tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post283812246286033383..comments2024-03-20T00:30:11.702-07:00Comments on Home Education Heretic: Home educating the Biblical waySimon Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-2554825963269412222010-07-11T05:38:51.902-07:002010-07-11T05:38:51.902-07:00"how did you do the statistics for this?"..."how did you do the statistics for this?"<br /><br />You gave them to me. Look at the quotes below, in particular the last sentence:<br /><br />"I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one."<br /><br />"In essence, it was necessary to take a leap of faith in choosing one theory over another. This is often the case, both in science and theology. The evidence takes you to a certain point and then you have to make a decision."<br /><br />"To plump for the Big Bang or the Steady State side required a leap of faith, precisely as the decision to opt for belief in the Deity does. The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories."Anon (the other one)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-59530946181563439462010-07-11T04:40:25.453-07:002010-07-11T04:40:25.453-07:00"Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a..."Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a god who has only a 50% chance of existing, and whom there is no reason to fear because he does not punish or reward us for our behaviour?"<br /><br />I may regret this, but how did you do the statistics for this?Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-76768151579425765022010-07-11T04:17:58.783-07:002010-07-11T04:17:58.783-07:00Simon said:
"anonymity"
Bingo!Simon said:<br />"anonymity"<br /><br />Bingo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-49894747227963733822010-07-11T04:10:10.995-07:002010-07-11T04:10:10.995-07:00Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a god w...Why did you bring your daughter up to fear a god who has only a 50% chance of existing, and whom there is no reason to fear because he does not punish or reward us for our behaviour?Anon (the other one)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-30327461924422696472010-07-11T03:35:13.287-07:002010-07-11T03:35:13.287-07:00"Why do you feel the need to assign a gender ..."Why do you feel the need to assign a gender "<br /><br />" It's not necessary if you have a command of the English language, and if nothing else, I'll credit you with that."<br /><br />On the contrary, it is the very nature of the English language, which lacks any gender neutral pronouns for humans, that makes it necessary to guess about your gender. That and the fact that you insist on anonymity. <br /><br /><br />"The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions...She clearly does not believe..."<br /><br />How could I have phrased this in order to avoid guessing the gender? I suppose that somebody who didn't care about the English language could have said,<br />'their prejudices...they clearly do not believe.'<br /><br />The problem there is that having begun the sentence with the singular 'person', I can hardly then switch seamlessly to using a plural pronoun like 'they'. This would be an illicit concordance, something which I avoid like the plague precisely because I care about the English language. A few years ago, the convention was to use the masculine pronoun when in doubt, but I don't like doing this either. I could have kept talking of 'the individul in qiestion' or 'the person to whom I refer', but this sounds affected and pompous. Instead I must make an intelligent guess about gender. The majority of home educators are female, as are most of those who comment on forums such as this. Statistically, you are more likely to be a woman than a man. if you were really bothered about this you would, instead of posting as 'anonymous', have chosen a male or female pseudonym so that I had some idea about your gender. The fact that you have not done so led me to suppose that you did not care. One person who comments here, for instance, calls herself Mrs. Anon: This indicates gender. Since you have still not said whether you are male, female or intersex, I assume that you wish to keep this secret, leaving me no option but to hazard a guess.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-54093039001485735472010-07-11T01:57:37.941-07:002010-07-11T01:57:37.941-07:00Anyway, enough of the diversions. Answer my point...Anyway, enough of the diversions. Answer my points at 00:36 and 01:25; just to clarify, I'm not asking you to believe in the multiverse hypothesis (I've said I'm agnostic - doubtful even - on this at present), merely to accept this as a scientific hypothesis and not on a par with religious concepts. You should also recant on any notion that there is evidence for the existence of god and accept that any belief you have in a deity is based on faith. All fairly straightforward really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-46795622145939494182010-07-11T01:48:18.094-07:002010-07-11T01:48:18.094-07:00Simon said:
