NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=346&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1

I think this is a most intriguing piece, as a Christian response to Dawkins. For those who would prefer something written, this is an article on a simmilar, but not identical subject with similar content.

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=248&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1

Is this really the best they can do?

Sad.

so what do YOU think that god would say to dawkins?

im thinking god would send him on a mission that would end up with dawkins inside a whale.

Is this really the best they can do?

Sad.

You posted this 3 minitues after my post. The talk is over an hour long, and unless your going to cite some points from the article, I'm going to reasonably conclude you have looked at neither piece.

The result of taking excerpts of Dawkins and presenting them out of context.

So we take a set up paragraph, where Dawkins writes something along the lines of: "...it would seem amazing to us that life could gradually evolve through tiny steps in such a way, even though a large step in and of itself would naturally lessen the chances of success, but this is how evolution happens.

Then we say 'Look, Dawkins himself says it's amazing, and then he just boldly states that 'this is how evolution happens'.'

Why do people leap on this, because it's the only bit they can actually understand in terms of English comprehension - they simply cannot understand what Dawkins says afterwards, most probably wilfully because if they tried to understand, it would destroy their entire belief structure.

Hey Dawkins, thanks for rescuing me, let's go for a burger, ha ha ha ha!

You posted this 3 minitues after my post. The talk is over an hour long, and unless your going to cite some points from the article, I'm going to reasonably conclude you have looked at neither piece.

as OP, YOU need to post what you think are the most important points.

The result of taking excerpts of Dawkins and presenting them out of context.

So we take a set up paragraph, where Dawkins writes something along the lines of: "...it would seem amazing to us that life could gradually evolve through tiny steps in such a way, even though a large step in and of itself would naturally lessen the chances of success, but this is how evolution happens.

Then we say 'Look, Dawkins himself says it's amazing, and then he just boldly states that 'this is how evolution happens'.'

Why do people leap on this, because it's the only bit they can actually understand in terms of English comprehension - they simply cannot understand what Dawkins says afterwards, most probably wilfully because if they tried to understand, it would destroy their entire belief structure.

You've taken one part of the article and misread it. The point was made not merely that its astonsihing, but that it does make sense. IE the notion that something would transitionally turn into a motorcycle while all the time functioning well as one, I believe is the analogy made. The point is that Dawkins clings to this for philosophical, not scientific reasons.

You havn't discussed the section on the notion of self contraditcion of science, the possible compatability of science and belief that God created the universe, and the other points raised in the 11 sections of this piece. Please do not suggest that you have been through when you ignore these sections.

as OP, YOU need to post what you think are the most important points.

If he responds with nothing, its reasonable to call bull on his post. The important points are broken down in 11 points in the article. Its not hard to click the link.

I've skimmed the written piece and it looks feeble. Why don't you pick one good point which you think it makes and we can argue that? The Mods don't look to kindly on threads started with nothing but a link.

If he responds with nothing, its reasonable to call bull on his post. The important points are broken down in 11 points in the article. Its not hard to click the link.

this isnt a clip service, its a debate site. the article doesnt do your work for you.

You've taken one part of the article and misread it. The point was made not merely that its astonsihing, but that it does make sense. IE the notion that something would transitionally turn into a motorcycle while all the time functioning well as one, I believe is the analogy made. The point is that Dawkins clings to this for philosophical, not scientific reasons.

You havn't discussed the section on the notion of self contraditcion of science, the possible compatability of science and belief that God created the universe, and the other points raised in the 11 sections of this piece. Please do not suggest that you have been through when you ignore these sections.

motorcycles arent alive.

"Dude, seriously, stop being a dick."

You posted this 3 minitues after my post.

So I did. I read the beginning of the article. It was laughable, and was an accurate sample of the rest, which I did finish afterward... okay, admittedly I skimmed some of the more absurd bits about Intelligent Design. Sue me.

and unless your going to cite some points from the article,

Sure.

Let's start with (1):

Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins’ statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that ‘knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge’ is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called ‘positivism’).

Of course, what Dawkins is actually doing is nothing of the sort.

“Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?”

Does anything about this statement limit "evidence" to scientific, empirical evidence? Hardly. Dawkins is speaking casually, not philosophically. He obviously means that we should base our knowledge on good reasons, like evidence and reason, not on bad ones, like what a book from two thousand years ago tells us. Everybody admits this in most contexts. It's just religion that's the exception.

Is this a philosophical point? Yes. So? That doesn't mean it's a "dogma", and it's not positivism. I'm no positivist, but here I am, saying it anyway.

Or how about (2):

Dawkins asserts that: ‘As time goes by and our civilization grows up more, the model of the universe that we share will become progressively less superstitious, less small-minded, less parochial. It will lose its remaining ghosts, hobgoblins and spirits, it will be a realistic model, correctly regulated and updated by incoming information from the real world.’ [6] How can Dawkins know this assertion is true before all the evidence is in? Dawkins assumes that his conclusion is true and then promises that it will be justified on evidential grounds at some unspecified point in the future.

What Dawkins is saying, obviously, is that the scientific method, applied over time, brings us closer to truth and away from false assumptions. There's no assumption about the necessary specific conclusions such a model will have; his point is about procedures, not results. It's not even remotely a "begging the question" fallacy.

How does Dawkins know that these ‘graded ramps can be found’ in advance of showing what they are, without even looking for them? Because Dawkins’ justification for this assumption is philosophical rather than scientific: ‘Without stirring from our chair, we can see that it must be so’, [12] explains Dawkins, ‘because nothing except gradual accumulation could, in principle, do the job. . .’ [13] What job? The job of explaining life naturalistically! Dawkins’ conclusion rests upon his presupposition that there is no designer.

