A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion

_{William Dembski

November 1, 2005

Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Pam Winnick’s new book, A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, is out in stores. It provides a nice counterblast to Chris Mooney’s diatribe about the Republican/conservative hijacking of science.

Comments

"All the behaviors you have described for your animals can be accounted for by a stimulus-response mechanism that need not invoke a self-aware Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬Â." In the same manner that evolution can be accounted for by a random mutation mechanism. ;-) "All animals, including humans, have an aversion to fire and naturally flee it." That's a wive's tale. Many flying insects are so attracted to the light of a fire they'll incinerate themselves. Fish don't fear fire. None of my animals are afraid of controlled fires. "Has anyone experienced an animal overcoming its aversion to fire and using it for its own purposes?" Certainly. Haven't you ever seen a dog or cat sleeping near a fireplace for the warmth? Cats even seem to enjoy watching flames in a fireplace presumably for the same reason I enjoy watching it. "Has anyone ever seen an animal show that it has learned such a generalized algorithm?" Sure. Cats can get pretty creative in exploiting natural cover to improve the hunt. I've some that learned how to hunt mockingbirds in the backyard. The mockingbirds would perch on the wooden fence and scan the yard for cats. If they espied any cats they raise an alarm and harass it. These birds will actually divebomb a cat from the cat's blindside to drive it away. I watched it happen many times. Eventually one of my cats discovered that if he slept at the base of the fence the birds couldn't see him down there. The bird would then land in the yard and the cat would pounce. There's not many mockingbirds in my immediate neighborhood anymore and the cats can rest unmolested wherever they want. You're giving individual humans far more credit than they are due. We spent hundreds of thousands of years without knowing how to control fire or use tools beyond sticks and stones. Humans are born ignorant and unless someone teaches them they pretty much die ignorant too.DaveScot_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

johnnyb Consciousness may exist on different scales in time and space. Ours appears to arise from a collection of individual brain cells in communication with each other. The individual cells, even though they are each a part of a conscious whole, probably aren't aware of the larger consciousness they form. Life on earth, taken as a whole, is also a collection of individual cells in communication with each other. The scale is just larger and the communication speed slower. We as individuals, even though we might each be a part of a larger conscious whole, probably wouldn't be aware of it, just like individual neurons aren't aware.DaveScot_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Davescot, Re-read my post #50. All the behaviors you have described for your animals can be accounted for by a stimulus-response mechanism that need not invoke a self-aware "I". They are all variations on Pavlov's dog responding to the stimulation of a bell before being fed. Animals are very good at picking up these environmental cues and can be conditioned by them even though we don't intend it, leading us to naively conclude that they can think like we do. For example: Davescot: "They [Dave's cats]have figured out the sound of my footsteps from my wifeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because one of us wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get mad about being woken up at 7am and the other will be looking to kick some furry asses. " or testerschoice: "Everyday labs around the world perform experiments on animals that test their ability to remember landmarks and follow patterns. Check out the Morris water maze task. In fact, if you analyze the actual signals recorded one can see that they DO correspond to landmarks in the environment." These are both classic cases of conditioned responses. Of course, SOME human behavior can be explained by conditioned response. There was a time when psychologists naively believed that ALL human behavior could be similarly accounted for by stimulus-response conditioning (B.F. Skinner, for example). They abandoned this years ago when it became clear that certain human-specific behaviors - scientific investigation, for example - cannot be explained on a stimulus response model. Simply put, you can explain the behavior of a rat in a maze or a duck responding to its name without granting the animal any self-awareness (an "I"). There is no way to explain the scientific behavior of humans in this manner. To have an abstract notion of "place" requires more than merely responding to place-oriented stimuli. It means being able to use "place" as a notional symbol, which we prove we can do by pointing to a place, writing the address of a place, speaking the location of a place, etc. We can refer to the same place in these materially diverse manners because we can have a notion of "place" abstracted from any particular material medium. The self-aware "I" is the seat of this capability, and it is the reason we can do science at all. Periodically there are cases where psychologists are fooled into thinking an animal has abstract knowledge. There was the famous case of the horse who could apparently do arithmetic, tapping out sums with its hoofs. It turns out that the horse was responding to subtle cues from its trainer, cues of which even the trainer was unaware. Here are some other human behaviors - behaviors that indicate that human beings transcend the mechanism of stimulus response and have a self-aware "I" - that I wonder if anyone has seen paralleled in the animal world: 1) Like an animal, human beings respond to their names. But, because they are self-aware, they can also choose to not respond to their name, or arbitrarily choose a different name to respond to altogether. Has anyone ever experienced their cat waking up one day and deciding to be called Fluffy instead of Ralph? 2) All animals, including humans, have an aversion to fire and naturally flee it. But humans can also transcend the fleeing response through their intellect and will (the "I") and turn it to their own purposes. Has anyone experienced an animal overcoming its aversion to fire and using it for its own purposes? 3) Humans, like animals, can find their way through a maze and remember landmarks and patterns. But a human can abstract the notion of "maze" itself and invent a general algorithm for solving mazes - for instance, putting your hand on a wall and never taking it off while you walk through the maze (too bad Jack Nicholson didn't know this in The Shining.) Has anyone ever seen an animal show that it has learned such a generalized algorithm? Or, has anyone ever seen an animal leave a trail of bread crumbs or pebbles so it can find its way out of a maze? Dave T.taciturnus_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