"Why on earth...The question reve...Simon said:<br />"Why on earth...The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions...She clearly does not believe..."<br /><br />The question reveals nothing of the sort, least of all the sex of the person asking. Really Simon, your powers of inference are somewhat flaky. Why do you feel the need to assign a gender - particularly when you've made this mistake at least once before? It's not necessary if you have a command of the English language, and if nothing else, I'll credit you with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-16554944120472694342010-07-11T01:32:49.429-07:002010-07-11T01:32:49.429-07:00"I asked a question, thus: "Do you belie..."I asked a question, thus: "Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc?"<br /><br />Why on earth would anybody ask this question of anybody but a Christian? Only a Christian would be familiar with the story of the marriage feast at Cana and believe it to be literally true. This is not a question which one would address to a Hundu. Obviously, it is culturally specific and the underlying assumption was that the person of whom it was asked was a Christian. The question reveals something of the person asking it and her prejudices and assumptions. This sort of question is far more than a mere suggestion and is actually a statement of the questioners own beliefs. By placing quotation marks around the word 'evidence', we are invited to share the questioners own thoughts about the suggestion. We are told before hand that this is not really evidence at all. She clearly does not believe that water was changed to wine at Cana and is inviting us to share her incredulity.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-39438062780214522352010-07-11T01:25:58.183-07:002010-07-11T01:25:58.183-07:00Simon said:
"There is and can be no alternati...Simon said:<br />"There is and can be no alternative to science. It is the only tool which we have for investigating the physical world."<br /><br />Then why do you object to the multiverse hypothesis? Just as a reminder, you said:<br /><br />"As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."<br /><br />Before answering, read my comment logged at 00:36 again and then consider whether the Americas, the moon, Pluto, the most distant galaxies or the Cosmic Microwave Background were part of the "physical world" for paleolithic Europeans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-19872709809195382262010-07-11T01:10:00.162-07:002010-07-11T01:10:00.162-07:00Simon said:
"Hard to know then why you were ...Simon said:<br /><br />"Hard to know then why you were making cracks about changing water to wine and raising the dead. The suggestion was that I believed in miracles, specifically Christian ones. "<br /><br />I made no such suggestion; I asked a question, thus: "Do you believe in "evidence" such as raising the dead, turning water into wine etc?"<br /><br />Don't you understand the difference between a suggestion and a question or are you simply trying to obfuscate and mislead?<br /><br />I feel a paper title coming: "Spontaneous symmetry-breaking in the Simon Webb Truth Transformation Field".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-74294159938981553112010-07-11T00:43:43.694-07:002010-07-11T00:43:43.694-07:00"but don't pretend to have an alternative..."but don't pretend to have an alternative to science."<br /><br />There is and can be no alternative to science. It is the only tool which we have for investigating the physical world.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-33110575716445339032010-07-11T00:36:59.106-07:002010-07-11T00:36:59.106-07:00Simon said:
"Is this another reference to the...Simon said:<br />"Is this another reference to the multiverse? If so, then to call it a scientific hypothesis is more than a little misleading. "<br /><br />Why is this misleading? As I've said, I'm somewhat agnostic about it but your criticism is based on your shallow understanding. Any suggestion that that it is comparable to religious concepts is utterly vacuous.<br /><br />The multiverse concept has been the subject of a considerable body of research published in refereed journals (I recall you making a lot of fuss about the importance of peer review and can provide some references if you'd like) and there is a substantial theoretical framework that is consistent with the rest of physics. <br /><br />It turns out that multiverses are predicted by three existing theories: quantum mechanics, string theory and inflation. Of these, quantum mechanics is extremely well established and finds applications in everyday life - including the semiconductors in the computer equipment we're all using. Inflation is more recent and has stood up to some stringent tests I mentioned earlier. String theory is still very controversial but may be progressing to form part of a larger theory but this is still incomplete.<br /><br />Moreover, there is at least one tentative piece of evidence in a claim that an observed deficit in the Cosmic Microwave Background is a predictable relic of entanglement between our universe and another.<br /><br />This is cutting-edge and highly controversial, but that's inevitable with new science. General Relativity and Quantum theory seemed bizarre and complex when proposed over a century ago; both now find applications in everyday life as well as serving as foundations for new research.<br /><br />Multiverses might or might not turn-out to be a dead end but they are part of a process of fundamental scientific exploration. <br /><br />Your god concept cannot be questioned and tested in the same way if used - as you propose - to explain things like the current balance of physical constants. It is a scientific roadblock. Have faith by all means, if you wish, but don't pretend to have an alternative to science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-4300768200871243312010-07-11T00:26:51.742-07:002010-07-11T00:26:51.742-07:00"You say your daughter is "God-fearing&q..."You say your daughter is "God-fearing". Was this her own decision? Did you tell her that you had no idea if you were correct in believing in God? That God was equally likely to exist and not to exist?"