Vatican astronomers

The Vatican has organized a major  conference of astronomers, emphasising that Catholicism  is in no way antagonistic to science.

The shade of Galileo , persecuted three centuries ago for telling the clergy that the earth goes round the sun,  is pacified. Good.

Comments

[Recusant]

I think you'll find that the Vatican had no problems with the idea that the earth went round the sun, the concept had been part of generally accepted scientific wisdom for some time.

Their problem was his disinclination to operate in a way the Church wanted.

Oh, and he never said - "ma se muove"

[uncle-fred]

If only the protestant evangelicals would also take this wider view of their faith, then we can start working in the same direction.

[frank]

That's terrific, even if a touch belated in coming.
Hopefully they can reinforce current scientific theories, and deny/denounce creationism and intelligent design as unscientific, and akin to tea-leaf reading.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Several of the moon's craters are named after Jesuit astronomers associated with the Vatican observatory, rather spoiling the myth that the Catholic Church is hostile towards science.
I see Frank is laying on the tosh once again. Intelligent design has to be scientific, otherwise natural organisms can not function. Botany and zoology would be rubbish if they could not be based on a system of rational co-operation of an almost infinite number of interdependent parts. To deny that design is responsible for this is to reject the scientifically observable.

[Coel]

In case anyone is tempted to take note of Geoffrey Smith's pronouncements on botany and zoology, note that his understanding is so non-existent that he thinks that evolutionary theory implies that at one time there were two, and only two, members of the new species H. sapiens!

"Intelligent Design" is not in any way scientific, since it is not based on evidence. There is simply no evidence that indicates that biological systems were "intelligently deisgned" as opposed to the product of non-intelligent evolution (hint: different parts of an organism also work in harmony in the latter explanation, otherwise they would be less "fit" and selected against).

Instead, ID is theologically motivated, based on a desire to see "God's hand" behind everything.

[Tony Francis]

Coel, can you explain to us how cells function in terms of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics?

[Coel]

Tony asks: "Coel, can you explain to us how cells function in terms of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics?"

Well sure, the operation of cells is entirely consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why do you think there is a problem?

Note that the second law doesn't say entropy cannot decrease, it just says you need an energy source to do that.

[E.g. refrigerators achieve a local decrease in entropy by seperating hot from cold, but need an energy input to do it.]

So, cells and life do indeed need an energy input. The dominant driver for life on earth is energy from the sun, mostly harnessed by photosynthesis -- we get our energy from eating the products of this. If you stopped eating (no energy input) your cells would end up dying.

[Stephen Morris]

And Coel, while you're at it, maybe you can tell us what experiment or discovery would falsify evolution, as far as you're concerned. Remember, if it's not falsifiable then it is not science.

[Stephen Morris]

Coel, it looks like your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is as deficient as that of Prof. Dawkins.

It takes more than energy to reduce entropy. If I have an old car mouldering at the bottom of my garden, obeying the second law as it turns to dust (while increasing its entropy all the time), simply letting the sun shine on it won't make it new and shiny again. I'd need to go out and start working on it msyelf. To reduce entropy you need an 'engine'. In the fridge example, there is a motor which reduces the local entropy because that's what it's been designed to do. Cells, in their operation, have metabolic functions which reduce local entropy because that's what they've been... I expect you get the picture. Energy on its own does nothing, except under some cases accelerate the increase in entropy even further.

[Tony Francis]

Well, Coel, we all know that cells decrease local entropy by utilizing energy. In this way, they are similar to refrigerators and Carnot engines. Of course, refrigerators and Carnot engines aren't seen in nature, but cells are. What I really was asking was more along the lines of: explain the entropy of putting together a DNA molecule which has three specific nucleic acids to program for each amino acid; and explain the entropy of protein folding, which is highly specific based on the protein sequence. It seems as though the mathematical possibilities of getting it correct are astronomical. For a 100 amino acid protein, it would take 300 nucleic acids. If I am correct, that seems to be 300 times 4! which is 7200 strings of DNA to get one that is correct; and possibilities with something like an infinite number of degrees of freedom, speaking in terms of entropy. How many amino acids are needed to make the proteins of a rudimentary cell? Probably several hundred thousand to a million. So that is 24 x 1 million possiblities. Of course, DNA doesn't seem to make long chains in nature absent enzymes, which are proteins, programmed by DNA or RNA.

[Coel]

Stephen Morris asks "And Coel, while you're at it, maybe you can tell us what experiment or discovery would falsify evolution, as far as you're concerned. Remember, if it's not falsifiable then it is not science."

Haldane's decades-old reply was "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian". I could think of oodles of other examples, but one is sufficient.

[Coel]

Stephen Morris writes: "Coel, it looks like your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is as deficient as that of Prof. Dawkins."

You think? Well, you haven't shown so.

"It takes more than energy to reduce entropy."

Well sure. But the 2nd law of thermo is about the energy requirement, and that is what you asked about. If you wanted to know about other aspects why ask about the 2nd law?

"To reduce entropy you need an 'engine'."

Sure, and the cell is indeed an engine that causes a local decrease in entropy (and this complies with thermodynamical laws given the energy input). And that engine (the cell) is the product of evolution. There is no violation of thermodynamics in any of this.

[Coel]

In reply to Tony Francis.

You are very confused on the 2nd law of thermo. All it says is that in order to have a local decrease in entropy one needs to dissipate energy. Since living cells do indeed have a throughout of energy, that is a complete and entire answer as regards the 2nd law of thermo.

Now, if you're asking, where do the specific, highly-organised molecules of DNA come from, they are the product of machines (such as cells) that are the end products of Darwinian evolution; and the complexity and information content of these molecules and machines will have increased over evolutionary time. And we have a very good understanding of how the non-random process of natural selection leads to increased complexity and information content.

There is nothing at all there that violates the 2nd law of thermo, because all that says is that in order to do the above you need to dissipate energy. And, indeed, the whole process has been driven by energy from the sun.

Tony, if you have some other argument against the above then please present it, but don't pretend that there is a issue over the 2nd law of thermo, because there isn't!

[Tony Francis]

Well, there is an issue: but not with cells themselves. Everyone accepts the fact that they can replicate themselves, and dissipate energy. The problem comes from the initial organization of the DNA, which must be highly specific and very long, without errors, in order to reach the level of an initial cell. There is a gigantic gap between the organization of a group of nucleic and amino acids in a puddle and that of a cell. The organization necessary would appear to violate not only the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but that of mass action as well. Entropy involves energy dissipation, but also indicates an increasing disorganization.

[Coel]

Tony Francis writes: "The problem comes from the initial organization of the DNA, which must be highly specific and very long, without errors, in order to reach the level of an initial cell."

