Well, I guess the folks in Georgia prayed a little too hard.
Did I mention irony in my last post about this topic? I missed some: the wind from the storm blew the roof off a church. Three children were hurt in the event, though the article doesn’t say how badly. Knowing full well that the people who sponsored the prayer would take responsibility if it had been a nice gentle rain, what will they say to this?
Incidentally, Michael Prescott notes that rain was already in the forecast. Then he spoils it by saying that maybe there is a connection between rain and prayer. Sigh. Apologists make life a lot harder for rationalists.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I think this comment is the best possible rebuttal to Prescott’s connection.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I can’t help but laugh. A lot.
What’s the lesson here? When you think that you can get your god to drop rain on you when he had decided that he would not, you’re gonna get him pissed!
Now, is that a success for them?
November 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
> I can’t help but laugh. A lot.
“Schadenfreude is the purest form of joy because it comes from the heart.” –Swedish proverb
November 16th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
@The Centipede: can’t do anything but agree right there.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Well, it’s kinda like the National Enquirer predictions. You make enough of them and some are going to happen. Or like the broken clock that’s right twice per day.
So in the interests of diverse thought we can be tolerant and respectful (not the same thing) of their views and go on about our ways.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
LOL!!1!2345! People of faith are teh stoopid!!
November 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
> @The Centipede: can’t do anything but agree right there.
I was kind of afraid you were going to say that. I meant it more of a commentary at cackling at pain because “teh stoopid ppl dservd it.” This is nature, this is what happens, shikata ga nai–but pity for these people’s blindness and a will to help them is a far more humane and proper reaction than devlish jeering and cackling, especially seeing how kids got hurt in the affair.
Kids outside of the monkeysphere, perhaps, but kids nonetheless.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Dear Phil,
I am a religious person who prays quite often. I am also a believer in the need and value of science, which is why I read your blog so often. I take offense, though, to your sarcasm and attacks on religion in general and the stupidity of everything involved with believing in a creation of the world. I personally believe that the Bible is 100% true, accurate, and not an exaggeration. At the same time, I believe in scientific fact and that all things that have been proven scientifically are as true as the bible. I can talk with you later about the seeming inconsistencies between the two, but I assure you that a consistent logical belief in the two are possible and not dissonant.
I am surprised with you, Phil, about your consistent blasting of prayer and religion in general. As a scientist, I would have thought you think that anything is possible, until disproven. While prayer and God have not been prove to be true, they have also not been disproven scientifically (that study does not prove prayer to be false, just statistically proves prayer doesn’t “work” whatever “work” means. I don’t believe that prayer is about getting all the things that you ask for. it may be useful for other parts of life, and not necessarily obtaining the things the study posits as “working”).
I may seem like a religious wacko, but I assure you, I really want things to be logical and proven. I believe it to be likely that God exists and that he created the Universe 15 billion years ago (as measured back from the present time on Earth) yet it is not proven. I also believe it necessary to believe in things that we see with our own two eyes, and to accept as true things that we logically prove to be true.
I thank you for your blog, Phil, and I will continue to read it, I just ask that you be more sensitive and less acrimonious towards religious believers, because there are some of your faithful readers who may take offense.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
@The Centipede: Oh, I’m sorta evil and I never denied it you know. I watch races to see crashes, not to see who’s gonna win.
I just found this very very delightful. I’m like that and I don’t feel bad about it. And mind you, I have a bit more depth in my spelling skills than “teh stoopid ppl dservd it.”
Oh and, I don’t mean they DESERVED it. But you know, they pray for rain and they get smacked like that? OWCH! I’m not quite sure if there’s a word with a good description fitting this situation.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I take offense that Phil wears a NASA hat in his picture. It hurts my faith in the great Moon Landing Hoax. I ask that he tones down his hat by blurring the logo so he cannot offend me.
Yowch, 100% accurate? Whatever floats your boat I guess. I’d be pretty SCARED if it was 100% accurate myself. (Or even 2% accurate.)
You know, the biggest problem to me is that the guy is a public figure and is using his power and influence as a major politician to gather up the people in a religious movement. That’s just not cool. Plus, there’s the part where they will just go ahead and claim, no matter what, that their prayer worked. That’s not being humble.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
> @The Centipede: Oh, I’m sorta evil and I never denied it you know. I watch races to see crashes, not to see who’s gonna win.
Well, okay. As long as you admit it, I’m okay with it (believe it or not). I can still find it unfortunate, but I can’t tell you how to think or feel.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Phil,
I am a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well as in science, and I take offense in the fact that you didn’t even mention the possibility that it was the FSM which answered the prayer. I thought you, of all people, would remain open to all pastabilities.
I will, however, continue to read your blog, but only the small words.
David
November 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
“anything is possible, until disproven”
So unicorns are possible, until disproven? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can you PROVE that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can you prove that the decline in the number of pirates is NOT responsible for the increase in average global temperatures? No? Can’t say I really expected you to be able to. Have you ever heard the phrase, “You can’t prove a negative”? The fact is, the burden is on the person who makes a claim to provide the evidence in support of that claim. I don’t have to prove that there are no unicorns. I don’t have to prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t have to prove that prayer doesn’t work. I don’t have to prove that a tribal god named Yahweh (or Adonai or Elohim or Allah) doesn’t exist.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Phil,
As a follower of the Book of Refreshments, I am offended that you haven’t mentioned how beer could be the solution to the whole drought problem.
