NationStates Jolt Archive

If science attempted anything of the sort, you'd be right. Because it is something science cannot possibly do. However science isn't used to attempt falsification of divinity. At the most, the methodology can sometimes be used to falsify certain superstitious claims.
Well, "science" can't actually do anything, as it is an intangible noun. However, scientists can do things, and while few believe the over-arching goal of science is to prove the non-existence of any divinity, many scientists (such as Dawkins) use their position as scientists, their "pulpits," if you will, to speak out against various things. For much of history, science wasn't separate from religion and philosophy, until the 19th century scientists were even called natural philosophers. But in the beginning of the 17th century, the scientific method was developed, and it became a dogma in its own right. Not that it shouldn't have, it makes perfect sense, but it did make what was once a specific school of thought into its own institution. I think this is what the other poster is lamenting.

Its pretty obvious; look at today and the animosity there are between the different academic faculties - science apparently on a crusade to be the 'subject' which replaces it all.

As a career scientist... I have to tell you that whoever told you that, was talking through their arse.

No, but unlike you, I do have manners. I was asking for a clarification. Is that too much to ask of thee?

What do you need clarifying? its pretty damn obvious what I was trying to communicate. Tell me - what didn't you understand?

Well they are having this crusade in spirit...

Yes, because clearly Christian scientists are having their jobs taken away and given to Atheist scientists. Clearly such prominent, religious physicists like Stephen Hawking have been attacked by Atheist scientists for his research and publications.

Oh wait. Neither is true, and this "Crusade" is bullshit.

What do you need clarifying? its pretty damn obvious what I was trying to communicate. Tell me - what didn't you understand?
I am not the only one who has had difficulty in understanding what exactly you mean. Science (and its subdivisions) is an immense field. Generalizations of the sort you made must be justified. Recourse to specific examples would help.

Except simple fidelity to reason. Reason recognizes that "it makes me happy" is no basis for truth. Truth doesn't have to be convenient.

Why the hell would anyone practice fidelity to reason? It's an amorphous cultural and philosophical concept built on a body of assumptions that are unprovable (often even if you use circular logic) and it is, to be frank, rather simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving.

It's not any better than religion, just somewhat less entertaining. ;)

Yes, because clearly Christian scientists are having their jobs taken away and given to Atheist scientists. Clearly such prominent, religious physicists like Stephen Hawking have been attacked by Atheist scientists for his research and publications.

Oh wait. Neither is true, and this "Crusade" is bullshit.
There is nothing near the fervor surrounding the actual Crusades of the Middle Ages. But, atheists have recently become more Crusadeful (or whatever the real word equivalent is), and I think the recent outburst is what people are talking about.

Yes, because clearly Christian scientists are having their jobs taken away and given to Atheist scientists. Clearly such prominent, religious physicists like Stephen Hawking have been attacked by Atheist scientists for his research and publications.

Oh wait. Neither is true, and this "Crusade" is bullshit.

I guess you didn't get it because that's not what I was trying to say. It was a figure of speech, I was referring to the war of thought between atheists (not most atheists of course, but the Dawkins type) and the intolerant religious folk (that dislike all atheists, and generally anyone who doesn't follow their religion).

I am not the only one who has had difficulty in understanding what exactly you mean. Science (and its subdivisions) is an immense field. Generalizations of the sort you made must be justified. Recourse to specific examples would help.

I agree with Imperial Brazil.

[/WORLD]

Oh, not this shit again.

How is suggesting that natural, observable physical processes made us what we are a leap of faith? You'd either have to call all scientific knowledge into question, rely on a flawed understanding of the definition of a scientific theory, or pull out some flawed argument on how "the universe is too complex to have gotten this way naturally." As if you thank god every time you get a full house when playing poker.

No, when people see something then say, "I've see this happen, so therefore, god doesn't exist" - that is stupid. Just because you see something occur doesn't instantly invalidate something else.

And just what the fuck are you babbling about? Any physicist who, going into his paper, mentions their desire to "try and prove god doesn't exist" wouldn't make it into any respected, peer-reviewed journal.

Jesus Christ, do you have comprehension problems? I NEVER said that; I said that the underlying motivation is to prove that god doesn't exist - not that their study per say is to prove god doesn't exist.

We leave publishing bullshit up to Christians and their "Discovery Institute," and to other crackpots.

Who said anything about these 'crackpots' - I'd sooner sit in the corner of 'ignorant' than try and come up with a grand unified theory that gets more stupid with each critique bought forward by science.

Yes, I'm ignorant, but there is a difference, I don't try to make out that I know shit I don't actually know - that is the problem with most humans - trying to make out they're smarter and know more than they truly do.

There is nothing near the fervor surrounding the actual Crusades of the Middle Ages. But, atheists have recently become more Crusadeful (or whatever the real word equivalent is), and I think the recent outburst is what people are talking about.

Atheists have stopped hiding in the shadows waiting to be victimised.

That's a crusade?

Why the hell would anyone practice fidelity to reason? It's an amorphous cultural and philosophical concept built on a body of assumptions that are unprovable (often even if you use circular logic) and it is, to be frank, rather simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving.

It's not any better than religion, just somewhat less entertaining. ;)
QFT.
I would have an easier time accepting the views of others if they didn't seem to be only slight variations of my own. Why bother switching?

I guess you didn't get it because that's not what I was trying to say. It was a figure of speech, I was referring to the war of thought between atheists (not most atheists of course, but the Dawkins type) and the intolerant religious folk (that dislike all atheists, and generally anyone who doesn't follow their religion).

So basically you're pointing out that there are belligerent, argumentative assholes on both sides of the religious spectrum.

That's more or less painfully obvious.

I agree with Imperial Brazil.

[/WORLD]

Maybe instead of ending the world, you could clarify that you agree with the content of a particular post made by Imperial Brazil?

I agree with said post too, by the way.

No, when people see something then say, "I've see this happen, so therefore, god doesn't exist" - that is stupid.


And unrealistic.

I don't think I've ever encountered a real situation like that...

Atheists have stopped hiding in the shadows waiting to be victimised.

That's a crusade?

Exactly. Atheists are similar to basilisks, you look into their eyes once, and end up petrified like this: :eek:.
It was better when they stayed holed up in their caves, but this resurgence may only be part of a millenia long cycle of waking and sleeping on their part.

All Scientifically proven of course.

Maybe instead of ending the world, you could clarify that you agree with the content of a particular post made by Imperial Brazil?

I agree with said post too, by the way.

I was agreeing with the post I commented on.

The end of the world was a mere afterthought... the logical conclusion of the unlikely chain of events. :D

So basically you're pointing out that there are belligerent, argumentative assholes on both sides of the religious spectrum.

That's more or less painfully obvious.


My point was that there is a sort of crusade going on, not the kind the Roman Catholic Church called for all those years back, but a sort of crusade all the same. And just like before, the majority of people on both sides don't give a shit and just want to live their lives.

Although I believe that the Lord is Author of all Truth, your critique rings a little hollow. Disputes are bad? Since when is debate in the realm of knowledge bad? And depending on how you define it, science broadly covers all knowledge, hence it is the only subject there is already.

It is about looking at things in a holistic sense rather than just viewing one thing in isolation. Take the area of artificial intelligence and philosophy. Would it be wise to ignore all the issues that surround the issue of artificial intelligence? or should science just work on the possibility of AI in isolation to all the both positive and negative spin off's? what about genetic research - should science leave the ethical issues up to some other 'department' or should it be part of the over all discourse?

No, you don't.

God can claim all day that x is right and y is wrong. But you can never give me a reason to give a shit what he thinks, beyond mere coercion... and fear is never a moral reason.


Your moral reason is neither objective or your slave.

Furthermore, it seems that if an ultimate creator of the laws of the universe and any objective or subjective sense of reason coexisted, the creator would hold sway.

Well, "science" can't actually do anything, as it is an intangible noun.Yes, yes, and a fist can't hurt you either. "Science" usually refers to basic scientific methodology and/or the scientific community. As such, it can do stuff in much the same way a guy wielding a hammer can.However, scientists can do things, and while few believe the over-arching goal of science is to prove the non-existence of any divinity, many scientists (such as Dawkins) use their position as scientists, their "pulpits," if you will, to speak out against various things.Yet that's not actually the case. Dawkins isn't out to prove God or Goat Girl doesn't exist, he's just trying to convince his peers to be rational and not buy into all sorts of flimsy bullshit. Since that's basically what science is all about, it makes perfect sense for a scientist to do that.For much of history, science wasn't separate from religion and philosophy, until the 19th century scientists were even called natural philosophers. But in the beginning of the 17th century, the scientific method was developed, and it became a dogma in its own right. Not that it shouldn't have, it makes perfect sense, but it did make what was once a specific school of thought into its own institution.I'm well aware, and you're preaching to the choir ;) I think this is what the other poster is lamenting.I got that impression as well. That's why I asked him to elaborate.

No, when people see something then say, "I've see this happen, so therefore, god doesn't exist" - that is stupid. Just because you see something occur doesn't instantly invalidate something else.



Jesus Christ, do you have comprehension problems? I NEVER said that; I said that the underlying motivation is to prove that god doesn't exist - not that their study per say is to prove god doesn't exist.



Who said anything about these 'crackpots' - I'd sooner sit in the corner of 'ignorant' than try and come up with a grand unified theory that gets more stupid with each critique bought forward by science.

Yes, I'm ignorant, but there is a difference, I don't try to make out that I know shit I don't actually know - that is the problem with most humans - trying to make out they're smarter and know more than they truly do.


Wow, that has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard someone say on here. And I gave USE a lengthy verbal bitchslapping last night for pretty much the same thing.

Educate yourself on science and what is going on right now in scientific research before you come on here peddling your bullshit. Seriously.

It is about looking at things in a holistic sense rather than just viewing one thing in isolation. Take the area of artificial intelligence and philosophy. Would it be wise to ignore all the issues that surround the issue of artificial intelligence? or should science just work on the possibility of AI in isolation to all the both positive and negative spin off's? what about genetic research - should science leave the ethical issues up to some other 'department' or should it be part of the over all discourse?
If you are saying that ethics must inform the way (natural and social) scientists conduct their research, that would be most incorrect. Why should it? Science must be wertfrei. If, on the other hand, you are saying the ethical sciences should inform how we use what is found, that is a much more plausible argument.

If, on the other hand, you are saying the ethical sciences should inform how we use what is found, that is a much more plausible argument.

Ethical sciences, there's a rather confused concept.

Ethical sciences, there's a rather confused concept.
Indeed. All ethics worth knowing are to be found in the Bible. Arguendo though I decided to be less... absolute (and by extension, less correct.)

I was agreeing with the post I commented on.

So I gathered.

The end of the world was a mere afterthought... the logical conclusion of the unlikely chain of events. :D

*chuckles*

But seriously, do you know where the idea of the destruction of the universe by way of improbable stuff happening came from? I mean, improbable stuff (by our standards) happens all the time in the universe, so it seems, um, rather improbable that improbable stuff would cause the destruction of the universe...yeah.

I guess you didn't get it because that's not what I was trying to say. It was a figure of speech, I was referring to the war of thought between atheists (not most atheists of course, but the Dawkins type) and the intolerant religious folk (that dislike all atheists, and generally anyone who doesn't follow their religion).

The Dawkins and the extreme religious are as bad as each other. Those who don't believe as some how evil, and those who do believe are apparently naive and stupid.

It would be nice if the two could just 'mellow out', Albert Einstein said it best:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

There is no need for animosity between the two, and yet the likes of Dawkins feel the need to stir the pot of intolerance.

But seriously, do you know where the idea of the destruction of the universe by way of improbable stuff happening came from? I mean, improbable stuff (by our standards) happens all the time in the universe, so it seems, um, rather improbable that improbable stuff would cause the destruction of the universe...yeah.

It's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance.

And, everyone knows 1 in 1,000,000 chances work, 9 times out of 10.

Why the hell would anyone practice fidelity to reason? It's an amorphous cultural and philosophical concept built on a body of assumptions that are unprovable (often even if you use circular logic) and it is, to be frank, rather simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving.

It's not any better than religion, just somewhat less entertaining. ;)

Ummm.. What? Reason is simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving? So I guess NASA scientists used illogic to create the technology to put man on the moon.

Yet that's not actually the case. Dawkins isn't out to prove God or Goat Girl doesn't exist, he's just trying to convince his peers to be rational and not buy into all sorts of flimsy bullshit. Since that's basically what science is all about, it makes perfect sense for a scientist to do that.
Hmm, I disagree. Overall, I think Richard Dawkins has not dedicated his life to disproving God or to encouraging others to think rationally, but evolutionary biology. That's why he became a scientist, and a pretty good one, too. But when you write a book call The God Delusion, you're doing more than encouraging people to think rationally. You're encouraging to think rationally, yes, but also to think the way you do. It makes sense for a scientist to encourage others to stick to rational thinking when it comes to science, but he's out of his territory.

The Dawkins and the extreme religious are as bad as each other. Those who don't believe as some how evil, and those who do believe are apparently naive and stupid.

It would be nice if the two could just 'mellow out', Albert Einstein said it best:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

There is no need for animosity between the two, and yet the likes of Dawkins feel the need to stir the pot of intolerance.

I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote Einstein, when it was Einstein himself you launched the search for the grand unified theory you so maligned earlier.

Someone clearly hasn't done their homework.

If you are saying that ethics must inform the way (natural and social) scientists conduct their research, that would be most incorrect. Why should it? Science must be wertfrei. If, on the other hand, you are saying the ethical sciences should inform how we use what is found, that is a much more plausible argument.

So for you, its ok to experiment on people with mental illness, but employ ethics when it comes to applying the knowledge found? nice to see you throw your morality out the window when it comes to science.

The 20th century calls and it wants its eugenics back.

It's a 1 in 1,000,000 chance.

And, everyone knows 1 in 1,000,000 chances work, 9 times out of 10.

Haha!

This is one of those moments where I realize I'm a huge nerd. I actually did the two-second math on that to see why it was wrong.

I find it deliciously ironic that you would quote Einstein, when it was Einstein himself you launched the search for the grand unified theory you so maligned earlier.

Someone clearly hasn't done their homework.

I find it deliciously ironic that you ignore his philosophical writings and his beliefs. But hey, that might confuse you a little.

Hmm, I disagree. Overall, I think Richard Dawkins has not dedicated his life to disproving God or to encouraging others to think rationally, but evolutionary biology. That's why he became a scientist, and a pretty good one, too. But when you write a book call The God Delusion, you're doing more than encouraging people to think rationally. You're encouraging to think rationally, yes, but also to think the way you do. It makes sense for a scientist to encourage others to stick to rational thinking when it comes to science, but he's out of his territory.

If you're encouraging someone to think logically, but, you're simultaneously encouraging someone to become atheist or agnostic. ;)

So for you, its ok to experiment on people with mental illness, but employ ethics when it comes to applying the knowledge found? nice to see you throw your morality out the window when it comes to science.
To whom the methodology can be applied is also within the scope of the ethical sciences. How does this touch upon the natural sciences though?

The 20th century calls and it wants its eugenics back.
Non sequitur.

The Dawkins and the extreme religious are as bad as each other. Those who don't believe as some how evil, and those who do believe are apparently naive and stupid.

It would be nice if the two could just 'mellow out', Albert Einstein said it best:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

There is no need for animosity between the two, and yet the likes of Dawkins feel the need to stir the pot of intolerance.You're bitching about a strawman. Dawkins is arguing for a rational approach to reality. If your irrational beliefs don't conflict with a rational approach to reality, then there's no problem.

His isn't a crusade against religion, if it is a crusade, it is against anti-reason. The major religions of the world just happens to be the primary peddlers of anti-reason.

I find it deliciously ironic that you ignore his philosophical writings and his beliefs. But hey, that might confuse you a little.

And again, fail. But alas, it's late, my bed calls to me, and you have been so very, very unsatisfying.

His isn't a crusade against religion, if it is a crusade, it is against anti-reason. The major religions of the world just happens to be the primary peddlers of anti-reason.

It's a crusade on behalf of rationalism. Most religions are reasonable, but are not necessarily rational. Of course, it's also true that pretty much the entire subjective sphere of human experience is irrational...so that's a pretty horrible crusade.

Dawkins just comes across as humorless and bitter most of the time. Not mean or violent, just profoundly unhappy.

It’s a 1 in 1,000,000 chance.

And, everyone knows 1 in 1,000,000 chances work, 9 times out of 10.
Pratchett FTW. :)

As to the OP, my main beef with Dawkins isn’t his atheism, nor anti-theism; I share his disbelief, and although I think he sometimes generalises and mischaracterises the believer, I feel the same misgivings about organised religion and the faith ‘industry’.

However, I disagree hugely with his thesis as laid out in the Selfish Gene; his mischaracterisation and personification of the gene as the “immortal... ultimate power over behaviour”, “the primary policy-makers” who control our lives and the idea followed on from there that we are “machines created by our genes”.

This is unscientific bunk, and he carries on the idea of ‘selfish’ gene behaviour over to humans themselves. First, he personifies the gene, an inert piece of gunge inside cells, with the negative human characteristic of ‘selfishness’, then crosses the biological/social divide again, arguing that humans are “born selfish”; selfish humans controlled by selfish genes.

Very strange, and very muddled, thinking.

This is unscientific bunk, and he carries on the idea of ‘selfish’ gene behaviour over to humans themselves. First, he personifies the gene, an inert piece of gunge inside cells with the negative human characteristic of ‘selfishness’, then crosses the biological/social divide again, arguing that humans are “born selfish”; selfish humans controlled by selfish genes.

Very strange, and very muddled, thinking.