Yes indeed. Everyone accepts that the initial replicator that started Darwinian evolution must have been far simpler than a whole cell. Whole cells are highly evolved and complex machines that would have come about as a result of evolution. There are currently lots of ideas, though not yet certainty, about what the initial, much simpler replicator would have been.

"The organization necessary would appear to violate not only the 2nd law of thermodynamics [. . .]."

No, again no! The 2nd law of thermo is entirely satisfied by an input of energy! That is all it is about ("thermo" = heat/energy, "dynamics" = movement).

If you want to make some other argument about where the information content of a cell comes from (the answer is from the non-random process of Darwinian evolution) then do so, but any invocation of the 2nd law of thermo is entirely spurious. So long as there is sufficient energy input (which there is, from the sun) the 2nd law of thermo is entirely satisfied.

[Coel]

To reinforce my last point, let me state the 2nd law of thermodynamics for Tony. It says, simply that for an irreversible change the energy dissipated (divided by the temperature) must exceed any reduction in entropy.

[Or, in mathematical notation, dQ/T > dS where dQ = energy dissipated and dS = change in entropy; T is the temperature.]

That -- the requirement for energy dissipation -- is ALL that it is about.

Creationists who make a whole to-do and palava about the 2nd law of thermo, trying to claim that it is somehow a problem for Darwinian evolution, simply don't know what they are talking about.

[Tony Francis]

Friend Coel, Forget creationism. I never mentioned it. You did. You are ignoring the Gibbs Free Energy, its relation to both Enthalpy and Entropy, and their relation to the Law of Mass Action. All these would tend to auger against a long string of DNA ever being formed in a solution of nucleic acids.
http://www.math.montana.edu/~pernarow/M591/2001/Notes/MassAction.pdf
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/applychem/gibbsenergy.html
Like it or not, Entropy indicates an increasing disorder in a system, which is expressed by the Law of Mass Action. It has nothing to do with Creationism.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "You are ignoring the Gibbs Free Energy, its relation to both Enthalpy and Entropy, and their relation to the Law of Mass Action."

You are just throwing out technical terms in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no argument.

I demonstrated above that your appeal to the 2nd law of thermodynamics was groundless; so now you resort to a vague appeal to other thermodynamics concepts. If you have an actual _argument_ against Darwinism, please present it.

"Like it or not, Entropy indicates an increasing disorder in a system".

Only if there is no energy input into the system. The entropy of a system (e.g. a cell) can decrease (thus showing increasing order) if this is compensated for by the dissipation of energy. That is what the 2nd law says (see above). And, surprise, surprise, living organism do indeed require an energy throughput; that is why we eat.

[michael]

Tony, just what is the point of your blogs? Are you saying life can't exist by following the laws of science? You've lost me on your brief.
Your body grew from 2 gametes without contradicting nature. Presumably macromolecules first evolved naturally due to various conditions present at the time, under the influence of physical and chemical forces...........

[Tony Francis]

Coel, please just admit you really don't know very much about chemistry. I am not throwing out "techincal terms" to obfuscate the issue. In fact, Entropy and Enthalpy will rule against the formation of long DNA molecules in a solution of nucleic acids. Admit it: there is no way to explain how this happened in your view of the world. Once again, you have avoided the question: How did DNA get lined up in the first place? No one is talking about cells, except you. And you are wrong: supplying energy to a system increases the negative entropy of the system. Gibbs Free Energy, Enthalpy and Entropy are hardly "techincal terms". They are standard fare in a junior level Physical Chemistry course. If you knew what you are writing about, you would also know that calculating the Entropy of DNA must utiize statistical methods, since the mathematics is impossible to calculate, and must be estimated:
http://www.pnylab.com/pny/papers/cdna/cdna/cdna.html

[frank]

I'm perplexed as to why anyone would try so hard to prove we need to have had a "God of the gaps" to explain everything around us, the evolution of life or formation of planetary bodies. Any God that could only create a universe that needed constant coarse and fine tuning to stay in existence or develop seems a low level "coloured belt" God, certainly not a 10th dan black belt God who would create a system that works from the outset. It seems a bit like making a car that needs the engineer in the passenger seat all the time to make the changes needed to turn every corner and change every gear. A God on a universal umbilical cord seems a dope on a rope.

The need for such an intervening God seems to say a lot about the personality and belief system of the people believing in it, who need an anthropomorphic God to relate to continually, and like to come up with theories that make Him even more necessary to them.

Just because the beginning of life is difficult to explain as yet seems no reason to assume all didn't occur naturally. It did occur, and couldn't occur without obeying the fundamental laws of science in our universe. Why not accept that...oh ye of little faith (in science and nature)!

[Tony Francis]

Friend Coel: Let me state this question very succinctly so you can understand it. How do several hundred thousand, or millions of nucleic acids line up to form a DNA molecule in a meaningful sequence in the absence of a template and enzymes, in a pool of free nucleic acids, considering the Gibbs Free Energy of the system and its relationship to the Enthalpy and Entropy, and the Law of Mass Action? This isn't an obfuscation. It goes to the heart of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "I am not throwing out "techincal terms" to obfuscate the issue."

You are; your posts are empty assertions rather than arguments.

"Once again, you have avoided the question: How did DNA get lined up in the first place?"

We don't know what the first replicator was (though RNA is thought more likely than DNA). And yes, it's origin probably was an unlikely chance. But that's OK, it only had to happen once in a billion years in an arena the size of the Pacific Ocean.

Indeed, even if it had only a 1-in-a-billion chance of happening in a billion years on Earth, that is still OK because there are likely billions of inhabitable planets.

So just saying "the chance occurrence of the first replicator would have been improbable" is not a counter-argument: yes, it very likely was; so?

"No one is talking about cells, except you."

If you care to review your post of 5th Oct you'll see that your initial question to me was about cells.

"And you are wrong: supplying energy to a system increases the negative entropy of the system."

Good; so you now accept that an input of energy can cause a decrease in entropy (i.e. an increase of order)?

"Gibbs Free Energy, Enthalpy and Entropy are hardly "techincal terms". They are standard fare in a junior level Physical Chemistry course."

Yes indeed; but you are not linking them into a coherent argument, are you? You are just putting up a smokescreen of technical terms around an empty assertion.

[Coel]

Tony asks: "How do several hundred thousand, or millions of nucleic acids line up to form a DNA molecule in a meaningful sequence in the absence of a template and enzymes, in a pool of free nucleic acids."

The answer is that most likely they don't and never have. If it is indeed true that the first replicator had to have had a "meaningful sequence" of nucleic acids that was "several hundred thousand, or millions" long, then a the idea of a natural origin of life is indeed in trouble.

