Today’s Exponent contains a response to my column about being an atheist at Purdue. I think it’s attempting to refute what I said, but…uh, yeah:
Claims already have extraordinary proof
Jennifer McCreight (Guest commentary, “Non-theists, you are not alone on this campus,” Wednesday), You quoted Carl Sagan in the last line of your article about the Society of Non-Theists, stating that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” You’re a science major, Jennifer. Take a look at the universe you live in. I’d say there’s some pretty extraordinary evidence all around you.
Josiah Maas
Sophomore in the College of Science
I really wish I could write in a reply without seeming like a total jackass, but I probably can’t. I’ll let some other non-theist defend me. But since this is my blog and I have the right to be as snarky as I want, here we go:
I find it amusing that you’ve failed to provide a single piece of this “proof”
Josiah Maas (Letter to the Editor, “Claims already have extraordinary proof,” Monday), You say that the universe I live in is extraordinary evidence. You’re a science major, Josiah. You should have learned that science is based on repeatedly testing hypotheses and gathering data, not letting emotional reactions or arguments from ignorance overwhelm rationality. In fact, what we’ve seen when investigating the universe is an overwhelming amount of data showing that natural processes shape everything from the formation of stars to the diversity of life on earth. The supernatural has zero evidence (though if you claim to have so much, would you please let me in on this little secret?). Maybe if you start paying more attention in your science classes, you’ll understand this concept. It’s okay, you have a couple more years until graduation.
Jennifer McCreight
Senior in the College of Science
Take a look at the universe you live in. I’d say there’s some pretty extraordinary evidence all around you.Hmmm, well, I may not be a Science Major, but I am a Monty Python fan.
I actually agree with him in one respect – we’re surrounded by extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary evidence of the falsity of his religious claims.As Victor Stenger likes to put it, “absence of evidence may not always be evidence of absence, but absence of evidence *that should be there* is indeed evidence of absence” (paraphrased). I think that characterises this situation admirably enough.
I am not a theist, but I have now spent a semester with a theist “science” professor and have listened to him argue that the fine tuning of the universe is evidence for a creator. He also likes to claim that life could not have originated naturally because of the second law of thermodynamics and the complexity of protenins….yada yada. He makes me want to pull out my hair, but anyway, I think things like that are what theists cling to as “evidence”
The existence of the universe does not prove that it was created by Yaweh anymore than the existence of my house proves that it was built by a red-headed, left-handed little person with a tattoo of a giant eagle across her back who would always sing old sea shanties and could juggle three claw hammers*.I’ve actually been hoping the Jehovah’s Witnesses stop by so that I can try that on them.*For the record, it wasn’t.
Please someone, anyone ask Josiah to call The Atheist Experience next Sunday between 7:30-8:30pm CT and present his evidence. Perhaps he has something to share that we’ve never heard. In any case, our viewers would be virtually orgasmic if he’d call. Note the time change for next week only – we’re normally on from 4:30 – 6:00pm CT, but we had to shift to accomodate studio training. The number for Josiah to call is (512) 477-2288 between 7:30 and 8:30pm.
You should definitely submit that! Who cares if it’s snarky? Sometimes people need a little figurative smack in the face.@bandtheory: Seriously? How can someone like that even become a science teacher, especially in college?
Haza, I figured that might irritate you :D You want me to write it in? I’m pretty unpopular according to the exponent today.
I like it! It’s not too snarky; I’d totally run it. Not that I have any particular sway over there…
I totally expected it to be an engineer to pull out the fine-tuning and other arguments from ignorance. To have a science student do it is just embarrassing.
That was a nice little dose of snark, but only a little. I’m with Dark Matter – run the letter.@Rev – engineers are the least practical people in the world. They are hilariously funny when they try to comprehend anything.
I rather resent that; we aren’t all idiots (although I do have to say, I do have a few colleagues who fit your stereotype).
Lies, damned lies, and statistics!