"then i assume youd have to agere that hed be a liar" Only if you believe the bible is an unvarnished true historical account.DaveScot_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

testerschoice - I disagree with you and also with the people who responded to you. My disagreement with those who responded to you is simply that, while I agree that rats probably have less of a "self" than we do, I don't see it playing at all into the current question, and am happy to put rats and humans on the same playing field for the present discussion. What you have shown, again, is that the are corralaries of consciousness, and the brain is _involved_ in thought. Noone doubts this. I don't know about others on this board, but I personally have no doubt that memory is stored within the brain. I have no doubt that when deciding between two alternatives, that the logical thinking occurs within the brain. I have no doubt that when there is pain, there is a direct linking to specific neural circuits. None of this, however, expresses anything other than mechanistic ideas. And, as I pointed out, mechanistic programs don't "feel" they only "do". They also don't make choices. I can construct a computer program to do any of the mechanistic things you are speaking of. I can program visual detection circuits, natural language algorithms, logic circuits, memory circuits, and decision circuits -- I can even randomize them to make them appear as if they were based on choice. I can even wire pain circuits which notify the processor that something bad is occurring. However, NONE of these things will actually make my created program/machine _feel_ or _choose_. This is the flaw of the Turing Test. It is metaphysically and philosophically flawed. The reason we value life is not because of some sort of interface function that it performs, but because life feels and chooses. This is an absolute disconnect from material processes -- matter in motion. I suggest that you listen to the link that I sent. He covers the neurological corrolaries of mind fairly well, especially in the question-and-answer period.johnnyb_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

So many off topics, which ones to answer ?, let see.... 1) As far as pets go - I've never owned one so i cant give any personal insights on the issue. I have heard from TV news / documentaries that pets are more intelligent than we give em credit for. They may have their own "I" senses that tells who or what they are or what they are supposed to do in their daily lives. For example like Pets who wait for their masters or bark before they come home. Pets that get lost at some faraway place that mysteriously come back home. Pets that can detect oncoming seizure's or heart attacks before they happen etc. They may indeed need their own "I" senses just to get by in their "world" [ might even be requirement for survival ?]. Now comparing their's to ours is the hard part. Since we hold ourselves as a "higher being " than those lowly cats and dogs its hard for us to compare ourselves to those low -vermin /tic infested animals. Regardless unless we invent some kind of "MAGICK PET TRASALTOR" we [in general & those of us who never owned pets ] may never know the truth. We cant go about asking pets , you pet whats up ?.... ya know who ya are ?. do my darn homework etc, go to work, etc..... Its like asking, how may licks does it take to get to the center of a tootise pop ? sadly the world may never know:(.... Key difference being those TV reports also said that pet owners are quick to jump in and say that pets are smart, they know their place ,can speak & have kids, start a 401k [ya get meh drift ] etc. etc. etc. So in short the answer and conclusion to my point that i have been drawing out thus far is, stay FAR AWAY, FAR FAR FAR AWAY FROM DaveScot & cambion [ i.e - pet owners ] on this issue. Trust me its good for every1's health that way lol. 2.) About Jesus... Now while it maybe true that most people who like or admire Jesus maybe Christian, there maybe non Christian people who like him for the good works he's reported to have done. Fine by me i say, either way this is a dead issue like the one up top cus if this continue we are gona end up asking if Jesus is Jesus's real name or maybe we should call him his native name Yeshu ?. or call God by his actuall Hebrew name, Why not call Jerusalem, Yerushalayim?, etc. Just please stop the Madness!!! 3.) Now as much as i like talking about God or religion [which i have no probs with ], Wasn't this thread about Pam WinnickÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s new book, A Jealous God: ScienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Crusade Against Religion ?. Anyone have comments on it ?. 4.) If we don't stop getting so side tracked i think Mr. Dembski will probably start deleting all these side comments which would be sad since we've all invested somuch time on it.... CharlieCharliecrs_{November 3, 2005
November
11
Nov
3
03
2005
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