This one can only be seen as begging the question because the author blatantly ignores the possibility that Dawkins might have other, independent reasons for rejecting a designer--like the fact that evolution has overwhelming empirical support and design has essentially none. In other words, the argument the author presents as Dawkins' is only begging the question because it's a straw man.

The rest is more of the same.

Again, is this really the best they can do? If it is, well, I think Dawkins should feel free to declare victory.

I've skimmed the written piece and it looks feeble. Why don't you pick one good point which you think it makes and we can argue that? The Mods don't look to kindly on threads started with nothing but a link.

Ok, the self refutation argument for instance

"In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself:
Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: “Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?” And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say. [4]
Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins’ statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that ‘knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge’ is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called ‘positivism’)."

Thoughts...

You've taken one part of the article and misread it. The point was made not merely that its astonsihing, but that it does make sense. IE the notion that something would transitionally turn into a motorcycle while all the time functioning well as one, I believe is the analogy made. The point is that Dawkins clings to this for philosophical, not scientific reasons.

Irreducible complexity has been proved to be false (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples). It's a bad argument against evolution.

You've taken one part of the article and misread it. The point was made not merely that its astonsihing, but that it does make sense. IE the notion that something would transitionally turn into a motorcycle while all the time functioning well as one, I believe is the analogy made. The point is that Dawkins clings to this for philosophical, not scientific reasons.

You havn't discussed the section on the notion of self contraditcion of science, the possible compatability of science and belief that God created the universe, and the other points raised in the 11 sections of this piece. Please do not suggest that you have been through when you ignore these sections.

I have absolutely not read through this because I immediately see the same tired arguments, which are very well explained both by Darwin and Dawkins and simply not comprehended by people who simply do not want to comprehend.

It's like asking me to listen to Aqua's version of The Banana Song and saying 'see, it's really good!'

No, it isn't, it's the same old tune by a different author.

Ok, the self refutation argument for instance

Is the scientific method founded philosophically? Yes.

So?

Of course, what Dawkins is actually doing is nothing of the sort.

“Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?”

Does anything about this statement limit "evidence" to scientific, empirical evidence? Hardly. Dawkins is speaking casually, not philosophically. He obviously means that we should base our knowledge on good reasons, like evidence and reason, not on bad ones, like what a book from two thousand years ago tells us. Everybody admits this in most contexts. It's just religion that's the exception.

Is this a philosophical point? Yes. So? That doesn't mean it's a "dogma", and it's not positivism. I'm no positivist, but here I am, saying it anyway.


Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on. And an OBJECTIVE reason, not merely a "good" reason. Because what is good is subjective.

Is the scientific method founded philosophically? Yes.

So?

So its self defeating.

"Things only exist if they are scientifically observable, therfore God doesnt exist"
"But the principle 'Things only exist if they are scientifically observable' is not scientifically observable, therefore things can exist that are not scientifically observable, therefore it is possible for God to exist"

Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on.

Because from "It's written in a contradictory book by authors with no knowledge of modern science" it does not logically follow that "It is true."

Ok, the self refutation argument for instance

"In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself:
Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: “Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?” And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say. [4]
Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins’ statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that ‘knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge’ is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called ‘positivism’)."

Thoughts...


you need to give YOUR thoughts.

i certainly have always encouraged my (now adult) son to think this way. what kind of nut would suggest that a child take everything they are told on face value?

The point was made not merely that its astonsihing, but that it does make sense. IE the notion that something would transitionally turn into a motorcycle while all the time functioning well as one, I believe is the analogy made.

Are we going to have the irreducible complexity argument, the eye must be fully functional all the way throughout its evolution, are we going to bring up the flagellum whatever with it's rotary socket?

Are we going to go through the same old, tired points that have been thoroughly dealt with time and time again?

I suspect we are.

Dawkins presupposes no designer. Uh, yeah -- and his opponents presuppose that there IS a designer! What kind of cloth-eared syllogism is this, and why are we supposed to find it convincing?

Also, to the OP and your thread's preposterous title?

Nobody knows what God would say to Richard Dawkins. The people countering him are speaking FOR God. WHen God Himself speaks, THEN we'll see something interesting. The fact that people who argue ID would claim authority on what God would "say" is in itself ludicrous.

Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on. And an OBJECTIVE reason, not merely a "good" reason. Because what is good is subjective.

the bible is a good resource for jewish and christians beliefs.

for anything non religious, its inappropriate.

So its self defeating.

"Things only exist if they are scientifically observable, therfore God doesnt exist"
"But the principle 'Things only exist if they are scientifically observable' is not scientifically observable, therefore things can exist that are not scientifically observable, therefore it is possible for God to exist"

I've always found this quite interesting, it applies to both the verification and falsification principle. I might make a separate thread on it.

Because from "It's written in a contradictory book by authors with no knowledge of modern science" it does not logically follow that "It is true."

If it were trying to deal with the questions of science, I would agree with you, but it isn't and so it doesnt need to be written by such people. You do not need to understand science to understand life's meaning.

And for the record, I'm not really a supporter of ID, I just find it an interesting idea that I think had more creadability than most would give it, more as an alternative interpretation of available evidence. I'm more debating Dawkins on the philosophical side of things, IE that all there is in the universe can be explained scientifically, that science and religion are incompatable etc these things I disagre with

As a student of science and as a christian, I think that this does more harm than good and that certain people would help their cause a considerable amount if they'd stop talking.