@McBender: Do you know the joke about the engineer, the manager and the balloon?
people often forget that evidence is a contextual word. yes the universe is extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary evidence does not generalize to be evidence for anything one likes. Just like words like “freedom” and “liberty” one must have evidence for something just as one must be free from something. This Maas guy seems to think the assumed context is god. A pretty straight forward equivocation imo.
Let’s deconstruct his statement:“Extraordinary claims…”There are no extraordinary claims. There are extraordinary sights, and extraordinary facts. No claims at all.There. Another wingnut’s claim refuted.
I think your come back is fine Jen, you should submit it. What is the worst that could happen? You are leaving this year anyways.
I don’t think so. Care to enlighten me?
“Niagara falls and the pyramidsEverything you believed in as kidsFucking rainbows after it rainsthere’s enough miracles here to blow your brainsI fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bayIt tried to eat my cell phone, he ran awayAnd music is magic, pure and cleanYou can feel it and hear it but it can’t be seen…I see miracles all around meStop and look around, it’s all astoundingWater, fire, air and dirtFucking magnets, how do they work?And I don’t wanna talk to a scientistY’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed”-Insane Clown Posse
Is there anyone whoEver remembers changing their mind fromThe paint on a sign?Is there anyone who really recallsEver breaking rank at allFor something someone yelled real loud one timeEveryone believesIn how they think it ought to beEveryone believesAnd they’re not going easilyBelief is a beautiful armorBut makes for the heaviest swordLike punching under waterYou never can hit who you’re trying forSome need the exhibitionAnd some have to know they triedIt’s the chemical weaponFor the war that’s raging on insideEveryone believesFrom emptiness to everythingEveryone believesAnd no one’s going quietlyWe’re never gonna win the worldWe’re never gonna stop the warWe’re never gonna beat thisIf belief is what we’re fighting forWhat puts a hundred thousand children in the sandBelief canBelief canWhat puts the folded flag inside his mother’s handBelief canBelief can- John Mayer
I’m pretty sure the “extraordinary evidence” is life itself. Conscious thought, and even physical evolution of something as complex as the eye. Evolutionists believe that the eye started as a freckle (basically). It became more concave, grew a lid, developed a corna, and then completion. Makes sense, a sensory organ originally used for nothing more than detecting where the heat source was coming from, to what it is today. It’s the breaking-it-down part that becomes problematic. It should have been either just 1 “eye”, or a lot of eyes. Not all species developing 2 eyes perfect for depth perception. The initial “freckle” would have had to been on the 1st living organism everything evolved from (which fits with survival of the fittest, but is so unlikely because that same entity would have had to have had ears, and tons of other evolutions, all at the same time).Don’t get me wrong, I’m more Atheist than anyone on this blog area. I realize that religion is a man invention, that texts over religion are just tools of control. And despite the fact that I spend hours trying to figure out how we evolved since pure evolution, as a theory, just doesn’t work when you step back and look at it, I don’t have an answer. I have some theories, which include Astral energy which our conscious (or sub conscious) are linked too, allowing us to do miraculous things with the belief that we can (such as those tests where you daily inject a medicine into a person, then replace it with sugar water, but their bodies still show in blood tests that there was a medicinal injection). But… whatever it is that helped us along our evolutionary path was definitely NOT a single omnipotent being who we’re suppose to fear or worship.Point being, the miraculous evidence is, in my opinion, there. But that evidence does NOT necessarily support the theory of a God. At best, it supports a theory of evolutionary interference or planned progression.
David,> It should have been either just 1 “eye”, or a lot of eyes. Not all > species developing 2 eyes perfect for depth perception. The > initial “freckle” would have had to been on the 1st living > organism everything evolved from Have you read the Wikipedia article on the evolution of the eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E… Photoreceptive capacity doesn’t start with a pair of organs, or even a single organ being needed – just the generation of a few molecules.> (which fits with survival of the fittest, but is so unlikely because > that same entity would have had to have had ears, and tons of > other evolutions, all at the same time).No, there’s no need for detecting sound to evolve at the same time as detecting light. Each carries different advantages, and just as with sight, we see a wide range of capacity for hearing in nature, from none to superhuman. Also, some creatures which are light sensitive are not sound-sensitive, and vice versa.
