Posts Tagged 'morality'

Science of the gaps – Richard Dawkins debating John Lennox

a) Personal prologue
b) Main post

 

Personal prologue

I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.

Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.

Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.

Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?

Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are   laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.

I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.

All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.

Main post

I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God

21:03 – 31:29

[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.

I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.

Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.

Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.

Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.

It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.

Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.

I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.

It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?

* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc

The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57

At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.

I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.

It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0 (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)

 

Advertisements

Darling, let’s not have sex together.

From about 13 years old up to about 18/19 I grew up a a fairly godless society. By that, I mean God didn’t play any significant role (if any) in influencing how I lead my life.

 

From about 18/19 to about 20/21, I was exposed to a habitat where Islam and Hinduism was more visual. Duing that time, I watched an almost 100 episode serialisation of the Hindu Maharabarat. The story was great and very interesting to me but really only from the point of view of ‘politics’ and ‘interpersonal relationships’ less so the religio philosophical part. I wasn’t really aware of the differences between Hinduism and Islam, but at 21 I was begining to passively come to know of those differences.

 

Then I left that habitat and went to a different ‘godless’ place. I was maturing and my self-destructing streak, ahtough still strongly present was beginning to lessen.

 

Throughout that time (13-21), amongst the small circles of friends i mingled in (some of the earlier ones prided themselves in believing they were somehow ‘different’ from the rest of society – often but not exclusively Goths/rockers/indy kind of friends) I felt a pressure to lose my virginity.

 

As a mature person now, looking back at it in an honest fashion, that pressure was mostly self-generated. I felt I had to show that I wasn’t such a bad person primarily from a physical perspective but also to a self-perception mental ‘this is me and what I have chosen to be’ perspective.

 

 Most of the pressure wasn’t peer generated, but some of it was.

 

From being very young. about 10 years old, I had a few ‘scary’ moments when matters related to sex and sexual physiology were being discussed. Being in a group of friends the occasional question/statement loaded with ‘kids sex slang words’ came my wy. Sometimes I didn’t really know what they meant, or how to begin talking about it, having never discussed anything like that before. Result: they mildly ridiculed me, but at the time, it was terrible, like the whole world was laughing. I really didn’t like it. I was sensitive to ridicule.

 

Going back further, I remember sitting in school (about 6 years old) and the class was singing a song. There was a persons name in the song and it matched mine. Because of that connection, the song ‘became’ about me! The song was a kinf of ‘joke’ song, and I thought people were laughing at me. That experience set the groundwork for my sensitivity to riducule. So, when I faced ridicule due the ‘sexual discussion’ matters from older and more cruel peers, I felt quite bad.

 

This embarassing (leading to ridicule) ‘I don’t know’ (or stumbling to be able to talk about it properly – keading to ridicule) reply I gave, came up again later in life in my teenage years, quite rarely, yes, but they were moments I would dread..

 

So I had the “poor self confidence factor” as well as the questions of ‘could anyone love me / am I nice enough to be loved?‘, and to some degree ‘why can’t I have this apparently beautiful relationship with a beautiful girl that I can see other people have?‘ buzzing around in my head, as well as some peer pressure.

 

I really wanted to lose my virginity.

 

Now I’m old, I know the self-confidence and peer pressure thing should not have been an issue. However at the time, it very definately was. The desire to lose my virginity was a significant part of ‘growing up’ and so often I felt bad because of it.

 

A couple of years ago I watched a program about USan kids who took a pledge to uphold their virginity and wore a ring to symbolise and advertise that pledge. They were open about wanting to retain their virginity.

 

Why oh why oh why couldn’t I have been like that when I was young. Virginity was something I perceived as shameful and brought mild contempt upon me from a small number of my peers.

 

Now I realise one difference. It was that those USan kids were incorporating God via Christianity (don’t know which type) into their lives which gave them the strength of self belief and helped them avoid the personal turmoil I experienced, as well as lifting them to an admirable stance of morality absent from my life at the time.

 

silver-ring-thing-virginity-pledge-us

 

I think those kids are fantastic.

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/BQCaGjoNizs&hl=en

 

Side note:

When “teenager”, here was me previously and arrogantly thinking I, along with some friends, was somehow different from ‘normal society’, liberated from being ‘square’, better in some way. Yet I was deluding myself. I ridiculed my school mates for being ‘normal’ when here was me, thinking I should be ‘sleeping around’ too – doing hoping to do the thing that my culture was starting to become standard practice. How ‘different’ huh? Not only that, but when at school hypocritically cast out mild ridicule upon some of my classmates when I myself didn’t welcome such a thing. The nastiness I showed to my classmates is my responsibility It would be dishonest to blame someone/something else, but to step down the path I went along, was quite easy, partly fuelled by my own jealousy of those people whose lives were ‘normal’ when mine was not (partly, but not entirely by my own making).

 

As time passed I was getting older(durr!) and maturing so I was naturally changing anyway. The lack of self confidence, although still an issue, wasn’t allowed to affect me that much. I was unconsciously beginning to fit into ‘normal society’ but I did consciously decide to make some alterations in my life to cut out some of those things which were harming me.

 

This was when I was about 21. Over the next few years, in fits and starts, I began taking significant steps in my intellectual growth. Soon after I came across Islam which I started to learn about.

 

On reading a part of the Qur’an about Isa (Jesus) a.s. Qur’an I had the feeling this IS Divine Revelation and I read about the prophet Muhammad(saw). Eventually I concluded Islam is the wisdom to lead a successful life.

 

I am now very self-aware, very honest with myself, and highly self-confident. In part this is due to my analysis of my past life but also my religious belief. If only my eyes were opened from an internal and external perspective then my youth would not have been so wasted. But I am here today because of my past and I regards life now and in most cases the society and people around me as a beautiful gift. Alhamdulillahi rabbilallameen..

 

Why am I writing about all this? Because I saw something that had some similarities with my life, different parts of it are being played out by a mother and her handicapped son.

 

I shouldn’t be writing this now, I have FAR too much work to do, but I felt the need to write this, perhaps as a continuous process of self-healing, albeit effectively not needed and extinct, but also as an appeal to those facing the same issues to realise: it’s an illusion, there is an escape pod. This world is noting you don’t have to give up your virginity in what I’d call, perhaps unkindly,  ‘a western’ fashion.

 

The story is here:

Mother wants sex for Down’s son at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7948511.stm

 

When I have more time, I will comment about it as well as highlight and criticise the terrible stance of the mother. Also related to the issue, is the Dutch mother featuring in a post I made on my original lwtc247 blog in Oct 2007: http://lwtc247.blog.co.uk/2007/10/23/in_persuit_of_the_bhagwans_freedom~3180442/ 

 

Virginity is valuable and has been regarded as so for thousands of years among many societies and cultures. Maintaining virginity avoids much social unrest. Don’t let the godless society con you into losing that.


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
October 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
Advertisements