"Things only exist if they are scientifically observable, therfore God doesnt exist

Okay, who says this? Only the most die-hard positivists, maybe. Certainly not Dawkins, who argues that strictly speaking he is "agnostic" on the subject of God, but in the same sense that he is agnostic about unicorns, or Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, you're confusing two different kinds of truth. We don't need empirical evidence to affirm that 1 + 1 = 2. But we do need empirical evidence to affirm that my hair is brown. Philosophical truth about the methods of epistemology is of the first kind, not the second. Truth about God, however, is of the second, not the first--because the various philosophical arguments for logically proving God's existence have proven to be utterly flawed (as Dawkins explains.)

Philosophical truth about the methods of epistemology is of the first kind, not the second.

But can this principle be analytically proven? Isn't the falsification principle an unfalsifiable proposition by its own terms?

If it were trying to deal with the questions of science, I would agree with you, but it isn't and so it doesnt need to be written by such people. You do not need to understand science to understand life's meaning.

That's true. But you do need to understand science to understand SCIENCE!!!

:p

If it were trying to deal with the questions of science,

But it is. The Bible makes a whole variety of claims about the way the world works empirically. Look at the creation story.

You do not need to understand science to understand life's meaning.

That doesn't follow, either. "This statement is in a book (any book)" does not imply "This statement accurately depicts life's meaning." We need independent logical reasons to believe such things.

Science and philosophy are naturally complimentary. But religion makes claims that both empirical science and rational philosophy can fairly definitively reject.

Well, I'm particularly annoyed by point 11 so I'll start with that:

11. Poisoning the well - ‘a form of Ad Hominem attack that occurs before the meat of an argument, biasing the audience against the opponent’s side before he can present his case.’ [40]

Don’t pay attention to anyone who doubts evolution in any way, because they aren’t properly qualified scientists, they are only motivated by religious fundamentalism, and they are either mad or bad! That’s Dawkins’ well-poisoning take-home message about evolution-sceptics. It isn’t true.

Against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Dawkins ‘has called anyone advocating a creator God “scientifically illiterate”.’ [41] Stephen Jay Gould recognized that ‘Unless at least half my colleagues are dunces, there can be – on the most raw and empirical grounds – no conflict between science and religion.’ [42]

I can't find the context of Dawkins' quote because the author of the article makes the amateurish mistake of citing a secondary source rather than the original book. I suspect I have the book in which Dawkins makes the statement on my shelf but I can't check it, this kind of practice rings alarm bells for me.

Taken in any substantive sense, Dawkins’ assertion that ‘no qualified scientist doubts that evolution is a fact’ [43] is incorrect. Dr. Jonathan Wells is a qualified scientist, a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkley.

Wells got his PhD and then left to the best of my knowledge. He isn't a publishing author.

According to Wells: ‘The Darwinian paradigm is in serious trouble, of the kind that matters most in science: it doesn’t fit the evidence.’ [44]

Wells' book, Icons of Evolution, has been shown to be innaccurate and dishonest in the extreme. He's not an authority in any sense of the word.

Biochemist Michael J. Denton writes: ‘I am sceptical that major evolutionary changes or macroevolution can be adequately accounted for in terms of the Darwinian model; that is by the gradual accumulation of small selectively advantageous mutations. I am unaware of any objective or quantitative evidence to support Darwinian claims.’ [45] In response to a recent American television series on evolution, 132 qualified scientists signed a joint statement saying: ‘We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.’ [46] :

About 700 'scientists' have now signed. If you look at the list you'll see that the list of 'scientists' includes doctors, dentists, philosophers and other people with no qualifications relevant to evolution..

Signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. [47]

Dawkins would have us believe that since these people doubt evolution, they can’t possibly be ‘qualified’ scientists. With Dawkins, it seems that the only qualification that counts is belief in evolution.

Hardly any of them work in fields linked to Evolution, and several of them have claimed that they were duped into signing and have asked to have their names removed. Naturally the IDiots haven't had the integrity to do so.

It's also worth noting that Project Steve (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp) has nearly 900 signatures from scientists called Steve, Stephen, Stephanie or variations thereof. As these names make up about 1% of scientist names, we can estimate that less that 1% of scientists doubt evolution (it's also worth noting that all the Steves have experience in relevant fields: no doctors there...)

Dawkins lumps the scientific movement advocating Intelligent Design Theory [48] together with ‘biblical creationism’, calling Intelligent Design Theory (ID) a ‘euphemism for creationists.’ [49] In reality, ‘some of the strongest critics of Darwin’s theory are scientists who happen to be non-fundamentalist Protestants, Catholics, or Jews (as well as agnostics).’ [50] Thomas Woodward, author of Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, repudiates the claim that ID is motivated by religious premises:

Oh please. The ID Textbook, Of Pandas and People, was just a crudely editted Creationist text. The idiots couldn't even edit it properly, and in their haste to replace 'Creationists' with 'Design Proponents' they left a reference to 'CDesign Proponentists' in one edition. Have you heard of the Wedge Document?

in the course of hearing how key Design advocates came to their current view, it became clear that their entry into the movement stemmed from intellectual or scientific – not religious – reasons. . . Several of the founders frequently relate a vivid tale of how they previously had assumed the validity of Darwinian scenarios and were later shocked to discover major weaknesses in the case for Darwinism. Typically this intellectual epiphany leads to further reading and research, which cements the new radical doubt about the theory’s plausibility. [51]

Wells for one went into science with the stated intention of 'destroying Darwinism'...