Someone wrote a book about Dawkins' theory appleid to humans, I believe it was called The Selfish Meme. Mostly it was just a survey of theories surrounding memes, but it did have a pretty good refutation of some of Dawkins' applications.
It also contained one of my favorite quotes of all time. Someone told a bishop that he only believed what he believed because he was raised that way. The bishops responded, (to the best of my memory), "It's true that I believe what I believe because of how I was raised, but it is also true that you believe I believe that I believe what I believe because of how I was raised because of how you were raised." This was before the Internet, but I think that's the equivalent of about three or four pyramid quotes.

Hmm, I disagree. Overall, I think Richard Dawkins has not dedicated his life to disproving God or to encouraging others to think rationally, but evolutionary biology. That's why he became a scientist, and a pretty good one, too. But when you write a book call The God Delusion, you're doing more than encouraging people to think rationally. You're encouraging to think rationally, yes, but also to think the way you do. It makes sense for a scientist to encourage others to stick to rational thinking when it comes to science, but he's out of his territory.

I think the problem is that people try to make out that *EVERYONE* who believes in God are using it as an 'excuse' for everything that occurs in the world. To some how prove that, for example, through the use of evolution the non-existence of god. It might prove those who take a literal interpretation of the bible as wrong; but it doesn't disprove the existence of god.

Hmm, I disagree. Overall, I think Richard Dawkins has not dedicated his life to disproving God or to encouraging others to think rationally, but evolutionary biology. That's why he became a scientist, and a pretty good one, too.His latter life then, damnit :D
But when you write a book call The God Delusion, you're doing more than encouraging people to think rationally. You're encouraging to think rationally, yes, but also to think the way you do. It makes sense for a scientist to encourage others to stick to rational thinking when it comes to science, but he's out of his territory.You lost me.

A rational approach to religion is to dismiss it as wanting, like the faked moon landing conspiracy and whatnot. Should new evidence emerge, the superstitions can be reevaluated, but until then they are just that; superstitions.

It seems you're trying to construe the title of his latest book to mean people with a belief in divinity are per definition deluded. That's not the case. A fixed belief in divinity, in conflict with empirical evidence and resistant to reason is, however, the very definition of a delusion. Calling a spade a spade is hardly a sign of lacking expertise or a desire to "convert" anyone.

You're bitching about a strawman. Dawkins is arguing for a rational approach to reality. If your irrational beliefs don't conflict with a rational approach to reality, then there's no problem.

His isn't a crusade against religion, if it is a crusade, it is against anti-reason. The major religions of the world just happens to be the primary peddlers of anti-reason.

What exactly do you mean by anti-reason and rationality? Do you mean anything that cannot be scientifically proven or something else? Please clarify.

Ummm.. What? Reason is simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving? So I guess NASA scientists used illogic to create the technology to put man on the moon.

Do all the math involved in creating said technology. Perform the repeated tests on different materials, circuits, propulsion systems, etc. Put a man in space and see how it affects him. Figure out roughly what the moon is like without ever having been there. Fail a few times before you get it right.

I'll wait.

What makes large projects like that successful isn't reason. It's the determination to keep trying and the cooperation of hundreds, thousands of people in achieving a goal. Reason is a conceptual tool that was used in that process, alongside the myriad physical tools. Is it a valuable tool? Sure. I just wouldn't pay any more for it than I would for my knife that I use as a multipurpose tool that works for a number of things in an acceptable fashion, though it's not ideally suited to all of my tasks by any stretch of the imagination.

His latter life then, damnit :D
You lost me.

A rational approach to religion is to dismiss it as wanting, like the faked moon landing conspiracy and whatnot. Should new evidence emerge, the superstitions can be reevaluated, but until then they are just that; superstitions.

It seems you're trying to construe the title of his latest book to mean people with a belief in divinity are per definition deluded. That's not the case. A fixed belief in divinity, in conflict with empirical evidence and resistant to reason is, however, the very definition of a delusion. Calling a spade a spade is hardly a sign of lacking expertise or a desire to "convert" anyone.

But at the same time, he makes generalisations - assuming that all those who believe in a God/Super natural being are some how singing and believing from the same book and same set of circumstances.

It's a crusade on behalf of rationalism. Most religions are reasonable, but are not necessarily rational. Of course, it's also true that pretty much the entire subjective sphere of human experience is irrational...so that's a pretty horrible crusade.

Dawkins just comes across as humorless and bitter most of the time. Not mean or violent, just profoundly unhappy.

I really don't see where that comes across. If you've ever seen him get on the subject of science, well, he conveys this sense of wonder of the hugeness of the universe, and of science's ability to explain and reveal in ways we can hardly imagine. Have you read the last chapter of the much-maligned God Delusion, particularly the part about inspiration? It's beautiful!

However, I disagree hugely with his thesis as laid out in the Selfish Gene; his mischaracterisation and personification of the gene as the “immortal... ultimate power over behaviour”, “the primary policy-makers” who control our lives and the idea followed on from there that we are “machines created by our genes”.

This is unscientific bunk

how so?

and he carries on the idea of ‘selfish’ gene behaviour over to humans themselves. First, he personifies the gene, an inert piece of gunge inside cells, with the negative human characteristic of ‘selfishness’, then crosses the biological/social divide again, arguing that humans are “born selfish”; selfish humans controlled by selfish genes.

Very strange, and very muddled, thinking.

where does he do that? seems to me that i've seen him talk at length about the evolutionary origins of altruism and cooperation.

It's a crusade on behalf of rationalism. Most religions are reasonable, but are not necessarily rational. Of course, it's also true that pretty much the entire subjective sphere of human experience is irrational...so that's a pretty horrible crusade.

Dawkins just comes across as humorless and bitter most of the time. Not mean or violent, just profoundly unhappy.I completely agree. I can't say I knew a whole hell of a lot about Dawkins and his efforts until The God Delusion exploded across NSG a while back. Since then he's been a guilty pleasure of mine, because despite his odd, dry humour (he's had me laughing out loud a few times), I get the same impression. Somehow I can't help thinking I should be feeling bad for the guy.

Then again, if we're right, I completely understand why he's bitter. If my life wasn't too short to worry about human stupidity all the time, I'd be bitter too. Especially if I'd had a long, distinguished career, doing much to improve the lot of humanity, only to have it shat on by ignorant, money grubbing, power-mad con artists in silly hats.

You lost me.

A rational approach to religion is to dismiss it as wanting, like the faked moon landing conspiracy and whatnot. Should new evidence emerge, the superstitions can be reevaluated, but until then they are just that; superstitions.
Rationalism is great, but it's not the end-all-be-all. I would also like to point out that being rational does not necessarily mean being scientific. Descartes used a rational argument to prove the existence of God. The lack of empirical evidence may be a reason to not believe, but it is incorrect to say, "Logically, God does not exist."

It seems you're trying to construe the title of his latest book to mean people with a belief in divinity are per definition deluded. That's not the case. A fixed belief in divinity, in conflict with empirical evidence and resistant to reason is, however, the very definition of a delusion. Calling a spade a spade is hardly a sign of lacking expertise or a desire to "convert" anyone.
I would say that a fixed belief in divinity is not in conflict with empirical evidence and resistant to reason, though. And while I agree such a thing would be delusional, there are plenty of less inflammatory words. Dawkins chose that one on purpose, to strengthen his position.

What exactly do you mean by anti-reason and rationality? Do you mean anything that cannot be scientifically proven or something else? Please clarify.Oh man..

Since I don't want to get into a mile long debate about logic and principles of human reasoning (sorry Hotrodia ;) ), it's simples just to state what I mean by anti-reason: denying objective reality and its implications, in favour of fantasy (your own or those of others).

Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.com can help clarify rationality, logic and human reasoning in general.

Oh man..

Since I don't want to get into a mile long debate about logic and principles of human reasoning (sorry Hotrodia ;) ), it's simples just to state what I mean by anti-reason: denying objective reality and its implications, in favour of fantasy (your own or those of others).

Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.com can help clarify rationality, logic and human reasoning in general.

*sniffles*

You spoil my fun. :(

I completely agree. I can't say I knew a whole hell of a lot about Dawkins and his efforts until The God Delusion exploded across NSG a while back. Since then he's been a guilty pleasure of mine, because despite his odd, dry humour (he's had me laughing out loud a few times), I get the same impression. Somehow I can't help thinking I should be feeling bad for the guy.

I feel a mix of emotions. In a lot of ways, I respect him as a man who has fought to defend science against those who threaten it with their beliefs. He shares that pedestal with other great minds like Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould, who are similar to him in a lot of ways but different in many others.

They all share a lot in common, especially a dry with that is really pretty likable, but Dawkins is different from the other two in that he is much more vitriolic in his attacks on religion and that tarnishes the rest of his personality, which comes across as quite likable. I think this stems from his atheism as opposed to Gould's agnosticism or Sagan's agnosticism/pantheism (I personally believe Carl Sagan was a pantheist), which is difficult to necessarily fold in to his other beliefs and creates the kind of friction and frustration which can lead to a degree of bitterness not shared by those with a more undecided religious opinion.

It can also be seen if you compare, say, Daniel Dennett to Sam Harris. Harris definitely shares a lot with Dawkins, while Dennett is much more like Sagan or Gould in terms of his personality and his relationship with religious belief.

Then again, if we're right, I completely understand why he's bitter. If my life wasn't too short to worry about human stupidity all the time, I'd be bitter too. Especially if I'd had a long, distinguished career, doing much to improve the lot of humanity, only to have it shat on by ignorant, money grubbing, power-mad con artists in silly hats.

I think that's a lot of it. Rather than focus on what he can change, Dawkins spends so much time railing against things that he knows will not change that it causes a lot of frustration and anger, perhaps even some envy directed towards people who are secure in their beliefs. Take everything I say with a grain of salt, of course, since I've only seen the public face of Dr. Dawkins, so it's more my personal ideas than any concrete evidence.

It just seems like he's changed the more he drifts away from defending science and the more he drifts towards attacking religion.

how so?
Because Dawkins is a biologist, not a geneticist, and talks about genes and their ‘behaviour’ in a way which is completely unscientific and untrue. (Not that scientists, philosophers, etc. shouldn’t stray outside their field, quite the contrary. They should just be sure to be talking sense when they do so.)

Genes don’t exert “ultimate power over our behaviour”, they are one of many factors which determine behaviour; a stance held by IIRC most geneticists. We are not automatons, entirely controlled by intelligent, selfish genes, as he describes.

If Dawkins is merely misusing his language, then he needs to brush up on his communication skills; if he is serious, then he is sorely mistaken.

where does he do that? seems to me that i’ve seen him talk at length about the evolutionary origins of altruism and cooperation.
He may have altered his stance over the years, but the opening pages of The Selfish Gene state that “we [humans] are born selfish”. He then goes on to advocate education as a way to bring forth the first ever incidence of true altruism. Dawkins, like Jacques Monod before him, claims that all altruistic behaviour thus far by any organism has been selfish and non-altruistic at it’s heart; organisms helping organisms, but only at the ultimate benefit of themselves.

But at the same time, he makes generalisations - assuming that all those who believe in a God/Super natural being are some how singing and believing from the same book and same set of circumstances.Eh.. Not really. It's just another strawman.Rationalism is great, but it's not the end-all-be-all. I would also like to point out that being rational does not necessarily mean being scientific. Descartes used a rational argument to prove the existence of God. The lack of empirical evidence may be a reason to not believe, but it is incorrect to say, "Logically, God does not exist."True, but it is equally true that there's no basis for entertaining the idea.I would say that a fixed belief in divinity is not in conflict with empirical evidence and resistant to reason, though.But that's not what I wrote, and it isn't what the poor guy's arguing either. A great many people do cling to beliefs that are hopelessly at odds with the real world. Some don't. You might not. I know several theists who don't. But a great many do. And while I agree such a thing would be delusional, there are plenty of less inflammatory words. Dawkins chose that one on purpose, to strengthen his position.No doubt. Is that so terrible?

Earlier someone objected to calling people who denounce evolution ignorant. I don't see why. Personally I'm ignorant of a great many things. Finding out just how ignorant I am is part of what makes life fun. And I'm certain there's a near endless list of things the good Dawkins fellow is ignorant of. Perhaps even a few of which you and I aren't.

Again, I see no reason to cover up the fact that people are ignorant of a great many things, and that some of us are fairly fucked upstairs, by using nice and gentle wording. It might even be argued that not taking the bull by the horns is counter productive, as it kind of lends credibility to the absurd.

Oh man..

Since I don't want to get into a mile long debate about logic and principles of human reasoning (sorry Hotrodia ;) ), it's simples just to state what I mean by anti-reason: denying objective reality and its implications, in favour of fantasy (your own or those of others).

Dictionary.com and Wikipedia.com can help clarify rationality, logic and human reasoning in general.

So what if I say that although a reality exists, humans are incapable of knowing it exactly, relying on possiblly flawed senses, am I using anti-reason?

Is that so terrible?

Earlier someone objected to calling people who denounce evolution ignorant. I don't see why. Personally I'm ignorant of a great many things. Finding out just how ignorant I am is part of what makes life fun. And I'm certain there's a near endless list of things the good Dawkins fellow is ignorant of. Perhaps even a few of which you and I aren't.

Again, I see no reason to cover up the fact that people are ignorant of a great many things, and that some of us are fairly fucked upstairs, by using nice and gentle wording. It might even be argued that not taking the bull by the horns is counter productive, as it kind of lends credibility to the absurd.
I've nothing against Dawkins choosing an inflammatory word on purpose, it's all part of making a point. It's not bad or unethical. However, I think it also proves that Dawkins does have a bone to pick with religion. I don't believe his line of thinking was, "I think I'll write a book about being rational, and golly, there's a lot about religion I could refute."
In other words, Mr. Dawkins is not as innocent as he appears.

Genes don’t exert “ultimate power over our behaviour”, they are one of many factors which determine behaviour

but that very plasticity is itself built in to the program, so to speak.

So what if I say that although a reality exists, humans are incapable of knowing it exactly, relying on possiblly flawed senses, am I using anti-reason?Possibly. You're being far too vague for any other answer. Or is it an attempt at being clever?I've nothing against Dawkins choosing an inflammatory word on purpose, it's all part of making a point. It's not bad or unethical. However, I think it also proves that Dawkins does have a bone to pick with religion. I don't believe his line of thinking was, "I think I'll write a book about being rational, and golly, there's a lot about religion I could refute."
In other words, Mr. Dawkins is not as innocent as he appears.:pI think this is where Vetalia and I get the impression he's just a wee bit bitter about the situation. To me, it comes across as railing against people, organisations and belief systems promoting anti-science, fiction and human stupidity. But since I don't know the man, I'll readily concede your interpretation may be the right one.

But in either case, I see nothing wrong with it.

Because Dawkins is a biologist, not a geneticist, and talks about genes and their ‘behaviour’ in a way which is completely unscientific and untrue. (Not that scientists, philosophers, etc. shouldn’t stray outside their field, quite the contrary. They should just be sure to be talking sense when they do so.)

Genes don’t exert “ultimate power over our behaviour”, they are one of many factors which determine behaviour; a stance held by IIRC most geneticists. We are not automatons, entirely controlled by intelligent, selfish genes, as he describes.

If Dawkins is merely misusing his language, then he needs to brush up on his communication skills; if he is serious, then he is sorely mistaken.


He may have altered his stance over the years, but the opening pages of The Selfish Gene state that “we [humans] are born selfish”. He then goes on to advocate education as a way to bring forth the first ever incidence of true altruism. Dawkins, like Jacques Monod before him, claims that all altruistic behaviour thus far by any organism has been selfish and non-altruistic at it’s heart; organisms helping organisms, but only at the ultimate benefit of themselves.

I know The God Delusion isn't popular in this thread, but I must reference it again. He mentions it at some point in it, and he clarifies that the correct stress should be on the word "gene," and that saying that people are selfish themselves is a misunderstanding-- that is, altruism is selfish for the gene because it leads to other copies of the same gene being copied. Genes are selfish in that they 'try' to get as many copies of themselves out there, (Try is the wrong word, but I hope you know what I mean) at the expense of other, conflicting genes.

Did I just make any sense? I can't really explain it as well as he can, because I'm really not a scientist.

Possibly. You're being far too vague for any other answer. Or is it an attempt at being clever?

I think this is where Vetalia and I get the impression he's just a wee bit bitter about the situation. To me, it comes across as railing against people, organisations and belief systems promoting anti-science, fiction and human stupidity. But since I don't know the man, I'll readily concede your interpretation may be the right one.

But in either case, I see nothing wrong with it.

Well if I say that reality exists, but no person can claim that they truly know it, then am I being anti-reasonable? (I guess I'm saying that truth about things exists, but there's no way that we can definitely say that we know what that truth is, does that make any sense?)

And are you saying that I'm not clever?
:rolleyes:

Well if I say that reality exists, but no person can claim that they truly know it, then am I being anti-reasonable? (I guess I'm saying that truth about things exists, but there's no way that we can definitely say that we know what that truth is, does that make any sense?)

It makes sense to me.

Well if I say that reality exists, but no person can claim that they truly know it, then am I being anti-reasonable? (I guess I'm saying that truth about things exists, but there's no way that we can definitely say that we know what that truth is, does that make any sense?)Then I'll say I'm the wrong guy to say it to. Hotrodia, on the other hand, usually gets a kick out of it (as do I usually, but I'm sort of half focused on work right now, so I'm not gonna go for it).

In any event, I'd suggest you both think long and hard about your wording if you want a genuine debate, and start your own thread. It's pretty far off topic.And are you saying that I'm not clever?
:rolleyes:Sophistry is frequently both fun and clever. I wasn't trying to be antagonistic.

It makes sense to me.

I think Bertrand Russell said that that was the smart person's fallacy, that reality is unknowable. It's the fallacy of the intelligent because it is impossible to disprove, so yes, I think it makes sense. I forget what made it a fallacy in the first place. Probably Bertrand Russell didn't believe it.

how so?
It's not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.