However, you have provided no evidence that a specific sequence of "several hundred thousand" nucleic acids is the simplest replicator possible. (Again, don't judge by what we see around us today; those are highly complex and highly evolved end-products of evolution, not the starting points.)

If, instead, it only requires a few dozen or a few hundred molecules then that is the sort of thing that has a realistic chance of occurring once in a billion years in an arena the size of the Pacific Ocean.

[michael]

Tony, presumably DNA didn't develop like that in a "vat", without trillions of intervening steps, just as the earth didn't develop as we know it in one day by zillions of atoms magically coalescing and coming together to make it...........

[Tony Francis]

Friends Michael and Frank: I am not trying to interject God into anything. Forget God, and forget Creationism. It is a legitimate scientific question to ask how life began. It is equally legitimate to question Big Bang. For instance, if Big Bang is correct, why would galaxies ever cross each other? There must be local turbulance on the surface of space. But what caused this local turbulance? It was because the initial expansion wasn't perfect, but rather consisted of two imperfect pulses. It must be the existence of "strings", "knots", "dark matter" (consisting of 90% of the matter in the universe, which at the beginning of Big Bang was contained in a volume of a millimeter, or so). Who is purveying myths? In a similar manner, science books show fatty acids floating on the surface of water, with nucleic acids and amino acids, and imply, if not state directly that all the material is there for a cell to develop, so it just happened. There is no empirical evidence that this can happen. So who is purveying myths?
Carl Sagan stated that Big Bang was a creation myth, somewhat different than religious creation myths, but a myth all the same. At least he was honest. Any other explanation of the Red Shift, and Big Bang falls like a house of cards. Still, I have no reason to think Big Bang and Evolution aren't correct, at least as they are based on observation.
I have recently looked at Hoyle's Panspermia theory. There are a lot of simple amino acids in space, and a lot of water. Most of these exist as ions, or in the form of plasma.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Established science has dismissed Panspermia as a kooky, off-beat, bizarre explanation. Maybe it is. But, I am reconsidering it.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "For instance, if Big Bang is correct, why would galaxies ever cross each other?"

Local density fluctuations coupled with the effect of gravity. We see such density fluctuations in the microwave background; they likely came originally from quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.

"In a similar manner, science books show fatty acids floating on the surface of water, with nucleic acids and amino acids, and imply, if not state directly that all the material is there for a cell to develop, so it just happened."

Which science books say that a cell "just happened"? A whole cell would have been well down the road after Darwinian evolution started. Yes, the initial, much-simpler replicator may have "just happened".

"Carl Sagan stated that Big Bang was a creation myth, somewhat different than religious creation myths, but a myth all the same."

Look up "myth" in a dictionary; it doesn't necessarily mean "false" or "unsupported by evidence". It can mean simply "origin narrative that a culture believes to be true".

"Established science has dismissed Panspermia as a kooky, off-beat, bizarre explanation."

Not really; it is considered a minority opinion, but a serious and sensible possibility.

[jim]

Tony, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm definitely not qualified to explain the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, string theory, M-theory , branes and loads more. I also haven't a clue how the first reproducible "living" organisms appeared. I enjoy reading scientists' theories, but know my scientific limitations. I'm glad your queries are science based rather than faith/miracle based.

[Tony Francis]

Thanks to all of you for finally admitting that there is no real scientific proof how life began on earth. At this time, it is mere speculation and an unsettled issue. Coel, I'm not sure gravity is enough of a force to cause local turbulance on the surface of space.

[Tony Francis]

Coel, the fact that you are ignorant of Gibbs Free Energy and Enthalpy hardy qualifies them as "obfuscations". Probably the oldest, and most abundant organisms are thermophilic bacteria. These are estimated to be 3.6 to 4 billion years old, and have presumably remained unchanged over that time span. Interestingly, these make a form of Vitamin B, which is structurally different from the more recently observed bacterial Vitamin B which our cells utilize. This is a fact which tends to reinforce the idea of evolution. But it also indicates that life developed fairly quickly (in geologic terms), since this complete cell appeared early in the history of the earth.
http://weblife.org/humanure/chapter3_8.html
Coel,(or anyone else), infanticide has occurred in all human societies, and appears to be a normal variant of human behavior. Do you have an objection to this practice?

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Thanks to all of you for finally admitting that there is no real scientific proof how life began on earth."

Five days ago (see above, Oct 11) I said exactly that: "There are currently lots of ideas, though not yet certainty, about what the initial, much simpler replicator would have been."

You are right, we don't currently have proof of abiogenesis; but there is also no good reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Coel, the fact that you are ignorant of Gibbs Free Energy and Enthalpy hardy qualifies them as "obfuscations"."

I'm not ignorant of those, thanks Tony. And the obfuscation was the way you used them. What you said amounted to "mumble, mumble, technical terms, therefore it cannot happen". That is not an argument.

"These are estimated to be 3.6 to 4 billion years old, and have presumably remained unchanged over that time span."

What an amazing presumption! And almost certainly a very wrong presumption.

By the way, the first evidence for life (not totally secure) is about 3.5 billion years ago. That still leaves a billion years for the origin of the first replicator and thence to the first cells. A billion years is a long time.

[Coel]

"infanticide has occurred in all human societies, and appears to be a normal variant of human behavior. Do you have an objection to this practice?"

Yes, in our modern, well-fed West with modern methods of family planning.

However, if, in some stone-age community, raising a newborn would endanger older children, it may then be that infanticide was the least-worst option, enabling more children to survive.

[jim]

Tony, it's take me a while to have any understanding of where you are coming from, but I still don't know what you are arguing in favour of some of the time.
You recognise conflicting data concerning much of science, particularly in the origins of life and in cosmology? Certainly there are many ideas that are only in the realm of hypothesis, and far from robust.
So you believe in evolution, and aren't an "intelligent designer", so believe life did evolve from inanimate molecules to macromolecules to eventually thermophilic bacteria, but the steps remain yet to be discovered? If that is the case, what are you arguing with Coel about?

Infanticide is considered wrong in all modern societies, and most over the last two millennia, and where it is practised it is justified by individuals for pragmatic reasons, not by common laws. Given that individuals have rights and an infant or child is defenseless and innocent, infanticide is considered murder. Murder as a crime is universal in all modern societies, and is an old concept. "Thou shall not kill" however doesn't mean one should never kill, and perhaps in the Ten Commandments should be translated as "thou shall not murder", and that would avoid a lot of confusion. How individuals and societies then decide what constitutes justifiable homicide, killing in war, and self-defense fills law books.

Using cadaveric tissue in medicine is commonplace. Whether the tissue remains the property of the individual (so only to be used if previously stated it can be), or is the property of a relative to sign over, or is considered "state goods" unless specified otherwise, is not uniform across societies. I don't see that there is a natural moral law that covers this.