“Beer is good in all forms and varieties, for it contains the vital essence of the tiny creatures that have frolicked in the water and barley mash.”
[BoR 12:37]
http://www.bookofrefreshments.com/refresh12.html
November 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Due to this lack of precision there is plenty of room for sloppy thinking and believing what you want. As soon as you determine what “working” means, the effect of prayer goes away. This should tell you something.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
From Ask.com:
science (n.) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
I don’t see anything there about believing that anything is possible that hasn’t been disproven.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
> I personally believe that the Bible is 100% true, accurate, and not an exaggeration. At the same time, I believe in scientific fact and that all things that have been proven scientifically are as true as the bible. I can talk with you later about the seeming inconsistencies between the two, but I assure you that a consistent logical belief in the two are possible and not dissonant.
I’m sorry, but even as a relatively religion-friendly (for these bloggees) poster I have to say no. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call a 100% true, accurate, and non-exaggerated statement to be a fact. Therefore, the Bible is full of facts. For the sake of argument, we will claim that scientific facts are analogous enough to be identically the same thing (although they need not be 100% true).
Genesis 1 ‘fact’ says the universe as we see it was created in six days. Scientific ‘fact’ says the universe as we see it evolved over thirteen billion years. These facts are incompatible and require either 1) a varying level of metaphor behind Biblical ‘fact’ (days not being 24 hour periods), 2) negation of one of the other facts (so either no six-day creation [an allegorical reading of the Bible] or thirteen billion year evolution [Last Thursdayism]. Genesis says Adam is made of mud, science says the first modern humans evolved from primate ancestors. Again and again the facts of science and the facts of the Bible, or any ancient religion for that matter, conflict and require either allegory or negation for these facts to be made logically consistent.
Now, it could be possible you overstate: you actually consider the Bible to be 100% true, accurate, and not an exaggeration when it comes to religious issues of the Christian faith (or the Torah to be the same for Judaism, or the Qu’ran for Islam, the Vedas (et al) for Hinduism, etc.). At this point the scientific qualities of the Bible when it comes to prediction and postdiction are completely irrelevant and can be 100% false without affecting the religious meaning of the text, just as science’s intentional secularism can be 100% wrong without changing its scientific value. This leads to the Gouldian concepts of magisteria, with science providing a methodology and religion providing a motive, at which point I would agree with you, but say that you do not qualify your beliefs cautiously enough.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The problem is that the bible cannot be 100% true due to inherent contradictions. For instance just look at Jesus’s two genealogies. Ignoring the fact that they are genealogies of Joseph, who wasn’t Jesus’s father (according to the bible), they are completely different. Or just look at the order of events regarding the resurrection, the four gospels give completely different accounts. If you want a more specific example, compare who were the first one or ones to arrive at Jesus’s tomb in the four gospels. How can these all be 100% correct?
November 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I believe in the power of prayer, and have seen the effects (or possible affects… i never know) it really has had in my life. No scientist can take that away from me. Having said that… a church getting wrecked in a rain storm that may have been brought on by prayer still makes me chuckle. I believe it’s called Irony (of course I’m not sure about that either because my English 101 Prof said that pretty much everything was Ironic.) See there are some religious people that have a sense of humor.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Just so there’s no confusion or tongue wagging, I meant I never know when you use “effects” or “affects”… I’m not an English Major.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Darth Curt,
The verb is ‘affect’; the noun is ‘effect’. Here’s an easy way to tell them apart: You have to perform an action before you have a result of that action. ‘Affect’ is a verb, i.e., an action word, and ‘affect’ begins with ‘a’, the first vowel of the alphabet. After you have performed the action, you are left with the result, the ‘effect’. ‘Effect’ of course starts with the second vowel in the alphabet. So the action word (affect) always ‘precedes’ the result word (effect) in the alphabet. The storm affected us all (verb). The storm’s effect is still being felt (noun).
November 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
@ Darth Curt: “Just so there’s no confusion or tongue wagging, I meant I never know when you use “effects†or “affectsâ€â€¦ I’m not an English Major.”
effects means personal property
affects imeans to have an influence on
I have trouble with them too and usually have to look them up before using one or the other.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I see someone beat me to it. And with a pretty good ‘how to remember’ explanation, too. Thanks!
November 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Effect can also be a verb meaning ‘to cause.’ I could link to a dictionary, but I decided on this instead: http://xkcd.com/326/
November 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“As a follower of the Book of Refreshments, I am offended that you haven’t mentioned how beer could be the solution to the whole drought problem.”
Actually, it’s these kind of refreshments that cause me a drought problem (in my mouth) in the mornings!
Water! Water! Or orange juice!
:-p
November 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Elf Eye gives a good description of the main uses of “affect” and “effect” with a handy mnemonic to tell which is which.