It's not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.

Ooh, ooh, that was something Karl Popper said, wasn't it? Looks up expectantly

I think Bertrand Russell said that that was the smart person's fallacy, that reality is unknowable. It's the fallacy of the intelligent because it is impossible to disprove, so yes, I think it makes sense. I forget what made it a fallacy in the first place. Probably Bertrand Russell didn't believe it.

Honestly I have never heard of this. When I was younger I believed that there was knowable/definite reality/truth, but I guess my opinions on everything changed after reading 1984. The thoughts of a person can be so distorted that it's simply impossible to say whether we can truly know reality, because it could simply be how we perceive reality to be.

Honestly I have never heard of this. When I was younger I believed that there was knowable/definite reality/truth, but I guess my opinions on everything changed after reading 1984. The thoughts of a person can be so distorted that it's simply impossible to say whether we can truly know reality, because it could simply be how we perceive reality to be.Variations on the theme have pretty much always been in circulation. IIRC the notion gained the most renown when some (I think German)
philosopher and priest got burnt at the stake a few hundred years ago. Again if memory serves, his particular variant was that reality is a dream and God the dreamer.

Variations on the theme have pretty much always been in circulation. IIRC the notion gained the most renown when some (I think German)
philosopher and priest got burnt at the stake a few hundred years ago. Again if memory serves, his particular variant was that reality is a dream and God the dreamer.

Interesting, but I suppose we need to get back on topic as we're beginning to drift off now.

Honestly I have never heard of this. When I was younger I believed that there was knowable/definite reality/truth, but I guess my opinions on everything changed after reading 1984. The thoughts of a person can be so distorted that it's simply impossible to say whether we can truly know reality, because it could simply be how we perceive reality to be.

The trouble is trying to defend objective knowledge without resorting to dogmatism, infinite regression, or circularity. Knowledge fails because it simply cannot be its own basis: we cannot know that we know, so how can there be any knowledge in the first place?

I think Bertrand Russell said that that was the smart person's fallacy, that reality is unknowable. It's the fallacy of the intelligent because it is impossible to disprove, so yes, I think it makes sense. I forget what made it a fallacy in the first place. Probably Bertrand Russell didn't believe it.

I imagine it depends on how you define "knowable."

The trouble is trying to defend objective knowledge without resorting to dogmatism, infinite regression, or circularity. Knowledge fails because it simply cannot be its own basis: we cannot know that we know, so how can there be any knowledge in the first place?

I've personally always wondered why those are necessarily a bad thing; they can be in some cases, but in the most basic sense a lot of things are in infinite cycles that have no real beginning or end.

If God were simply a powerful wizard, you would be right. But he's not.

In terms of founding morality, the two are indistinguishable.

I'm guessing your morals are based on reason, maybe a utilitarian basis. If God willed that torturing children was moral, you would reason it was moral.

Maybe, but now my reason indicates to me that God's whim has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong.

So that suggests that even if God does make the rules, since He made morality a matter of reason one of His rules is, "I don't make the rules of morality." Reason is independent of anyone's whim.

So I'm still right.

Again, you are assuming that humans are somehow separate from God's creation, that we are independent of him.

I assumed nothing of the sort.

Maybe because rather than debating he simply makes one liners - anyone can make a one liner.

Haha... you don't have a clue about Dawkin's arguments, do you?

It's an amorphous

Not at all.

cultural and philosophical concept

"Cultural and philosophical"?

At its weakest it is natural and biological... rather essential to human thought.

built on a body of assumptions that are unprovable (often even if you use circular logic)

"Proof" only has meaning in the context of reason.

Deny reason, and you deny that anything you have just said is in the slightest way relevant or intelligible. Deny reason, and you reject what is in effect a necessary assumption of human thought... putting yourself completely outside the context of an argument like this one.

It may be right to do so; I have not demonstrated that reason works. But if we are trying to find an answer to the question, we have no other means. We cannot justify except rationally. Everything else is not a justification at all, it is just convenience and whim.

and it is, to be frank, rather simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving.

It is the only means we could ever possibly have.

Your moral reason is neither objective

If morality is subjective, then divine command theory is even more absurd than it is if morality is objective.

or your slave.

Indeed it is not. That is precisely why it can reach truth... if anything can.

but that very plasticity is itself built in to the program, so to speak.
But this, again, implies that genes exert ultimate power over our behaviour; in the above, they’re just delegating responsibility. This, AFAIK, just doesn’t gel with modern genetics.

Also, Cthulhu’s answer merits a repeat:

It’s not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.
And for Dawkins, who is so wrapped up in the idea that science is the ultimate experience/truth/activity of the human species, an unscientific thesis, indeed, one built on faith, is obviously flawed.

As a side note, I also want to pick a bone with Dawkins over the above idea of science trumping every other avenue of human activity/research/thinking. Abandoning art and philosophy, to name but two, is a big mistake, and although Dawkins doesn’t advocate their annihilation in the face of science, he often dismisses them as less worthy.

Ooh, ooh, that was something Karl Popper said, wasn’t it? Looks up expectantly
Yes, ‘twas. :p

*gives cookie*

I know The God Delusion isn’t popular in this thread, but I must reference it again. He mentions it at some point in it, and he clarifies that the correct stress should be on the word “gene,” and that saying that people are selfish themselves is a misunderstanding— that is, altruism is selfish for the gene because it leads to other copies of the same gene being copied. Genes are selfish in that they ‘try’ to get as many copies of themselves out there, (Try is the wrong word, but I hope you know what I mean) at the expense of other, conflicting genes.
I’m glad to see he’s at least made an attempt to clear up his arguments. However, I still have a problem with the word ‘selfish’.

Selfishness is a human motivation, and a negative one at that. Ascribing a negative human motivation to genes personifies inert bits of cells, gives them some sort of intelligence and personality that simply isn’t there.

Now, I understand he may not literally mean that genes are ‘selfish’, that this is merely a shorthand. The problem is however, that his shorthand is incredibly influential, as are his books, and Dawkins has got to be careful of the words he chooses.

‘Selfish’ genes imply (as Dawkins has himself claimed before) inherently selfish humans; a very popular view among a lot of people. There is no scientific basis for this whatsoever, yet many times I have heard, on this forum and in RL, people grumbling about humanity’s natural greed and selfishness, as if it was stone-cold fact.

Dawkins isn’t alone in propagating this view, and if you’re right (I haven’t read the God Delusion), he seems to be trying to clarify his position, but he must be very careful. For if humans are inherently selfish, so the argument goes, then this leads us to a number of unsavoury conclusions.

Firstly, it’s a (weak) argument for acting selfishly; “Oh, but it’s just my nature”. Secondly, and far more importantly, the view of the inherently selfish human pushes the frightening agenda of Social Darwinism; a thesis that is neither scientific, nor Darwinian.

I'm still catching up and haven't read everything in the thread, but one little quote leaped out at me.


Its pretty obvious; look at today and the animosity there are between the different academic faculties - science apparently on a crusade to be the 'subject' which replaces it all.

Sorry to disappoint you, but scientists actually don't give two shits about "replacing it all" or "trying to prove god doesn't exist" or "understanding god's creation." See, when we do science we are using natural means to investigate the natural world. Your god is irrelevant.

I know that probably hurts your feelings a bit. Heck, it's downright Dawkinsish of me to call your god irrelevant, isn't it? What a mean thing to say!

Oh well. It's also the truth.

I've lived science since I was a child. I've worked in science for all of my adult life. And never, in all my years of training, in all my years of study, and all my years of work, never ONCE has anybody ever suggested that we are investigating, testing or "disproving" God. Because we're not. That would be lousy science.

Superstition is irrelevant to science. God is irrelevant to science. Individual scientists may have god-belief in any number of forms, but if they try to make their personal god-belief a part of their theory or try to hold it up as a support for their hypothesis they will be (rightfully) told to knock it off and get to work.
Look at the net result when we've separated Philosophy, Religion, Science and various other subjects from each other - and turn them into separate islands of thinking.

Philosophy is still a major part of science, despite your misconceptions. Ethics is a huge part, but we also have a lot of philosophical questions that crop up in some of the most unexpected places.

But you're quite right that we keep religion out of science. Thank goodness for that, since empirical science uncluttered by religious dogma and superstition has led to the greatest advances in the history of the human species.

Personally, I think philosophy is only useful when it excludes religion as well, but the philosophers are still working on that.

In answer to the OP: He's a jerk. As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Yes, there are many, MANY folks who are just as, if not more so, annoying on the theist side (And I find them to be jerks as well), but we're talking about Dawkins.

In answer to the OP: He's a jerk. As the old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Yes, there are many, MANY folks who are just as, if not more so, annoying on the theist side (And I find them to be jerks as well), but we're talking about Dawkins.
I think it's interesting how so many people assume that the "flies" Dawkins is trying to catch are theists.

Philosophy is still a major part of science, despite your misconceptions. Ethics is a huge part, but we also have a lot of philosophical questions that crop up in some of the most unexpected places.
Indeed. The philosophy of science is a fascinating field of philosophical enquiry, not to mention Cognitive Science, involving AI, epistemology, philosophy of the mind and other such interesting fields.

Personally, I think philosophy is only useful when it excludes religion as well, but the philosophers are still working on that.
I’d admit there are many philosophical arguments which evoke God to their discredit, Descartes’ foundationalism is the first to spring to mind, but I’d argue that the philosophy of religion is a worthwhile area of study for the philosophical theist and atheist alike.

I think it's interesting how so many people assume that the "flies" Dawkins is trying to catch are theists.
Did I say that? No, his books are directed at a general audience and I would assume that is what he was aiming for. You don't release into Borders or B&N unless you're looking for a wide readership.

Again though, I still find him as annoying as Jerry Falwell was, and for many for many of the same reasons (In terms of his religious viewpoints).

I think it's interesting how so many people assume that the "flies" Dawkins is trying to catch are theists.According to himself, his target audience are those who aren't exactly religious, but identify as such out of a sense of tradition/expectation/obligation/whathaveyou. In Britain that's about half the population. I realize things may well be very different in the United States of Fundistan and similar places, but the guy's British.

It might also be worth mentioning that while I'm under the impression that it is considered taboo to confront silly superstitions head on in the US, the opposite is true in Britain, at least as far as Christianity is concerned.

It might also be worth mentioning that while I'm under the impression that it is considered taboo to confront silly superstitions head on in the US, the opposite is true in Britain, at least as far as Christianity is concerned.
So how the hell do you explain the UK Parliament if that is true?

So how the hell do you explain the UK Parliament if that is true?very carefully :p

There's more to Britain than parliament. Trust me, there really is. And while I can't say none of his target audience happen to be MPs, I think it's pretty fucking obvious MPs aren't his target audience.

Did I say that? No, his books are directed at a general audience and I would assume that is what he was aiming for. You don't release into Borders or B&N unless you're looking for a wide readership.

Well, let me just put it to you this way:

Many of us find Dawkins' approach quite "honeyed," and would find it far more "vinegar" if he were yet another dull "moderate" type. :D

Whenever people talk about how he'd catch more flies with honey, I feel obligated to point out that if he's trying to catch flies that are anything like myself then he's spooning on an ample amount as it is!

I’d admit there are many philosophical arguments which evoke God to their discredit, Descartes’ foundationalism is the first to spring to mind, but I’d argue that the philosophy of religion is a worthwhile area of study for the philosophical theist and atheist alike.
I think religion and superstition are important areas of study for ethics, I suppose, but I'd primarily put theology in the political science or psychology fields. In my experience, religion on a large scale is basically just politics, and religion on an individual scale is psychology.

Well, let me just put it to you this way:

Many of us find Dawkins' approach quite "honeyed," and would find it far more "vinegar" if he were yet another dull "moderate" type. :D

Which is kinda the amusing point, the assumption that if Dawkins was just "nice" then it'd all be ok. Atheists, agnostics, and general non religious diests have been "nice" for a very long time. Nice has gotten us as a whole exactly jack shit. "Nice" has gotten us marginalized. "Nice" has gotten us god in the pledge and the currency of a supposed secular nation. "Nice" has had our views marginalized and rediculed. "Nice" has accomplished nothing.

And yet people suggest dawkins should be "nice". What will nice get him? He'll still be disagreed with the by the same people. Fuck this expectation of servile atheists who tiptoe around their belief structure, lest they offend the delicate sensibilities of the overwhelming majority. Dawkins isn't trying to convert anybody, he isn't trying to convince the evangelical right. That's a lost cause and he knows it.

He's just saying as he feels, and if that truly offends the religious right, well it's damn time they get offended. Dawkins isn't nice. Good for him. Let me repeat what I said earlier in this thread:

the problem with the vast evangelical movement is that these are people who not only get up with their silly robes and funny hats every sunday and loudly denounce us as evil evil people who are bound for unending uyielding agonizing torment forever, who try to define america as a "christian nation" with a prayer in every school and the 10 commandments on every courthouse. Who spew angry vitrol on private companies who dare to say "happy holidays" or, indeed, nothing at all come the winter season and then, when those companies relent and include specific christmas messages in their stores, whine and bitch about the "commercialization" of christmas. Who look at the crop of republican candidates and bemoan the fact that they may not be willing to restrict the rights of minorities, women, and homosexuals enough. Who make it a constant effort to remove the right of bodily autonomy from women.

And yet dawkins who tries to restrict the rights of nobody, condemns nobody to hell, does not try to force his belief on anybody but merely gets up and loudly proclaims his belief, and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong...well he's just gone too far.

Fuck that shit

What relevance is his personality to what he is saying?

What relevance is his personality to what he is saying?
When you know you can't debate the merits of somebody's arguments, you attack them personally.

A lot of people think that because Dawkins is blunt and honest about what he thinks, this makes him "not nice." And because he is "not nice" he is somehow hurting his cause by failing to appropriately pander to the very people who are hostile to criticism of religion (and therefore are going to dislike his message anyhow).

Personally, I don't think Dawkins should care what such people think. I don't think he should bother trying to protect their feelings or make them feel comfortable. They aren't going to like what he has to say no matter what. He might as well just say it because then those of us who are interested in what he has to say will be able to get his message right away, without having to filter out all the standard obligatory reassurances to the superstitions. ("We'll be good little atheists, we respect you, don't worry, your God is lovely, have a super day!")

But this, again, implies that genes exert ultimate power over our behaviour; in the above, they’re just delegating responsibility. This, AFAIK, just doesn’t gel with modern genetics.

Also, Cthulhu’s answer merits a repeat:

It’s not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.

your position and his are directly contradictory. either dawkins' hypothesis doesn't fit with other data (in which case you are claiming it has been tested and failed), or it fits with any conceivable set of data (in which case it must by definition fit precisely with modern genetics).

However, I still have a problem with the word ‘selfish’.

Selfishness is a human motivation, and a negative one at that. Ascribing a negative human motivation to genes personifies inert bits of cells, gives them some sort of intelligence and personality that simply isn’t there.

Now, I understand he may not literally mean that genes are ‘selfish’, that this is merely a shorthand. The problem is however, that his shorthand is incredibly influential, as are his books, and Dawkins has got to be careful of the words he chooses.

he does define the term, you know. for dawkins' purposes selfish refers to an entity acting in such a way as to favor its own welfare/chances of survival rather than that of any other entity. now, maybe you wish to reserve the word selfish for consciously motivated actions, rather than actions in the abstract. but what they other word does the job as well?

‘Selfish’ genes imply (as Dawkins has himself claimed before) inherently selfish humans

except dawkins comes out against that idea on page 2 of the book, and as a direct consequence of gene-level selection no less.

When you know you can't debate the merits of somebody's arguments, you attack them personally.

A lot of people think that because Dawkins is blunt and honest about what he thinks, this makes him "not nice." And because he is "not nice" he is somehow hurting his cause by failing to appropriately pander to the very people who are hostile to criticism of religion (and therefore are going to dislike his message anyhow).

Personally, I don't think Dawkins should care what such people think. I don't think he should bother trying to protect their feelings or make them feel comfortable. They aren't going to like what he has to say no matter what. He might as well just say it because then those of us who are interested in what he has to say will be able to get his message right away, without having to filter out all the standard obligatory reassurances to the superstitions. ("We'll be good little atheists, we respect you, don't worry, your God is lovely, have a super day!")

Dawkins and Ben Goldacre
http://www.badscience.net/
are kind of shafts of sunlight in Britain to me, it scares me that Tony Blair used to consult a 'spiritual guru' and nobody paid any attention.

What relevance is his personality to what he is saying?

When the tone and personality of the book are condescending and rude, it turns off the reader from the start. Too often, the important points are lost among all of the petty nonsense.

Plus, being rude is just not nice.

When the tone and personality of the book are condescending and rude, it turns off the reader from the start.

Speak for yourself. Some of my favorite books are snarky, rude, and actively insulting toward a great many people.


Too often, the important points are lost among all of the petty nonsense.

Only if you allow them to be. I can read and study Biblical texts, and address arguments or philosophy from the Bible in a fair manner, even though much of the Bible is extremely offensive, petty, and rude.

Speak for yourself. Some of my favorite books are snarky, rude, and actively insulting toward a great many people.

There we differ, then. ;)

Only if you allow them to be. I can read and study Biblical texts, and address arguments or philosophy from the Bible in a fair manner, even though much of the Bible is extremely offensive, petty, and rude.

Of course, and I've had polite conversations with many atheists, discussing ideas of god and such. I'm totally fine with that and, if anything, it's a good thing. But when the other side simply makes rude and impolite comments, the point of the discussion seems to get lost.