William A. Dembski is at pains to stress that Intelligent Design Theory is not ‘creationism’:

the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism in no way hinges on the Genesis account of creation. On no occasion do design theorists invoke Genesis 1 and 2 as a scientific text. . . The design theorists’ beef is not with evolutionary change per se, but with the claim by Darwinists that all such change is driven by purely naturalistic processes. . . the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism begins with Darwinism’s failure as an empirically adequate scientific theory, and not with its supposed incompatibility with some system of religious belief. [52]

They've frequently cited John 1 "In the beginning was the word/information'.

Dawkins has called ID theorists ‘a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters’, [53] and claims: ‘it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).’ [54] On the contrary, as Dembski writes: ‘one can be reasonably well-adjusted, remarkably well-educated (as many design theorists are), and still think Darwinism is a failed scientific paradigm.’ [55] Dembski, whose work on The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University,

...and which never mentions evolution...

has a PhD in the philosophy of science and a PhD in mathematics (from the University of Chicago), and is currently associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University.

Out of date: he's now teaching an Apologetics course at a Bible college (but ID is completely secular of course...)

According to Dembski:

The following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life [56] , the origin of the genetic code [57] , the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality [58] , the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record [59] , the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era [60] , the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines. [61] These are just a few of the more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution that posits only undirected natural processes. It is thus sheer arrogance for Darwinists like Richard Dawkins. . . to charge design theorists with being ignorant or stupid or wicked or insane for denying the all-sufficiency of undirected natural processes in biology. . . [62]

Empty assertions from a non-biologist. Boring.

As Woodward explains:

respected professors at prestigious secular universities are rising up and arguing that (1) Darwinism is woefully lacking factual support and is rather based on philosophical assumptions, and (2) empirical evidence, especially in molecular biology, now points compellingly to some sort of creative intelligence behind life. . . this story veers away from the usual theistic evolutionary story (“based on the evidence, theistic scientists are now concluding that God worked through evolution”) and from the classic creation science tale (“scientists are recognizing that genesis is literally true after all”). [63]

This is the oldest lie in the Creationist movement. See here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm) for a history of this lie, from 1825 to 2006. Did you know that, four years ago, Dembski predicted that Evolution would be dead within five years?

As a student of science and as a christian, I think that this does more harm than good and that certain people would help their cause a considerable amount if they'd stop talking.

This is a fair point, which I, for one, am very much in danger of falling into through not wishing to discuss a subject where I've already decided what the subject is, and if I'm not willing to discuss it, why am I?

*enters pit of circular reasoning*

Ok, the self refutation argument for instance

"In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself:
Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: “Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?” And next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say. [4]
Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly (conflating evidence with empirical evidence) that his encouragement is self-contradictory, because it cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. In which case, Dawkins’ statement tells us not to believe a word he says! Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting. The belief that ‘knowledge is identical to scientific knowledge’ is not something that can be known scientifically. Rather, it is a philosophical dogma (called ‘positivism’)."

Thoughts...

Dawkins is not a logical positivist. The statement "you should doubt anything which isn't evidenced" is in fact evidenced by the history of ideas, with religious doctrines being smashed by scientific observation.

But can this principle be analytically proven?

Can it be defended on terms of rationality, or at least reasonableness? Yes.

Isn't the falsification principle an unfalsifiable proposition by its own terms?

No, because falsification is really an attempt to solve the problem of induction. The falsification principle, however, isn't something we induce.

Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on. And an OBJECTIVE reason, not merely a "good" reason. Because what is good is subjective.

People gather evidence and experience and hand it down through generations.

The bible is several thousand years old, without having been updated or edited. The evidence and experience listed in it is outdated and limited, as humanity has spend these millenia since the bible was written down gathering further knowledge, evidence and experiences. Any book today draws on more data than the bible ever could. Ergo, the bible is not something you want to base an assumption on, unless its subject is the bible itself.

Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on. And an OBJECTIVE reason, not merely a "good" reason. Because what is good is subjective.

It's contradictory and large chunks of it have been disproven.

Dawkins presupposes no designer.

Where on earth did you hear that? Dawkins lays out an argument for there being no designer in The Blind Watchmaker, and uses a similar argument in The God Delusion but nowhere does he presuppose it.

it depends if God is in old testament or new testament mode

Can it be defended on terms of rationality, or at least reasonableness? Yes.


It sounds reasonable, but that doesn't make it an objective, universal method.


No, because falsification is really an attempt to solve the problem of induction. The falsification principle, however, isn't something we induce.

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you rephrase it?

This is a fair point, which I, for one, am very much in danger of falling into through not wishing to discuss a subject where I've already decided what the subject is, and if I'm not willing to discuss it, why am I?

*enters pit of circular reasoning*

*fills pit with mud*

Originally Posted by Article
As Woodward explains:

respected professors at prestigious secular universities are rising up and arguing that (1) Darwinism is woefully lacking factual support and is rather based on philosophical assumptions, and (2) empirical evidence, especially in molecular biology, now points compellingly to some sort of creative intelligence behind life. . . this story veers away from the usual theistic evolutionary story (“based on the evidence, theistic scientists are now concluding that God worked through evolution”) and from the classic creation science tale (“scientists are recognizing that genesis is literally true after all”). [63]


This is the oldest lie in the Creationist movement. See here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm) for a history of this lie, from 1825 to 2006. Did you know that, four years ago, Dembski predicted that Evolution would be dead within five years?

hey now DARWINISM is lacking in factual support. after all darwin didnt know the mechanism of transmission of traits from parent to offspring so he made his best guess. EVOLUTION on the other hand has an overwhelming amount of factual support.

