Binary Oasis

I came across this in my reading today: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.”  Proverbs 12:15

I take that to mean that open-mindedness is a virtue.

In reading Dinesh D’Souza’s blog, he comes off as a fairly arrogant person, so I’ve often wondered about his views on humility. He was given a chance to answer that (more or less) in his debate with Dan Barker. See Part 11, about 2:59 into the video (runs a little over 3 minutes for the question and answer).

I struggle a bit with the idea of evangelism, since I’m not certain of what I know. Sure, I have convictions, and I believe the data points to a particular conclusion, but I also believe that I could be wrong. In light of those thoughts, I found Piper’s quote interesting:

“Humility knows it is fallible, and so considers criticism and learns from it; but also knows that God has made provision for human conviction and that he calls us to persuade others.”

Good food for thought.

Quoted here.

Two recently produced resources are very insightful to help us understand the current state of the conflict between evolutionists and those that identify themselves with Intelligent Design. One, Nova’s Intelligent Design on Trial has a complete program and other resources that focus on a case in Pennsylvania where Intelligent Design was tested. Two, ActionBioscience.org released a special report with overview arguments from the Intelligent Design community and rebuttals from proponents of evolution.

I find Ken Miller’s closing statement to be particularly good:

“If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.”

My own summary (for now): The role of “Intelligent Design Theory” is to attack a theory to advance a particular philosophical/religious worldview. It’s not completely unreasonable to attack a theory without providing a testable alternative, and in fact, it seems that the attacks (or, more gently, “identification of difficulties with the theory”) have led to the strengthening of the theory of evolution.

Case in point: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The simulation argument recently got a fair amount of press.  Basically, it suggests that there is a reasonable likelihood that we are living in a simulation.  The basic argument goes something like this: there are likely many advanced civilizations that have enough computing power to create virtual models of worlds and universes such as our own, and the number of advanced simulation worlds is comparable (or even much greater than?) the number of real universes (one?), so it stands to reason that we are part of a simulation (so goes the argument).

It’s certainly interesting to think about, and we certainly can use some logic to consider if that could be true.  This makes me think of a common atheistic argument (that Dawkins came up with, or at least popularized): God almost definitely doesn’t exist since He would have to come from somewhere, and the chance that he arose out of chance is not really worth considering.  We are told that it is unacceptable to consider that the rules that apply to us don’t apply to God: that is, that He is not bound by time, or that he could have existed from eternity past.  Does Dawkins also have to abandon any discussion about the simulation argument?  I’d be curious to hear his ideas about it.

Buzz Out Loud Episode 553 (right click to “Save As”) is a fun audio introduction to these ideas.

I’ve remotely accessed my laptop and desktop computer using a VNC viewer on my Treo 700w, but it’s an imperfect solution, and for some reason my latest setup was very slow.  While searching for a better solution, I came across www.logmein.com.  It’s free, fast, more secure, and just outstanding as a remote access solution.

I try very, very hard to make sure that I don’t mislead people and that I have a good understand of the truth of things.  Imagine my surprise when I read this article that suggests that there is no caffeine in chocolate.  At least at the moment, Wikipedia disagrees, though I’m not sure what to think.  Having done more research about caffeine than the average person, I’ve shared my knowledge with many people, but now I am unsure what to say about this particular factoid.

I guess this isn’t a really big deal, but it makes me ponder again just how we know things.  We have to rely on indirect evidence a great deal of the time, and sometimes that indirect evidence can be wrong.

Daniel Dennett’s 2006 book Breaking the Spell is a book that was recommended to me by Adam, whose book review of The God Delusion at secweb.org suggested that reading Dawkins might not be the most useful book for me to read (since I am a theist). I’m glad for the recommendation, and I have tried to summarize my thoughts on Dennett’s work.

* I tend to agree that we can and should study religion scientifically, at least to an extent, though I don’t think it is dishonest to suggest that elements of religion will be outside of the realms of practical science.

* Is it okay to subject religion to this study and analysis? Drawing parallels to taboo subjects in fairly recent history (like the study of the human body using cadavers), he is trying to strengthen his eventual argument that we will be better off for the study of religion.

* Do most priests/pastors/rabbis/etc. believe that we should not use our intellect? Or, at the very least, do these religious teachers suggest that we should deny or suppress information that conflicts with our beliefs? I’m inclined to say that it is often true that religious leaders don’t allow for the possibility of mysteries in our lives. Our leaders come to resolute answers, but perhaps we need to come to humble conclusions, so that we are not blind to truth that is clearer to see in the future.

* Definitely don’t read this book if you don’t believe in evolution. It would be largely wasted time, though not entirely so, since he does use logic and philosophical arguments as well.

* Dennett has been categorized as a “Darwinian fundamentalist” by Stephen Jay Gould for the “influential but misguided ultra-Darwinian manifesto,” Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. That perspective rears its head in this book as well. While Dennett, on some level, realizes that he is presenting only theories (albeit compelling theories in some cases), he nonetheless tries to attach a sort of purity to his ideas about cultural evolution (and in particular religious evolution) by using the consensus of biological evolution as more than just an analogous idea.

* Dennett has a different idea than that of most of the atheists that I’ve heard, who claim that a particular religion or religions in general are man-made deceptions. While Dennett endorses the idea that elements of religion are due to outright or subtle deception, he instead notes that “at the root of human belief in gods lies an instinct on a hair trigger: the disposition to attribute agency — beliefs and desires and other mental states — to anything complicated that moves.” In other words, Dennett’s view is that religion is not fundamentally a deliberate fraud. Instead, his primary proposal seems to be that religion and its accompanying rituals were designed by cultural evolution.