[Tony Francis]

Thanks to all of you for your comments. Several blogs back, the evolutionists emerged as a group which didn't believe the Bible because there was no proof that anything in it was true. In other words, the atheistic evolutionists aren't inclined to believe anything for which there is no proof. Darwinism was represented as being a complete and thorough explanation of life. Darwinism even explained our "morality". Now, Jim is talking about "rights". So:
1.) Prove that such a thing as a right exists.
2.) Prove that a baby has a right to live.
3.) Prove that any human has a right to live.
4.) Prove that a person who is antagonistic to the aims of the state (meaning goals of the people) has a right to live.
5.) Prove that a baby which can be aborted a day before delivery is substantially different from a baby that has just been born.
6.) Using Gibbs Free Energy, Enthalpy and Entropy equations, demonstrate how life began in the Pacific Ocean over the course of a billion years.
7.) Prove what the universe was like 1 second before Big Bang.
8.) Prove why it is wrong to kill a person, whose death will benefit another person, and whose death will never be discovered.
Remember, we aren't accepting anything that lacks proof. Coel's statement that there is no good reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life sounds a lot like an unsubstantiated religious belief. If one can't prove how life began, there is a huge whole in the theory.

[Tony Francis]

While you are at it,
Prove that such a thing as property rights exists.
Prove that there is such a thing as free will.
Prove that the Universe is or is not Deterministic.

[Tony Francis]

While you are at it:
Prove what the nature of the quantum fluctuations were early in Big Bang.
Show the solution to the Schrodinger Equation.
Show the solution to the n-body problem.
Prove that slavery is wrong. Recall that many societies still practice slavery, so it must have some evoloutionary benefit. Otherwise, it would have been abandoned some time ago.
Remember, we aren't believing anything that can't be proved.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "the evolutionists emerged as a group which didn't believe the Bible because there was no proof that anything in it was true."

No, merely that we'd objectively assess the Biblical evidence; like we'd do with anything else.

"In other words, the atheistic evolutionists aren't inclined to believe anything for which there is no proof."

We are also inclined to believe things for which there is good evidence, even if it is short of "proof".

"Darwinism was represented as being a complete and thorough explanation of life."

Wrong! For example, Darwinism tells us how life evolves, not how it started.

"Darwinism even explained our "morality"."

It does!

"Prove that such a thing as a right exists."

OK. A "right" is, by definition, something that we collectively choose to grant to each other. [That takes care of a dozen of Tony's "right" questions, so I won't bother with them individually.]

"Prove that a baby which can be aborted a day before delivery is substantially different from a baby that has just been born."

It isn't! Whoever claimed that it was?

"demonstrate how life began in the Pacific Ocean over the course of a billion years."

I've already said that we're unsure of how this happened.

"Prove what the universe was like 1 second before Big Bang."

We have little idea or evidence about what it was like prior to the Big Bang. But we haven't claimed that we do! Why should we prove things about which we've made no claim?

"Prove why it is wrong to kill a person, whose death will benefit another person, and whose death will never be discovered."

For one reason, if society allowed such murder, it would make all of us fearful of being a victim. Such anxiety would reduce our enjoyment of life.

"Coel's statement that there is no good reason to doubt a naturalistic origin of life sounds a lot like an unsubstantiated religious belief."

But there is lots of good evidence favouring a naturalistic origin of life. Yes, it does not yet amount to proof of how it happened or what the first replicator was.

Cling to gaps in current science if you wish Tony, but such gaps have a habit of closing over time!

"If one can't prove how life began, there is a huge whole in the theory."

"The" theory? Which theory do you mean? If you mean the theory of abiogenesis, then yes, there indeed is, as I stated 8 days ago.

Unlike you we know what we have good evidence for and what we don't have good evidence for.

[Coel]

Tony twitters on: "Prove that there is such a thing as free will.
Prove that the Universe is or is not Deterministic.
Show the solution to the Schrodinger Equation.
Show the solution to the n-body problem [. . .]"

Excuse me Tony, but surely we should only be asked to provide proof for beliefs we actually hold, or claims we've actually made?

"Prove that slavery is wrong. Recall that many societies still practice slavery, so it must have some evoloutionary benefit."

Whether it has evolutionary benefit and whether it is morally wrong are entirely different questions. You really are confused Tony!

[jim]

Tony, I won't go through all your points, as Coel has replied to several already.

Atheists/agnostics/non-theists/sceptics/half-hearted believers or whatever, have a problem with the bible because so much of it is implausible or impossible, unless one "suspends belief" and excludes every science and evidence based belief system one holds from experience and reason, with not a shred of evidence to show that much of it is anything more than a story. It is a eclectic compilation, however, and not all of it can or should be assesses and judged in the same way or at the same time.

Rights exist because we are human and possess intelligence, reason and humanity, and recognise those same attribute in others. Pragmatically, society only work if we have them.

You seem to be asking for a book reply encompassing much of mathematics, science, cosmology, evolution, biology, ethics, sociology and philosophy. Is this machine gun approach useful? You seem to prefer to ask questions rather than give your own opinion or answers half the time. You have a lot of great arguments in there, and "dance like a butterfly and float like a bee", but it's hard to know what you stand for half the time.

[Tony Francis]

My purpose in the questions posted earlier was to demonstrate to you that you all accept the existence of things which are highly improbable. For instance, a "right" has no meaning as an existent thing. It only has meaning when it effects certain behaviors, such as the willingness of a court to enforce the right and engage the policing power of the state to effect that action. But you still believe in "rights", even though the abstract idea can't be proved to exist. Concerning Coel's assertion that a hidden murder is wrong because "We will all be fearful if such a murder is allowed" is irrational. If the murder is hidden, and no one knows about it, there can be no fear of such a murder. Hence, in the absence of natural moral law, such a murder is neither undesirable, nor morally wrong. I think some of you are simply anti-religious bigots, with an inconsistent belief system. What is more unlikely: a risen savior, or a quantum irregularity at the beginning of Big Bang? I also think that some of you have a very bad habit of making statements in an authoratative way without any facts to back them up.

[Tony Francis]

Coel, I am not confused about slavery. If our morality is shaped by evolution, and slavery has emerged in functioning societies, it must be a product of evolution. So is infanticide. So if Darwinism dictates our morality, then it is "immoral" to make laws against what has been selected as successful group behavior. It would appear that Darwinism has dictated the following morality: The group with the most swords or guns will rule the others. This is the Darwinian reality of moral code.
Concerning quantum fluctuations: I really have no idea what you are talking about. What is a quantum fluctuation? What is the evidence that such a thing can or has occurred? (Don't quote that stuff about the microwave background, because that proves nothing.)

[Coel]

Tony writes: "My purpose in the questions posted earlier was to demonstrate to you that you all accept the existence of things which are highly improbable."