It sounds reasonable, but that doesn't make it an objective, universal method.

Then we can look for alternatives, discuss them, and see if they have stronger justifications. This is really theoretically far more difficult than it is practically.

I'm not sure what you mean here, can you rephrase it?

We don't look at the empirical evidence and decide that the falsification principle is the general rule that best explains it. But that's the logical process the falsification principle is concerned with: it wants all such explanations to be falsifiable. But not all truth of any sort.

hey now DARWINISM is lacking in factual support. after all darwin didnt know the mechanism of transmission of traits from parent to offspring so he made his best guess. EVOLUTION on the other hand has an overwhelming amount of factual support.

Ok, fair play. :p

Strictly one should say 'The Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinian Evolution' as Evolution could be taken to encompass Lamarckism and Saltationism, but that's a bit of a mouthful.

Ok, fair play. :p

Strictly one should say 'The Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinian Evolution' as Evolution could be taken to encompass Lamarckism and Saltationism, but that's a bit of a mouthful.

yeah. i hate it when they call evolution "darwinism" as if darwin is the guiding prophet whose word is law.

and honestly, im not sure that my point ISNT their point. they arent exactly rigorous in their arguments.

Then we can look for alternatives, discuss them, and see if they have stronger justifications. This is really theoretically far more difficult than it is practically.


And how will you judge what has stronger justifications?


We don't look at the empirical evidence and decide that the falsification principle is the general rule that best explains it. But that's the logical process the falsification principle is concerned with: it wants all such explanations to be falsifiable. But not all truth of any sort.

But is the falsification principle only concerned with empirical evidence? For instance, you can use the principle to show that the statement "all widows are men" is untrue because the definition of widow it self contradicts it, thus falsifying the proposition.

Hopefully the sky fairy has finished talking to everyone but the folks in the psych ward.

And how will you judge what has stronger justifications?

Using reason.

For instance, you can use the principle to show that the statement "all widows are men" is untrue because the definition of widow it self contradicts it, thus falsifying the proposition.

That has no connection to the notion of "falsifiability" in philosophy of science. That's just a logical proof.

That has no connection to the notion of "falsifiability" in philosophy of science. That's just a logical proof.

What are you saying then, that the principle is only concerned with synthetic rather than analytic statements?

How the hell are we supposed to know what God would say to Richard Dawkins?

How the hell are we supposed to know what God would say to Richard Dawkins?

the metatron would tell you.

What would God say to Richard Dawkins?"Hi, I'm Zeus, nice to meet you.
Right in time for tea, have a scone?"
(Why yes, he's Greek AND British.)

Now, what would the Flying Spaghetti Monster say to the pope?

Forgive me but can you give an objective reason why the bible is not a good thing to base things on. And an OBJECTIVE reason, not merely a "good" reason. Because what is good is subjective.It's as good a thing to base things on as "Harry Potter". (Which, mind you, has plenty to tell on moral issues and importance of friendship, the triumph of good over evil, etc)
And the best things to base on it is works of fiction.

What are you saying then, that the principle is only concerned with synthetic rather than analytic statements?

It's concerned with induction from specific empirical data.

"Soheran's hair is always brown." As a general rule for (and induced from) our observations of my hair, it needs to be falsifiable: it needs to contain the prediction, for instance, that if someone looks at my hair, she will see brownness. We can't assume that just because everyone has seen my hair as brown so far, it won't change tomorrow, so we must make this rule contingent on having not yet been falsified.

"When I looked at Soheran's hair yesterday at 1:00 PM, it was brown." Not falsifiable, but nobody cares, because it's just a specific observation. It doesn't suffer from the problem of induction.

"1 + 1 = 2." A general rule, but not a matter for falsifiability, because it's not induced from empirical evidence. We get it by dealing with concepts independent of specific experiences.

Where on earth did you hear that? Dawkins lays out an argument for there being no designer in The Blind Watchmaker, and uses a similar argument in The God Delusion but nowhere does he presuppose it.

Uh...I heard it from the post I quoted. I was merely reflecting what was posted. Relax. The post I quoted claimed Dawkins' work was flawed because he presupposes no God. All I said was if that's the case, then his opponents are equally wrong because they presuppose that there IS a God. That's all.

Uh...I heard it from the post I quoted. I was merely reflecting what was posted. Relax. The post I quoted claimed Dawkins' work was flawed because he presupposes no God. All I said was if that's the case, then his opponents are equally wrong because they presuppose that there IS a God. That's all.

Sorry, I don't see anything quoted in your post which is why I assumed they were your own thoughts. Have a conciliatory cookie. :)

Sorry, I don't see anything quoted in your post which is why I assumed they were your own thoughts. Have a conciliatory cookie. :)

Did I not quote the...oh, fer cryin' out loud. I accept your cookie and proffer a baked retort of a Cookie of Dumbassery by way of apology.

Okay, who says this? Only the most die-hard positivists, maybe. Certainly not Dawkins, who argues that strictly speaking he is "agnostic" on the subject of God, but in the same sense that he is agnostic about unicorns, or Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, and perhaps more fundamentally, you're confusing two different kinds of truth. We don't need empirical evidence to affirm that 1 + 1 = 2. But we do need empirical evidence to affirm that my hair is brown. Philosophical truth about the methods of epistemology is of the first kind, not the second. Truth about God, however, is of the second, not the first--because the various philosophical arguments for logically proving God's existence have proven to be utterly flawed (as Dawkins explains.)

