# Richard Dawkins



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2012)

Is on BBC R4 now...


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2012)

Ta


----------



## weltweit (Sep 4, 2012)

I wonder how many people have been able to escape from religion as a result of the god delusion. He (Dawkins) says he has received a lot of letters along those lines. I bet there are many thousands or tens of thousands who do not write.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 4, 2012)

Youtube should be enough for most people to escape religion these days.  http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....0.4.4.0.81.387.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.d4u2VMarX_s


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 4, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I wonder how many people have been able to escape from religion as a result of the god delusion. He (Dawkins) says he has received a lot of letters along those lines. I bet there are many thousands or tens of thousands who do not write.


 
i'm sure whilst he is self flagellating on his own genius its those unwritten letters of affection he is thinking about


----------



## dylans (Sep 4, 2012)

His atheism doesn't particularly interest me. However, as a biologist and a public educator in regards to evolutionary theory he is simply superb and I would recommend his books and documentaries to anyone who wants a broad understanding of evolution.


----------



## eoin_k (Sep 4, 2012)

He is like Marx, Nietzsche, Blanqui and Galileo all rolled into one, but slightly more smug and a bit less daring in the battles he chooses to fight.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 4, 2012)

I saw a couple of brilliant interviews with him and a right wing American, god bothering bully. I quite like him and he made me laugh an awful lot on that show.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 4, 2012)

This one


----------



## N_igma (Sep 4, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I wonder how many people have been able to escape from religion as a result of the god delusion. He (Dawkins) says he has received a lot of letters along those lines. I bet there are many thousands or tens of thousands who do not write.


 
More than likely mostly people already erring towards agnosticism anyway.

Most devoutly religious people wouldn't give it the time of day. I'd tend to agree with Dylans on this one in that he's a far better scientest. I've got that _The Greatest Show on Earth_ book and it's very comprehensive and informative. _The God Delusion_ actually annoyed me in parts, even though I'm an atheist myself.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 4, 2012)

And this one which cracks me up 
"Will you listen and stop shouting at me?"


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> And this one which cracks me up
> "Will you listen and stop shouting at me?"


That man is a complete a-hole!


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> This one


What is it with loudmouth American bible bashers.. what a total plank ..


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

Here is Ken Miller on Dawkins. If you don't know Miller, he is one of the leading evolutionary biologists working today. He testified at the Dover intelligent design trial and is a very articulate advocate of evolution. He is religious but also a secularist in that he believes in state church separation and methodological naturalism in the scientific method. He gives an interesting perspective on Dawkins and on the question of the relationship between science and religion which on the whole I agree with, even if I don't share Millers religious faith.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 5, 2012)

I can't stand the guy. He misrepresents the relationship between science and religion, a relationship which coexists for many, many scientists, rather than the either/or model he suggests. And he chooses easy targets like American bible bashers whereas in reality most people's faith is a quiet and personal thing. I'm an atheist but the older I get, and the more capable of love I've become, the more I understand the need people have for faith. In this respect, I find him incredibly disrespectful and emotionally backward, akin to an 18 year old debating society dick.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 5, 2012)

He gives religion all the respect it deserves


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 5, 2012)

He's certainly not cool.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> That man is a complete a-hole!


I think he's hilarious


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I think he's hilarious


 
I would be laughing if I did not find the man just scary!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 5, 2012)

Dawkins needs to sort his barnet out


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I would be laughing if I did not find the man just scary!!


You should watch the one where he interviews the son of a 9/11 victim. That one is properly scary.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 5, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> He's certainly not cool.


Cooler than you.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 5, 2012)

Ouch!


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

He was a brilliant scientist, but in his role as a promoter of public understanding of science in the context of religion I have to echo Red Cat's comments. He's an abject communicator, and as arrogant as only a don can be.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I can't stand the guy. He misrepresents the relationship between science and religion, a relationship which coexists for many, many scientists, rather than the either/or model he suggests. And he chooses easy targets like American bible bashers whereas in reality most people's faith is a quiet and personal thing. I'm an atheist but the older I get, and the more capable of love I've become, the more I understand the need people have for faith. In this respect, I find him incredibly disrespectful and emotionally backward, akin to an 18 year old debating society dick.


 
You are correct in stating that science and religion coexist for many scientists, but Dawkins is right in pointing out and trying to bring to the fore the inherent tension between these two modes of thought: they can only coexist through cognitive dissonance, what Gould called "Non-overlapping magisteria". I agree with Dawkins in pushing the "fundamentalist" perspective: things are either true or not. When a thought-system makes truth-claims about reality it has strayed into scientific territory and cannot defend itself by claiming it is governed by a different system of truth.

But he is clearly also a dick.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

Truth is a philosophical concept rather than a scientific one though. I think Dawkins should stick to facts, not "truth".