However, there are less common uses of both words which reverse the parts of speech. “Effect” can be a verb meaning to carry out as in “in order to effect this softening we must boil the pasta”. More obscurely, “affect” can also be used as a noun meaning something like the way in which a person presents themselves. “Affectation” comes from this.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Let’s see: One may ‘effect a rescue’–that’s one of the commonest of the uncommon usages (I know, I know: a common uncommon usage sounds oxymoronic). And a psychologist may observe a patient with a flattened affect. There are some other words that flip flop faster than a politician. If you fight ‘with’ someone, you may be either attacking him or helping him attack someone else. Hmm. In Orwell’s 1984, the statement ‘We are fighting with Oceania’ would always be true, wouldn’t it? Handy, that.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Since we’re on the subject of word confusion, there was this post on Cosmic Variance (a most excellent science blog) a few days ago.
Enjoy.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Shouldn’t the discussion on effect-affect be under the post “write off”?
November 17th, 2007 at 6:10 am
@ David
I was touched by His Noodly Appendage! BELIEVE YOUR NOODLY MASTER INFIDELS!
It seems like THE MAN is keeping us Pastafarians down.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Actually in science, we never prove anything. We only validate theories with experiments. It only takes one experiment to unseat the prevailing theory and send it to the scrap heap to be replaced by the next most popular theory. Religious dogma, on the other hand, has the advantage of not requiring proofs since it is dependent on faith alone.
Some of the greatest minds and freest thinkers in history were deeply religious. Einstein stands out as a more modern example. Science, in its purest sense, is not judgmental. Maintaining an open mind allows one to contemplate almost unbelievable observations such as photon entanglement and the instantaneous effect observation of one photon causes to the ‘entangled’ photon – even when it is light years away. Things like time, on both the micro and macro scale become almost meaningless when considered in the context of relativity. Likewise, while evolution is a fact, creationism is just as likely to be a fact given that entropy, a fundamental law, precludes spontaneous appearance of life. Speaking of fundamental laws, laws such as the weak nuclear force, gravity and others (http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/) are so intertwined and perfectly harmonized that even the slightest perturbation would send matter careening apart and make the existence of life (and self awareness) impossible – the probability of these laws existing in such balance, by chance alone, is almost infinitely small (maybe 10 to the minus 20th or so). Taken together, this is near irrevocable proof that a supreme being (God) is responsible for the universe as we know it. Science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. A free thinking, logical, intelligent person, however should appreciate the wonders of the universe and life did not happen purely by chance. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there is a purpose for all of this. To deny the possibility of God (and for Christians to deny God’s son, Jesus) is close minded. To bet your eternal soul on your limited, earth based observation point of reality is not only close minded, it is incredibly foolish.
I am a physician and scientist and pride myself on keeping an open mind. I agree that the bible, written by man, has inconsistencies. Gee, I’ve never seen that happen in scientific literature… I also have a stratospheric IQ, so not every Christian is a dumbass as you people seem to believe. Instead of being so judgmental, why don’t you step back and take a renewed look at the universe, math, and physics and perhaps consider that science without God is just plain lame. Now, where have I heard that before?
November 17th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“Some of the greatest minds and freest thinkers in history were deeply religious. Einstein stands out as a more modern example.”
He wasn’t. He believed in something similar to Spinoza’s philosophy. I’d classify that as ‘almost atheist’ not ‘deeply religious’.
“Likewise, while evolution is a fact, creationism is just as likely to be a fact given that entropy, a fundamental law, precludes spontaneous appearance of life.”
Entropy doesn’t do no such thing, you’re not understanding correctly entropy, nor evolution.
“the probability of these laws existing in such balance, by chance alone, is almost infinitely small (maybe 10 to the minus 20th or so). Taken together, this is near irrevocable proof that a supreme being (God) is responsible for the universe as we know it.”
It proves nothing as such observations are only possible because of that balance. Even if it prooved the existence of a “something” that choosed universal constants it’s still very far from prooving the existence of one particular god, such as the christian’s one. Let alone his magic son.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Heh. I’m religious myself, but I certainly don’t believe the Bible is 100% literal.
And I’m all for separation of church and state. If the Evangelical Crazies got their way, I suspect those of my faith would get hauled off to the concentration camps eventually…
I’m also all for the mocking of those whose stupidity makes them heartily deserving of it. So in this case I shall point and laugh at these idiots, though I feel sorry for the children, for more reasons than one.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I live in Georgia, and firstly I wanted to mention that when this prayer was held, the Weather forecast was already calling for rain that day and/or the next. They had talked about holding a prayer rally for weeks, but waited until the forecast called for rain (gee, I wonder why).
Secondly, I’m not against prayer or religion, if people want to pray and go to church, more power to them; but I’d much rather our state officials spend their time figuring out a plan to save what little water is left, and what the state is going to do when we have no drinking water, than trying to convince God that it should rain.
There’s a saying, that goes something like: Believe in God, but tie up your horse.
