Pattern recognition and belief in God

[ProfessorDavey]

Funny, but in my personal experience, most Pagans are lapsed Christians and the most common reason given is that it, Chritianity, is discredited in its origins and its dognmatic refusal to see the errors in its history as taken from the Bible.

I don't doubt that, but I'm not sure that is inconsistent with my comment.

Research suggests that religious people as adults tend to have been brought up religious. In most cases they've remained in the same religion, but a few jump to a different religion (not too far from from the religion they were brought up in), so it doesn't surprise me that your experience is that most pagans are lapsed christians rather than former non-religious or atheist etc.

Also I suspect few people in the UK are brought up as pagan, while many are brought up as christian so again unsurprising that lapsed christians are an active pool of potential pagans.

Finally christianity in the UK (and northern europe certainly) has always included a major dollop of pagan elements in many of its festivals and activities, from christmas and easter, through harvest festivals etc. So I can see how paganism may be very attractive to ex-christians, with plenty of familiar elements, but the non-sense stuff taken out.

[Alan Burns]

Where is this "case", then? You appear to be just making one of your usual baseless assertions.

If you think the human mind was an intended outcome, the you're begging the question - otherwise evolution will happen, given the right circumstances, and any result will be diverse and improbable, so there is nothing to explain.

You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.

[Gordon]

You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.

That is what the evidence suggests - oh, and 'perceived specific complexity' is a meaningless phrase unless you can unpack it without falling head-first into one of your favourite fallacies.

We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things yo happen

Do we? How do you know that time is finite?

You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.

Ignoring the 'perceived specific complexity' nonsense you do realise that; a) more complex things can arise from the less complex, and you've had the phenomenon of emergence explained to you before, and b) to claim 'fine tuning' you'd have to be able to demonstrate a tuner (again sans fallacies).

[Stranger]

You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.

I have no idea what you mean by "any amount of perceived specific complexity" but all the evidence is that what we observe is the result of an unguided process. The theory of evolution explains what we observe and there is no evidence at all that suggests anything else.

You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.

I see we can safely add the theory of evolution to the (very long) list of things you are totally clueless about...

[Sriram]

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.

The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!

[torridon]

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.

The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!

It is not an assumption, it is an observation.  Variation introduced through copying errors appears to be random, for all intents and purpose. Natural Selection merely captures the fact that there will be winners and losers in any competition and successful variants, will, errm, likely succeed.  Where does some 'intelligence behind it' manifest in that ?

[Gordon]

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.

It doesn't - but to add some kind of intelligent or conscious agent into the mix would require sound reasons to do so that would support investigation, and if so then no doubt evolutionary biologists would be investigating this option - and as far as I know they aren't.

The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!

It is more than that, as Torri notes, and the TofE is a theory that is backed by copious supporting evidence whereas there is none for the notion of intelligence of consciousness being involved.

[Sriram]

It is not an assumption, it is an observation.  Variation introduced through copying errors appears to be random, for all intents and purpose. Natural Selection merely captures the fact that there will be winners and losers in any competition and successful variants, will, errm, likely succeed.  Where does some 'intelligence behind it' manifest in that ?

It is an assumption. It cannot be an observation. Specific reactions and responses to environmental changes IS Intelligence.

Even the instincts of Survival and reproduction are an indication of purpose and intent.

[Stranger]

The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!

Utter drivel. The process is a logical necessity; given the correct circumstances, it will happen.

Even the instincts of Survival and reproduction are an indication of purpose and intent.

More drivel. The process itself perfectly explains this.  Your stubborn refusal to learn anything about it doesn't make it an assumption.

[Sriram]

Processes explain only how something happens. They don't explain anything else. The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.

Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.

Saying that 'things just happen that way'...is a cop out.

[torridon]

You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.
We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen
You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.