geez davescot- relax. youre acting as if i attacked you somehow. i never presumed to tell you who to admire. i wouldnt tell anyone what to do or not to do with their own opinions. i was giving my own personal opinion and trying to figure out your view. if you dont think jesus was the son of god, then i assume youd have to agere that hed be a liar. if you want to admire and have as your role model someone you think a liar, thats fine with me. but i was just inquiring as to how youd make sense of the dilemma there. it should have been clear when i said i dont "THINK" (in this context, it was clearly my personal opinion on the matter of two conflicting ideas) you could fit the two opposing ideas together very well.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Boze "dont think you can really admire him if you dont think hes the son of god" You're presuming to tell me who I can and can't admire? Piss off.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Evidently some of us have fallen farther from grace than others. According to the bible God gave us seed bearing herbs to eat as meat. His idea of a perfect world is one where there's no death and destruction. His promise is to restore perfection to the world where the lion shall eat straw as an oxen. He probably wants us to move in that direction on our own recognizance. That's just a guess on my part but I'm usually right.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

davescot- i meant...i dont think you can really admire him if you dont think hes the son of god (the son and also god in human form). because, what we know of what he said comes from the bible...and he clearly said he was god in human form. if you accept his teachings (as passed on via the bible) and hes a hero and a role model to you- youd have to accept that he also said he was god come to earth. if hes not god, then hes a liar (well, a liar or just plain loony)...and i dont think a liar or lunactic would make for a good role model. thats what i meant- not that his message was in any way something that shouldnt be followed- id agree with that and go further to say that its the most profound message of all time. which is why the name is known the world round.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

"hes surely not a man to be looked up to in any fashion" Why on earth not? He preached love, forgiveness, charity and he practiced what he preached. What's not to like about that?DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Try these books by Mortimer Adler: "The difference of man and the difference it makes" "Intellect"MGD_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ape-language.htmlBourbaki_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

wait. is that a joke? i didnt think you were a christian. itd seem odd for a non christian to have jesus as a hero and role model. for if he isnt the son of god (as would be the view of a non-christian), hes surely not a man to be looked up to in any fashion...let alone as a role model. sort of related, but sort of not...i always wondered about satanists. satan comes from the bible- wouldnt that, in an odd way, make them bible believers (which means they should believe in jesus, and that hes the son of god) ? i think satanists have to be high on the list of the most confused people out there. :)jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

My hero and role model... http://www.legionhermosillo.com.mx/jesus00025.jpgDaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

About the only real difference I can find between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is that animals don't know the difference between good and evil. I'm not convinced that all humans know the difference either but I'm think they do and just choose to ignore it.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

My cats can tell time but evidently haven't mastered daylight savings time. You can set your watch by them expecting breakfast at 7am. They'll be knocking on the door if outside or tapping you on the shoulder if they're inside. Daylight savings time throws them off. It never occured to me to see how long it takes them to figure out feeding time changes by an hour twice a year. I'll have to do that. They do adjust but I'm not sure how long it takes. They haven't figured out weekends either. They have figured out the sound of my footsteps from my wife's. That's because one of us won't get mad about being woken up at 7am and the other will be looking to kick some furry asses. They now understand the words "get out" and line up at the back door upon hearing the phrase. In my experience animals can learn the meaning of as many of my sounds and gestures as I can learn of theirs. Who's the smarter one? Sometimes I wonder. I once told someone that I taught my duck to recognize his name. At night, when he's out of sight nesting and I call his name he'll answer. If I don't call his name he won't answer. I thought I taught him to recognize his name. A friend of mine told me the duck taught me to say his name by remaining silent until I said it. It's all a matter of perspective.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

this is still in no way having a sense of "I" in the manner were speaking of.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

Jboze, Firstly, how do you know what a rat or any other animal for that matter thinks? Can you talk to them? Secondly, your assertions have no basis, as DaveScot has pointed out. There have been a multitude of experiments showing that animals (especially mammal, but birds too, even spiders) are capable of not only recognizing patterns and extrapolating from them but also communicating this to others of the same species. Check out the work done on this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15182929&query_hl=1 Everyday labs around the world perform experiments on animals that test their ability to remember landmarks and follow patterns. Check out the Morris water maze task. In fact, if you analyze the actual signals recorded one can see that they DO correspond to landmarks in the environment. Here is just one of the citations for that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9817202&query_hl=4 Thus, before you make assertions about what animals do or do not think, read up on the literature.testerschoice_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT}

My cats knock on the door when they want to come in. Tap, tap, tap. The duck, much younger than the cats, observing the cats being granted entry upon knocking, started to knock on the door too, hoping to come inside. The poor bird isn't bright enough to know why the cats get let in and he has to stay outside. He still knocks though. He doesn't have any other ducks for company and is seeking someone to talk with. He'll sit and gab with you all day long. My cats will also politely tap you on the shoulder when they want something. I had a cardinal I raised from a nestling that knew each individual in my household and interacted differently with everyone. He also recognized strangers and put on an elaborate mating song/dance in the hope of finding a mate. He'd given up on all of us that lived in the same house - we were no longer potential mates, just friends.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