Right now, the horses are running wild, and our officials are still asking God to tie the knot; when they should be the ones doing it.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Back to the topic above, I remember when I was a kid we were praying for an end to a drought somewhere in Africa (probably Ethiopia, this was the mid-1980s). The pastor said that it takes months and years for droughts to happen and God would have to organize weather patterns for years in advance of us praying to bring rain there. And he could do that because he knew years in advance that we would be praying for rain and in anticipation of our act of faith he started answering our prayers. I asked if it would still rain if we didn’t pray, if God would just cancel the rain. I got one of those looks from my parents and the pastor and everyone in the church. I learned pretty quickly that being a good Christian meant agreeing with everything the pastor said. That was also the beginning of my mental development toward freedom.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
@ David
I suggest you learn something about the subjects you discuss before you start making patently false statements. A few things:
-Science is the most judgemental branch of human enterprise ever constructed. The whole purpose of science is to put all ideas through the most grueling series of tests you can imagine and only those that stand up to the tests are accepted, and then only tentatively. I cannot imagine anything being more judgemental than science without being pure cynicism.
-Einstein was even less religious than a Deist, he did not even believe in an intelligent God, not to mention an active one.
-Need I remind you, “don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out”
-Time is far from meaningless under relativity, in fact it is one of the core concepts of relativity, and relativity does not work very well on the micro scale.
-Entropy is not a fundamental law, it is a physical quantity, a measurement of a property of a system..
-Entropy, or rather the second law of thermodynamics, does not preclude the “spontaneous appearance of life” because the Earth is not a closed system. This is one of the silliest, easiest-disproven, and least-respected creationist canards of all time. The fact that you brought this up shows you have not even made the slightest attempt to look at any materials except creationist ones. Because it is so commonly used but so patently false it is one of the first issues anyone making even the most superficial criticism of creationist arguments will bring up. If you had even glanced at anti-creationist materials or a high school-level physics textbook you could not have helped but see that this is extremely wrong.
-There are a wide range of values of the physical constants that can lead to a universe much like our own.
-We evolved to live in our universe, so obviously we would be fine-tuned for that universe. There is no reason to think another, very different form of life could not develop in a universe with very different rules.
-It is still not clear that the physical constants that govern our universe are independent, this may be the only set of values they could possibly hold.
-The fact that you have a high IQ is not evidence that you are right
-Physicians are not scientists. Nor are engineers. The fact that you are a physician does not make an authority on evolution, physics, or thermodynamics. The things that you have been saying show that you don’t understand any of these concepts.
-Evolution does not occur “purely by chance”. The only ones saying that are creationists. This is further evidence that you have not even glanced at any materials critical of creationism since this is another one of those commonly used by patently false statements that even the most superficial critique of creationism will tear to shreds.
-You are betting your eternal soul that Odin, Shiva, and Quetecoatl are not real. Atheist just believe in one (or rather three) less gods than you do.
-Science corrects its inconsistencies. Religion has theology, a whole branch set up explicitly for creating ad-hoc explanations so they don’t have to make corrections.
-I took “a renewed look at the universe, math, and physics” over the last few years and finally came to the conclusion a year ago that religion is bullocks. Perhaps you should do the same, but look at real scientific materials instead of the creationist propaganda you have been reading. It is clear you have not done this because you would not have made the claims you did if you knew even the basics of the subjects you were discussing.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
You tell’em, BlackCat! Good to see that you are not intimidated by stratospheric IQs…
November 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
foolish humans. They know not what they do. I will pray for you.
November 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
And of course instead of actually dealing with any of our arguments or criticism, David comes back with the “nya nya I can’t hear you” response. How predictable.
November 18th, 2007 at 12:47 am
To add to Black Cats comments -It was a typically arrogant Christian response – “You can’t stop me from praying for you – So there.”
One of the moderators at the Skeptic Friends Network is a Wiccan and he says that Wiccans do not pray for other people without their permission. This is much more respectful of other peoples beliefs or non beliefs. Funny how these Hypochristians complain about the BA not respecting their beliefs and then turn arround and dsiplay utter contempt for everyone elses beliefs.
David – I have never seen such a concise compilation of Fundy Christian lies and fallacies in one place as were contained in your post.
I especially like the way you use Einstiens Pantheism/Weak Deism as support for Christianity – that is a stretch of truly cosmic proportions.
By the way – Einstein clearly stated he did not believe in a soul that survived the death of an individual or a god that answered prayers.
Are you a Lier for Jesus are just sadly misinformed?
November 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am
TheBlackCat: Very nice rebuttal,
David Winn,
It is obvious that the only reading you’ve done is creationist material. I half expected you to state that scientists believe life should arise in a jar of peanut butter, and that the Big Bang was like a stick of dynamite going off into empty space.
You may have a stratospheric IQ, but if you’re not willing to do even cursory investigation to back up your claims then who cares?
November 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
It is kind of scary. This guy says he is a physician. Yet when faced when evidence that contradicts his position he ignores it and runs away telling the people who were trying to correct him that he will pray for them. If this is how he does with information that contradicts his existing ideas I fear for his patients. Doctors are not scientists, but I would at the very least expect them to try to base their decisions on the best information available and to correct their errors when they are pointed out to him. I am glad he is not my doctor. I would want a doctor who, if pointed out that he is making a mistake would try to correct the mistake and not just ignore it like David did.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
David Winn is probably a practitioner of Chiropractic manipulations…
November 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
1) Keep an open mind but not SO open the wind blows thru.