Oh, and of course parts of Bible are offensive, petty, and rude. Part of the reason I'm not a Christian (along with the whole "I wasn't raised to be Christian" part :p )

It's not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.

how is gene-centric selection untestable? it seems to me that dawkins specifically pointed out a series of differences in predictions between genes as the unit of selection and individuals, groups, and species, as well as evolutionary reasons to think genes are the right level just on principle.

There we differ, then. ;)

Which is fine. I'm glad there is such a wide range of books and authors out there, and I'm glad we all can find things we like to read. I just think it's stupid when people claim that nobody should be mean because they won't sell books. Sure they will. They'll sell lots of them. Mean people sell books all the time, and they sell books because lots of people like to read them.


Of course, and I've had polite conversations with many atheists, discussing ideas of god and such. I'm totally fine with that and, if anything, it's a good thing. But when the other side simply makes rude and impolite comments, the point of the discussion seems to get lost.

In this case, the "other side" isn't simply making rude and impolite comments. So it appears you don't have any beef with Dawkins.

Which is fine. I'm glad there is such a wide range of books and authors out there, and I'm glad we all can find things we like to read. I just think it's stupid when people claim that nobody should be mean because they won't sell books. Sure they will. They'll sell lots of them. Mean people sell books all the time, and they sell books because lots of people like to read them.

Of course, and I agree with you completely. It's like the argument that people have over censorship - just because you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold. If you don't like something, don't read it.

In this case, the "other side" isn't simply making rude and impolite comments. So it appears you don't have any beef with Dawkins.

I don't really know about that. At times, it seems to me, much of what Dawkins does is do that very thing. The God Delusion make a lot of interesting point regarding religion, but I found he also makes a lot of digs at people who do believe in religion, while almost being on some "high ground" of his own. A lot of people who I've talked to feel that way, so I don't exactly think I'm unique in thinking this (but, hey, you never know!). All in all, it's a bit of a turn-off for me, but, as you pointed out, people have different likes in what they want to read.

your position and his are directly contradictory. either dawkins' hypothesis doesn't fit with other data (in which case you are claiming it has been tested and failed), or it fits with any conceivable set of data (in which case it must by definition fit precisely with modern genetics).
Dawkins describes genes in a way which isn't in line with modern genetics, as well as, IIRC, claiming certain things about genes that would be difficult, if not impossible to prove scientifically. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

he does define the term, you know. for dawkins' purposes selfish refers to an entity acting in such a way as to favor its own welfare/chances of survival rather than that of any other entity. now, maybe you wish to reserve the word selfish for consciously motivated actions, rather than actions in the abstract. but what they other word does the job as well?
Genes don't 'act'. They don't have intelligence, and cannot decide actions to perform, nor can they ultimately influence our behaviour. They are inert pieces of matter inside cells. Ascribing negative human characteristics to these pieces of matter is ridiculous.

As to the word 'selfish' itself, it's an incredibly poor choice for Dawkins to make, considering the political/social ramifications that 'selfish' has. Yes, academics often use terms that mean something completely different in everyday language, and usually there isn't any problem with them doing so. But Dawkins is such a public figure that his use of 'selfish', and his confusing language which heavily implies that humans are inherently selfish, is a problem.

The onus isn't on myself to find a better term for Dawkins to describe competitive attitudes that organisms sometimes display, but choosing such an emotive term as 'selfishness', then using it in the title of his most prominent book, is horribly misguided.

except dawkins comes out against that idea on page 2 of the book, and as a direct consequence of gene-level selection no less.
To me, it seems he's suggesting that we are selfish, and this can be combated with education.

If anything, our disagreement suggests that Dawkins's writing is anything but clear.

Regarding the debate over atheism killing people, here is my opinion: Ideologies can be used for killing. Religions are ideologies. So are political philosophies like Communism and Nazism. Not all ideologies have been used to justify the deaths of others (I don't think that anyone has killed in the name of pacifism). But just because an ideology has been used to kill, that doesn't make it wrong. The ideology of freedom has been used to kill - take the medieval peasant revolts, or the American Revolution. The concept of universal morality was used to kill during the Nuremburg Trials, when Nazi war criminals were executed. These are ideologies we hold dear, and we have killed in the name of them.

I agree that people killed by freedom are just as dead as people killed by religion, but when I look at history my main objection to religion is that it has led so many people to be killed for such silly reasons. Killing someone because they oppose freedom is still wrong, but at least it's understandable; having Trinitarians and Unitarians killing each other over whether the Godhead is indivisible or not is just ridiculous examples include persecuting a whole race because their descendants alleged nailed some guy to a tree for saying how great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change; telling parents not to immunise their children against Polio because it's unislamic (and possibly a Christian/Jewish conspiracy to sterilise Muslim girls), not only putting their own children's lives at risk but giving the virus an opportunity to mutate and evolve; killing your neighbours because they think that an 8th century Arabian leader should have been succeeded by his son instead of his second in command; or taking your family to settle in occupied territory because a book written by bronze-age goat herders said it belongs to you.

For the love of Dawkins, if you're going to kill people then at least do it for a good reason!

Interesting, and yet, you look through Europe where there are countries where there is no official separation between church and state - and yet, they treat gays a lot better than the US. Scandinavia for example allows same sex marriage, in New Zealand we have same sex civil unions and adoptions - and we have Maori spiritually intertwined in our public procedures.

The net result? the US have 30million hard core nuts who have the country by the balls, we (who have no separation) find that those people make up only 0.7% of the voting population.

Your reasoning is flawed: the fact that the US has separation of church and state and lots of fundamentalists does not establish a causal link between the two. French Secularism is much stricter than US secularism and yet they are less religious than the UK (with its state church).

We leave publishing bullshit up to Christians and their "Discovery Institute," and to other crackpots.

Well you might have to start taking up the strain: the Discovery Institute have given up publishing bullshit and now they're just making whiny films about how crackpots are discriminated against by universities. :p

Do you have comprehension problems - or are you just plain stupid?

Pretty rich coming from somebody who just wrote:

Its naive to assume that as a piddly and pathetic life form that we are, we could possibly understand the complexity of the university.

Would you care to enlighten us as to whether we should attribute this to illiteracy or mental deficiency?

As a career scientist... I have to tell you that whoever told you that, was talking through their arse.

What? I'm only studying maths because they promised me crusades! I want crusades dammit!

In essence, Atheist 2.0 admits he or she has no concrete answers. All they're concerned about is the central rallying cry of the new atheistic philosophy: "We Honestly Don't Have The First Fucking Clue What's Out There. But Come On — You're So Not Even Close."

-Jay Pinkerton

Well you might have to start taking up the strain: the Discovery Institute have given up publishing bullshit and now they're just making whiny films about how crackpots are discriminated against by universities. :p

Seriously? *sigh* What a bunch of fucking tards.

What? I'm only studying maths because they promised me crusades! I want crusades dammit!

There there, what were you planning on using? Slide rules used to be excellent torture devices, but now that we have this thing called "Mathematica" it's obsolete weaponry. Unfortunately, both were only ever good for torturing math students. And physics students

Unfortunately, both were only ever good for torturing math students. And physics students
Unfortunately, the word ‘math’ was only ever good for torturing British English speakers. :p

I don't like Dawkins because he acts like an asshole, and I don't particularly care for assholes. I wouldn't like him any better if he were one of the, "There is a God and he will smite you down!" types. Just two different types of assholes, really.

There's also his whole, "We can investigate the supernatural with science," idea that he shares with Creationists and IDers. It simply isn't true. Whether the truly supernatural exists or not, the methods of science are confined to the natural. His claim that it should be investigated with science is no less spurious than that same claim made by the religious right.

When it comes right down to it, Dawkins has more in common with the fundamentalist religious right than he does with most theists or atheists.

In essence, Atheist 2.0 admits he or she has no concrete answers. All they're concerned about is the central rallying cry of the new atheistic philosophy: "We Honestly Don't Have The First Fucking Clue What's Out There. But Come On — You're So Not Even Close."

-Jay PinkertonIf that's v2.0, what the hell was v1?

Unfortunately, the word ‘math’ was only ever good for torturing British English speakers. :p

All too true :D

If that's v2.0, what the hell was v1?

*hides in shadows and hopes the Inquisition doesn't burn him at the stake*

That's v1.0

There’s also his whole, “We can investigate the supernatural with science,” idea that he shares with Creationists and IDers. It simply isn’t true. Whether the truly supernatural exists or not, the methods of science are confined to the natural. His claim that it should be investigated with science is no less spurious than that same claim made by the religious right.
I heartily agree that the supernatural, especially a god or gods, couldn’t be ‘investigated’ by science; there’s always a get-out clause left for the believer in the supernatural.

However, Dawkins makes a good point that a universe left to its own devices is very different from a universe where a god or gods are mucking about with miracles and suchlike, and that such a universe would have massive ramifications for science.

I just don’t know where he wants us to go with such an observation.

*hides in shadows and hopes the Inquisition doesn't burn him at the stake*

That's v1.0I'm positively shocked that my lack of age is showing. Usually feels like the opposite around here :)

*prints & pins on wall*

I heartily agree that the supernatural, especially a god or gods, couldn’t be ‘investigated’ by science...But why?

But why?
Perhaps ‘investigated’ was a poor choice of wording.

I meant that claims of supernatural beings, especially ones that supposedly exist outside of space-time, are hard to negate by empirical science, as believers can always cast doubt as to whether empirical science can even detect/fathom such beings.

That’s not to say that we can’t use scientific means to explain away phenomena that are attributed to supernatural beings. We just can’t ever conclusively explain away supernatural beings themselves, at least to the believer.

But why?

Because they are meta-physical. Science is the study of this physical world.

Dawkins describes genes in a way which isn't in line with modern genetics, as well as, IIRC, claiming certain things about genes that would be difficult, if not impossible to prove scientifically. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Genes don't 'act'. They don't have intelligence, and cannot decide actions to perform, nor can they ultimately influence our behaviour. They are inert pieces of matter inside cells. Ascribing negative human characteristics to these pieces of matter is ridiculous.

As to the word 'selfish' itself, it's an incredibly poor choice for Dawkins to make, considering the political/social ramifications that 'selfish' has. Yes, academics often use terms that mean something completely different in everyday language, and usually there isn't any problem with them doing so. But Dawkins is such a public figure that his use of 'selfish', and his confusing language which heavily implies that humans are inherently selfish, is a problem.

The onus isn't on myself to find a better term for Dawkins to describe competitive attitudes that organisms sometimes display, but choosing such an emotive term as 'selfishness', then using it in the title of his most prominent book, is horribly misguided.


To me, it seems he's suggesting that we are selfish, and this can be combated with education.

If anything, our disagreement suggests that Dawkins's writing is anything but clear.
Now, I have yet to read the Selfish Gene(It's on my list for when I get the cash), but if he does indeed clarify on the second page what he means by selfish, and people still don't understand, then that's their own damn problem. Judging a whole book on its title without reading it seems ridiculous to me.


There's also his whole, "We can investigate the supernatural with science," idea that he shares with Creationists and IDers. It simply isn't true. Whether the truly supernatural exists or not, the methods of science are confined to the natural. His claim that it should be investigated with science is no less spurious than that same claim made by the religious right.


Sure we can--the existence of pretty much any God except for the Deist God(which doesn't do miracles or intervene) is testable because said God's intervention in the world has measurable affects on the world. The effectiveness of prayer, for example, can be and has been tested. And it was found that people prayed for did no better in recovering from their hospital stays than those who were not prayed for. Indeed, people who knew they were in the prayer group actually had more complications than those who didn't know either way.

Admittedly, because it doesn't do anything, the Deist God is completely untestable, but there's not really any reason to believe in it, either.

Perhaps ‘investigated’ was a poor choice of wording.

I meant that claims of supernatural beings, especially ones that supposedly exist outside of space-time, are hard to negate by empirical science, as believers can always cast doubt as to whether empirical science can even detect/fathom such beings.

That’s not to say that we can’t use scientific means to explain away phenomena that are attributed to supernatural beings. We just can’t ever conclusively explain away supernatural beings themselves, at least to the believer.
I think that's a point that trips people up a lot.

I cannot disprove the idea that magical invisible pixies are the source of what we know as "electricity." I cannot disprove that your TV is powered by these pixies. The pixies are supernatural and therefore could be employing any of a million supernatural powers to confound my exclusively-natural scientific methods for investigating pixies.

However, I can provide you with a scientific explanation for electricity which does not in any way require magical invisible pixies. I can explain how your TV works without any pixie-related theorem. I can definitely DISPROVE the hypothesis that your television can only work because of magical invisible pixies, since I can provide a non-pixie explanation for how your TV could operate.

That's the limit of science. I cannot disprove God (nor do I particularly care to), but I can disprove many, many hypotheses ABOUT God. And it's a damn good thing, too, because modern medicine exists in no small part because of the brave scientists throughout history who tackled such God-related hypotheses as, "illness is caused by moral wickedness" and "prayer heals polio."

Because they are meta-physical. Science is the study of this physical world.If a god manifests in or interacts with the world and humans, then it's not metaphysical but physical. If a god gets a woman pregnant then thats for sure not metaphysical.
Rule: if it can be observed or otherwise sensed by humans then it's not metaphysical.

That's the limit of science. I cannot disprove God (nor do I particularly care to), but I can disprove many, many hypotheses ABOUT God.

Not with science. With logic, perhaps.

I think that's a point that trips people up a lot.

I cannot disprove the idea that magical invisible pixies are the source of what we know as "electricity." I cannot disprove that your TV is powered by these pixies. The pixies are supernatural and therefore could be employing any of a million supernatural powers to confound my exclusively-natural scientific methods for investigating pixies.

However, I can provide you with a scientific explanation for electricity which does not in any way require magical invisible pixies. I can explain how your TV works without any pixie-related theorem. I can definitely DISPROVE the hypothesis that your television can only work because of magical invisible pixies, since I can provide a non-pixie explanation for how your TV could operate.

That's the limit of science. I cannot disprove God (nor do I particularly care to), but I can disprove many, many hypotheses ABOUT God. And it's a damn good thing, too, because modern medicine exists in no small part because of the brave scientists throughout history who tackled such God-related hypotheses as, "illness is caused by moral wickedness" and "prayer heals polio."

Basically "I can't disprove God, just prove he is irrelevant" :D

If a god manifests in or interacts with the world and humans, then it's not metaphysical but physical. If a god gets a woman pregnant then thats for sure not metaphysical.
Rule: if it can be observed or otherwise sensed by humans then it's not metaphysical.

Firstly, I didn't realise you were actually referring to the biblical God. Secondly, how do you know something like an immaculate conception can be observed? How do you know that God has to use physical material means to do this, because if this were true he would not be omnipotent.

Not with science. With logic, perhaps.
I have personally disproven at least one hypothesis about God in the laboratory this week. That's science, baby! :D

I have personally disproven at least one hypothesis about God in the laboratory this week. That's science, baby! :D

Really? Which one and how?

I don't like Dawkins because he acts like an asshole, and I don't particularly care for assholes. I wouldn't like him any better if he were one of the, "There is a God and he will smite you down!" types. Just two different types of assholes, really.

Exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread.

Firstly, I didn't realising you were actually referring to the biblical God. Secondly, but how do you know something like an immaculate conception can be observed? How do you know that God has to use physical material means to do this, because if this were true he would not be omnipotent.1. I wasn't necessarily referring to the biblical God.
2. You don't know what immaculate conception means.
3. God has to use physical means to be sensed by humans, since humans cannot sense metaphysical stuff.

I meant that claims of supernatural beings, especially ones that supposedly exist outside of space-time, are hard to negate by empirical science, as believers can always cast doubt as to whether empirical science can even detect/fathom such beings.

you'll note that they only started claiming such things when it became obvious that the old "my god is bigger than yours and he'll prove it right now" method wasn't actually working out for them once we came up with better standards of evidence and experiment. back in the day they were absolutely convinced that we not only could, but had detected them repeatedly.

also note that if we let people get away with this sort of move, then anyone can sit comfortably secure in whatever they happen to whimsically think right now, regardless of the evidence. on any topic whatever. they can just keep tossing out ad hoc reasons why you can't trust your eyes, these microscopes, whatever, and eventually we run out of ways to show them to be wrong. doesn't mean that they aren't, or that their obfuscating practice is epistemically acceptable.

Why the hell would anyone practice fidelity to reason? It's an amorphous cultural and philosophical concept built on a body of assumptions that are unprovable (often even if you use circular logic) and it is, to be frank, rather simplistic and inefficient when it comes to genuine problem-solving.I quite like where it leads me. Better to jump down the rabbit hole of reason and strive to gain further understanding that works and can be defined and tested in as objective a manner as possible than waste my time in la-la-land. To put it simply, while it obviously does it for many others, I don't find ignorance bliss. I desire to rid myself of it.

As for the part about it being inefficient, could you step up this already ridiculously circular discussion by yet again using reason against reason and giving an example?

It's not any better than religion, just somewhat less entertaining. ;)Whatever floats your mind's boat. ;)

Really? Which one and how?
"Prayer mends wounds." It doesn't.

2. You don't know what immaculate conception means.


Yeah, I just remembered its the impregnation of Mary's mother, not Mary. But my point still stands.


3. God has to use physical means to be sensed by humans, since humans cannot sense metaphysical stuff.

How do you know we can't sense metaphysical stuff?

"Prayer mends wounds." It doesn't.

Did you show that prayer doesn't, or that there is no evidence that it does? They are, annoyingly, different things.

Did you show that prayer doesn't, or that there is no evidence that it does? They are, annoyingly, different things.
I showed that praying does not cause a wound to heal.

I've also shown, on many many occasions, that prayer is not required for healing of wounds, and that prayer does not increase the speed of healing of wounds which do heal.

Seriously, just give up on this one. There are MANY hypotheses about God which can be disproven by science. Why do you think the Catholic Church was so fond of murdering scientists?

Yeah, I just remembered its the impregnation of Mary's mother, not Mary. But my point still stands.
No, it's not that either.