Really? I havn't seen anyone prove any of my philosophical ideas about the eixstiance of God wrong. They disagree, but thats not the same as being proven wrong. What ideas would they be?

But it is. The Bible makes a whole variety of claims about the way the world works empirically. Look at the creation story.

Yes, look at the creation story. If you look at it, you will see something very specific which does not contradict with the nature of science. "God created man" does not nessecarly contradict "man evolved" because the former denotes authorship, the latter denotes craft/method. The Bible is not concerned with how the universe came into being, because ultimately, how the universe came into being is not of the kind of consequence that impacts our lives directly. The bible is concerned with why the universe came into being, its purpose which is denoted by the fact that it has an author, a creator. There is nothing anywhere in science which would remove this as a possibility. Indeed the very nature of science arguably suggests otherwise. Ultimately when you break science down, it has a stopping point, which is the physical laws of the universe. The laws that govern the behavior of the smallest possible particles (subatomic, atomic etc) and from which all other principles are built upon. The fact that the universe is ordered (IE has fixed rules about how such things behave) means it leads itself towards order, and order generally suggests an authority. The physical laws of the universe are, if you like, the articles of faith of science, what scientits 'worship' to put it one way. Because if you ask "where do the physical laws come from/why are the laws that way" science can only say "they just are". If they can find more fundimental laws than those, they must then say "so where did the laws governing the laws come from" and "Where did the laws that govern the laws that govern the laws come from..." etc.

That doesn't follow, either. "This statement is in a book (any book)" does not imply "This statement accurately depicts life's meaning." We need independent logical reasons to believe such things.

Yes, so you look at the content of the book, what it says and how it works and you see.

Science and philosophy are naturally complimentary. But religion makes claims that both empirical science and rational philosophy can fairly definitively reject.

Really? I'd be interested to see what these are? I've never come across them and I spend my time looking for them

Yes, look at the creation story. If you look at it, you will see something very specific which does not contradict with the nature of science. "God created man" does not nessecarly contradict "man evolved" because the former denotes authorship, the latter denotes craft/method.

But "woman was created after man and from man" does contradict with science, as do the numerous chronological errors in the Genesis story:

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

EDIT: Genesis is also very specific as to how man was created:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Hardly compatible with Evolution, no?

Yes, look at the creation story. If you look at it, you will see something very specific which does not contradict with the nature of science. "God created man" does not nessecarly contradict "man evolved" because the former denotes authorship, the latter denotes craft/method. The Bible is not concerned with how the universe came into being, because ultimately, how the universe came into being is not of the kind of consequence that impacts our lives directly. The bible is concerned with why the universe came into being, its purpose which is denoted by the fact that it has an author, a creator. There is nothing anywhere in science which would remove this as a possibility. Indeed the very nature of science arguably suggests otherwise. Ultimately when you break science down, it has a stopping point, which is the physical laws of the universe. The laws that govern the behavior of the smallest possible particles (subatomic, atomic etc) and from which all other principles are built upon. The fact that the universe is ordered (IE has fixed rules about how such things behave) means it leads itself towards order, and order generally suggests an authority. The physical laws of the universe are, if you like, the articles of faith of science, what scientits 'worship' to put it one way. Because if you ask "where do the physical laws come from/why are the laws that way" science can only say "they just are". If they can find more fundimental laws than those, they must then say "so where did the laws governing the laws come from" and "Where did the laws that govern the laws that govern the laws come from..." etc.


I can't help but wonder...

It sounds to me like you are saying that in order for there to be complexity in the universe (or a physical universe at all), in order for there to be, well, order - a creator is the only possible source of the order. Did the creator create itself as well?

I can't help but wonder...

It sounds to me like you are saying that in order for there to be complexity in the universe (or a physical universe at all), in order for there to be, well, order - a creator is the only possible source of the order. Did the creator create itself as well?

No he was already there, he has always existed...
:rolleyes:

No he was already there, he has always existed...
:rolleyes:

So did god just kinda start existing one day, or was he created somewhere (or did he evolve...?)

So did god just kinda start existing one day, or was he created somewhere (or did he evolve...?)

I have no idea, I think that statement is rather silly...

What ideas would they be?

What ideas would what be?

"God created man" does not nessecarly contradict "man evolved" because the former denotes authorship, the latter denotes craft/method.

So Eve being made from Adam's rib isn't "craft/method"?

The Bible is not concerned with how the universe came into being,

Then why does it bother telling us?

because ultimately, how the universe came into being is not of the kind of consequence that impacts our lives directly.

That's your own value judgment, and it functions within religion as an after-the-fact excuse for getting things thoroughly wrong.

The fact that the universe is ordered (IE has fixed rules about how such things behave) means it leads itself towards order, and order generally suggests an authority

No, it doesn't. Order suggests laws. But there's nothing intrinsic about natural laws that says they were set by something or someone. They could just be the way things work.

If they can find more fundimental laws than those, they must then say "so where did the laws governing the laws come from" and "Where did the laws that govern the laws that govern the laws come from..." etc.

Yeah, and I can always ask where God came from.

God is the ultimate absurdity, so using Him to explain anything doesn't help much.

Yes, so you look at the content of the book, what it says and how it works and you see.

What? That God thinks gays should be killed and whole peoples exterminated? There's very little in the Bible that's remotely philosophically compelling.

Really? I'd be interested to see what these are?

Claims about life's origins and the universe's origins in general (the Creation story), claims about history (Tower of Babel, Exodus, almost certainly exaggerated descriptions of David and Solomon), claims about its texts (the first five books of the OT were almost certainly written by several authors, not transferred by God to Moses)....