2) The Scientific Method works by showing an incorrect theory to be false, which can be done with a SINGLE test. We can never PROVE an accurate theory in any time less than infinity,,,
3) Stratospheric I.Q. means zip, since the only thing an I.Q. test is for is to identify those most likely to succeed in an academic environment. Success in an academic environment is no predictor of success in life.
4) Be very careful what you wish/pray for,,,you just might get it.
Years ago, I dropped out of Mensa because it was BORING. People had a great time talking about life, but little time was spent in actually LIVING it. See the book ON THE ROAD (by Jack Kerouac) for some insight about really living.
There is an enourmous difference between the “spiritual” experience and the religious reflection of same. The former is an immediate sense of contact with the infinite. The later is a dried out, dimly reflected memory of a dream. Someday we may understand the underlying mechanism of the “spiritual” experience. Then anyone may be able to enjoy/survive it,,,in the meantime, I’ll be sitting here listening to my recordings of the Dead,watching meteors streak across the night sky,,,and being spiritual,,,
GAry 7
November 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I really don’t have the time or desire to trade insults.
Entropy is often referred to as a law. http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
Physicians can be scientists. Its called an MD/PhD program
I believe in evolution – what is the problem here?
My statement that time becomes meaningless ‘relatively’ speaking, is that the passage of time passes/matters from our observation point, but that time does not pass for such things as photons and matter and energy trapped in an event horizon.
Lastly, net entropy increases, even in an open system. To create higher organization within a system, you must first have an organized framework, a machine if you will (cells, ribosomes and mitochondria, etcet.), that can take energy and convert it into other organized units. The law of conservation of energy (and entropy) requires that the end result must be more disorganized than the beginning. That law is satisfied by the by product of heat (by the way, doesn’t that mean all reactions are exothermic – even if on a scale that they cannot be measured?). The take home lesson here is that organized machinery did not just spontaneously appear. Entropy would preclude that possibility. However difficult it is to grasp, there had to be a precursor to seed that higher organization. Since that could not have occurred naturally, one can presume that a supernatural entity created it (life). Natural selection refined it. Again, with the construct that time is relative, or essentially meaningless, it is reasonable to assume that life evolved to the level of human beings essentially ‘instantaneously’. The only wrench in the works is how it could have been preordained given the nature of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to make the end result ‘unpredictable’.
There are other possibilities to consider – that we are actually fabrications of a sophisticated computer program (Matrix), that the ‘unobservable’ universe is infinite in ways that we cannot imagine -such as parallel multiverses where time travel forwards or backwards is potentially possible – without creating a paradox. Any of these science fiction possibilities, still lead me back to conclude that a supernatural entity (God) is necessary for any of this to be a possibility or even matter. Since we know by historical accounts that Jesus existed, and he performed miraculous acts witnessed by many that cannot easily be explained (was he an ancient day Cris Angel?), I can comfortably come to conclude that he was a messiah. Where there are logical inconsistencies in the bible – and there are many – I am comfortable in attributing that to human error.
Enough of this psychobabble, football is starting. At least I know where my priorities are!
Peace.
November 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Overall, yes, but key work is “net”. Local, open systems, can have temporary decreases (and temporary can be an awful long time in universal terms).
Galaxies and solar systems are organized frameworks–and along with the laws of physics, are a framework within which life can organize and evolve.
Even if true, positing a deity does nothing to solve this problem. It just pushes it back far enough to make people more comfortable ignoring it.
Sure. Reality is probably stranger than we can ever imagine
Well, that’s a personal statement of faith, so I’m not going to dispute your conclusion except to say there really is no evidence to support it.
Extra-biblical evidence is very weak, but I would not personally argue too strongly against the chances that Jesus existed or, at the very least, the Gospels are based on the life of someone who did live and die in 1st century Palestine.
Now there’s an unwarranted leap to a conclusion. Miracles are and have been claimed for thousands of years associated with thousands of people throughout history. Even in Jesus’ day, the Roman Emperor Tiberius was credited with many miracles (in his lifetime), which nobody today accept as what really happened. And unless you are a Catholic, you don’t believe any of the thousands of miracles associated with the appearance of the Virgin Mary that are claimed to happen every year, even today. Why should we accept that stories of the miracles of Jesus have more veracity than those of Tiberius, Mohammed, Mary, Jospeh Smith, Uri Gellar, or anyone else?
Could be, everyone likes a good magic trick, but the much simpler probability is that people tell stories and people embellish stories all the time, especially when they want to spread hope and inspiration at a time of suffering and persecution.
Sure, but there are other logical inconsistencies about the Christian faith that are harder to dismiss. This is probably not the right forum to dive into that, though, so I will refrain.
Hope you’re enjoying the football. Seems I probably should be praying for a miracle if I want my fantasy team to win this week
November 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
That’s right, you just want to throw out insults and expect us to ignore them.
That doesn’t make it correct. The second law of thermodynamics does not strictly have to do with entropy, there are a number of definitions of the law that do not deal explicitly with entropy. Entropy only appears explicitly in one formulation of the law.
This is part of your problem. Science is not an academic degree, it is a way of studying the universe. Equating science with a particular degree shows you do not understand what science is.
The problem is that you do not understand it.