I showed that praying does not cause a wound to heal.


Again, it would be impossible to disprove something like this because you would have to ensure that this person actually had real faith which is supposedly what you need to have in order to perform healing of wounds and similar phenomena. You could have easily just have proven that the praying person had insufficient faith. It would also not be possible to prove that prayer never works because I assume you didn't use several billion people in your experiment. Thus, scientifically at least, what you have really shown is this:

The people who attempted to heal wounds by prayer were unsuccessful.

This does not show that it will universally never work, whoever you are.

No, it's not that either.

From wiki:

The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's womb

Now, I have yet to read the Selfish Gene(It's on my list for when I get the cash), but if he does indeed clarify on the second page what he means by selfish, and people still don't understand, then that's their own damn problem. Judging a whole book on its title without reading it seems ridiculous to me.
On the second and third pages of Selfish Gene, Dawkins writes:

"Like ruthless Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. That entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness... To build a society in which individuals co-operate generously towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, for we are born selfish."

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. London, Oxford University Press, 1976.

This, I believe, is quite clearly a statement that Dawkins believes genes, and ourselves, act in a selfish way; selfish in the sense of a negative human motivation, not some abstract term that he has come up with.


they can just keep tossing out ad hoc reasons why you can't trust your eyes, these microscopes, whatever, and eventually we run out of ways to show them to be wrong. doesn't mean that they aren't, or that their obfuscating practice is epistemically acceptable.
Oh certainly. I wasn't defending their position by any means. I'd posit that the point at which believers start using their Get Out Of Jail Free cards, philosophy can step in. Not necessarily solve all problems, but it's in a better position to tackle such fallacies.

As an aside, I'd say that the increased use of the believer's excuse may, partly, be down to science's position in the last few decades as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Many scientists have pushed for all areas knowledge to be based on the scientific method; the swing of the humanities to be known as the 'social sciences', with politics, sociology, et al being pushed to come up with scientific laws, is a good example.

This doesn't excuse the shoddy believer's excuse, but it may well have contributed to its proliferation.

Now, I have yet to read the Selfish Gene(It's on my list for when I get the cash), but if he does indeed clarify on the second page what he means by selfish, and people still don't understand, then that's their own damn problem. Judging a whole book on its title without reading it seems ridiculous to me.

well, you have to get all the way to page 4 (of my 1999 reissue) before he explicitly says,

"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect. 'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as to seem negligible... It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioral, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives... My definition is concerned only with whether the effect of an act is to lower or raise the survival prospects of the presumed altruist and the survival prospects of the presumed beneficiary."

back on pages 2-3 he is mainly concerned with distancing himself from making an ought out of the book's is, and explicitly mentioning that gene-level selection opens up a limited pathway for individual-level altruism (which has otherwise been something of a problem, evolutionarily).


i can sorta see the point that 'selfishness' might not make the best word for it as it could be mistakenly thought to be ascribing powers that don't exist. but given our rampant use of metaphor and personification in every aspect of life, the complaint rings hollow. and really, we just don't have a word for the thing in question that works better than 'selfish'.

how is gene-centric selection untestable? it seems to me that dawkins specifically pointed out a series of differences in predictions between genes as the unit of selection and individuals, groups, and species, as well as evolutionary reasons to think genes are the right level just on principle.
I don't recall him doing that, and I've unfortunately lost my copy of the book so I can't check. If you could give an example of one of those predictions it'd be nice.

How do you know we can't sense metaphysical stuff?Oxymoron?

Oxymoron?

Not necessarily. Isn't the soul truly what we are according to Judeo-Christian beliefs? The soul is metaphysical.

Again, it would be impossible to disprove something like this because you would have to ensure that this person actually had real faith which is supposedly what you need to have in order to perform heal wounds.

No, I wouldn't, since that was not the hypothesis in question.


You could have easily just have proven that the praying person had insufficient faith. It would also not be possible to prove that prayer never works because I assume you didn't use several billion people in your experiment.

I never claimed to be addressing those hypotheses.


Thus, scientifically at least, what you have really shown is this:

The people who attempted heal wounds by prayer were unsuccessful.

This does not show that it will universally never work, whoever you are.
I know that you, personally, may have your own hypotheses about God, and that's lovely. But it's not what I was talking about.

One hypothesis about God is that wounds will be healed when you pray for them to heal. This is a hypothesis posed by some, but not all, god-believers. It is worth noting that a good number of god-believers think this particular hypothesis is a load of crap.

The hypothesis that God will heal wounds if you pray for them to be healed has now been disproven. It is but one of the many God-related hypotheses that science has addressed over the ages.

This is like how some god-believers once hypothesized that God made the Sun to orbit around the Earth. Science said, "Um, not so much," and lo there was heliocentrism. Not all god-believers pose(d) that particular hypothesis, of course. But it was a hypothesis that was rejected through science.

Seriously, really, please, just drop it. Science can and does disprove many hypotheses about god/God/gods. Science cannot disprove all such hypotheses, since many are supernatural by definition and are not testable, but that doesn't mean science cannot address any of them.

Not necessarily. Isn't the soul truly what we are according to Judeo-Christian beliefs? The soul is metaphysical.The what?

From wiki:

The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's wombThe significant part emphasized. She was born without the sin of Eve and Adam that otherwise is inherited by every human (according to Catholic dogma).

The significant part emphasized. She was born without the sin of Eve and Adam that otherwise is inherited by every human (according to Catholic dogma).
I'm glad you added the bit in parenthesis UB, otherwise we'd all think you were a Catholic. :p

The hypothesis that God will heal wounds if you pray for them to be healed has now been disproven. It is but one of the many God-related hypotheses that science has addressed over the ages.


You have dis-proven that not just anyone religious person can heal wounds through prayer, but this is not and never was a widespread religious belief anyway.

The significant part emphasized. She was born without the sin of Eve and Adam that otherwise is inherited by every human (according to Catholic dogma).

I knew that, just forgot that its talking about Mary not being born with original sin, and not Jesus.

Whoa, this thread has grown while I've been asleep. The debate has moved on, but I still feel the need to respond...

Originally Posted by Me, regading Dawkins' claim that people who say they do not believe in evolution are ignorant, stupid or insane.,
That is an accurate statement, although 'ignorant' is a bit pejorative. I'd have gone with 'ill-informed'.

Well, considering that Dawkins is making the 'leap of faith' that randomness results in what we have today - I tend to err on the side of Murphys Law.

Putting you in the ignorant/ill-informed category, since you are following the 'evolution says it all happened by chance, that can't be right, evolution is wrong and silly' fallacy.

The what?Oi! Quit it, you line thieving scum! :p

Sure we can--the existence of pretty much any God except for the Deist God(which doesn't do miracles or intervene) is testable because said God's intervention in the world has measurable affects on the world.

Measurable effects, yes. However, science gives us no means by which to separate "effects of intervention by the supernatural" and "effects of the way the universe works. The methods of science are confined by its own axioms and by the universe itself. If something exists outside of the universe - outside of the rules which govern events in the universe - science is not a useful tool in measuring it.

The effectiveness of prayer, for example, can be and has been tested. And it was found that people prayed for did no better in recovering from their hospital stays than those who were not prayed for. Indeed, people who knew they were in the prayer group actually had more complications than those who didn't know either way.

Actually, there have been numerous studies on this, and numerous results. In the end, it's really rather inconclusive. However, either way, that doesn't test the supernatural. It correlates the actions of human beings (praying) with the symptoms of patients. Nothing in the study actually tests for or measures any actual supernatural intervention. A deity or deities could be making people worse or making them better or simply sitting back and not caring about the prayers, and those studies wouldn't give us any indication whatsoever.

Admittedly, because it doesn't do anything, the Deist God is completely untestable, but there's not really any reason to believe in it, either.

And supernatural entity is completely untestable. Anything which lies outside of the universe or is not bound by its rules is completely untestable. That's just the truth of the matter.

Science only deals in natural explanations, both because the natural is what it was designed to investigate and because its own axioms restrict it to such explanations. This does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural - or even intervention by the supernatural (which, to the methods of science, would just look like an as-yet-unexplained part of the natural). Trying to test for the supernatural using science is like trying to measure length with an ammeter. It's a tool that wasn't designed for that type of measurement, and simply isn't useful for it.

Oi! Quit it, you line thieving scum! :pGo play in traffic. :rolleyes:

You have dis-proven that not just anyone religious person can heal wounds through prayer, but this is not and never was a widespread religious belief anyway.Who has healed wounds with prayer??

It's not testable. He presents no method by which is could be falsified. As such, it, by definition, is unscientific.
This is a joke - do you realize how much of science is in effect untestable? How does one test the validity of ceteris paribus (and how many theories are discarded as opposed to an invocation of the fact that ceteris were imparibus?) Of the range of application of a theory and what constitutes true variables? Some things essential to science are simply not testable and must be taken as axioms - are these 'unscientific'?

This isn't to say Dawkins' theories are not testable, but this strict adherence to Popper is sometimes funny.

Seriously, really, please, just drop it. Science can and does disprove many hypotheses about god/God/gods. Science cannot disprove all such hypotheses, since many are supernatural by definition and are not testable, but that doesn't mean science cannot address any of them.

Not exactly. Science can and does disprove hypotheses about the universe that are made by believers in god/God/god. Those hypotheses are generally attributed to the workings of a deity, but they are hypotheses about the universe - which is, of course, within the realm of science, rather than about the deity itself.

Not exactly. Science can and does disprove hypotheses about the universe that are made by believers in god/God/god. Those hypotheses are generally attributed to the workings of a deity, but they are hypotheses about the universe - which is, of course, within the realm of science, rather than about the deity itself.

distinction without a difference

Not exactly. Science can and does disprove hypotheses about the universe that are made by believers in god/God/god. Those hypotheses are generally attributed to the workings of a deity, but they are hypotheses about the universe - which is, of course, within the realm of science, rather than about the deity itself.
I think this is a semantic problem, probably due to the fact that I don't believe god/God/gods are external to the universe.

Many believers make hypotheses about their god/God/gods. They say, "My God is X" or "My God does X." For the sake of argument, I accept their terms and their perspective. Now, I believe that their god is just their own invention, and it's nothing more or less than a human mechanism for relating to the universe. So from my point of view, yes...the hypotheses are about the universe. But I am willing to debate them on their terms when they make a hypothesis about their god/God/gods which can be empirically tested. I give them a head start, so to speak, by accepting for the sake of the hypothesis that we're talking about God.

I don't recall him doing that, and I've unfortunately lost my copy of the book so I can't check. If you could give an example of one of those predictions it'd be nice.

altruism, for one thing. it is rather difficult to come up with an evolutionary method for creating altruistic behavior without recourse to either genes as the unit of selection or group selection. and we have other reasons to be suspicious of group selection. so, the gene-centric view predicts the existence of altruism in certain circumstances, while the individual-centric view predicts such to be either impossible or inherently unstable.

distinction without a difference

No, it isn't. Suppose I claim that Bob is this homeless guy I know and he's really evil and he murdered Suzy. Someone else goes to investigate and finds that Suzy is alive. They have showed that the claim that anyone at all murdered Suzy is false. However, they have not disproven the existence of a homeless guy I know named Bob or that Bob is a really evil guy.

Likewise, science has shown the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth is false - so they have disproven the idea that a deity makes the sun revolve around the Earth. However, that doesn't speak at all to the existence or non-existence of a deity, or what the attributes of said deity might be.

Note: Of course, in this case, you could then go back and test for the existence of Bob, so it isn't a perfect analogy.


I think this is a semantic problem, probably due to the fact that I don't believe god/God/gods are external to the universe.

Any deity put forth as the creator of the universe or as "pre-universe" (in quotes because time itself may have little to no meaning outside of the universe itself) would, of necessity, be external to the universe, as it would have existence that did not depend on the universe.

You don't personally believe in such a deity, but the concept itself requires an existence external to the universe.

Many believers make hypotheses about their god/God/gods. They say, "My God is X" or "My God does X." For the sake of argument, I accept their terms and their perspective. Now, I believe that their god is just their own invention, and it's nothing more or less than a human mechanism for relating to the universe. So from my point of view, yes...the hypotheses are about the universe. But I am willing to debate them on their terms when they make a hypothesis about their god/God/gods which can be empirically tested. I give them a head start, so to speak, by accepting for the sake of the hypothesis that we're talking about God.

Those hypotheses are, from any point of view, about the universe. It is about a deity or deities as well, of course, but we can only empirically test the part of it that is about the universe and thus can only disprove the part that of it that is about the universe.

Note: This is only true if the deity is not also confined by the universe. There are religions with deities/spirits/etc. that are believed to be confined by the universe and its mechanisms, and thus could be investigated empirically given the right

Which is fine. I'm glad there is such a wide range of books and authors out there, and I'm glad we all can find things we like to read. I just think it's stupid when people claim that nobody should be mean because they won't sell books. Sure they will. They'll sell lots of them. Mean people sell books all the time, and they sell books because lots of people like to read them.

True. If Ann Coulter is allowed to publish books, Richard Dawkins certainly is.

EDIT: Hey, my 1,000th post! I was kind of hoping for something more insightful than saying there exists someone who is smarter and less offensive than Coulter, but I'll take what I can get.

In terms of founding morality, the two are indistinguishable.
No, they are not. In the Abrahamic religions, God is seen as the creator of everything, that includes morality.

So that suggests that even if God does make the rules, since He made morality a matter of reason one of His rules is, "I don't make the rules of morality." Reason is independent of anyone's whim.
You continue to treat the hypothetical God as a super-wizard. If He made the rest of the universe, God also made reason. To claim reason is independent of God is to claim that it is its own entity, that has existed for all time.
In other words, it's another God.

So I'm still right.
Oh, okay. Gee, now I feel silly about disagreeing with you, you being right and all.

I've personally always wondered why those are necessarily a bad thing; they can be in some cases, but in the most basic sense a lot of things are in infinite cycles that have no real beginning or end.

They are "bad" because the can never establish truth.

What would you want to be the cut off line between establishing knowledge through circularity or dogmatically and just saying "A wizard did it"?

In essence, Atheist 2.0 admits he or she has no concrete answers. All they're concerned about is the central rallying cry of the new atheistic philosophy: "We Honestly Don't Have The First Fucking Clue What's Out There. But Come On — You're So Not Even Close."

-Jay Pinkerton

That means atheism is nothing more than a reaction against theism. If you claim to have no answers, or any way of finding the answers, all it is is a refutation of others beliefs. This was my complaint about Dawkins in the first place.

That means atheism is nothing more than a reaction against theism.No, it's the conclusion that it's better not to speculate if you have no data to base any speculation on, and that it is in fact rather stupid and irrational to speculate.

Knowledge fails because it simply cannot be its own basis: we cannot know that we know, so how can there be any knowledge in the first place?

externalism ftw!

If morality is subjective, then divine command theory is even more absurd than it is if morality is objective.

Such a divine entity would not need to deal in aggregates and universals alone.

Indeed it is not. That is precisely why it can reach truth... if anything can.

That fact says nothing about its ability to reach truth.

No, it's the conclusion that it's better not to speculate if you have no data to base any speculation on, and that it is in fact rather stupid and irrational to speculate.

In other words, it concludes that theism is wrong.
That's what I said.

No, they are not. In the Abrahamic religions, God is seen as the creator of everything, that includes morality.

Maybe, but not in the "God can dictate morality on a whim" sense. Most of theology got past that a long time ago.

You continue to treat the hypothetical God as a super-wizard.

In terms of morality, He is indistinguishable from one. The simple fact of God telling me that killing babies is right does not make it so.

Perhaps if God changed the fundamental nature of moral reason, the result would be different. But that is immaterial, because right now moral reason is what it is, and you cannot give me a reason to disregard its conclusions in favor of God's whim.

Such a divine entity would not need to deal in aggregates and universals alone.

No, and undoubtedly such a divine entity could make me believe that a given act was right.

So? As long as I think it is wrong, "God says otherwise" is still not a convincing reason.

That fact says nothing about its ability to reach truth.

It says that the method recognizes the independent nature of truth... that truth requires justification, not merely causal acceptance.

Maybe, but not in the "God can dictate morality on a whim" sense. Most of theology got past that a long time ago.
Can you cite any theologians?
I'm not saying God does dictate morality based on his whims, but it is not impossible.



In terms of morality, He is indistinguishable from one. The simple fact of God telling me that killing babies is right does not make it so.

Perhaps if God changed the fundamental nature of moral reason, the result would be different. But that is immaterial, because right now moral reason is what it is, and you cannot give me a reason to disregard its conclusions in favor of God's whim.
That's exactly what he would do. You think God is like the President, he has an annual "State of the Universe" address and tells all his creation what moral laws he would like to see added or changed? No, he changes them. Moral reason is, along with everything else, created by God.

In other words, it concludes that theism is wrong.
That's what I said.But there is a difference between being wrong in the contents and being wrong in the method.

Haha!

This is one of those moments where I realize I'm a huge nerd. I actually did the two-second math on that to see why it was wrong.

:D

Nah, your calculations are just wrong... maybe you were dealing with something that was only a one in 998,000 chance, or a one in a million-and-three chance. Both of those would be incredibly unlikely, obviously.

After all, when did you ever hear someone say 'it a one in a-million-and-three chance, but it just might work'.

Pratchett FTW. :)


You win a Garlick cookie. :)

That means atheism is nothing more than a reaction against theism. If you claim to have no answers, or any way of finding the answers, all it is is a refutation of others beliefs. This was my complaint about Dawkins in the first place.

There is an assumption that there is a god. Atheists either fail to make that assumption (the Implicit form), or construct an opposite position (the Explicit form).

Does that make it a 'reaction against theism'? Only in as much as the default is considered to BE theism.