You both need to take a philosophy class.
No, I don’t have any good pictures to post. It is a cold rainy day in Beavercreek, Ohio. But I do have some thoughts to offer from a (semi)theist perspective. I am not trolling or proselytizing (spelling? I don’t use that word often enough) I simply believe in God within the boundaries of science. It may not make sense and ignore it at will, if you please.The point is, celebrate the cleavage and booty shorts, you who have good weather today! Happy Boobquake!My thoughts here –>http://pandacherry-jax.blogspo…
Oops, wrong post! I’ll repost on boobquake post. Please delete if you will!
DPack, I agree with you strongly, but I wish you’d be more specific. It doesn’t really help the conversation just to insult people and then leave.The problem with saying that science disproves theism is on a deeper level than has been mentioned. Why should reason, logic, be able to explain the universe at all in the first place? why are there laws of physics, why isn’t reality chaos? Why is there beauty in nature?The only answer I’ve come up for these questions, because rationality doesn’t seem to come from chaos, is that there is some uncaused cause, who has instilled matter with reason to begin with. The condition for the possibility of experimental science is assuming that the universe is reasonable enough for us to understand it in the first place. (an assumption that comes historically from Medieval Christianity, actually)I don’t see that the theist claim contradicts science in any way, and I’m also convinced that it is necessary to support science philosophically.
What you can’t proof, or something you don’t have the evidence, doesn’t mean that the it must be wrong…unless you have the strongest proof which says that it is wrong. Science is only a tool. So the result is influenced by the method you use.
Someone here needs to read Sir Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, who divided the intellectual world into three parts, the first of which are things that cannot really be understood rationally, but are more sensual in nature, things like art, music, etc. The second world was that of things that can be looked at rationally, such as ethics, metaphysics, and (not surprisingly) theology. The third world (no ref to developing countries) is that of testable (and refutable) hypotheses. That meant science. So for Popper, it would have been nonsense to try and prove the existence or non-existence of G-d (yes, I am a believer, and trying not to write His name in a non-religious context) by using science. Science deals with things that are fundamentally refutable. But since there is no scientific test for the existence of G-d, no way to disprove the existence of G-d, science is irrelevant as a methodology for examining the existence of G-d. And both St. Augustine and Maimonides argued that faith –indeed, reasoned faith — is the only way to truly “get” G-d.
the question you cannot answer is death you scared death but a moslem or christian not
I have a question.. as an evolutionist, which I’m guessing as an athiest you must be. Where did the amoeba, and consequently life, come from in the ‘primordial soup’? I was listening to an evolutionist earlier today.. and all he could tell me was that the rains came down on the solid rock and dirt of the earth, and after that, the atmosphere was heated and life was formed. So all he could tell me was ” in the beginning dirt….” He then proceeded to tell me that before that, an explosion from an extremely tiny and hot and dense speck (dirt) exploded into the universe and is continuing to expand (which i can understand) but went on to tell me that the speck was spinning clockwise, and all the planets and astronomical materials exploded from that. This evolutionist could not tell me how, after the clockwise spinning speck exploded, we ended up with counterclockwise planetary orbits. And even planets that have several moons spinning in different directions. If you have ever noticed, things that fling off of something spinning clockwise, will also be spinning clockwise.. its just basic physics. When I pointed this out, he tried to tell me that they must have hit eachother.. but when things explode, they get further away from eachother and could not possibly collide. Or have we all been mistaken?? I am willing to give evolution a chance, but I would love if someone could clear up the misconceptions that this man clearly had (believing he came from a rock or speck or dirt etc., believing that the planets all collided to give us gravity and orbits, and believing that clockwise can suddenly turn to counterclockwise in space. Could someone help me a little more than he did?