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

A claim about how the universe works that is rooted in material reality and therefore testable is a scientific claim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

I agree with kropotkin on this one - to be a religious scientist is to exist in a state of cognitive dissonance, applying one set of standards to certain questions and another to others.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 5, 2012)

dylans said:


> Here is Ken Miller on Dawkins. If you don't know Miller, he is one of the leading evolutionary biologists working today. He testified at the Dover intelligent design trial and is a very articulate advocate of evolution. He is religious but also a secularist in that he believes in state church separation and methodological naturalism in the scientific method. He gives an interesting perspective on Dawkins and on the question of the relationship between science and religion which on the whole I agree with, even if I don't share Millers religious faith.




Ken Miller:


> And I thought Stephen [Jay Gould] was the finest writer on biology ever, and certainly on evolutionary theory. This infuriated Dawkins the Oxford don that this Jewish kid from Brooklyn was better at the queens English than Dawkins was.


 
That's just an unpleasant smear. Is he calling Dawkins an anti-semitic snob? It should be said that Dawkins and Gould actually got on quite well and worked closely with each other in combating the creationists. I didn't listen to the rest.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

What I have never understood is why you would hold questions of particle physics or drug efficacy to higher standards of proof than much more important questions like the existence of a soul, god etc. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## no-no (Sep 5, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I can't stand the guy. He misrepresents the relationship between science and religion, a relationship which coexists for many, many scientists, rather than the either/or model he suggests. And he chooses easy targets like American bible bashers whereas in reality most people's faith is a quiet and personal thing. I'm an atheist but the older I get, and the more capable of love I've become, the more I understand the need people have for faith. In this respect, I find him incredibly disrespectful and emotionally backward, akin to an 18 year old debating society dick.


 
Nothing wrong with disrespect, Let people believe whatever they like but they shouldn't expect their beliefs to be sacred to everyone else.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with kropotkin on this one - to be a religious scientist is to exist in a state of cognitive dissonance, applying one set of standards to certain questions and another to others.


 
The upshot of that is that you have to take a scientific stance to everything. Good luck with that when you're out shopping, or deciding who to vote for. We all have different standards of truth in different domains. And millenias' worth of religious scientists seem to have done ok.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The upshot of that is that you have to take a scientific stance to everything. Good luck with that when you're out shopping, or deciding who to vote for. We all have different standards of truth in different domains. And millenias' worth of religious scientists seem to have done ok.


Strangely (strangely to me at least), there have been very good scientists who've been religious. I would still maintain that their religious belief - if it has any content whatever - is incompatible with their scientific work, and that the presence of that belief is a potential banana skin for their scientific work.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Strangely (strangely to me at least), there have been very good scientists who've been religious. I would still maintain that their religious belief - if it has any content whatever - is incompatible with their scientific work.


 
Who are you to maintain that? Funny how the theory of evolution is entirely compatible with belief in a divine creator.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The upshot of that is that you have to take a scientific stance to everything. Good luck with that when you're out shopping, or deciding who to vote for. We all have different standards of truth in different domains. And millenias' worth of religious scientists seem to have done ok.


Rubbish. "A is true" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "I like A".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Who are you to maintain that? Funny how the theory of evolution is entirely compatible with belief in a divine creator.


Is it? What kind of divine creator? Tell me something about it - give the belief some content.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Rubbish. "A is true" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "I like A".


 
You just proved my point you fool.


littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? What kind of divine creator? Tell me something about it - give the belief some content.


The simplest case is a creator that instigates a Big Bang (or whatever preferred cosmogony you've got) and sits back to let the good times roll.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Rubbish. "A is true" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "I like A".



"A is a fact" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "A is true".


----------



## Knotted (Sep 5, 2012)

Where's Phil these days? This thread needs a good Dwyering.


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with kropotkin on this one - to be a religious scientist is to exist in a state of cognitive dissonance, applying one set of standards to certain questions and another to others.


 
I don't care about the religious affilations of individual scientists. I do care very much that the method they use and apply in their work is scientific. That is that any claims they make are testable, repeatable and refutable. Science doesn't have to be philosophically naturalistic. That is it doesn't have to make claims about the existance or non existance of gods, purpose, meaning etc as long as it is neutral on these questions.

Science does however have to be methodologically naturalistic and only make testable claims about the material world. Aside from that, the personal beliefs of scientists are of no consequence.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> "A is a fact" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "A is true".


 
But you can't because cognitive dissonance....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The simplest case is a creator that instigates a Big Bang (or whatever preferred cosmogony you've got) and sits back to let the good times roll.


You've hit a problem already. 'God started the big bang'. Then, some time later, it's discovered that there never was a big bang at all - or that the big bang was the start of this universe, but caused by the end of another one. So you go back to the point 'before' that and say ok, well god started that. And then it's discovered that that's not quite right either...


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> But you can't because cognitive dissonance....



Heh


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've hit a problem already. 'God started the big bang'. Then, some time later, it's discovered that there never was a big bang at all - or that the big bang was the start of this universe, but caused by the end of another one. So you go back to the point 'before' that and say ok, well god started that. And then it's discovered that that's not quite right either...


 
_God created the universe_. THat should cover any objections you have.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> "A is a fact" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "A is true".