My atheism doesn't care if you believe in any gods, I simply don't.

There is an assumption that there is a god. Atheists either fail to make that assumption (the Implicit form), or construct an opposite position (the Explicit form).

Does that make it a 'reaction against theism'? Only in as much as the default is considered to BE theism.

My atheism doesn't care if you believe in any gods, I simply don't.

I have a few quibbles about semantics. Just as theism is consciously believing there is a God(s), I think atheism is consciously believing there isn't (what you would call the explicit form). Otherwise, all inanimate objects are atheist because they don't believe in a god.

And, at least among humans, I think theism is the default position. All societies have some concept of the supernatural, and conscious atheism (explicit) came only after theism.
Maybe I shouldn't say atheism is a reaction, that makes it sound like a knee-jerk. However, atheism is a...response to something, theism. If theism didn't exist, atheism would be unnecessary.

Can you cite any theologians?

Off the top of my head, Thomas Aquinas... and every other theistic philosopher who has found a basis for ethics beyond the whim of God. That's a very long list.

Moral reason is, along with everything else, created by God.

That still has nothing to do with what I said.

Look, say I conclude with moral reason that killing babies is wrong. You say, "But God says otherwise!" Perhaps I should care in that my moral reasoning may be flawed, and I should revisit my argument... but if my argument is solid, then even if God in fact declares that I am wrong, nothing changes: that in and of itself is not a reason to reject my moral position.

If reason determines morality, then God does not... not directly anyway, not by whim, not by mere command. Perhaps He can change the dictates of reason, but His command is still not a reason to reject those dictates.

"Cultural and philosophical"?

Cultural in that reason in the West is a product of Greek culture, with some refining done by the Renaissance philosophers, and more recently, modern logicians.

Philosophical in that...do I even have to explain?

At its weakest it is natural and biological... rather essential to human thought.

The natural functions of reason are...what exactly? Plenty of peoples around the world seem quite capable of eschewing it. Isn't that why folks like Dawkins are interested in spreading their good news?

"Proof" only has meaning in the context of reason.

Deny reason, and you deny that anything you have just said is in the slightest way relevant or intelligible. Deny reason, and you reject what is in effect a necessary assumption of human thought... putting yourself completely outside the context of an argument like this one.

It may be right to do so; I have not demonstrated that reason works. But if we are trying to find an answer to the question, we have no other means. We cannot justify except rationally. Everything else is not a justification at all, it is just convenience and whim.

Welcome to the clear and murky waters of meta-philosophy.

It's precisely my contention that in examining reason without holding belief in it or any other paradigm, the choice for reason seems to be convenience and whim to the same degree that the choice for Taoism or science or nihilism would be.

It is the only means we could ever possibly have.

You're so cute when you're dogmatic. :)

I quite like where it leads me. Better to jump down the rabbit hole of reason and strive to gain further understanding that works and can be defined and tested in as objective a manner as possible than waste my time in la-la-land. To put it simply, while it obviously does it for many others, I don't find ignorance bliss. I desire to rid myself of it.

So do I. And more, I desire to help others rid themselves of the most pernicious kinds of ignorance. In particular, ignorance of the weaknesses of their own methodologies and beliefs. I helpfully try to provide this service for both the devout and the irreligious, the monk and the philosopher, the child and the elder.

As for the part about it being inefficient, could you step up this already ridiculously circular discussion by yet again using reason against reason and giving an example?

Already did, though with another poster. What can I say, I enjoy irony.

But since you so kindly referred to testing...how many failures do you have to get in the testing process before you start to wonder if you're being efficient?

:D

Nah, your calculations are just wrong... maybe you were dealing with something that was only a one in 998,000 chance, or a one in a million-and-three chance. Both of those would be incredibly unlikely, obviously.

After all, when did you ever hear someone say 'it a one in a-million-and-three chance, but it just might work'.

Oooo, yet another deliciously nerdy response. It's just too bad I'm straight and you're married.

I have a few quibbles about semantics. Just as theism is consciously believing there is a God(s), I think atheism is consciously believing there isn't (what you would call the explicit form). Otherwise, all inanimate objects are atheist because they don't believe in a god.

And, at least among humans, I think theism is the default position. All societies have some concept of the supernatural, and conscious atheism (explicit) came only after theism.
Maybe I shouldn't say atheism is a reaction, that makes it sound like a knee-jerk. However, atheism is a...response to something, theism. If theism didn't exist, atheism would be unnecessary.

I don't think this is strictly true.

You've conflated two concepts as though they were equal - the idea of 'the supernatural' and 'belief in god'. Not all cultures have 'gods'. Some have gods, some have spirits... some find other ways to explain what they can (and can't) explain. More cultures have stories about 'fairies', than about gods.

There is a special exception being claimed for theism, that apparently isn't made for 'fairies', ghosts, aliens - or any of the other things we can't verify. That could be because we don't (usually) claim goblins as our justification for butchery.

I'd say the natural default - REAL default - IS a form of implicit atheism... we simply don't give a fuck either way until someone brings up their pet 'god theory'. The current default is a cultural default - and it is that cultural norm that forces us to consider the divide between the atheist and the theist.

Oooo, yet another deliciously nerdy response. It's just too bad I'm straight and you're married.

Hey! What if we pretend I'm straight, and you're married... no, wait...

No, and undoubtedly such a divine entity could make me believe that a given act was right.

So? As long as I think it is wrong, "God says otherwise" is still not a convincing reason.

You continue to assume that a divine creator is as bound by moral reason rather than vice versa.

God is not merely bound to saying this or that is right, God can also also make this or that right.

It says that the method recognizes the independent nature of truth... that truth requires justification, not merely causal acceptance.

But it does not imply accuracy.

God is not merely bound to saying this or that is right, God can also also make this or that right.

Maybe. So?

God "mak" this or that right is not something He can do by whim. He can only do so by altering the independent moral standard. Him saying or believing "x is wrong" is not a reason to believe x is wrong. He actually has to [i]create that reason.

But it does not imply accuracy.

Indeed it does not.

Amazing, I agree with Free Soviets on Dawkins and Soheran on reason. :eek:

Cultural in that reason in the West is a product of Greek culture, with some refining done by the Renaissance philosophers, and more recently, modern logicians.

Philosophical in that...do I even have to explain?

Yes, you do, because you have not justified the contention you must necessarily support: that reason is a product of culture and philosophy.

Yes, Greek philosophers talked about reason, as have philosophers since... and our understanding of reason is influenced by them. But reason is no more a "product" of that than the empirical world is a product of science.

Plenty of peoples around the world seem quite capable of eschewing it.

I have no doubt that skeptics of a particular mindset are capable of uttering the words "I deny reason."

I am much less certain that they can actually excise what is in effect an necessary principle of human thought... not without not thinking, which, like I said, is merely to forget about justification altogether, not to find an "alternative means" of justifying things.

That is not to say, of course, that we can never be mistaken. But that is a different matter.

Isn't that why folks like Dawkins are interested in spreading their good news?

Not at all... if people like Dawkins thought that their opposition actually "eschewed reason", they would realize that rational argument does about as much as barking at them would.

The very existence of this thread proves that assumption wrong.

It's precisely my contention that in examining reason without holding belief in it or any other paradigm, the choice for reason seems to be convenience and whim to the same degree that the choice for Taoism or science or nihilism would be.

You can't actually say that without assuming reason. In fact, you can't even say that if you do assume reason... because you could always also simultaneously assume its opposite, which would work just as well to make nonsense of whatever argument you want to construct.

You can only construct an intelligible argument of that sort if you are a being, and are speaking to beings, for whom reason is something like a necessary norm of thought... a manner of thinking that cannot be escaped. Which nicely demolishes your argument, since none of the other choices, independent of rational justification, are of the same character.

Which is kinda the amusing point, the assumption that if Dawkins was just "nice" then it'd all be ok. Atheists, agnostics, and general non religious diests have been "nice" for a very long time. Nice has gotten us as a whole exactly jack shit. "Nice" has gotten us marginalized. "Nice" has gotten us god in the pledge and the currency of a supposed secular nation. "Nice" has had our views marginalized and rediculed. "Nice" has accomplished nothing.

And yet people suggest dawkins should be "nice". What will nice get him? He'll still be disagreed with the by the same people. Fuck this expectation of servile atheists who tiptoe around their belief structure, lest they offend the delicate sensibilities of the overwhelming majority. Dawkins isn't trying to convert anybody, he isn't trying to convince the evangelical right. That's a lost cause and he knows it.

He's just saying as he feels, and if that truly offends the religious right, well it's damn time they get offended. Dawkins isn't nice. Good for him. Let me repeat what I said earlier in this thread:
I'm sorry, maybe it's the teacher in me, but the excuse of "Well JOHNNY DID IT TOO!" does not seem to be a valid reason for being an ass.

Yes, you do, because you have not justified the contention you must necessarily support: that reason is a product of culture and philosophy.

Yes, Greek philosophers talked about reason, as have philosophers since... and our understanding of reason is influenced by them. But reason is no more a "product" of that than the empirical world is a product of science.

So are you defining reason as being merely "human thought" or some equivalent?

I have no doubt that skeptics of a particular mindset are capable of uttering the words "I deny reason."

I am much less certain that they can actually excise what is in effect an necessary principle of human thought... not without not thinking, which, like I said, is merely to forget about justification altogether, not to find an "alternative means" of justifying things.

Isn't that precisely the question, though, whether reason is as you suggest a natural and biological item or a cultural and philosophical one?

Not at all... if people like Dawkins thought that their opposition actually "eschewed reason", they would realize that rational argument does about as much as barking at them would.

The very existence of this thread proves that assumption wrong.

Will not some people turn and run if the dog barks, and an irrational person become otherwise if he be trained in rational exercises?

You can't actually say that without assuming reason. In fact, you can't even say that if you do assume reason... because you could always also simultaneously assume its opposite, which would work just as well to make nonsense of whatever argument you want to construct.

You can only construct an intelligible argument of that sort if you are a being, and are speaking to beings, for whom reason is something like a necessary norm of thought... a manner of thinking that cannot be escaped. Which nicely demolishes your argument, since none of the other choices, independent of rational justification, are of the same character.

Here you just seem to be assuming the correctness of your understanding of reason without justifying it. Which, I'm well aware, is what I did as well.

Of course, since I have no interest in trying to uphold the version of reason you prefer, it ultimately matters little to me. It just interests me when those most interested in being rational seem to have trouble doing it on the most basic of levels.

So are you defining reason as being merely "human thought" or some equivalent?

That was not a definition, it was a description.

Reason is not defined as human thought. It merely characterizes human thought.

Isn't that precisely the question, though, whether reason is as you suggest a natural and biological item or a cultural and philosophical one?

Yeah, that's the question. And to answer it, I referenced a very common observation, that in this very argument has been affirmed: that skeptics of reason themselves routinely employ it in their arguments.

and an irrational person become otherwise if he be trained in rational exercises?

An irrational person will never become rational, except perhaps through mental development.

A person who believes irrational things can be convinced otherwise only if that person is rational. Otherwise, we have no reason to expect him or her to respond to the rational arguments we present.

Here you just seem to be assuming the correctness of your understanding of reason without justifying it.

Then you have severely misread what I said.

I simply pointed out that our use of rationality is suggestive not of a mere assumption, that can be accepted or rejected, but rather of a fundamental norm of (human) thought.

I'm sorry, maybe it's the teacher in me, but the excuse of "Well JOHNNY DID IT TOO!" does not seem to be a valid reason for being an ass.

I don't know... being a bit smug and abrasive doesn't come close to the god-hates-fags, burn-in-hell, Chick tract, picketing-funerals, the-end-is-near, marrying-children-to-their-second-cousins extremes of those to whom he might be compared...

That was not a definition, it was a description.

Reason is not defined as human thought. It merely characterizes human thought.

Hm. If there are irrational persons, to what degree is reason genuinely characteristic of human thought?

Yeah, that's the question. And to answer it, I referenced a very common observation, that in this very argument has been affirmed: that skeptics of reason themselves routinely employ it in their arguments.

Have you ever used a form of argument that employs the thing you are critiquing? For example, using Christian theology in a debate against a Christian? Sometimes, in order to most blatantly show the problems with a view, you have to use the view itself in the demonstration.

An irrational person will never become rational, except perhaps through mental development.

A person who believes irrational things can be convinced otherwise only if that person is rational. Otherwise, we have no reason to expect him or her to respond to the rational arguments we present.

How does such mental development occur? It seems to me that if we could locate the cause of the transition from being an inherently irrational person to being a rational person, we would find the source of reason.

Then you have severely misread what I said.

I simply pointed out that our use of rationality is suggestive not of a mere assumption, that can be accepted or rejected, but rather of a fundamental norm of (human) thought.

Ah, well in that case I very correctly understood what you said, and we are simply at an impasse. I'll just take my leave of our debate, then.

Always a pleasure, Soheran. :)

I don't know... being a bit smug and abrasive doesn't come close to the god-hates-fags, burn-in-hell, Chick tract, picketing-funerals, the-end-is-near, marrying-children-to-their-second-cousins extremes of those to whom he might be compared...
Are we talking about them? Are we debating their screwed up viewpoints? No, we're talking about Dawkins and you are giving me the same excuse.

If you added a little whine to it, I'd assume it would be coming from one of my 3rd grade students, "But sensei...!"

Are we talking about them? Are we debating their screwed up viewpoints? No, we're talking about Dawkins and you are giving me the same excuse.

If you added a little whine to it, I'd assume it would be coming from one of my 3rd grade students, "But sensei...!"

"They burnt us at the stake, persecuted us down centuries, continue to push to legislate their beliefs as the laws of the land, try to remove science from the classroom and replace it with their crap-theology, and you're putting ME in detention for calling him a shithead?"

Yeah, good luck with that.

Off the top of my head, Thomas Aquinas... and every other theistic philosopher who has found a basis for ethics beyond the whim of God. That's a very long list.
Aquinas said that God could not do something illogical (and he had a very strict definition of logic). For example, God could not make a four-sided triangle. However, God can say what a triangle is. Because he exists outside of time, not only could he redefine a triangle to be four-sided shape, he could make a triangle a shape which has always had four sides.[/QUOTE]





Look, say I conclude with moral reason that killing babies is wrong. You say, "But God says otherwise!" Perhaps I should care in that my moral reasoning may be flawed, and I should revisit my argument... but if my argument is solid, then even if God in fact declares that I am wrong, nothing changes: that in and of itself is not a reason to reject my moral position.

If reason determines morality, then God does not... not directly anyway, not by whim, not by mere command. Perhaps He can change the dictates of reason, but His command is still not a reason to reject those dictates.
You keep saying that, and so I think we both disagree on something fundamental, I'm not sure what exactly. Here is my position, as clear as I can make it:

1. Morality is determined by reason.*
2. Reason is determined by God.
3. Therefore, morality is determined by God.

I'm guessing you and I have different views on the validity of the second statement, but if not, please say what you do have different views with.

* For the sake of argument. I'm not sure I believe this entirely, but you seem to, and it makes sense.

Hm. If there are irrational persons, to what degree is reason genuinely characteristic of human thought?

Because irrational persons lack the mental capacity for "human thought" insofar as it is justificatory.

I argue that human thought, insofar as it is concerned with justifying our behaviors or our beliefs, is necessarily rational thought, that is to say, it is concerned with reasons whose validity is a matter of cohering to a rational framework. A human being without the mental capacity to ask the question "Is my action or belief justified?" or without the mental capacity to provide any kind of answer to that question could be irrational without contradicting that statement.

Have you ever used a form of argument that employs the thing you are critiquing? For example, using Christian theology in a debate against a Christian?

Yes, in two kinds of cases: to show a contradiction within the view (say, the argument from evil), and to convince someone of something on bases that they accept but I do not (say, citing Biblical verses to dissuade a Christian or Jew from a particular belief or course of action.)

Both of these kinds of arguments rest on reason: the first rests on the principle of non-contradiction, and the second on simple rational inference ("The Bible is true", "the Bible says x", "therefore, x must true.")

If you seek to prove that I am inconsistent by affirming reason despite not having any rational justification for doing so, you must not only assume reason for the sake of argument (to demonstrate that reason dictates that everything, including reason, be rationally justified) but also must assume that inconsistency makes my view wrong.

Now, of course, you may insist that I would insist that inconsistency makes my view wrong, even if you do not--but this merely carries the problem to another step. So what?

How does such mental development occur?

Naturally.

Ah, well in that case I very correctly understood what you said, and we are simply at an impasse.

But what I said was an argument, not an assumption... hardly a matter of "impasse."

Since I don't think I explained it very well, I'll repeat it; even if you don't think we can go any further from here, at least it might provoke responses from others.

Take the classic argument:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Say I deny that (3) follows from (1) and (2), on the basis that there is a hidden premise: something to the effect of "reason works." Say that I insist, furthermore, that even with this hidden premise, the argument still does not work, because I can always slip in a third premise, "reason doesn't work." Contradiction? Of course... but reason doesn't work, so who cares?

The interesting thing about this line of thought is that it suggests that no argument works, ever... even if we accept that there is an implicit "reason works" premise in the simple structure of argumentation, thus excusing us for not explicitly stating it, we are still left with the problem that this premise really gets us nowhere. Yet, crucially, rational arguments "work" anyway--we can recognize conclusions as rationally following from premises. This cannot be simply a matter of assuming reason as a premise, because we have already seen that this gets us nowhere: it cannot be an attribute of the argument at all, which technically does not follow.

It must instead be a quality of human thought: a quality that excludes that negating premise, "reason doesn't work," simply by the quality's nature and not by a counter-assumption (because any counter-assumption is useless without the principle of non-contradiction.)

However, God can say what a triangle is.

Yes, but this is a different action from making a four-sided triangle.