just for the science people:the six days creationism violates the second law of thermodynamics. plus, that law prevents perpetual-motion machines of the second type.some stuff on this page that may be helpful:http://www.projectrho.com/rock…and you might like this link:http://controversy.wearscience…
The amoeba did not form in the primordial soup. What formed from primordial soup was self replicating RNA strands. The beginning of this process has been replicated in the laboratory in the Miller-Urey experiments BTW. Amoeba like creatures didn’t evolve from this self replicating RNA until approximately 2 billion years later.That is evolution. The rest of your arguments have nothing to do with evolution. You are arguing about abiogenesis and the big bang. Claiming that evolution should answer these two questions is like asking why musical theory doesn’t explain how cars are built.It’s not all that complex if you actually want to look at it.Check our abiogenesis and the big bang. Use the google, use wikipedia. Both are great beginning resources.Now if you are simply trying to prove everyone wrong, you won’t. Scientists spend their whole lives trying to disprove scientific theories. That is how we know things, we test them.You can’t possibly expect anyone to listen to you, or take you seriously, if all you do is go around and intentionally lie about what scientific theories are. You know that the big bang wasn’t a speck of dirt. If you can type then you must know this much information.If you don’t know, then do the responsible thing and learn. Pick up a book for gods sake.If you actually care to understand what you are talking about, or if anyone else does, check out the origins video series. This series is made by an actual scientist with a PhD in molecular neuroscience.
Hey Jen McKnight – you’re a scientist. What is “proof”? What would constitute irrefutable proof in science? Anything that reaches that level of certainty is applied as a LAW of science, correct? And how many of those are there in comparison to theories? Why is it that educated science-minded people apply certainty in discourse, when they should be educated to understand that UNCERTAINTY is the only real certainty.I am not trying to prove the existence of god here. I am just highlighting that you don’t know. They don’t know. We don’t know. So why must you argue about it? What are you really trying to prove? What is your Will to Power?
That’s really the picture you chose to use as your avatar?
Jen, Josiah CLAIMS to be a science major. He provides no more evidence of that than he does his other clams of “evidence all around you”. The latter is a common refrain of theists and has no more validity here than it does when some TV evangelist spouts it. As a science major, let your skepticism run free and don’t hesitate to question any claims. Certainly Josiah’s writing doesn’t sound like anyone that knows the first thing about science, much less that of a “science major” unless it is one of the theist universities that only teach pseudo-science to help prop up their more outrageous claims.
You may be right that proving a god out of existence is impossible. But as long as religions keep making testable hypotheses, such as claims about the events of the future, the features of the world, and the events of the past, it seems pretty obvious that religion is not safe under the same epistemological exemption.
The horrible post-xian legacy wraps us all around like an ill-intentioned python. Strive as we might, we will never successfully de-xianize ourselves. But…we will crush it rationally.”The practice of Christianity is nihilism.” — NietzscheXian ignorati exalt in negation. Xians’ innermost affirmation arises from self-hated (incurable sinfulness) inverted into vast ego inflation (salvation snobbery). We stink, but stinking is godly. Nothing has changed in 2,000 years.The xian assault on the intellect begins with Saul of Tarsus (pseudonym ‘Paul’ fl 50-65CE) after he was laughed at by Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in the Agora of Athens while preaching the ridiculous doctrine of resurrection (Acts17:18 NIV). Paul creates the hellenistic xhrist-cult; he is a mentally ill (hysteric) zealot whose morally diseased god is himself writ large:Brothers [sic], think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are…1Cor1:26-28 NIV. God chose “the things that are not — to nullify the things that are…” Here pure xian nihilism gets injected into the marrow of western culture, poisoning it down to today.Faith, the trusting suspension of disbelief, has always been theater of the absurd. As a skeptic, belief in God is beneath me. The de-deification of western culture is our task for the next 100 years.the anti_supernaturalist