That is far from “meaningless”. In fact the very definition of a photon is an particle that time has stopped for, or that has absolute velocity (the two are equivalent under relativity).
Then where do crystals come from? Crystals are very low-entropy systems that arise spontaneously out of high-entropy systems. The existence of crystals disproves your entire premise.
Entropy and disorder are not the same thing. And that is not what it says. First, the law of conservation of energy says energy can never be created or destroyed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with entropy. You are thinking of the second law of thermodynamics. And it does not not say that either. It says that overall a closed system will proceed from net low entropy to net high entropy. But the entropy of a given component in that system does not have to have the same entropy change as the entire system. A component (like macromolecules or crystals) can decrease its entropy as long as other components (like the sun) have a larger increase in entropy.
Wrong, heat (enthalpy) and entropy are two different and independent quantities. When combined they give a quantity called free energy. The free energy change of any spontaneous process must be negative. You should have learned this in the first couple of weeks of chemistry 1.
The sun provides a massive amount of enthalpy available to Earth. Because of all this enthalpy the decrease in entropy due to the spontaneous organization of life would still allow for a negative free energy change. Therefor, thermodynamically, life could easily arise spontaneously. This is really basic chemistry, I know that you had to have studied it in order to get into med school (I was pre-med myself).
Seriously, this is one of the most basic chemistry concepts. Do you honestly believe that no scientist in the last hundred years has realized this? Do you think that none of the molecular biologists who use entropy in their work every day realized it refuted the entire basis for their field? Do you really think none of the physicists and chemists who studied evolution realized that such a basic concept refuted the entire basis for all of biology? You are accusing the entire scientific community of being full of nothing but imbeciles who can’t understand even the most basic science concepts. How likely do you really think that is, honestly? That you and you alone are able to understand this basic concept well enough to notice a basic problem that people who have used it every single day for their entire has missed? Are you really that insanely arrogant? That you, someone who does not even know the basic terminology, has single-handedly toppled an entire field of science using a concept that I learned sophomore year of high school? You claim that you don’t want to insult people but you accuse all scientists in the world to be total morons.
You just assert this without providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Wait, what? Where did this come from? You said yourself that time is only “meaningless” for photons and objects near an event horizon. The matter on this planet is neither, so how could you possibly arrive at this conclusion?
Does not follow. There are historical accounts that a religious leader probably existed, and there are stories in the bible that claim he did miracles that were seen by many, but there are no historical accounts of these miracles. For instance, there are no contemporary accoutns of Jerusalem being overrun by zombies despite the fact that the bible says they were seen by many people. The fact that someone who was the inspiration for the Jesus story probably existed is not proof that the story is true, any more than the evidence that there was a Trojan War is proof that the Greek gods are real and were actively involved in the conflict as the Illiad claims.
That would not surprise me one bit.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Blackcat, you veil your arguments in personal attacks. That is argument ad hominem and is unbecoming of a learned person.
I used to be an atheist and could argue against the scripture with the best of em, although I avoided ad hominem rebuttals.
I experienced a miracle personally and it changed my life and my belief system. I propose if any of you ever have a similar experience, you too will come to realize that the magnificence of the universe transcends scientific explanation and that God is real and loves us – even atheists. My miracle is a story for tomorrow – I shall return with details. God bless!
November 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“net entropy increases, even in an open system”
I take it you don’t have a fridge, then?
BTW, the stopping of time is related to null (hyper) surfaces, not to photons. The photon is a quantum mechanical concept that has a priori nothing to do with time dilation. The definition of the photon depends critically on the medium it travels through.
Of course plate tectonics does not generally take place on nul surfaces…
November 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“net entropy increases, even in an open system”
I take it you don’t have a fridge, then?
BTW, the stopping of time is related to null (hyper) surfaces, not to photons. The photon is a quantum mechanical concept that has a priori nothing to do with time dilation. The definition of the photon depends critically on the medium it travels through.
Of course plate tectonics does not generally take place on null surfaces…
November 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
So, in the end, it’s not about logic, scientific or historical evidence at all. It’s all down to some form of supernatural event or revelation.
That’s fine. At least we now know the real reason why you’re a Christian.
P.S. Claiming to have a “stratospheric IQ” in a discussion like this is like a red rag to a bull no matter which side you’re on. Perhaps some of the rancor would have been avoided if you were a little more modest about your intellectual prowess.
I, for one, don’t doubt that there are millions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Mormons, Pagans, Sikhs, and Shintoists with a higher IQ than me. But that still means that at least hundreds of thousands of people with “stratospheric IQ” whose beliefs about religious are flat out wrong. They can’t all be right, but they could all be wrong.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Grr — that should be “beliefs about religion” in the last paragraph.
P.S. Don’t for get to tell us about that miracle of yours. We await we interest.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Way to once again completely avoid addressing my arguments. Sorry, I don’t particularly care whether you feel insulted. If you accuse the entire scientific community of being composed of nothing but idiots, I am going to come down hard on you. Getting upset with me criticizing your understanding of the courses you took when you insulted the entire scientific community for not knowing the same thing is the height of hypocrisy. You, as a doctor, were required to study introductory chemistry. You do not understand even the most basic aspects of that subject. If you don’t like that then perhaps you should review your introductory courses before you start talking.