But you gave no valid examples of such.

"But you still believe in "rights", even though the abstract idea can't be proved to exist."

I answered that first time: a "right" is essentially a collective decision by us all to respect something. The existence of that collective decision CAN be proved to exist. E.g. the various human rights declarations.

"Concerning Coel's assertion that a hidden murder is wrong because "We will all be fearful if such a murder is allowed" is irrational. If the murder is hidden, and no one knows about it, there can be no fear of such a murder."

A hidden murder leads to unexplained disappearances, which people may still be aware of. And a decision by society to allow the murders you describe would be known to people. So my statement stands.

"What is more unlikely: a risen savior, or a quantum irregularity at the beginning of Big Bang?"

Since we can observe quantum fluctuations occurring all around us all the time, the latter, by a very big margin.

"I also think that some of you have a very bad habit of making statements in an authoratative way without any facts to back them up."

All that I've said is mainstream science with masses of evidence to back it up. Of course it isn't really possible to post it all here.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "If our morality is shaped by evolution, and slavery has emerged in functioning societies, it must be a product of evolution. So if Darwinism dictates our morality, then it is "immoral" to make laws against what has been selected as successful group behaviors."

What a confused and utterly wrong statement! You are failing to distinguish between what helps to propogate genes, and what leads to human happiness. In short, distinguish between the interests of genes and people.

For example, rape might be evolutionarily beneficial. But it might still decrease overall human happiness and quality of life. Thus a tendency to rape would be BOTH favoured by evolution AND immoral.

"This is the Darwinian reality of moral code."

You have no understanding of what morality is. For a start, you cannot get an "ought" from an "is". The fact that something IS favoured by evolution does not mean that we OUGHT to laud it.

For example, evolution acts to help the cold virus propogate and infect us and get through our immune-system defences. That does not mean that the cold virus is a "moral good".

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Concerning quantum fluctuations: I really have no idea what you are talking about."

Evidently.

"What is a quantum fluctuation?"

Quantum mechanics allows and predicts small fluctuations in energy, provided they do not violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Thus energy fluctuations exist on a timescale of h/E where h is Planck's constant and E is the amount of energy.

"What is the evidence that such a thing can or has occurred?"

They are observed all the time! This is mainstream physics, accepted for decades.

"(Don't quote that stuff about the microwave background, because that proves nothing.)"

The cosmic microwave background shows temperature fluctuations in the early universe which result from density fluctuations in the initial gas-ball of the Big Bang. These most likely arose from quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. It is those density enhancements that give rise to the galaxies and clusters of galaxies that you were asking about previously. From there, gravity makes galaxies collide.

[Tony Francis]

Coel: You still haven't explained what a quantum fluctuation is. If you are referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, then your invocation explains nothing. Heisenberg refers to observation, the limits of observation, and nothing about what may be actually occurring. It doesn't indicate why galaxies are observed to cross paths.
If a murder is hidden, it is by definition, undiscovered, and undiscoverable. That's the hypothetical. So you haven't made your point.
A collective decision by humans can certainly exist. Simply because a group of people get together and denominate "rights" on a piece of paper is not proof that those rights actually exist.
You have avoided talking about determinism and free will. These subjects are important to the discussion of the philosophy of morality. If the universe is deterministic, as Einstein, Schrodinger and de Broglie believed, there can be no such thing as free will. If there is such a thing as free will, the laws of physics and chemistry must be broken somewhere along the line. Otherwise, what you ate for breakfast would be the remote result of the peculiar way things got blown out during Big Bang.
You have avoided the issue of slavery and dominance of one society over another, as would be dictated by Darwinism.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece
The implication of this article is that Darwinism has chosen one genetic group which will dominate another one. There is no way to stop this from occurring. Darwinism and nature have made it so. In the absence of natural moral law, there is no good reason why one group shouldn't dominate another. In fact, to suggest that one group will not dominate another is as irrational as suggesting that predators won't eat prey. It is just the way things turned out. There is no reason to suggest a change, and to do so is impossible, since we have been genetically selected to belong to our various genetic groups.
If there is a large body of evidence supporting your positions, show it to us.

[Tony Francis]

Consider the following hypothetical situations:
1.) Two men are in a lifeboat. They have provisions to last several days. A storm comes up, and one man throws the other over board where he drowns. The survivor is resuced the next day. There is no God to know what happened. There is no natural moral law. It is difficult to argue that any evil has been done to society, since the motives and action of the survivor cannot be discovered, and cannot be proved. In fact, Darwinism has been vindicated because the fittest has survived.
2.) Two men are in a lifeboat. One falls over. There is a rope in the boat which can easily be used to rescue the man in the water. The man left in the boat decides to not throw the rope, and the man in the water drowns. It is difficult to argue that any harm has been done to society, since the man in the boat is under no legal or moral obligation to save the man in the water.
3.) A woman isolated on a farm is pregnant. No one knows of the pregnancy. She gives birth, then kills the baby three days later. The body is buried in a remote spot. What is the evil done to society? The homicide can never be proved, and in the absence of natural moral law, or God, there is no moral reason for the woman to not kill her child. If she has a post-partum depression, she is doing a good and predictable thing under Darwinism: she is killing her off-spring which is likely to carry the post partum depression gene.

[Tony Francis]

Coel, if the quantum fluctuations you are referring to involve the theory of cosmic inflation, it is premature to call this settled science:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
Cosmic inflation appears to have superceded string theory, which until a few years ago, was thought to resolve all problems with Big Bang:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
Perhaps the most popular form of string theory required a "Big Crunch", a kind of oscillating universe:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch
According to the theory, gravity pulls it all back into singularity:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillating_universe
But in order for this to work, there has to be "Dark Matter":
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
But what about "Big Rip"?
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_rip
So what is it: Big Rip or Big Crunch? Infinite cosmic inflation before Big Bang, or Finite cosmic inflation?
And what of the microwave background?
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_background
Plasma cosmologies, while currently out of favor offered different explanations of the microwave background:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
Most of visible matter in the universe exists in plasma form. Electro-magnetic forces are much greater than gravity.
Any discussion of quantum mechanics is hampered by several problems that have no solution. The first is the n-body problem. All quantum mechanics problems devolve into the n-body problem. But it has no solution:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
The second involves the nature of Hilbert Space (a Banach Space), which is an "everywhere closely packed neighborhood space". But real space is nothing like a Hilbert Space, and does not have everywhere closely packed neighborhoods.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach_space
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space
A third problem involves the use of linear operators as measurements in Hilbert Space:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_operators
This mathematical system was chosen to be applied to quantum mechanics because the math was worked out. It is not at all clear that this system can solve anything, but a few selected problems. I could write much more, but this post is long enough. To claim that any of this is "settled science" is misleading. If you believe that it is, you are more gullible than I have imagined.