* Dennett is very good at pointing out the common fallacies of religion in practice. In that sense, his book might be similar to reformation literature put out by religious leaders. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to allow for the existence of the religious reformer, and this weakens his argument considerably. In one particular case, he notes that religion (presumably through cultural evolution — not by the design of any particular person) holds up the “fundamental incomprehensibility of God” as an implication that so-called religious “experts” “don’t understand what they are talking about.” Certainly it is true that some “experts” are not fit to be called experts, but it is deceptive to suggest that difficult problems are not seriously considered by honest and conscientious religious leaders. Theology? You might not know that it is a serious study if you relied solely on Dennett.

* Dennett claims that “the fine tuning of the laws of physics can be explained without postulating an Intelligent Tuner…” and then says he has covered this “extensively” in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” “(especially ch 1 and 7).” This, at least on the surface, appears to be a deceptive statement. I would suggest that he has only very weak explanations for the apparent suitability of the universe for life. His arguments are heavy in analogies to biological evolution (and analogy does not a strong argument make). He is not out of the mainstream in this respect, however, since most explanations for the surprising suitability of the universe for life depend on arcane proposals of multiple universes or repeating universes. He also tries to avoid the problem by drawing the reader’s attention to the supposedly more difficult problem of the existence of God. He leverages Dawkins’ argument that the possibility of God existing is vanishingly small since (I paraphrase) the idea of such of profound and complex God is much more of a stretch that the idea that something as complex and unlikely as DNA could be created by chance. Dennett then addresses the theist’s objection that God is likely outside of our scientific rules: for instance, God has always existed, in spite of the profound nature of that proposal. That’s not playing fair, he claims. Perhaps he is right, but perhaps not, though Dennett does not effectively address this possibility (in my opinion).

* Now I draw a similar analogy and call to Dennett’s search for better understanding of cultural and religious evolution: just as he acknowledges that his story as he presents it may need to be revised, we can, in good faith, do the same with our understanding of God. For instance, I can update my theology to include a God that has worked through evolution (a statement that invites attack the way I have said it) and a Cosmological Big Bang. That is to say that I don’t have all the answers — in fact, I may be mistaken when I think that I have certain answers — but it does not follow that I have to reject religion or the existence of God.

* Dennett puts a great deal of value in some things that most religious people at least give lipservice to: namely, love and humility. In fact, he seems to profess that love is the most important thing in this world, and I would dare to interpret him as saying that a humble search for truth is a close second.

* Dennett’s Appendix B entitled “Some More Questions About Science” is some of his best writing, in my opinion. In it, he is careful to note the limitations of sciences while retaining the reasonable and consistent view that science is a reliable source of objective knowledge. He effectively counters the arbitrary dismissal of certain scientific conclusions by those who might wish to avoid those conclusions based on ideological reasons. Of course the key word here is “arbitrary.” Certainly we can and should question conclusions, and we can be suspicious of certain conclusions if were made by those with a conflict of interest, but we still need to judge the conclusions based on their merits.

* In general, Dennett appears to be objective, though he does make it fairly clear in the end that he believes that there is no God and that religion is bunk (though he usually uses softer language).

Ultimately, I like to think of the central issue of this debate as being this: can we explain away our existence using purely materialistic methods? We have not explained our existence satisfactorily using materialistic explanations in my opinion. Perhaps I am too greedy, since we have apparently explained so much (with perhaps the best materialistic successes being evolution and also our highly validated timeline of the Big Bang shortly after what we might call the beginning), but we still have in front of us the two most difficult problems known to man:

1) How did life first begin from non-life?

2) How do we explain the beginning of the universe?

I have much faith in science and logic, though I’m certainly not ready to put my faith in science to explain these things. Can we explain them by resorting to God? Well, certainly it is not a logical fallacy to suggest that he created the first self-replicating organisms or that He kicked off the Big Bang. Are there compelling reasons to put our faith in that explanation? Are there compelling reasons to believe that God exists and that we should live in a manner that would bring Him glory? I for one intend to find out.

While my investigation could be a lifelong journey, I plan to spend extra time in 2008 to examine any evidence, as directly as possible, of God’s revelation to us. Please feel free to give me food for thought or pointers to more resources.

I’ve been loving getting to know virtualization technology.  I’ve had some good success with both VirtualBox and Windows Virtual PC 2007, though I now have a hiccup: my virtualized copy of Windows (from a fresh virtual machine install) is not passing Windows Genuine Advantage.

I found a highly enlightening article on ZDNet discussing this scenario.  I’m disappointed that Microsoft hasn’t been more proactive to educate virtualization users on the licensing terms and to keep from falsely identifying these legimate copies as pirated versions.  I guess there is a path to get it validated again, but my experience has not been good thus far.  Hopefully Microsoft will get back to me.

Assuming the ZDNet article is correct, it is nice to know that Microsoft allows ”up to four copies of Windows from the same Windows license per computer,” so it doesn’t appear to be necessary to by additional copies of Windows just for virtualization.

8/24/07 Update: Well, I was able to get my virtualized copy of Windows validated after I submitted a support request, waited a few days, got a response back, and then activated it by phone with the automated phone system. I’m pushing them to give more clarity about why it was flagged as non-legitimate. (I bought the copy directly from Microsoft through my company’s corporate discount program.)

I’ve been curious for a while now what John Piper’s views are about evolution.  If I can’t find that information online or in a book, I hope to one day talk to Piper about that.  Regardless, the latest monthly newsletter at DesiringGod.org was entitled “Learn from Darwin,” so Piper and his organization at least do not have a completely hostile view of Darwin.  Following a link to another Piper sermon reveals some more interesting information, as well as some great advice from the late Clyde Kilby as concerns what we can or should do when we juxtapose our awe of the world around us with the inclination to suggest that evolutionary theory renders our lives meaningless.  (Scroll to the end of the sermon to see Clyde Kilby’s Resolutions.)