That is your incredulity showing again.   Yesterday, it was circular thinking; today we are back on incredulity territory.  So, today's incredulity is that an unguided natural process born of underlying random variation can result in increases in 'perceived specific complexity' within the time frames.  Have you done some maths to arrive at this conclusion ? Do you have expertise in population genetics ? Or is it just some sort of general vague incredulity at the findings of science ? Do you have solid reason to believe for instance that homo sapiens could not have evolved from a chimp/human common ancestor in the timescales suggested by research.  How many years are needed by your calculation ? Ask a palaeontologist roughly how far back do we have to go to get to a common ancestor based on the fossil record and comparative anatomy and so forth, we get an answer of around 6 million years. ?  If you ask a geneticist to enumerate the number of mutations separating the chimpanzee genome from our genome we get about 35 million. How many mutations do we accumulate per generation - around 60. Divide 35 million by 60 we get a distance of around 300,000 generations.  How long would it take to separate 300,000 generations ? Around 6 million years.

This is known as consilience in science, when entirely different fields of study reveal a consensus and it is why evolutionary biology is considered pretty rock solid against which your protestations of vague incredulity are worthless.

[Stranger]

The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.

Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.

You can assert it as often as you want, it's still not an assumption. As I said, it's a direct logical consequence of the right conditions, basically, reproduction with inheritance, (effectively) random variation, and competition for resources (not all offspring survive). Given those conditions, evolution by natural selection will happen. If it didn't happen, that would need to be explained.

[Gordon]

Processes explain only how something happens. They don't explain anything else. The existence of the process itself is what needs to be explain.

Saying that it is 'automatic' is an assumption. It is not conclusively established.

Saying that 'things just happen that way'...is a cop out.

Nope - the TofE is supported by observation and other evidence and is, therefore, not just an assumption: it is a provisional explanation.

The only assumption is the one you're making: that there is some intelligent or conscious agent influencing the process of evolution via natural selection. There is no credible evidence for such an agent.

[Sriram]

How can the Survival, reproduction and parental instincts be logically derived from the Laws of physics? It is merely assumed that the former arise naturally from the latter.

[Stranger]

How can the Survival, reproduction and parental instincts be logically derived from the Laws of physics? It is merely assumed that the former arise naturally from the latter.

Once you have the basic conditions in place, then those variations that result in surviving and reproducing more effectively (in the context of the environment) will (unsurprisingly) survive and reproduce more than those that are less effective at doing so. Hence those traits spread through populations. The most obvious example of which is the instinct to survive you keep on going on about. It's also quite obvious that in a species has young that need nurturing, then it's only those individual who do that (have the "parental instincts") that will pass on their genes.

It really is (at its most basic level) a very simple and powerful idea.

[Outrider]

You seem to be claiming that any amount of perceived specific complexity needed to enable some form of desirable functionality can be achieved by unguided processes.

You keep using that phrase 'specified complexity' as though it means something...

We live in a finite world with a finite amount of material and a finite amount of time for things to happen.

Which is just one world amongst billions upon billions, in one universe potentially amongst an infinite number of universes.

You cannot claim that any perceived specific complexity is achievable by what can only be seen as a fine tuning process within things which are already complex.

You cannot claim anything about specified complexity because it's jargon used to try and turn personal incredulity into something that sounds technical.

O.

[Sriram]

Once you have the basic conditions in place, then those variations that result in surviving and reproducing more effectively (in the context of the environment) will (unsurprisingly) survive and reproduce more than those that are less effective at doing so. Hence those traits spread through populations. The most obvious example of which is the instinct to survive you keep on going on about. It's also quite obvious that in a species has young that need nurturing, then it's only those individual who do that (have the "parental instincts") that will pass on their genes.

It really is (at its most basic level) a very simple and powerful idea.

No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.

You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.  Saying that it automatically falls into place.... is to ignore the remarkable factors required for these instincts to exist and to manifest themselves.