…you have no idea how refined “uncertainty” is in science. Error on either side of a measurement (its zone of tolerance) is knowable, controllable — take a decent philosophy of science course or a history of science course … no excuse for ignorance in this matter exists — Greek skepticism is 500 years older than all xian liarsScience is not a collection of facts or theories — it is a methodological engine for acquiring, organizing, inferring and sharing true insights into nature.Science as a set of institutions recognizes and practices virtues, forms of socially regulated behavior totally alien to near-eastern religions. (The big-3 monster theisms: judaism, xianity, and islam.) Fraud in science eventually gets caught — and its practitioners ostracized. Even if the fraud lasts as long as Piltdown, liars, cheats, fakers cannot hide. Religion is fraud incarnate.Nevertheless when fraud and lies and ideology are forced upon it, a scientific culture will collapse. German speaking science died of Nazism. Russian biological science, psychology, and history died of Stalinism. American biological science and history are sickened, weakened by Fundamentalism.Science is an open society, a self-adjusting mechanism driven by truth — it contains an ethic totally inimical to being a believer in supernaturalism. Reciprocity is at the heart of scientific practice. Scientific knowledge is shared knowledge. Shared knowledge implies reciprocal regard among those who create it. In this, science follows Master Kung (Confucius): 15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not ‘reciprocity’ such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [The Analects. trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]Science is a cultural artifactIt arose in time out of non-science. Herodotus and Thucydides (5th century BCE) between them created an early form of empirical history — by not being credulous, but skeptical of all sacred stories, aiming at a true history without bias and providing evidence for all to read and to evaluate for themselves. Never hiding explanatory difficulties with pious assertions from holy texts — “such was the will of the gods.” They accepted uncertainty as one price paid for finding truths about the world.The first secular self-reflexive thoughts are in Greek — in history and skeptical philosophy:The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,and could sculpt like men, then horses would draw their godslike horses, and cattle like cattle… Xenophanes of Colophon (ca. 570–475 BCE )So much for gods…just another device for the elites to control the masses. You don’t think that the corporate/military/xian fascist leadership in the US cares about you, do you?Keep your passport up to date.the anti_supernaturalist
Hey! StumbleUpon brought me here. I go to Purdue too, and I actually know that guy. He’s a fundie, through and through. There’s no way to get through to him with science.
Zack; I think you missed my point; Science has no place making claims about how one should live one’s life, and Religion should not be making claims about the universe that essentially constitute testable hypotheses (science in a word). Popper argues that each operates in an epistemologically distinct world and should not try to poach into the other’s territory. My point is that neither religion, science, nor the aesthetic arts has the appropriate capacity to make declarations that are outside of each one’s respective category. The mistake that secular humanists make, in trying to use science to make ethical systems is just as inappropriate as religionists who make declarations about the world that are (a) testable and (b) based on religious scripture rather than empirical data (“The world is flat”; “The sun is the centre of the universe”; “Humans did not evolve from a common ancestor with chimpanzees”). Either one that steps into the territory of the other is exhibiting tremendous intellectual hubris and hegemony and risks being one in by its fallacious work. The only reason, by the way, why secular humanists have not been brought down is not because science is a good way to generate ethical systems (it isn’t), but because it enjoys the protective overage of the left-leaning media. But both the fundamentalists and the hard-core humanists (Richard Dawkins, for example) are wrong to try to poach on the other’s territory.
A manager was floating in a hot air balloon, when he realises that he is hoplessly lost. Seeing a man in a field, he releases some hot air and comes within hailing distance of the man. “Sir!” He exclaimed. “Could you tell me where I am? I appear to be lost.” The man looked up, and replied “You are at 38.51806°N 86.39222°W / 38.51806; -86.39222 at an elevation of 700 feet above sea level, replied the man. “You must be an engineer!” Yelled the irate manager. “That I am” quothe the engineer, for he was indeed. “But how did you know?” The manager snorted. “I ask you for help and you give me perfectly factual information, which is, notwithstanding, completely useless!” The engineer looked up with a smirk. “And you must be a manager.” “I am, but how could you possibly know THAT?” replied the manager. The engineer responded “You are lost, in trouble through no fault but your own. You asked me for help, and I attempted to help you. You are in the exact same position as before, but now, it’s MY fault.” That’s the joke, as I remember it anyway. Bonus marks if you can tell where I chose to place this chance encounter.
Evolution is not abiogenisis nor does it deal with the origin of the universe.If you REALLY want to know. Go to the library and find some books on the subjects of those THREE separate scientific theories.