I can't help but wonder...

It sounds to me like you are saying that in order for there to be complexity in the universe (or a physical universe at all), in order for there to be, well, order - a creator is the only possible source of the order. Did the creator create itself as well?

That depends on the creation story you read. The ancient Egyptian one indeed has Atum willing himself into being. Formations from Chaos are also quite popular in several mainstream religions.

Unfortunately details like these ("other religions exist") are often overlooked by fans of Abraham.

Then why does it bother telling us?

Yeah, why didn't God save everyone a lot of time by scrapping the whole of Genesis and just writing:

See this? I made it, lol. 'Nuff Said.
God

Think of all the trees which would have been saved by the reduced quantity of paper needed for Bible printing!

That depends on the creation story you read. The ancient Egyptian one indeed has Atum willing himself into being. Formations from Chaos are also quite popular in several mainstream religions.

Unfortunately details like these ("other religions exist") are often overlooked by fans of Abraham.

Formations from Chaos would be basically the same idea as evolution, a series or random events forming a not so random shape.

So did god just kinda start existing one day, or was he created somewhere (or did he evolve...?)
This is why Creationism and ID is doomed to fail. It doesn't answer the question of how life, or what have you, came into being, it merely pushes it further away.

At some point their has to be an origin for life, ie, even if earth was built by aliens or something, those aliens, themselves, would have had to been created by another race, or evolved themselves, so it doesn't exclude evolution at all, because, at some point, life had to arise from nothing.


The article reminds me of the idiotic argument about the Banana, and how it disproves evolution, ignoring, of course, that modern Bananas where cultivated into their present from via breeding.

If God existed it would be necessary to abolish him.

Probably nothing...

"Stick to being a scientist, nobody really wants to indulge in intellectual masturbation over your books".

Lol Wut

*fills pit with mud*

*plays*

The first thing would probably be: SURPRISE!!

God would say, "Nice try, but your ignorance does not become you."

"God here; I'm off partying with Odin right now. Leave a message after the beep and I'll get back to you in 5 to 10 work eternities."

"Seeing as I don't exist, I'm obviously just a figment of your imagination." :D

You posted this 3 minitues after my post. The talk is over an hour long, and unless your going to cite some points from the article, I'm going to reasonably conclude you have looked at neither piece.
Ouch.
I'll admit, I don't know what God would say to Richard Dawkins. But I do know this: God would have wanted for this talk to be written down, so I wouldn't have to open any media player and spend an hour listening to it. I'm disappointed that this web site has let God down.

What would God say to Richard Dawkins?

God's a busy man (that's right, MAN. I totally went there) he wouldn't talk to Richard Dawkins, he'd get some angel to be the greeter of heaven. If Wal-Mart can do it why can't God?

he'd get some angel to be the greeter of heaven.


Isn't that supposed to be St. Peter (at least for catholics?)

If I were God, speaking to Dawkins, I would say something like, "I gave you a brain and you actually used it for something other than holding your ears apart and storing vapid platitudes. Good."

The thing about faith is if you don't have it you can't understand it. If you do, no explaination is necessary.

If God existed it would be necessary to abolish him.

I didn't realise quoting Bakunin was your style Andaras :)

http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=248&TopicID=2&CategoryID=1

From quoted linky, bold mine
Consider the following sampling of logical fallacies drawn from Dawkins’ cannon:

Someone who doesn't even know the difference between a "canon" and a "cannon" doesn't deserve my attention.

Main Entry: canon
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Latin, ruler, rule, model, standard, from Greek kanōn
Date: before 12th century


Main Entry: cannon
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nən\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cannons or cannon
Etymology: Middle English canon, from Anglo-French, from Old Italian cannone, literally, large tube, augmentative of canna reed, tube, from Latin, cane, reed

Here's the answer:
http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/1999/08/26/boll/index.html

Here are some more GODMAN adventures :p
http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/godman.html


Hilarious, absolutely hilarious (http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/2000/09/28/boll/index.html). :D

Someone who doesn't even know the difference between a "canon" and a "cannon" doesn't deserve my attention.So I take it I may assume that in your 2,932 posts you never ever made a typo that turned an intended word into another word?
Unless it's symptomatic of a systematic failure to use language with a modicum of care, it's not really much of a reason to dismiss someone.

I think it'd actually be kind of cool if Dawkins had a cannon.

*poof*


Which is the noise made by god as he disolves into a little cloud of logic (borrowed from Douglas Adams - don't panic :D)

god don't talk. it just hugs. every thousand years it picks someone to be channeled by though. it does this every thousand or so years because in a few centuries or even decades, people with their own axes to grind get to worshiping, or rather telling everyone else to worship, the messanger, and missing the whole point of the message.

christ was one of those channellers, so was mahammid, so was baha'u'llah.
and so were the founders of other major beliefs, even the ones that have come to be seen as polytheistic and those that don't even mention a god at all.

=^^=
.../\...

God would say 'do it for the luls'.

I can't help but wonder...

It sounds to me like you are saying that in order for there to be complexity in the universe (or a physical universe at all), in order for there to be, well, order - a creator is the only possible source of the order. Did the creator create itself as well?

This is where we get into non-linar natures of things, and this is the problem Dawkins has. Dawkins, by breaking down the universe to its bear basic means, leaves the problem of infinite regress to himself, not to the religious. If it is argued that God created the matter/space/time universe, it stands to reason that he exists beyond all those three which means in turn he is not directly affected by causation. He doesn't need a creator because he exists beyond the confines of time. So from our perspective in having time, it would be akin that he 'always' existed.