<br /><br />This would be well enough if I were some sort of philosopher like Socrates! In such a case I would present every idea in a neutral fashion and not allow my own prejudices to creep in. There is no such thing as a neutral religious upbringing. Not having a Bible on the bookshelf says as much about your attitude as having one on display. What most people call a neutral religious upbringing is actually an irreligious one, which is a very different thing. Interesting to think how a genuinely neutral religious upbringing would look. I suppose you might attend Mass one week and then the following go to mosque. One week a Wicca festival and then the next synsgogue. I don't know many people who do this. We all transmit our beliefs and prejudices to our children, even if it is just grimacing when a politican comes on the television from a party we dislike. I am sure that i have done this myself and that my own political beliefs and views on religion, sex and many other things have affected my child. This is particularly likely when a child has been home educated and so spends more time with her parents.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-19697712384595147482010-07-10T23:16:56.363-07:002010-07-10T23:16:56.363-07:00"I note that comments on your behaviour in th..."I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters." <br /><br />I have offered to rectify any errors in what I have said a number of times. The only one so far pointed out by the Friendss of Dominic Johansson turned out according to the child's father not to be an arror at all. Please point out any mistake and if you are sure you know what you are talking about, I will correct it.<br /><br />"You posed a religious answer as being superior to a scientific hypothesis in answer to an issue that lies in the domain of science."<br /><br />Is this another reference to the multiverse? If so, then to call it a scientific hypothesis is more than a little misleading. <br /><br /><br />"earlier you suggested that I might think you were a christian when I had made no such suggestion and clearly indicated I didn't care."<br /><br />Hard to know then why you were making cracks about changing water to wine and raising the dead. The suggestion was that I believed in miracles, specifically Christian ones.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-54863883613762267882010-07-10T18:57:43.129-07:002010-07-10T18:57:43.129-07:00"I note that comments on your behaviour in th..."I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters." <br /><br />I agree. I think you should post an apology to the Johanssons. For a God-fearing man, you're remarkably uncharitable.Anon (the other one)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-41013524311707064532010-07-10T18:46:21.302-07:002010-07-10T18:46:21.302-07:00"The evidence supports either point of view a..."The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories."<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />"I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one."<br /><br />You say your daughter is "God-fearing". Was this her own decision? Did you tell her that you had no idea if you were correct in believing in God? That God was equally likely to exist and not to exist?<br /><br />"I simply can't see the point of devising a new hypothesis which is more complicated than what we currently have and which can never be proved, even in theory."<br /><br />Because it's interesting? Because as conscious beings we are curious about our origins and the nature of the universe we live in? Because it's just as likely to be true as the God hypothesis?<br /><br />"This would be an unnecessary hypothesis. Most hypotheses are if they are unprovable."<br /><br />This seems a rather depressingly utilitarian point of view. Are you really suggesting that it is unneccessary to make any hypotheses we can't prove? Surely that makes our rich culture of mythology, religious art, poetry, music and drama, mysticism, philosophy, religious architecture, and so on, all pointless because it is based on unneccessary hypotheses? And doesn't it make the God hypothesis itself unneccessary?Anon (the other one)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-3950115624496913572010-07-10T18:20:50.003-07:002010-07-10T18:20:50.003-07:00As usual you are being thoroughly evasive Simon. ...As usual you are being thoroughly evasive Simon. <br /><br />You posed a religious answer as being superior to a scientific hypothesis in answer to an issue that lies in the domain of science. You seem to wish to divert attention from that.<br /><br />As for wanting to categorise you, I don't know where you got that idea; earlier you suggested that I might think you were a christian when I had made no such suggestion and clearly indicated I didn't care. You seem to try to argue by adopting some part of your opponent's position; however, when one sees it written down that's not a very sensible approach as your self-contradiction is striking.<br /><br />I note that comments on your behaviour in the Johansson case highlight your cavalier attitude towards representation of the truth and stubbornness in rectifying matters. It's all part of a pattern and I see no point in trying to engage with you in rational argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-3831474095798301352010-07-10T14:58:55.508-07:002010-07-10T14:58:55.508-07:00"we're pretty well versed with the stuff ..."we're pretty well versed with the stuff you regurgitate from Wikipedia "<br /><br />Tell me, are you working on commission from Wikipedia to recommend them? It's not my own preferred source of information, but you seem positively fixated with it. I think we have pretty well worked this topic to death. I keep approaching this from different angles but you seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about religion which stops you engaging with what I am saying. The contradictions which you apparently see in my staements are perhaps because you have a fairly basic view of religion and cannot deal with fine graduations between the various positions. I really don't mind whether you believe in God or not, but you seem very evangelical about your own lack of faith. As for my being a moving target with regard to my religion, this only suggests to me that you like to be able to put people into neat categories; this one is a Christian this person is a Muslim and so on. I have never subscribed to this view of religion and am equally home worshipping in churches, mosques or even Hindu temples. I have covered this before, but since you are not really that interested in religion, there seems little point in going through it all again.Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-2707442317712795532010-07-10T14:12:31.084-07:002010-07-10T14:12:31.084-07:00I wrote in reference to the catholic church:
"...I wrote in reference to the catholic church:<br />"they don't dare to challenge science any more"<br />I should have said "fundamental physical science" - one of the issues I have with them is in their views on life science and related matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-63048230855323951162010-07-10T14:08:09.078-07:002010-07-10T14:08:09.078-07:00Simon, I think you'd better reread what I wrot...Simon, I think you'd better reread what I wrote - and what you wrote yourself - or are you attempting to mislead anyone coming in late? <br /><br />You, Simon, are the one that invoked a deity as an answer to fundamental scientific questions; here's what you wrote in answer to a question about proof for the existence of god:<br /><br />"There is certainly no proof, but rather an overwhelming amount of evidence. The very finely balanced way the the Bog Bang took place during the period of inflation. A hundred billionth of a part different in either direction and the early Universe would have collapsed at once or simply flown apart. The resonence of carbon when it is synthesised inside stars, particularly considering its importance for the development of life. The wonderful balance between the forces of nature such as the strong nuclear force, elctro-maganetism and gravity. The appearance of consciousness in the Universe. All these suggest that something more than a bunch of random particles is involved in the world."<br /><br />Later you explicitly rejected one scientific hypothesis - multiverses - as "quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."<br /><br />Do you still stand by all of this Simon? Do you still maintain that a creator is required or preferable to explain questions about the values of fundamental constants?<br /><br />I mention the catholic church because they are much more savvy than you in recognising the danger inherent in venturing into fields that they don't understand. I have plenty of other issues with them but they don't dare to challenge science any more. In fact they even invest in their own astronomers who are pretty respectable.<br /><br />I've no idea where you stand in your religion - you seem to be a moving target in order to dodge things and you lack consistency in your responses to me and others here. I gather you are monotheist (maybe that will provoke you into pantheism), possibly an abrahamic; I don't really care, it's all much the same to me.<br /><br />By the way, as a Physicist and PhD Astronomer - my partner likewise and still very active in research - we're pretty well versed with the stuff you regurgitate from Wikipedia - and much more. Professional published journals and the preprint arxiv are our preferred source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-758820490842589702010-07-10T12:16:59.426-07:002010-07-10T12:16:59.426-07:00I would have to agree with you about New Scientist...I would have to agree with you about New Scientist. It used to be quite a respectable magazine. I used to read it back in the sixties when it had the old blue and white cover. the rot set in when they began putting pictures on the cover! Don't get me started on that one. I mentioned it not because it's where I get most of my scientific knowledge, but to draw a comparison with the current interest in the Higgs Boson and the excitement about magnetic monopoles thirty years ago and how these featured in New Scientist. Since you probably don't rememmber this, the allusion, or illusion if you prefer to spell it that way, was lost on you.<br /><br />You said;<br /><br /> "but trying, as you do, to answer fundamental scientific questions by resorting to a creator"<br /><br />I gather that you feel that this is how I think about things. It is not. Let me explain. After 1911 when Rutherford had put forward the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus, there was what you might indeed term a "fundamental scientific question." It was this. If the electron whizzed round, shedding radiation then it should spiral in and crash into the nucleus. There should be no stable matter in the Universe. Fundamental scientific question? Resorting to the creator to answer this might entail imagining God racing round, keeping all the electrons spinning round; a bit like some celestial plate spinner. Of course there's no reason in theory why an omnipotent Deity could not do this, but that would be an incredibly lazy way of answering the question. In the event of course, quantum theory came to the rescue and this solved many other difficulties; black body radiation, the ultraviolet catastrophe and so on. I dare say that Wikipedia has articles on these if you are unfamilar with these if you wish to know more. In fact it is science which we use to answer questions of this sort. There are other questions that cannot be answered by science, due again to quantum effects. If we take a naked neutron it will decay after fifteen or twenty minutes. We can never predict when this will happen and this is not due to some hidden variable which we may some day discover; this is just how the Universe is made. I suppose we could invoke the Deity here as well and say, "Oooh look! God made it happen". Another lazy explanation. Science answers the how questions very well in many ways. Sometimes though the why questions are meaningless as scientific questions. This is why I cannot understand your idea of resorting to a creator to answer fundamental scientific questions. It is a meaningless concept.<br /><br />By the by, you keep mentioning the Catholic Church and miracles like turning water to wine and so on. I think you might have got the idea that I am a Christian. I am not and cannot really be held answerable for anything of this sort!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-4675757282343649332010-07-10T09:08:09.471-07:002010-07-10T09:08:09.471-07:00Simon said:
"Another ad hominem attack...&quo...Simon said:<br />"Another ad hominem attack..."<br /><br />If you insist on refusing to deal with the issue by providing testable evidence and instead write nonsense then don't get upset when you take flak. You don't have a line of argument; your allusions are more like illusions.<br /><br />"From your remarks, it is pretty clear that your field is not physics."<br /><br />Then you are quite wrong and it is clear that you have a very tenuous understanding of physics and the reality of science generally (New Scientist won't be of very much help to you; it has declined severely).<br /><br />"You answer fundamental scientific questins by the application of science, not religion. I have no idea what you are talking about here or where you get this idea."<br /><br />This is breathtaking, given that you suggested that a fine balance in the Big Bang was part of the "overwhelming amount of evidence" for the the existence of god - your words. <br /><br />This balance poses an interesting scientific question; it's not an excuse to invoke a creator as you did. It provides no evidence for God; will you retract it (I suspect you won't) and recognise that you have no evidence, instead of trying to disguise the issue with a lot of irrational bluster?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-7033490478107531292010-07-10T08:55:20.276-07:002010-07-10T08:55:20.276-07:00Simon said:
"Another ad hominem attack...&quo...Simon said:<br />"Another ad hominem attack..."<br /><br />If you insist on refusing to deal with the issue by providing testable evidence and instead write nonsense then don't get upset when you take flak. You don't have a line of argument; your allusions are more like illusions.<br /><br />"From your remarks, it is pretty clear that your field is not physics."<br /><br />Then you are quite wrong and it is clear that you have a very tenuous understanding of physics and the reality of science generally (New Scientist won't be of very much help to you; it has declined severely).<br /><br />"You answer fundamental scientific questins by the application of science, not religion. I have no idea what you are talking about here or where you get this idea."<br /><br />This is breathtaking, given that you suggested that a fine balance in the Big Bang was part of the "overwhelming amount of evidence" for the the existence of god - your words. <br /><br />This balance poses an interesting scientific question; it's not an excuse to invoke a creator as you did. It provides no evidence for God; will you retract it (I suspect you won't) and recognise that you have no evidence, instead of trying to disguise the issue with a lot of irrational bluster?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-69169784979940558672010-07-10T08:40:46.398-07:002010-07-10T08:40:46.398-07:00"Yes, you've got it. A leap of faith is i..."Yes, you've got it. A leap of faith is involved. Religious faith is not just "the culmination of the examination of the evidence". It is this, plus the leap of faith. At least, that's what I think you're saying."<br /><br />When the evidence is ambiguous, as it often is in the real world, people take a jump and choose one theory against another. I think you mentioned earlier the Big bang/Steady State controversy in the early fifties. The evidence at that time was such that both theories fitted well. Some chose one side and then stuck to it very enthusiastically. Fred Hoyle hung on to it right up until his death a few years ago. When new evidence emerged, in this case the microwave background, wise people changed their theories. To plump for the Big Bang or the Steady State side required a leap of faith, precisely as the decision to opt for belief in the Deity does. The evidence supports either point of view and until new evidence comes along, either hypothesis is perfectly good. Atheists and theists are both equally likely to be right; there is no rational way of choosing between theories.<br /><br />"Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but you appear to mean something like the following:<br /><br />"Why bother to think of any more possible explanations for the fine tuning of the natural world when we already have the God hypothesis, which is the correct one?" <br /><br />I have no idea at all if my idea is the correct one. It fits the facts as well as the alternatives. I simply can't see the point of devising a new hypothesis which is more complicated than what we currently have and which can never be proved, even in theory. It would be as though I suggested a new theory that the planets were being pushed around their orbits by angels. They are invisible and we can never demonstrate their existence, but it would explain the observed motion. This would be an unnecessary hypothesis. Most hypotheses are if they are unprovable.<br /><br />"One much more important thing is that you do not see your leap of faith as the final step in the process, and therefore conclude that other evidence-based hypotheses are obviously wrong because yours is right. Making the hypothesis is not the end of the process, it is the beginning."<br /><br />This depends. If there is a possibility that new evidence might emerge in the future to prove or discredit an hypothesis, then this is certainly the right attitude. This is not really the case with some things in the physical world. Raidoactive decay happens because it happens. There are no hidden variables which we might one day discover; it is just in the nature of the world that the precise time that one particle will decay is unknowable. The creation of the Universe is a bit like this. We can certainly calculate further and further back and we have a pretty good idea of the intial conditions a tiny fraction of a second after it came into existence. In effect, we know about all that we are likely to know about the event. This is because in the very early stages, quantum events were involved, which means that we cannot really say this happened because of that. A consequence of this is that the hypothesis you choose about what was going on there is not likely to be disproved by future evidence. This does not of course make my idea right and yours wrong. All we can say is that one of us is wrong but we will never be able to say which of us it is!Simon Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10865289865412656573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7881402584568285627.post-81215031485392600052010-07-10T07:58:22.959-07:002010-07-10T07:58:22.959-07:00"Very often, evidence points in several direc..."Very often, evidence points in several directions and we have to make a choice between the two options." <br /><br />Such as the existence or non-existence of God?<br /><br />"all scientists had access to the same evidence, it just pointed in one direction for some and in another for others." <br /><br />Yes, that's what I said. Some people see evidence for intelligent design, others see evidence against it. The evidence is the same in both cases; it is the interpretation that differs.<br /><br />"In essence, it was necessary to take a leap of faith in choosing one theory over another." <br /><br />Yes, you've got it. A leap of faith is involved. Religious faith is not just "the culmination of the examination of the evidence". It is this, plus the leap of faith. At least, that's what I think you're saying. <br /><br />"Faith which is not founded on the scientific view of the world is simply a nonsense." <br /><br />Well, yes. Faith that flies in the face of the evidence is clearly nonsense. But faith that takes the evidence and leaps to one conclusion out of a number of equally likely ones, is not more credible just because it is "evidence-based". Take an example: male African-Caribbean children in the UK tend to do worse at school than other children. This is the evidence. There are many ways of interpreting it, all of which involve making an evidence-based hypothesis. One of these is that male african-caribbeans are stupid. At this stage, with the evidence that is available, this hypothesis is as likely to be true as any other evidence-based one. So far so good. <br />Now, the problem with the God hypothesis is that you accept it, at exactly this point in the process, as the truth (make a "leap of faith", which is another way of saying leaping to a conclusion), when in fact there is a number of other possible evidence-based theories available which are just as likely to be true. You said this: <br /><br />"As for the Multiverse, this is quasi-religion tricked out as science; a fantastic getout clause which explains the fine tuning of the natural world without the recourse to a creator."<br /><br />Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but you appear to mean something like the following:<br /><br />"Why bother to think of any more possible explanations for the fine tuning of the natural world when we already have the God hypothesis, which is the correct one?" <br /><br />Apply the same thought process to my African-Caribbean example: why bother going any further than the obvious truth that African-caribbean males are inferior?<br />Do you see the problem here? <br /><br />You said this: <br /><br />"The important thing is that your decision is not contradicted by the evidence."<br /><br />Yes, that's *an* important thing. But it's not *the* important thing. One much more important thing is that you do not see your leap of faith as the final step in the process, and therefore conclude that other evidence-based hypotheses are obviously wrong because yours is right. Making the hypothesis is not the end of the process, it is the beginning.<br /><br />I think I've finally worked out why you are so prejudiced against autonomous education; you've used the same sloppy, quasi-intellectual process to convince yourself that there is overwhelming evidence that you are right and we are wrong. And then you use this belief to argue that because your theory is right, ours must be wrong. Very rigorous.Anonymous (the other one)noreply@blogger.com