A law in science is not above a theory. It’s not like an idea starts out as a hypothesis, graduates to a theory, then graduates to a law. A theory will always remain a theory, and a law will always remain a law.A scientific theory is a collection of data that explains how something works. A law is a rule that describes the behavior of a natural process. For example, there is the Theory of Gravity, and the Law of Gravity. One describes the other. Please do a tiny bit of research (like a wikipedia search) before posting next time.
Really? I thought that was the common way for things to be built (Though one of the builders of our house was red headed and had a tattoo… not sure if he was left-handed)
I claim that the universe was set in motion by a massive collision of the two great ducks, Quackles and Gor’thhshnag. In the wake of their massive bump, the universe was born, and some 13.7 billion years later, we evolved into our present form.There’s an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary evidence of the universe’s natural beauty supports it as well.
Awesome.
It could be claimed that a Muslim or a Christian are more afraid of death, and thus have their religion to help assure them that “everything’s going to be ok” after they die.
“The beginning of this process has been replicated in the laboratory in the Miller-Urey experiments BTW”This isn’t really true. The Miller Experiment (as it should be called, Urey was offered co-authorship and refused) showed that amino acids are easy to form in an energetic environment with the right reactants, all known to be common in earth’s history. A really neat bit of science, but since superseded by the discovery of amino acids in all sorts of extraterrestrial environments, including meteors. Regardless, it doesn’t show the beginnings of an RNA world (although there are several interesting hypotheses about how that got started). It’s more like the first step of the second stage. First nitrogenous bases form, then polymerize, then some of the RNA strands happen to self-replicate. Then, some of them develop the ability to polymerize amino acids into proteins, some of which can catalyze the self replication of the RNA that catalyzed (not sure if that’s technically the correct term, but it gives the idea) their formation. This causes that particular RNA sequence and its attendant protein/s to to proliferate, and you’ve got proto-life! Eventually, one of that strands descendants stumbled upon a way to extract energy from the environment, producing the first true organism. At least that’s my thumbnail sketch of how abiogenesis is currently thought to have happened. Obviously certain parts could be fudged a little: for instance, perhaps, for some reason, it took two or more distinct RNA sequences working together to produce helpful proteins.
Actually, after doing some research, I’ll return Miller-Urey to where you placed it, in the first step. I’d been under the erroneous impression that amino acids were pretty much the only interesting thing produced. The experiment also yielded some nitrogenous bases (later experiments with more accurate atmospheres produced most of them, and most critically all the ones needed for nucleic acids), as well as sugars, including ribose, which is pretty handy (read: 100% necessary) when forming RNA.
Did you even read what Validorirresponsible wrote? He had questions that obviously you had no Idea on how to answer. Your comment was useless and holds no value to this subject. I didn’t notice anywhere in his inquiry to where he stated that Evolution was abiogenisis. He was asking several questions, but the first was, “Where did the amoeba, and consequently life, come from in the primordial soup”? If you can’t answer the question then he probably wasn’t talking to you. They may be different subjects intertwined here, but the primary focus of abiogenesis is finding out which organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life. Which is very important when trying to see the big picture or how life started, and evolved. They go hand in hand either way. Instead of answering the guy with a good answer, you nit pick at what he wrote, and quick to try to correct someone. He probably figured people reading this would be smart enough to skip the obvious, but maybe he should have been more specific for people like you. It’s all good though. I see you also thought it was necessary to tell people about the library, and how they could get books there as well. Your so informative. You are so cool. Now we know where to get books from. Thanks for your priceless advice. Your awesome man..
I guess your Jen Mcknight. Where in Stephens inquiry does he say that a law in science is above a theory? Instead of answering a question again you totally go around and nit picking to fit your indifferent perception. Reading your reply makes me wonder what your reading, cause all that bs you wrote really doesn’t pertain to his inquiry at all, and it’s all stuff that warrants a no shit reply!! You should read the persons question really good before you attempt to correct them on stuff they didn’t even put down, cause you obviously have nothing better to do. Have a nice day Jen =)