God cannot make a four-sided triangle (because the dictates of reason still determine reality independently of God's whim), and God's command is not a reason to disregard moral reason (because the dictates of reason still determine morality independently of God's whim).

Of course, perhaps God can alter what reason constitutes, or what a triangle constitutes... I am not so sure I would be so quick to accept that, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. That does not alter the legitimacy of my statement that right now there can be no such thing as a four-sided triangle, even if God, on a whim, wants to make one, or that God's command would not make my killing of children any more right, even if God, on a whim, believes that it is.

He has to actually change the rules. This may appear immaterial in terms of "what God can do", but it is very important in terms of the determining principles of morality... and it demolishes the claims one sometimes hears from the religious that morality cannot be founded without belief in God, and that God's command is a valid determining basis (rather than a mere indicator) of rightness.

but if not, please say what you do have different views with.

Your assumption that (2) is the same thing as morality being determined by His whim.

"They burnt us at the stake, persecuted us down centuries,
And when, praytell was the last burning at the stake? How about persecution?

Or do you agree with some of the more extremes that the sins of the fathers should be visitied upon their sons?

continue to push to legislate their beliefs as the laws of the land, try to remove science from the classroom and replace it with their crap-theology, and you're putting ME in detention for calling him a shithead?"
Again, this is a thread about Dawkins, not a thread about the above. But let's take a look at that. Dawkins has stated that he feels that religious moderates have enabled extremism, leading to the 9/11 attacks. How different is that, really, from Farwell saying that Atheists, feminists, homosexuals, and liberals led to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, he IS a jerk. And this is a thread about him. If you want me to condem fundies, make a thread about it and, as long as you don't generalize (Another issue I have with Dawkins) you'll find me agreeing with you.

Yes, he IS a jerk.

not really, no

Yes, but this is a different action from making a four-sided triangle.

God cannot make a four-sided triangle (because the dictates of reason still determine reality independently of God's whim), and God's command is not a reason to disregard moral reason (because the dictates of reason still determine morality independently of God's whim).

Of course, perhaps God can alter what reason constitutes, or what a triangle constitutes... I am not so sure I would be so quick to accept that, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. That does not alter the legitimacy of my statement that right now there can be no such thing as a four-sided triangle, even if God, on a whim, wants to make one, or that God's command would not make my killing of children any more right, even if God, on a whim, believes that it is.

He has to actually change the rules. This may appear immaterial in terms of "what God can do", but it is very important in terms of the determining principles of morality... and it demolishes the claims one sometimes hears from the religious that morality cannot be founded without belief in God, and that God's command is a valid determining basis (rather than a mere indicator) of rightness.

Okay, I think I understand, and mostly agree. God cannot break the laws of logic. However, God can change the laws of logic. That makes sense.

I still have one slight qualm: I don't believe God is confined by time. If he wished to make a four-sided triangle, he couldn't as long as the tautology, "Triangles have three sides" exists. He could change this, but not only change it but make it so it has always been true. It is like that type of law whose name I can't remember, that is applied retroactively*. Only for God, the law would not only legalize or make illegal something that has already happen, it would actually change it.

* I'm really upset I can't remember this. The US Constitution prohibits it, but I forget what it's called. Does anyone know?

EDIT: HotRodia kindly reminded me that the law I am thinking of is ex post facto.

I don't like Dawkins much, but I take most of what he says on faith.

I don't like Dawkins much, but I take most of what he says on faith.

Are you joking? That isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know.

Are you joking? That isn't a rhetorical question, I actually would like to know.

If the thread isn't about food, there is a 90% chance I am joking.

* I'm really upset I can't remember this. The US Constitution prohibits it, but I forget what it's called. Does anyone know?

Ex Post Facto Laws are what you're referring to, I believe.

If the thread isn't about food, there is a 90% chance I am joking.

Okay, thank you. What you said wasn't that odd, but that you chose to use the word "faith"...it threw me off.

Okay, thank you. What you said wasn't that odd, but that you chose to use the word "faith"...it threw me off.

It was a tiny commentary on how some people treat atheism as a faith.

Ex Post Facto Laws are what you're referring to, I believe.

Yes, that's it. Thank you.

Are we talking about them? Are we debating their screwed up viewpoints? No, we're talking about Dawkins and you are giving me the same excuse.

If you added a little whine to it, I'd assume it would be coming from one of my 3rd grade students, "But sensei...!"

You're kidding me, I assume.

Dawkins is the Atheist extreme, such as it is. You appear to be saying that Dawkins can somehow be realistically equated to his Theist extreme contemporaries? If you seriously think it's a 'they did it first' scenario - you really are equating being tactless and outspoken, with rape-by-accomplice and waving placards saying 'God Hates Fags".

You're kidding me, I assume.

Dawkins is the Atheist extreme, such as it is. You appear to be saying that Dawkins can somehow be realistically equated to his Theist extreme contemporaries? If you seriously think it's a 'they did it first' scenario - you really are equating being tactless and outspoken, with rape-by-accomplice and waving placards saying 'God Hates Fags".
Why not? Dawkins (And a number of people on this board) seem to equate me with the same due to my beliefs.

Again, the "THEY DID IT FIRST!" or "THEY WERE WORSE!" is not a defence. You brought up the behavors of that crowd, not me.

Why not? Dawkins (And a number of people on this board) seem to equate me with the same due to my beliefs.

Is the irony here deliberate?

not really, no
So Farwell wasn't a jerk for saying Atheists caused 9/11 then? I'm sorry, but stating that you think that those people whom you disagree with or hold positions that are contrary to yours are morons is indeed being a jerk.

So Farwell wasn't a jerk for saying Atheists caused 9/11 then?

That follows how, exactly?

That follows how, exactly?
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" -Richard Dawkins

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!" -Richard Dawkins

what precisely is objectionable there?

what precisely is objectionable there?

The fact that he labels every single religious person on earth as dangerous? That's pretty damn objectionable.

The fact that he labels every single religious person on earth as dangerous? That's pretty damn objectionable.

that isnt what he said

what precisely is objectionable there?
If you're religious, you're dangerous.

That's very objectionable.

What if I said, if you're communist, you kill people?

If you're gay, you will sexually abuse children?

If you're a lawyer, you have no morals.

If you're an Atehist, you're going to hell?

Dawkins is painting with the same damn brush that gets my hackels up with the above. Very few communists have killed people. Very few homosexual men have sexually abused children. I know a number of lawyers who do indeed have morals and I'm fairly sure Atheists aren't going to hell.

Hot Rodia just replied to TAI and his reply is my point. To wit: So your defense basically amounts to "he flamed me first" and "I wasn't as bad as the other guy".

The former is obviously not any kind of defense, and the latter seems entirely lacking in substance.

I don't see anything in the One-Stop Rules Shop entries on flaming and flamebaiting that suggests that one is worse than the other. And it even specifically contradicts the notion that vulgarity is worse than maintaining a veneer of politeness.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13138142&postcount=10

That's what Dawkins is doing.

If you're religious, you're dangerous.

That's very objectionable.

except that he actually said that religious belief is what is dangerous, and for specific reasons. and his argument is general - the fact that not all religious people fall to the danger has fuckall to do with anything. they certainly aren't resisting the danger posed by their belief forming process on a consistent set of principles.

Dawkins has stated that he feels that religious moderates have enabled extremism, leading to the 9/11 attacks. How different is that, really, from Farwell saying that Atheists, feminists, homosexuals, and liberals led to the 9/11 attacks?

well, dawkins is right, for one...

except that he actually said that religious belief is what is dangerous, and for specific reasons. and his argument is general - the fact that not all religious people fall to the danger has fuckall to do with anything. they certainly aren't resisting the danger posed by their belief forming process on a consistent set of principles.
Except that he actually said that homosexual acts are what is dangerous, and for specific reasons. and his argument is general - the fact that not all homosexual people fall to the danger has fuckall to do with anything. they certainly aren't resisting the danger posed by their acts forming process on a consistent set of principles.

See how easy that is? Change the people being targeted and it shows up for what it is.

But since you so kindly referred to testing...how many failures do you have to get in the testing process before you start to wonder if you're being efficient?Reason would promt you to achive your goals as well as possible. If the slightest mistake in course of action is unacceptable, then the only alternative to testing indefinitely at worst is the taking of additional risks, which may result in complete disaster, and hence only be more efficient until you fail and your venture is done for.

If quantity of progress is more important than perfection, the rational approach would be to seek the optimal trade-off. Blatant risk taking, even literally going berserk, might very well be what reason dictates in certain circumstances.

The "unreasonable" approach would be to either act blindly when so risks a critical goal, and so give closer to an all-or-nothing result, or to hesitate when so is pointless to do, and hence be needlessly unefficient. (much prejudice and superstition reduces efficiency by prompting the performing of needless rituals, avoidance of optimal methods, or downright self-destructive behavior)

Following reason perfectly (in practice hard due to the bugs of our puny human minds, though you can with experience and the variably arsed compensations derived thereof come ever so closer) would, on average, yield the optimal efficiency when taking every relevant goal into account, sacrificing efficiency of some goals when needed to satisfy others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets View Post
except that he actually said that religious belief is what is dangerous, and for specific reasons. and his argument is general - the fact that not all religious people fall to the danger has fuckall to do with anything. they certainly aren't resisting the danger posed by their belief forming process on a consistent set of principles.
Except that he actually said that homosexual acts are what is dangerous, and for specific reasons. and his argument is general - the fact that not all homosexual people fall to the danger has fuckall to do with anything. they certainly aren't resisting the danger posed by their acts forming process on a consistent set of principles.

See how easy that is? Change the people being targeted and it shows up for what it is.

You find it offensive but both those propositions, even your parody version are valid investigations. So far there is no evidence that homosexuality or homosexuals pose a threat to society and those who assert to the contrary do so with little to no evidence, religion on the other hand has been a source of inspiration for all kinds of violence. These are seperate investigations that will yield seperate results. By the way, since homosexuality and religion are being mentioned together may I ask what the main fuel is behind social antagonism to gays?

You find it offensive but both those propositions, even your parody version are valid investigations. So far there is no evidence that homosexuality or homosexuals pose a threat to society and those who assert to the contrary do so with little to no evidence, religion on the other hand has been a source of inspiration for all kinds of violence. These are seperate investigations that will yield seperate results. By the way, since homosexuality and religion are being mentioned together may I ask what the main fuel is behind social antagonism to gays?
And some 80% of planet considers themselves to be religious. Guess what? We ain't all nuts! Religion has been used as a convenient excuse for all kinds of violence, but, really now, with the vast majority of the population religious, and since we're still here, it would seem that religion ain't the cause.

And gays are icky, I thought every knew that. ;)

In all seriousness, Christianity is not the only religion with issues against homosexuality, nor is it the driving force. Otherwise, how on earth do you explain China?

And some 80% of planet considers themselves to be religious. Guess what? We ain't all nuts!

That is debatable. And I'm not joking. If you genuinely hear God's voice and believe it not to be your own, lucid thoughts then I wouldn't call that sane.

So Farwell wasn't a jerk for saying Atheists caused 9/11 then? I'm sorry, but stating that you think that those people whom you disagree with or hold positions that are contrary to yours are morons is indeed being a jerk.
Let's break this down, shall we?

Here's a list of the people that Falwell blamed for 9/11:

-pagans
-pro-choice individuals
-feminists
-gays and lesbians
-the ACLU
-People For the American Way

Here's a list of the people Dawkins blamed for 9/11:



See, Dawkins actually didn't blame any class of people. He pointed out that "revealed faith" can be very dangerous. He suggested that we stop giving SPECIAL exemption to faith, and start being as critical of it as we already are of other ideas and belief systems.

In other words, he's not even arguing that we treat religious belief worse than anything else. He's just suggesting that maybe, in light of then-recent events, we might want to quit handling it with special kid gloves and start taking a good long look at it.

Given that the people who committed the terrorist acts of 9/11 were, in fact, believers in the type of faith that Dawkins was talking about, and given that they were not, in fact, ANY of the things that Falwell listed, do you really still want to argue that the two quotes are comparable?

If you're religious, you're dangerous.

That's very objectionable.

What if I said, if you're communist, you kill people?

If you're gay, you will sexually abuse children?

If you're a lawyer, you have no morals.

If you're an Atehist, you're going to hell?

What about, "If you hold racist beliefs, you will behave in bigotted ways"?


Dawkins is painting with the same damn brush that gets my hackels up with the above. Very few communists have killed people. Very few homosexual men have sexually abused children. I know a number of lawyers who do indeed have morals and I'm fairly sure Atheists aren't going to hell.

I'm sure you are comfortable making some statements like the ones you quoted, and you're probably comfortable saying that certain beliefs can encourage people to do rotten things. Pretty much all of us fit that bill.

The difference here is that you are pissed because YOUR beliefs are being labeled as "dangerous." That's understandable, but please don't act as though it's something so outrageous and shocking for people to attack a belief system.

See, Dawkins actually didn't blame any class of people. He pointed out that "revealed faith" can be very dangerous. He suggested that we stop giving SPECIAL exemption to faith, and start being as critical of it as we already are of other ideas and belief systems.
Oh, I see. So in other words it's all about the FAITH someone has, not the PEOPLE. So just as long as you don't have faith, you're not dangerous.

In other words, he's not even arguing that we treat religious belief worse than anything else. He's just suggesting that maybe, in light of then-recent events, we might want to quit handling it with special kid gloves and start taking a good long look at it.
Not in his words. His words say that faith is dangerous. Religion is, in his words dangerous. Which is pretty damn remarkable given the deaths caused by certain people who share Dawkins view of faith.

Given that the people who committed the terrorist acts of 9/11 were, in fact, believers in the type of faith that Dawkins was talking about, and given that they were not, in fact, ANY of the things that Falwell listed, do you really still want to argue that the two quotes are comparable?
Yes, because Dawkins again paints ALL believers with the same brush. Generalizations like that are very wrong and always suspect. Why not say what truly was the case, we were dealing with fanatics. Fanatics of any stipe can cause problems. Let's look at his words again:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm?

Brush number 1: Religion is nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't/ However his choice of words leaves it very clear where he stands and how he views people who do indeed have faith differenting from HIS view of the universe.

September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.
Brush number 2: People who are religious can be dangerous. He is saying, "Well, the vast majority of people on this planet are religious, but, shucky darn, they can be dangerous!" Well, yes, people can be. People from any walk of life can be very dangerous, irregardless of their faith. 9/11 did not change that.

Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness.
Which is funny coming from Dawkins, but beyond that, what is being said is that religious people have a stick up their collect asses. Sorry, but while I admit I don't know even a portion of the religious people on this planet, the majority I DO know don't have any wood problems.

Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others.
Again, this is pinning the blame on religion, but automatically begs the question of what those deaths in China during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were about then. That's wasn't religion, that was Communism with Atheism (Quite a bit in the latter case as many ancient Chinese temples were destroyed during this and the monks brutally killed). mayhaps fanaticism is the true culprit here?

Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition.
Brush number 3: All people who are religious must automatically hate and condemn people not of their faith. It'd be nice if racism could be explained away so easily, but that is not the case.

And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!
This seems to be the parts that you guys are attempting to quote saying, "See?! SEE?! Dawkins meant THIS part!" but ignoring what he said above. Dawkins pinned the blame for the attacks on religion. I see that as being as simple minded as DeepKimchi's saying that Islam was to blame.

So, yes, I do see where the two equate because Falwell tried to do the same, state that everyone who doesn't follow his lines of reasoning were responsible.

What about, "If you hold racist beliefs, you will behave in bigotted ways"?
Generalization, and one that doesn't ALWAYS pan out. But you would have to show me that the majority of people behave in such a way. That's the problem, Dawkins focuses on the extremes and extrapolates that the majority does thus.

I'm sure you are comfortable making some statements like the ones you quoted, and you're probably comfortable saying that certain beliefs can encourage people to do rotten things. Pretty much all of us fit that bill.

The difference here is that you are pissed because YOUR beliefs are being labeled as "dangerous." That's understandable, but please don't act as though it's something so outrageous and shocking for people to attack a belief system.
*sighs* No, I'm saying why Dawkins is a jerk. Wouldn't you agree that Ann Coulter is so as well for her attacks on liberals, feminists, and others? Especially in the way that she conducts herself? Dawkins uses the same tactics. As noted, extremism bothers me, worse than that, it makes it damn near next to impossible to actually accomplish anything, particularly what you want done.

Oh, I see. So in other words it's all about the FAITH someone has, not the PEOPLE. So just as long as you don't have faith, you're not dangerous.

Kind of like how RACISM is the problem, and even otherwise-good PEOPLE can hold some fucked up RACIST beliefs.


Not in his words. His words say that faith is dangerous. Religion is, in his words dangerous. Which is pretty damn remarkable given the deaths caused by certain people who share Dawkins view of faith.

The fact that revealed faith is dangerous (and I agree that it is) does not mean that there cannot be any other dangerous things in the world.

Racism is dangerous, in my opinion, because it encourages people to view certain other humans as basically non-human, and this makes it much easier to mistreat them and violate their human rights. The fact that racist beliefs are dangerous does not mean that all problems in the world are caused by racism, however. Can you see the distinction?


Yes, because Dawkins again paints ALL believers with the same brush.

No, he paints the BELIEFS with the same brush. Seriously, it's a really fucking important distinction.

I believe RACISM is lousy. Blanket statement. However, I also know that there have been many people throughout history who were harmless or even amazingly helpful even though they held racist beliefs. Some of the greatest minds in history also happened to hold profoundly racist thoughts.

Dawkins feels that superstitious faith is lousy, the way I think racism is lousy. He feels it is dangerous. He feels we'd be better off if nobody bought into it. But he is absolutely NOT saying that all people who hold such faith are dangerous, evil, stupid, etc etc etc. Indeed, one of his main points is that a lot of well-meaning people buy into faith because our culture doesn't allow us to discuss it critically, and he thinks we should be more free to do this because he thinks most people are decent sorts and you should talk with them.