Sorry, if you say something wrong I am going to point it out. I am not going to mince words or tiptoe around the issue. You do not understand extremely basic materials you are required to know to become doctor. That is your problem, not mine. It may not be a nice thing to say, but it is how things are. I am not going to avoid an issue simply because it might hurt your feelings.
Further, it has a major impact on your credibility. You are the one who brought up your position as a doctor and, you claim, a scientist to lend credence to your position, not me. Since you brought it up, calling into question your understanding of basic premed subjects is fair game. If you didn’t want it to be a subject of discussion you should not have brought it up in the first place. If you make your position a piece of evidence as you have critiquing that evidence is fully acceptable.
To put it another way, you pointing out that you are a doctor and claiming this lends credence to your position, or using your qualifications as evidence in any way, is an ad hominem because you are using your identity as a part of the argument. Ad hominems are not alway attacks, they can also be used to support a position. In this case it is called “argument from authority”, but it is a type of ad hominem. Once you do that other people are fully justified in critiquing that argument. If you had not made your position as a doctor a subject of discussion than critizing your knowledge of the subject would not be valid. But you cannot use your credentials as evidence and then complain when other people criticique your credentials. If you use a piece of evidence you had better expect other people to attack that evidence. Once again, it is hypocrisy. You want to be able to use an argument to support your conclusion but do not want other people to be able to criticize that same argument. Sorry, I don’t buy that. You made it a part of this debate, so I am going to use it.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Ok, here it is. I met and later married an incredibly hot chic who is a devout Christian. If you know what I look like, then you would know that is a miracle.
C’mon guys, lighten up. I have more fun *ucking with intellectual elitists like you guys.
November 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I see, so you’re a troll. Lovely.
November 18th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I think ogre might be a closer approximation.
November 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Nah, he’s Christian behaving like a troll now that he’s lost the argument. Whatever floats his boat, I guess.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Are you guys so anal retentive that you can’t see the humor in all of this? What goombas.
November 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
We have a group of people that have been trying their hardest for the last century or so to destroy science, force us to abandon all technology and scientific knowledge, and turn the country into a fundamentalist theocracy. No, I don’t see the humor in that.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
TheBlackCat and tacitus, it was a pleasure watching you work.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I rather enjoyed it too. Satan would be proud.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
>”“You can’t stop me from praying for you – So there.â€
Can you send some of the love my way? I planning to buy my first HDTV, and I need guidance. Is there an Angel Of Telecommunications?
And this is from a gadgetphile and electronic engineer. They’ve made buying a television *complicated*! Argh!
November 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Another splendlid non-reply. A troll for Jesus who enjoys doing the devil’s work. Curiouser and curiouser.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Apparently there is no patron saint of telecommunications (although there is one of telecommunications workers). You are probably better of praying to one of the three patron saints of television:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pst00711.htm
I guess it is two patron saints of television and an archangel of television. While you are at it you should probably pray to the patron saint of the internet so you can find a good price online:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron00.htm#t
I only wish I were kidding.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:54 am
The best rated LCD is the Sony Bravia. I have two of them.
Blackcat : “We have a group of people that have been trying their hardest for the last century or so to destroy science, force us to abandon all technology and scientific knowledge, and turn the country into a fundamentalist theocracy. No, I don’t see the humor in that.”
Hmmm…, perhaps you should speak to a doctor about starting Zyprexia. It works quite well for paranoid schizophrenia with narcissistic delusions of grandeur. And to pre-empt your next quaint reply, no, I do not have personal experience with it.
Ah, my lovely Christian wife is calling me back to bed… spreading her legs and calling out to the Lord…. “oh God, oh God, oh Goddddddd…!” what sweet melody to my ears. I am called to fill her with the holy spirit, heh, heh, if you know what i mean.
Seriously, why don’t you guys get a life. The Christians aren’t out to get you. If you want something to worry about, the Muslims would gladly take your head for speaking out against them. They are the real threat. I’ve gotta run – bible study starts in an hour and the topic looks really good today – how to get thru to the heathens and convince them that their salvation is always there – just requires the utterring of a few words… that you accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and your personal saviour. Really, just a few words… its not that tough.
See ya…., wouldn’t want to be ya!
November 19th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Dave, some of your fellow Christians called, you know the smart ones, and said “Shut up and stop making us look stupid!”
However, some of the lions around here might prefer you to carry on while they keep batting the little mouse around a bit more.
November 19th, 2007 at 7:18 am
You guys are missing the most important point. The Georgia governor called for the prayer, the major storm damage happened in *Tennessee*. It was all in the prayer, “Lord, give us rain, and smite our rivals.” Or something like that…
November 19th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Trolls are sometimes fun but what I really liked about this run were the riposts to David. There was some really good analyses going on here. Keep up the good thinking Y’All. You know God loves a good argument, which I define as well reasoned and supported by facts and in this there were many such.
GAry 7
PS: Sonny Perdue is a masterful politician in the bible belt. What would you expect him to say, that prayer is useless???Yeah, right!!!
November 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am
One thing to point out, David. This is a PG-rated blog, you might want to be careful about what you post if you want to avoid being banned.