[Tony Francis]

Let's take a look at M-theory. "M" stands for Master, as in master theory. It explains everything. It combines five different string theories. Before Big Bang there were a number of 4 dimensional membranes in 11 dimensional space. The membranes were given the cutsy-pie name, "branes". Two of these "branes" ran into each other. This caused Big Bang.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory
One of the results were "cosmic strings". Strings can exist because they are supported by P-branes or D-P branes.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_strings
In the early 1990s, I heard an astrophysicist issue this dire warning: "If the earth ever crosses a cosmic string, it will be the end of everything!" I hardly slept a wink that night. But I can see why one would forget their faith and become an atheist. The theory is that compelling and persuasive. Unfortunately, it isn't true. There are no 4-dimensional "branes" in an 11-dimensional space. What really happened is Cosmic Inflation. Before Big Bang, there was this hill. Not a real hill, mind you, but a mathematical hill. Stuff kept rolling down this hill. It had been going on eternally. Other stuff kept rolling the first stuff back up the hill. It was a kind of primordial Myth of Sisyphus. Except this really happened. Somehow, some of the stuff made it to the bottom of the hill. This is what caused Big Bang.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
Atheist, Rejoice! For this explains it all.
Excuse me if I am a doubter. I have been reading about these theories since the 1960s. Back then, Scientific American would have a new theory that explained it all about 2 or 3 times a year. These theories are always some variant of Big Bang, Steady-State, Oscillating Universe or Eternal Expansion. Theories in this genre of science fiction have a shelf life slightly longer than fresh fruit. One of my favorites are Tachyon Space where stuff got blown out of Big Bang at a speed faster than light.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
And anything proposed by Michio Kaku:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku
Scotty, beam me up! I am trapped in a multi-deminsional membrane, rolling down a potential hill!

[jim]

Tony, you continue to blend science and Darwin with ethics and social morality. Our brain structure is under genetic control. The thoughts that emanate from it are not. My genes are "selfish", but I need not be.

As has been said before, Genes can be considered "selfish" within the process of natural selection. Genes are obviously not selfish in a moral sense, for they have no mind, so the term is misunderstood if this connotation is applied. They are merely successful or not. They survive through generations when their vehicle reproduces, and they do this as part of a team. Man has consciousness, with self awareness and language. The conscious human "vehicles" for human genes don't need to behave solely in the interests of their genes. Dawkins admitted that the name for his book The Selfish Gene was perhaps a mistake because of this misinterpretation and wrong extrapolation.

Moral choices don't have to favour genes at all. Moral choices are relevant within a group or society, and social effects become major factors at that level, not gene success. The major difference between man and other animals is our higher level of consciousness, which gives us the ability to think beyond the next meal, sexual coupling, and instinctive care for offspring. We can act beyond the gene level. Our lives still have value after or even despite not passing on our genes.

Darwinianism is not a moral philosophy. It explains the evolution of species better than moral codes. One can borrow some of the concepts to explain the evolution of ideas and norms by introducing the meme, but no-one says a meme is the same as a gene.

If you look at what constitutes an optimal or successful society, however, with the greatest benefits, happiness, and opportunities for all constituents, then a peaceful one based on strong moral ethics comes out best, provided other societies become convinced of this same reality, and don't disrupt it and wage war. Hence the need for powerful "memes" for peace and brotherhood. Religions can be very positive in this regard, but sometimes very negative, especially when differences incite passions.

Hidden murder is wrong because other individuals in our society have rights, and murder denies those, hidden or otherwise. No-one should accept the broad idea that a hidden murder is justifiable on moral grounds, for that is a recipe for complete social chaos.

[Tony Francis]

The purpose of my earlier posts is to demonstrate that "creation myths" are just that: myths. To proclaim that they are mainstream science or represent settled science it misleading. A myth created by physicists, and ornamented with differential equations is still a myth. Interestingly, Stephen Hawking, until recently was proclaiming that it is meaningless to question what happened before Big Bang.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?=frm=36398&sec_id=3639
Hawking appears to have abandoned this stance by formulating the Cosmic Inflation theory which necessitates mathematical speculation about what happened before Big Bang.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/10/steven-hawking-.html
The settled or mainstream science is:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_9/notes38.html
It is interesting that science has come to the same conclusion that St. Augustine stated centuries ago:
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html#Augustine
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html
The Bible contains a creation myth. Christians (other than fundamentalists and literal interpreters) believe it to be a divinely inspired myth. But a myth all the same. Genesis is neither history nor science. I don't have a problem with atheists who reject the Bible. But it is erroneous to imply that science has provided a better or more consistent answer. It hasn't

[jim]

Music, art, and poetry are examples of human invention. They are a consequence of intelligent human consciousness. So is morality.
Certain genes code for the brain regions involved in different types of artistic expression, inspiration and interpretation, in the creative artist and in the listener, viewer and reader. Man evolved from primates under Darwinian principles, but Beethoven's 9th, the Mona Lisa, and The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, are themselves not directly due to gene selection, and are only a very indirect consequence of gene survival, and could not ever be predicted by the genetic codes of their human creators. The general concepts of music, art and poetry themselves are not the product of any definable group of genes. They are not a phenotypic expression of the genotype. In a sense they are the product of all human genes, or rather human-ness. So is morality.

[alan]

I've just glance back over 52 comments. What a lot of red herrings! Forget the genes. Fact is, a belief is a belief, and you'd better believe in it, othewise you're a heretic and bound for hell or something similar. -- OK, I exaggerate, but I do so deliberately to demonstrate the radical difference between the religious mind and the open mind of the atheist. -- Believers, believe what you wish! Atheists, continue to use your brains, your senses, your powers of observation and reason, and judge according to your experience!

[Tony Francis]

Alan, you're the only one who has mentioned "beliefs, heretics and damned to hell" etc. Of course you exaggerate. It tells us more about your anti-religious bias than anything my Roman Catholic religion teaches. As for atheists being open minded: depends on the atheist in my experience. I think you will find great zealotry in any of the major non-belief systems: global warming, Big Bang, Evolution, etc. I don't have any particular grudge against you or your rejection of religion. But do this, if you will: use your brain and explain how matter and energy created itself from nothing without an intervening first cause; how DNA lines up in a exceptionally long and meaningful way without templates, enzymes inter alia, while not violating the laws of thermodynamics. And just which one of the atheist creation theories is correct? Talk about suspending reason and belief.