This is where we get into non-linar natures of things, and this is the problem Dawkins has. Dawkins, by breaking down the universe to its bear basic means, leaves the problem of infinite regress to himself, not to the religious. If it is argued that God created the matter/space/time universe, it stands to reason that he exists beyond all those three which means in turn he is not directly affected by causation. He doesn't need a creator because he exists beyond the confines of time. So from our perspective in having time, it would be akin that he 'always' existed.

Time aside, he would still need form of one way or another. And form requires order. So who created the order that allows god to exist?

Time aside, he would still need form of one way or another. And form requires order. So who created the order that allows god to exist?

Judge Wapner. *nod*

Dawkins presupposes no designer. Uh, yeah -- and his opponents presuppose that there IS a designer! What kind of cloth-eared syllogism is this, and why are we supposed to find it convincing?

Also, to the OP and your thread's preposterous title?

Nobody knows what God would say to Richard Dawkins. The people countering him are speaking FOR God. WHen God Himself speaks, THEN we'll see something interesting. The fact that people who argue ID would claim authority on what God would "say" is in itself ludicrous.

And, incidentally, blasphemous.

Judge Wapner. *nod*

Judge Judy, you heretic!

Ok, the self refutation argument for instance

"In an open letter to his daughter Juliet, Richard Dawkins laudably encourages her to think for herself: [...] next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: “What kind of evidence is there for that?” And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.

Dawkins limits what can count as a good reason to believe something so tightly [...] that his encouragement [...] cannot be justified with anything that he would count as evidence. [...] Hence his demand for evidence is self-refuting.

[...]

Thoughts...


A demand can't be refuted (by itself or anything else).
Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure Dawkins would actually be quite happy - or even insist - for his advice to be subjected to his own criterion of acceptability, if you're determined to read it as an assertion rather than as advice.
In furtherance of which: you're not trying very hard if you can think of absolutely no empirical test of the assertion "it's a good idea to test statements rather than blindly accepting them from any source".
Even if there were something wrong with Dawkins' advice (and I'm not sure there is), what's the conclusion you draw from your supposed refutation? "Take anything and everything on trust, even if there's no evidence for it"? If so, I've got a bucket of dihydrogen monoxide I'm prepared to sell to you for a very, er, reasonable price. It's an extremely rare and valuable chemical, you know - trust me on this.

What a weak attempt. I had expected better from a community that got a 2000 year head start on defending itself.

Dawkins’s caricature of Christianity may well carry weight with his increasingly religiously illiterate or religiously alienated audiences, who find in his writings ample confirmation of their prejudices, but merely persuades those familiar with religious traditions to conclude that Dawkins has no interest in understanding what he critiques. . . The classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality and does not hold that faith involves the abandonment of reason or the absence of evidence. Indeed, the Christian tradition is so strong on this matter that it is often difficult to understand where Dawkins got these ideas.


Maybe he got that idea from the fact that belief in an all powerful, all loving diety whom still allows for evil and sends people to hell for not believing in his fan club, whom sent his "son" in mortal form to die and then said son allegedly ROSE FROM THE DEAD, and the only evidence for said rising is a 2000 year old book is inherantly irrational, illogical, and unprovable.


But, you know...not to let facts get in the way.

God doesn't believe in Richard Dawkins, so nothing.

The thing about faith is if you don't have it you can't understand it. If you do, no explaination is necessary.


So you're saying its totally indistinguishable from a psychotic delusion?

What would God say to Richard Dawkins?
Nothing, because He doesn't exist. Duh.

Someone who doesn't even know the difference between a "canon" and a "cannon" doesn't deserve my attention.

But this explains so much! Darwin wasn't a scientist, he was a pirate!
Anyway. The first thing God would say to Dawkins would be a challenge to a rap-off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw).

"Die, fat ho, die!!"

What a weak attempt. I had expected better from a community that got a 2000 year head start on defending itself.




Maybe he got that idea from the fact that belief in an all powerful, all loving diety whom still allows for evil and sends people to hell for not believing in his fan club, whom sent his "son" in mortal form to die and then said son allegedly ROSE FROM THE DEAD, and the only evidence for said rising is a 2000 year old book is inherantly irrational, illogical, and unprovable.


But, you know...not to let facts get in the way.

they wasted most of their head start with killing those who opposed them instead of coming up with really good reasons to believe.

But this explains so much! Darwin wasn't a scientist, he was a pirate!
Anyway. The first thing God would say to Dawkins would be a challenge to a rap-off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw).

A better reason for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to endorse Evolution I have never heard.

so what do YOU think that god would say to dawkins?

"Surprised?" :D

Or maybe, "Hey, Richard... you were right." ;)

so what do YOU think that god would say to dawkins?



Probably something like...


"Ah come on in anyway, I need some intellegent conversation."


ZING!

"Oh er hello there, you must be feeling a bit silly now eh? Don't worry at least you were thinking about me"

And, incidentally, blasphemous.

Well, yeah, that too.

the bible is a good resource for jewish and christians beliefs.

for anything non religious, its inappropriate.

Even then the bible needs some kind of context/interpretation, as many christians practice their religion using an interpretation of it.

"What would God say to Richard Dawkins? "

"Get ready for some love" ?

What would God say to Richard Dawkins?
Probably something like, "I am."

"so, you dont like my book huh?" then he would weep and then shout"WELL THEN BURN IN HELL!, MY BOOK IS GOOD DAMN IT!, AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT THEN YOU CAN BURN!" then dawkins would burn on behalf of the dramatic pms abraham god