You people are obviously not naturalists. I suggest you pipe down and listen. I've raised many different species of birds and mammals as pets. Let me assure you in no uncertain terms they most assuredly can learn quite a few things, they have different personalities from one to another individual, they most definitely know pain and pleasure, work and play, and if you look into their eyes you'll see part of yourself in them - if you've got the gift. Maybe God doesn't give the gift to everyone. Whatever's special in us is in them too. They're as much God's creatures as you are. Maybe more. They're innocent. We ain't.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

thats why said thoughts and feelings- the cat isnt thinking to himself (theres that rug, which lets me know i need to turn in 5 feet). stuff like that. hes working off memory and instincts, not a sense of "I" and how that "I" is related to the environment around him.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

your cat is working off basic memory. hes not looking around thinking- okay...theres the bathroom. now i go ten feet to the right, take a left after that...move past that big plant, make my way thru the living room (remembering to watch out of the couch that is in the way), then make my way to the dish. your cat isnt thinking in a sense of "I" am at this location and i need to go thru these steps to get from one point to another. hes not actively plotting his course to any point. hes not thinking to himself- maybe ill make a u turn today and take a different route or planning the route beforehand.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

"are you arguing that a rat has thoughts and feelings and could recognize a series of landmarks and thus use the landmarks as a map of sorts to finds its way from point A to point B? theres no empirical evidence thats the case, and i highly doubt its possible. " jboze3131, My cat never fails to remember where his food is. Right after he wakes up, he goes immediately to his dish. He does not wander randomly until he finds it. I would definitely call this 'empirical evidence.'cambion_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

I agree. A rat doesn't have the ability to project on itself, like we do. A rat cannot look at itself and think, "I have legs. I have a face. I have teeth. Wow, I am this furry little thing." So, JBoze, I agree with you - a rat has no sense of "I".mtgcsharpguy_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

davescot- are you arguing that a rat has thoughts and feelings and could recognize a series of landmarks and thus use the landmarks as a map of sorts to finds its way from point A to point B? theres no empirical evidence thats the case, and i highly doubt its possible. well, heck- theres no way a rat has these notions and ideas. a rat definitely doesnt have a sense of "I" as its being used here. a rat doesnt "think" of its own self and base that thought on any goals or anything of the sort in any sense- it merely reacts to the environment.jboze3131_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

"rats donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have an abstract notion of Ã¢â‚¬Å“placeÃ¢â‚¬Â (at least, we have no reason to think they do.) It takes the immaterial Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬Â of the scientist (which a rat doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have)" What is this nonsense? Certainly every mammal knows "I" from "not I". So do birds.DaveScot_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

"It seems that to some, truth can only be found in peer reviewed journals." Very true. Although peer-reviewed journals themselves often contain speculative conclusions. We should *never* base decisions on peer-reviewed journals, but rather on the objective evidence they hopefully portray.mtgcsharpguy_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

It seems that to some, truth can only be found in peer reviewed journals. :)dodgingcars_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

testerschoice, You may be right that we have reached an impasse, but I think the reason is that the kind of evidence you are looking for is, in the nature of things, impossible. As I mentioned in post #42, ideas like "2+2=4" cannot be purely material or they would not be susceptible of being coded under a variety of material configurations. This is a pre-scientific point. Science assumes that, when you think "2+2=4" and I think "2+2=4", we are thinking the same thing even though our brains are materially distinct. If science didn't assume this, scientists would not be able to communicate and science itself would be impossible. Of course, there is no way for science to prove the assumptions that allow it to function. Put simply, science has no way of penetrating the "I" that is the foundation of science itself. As soon as he begins thinking and investigating, the scientist implicitly assumes he possesses an "I" that transcends the material phenomena he is investigating. The rat experiment doesn't show anything either way because rats don't have an abstract notion of "place" (at least, we have no reason to think they do.) It takes the immaterial "I" of the scientist (which a rat doesn't have) to associate the materially diverse phenomena of rat neural activity and a physical place under the abstract meaning of "place". The rat itself merely responds to stimuli. Yes, a certain location may be encoded in the rat's brain by a specific neural pattern, the way a location may be encoded in the memory of a computer. But the rat doesn't know this. It's behavior can be satisfactorily explained without granting the rat any self-aware knowledge of "place", just as we can explain the workings of a computer without positing self-aware knowledge to a computer. The behavior of the scientist conducting the experiment, however, cannot be explained without granting the scientist a self-aware knowledge of "place" that transcends both the neural workings of the rat brain and the physical location that is associated with that pattern. In other words, for the experiment to be conducted at all, it is implicitly assumed that the scientist has an "I" that transcends the experiment itself and all of which it is composed.taciturnus_{November 2, 2005
November
11
Nov
2
02
2005
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply