Comments on: Satan’s pride http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/ Watching. Pointing. Laughing. Wed, 01 Aug 2012 20:22:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Christopher Shell http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3405 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:26:29 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3405 Gulp!!! For me to claim I knew how the universe began – now, that is a big claim. I dont think anyone knows precisely how it began – granted that the Big Bang cannot be called in any real sense a ‘beginning’. Even if one hypothesised that God was involved, one still wouldnt know just how it happened or just what took place in what order. Or what one would have seen if it were on video. Nobody knows that – yet.
But it would have been ‘awe’some.
Having theories is not the same as knowing. Whereas it may be intelligent to hypothesise that spontaneously existing or sponatneously generating beings may (a) exist and (b) remain unknown to science (granted that everything we now see is neither of the nature to be spontaneously existing nor of the nature to be spontaneously generating) that is just a theory, not knowledge.
In the absence of knowledge, theiories are all we have – but not all theories account equally well for the evidence. Theories with some scientific foundation may theoretically account for so little of the evidence (ie they can describe, but cannot fundamentally explain) that we need to conclude that we must await a scientific advance before we can come up with a worthwhile theory at all.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: tom p http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3383 Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:39:43 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3383 Regarding multiple universes, if we knew how one could happen, then that may well explain how many could happen.
We don’t, and your claims that you do know how ‘cos of your imaginary friend are entirely false and groundless.

Regarding your risible points on awe, firstly there is little swearing here. Calling us effing and blinding humanists betrays your own obsession with the swearing of others. Also, an atheist is not necessarily a humanist.
Your attempts to claim that because we are not afraid to use the full range of vocabulary offered us by the english language, rather than pruriently self-censoring means we lack the ability to feel awe (or even a clear-eyed innocent astonishment) are baseless.
To claim that not being afraid to swear means we are blind to the beauty in the world is just the kind of sanctimonious twaddle I’ve come to expect from you and your fellow deluded smug gullibles.

You’re totally inappropriately drawing conclusions from one facet of someone’s life over into another.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: Christopher Shell http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3378 Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:00:16 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3378 We’ve agreed that ‘How come the universe(s) exist(s)? ‘ is a meaningful question – as opposed to the ‘why’ question. Im not sure what your answer would be to this. And all things being equal, an infinite number of universes require more explanation than one universe would.

I think the ‘awe’ point is an important and central one. Awe (even, one might say, a kind of clear-eyed innocent astonishment) is the common denominator of most of the best people I have met. When I come across a group of effing and blinding humanists, then I wonder: Isnt it clear that the effing and blinding associates them with either (a) adolescents, or (b) disillusioned people whose horizons have been narrowed & who have lost their vision of beauty, the ability to be humble before the beauty they see in the world (and indeed in the English language).
Of course, there are other explanations. Sometimes ppl swear as (c) a sort of code to let everyone else know they are one of the lads!! Well, good for them – but why do they need to let ppl know that?
There’s probably a (d) which I have forgotten.
On the topic of 6000 years (surely such a small period decreases rather than increases one’s awe?) the magnificent tome of Archbishop Ussher has just been republished after hundreds of years, & my copy arrived yesterday.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: tom p http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3356 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:16:09 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3356 Where is the evidence for there not being an infinite number of universes? It’s at least as plausible as positing that there’s a god, something with absolutely no evidence.

The universe maybe be finitely big, but it’s so enormously huge as to be effectively infinite, since putting a number on its size is essentially meaningless ‘cos we can’t comprehend the awesome enormity of it. Claiming that because I seek to discover why things are, rather than just assuming that they must be the work of God, means that I lack a sense of awe is absolutely ridiculous. It’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen anyone write about anything ever. What goes on in that little head of yours? eh? Does having an imaginary friend mean that you’re the only person who can be overwhelmed by the beauty and mystery of the unvierse?
Just because I’m interested in finding out why the universe is so incredible, rather than just saying that “it must be the work of god, ‘cos I’m too stupid to comprehend anything else” doesn’t mean that I lack a sense of the magnificent. It’s what inspires people to understand it.

Just because you have an imaginary friend who is a giant sky-pixie that according to your special book of demented ramblings, made the universe 6,000 years ago, I don’t go around saying you inherently lack intelligence or a healthy degree of scepticism.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: Christopher Shell http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3352 Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:50:48 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3352 If the number of universes really were infinite, then the chances would be 100%.
But infinity is quite a concept, isnt it. Qualitatively altogether different from zillions upon zillions.
Where is the evidence for an infinite number of universes just so happening to exist for no particular reason?

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: Andy L http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3329 Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:02:50 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3329 The chance of winning the lottery is effectively so small that it is zero. And yet nearly every week, someone does – because lots of people try. And thus, with an infinate number of universes, the chances are very good indeed that a universe would form our conditions by pure chance.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: Christopher Shell http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3309 Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:12:43 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3309 Ok – I think Martin Rees is the present astronomer royal – one of those ultimate boffins who has been a prof since the age of 30, and is frequently discussed in tandem with Hawking.
He did a tv programme to this effect about a year ago. I didnt see it, but gather that he is one of the increasing number of physicists inclined to posit multiple universes (generally: zillions of the things) partly so that the improbable excellence of this particular universe would be less remarkable than it would be if it were the only universe.

I wonder whether I should allow you to get away with your remark on fine-tuning. (Of course, lack of awe is always the first thing I am suspicious of, since of all the things one might lack, awe is the strangest and most unaccountable when one lives in a universe like ours.) The stats I have seen in anthropic principle publications (and when discussing the feasibility of intelligent design in general) tend to involve odds of many millions/billions to one, tho’ of course Im not the best person to assess them.

The drop in spelling standards I would reckon is the greatest change since my schooldays (not that long ago, after all!). One feels the pinch when 75% of the time one spends correcting essays is spent correcting spelling and grammar.
Of course, spelling is not rigid anyway (cf. introvert/intravert: one is correct etymologically, the other lexicographically. Your ‘inquire/enquire’ is a simnilar example, since etymologically they are virtually identical, but not so, apparently, lexicographically. But there is flexibility here, surely.).
Maybe ‘wholistic’ came into being in circles where ‘wholeness’ was a buzzword – or else to avoid any confusion of ‘holistic’ with ideas of ‘holy’ or even ‘holes’.

Is the universe really infinitely big? I always thought it was finite but unbounded – with a finite number of stars and so forth.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: tom p http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3300 Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:11:37 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3300 ‘Monkeys and shakespeare’ is about complete randomness (hence monkeys, rather than a machine which could be said to only ever have pseudo-randomness), whereas evolution is not random (survival of the fittesst and all that). The only random would be in the initial coming together of the appropriate molecules, but I’m not sufficiently versed in the science and theories around this to be able to comment sensibly on it. The only thing I would say is that one wouldn’t need to fine-tune an entire universe to create the conditions for life, these can emerge locally in an otherwise hostile universe (think of cake mix, where you can have a clump of chocolate chips together in one cake or none in another).
The effectively zero line reminds me of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, which said that since the universe is infinitely big, then the average population must be zero, therefore nobody exists (or significantly more amusing words to that effect).
You might find this site interesting and amusing: http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/

Some people may see the universe as improbably fine tuned, others not. You wouldn’t happen to have a quote or source for that the astronomer royal assertion would you? I’m not accusing you of dissembling, it’s just that many creationist organisations use quotes out of context, and, if you saw this from them, then you may have been misled. I’d just like to check it out for myself.

According to the OED: The traditional distinction between enquire and inquire is that enquire is to be used for general senses of ‘ask’, while inquire is reserved for uses meaning ‘make a formal investigation’.
Also, the OED doesn’t have wholistic as a word, and under holistic it’s not listed as an alternative spelling. This is unsurprising since it derives from the Greek holos meaning whole (like hologram, which also lacks a leading silent w).
That’s the problem with the internet, one starts off spelling something correctly (because one reads properly proofed documents like books and newspapers), but the reading a load of poorly typed misspellings by random punters leads to all sorts of errors later on. My mum used to be a primary school teacher, and she found her spelling got worse the longer she taught, ‘cos of reading the stuff that the kids wrote.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: Christopher Shell http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3298 Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:36:05 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3298 So you’re a subscriber to the monkeys and Shakespeare theory then (given enough time, anything is possible)?

Which of course is a truism, except that the levels of probability in some cases (even given the time available) are so very minute that they equate to more or less zero.

Our own universe strikes many top scientists as improbably fine-tuned – e.g. the Astronomer Royal.

Re: holistic/wholistic: I first encountered the first option, but have since encountered both repeatedly. Isnt it true that they are alternative spellings, like enquire/inquire, judgment/judgement?

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>
By: tom p http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2005/07/03/satans-pride/comment-page-2/#comment-3276 Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:13:49 +0000 http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/?p=176#comment-3276 I was reading an intersting article the other day, which, in passing, explained the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism
(paras 2-5 of this piece: http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/rationallyspeaking_more.php?id=1651_0_7_0_M).

God has been definitively removed from all areas of science following the big bang purely because of methodological naturalism. We’ve found out how things work, so there’s no room for the supernatural.

The universe is infinitely huge, and there’s an infinity of stars, it’s not at all surprising that some life eventually flourished on one planet or another. There may be plenty of other inhabited planets out there for all we know.

Nobody has ever said that it is not permissible to posit that the universe is designed. That was the prevailing view until the last century, and still is in some backwards places (like the southern states of the USA). It’s just that Intelligent Design is a bullshit theory full of more holes than a fisherman’s net.
In your hypothesis, it is quite possible that there would be large bodies of evidence pointing towards a designer, but there isn’t any evidence on earth or that we have found extraterrestrially that points towards a designer.

Oh, and it’s not Parsons, it’s far more in keeping with your hypothesis.

Also, the anthropic principle isn’t appropriately reduced to state that “our universe is improbably suited for intellignet life”.
Wikipedia provides definitions of the following 3 anthropic principles:
Weak anthropic principle (WAP): “The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.”
Strong anthropic principle (SAP): “The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”
Final anthropic principle (FAP): “Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.”

Ultimately, they’re all truisms (except the Final, which makes a prediction), and of little use to anyone really, unless you’re trying to design a universe that would produce life. and even then they’re not that useful, since they’re axiomatic.
Finally, the anthropic principle is not some major guiding force behind civilisation and science as we know it, it’s just one bloke (Brandon Carter)’s attempt to state the bleeding obvious in scientific jargon.

]]>
/** * Fires at the end of each RSS2 comment feed item. * * @since WP-2.1.0 * * @param int $comment->comment_ID The ID of the comment being displayed. * @param int $comment_post->ID The ID of the post the comment is connected to. */ do_action( 'commentrss2_item', $comment->comment_ID, $comment_post->ID ); ?>