[Tony Francis]

Jim, I think you have correctly outlined a view of morality which can be traced to Stoicism and then medieval nominalism. The human mind is the creator of reality:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14299a.htm
This is in contradistinction to "realism", in which there is an external reality to the human. Your position is one which our logic can legitimately lead us. It is the majority position of law schools in the US, for instance. From what I can discern, Coel believes in a Utilitarian concept of morality:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm
It is possible to have a legal system without the concept of rights. This occurred in the Anglo-Saxon legal systems, which predated Christianity:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01505a.htm
This is in contrast with Irish or Brehon law which apparently recongnized a host of rights:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02753a.htm
A right is meaningless, unless a court of law is willing to invoke the policing power of the state to enforce it. Roman Law was sensitive to "rights" and it was the Catholic Church Courts which inculcated the concept of rights to various common law systems:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09068a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04447a.htm
The Normans effected a strict separation of the Church Courts and the Common Law Courts:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15642c.htm
It was the Church Courts which developed the concepts of contract and torts:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04332a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09079a.htm
As the article on Roman Law states, the conclusion that slavery is wrong comes exclusively from natural moral law. The idea of natural moral law is appealing in many aspects:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
Concerning "memes", I notice the liberal use of descriptors and terms such as "unverified claims", "original research", "citation needed", and "lack of rigor".
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes

[alan]

Tony, as an atheist, I have my doubts about the Big Bang. But evolution seems 100% common sense to me. (How otherwise can we explain, for example, the "built-in faults" of the human body? Dodgy heart, useless appendix, slipped discs etc.etc.?) -- But I must object if you expect me to tell you "how matter and energy created itself from nothing". You've hit the nail on the head. The answer is "I don't know." And I have the intellectual humility to admit it. I don't have to invent an old man with a beard in the sky to give me the comfortable feeling that I know the answer. I just don't know, and I shall not deceive myself into believing I do. Isn't that being honest with myself? (People want so much to know all the answers. But the absurd myths thought up my humankind over the millenia to "explain" the unknown just go towards proving my point.)-- And - be honest Tony - you don't know either. Your faith (I presume you have a faith) is really only "hope" - hope that your answers are right. -- No offence meant, this is my honest opinion...

[jim]

Tony, I haven't said the human mind creates reality. I have said it creates morality. Good and evil are adjectives pertaining to creatures with consciousness. On our planet that means humans. Presumably elsewhere in the universe other beings have come to many similar conclusions.
Rights don't require law courts to be right in themselves, but societies need law courts to help enforce them, as people are humanly fallible, and at times, selfish, self-centred and unjust.
I doubt you ONLY do what is right because a court of law threatens to punish you if you don't. To only do so for fear of divine retribution is just as flawed.
If there is a natural moral law, it is only natural for humans because we are here and human. What it comprises is still deduced by men for men, so doesn't change the situation much. Beyond that is conjecture.

[Tony Francis]

Alan, You and I are closer than it may seem. I don't believe in an "old man with a beard in the sky", either. Try studying theology sometme, when you are in the right temperament. (Don't think of the theology they teach 5 year olds - but the mature consideration of the subject.) I think you will find it provides some answers. But it raises many more than it answers. In this way, it is not much different from a science. Some places to start might be:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14588a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm
For the difference between essential and existential theology:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_of_Thomas_Aquinas_Part_I
There is certainly nothing wrong with reading theology and saying, "I really don't believe that."
Faith and hope are two different things. My faith leads me to hope, but more importantly, faith leads me to love:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07465b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm

[Simon R. Gladdish]

Tony, talking of 'hidden killing', if someone secretly despatched, say, Robert Mugabe and buried his bloated body in a remote spot, then I would have no problem with that. I find it difficult to accord moral monsters the same human rights as the rest of us. The trouble with taking absolutist moral positions is that you can very soon find yourself in the midst of a moral absurdity. I also believe that the parents of severely disabled babies should have the right to request euthanasia if that is what they wish. I don't see why an entire family's life should be destroyed simply because of a natal accident.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Coel: You still haven't explained what a quantum fluctuation is."

A temporary fluctuation in energy (something that is allowed by quantum mechanics and that is observed routinely).

"Simply because a group of people get together and denominate "rights" on a piece of paper is not proof that those rights actually exist."

Yes it does, if by a "right" one means something denominated by a group of people getting together. This, by the way, is the same answer I gave you the first two times you asked.

"You have avoided talking about determinism and free will."

No I haven't. You haven't asked me about them.

"You have avoided the issue of slavery and dominance of one society over another, as would be dictated by Darwinism."

No I haven't. I addressed that fully above. The trouble is, as with "rights", you simply don't assimilate the answers.

"The implication of this article is that Darwinism has chosen one genetic group which will dominate another one."

Yes indeed. So? If you think that that implies that such would be moral, then you really have no idea.

"In the absence of natural moral law, there is no good reason why one group shouldn't dominate another."

Yes there is: it decreases the amount of human happiness and contentment. Don't you think that is a "good reason" for something being immoral? (Indeed, a far better reason than "because God said so"?)

"If there is a large body of evidence supporting your positions, show it to us."

All that I've said about science is mainstream science. But it simply isn't practical to post large swathes of science and the evidence for it here.

"Coel, if the quantum fluctuations you are referring to involve the theory of cosmic inflation . . ."

They don't.

"Cosmic inflation appears to have superceded string theory, which until a few years ago, was thought to resolve all problems with Big Bang".

Utterly wrong on several points. Inflation has not superceded string theory: they are different theories dealing with different issues. And no-one ever claimed that string theory resolved all proplems with the Big Bang. Indeed, string theory does not have that much to do with big-bang cosmology (though there are speculative attempts to unify them).

Tony, you twitter endlessly about science that you really do not understand or know about. Pointing out your copious errors and misconceptions is very tiresome.

[Tony Francis]

Coel, I would concur that pointing out my many errors would be tiresome to you, had you pointed out any. But then, you have done a lot of writing, and pointed out nothing. You are in error. String theory (about 15 years ago) was touted as being the explanation of everything, including Big Bang. Even as recently as 2 or 3 years ago it was still held out as being the answer. Now, it isn't. Cosmic Inflation is the most recent theory, and utlilzes "quantum fluctuations", whatever that happens to mean. Cosmic inflation cannot be explained with string theory. But there is hope for a "super string theory". As the article states: string theory is an alternative to inflation.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
The article also claims: "the discrepancy of flux compactifications have opened the way for reconciling inflation and string theory. This theory, governed by Dirac-Born-Infield actions, is very different from ordinary inflation. The dynamics are not completely understood. It appears that special conditions are necessary since inflation occurs in tunneling between two vacua in the string landscape. The process of tunneling between two vacua is a form of old inflation, but new inflation must then occur by some other mechanism." In other words, the two are completely incompatible, although there is some hope they may be reconciled. What that reconcilation may be is unknown.
Perhaps this can be found in "string theory landscapes":
"Recently the discovery of "string theory landscapes", which suggest that string theory has an exponentially large number of vacua, led to discussions of what string theory might eventually be expected to predict, and to the worry that the answer might continue to be nothing."
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
But then, string theory landscapes are problematic in their own right.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
They are derived from Bayesian Probability which is mathematically dubious for many reasons.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

