Thursday, October 29, 2009
Landsburg Takes It Easy On Dawkins
This morning I had an email from Steve Landsburg in my inbox. I thought that he was either inviting me to co-author a book with him, or wanted to tell me he was using my PIG to Capitalism as the main textbook in his graduate classes.
Turns out it was an automatic message letting me know about his new blog. The top post right now showcases a ludicrous excerpt from Richard Dawkins, which I reproduce below, followed by Landsburg's response. (And yes, I know there are plenty of evangelicals who say similarly ridiculous things about evolution. But Dawkins is supposed to be the expert who knows what he's talking about.)
From then on, I don't agree with Landsburg's overall conclusion, since he too is an atheist it seems.
I would have to think about it more, but it's possible Landsburg is making the same type of mistake Dawkins is. In other words, Dawkins knows a heck of a lot about the workings of evolution, and somehow concludes that the process rules out God. Landsburg, in contrast, is actually more of a mathematician than an economist (I'm not knocking him--someone at the U of R told me he just teaches the math classes), and he ends up concluding that the existence of mathematics makes God unnecessary.
Thus far I haven't heard Paul Krugman say that comparative advantage proves Jesus couldn't have been perfect and hence wasn't God, but it wouldn't shock me at this point.
Turns out it was an automatic message letting me know about his new blog. The top post right now showcases a ludicrous excerpt from Richard Dawkins, which I reproduce below, followed by Landsburg's response. (And yes, I know there are plenty of evangelicals who say similarly ridiculous things about evolution. But Dawkins is supposed to be the expert who knows what he's talking about.)
[Dawkins:] Where does [Darwinian evolution] leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must be at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.
[Landsburg:] But Darwinian evolution can’t replace God, because Darwinian evolution (at best) explains life, and explaining life was never the hard part. The Big Question is not: Why is there life? The Big Question is: Why is there anything? Explaining life does not count as explaining the Universe.
From then on, I don't agree with Landsburg's overall conclusion, since he too is an atheist it seems.
I would have to think about it more, but it's possible Landsburg is making the same type of mistake Dawkins is. In other words, Dawkins knows a heck of a lot about the workings of evolution, and somehow concludes that the process rules out God. Landsburg, in contrast, is actually more of a mathematician than an economist (I'm not knocking him--someone at the U of R told me he just teaches the math classes), and he ends up concluding that the existence of mathematics makes God unnecessary.
Thus far I haven't heard Paul Krugman say that comparative advantage proves Jesus couldn't have been perfect and hence wasn't God, but it wouldn't shock me at this point.
Comments:
Dawkins believes in the multiverse theory, in order to explain away our "fine tuned" universe. If he just stuck to biology, he could be taken a little more seriously.
# posted by 
: October 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM
: October 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM
As you resident information theory consultant, let me say for the record that I just about vomitted at this part:
the most complex thing I’m aware of is the system of natural numbers (0,1,2,3, and all the rest of them) together with the laws of arithmetic. That system did not emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings.
If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers, take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome. That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life.
Landsburg has no clue what the f*** he's talking about, and, from my past readings of his "innovative" work, it's not the first time either.
No, I'm not just upset because his wife banned me from EconLog, thanks for asking. I can give you my full info-theoretical debunking at half the rate I usually charge.
the most complex thing I’m aware of is the system of natural numbers (0,1,2,3, and all the rest of them) together with the laws of arithmetic. That system did not emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings.
If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers, take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome. That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life.
Landsburg has no clue what the f*** he's talking about, and, from my past readings of his "innovative" work, it's not the first time either.
No, I'm not just upset because his wife banned me from EconLog, thanks for asking. I can give you my full info-theoretical debunking at half the rate I usually charge.
Silas, that part seemed odd to me as well.
Holy cow I never put two and two together. Mrs. Landsburg has edited my stuff before.
Holy cow I never put two and two together. Mrs. Landsburg has edited my stuff before.
Am I missing something or isn't the point Dawkins is making that since life was not "created" by God but is a product of evolution that the need for a God explanation is moot. In other words, the claims made by Christians that God created man in his own image are false and therefore the claims of Christian cosmology are false as well.
I am an atheist and find that I disagree with Dawkins about a great many things but I think that if you accept evolution you must reject the Christian account for the origin of the universe and man. After all, cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you want to believe mean that you are not a Christian in the meaningful sense of the word and you are instead believing in a philosophy propounded by a great teacher rather than a religion.
At any rate, whether you believe in evolution or that your imaginary friend are responsible for life it is irrelevant - everybody lives their life as if they evolved. The reason I say this is based on the question my five year old asked me the other day - "if heaven is so great why don't we kill ourselves and get there right now." The answer, apart from a theological construct to deny the truth of that question, is that we all deep down know its nonsense and none of us is in a hurry to get to heaven.
I am an atheist and find that I disagree with Dawkins about a great many things but I think that if you accept evolution you must reject the Christian account for the origin of the universe and man. After all, cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you want to believe mean that you are not a Christian in the meaningful sense of the word and you are instead believing in a philosophy propounded by a great teacher rather than a religion.
At any rate, whether you believe in evolution or that your imaginary friend are responsible for life it is irrelevant - everybody lives their life as if they evolved. The reason I say this is based on the question my five year old asked me the other day - "if heaven is so great why don't we kill ourselves and get there right now." The answer, apart from a theological construct to deny the truth of that question, is that we all deep down know its nonsense and none of us is in a hurry to get to heaven.
Secede: "if you accept evolution you must reject the Christian account for the origin of the universe and man."
I agree completely. But there are a lot of Christians who desperately want the mash the two together. Francis Collins, head of the genome project is one. Atheists rightly call it "God in the gaps."
Christians think they can ignore the first two chapters of Genesis with no problems. They just need to believe in Jesus. They forget that the only reason Jesus came was to undo what happened in Genesis one and two. So without them, Jesus makes no sense.
"if heaven is so great why don't we kill ourselves and get there right now."
I can't speak for everyone, but those of us who believe in heaven understand that suicide is tantamount to murder. The whole Christian thing comes with some moral obligations.
Besides, Christians don't hope to spend enternity in heaven. The real Christian hope is the resurection and transformation of the human body and an eternal life on a reformed earth.
Post a Comment
I agree completely. But there are a lot of Christians who desperately want the mash the two together. Francis Collins, head of the genome project is one. Atheists rightly call it "God in the gaps."
Christians think they can ignore the first two chapters of Genesis with no problems. They just need to believe in Jesus. They forget that the only reason Jesus came was to undo what happened in Genesis one and two. So without them, Jesus makes no sense.
"if heaven is so great why don't we kill ourselves and get there right now."
I can't speak for everyone, but those of us who believe in heaven understand that suicide is tantamount to murder. The whole Christian thing comes with some moral obligations.
Besides, Christians don't hope to spend enternity in heaven. The real Christian hope is the resurection and transformation of the human body and an eternal life on a reformed earth.
# posted by : October 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM
: October 30, 2009 at 2:22 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]