Generalizations like that are very wrong and always suspect. Why not say what truly was the case, we were dealing with fanatics. Fanatics of any stipe can cause problems.

You could say that. He has a different take.


Let's look at his words again:


Brush number 1: Religion is nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't/ However his choice of words leaves it very clear where he stands and how he views people who do indeed have faith differenting from HIS view of the universe.

I'm not seeing anything bad here. So far, he's just asserting his opinion of religious faith.


Brush number 2: People who are religious can be dangerous. He is saying, "Well, the vast majority of people on this planet are religious, but, shucky darn, they can be dangerous!" Well, yes, people can be. People from any walk of life can be very dangerous, irregardless of their faith. 9/11 did not change that.

Again, not seeing any problem with this. He's pointing out (accurately) that certain belief structures make it much easier for an individual to justify craptacular actions to themselves. In the case of 9/11, the belief structure that was used was revealed faith. Which (and I'm just guessing here) may be why he brings it up.


Which is funny coming from Dawkins, but beyond that, what is being said is that religious people have a stick up their collect asses. Sorry, but while I admit I don't know even a portion of the religious people on this planet, the majority I DO know don't have any wood problems.

I really think that you're just fishing for reasons to be upset, at this point.

Dawkins is criticizing a belief system. He's pointing out that the belief system in question doesn't get criticized enough, because it's too often considered "out of bounds" in ways that plenty of other belief systems are not. I think he has a good point there.

He's not doing anything remotely comparable to what Falwell did, which was to flat-out blame specific groups of PEOPLE for what happened on 9/11, people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that crap.


Again, this is pinning the blame on religion, but automatically begs the question of what those deaths in China during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were about then. That's wasn't religion, that was Communism with Atheism (Quite a bit in the latter case as many ancient Chinese temples were destroyed during this and the monks brutally killed). mayhaps fanaticism is the true culprit here?

You're acting as though there can be only one lousy belief system in the world. I don't think that's the case.


Brush number 3: All people who are religious must automatically hate and condemn people not of their faith. It'd be nice if racism could be explained away so easily, but that is not the case.

I don't see that in his quote at all. You're putting words in his mouth and then getting angry about what you said.


This seems to be the parts that you guys are attempting to quote saying, "See?! SEE?! Dawkins meant THIS part!" but ignoring what he said above.

I've been talking about the entire quote you listed. It appears that you read it quite differently than I.


Dawkins pinned the blame for the attacks on religion. I see that as being as simple minded as DeepKimchi's saying that Islam was to blame.

So, yes, I do see where the two equate because Falwell tried to do the same, state that everyone who doesn't follow his lines of reasoning were responsible.
So you believe that:

1) Blaming PEOPLE is the same as blaming a BELIEF system.

And

2) Blaming people who had nothing whatsoever to do with a terrorist act is the same as blaming a belief system that was directly involved in the actions of the terrorists in question.

Really? Because if that's the case, then I guess we're done here.

Brush number 1: Religion is nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't/ However his choice of words leaves it very clear where he stands and how he views people who do indeed have faith differenting from HIS view of the universe.

So you think it is wrong for someone to use words that express the argument they are making?

So you think it is wrong for someone to use words that express the argument they are making?
I kind of feel like this entire exchange supports Dawkins' point quite nicely. We've got at least one person enraged because Dawkins is daring to say about faith what most of us already say about things like racism. It's a very glaring double standard.

*shrug* It's not just theists who think Dawkins is a touch... zealous (http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-02/fundamentalists.html).

Dawkins always struck me as something of a dick...

...I'm not certain why though.

Any suggestions as to why would be appreciated.
ummm...because he disliked and frequently attacked Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould)?

What about, "If you hold racist beliefs, you will behave in bigotted ways"?
That's a vast generalisation, and it's similar to the one which Dawkins is guilty of when he splatter-guns religion and religious beliefs.

Holding racist beliefs might make you behave in bigoted ways, but then again it might not. One might hate a certain race/country but still behave towards them they would any other person.
Likewise, one might not hold any racist beliefs but still behave in a bigoted way. For example, if you were asked to bet on a long-distance race between a Pygmy and a Kenyan (with no other information supplied), who would you bet on and why?

That's a vast generalisation, and it's similar to the one which Dawkins is guilty of when he splatter-guns religion and religious beliefs.

Holding racist beliefs might make you behave in bigoted ways, but then again it might not. One might hate a certain race/country but still behave towards them they would any other person.
Likewise, one might not hold any racist beliefs but still behave in a bigoted way.


Yes, I'm aware of all that.

My point was that people make statements like that about racism all the time, and it doesn't get this kind of counter-response. The double standard was what I was getting at.

It's logical, of course, because people tend not to vigorously attack a generalization if they think that it was basically in agreement with their own beliefs.


For example, if you were asked to bet on a long-distance race between a Pygmy and a Kenyan (with no other information supplied), who would you bet on and why?
Um, bigotry and racism have nothing to do with that. Particularly since there are Kenyan Pygmies.

Um, bigotry and racism have nothing to do with that. Particularly since there are Kenyan Pygmies.
umm...it does. And you didn't answer the question.

Yes, I'm aware of all that.

My point was that people make statements like that about racism all the time, and it doesn't get this kind of counter-response. The double standard was what I was getting at.

It's logical, of course, because people tend not to vigorously attack a generalization if they think that it was basically in agreement with their own beliefs.


Um, bigotry and racism have nothing to do with that. Particularly since there are Kenyan Pygmies.

Heh yes perhaps that sort of behavior is strictly illogical, but as you say it does go on so it is of course extreamly human.

umm...it does.

How?

It appears you were attempting to construct a comparison between a Kenyan (assumed to be able-bodied in the absence of other information) and a Pygmy, in terms of their ability to run a race. How would it be racist to assume that a person with longer legs and greater lung capacity (due to bigger lungs) would be better able to win a foot race?

Seriously, you're trying to create a question where people make certain assumptions about the Kenyan and the Pygmy, and they then make a bet based on THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.


And you didn't answer the question.
I wouldn't make any bet in the absence of further information. Especially since, as I pointed out, there are Kenyan Pygmies, so it's entirely possible that the Kenyan in your situation is a Pygmy, too.

How?

It appears you were attempting to construct a comparison between a Kenyan (assumed to be able-bodied in the absence of other information) and a Pygmy, in terms of their ability to run a race. How would it be racist to assume that a person with longer legs and greater lung capacity (due to bigger lungs) would be better able to win a foot race?

Seriously, you're trying to create a question where people make certain assumptions about the Kenyan and the Pygmy, and they then make a bet based on THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.


I wouldn't make any bet in the absence of further information. Especially since, as I pointed out, there are Kenyan Pygmies, so it's entirely possible that the Kenyan in your situation is a Pygmy, too.
except that's extra information you haven't got available. You only have the information given: One's a Pygmy, other's a Kenyan. You welcome to make all the assumptions you wish, but you get no other information.
And making assumptions is exactly what bigotry and racism is all about.

Face it: The only reason you say you wouldn't make the bet because you know where this is leading - to me showing you that anyone is capable of bigoted thoughts/behaviour and thus your earlier statement about, "If you hold racist beliefs, you will behave in bigoted ways" is a vast generalisation (because you can behave bigotedly yet not be racist and you can be racist yet not behave bigotedly) that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Much like Dawkins' more recent works.

Generalization, and one that doesn't ALWAYS pan out.

so? should we not think racist beliefs are dangerous, just because sometimes the people holding them aren't. that's fucking silly.

Oh, I see. So in other words it's all about the FAITH someone has, not the PEOPLE. So just as long as you don't have faith, you're not dangerous.

doesn't follow.

Not in his words. His words say that faith is dangerous. Religion is, in his words dangerous. Which is pretty damn remarkable given the deaths caused by certain people who share Dawkins view of faith.
...
Why not say what truly was the case, we were dealing with fanatics. Fanatics of any stipe can cause problems.

one thing being dangerous doesn't exclude other things being dangerous.

especially when the one thing (irrational belief forming processes) is directly related to the other in so very many ways.

so? should we not think racist beliefs are dangerous, just because sometimes the people holding them aren't. that's fucking silly.

Or indeed should we count any belief dangerous, or should we see the danger in some of the people that hold them?

Put another way, is it true that a belief in and of itself can be termed dangerous, or is it correct to proclaim that some people may be dangerous because of the beliefs they hold?

Or indeed should we count any belief dangerous, or should we see the danger in some of the people that hold them?

Put another way, is it true that a belief in and of itself can be termed dangerous, or is it correct to proclaim that some people may be dangerous because of the beliefs they hold?

certain beliefs (and perhaps more importantly, processes for forming further beliefs) are inherently more dangerous than others. if the danger was in the people, then we should see uniformity of dangerous results across the globe and across time. we do not.

My problem with the whole religion/racism analogy is that racism inevitably results in a negative impact. Religion does not. So, even if you believe that a belief can be dangerous, one could not say that religious beliefs are inherently dangerous or negative.

I've never read Dawkins. Does he claim that religious ideas are inherently dangerous?

I've never read Dawkins. Does he claim that religious ideas are inherently dangerous?Not really, no.

He argues that irrationality is potentially dangerous, because it can help remove the need to justify one's actions.

I don't know that isn't a truism. Religion as the primary peddler of irrationality, certainly seems to back up his claim. As do things like racism and whatnot.

My problem with the whole religion/racism analogy is that racism inevitably results in a negative impact. Religion does not. So, even if you believe that a belief can be dangerous, one could not say that religious beliefs are inherently dangerous or negative.

does racism inevitably result in a negative impact in a way that is fundamentally different from the negative impact of saying "irrationalism, a-ok!"?

does racism inevitably result in a negative impact in a way that is fundamentally different from the negative impact of saying "irrationalism, a-ok!"?

I'm not sure. When I said that racism inevitably results in a negative impact, I said that because in my head I imagined lots of different impacts. None of them were good, but they were all different. They were all fundamentally bad, though.

So, if you say "irrationalism is okay", I imagine lots of different impacts depending on contexts. Some are negative the same way racism is negative. Some are not.

According to your post, you wish to discuss the negative impacts only. If so, then I would say that no, the negative impact of irrationality is not fundamentally different from the negative impact of racism. They are both fundamentally bad.

However, the impacts of irrationality are not universally negative.

certain beliefs (and perhaps more importantly, processes for forming further beliefs) are inherently more dangerous than others. if the danger was in the people, then we should see uniformity of dangerous results across the globe and across time. we do not.

Surly you mean if the danger was in the ideas then we would expect to see uniformity of dangerous results across the globe and across time?

Surly you mean if the danger was in the ideas then we would expect to see uniformity of dangerous results across the globe and across time?

nope. ideas change faster than genetics. if it was some aspect of humanity that was responsible, rather than the particulars of ideas people happened to be holding, then we would expect things to be fairly uniform. but this is not what we see. what we see is some particular idea taking hold among a population and the next thing you know, people are being forced to abandon the cities and everyone with glasses is sent to the death camps.

now, as regards irrationalism generally, sometimes the particular irrational beliefs held for the moment are not in themselves particularly bad. but the 'justificatory' process behind them means that this can only be accidental and temporary - the ideas are held for bad reasons, bad reasons which can and have been used to 'justify' really bad things. the only real way to resist these bad things is to give up on the bad justificatory practices. otherwise you are effectively reduced to just saying 'nuh-uh'. but adopting better justifactory practices necessarily means admitting that your old ones were dangerous.

Maybe. So?

God "mak" this or that right is not something He can do by whim. He can only do so by altering the independent moral standard. Him saying or believing "x is wrong" is not a reason to believe x is wrong. He actually has to [i]create that reason.

Which she could certainly do, and at a whim.

Indeed it does not.

Then why is your belief based in reason justified, but not your belief based on the "word of God"?

Which she could certainly do, and at a whim.

Agreed.

Then why is your belief based in reason justified

Who said it was? At least in any complete sense?

This seems to be the parts that you guys are attempting to quote saying, "See?! SEE?! Dawkins meant THIS part!" but ignoring what he said above. Dawkins pinned the blame for the attacks on religion. I see that as being as simple minded as DeepKimchi's saying that Islam was to blame.
I love that there are different interpretations of what Dawkins meant. The next thing you know, different denominations are going to start springing up.

I love that there are different interpretations of what Dawkins meant. The next thing you know, different denominations are going to start springing up.

there are always differing interpretations of text. fact of the world. as long as nobody starts treating a text as authoritative, these differences don't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

there are always differing interpretations of text. fact of the world. as long as nobody starts treating a text as authoritative, these differences don't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

I realize that, but the fanaticism of some people approaches religious fervor. It's the same with plenty of other texts, usually more in fact, it's just ironic because of Dawkins's subject.

If you seek to prove that I am inconsistent by affirming reason despite not having any rational justification for doing so, you must not only assume reason for the sake of argument (to demonstrate that reason dictates that everything, including reason, be rationally justified) but also must assume that inconsistency makes my view wrong.

Now, of course, you may insist that I would insist that inconsistency makes my view wrong, even if you do not--but this merely carries the problem to another step. So what?

What other step is the problem taken to, and why is that not a problem for your argument?

But what I said was an argument, not an assumption... hardly a matter of "impasse."

Since I don't think I explained it very well, I'll repeat it; even if you don't think we can go any further from here, at least it might provoke responses from others.

Take the classic argument:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Say I deny that (3) follows from (1) and (2), on the basis that there is a hidden premise: something to the effect of "reason works." Say that I insist, furthermore, that even with this hidden premise, the argument still does not work, because I can always slip in a third premise, "reason doesn't work." Contradiction? Of course... but reason doesn't work, so who cares?

The interesting thing about this line of thought is that it suggests that no argument works, ever... even if we accept that there is an implicit "reason works" premise in the simple structure of argumentation, thus excusing us for not explicitly stating it, we are still left with the problem that this premise really gets us nowhere. Yet, crucially, rational arguments "work" anyway--we can recognize conclusions as rationally following from premises. This cannot be simply a matter of assuming reason as a premise, because we have already seen that this gets us nowhere: it cannot be an attribute of the argument at all, which technically does not follow.

It must instead be a quality of human thought: a quality that excludes that negating premise, "reason doesn't work," simply by the quality's nature and not by a counter-assumption (because any counter-assumption is useless without the principle of non-contradiction.)


Equivocation.

When placing "reason works" into a proof, you are saying that reason "works" when it comes to gaining knowledge, with your latter use of the word reason "works" when it comes to gaining understanding. It may be easy to conflate knowledge and understanding when one takes reason to be justification for belief or even an accurate measure of truth, but when one attacks the efficacy of reason, one necessarily delineates between understanding and knowledge.

Who said it was? At least in any complete sense?

Something necessarily must be justified for another to be unjustified.

Do you say that belief in moral knowledge based on the word of God is justified or not? And if not, what belief is justified?

If it is justified, what was the argument again?

Something necessarily must be justified for another to be unjustified.

Not at all. Except perhaps the statement "That is not justified."

Do you say that belief in moral knowledge based on the word of God is justified or not?

Not, but when I use the word "justified" there I'm not talking about complete justification (which, like everything else, it also lacks), but about justification in the ordinary rational sense that people use when talking about every other issue under the sun.

What other step is the problem taken to,

Inconsistency between advocating consistency and practicing inconsistency is just another inconsistency.

Since the skeptic of reason cannot justify his or her objection to inconsistency, the argument has no critical edge: it cannot tell me that I should not argue as I have.

but when one attacks the efficacy of reason, one necessarily delineates between understanding and knowledge.

How, exactly?

"Understanding" is pretty clearly a kind of knowledge. If we can use reason to understand things, reason is a source of knowledge about those things.

Anyway, I fail to see the distinction you're drawing between my uses of "reason works" anyway... they all apply to its role with regard to justifying conclusions from premises.

Not at all. Except perhaps the statement "That is not justified."

For some method of attaining knowledge to be unjustified, one would have to point that it can be judged as worse than some other, that some other method is indeed valid. Otherwise the choice is random, and justification does not apply to random choice.

Not, but when I use the word "justified" there I'm not talking about complete justification (which, like everything else, it also lacks), but about justification in the ordinary rational sense that people use when talking about every other issue under the sun.

I also take reason to be sort of a innate mental function with certain categories of understanding, and that it is not a truly justified measure of reality. The problem is that I cannot see any method of giving it any meaningful justification. Could you please describe the middle ground you have found between complete justification and the utter lack of justification?

Inconsistency between advocating consistency and practicing inconsistency is just another inconsistency.

Since the skeptic of reason cannot justify his or her objection to inconsistency, the argument has no critical edge: it cannot tell me that I should not argue as I have.

Inconsistency is not the skeptics problem.

It is common to temporarily adopt your opponents premise only to render it into contradiction. This is what I have done, accept the truth of reason and show that it results in contradiction which cannot be by its own tenets. I don't truly need a critical edge, because now you won't allow yourself to make the argument.

Seriously, are you going to say my argument fails because my acceptance of consistency is dashed and then begin using consistency yourself?

How, exactly?

"Understanding" is pretty clearly a kind of knowledge. If we can use reason to understand things, reason is a source of knowledge about those things.

Anyway, I fail to see the distinction you're drawing between my uses of "reason works" anyway... they all apply to its role with regard to justifying conclusions from premises.

I would draw the difference by saying that understanding isn't necessarily true.

That is the central point I was trying to make, you are trying to say that because we have this innate reason in our understanding, (we understand that if one comes before two, and two comes before three, then one comes before three), then we can say that reason can justify knowledge.

Now, if I misunderstood you and you were simply saying that we were justified in using reason in the matter of deduction, I just wonder what you were actually trying to prove in the first place.