Once again you start throwing out insults without even the most basic knowledge on the subject. There was a reason I warned you earlier that you should do research before you start talking. Making demonstrably false statements does not help your position.
First, you should probably check up on the Reconstructionists, a rather outspoken group whose intentions are explicitly what I just described:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism
But what I was actually referring to the Wedge Document:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
If you had done basic research from anything other than creationist sources you would have heard about it. (am I seeing a pattern here?) It was a “top secret” document that was leaked online. It outlines the goals of the Discovery Institute, the people who came up with intelligent design and have been the driving force behind it. It reveals the true motivation behind the intelligent design movement. The Discovery Institute admitted it was real and not a hoax (although it certainly looks like a hoax). A few excerpts will probably show exactly what I mean:
Note that in creationist-speak “materialism” is another word for science, or anything dealing with the “material”, or natural world. And what would the cultural legacies of it be? Technology and medicine come to mind. They are more explicit about this later.
(emphasis added)
In case you had any doubts we were dealing with Christianity here.
(emphasis added)
In case you had any doubts that the “materialism” they were attacking was really science.
(emphasis added)
The religious part indicate they want their religious ideas to be the main ones, and the cultural, moral, and particularly political part is the textbook description of a theocracy.
You may just want to dismiss my ideas as insanity. I admit they do sound pretty insane, but these are the stated goals of the group. You would know this if you had done any research on the subject from non-creationist sources.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t planning on dropping to your level. In fact it took me a few moments to figure out what you meant, since this is such an immature and childish reply it never even occurred to me.
Ah yes, “heathens”. No, you definitely do not want to throw around insults, do you.
If you think that is all it takes I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Just as a didactic reminder, all Christian Reconstructivists are Christians but not all Christians are Christian Reconstructivists. The battle, such that it is, lies against those who would redefine science into some sort of mushy ‘goddidit’ nonsense, not everyone who holds some sort of irrational belief.
(Although it would be funny in a sort of ironic way if FSMism accidentally became a ‘real’ religion, seeing how it’s apparently already fulfilling some of the sociological roles of one [group identity, meme reinforcement, et al].)
November 19th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I never argued otherwise. My point was merely that there is an active and vocal group of people who wish to destroy science and establish a theocracy, and that many of David’s points are taken from these people. This is true. I never claimed nor implied that all, or even the majority, of Christians were this way.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Nor did I accuse. As I said, just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood Deist.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
(emphasis added)
In case you had any doubts we were dealing with Christianity here.
Governing Goals:
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
—————————–
Wow, this is terrible. Where is this web site so that I can go harrass (re-educate) them?
November 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Google “Discovery Institute” for a start. “Unnatural Descent” is another good one.
If you do half of the bang-up job there that you did here to stir the pot, I’m sure several Warriors Of Truth (WOT) on this side of the ideological fence would be appreciative.
November 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Good luck, Uncommon Descent is notorious for banning without notice or recourse anyone who dares question Intelligent Design or anything anyone in favor of it says. Unlike here, where you are allowed to blather blatant falsehoods to your heart’s content, speaking the truth there will earn you an instant ban. They are not interested in being educated, they are interested in furthering their agenda. And these are the people who came up with intelligent design and are the ones who have been promoting it. They aren’t the people who came up with your ideas, your ideas with thought up and thoroughly discredited in the early 1900′s, but they are the ones who continue to carry on the banner.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
And I thought my ideas were original. Shucks.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Not by a long shot. Though to be honest, I think you’d fit right in at uncommon descent.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 am
You people are aweful. Simply aweful. I’ve never seen a more self-righteous, heartless group of people in my life. You mock people for turning to faith in hard times and mock them when fortune turns their way. Shame.
Let me get this straight:
BA: Ha Ha Ha. Look at all these idiots praying for help in a desperate time
BA: Ha Ha Ha. These people got what they prayed for. I’ll bet they actually attribute it to God.
BA: Ha Ha Ha. Kids got hurt in an isolated incident. That’s hilarious!!!
The funny thing here is what I realized while in college. Athiest intellectuals are just as religious as people of faith. They just don’t know it.
Think about it this way and then compare it to the comments made by BA and the readers on this board.
You often base your beliefs on theory…
You defend even the unproven to the death (i.e. evolution, Big Bang and Universal expansion)
You mock and berate those who disagree with you in an attempt to undermine their claims.
Scientific “truths” are often based on the claims of others and go unchallenged for fear of reprisal from the community.
While these are just a few bullet points on the subject, it seems to me that you people are just as guilty of what you accuse the “other” side of being.
I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who’d take me to task for even suggesting that the scientific community is as prone to group-think and religeous ferver as the evangelical community you demonize. I don’t care. I play a lot of cards and call a spade a spade. I know I’d rather be around people who seem to have a heart rather than people who’d rather extrapolate on why God had little or nothing to do with designing mine.
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
PmdBama: I wondered as I wrote it if someone would mistakenly interpret what I wrote as mocking children getting hurt, but I mistakenly thought no one would really be that base as to think it. “Shame” on me? Shame on you. Read what I wrote again and tell me where I celebrate kids getting hurt.