[Tony Francis]

Simon Gladdish: the problem I see with your position is that it is a form of moral relativism. Everyone becomes burdensome at some time. When I was younger and more passionate, there were several people I would have killed, if I could have gotten away with it, and I didn't have my Catholic beliefs. They had it coming, or so it seemed at the time. But now, years later, I'm glad I didn't. But I had no right to take their lives. The same argument can be made about children. They can be a great nuisance to the parents. So can old people. So can corrupt dictators. If we don't have absolute moralism, then we get the slippery slopes. Soon, whole classes of people are "inconvenient". Look at Henry VIII: serial killer of wives. Each one had it coming: they were all guilty of treason, or something else.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12731d.htm
Coel: I would classify your moral beliefs as "Utilitarianism". This is a form of hedonism. I don't find hedonism an acceptable alternative to Catholic morality, or natural moral law.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15241c.htm

[Coel]

Tony writes: "You are in error. String theory (about 15 years ago) was touted as being the explanation of everything, including Big Bang."

Wrong. It was touted as something that MIGHT DEVELOP INTO an explanation of everything. See the difference? Big Bang cosmology has never been based on or dependent on string theory.

"Even as recently as 2 or 3 years ago it was still held out as being the answer. Now, it isn't. Cosmic Inflation is the most recent theory . . ."

Wrong again. Inflation was proposed 25 years ago! It has long been a component of the standard cosmological model, and is not a replacement for string theory, as you imply.

I won't bother replying to the rest of your quoting from Wikipedia unless you tell me what point you are trying to make.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Coel: I would classify your moral beliefs as "Utilitarianism". This is a form of hedonism. I don't find hedonism an acceptable alternative to Catholic morality, or natural moral law."

What Tony Francis finds acceptable and what is actually true are entirely different things.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "Cosmic Inflation [. . .] utlilzes "quantum fluctuations", whatever that happens to mean."

Well if you don't know basic things like that, what makes you think your comments on science are knowledgeable enough to be worth posting?

[Simon R. Gladdish]

Fair comment, Tony. It seems that you aren't a cradle-Catholic after all. What led you Romewards?

[Tony Francis]

Friend Coel, You ask me if I thought human happiness and contentment as a goal is a superior reason for defining a morality system. In answer to your question: "No, a system based on solitary and group hedonism is not superior to Catholic Morality and natural moral law." It is true, "I don't find hedonism an acceptable alternative to Catholic Morality or natural moral law." You responded: "What Tony finds acceptable and what is actually true are two different things."

My response to you: "Huh?!? What are you talking about?"
To be honest, I really don't care whether you are a hedonist or not. I don't care that you are an atheist. It just doesn't concern me. What do you care?

In the matter of D-branes, quantum fluctuations, strings, string fields, 4-dimensional membranes in an 11 dimension space, potential energy hills predating Big Bang: If you find some acceptable explanation in all that, more power to you. If you find me to be ignorant, then blame the US public education system. Maybe you should take it up at the next local school board meeting. When you go, take a picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with you. That is sure to impress. In the mean time, I will let the readers decide.

[bill]

Absolute morality as an existing entity beyond our world is an urban myth, with no-one to decide what it comprises except dogmatic, vocal humans who enjoy telling people what to do.......

[jim]

"If the universe is deterministic...........there can be no such thing as free will" (Tony)

Determinism is different thing to different people, as is free will. I believe I have free will to act in ways that allow me the feeling and belief that I act as an autonomous agent, for reasons that are of relevance to me, after considering what is best or matters most to me, after either long or minimal contemplation. My decisions don't come out of nothing, and are influenced by a host of factors, but the decision is mine to make. The fact that countless prior events and factors have gone before, on a general and personal scale, and heavily influence that decision, and may even be thought of as making some decisions inevitable, doesn't take away that free-will feeling.
There are so many varied influences, which could lead the decision to go in different directions, then, just as in quantum physics, there are probabilities, but not certainty until I make my choice, which as far as I am concerned is taken freely.
There are numerous examples within the universe such as weather forecasting (despite the physical nature of the atmosphere and the other material things that influence the outcome), which are influenced by chaos theory, and make it impossible to exactly guess or determine the future. Free will is another one of them, despite the physical neuronal basis of brain activity.

[Coel]

Tony writes: "If you find me to be ignorant, then blame the US public education system."

Don't worry, I will. It is utterly appalling, isn't it?

[Tony Francis]

Simon, I am a cradle Catholic. And I never left the Church. The statement I wrote was awkward. My point was: in the course of entering the world, I ran into many people who were totally unscrupulous, who didn't play by the rules, lied, cheated, used defamation and the political regulatory structure of the state to purposely destroy people. They laughed at the victims. At the time, I believed I was one of the victims. Had I not been a Catholic, I would have killed them, gladly. But, as they say, hatred and anger is a cancer that damages the hater, and not the hated.

Bill: You have stated the objection to natural moral law. Who decides? But then who decides any law? In a democracy, or a republic, various political forces, backed by some moral belief are always in conflict. It is just the nature of the beast. Despite what some may say, any law is a moral statement because it carries the tacit threat of the policing power of the state to enforce it.

Jim: The issue of determinism belongs in philosophy of science. I think of billiard balls: they always behave in the same way. Newtonian physics exlpains the action. Einstein and others thought the universe had to be deterministic. Heisenberg thought the opposite. Schrodinger's cat and multiple parallel universes came from this belief in determinism. At some point, free will would seem to have to violate the law of determinism. It is an interesting subject for the philosophy of science. Of interest are the Bell experiments:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
The Bell experiments have ruled out "local deterministic actions". Or have they? And what about Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance"?
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

[Tony Francis]

Coel: Concerning US public education: I have spent the equivalent of 27 years in this system past high school. For the most part, I think it is ok.

[jim]

Tony, the concept of determinism, and that we do not have total free will, meant and means different things to various philosophers, scientists and mathematicians. Those opposed to the idea think this concept means we would have to be considered automatons, and more like robots than people, which no serious thinker postulates.
There are layers upon layers involved in the way we think, from the neuronal hardware to "the mind", and many more than an advanced computer has separating the basic machine language from the highest software programs. That complexity, and the countless different influences at play, mean that some believe our actions merely appear free even though following a complex chain of prior events and activations. For others, the perception of free will at the end of the chain of events is enough to say we effectively have free will. The positions are not necessarily far apart, yet can be made to sound worlds apart.