science. I don't really know how someone can disagree with this.
Posted by: Phillip | Apr 25, 2008 3:41:33 PM
I guess my point was a bit too subtle. I thought natural selection was brought about by random (chance) mutations. Then the ones that were the most successful supplied the most to the gene pool, and the unsuccessful ones died out. As to the snide comment, no, I still beat my wife (at chess).
Posted by: Ed | Apr 29, 2008 9:28:52 PM
Post a comment