I know you people have various 'fallacies' conveniently handy to throw at any argument that questions such 'automatic'  arising of complex features of Life from basic laws. But they are just that.... convenient assumptions and nothing more.

[Stranger]

No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.

Now you're just being silly. I explained the basic process and there are endless popular accounts of how evolution by natural selection works. Your failure to grasp them does not turn them into assumptions. If you think there is something wrong with the reasoning or evidence, then you need to address it directly. Your lack of understanding does not make something an assumption.

You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.

It isn't even really about the laws of physics. It's a logical consequence of the conditions (reproduction with inheritance and variation in a competitive environment). This is a solid, observable, computer-modellable process.

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.

Of course you can - the basic laws of physics underpin the chemistry that provides that certain configurations and interactions of molecules are most energy efficient. That is the basis for all sorts of features of 'life' with is effectively a self sustaining open system that maintains homeostasis. It is easy to derive those features from the basic laws of physics.

[Gordon]

No it isn't. You are just asserting that it is.

You cannot derive logically any feature of Life from the basic laws of physics.  Saying that it automatically falls into place.... is to ignore the remarkable factors required for these instincts to exist and to manifest themselves.

I know you people have various 'fallacies' conveniently handy to throw at any argument that questions such 'automatic'  arising of complex features of Life from basic laws. But they are just that.... convenient assumptions and nothing more.

Fallacies are indeed handy for pointing out where reasoning errors are evident: such as in the above, where your own personal incredulity is evident as well as your use of argument from ignorance. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The Theory of Evolution does not in any way automatically preclude an intelligence or Consciousness behind it. Not even a Being such as God.

Oh dear.

The theory of optics does not in any way automatically preclude leprechauns leaving posts of gold at the ends of rainbows.

The theory of childbirth does not in any way automatically preclude hypnotising storks delivering babies.

The theory of germs causing diseases does not in any way automatically preclude Jupiter being angry about man accepting the gift of fire.

The point here is that none of these theories preclude alternative explanations for which there’s no evidence whatsoever. Rather as they're unnecessary assumptions the theories are simply indifferent to them.

The Theory just explains a process. Assuming that it is a automatic natural process that arises spontaneously from the basic Laws of Physics, is just that....an assumption!

No, it’s a reasoned conclusion based on logic, observation and replication in practical applications.

Is reasoning that rainbows, natural childbirth and germs are “automatic natural processes” “just an assumption” too?

Why not?

[ippy]

Sriram, just get yourself a copy of 'Isabel Thomas » MOTH: An Evolution Story, it'll save you any further misunderstandings, you and Alan B, obviously have, about how evolution works.

These two might help as well as the above:

The Peppered Moth, Margaret Drabble.

The Peppered Moth - Wikipedia.

Regards Sriram, from ippy.

[jeremyp]

Sriram,

Oh dear.

The theory of optics does not in any way automatically preclude leprechauns leaving posts of gold at the ends of rainbows.

The theory of childbirth does not in any way automatically preclude hypnotising storks delivering babies.

The theory of germs causing diseases does not in any way automatically preclude Jupiter being angry about man accepting the gift of fire.

The point here is that none of these theories preclude alternative explanations for which there’s no evidence whatsoever. Rather as they're unnecessary assumptions the theories are simply indifferent to them.

Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, in two of your examples, the theory does preclude the supernatural nonsense. For example, our theory of optics tells us that the exact location of the end of a rainbow depends on the observer's position with respect to the Sun.

Though there was the poster on the BBC who said he had stood in the end of several rainbows.

[Alan Burns]

; a) more complex things can arise from the less complex, .....

It is not natural for more complex things to arise from less complex.
It is demonstrable that naturally occurring events tend to destroy complexity rather than create it.
It is why all living things will eventually die.
It was a miracle that the first living cell was not killed off by natural forces before it reproduced.
The ability of living things to reproduce is evidence of intentional design to combat the natural events which ultimately destroy life and generate ever increasing chaos.