Give an example of 'A' in both instances, please. If you're talking about the difference between synthetic and analytical statements, you're already into the realm of defining strict scientific method in a way that ought to preclude religious belief.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> _God created the universe_. THat should cover any objections you have.


Define universe. Define god (as something that is not a part of the universe). Doesn't cover anything.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Define universe. Define god (as something that is not a part of the universe). Doesn't cover anything.


 
The universe has a simple definition. Everything that ever was, is and will be. Define god? Why would i want to do that? Why _should_ want to do that? You're begging the question by asking me to define something that is by definition outside of all definitions (at least in Christianity, Islam and Judaism).


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> "A is a fact" is clearly a different statement and requires different evaluation than "A is true".


I'm not being linguistically rigorous enough here then- show me the difference where statements 1 and 2 make claims about material reality. They superficially appear the same to me (or at least in the way I mean them)


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

I enjoy a particular painting, say Munch's _Scream. _Are you lads telling me I need to or should be able to have a scientific reason for why that is the case? Are you saying it's even possible?


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I enjoy a particular painting, say Munch's _Scream. _Are you lads telling me I need to or should be able to have a scientific reason for why that is the case? Are you saying it's even possible?


 
Err...no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The universe has a simple definition. Everything that ever was, is and will be. Define god? Why would i want to do that? Why _should_ want to do that? You're begging the question by asking me to define something that is by definition outside of all definitions (at least in Christianity, Islam and Judaism).


If the universe is everything, it includes 'god' whatever that might be. So 'god created the universe' is a necessarily meaningless statement.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I enjoy a particular painting, say Munch's _Scream. _Are you lads telling me I need to or should be able to have a scientific reason for why that is the case?


no


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Err...no


 
In which case my point that we comfortable, and I'll add necessarily, employ different standards of to different domains is true. And for the record, this is very much a truth-claim about material reality, seeing as it involves only material phenomena.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

...or the set of things that can effect each other. Which, if you are a theist who holds that God can intervene in reality means that God must necessarily be part of the universe.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If the universe is everything, it includes 'god' whatever that might be. So 'god created the universe' is a necessarily meaningless statement.


 
It is? Then how was the universe supposed to have created itself?


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've hit a problem already. 'God started the big bang'. Then, some time later, it's discovered that there never was a big bang at all - or that the big bang was the start of this universe, but caused by the end of another one. So you go back to the point 'before' that and say ok, well god started that. And then it's discovered that that's not quite right either...


Religion by definition attempts to make claims about the supernatural, that is, things that are beyond the physical world. Science, by definition can only make claims about the material world. Whether or not there exists such a supernatural realm is an interesting philosophical discussion but it is not a scientific one. It is not therefore, the task of science to answer.

Science can answer specific questions that religions and religious myth make in so far as such claims trespass on its territory. So, for example the claim that god made man in his image out of a woman's rib, or Noah's ark or a young Earth etc are clearly refuted by science and in so far as such refutation damages the reputation of religious claims in general then, yes, science is incompatible with religion and certainly with fundamentalism and biblical or Quranic literalism. However science cannot and more importantly _should not_ attempt to answer religious claims concerning the non material because such claims themselves are not scientific and as such it is not the task of science to answer such claims. At best science must be neutral about these questions. They are as Gould put it "non overlapping magisteria" .That is, they ask and answer different questions.

I am an atheist and my atheism is certainly reinforced by scientific knowledge but scientific knowledge is not the basis of my atheism. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe the claims for the existance of the divine or the supernatural but as far as knowledge is concerned I cannot say I know there is no god. If by definition we are talking about something beyond the natural world then it is, by definition, un-knowable at least by science.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 5, 2012)

no-no said:


> Nothing wrong with disrespect, Let people believe whatever they like but they shouldn't expect their beliefs to be sacred to everyone else.


 
I meant disrespect for the needs that make us human, those same needs that lead to most people in the world having some kind of religious belief.


----------



## Favelado (Sep 5, 2012)

Dawkin's Twitter feed has gone a bit mental this week. Has something happened to excite him so much? I'm a huge Dawkin's fan by the way, s that's not a diss.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> ...or the set of things that can effect each other. Which, if you are a theist who holds that God can intervene in reality means that God must necessarily be part of the universe.


 
No and yes. The way this is often handled in Western theology is that part of God is part of the universe, but that God proper is not a part of the universe. Again you're applying the standards of scientific logic to something which by definition is undefinable.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> In which case my point that we comfortable, and I'll add necessarily, employ different standards of to different domains is true. And for the record, this is very much a truth-claim about material reality, seeing as it involves only material phenomena.


No, there is a misunderstanding here. You opinion about things is not what is being talked about.

Material reality exists independently of you or your opinion of it. It is possible to say things about reality- A is bigger than B, particle C preceeds particle D, gravity acts in an inverse square way with respect to distance etc. These are the set of claims that we are talking about. These claims are truth claims about reality and all fall under the scientific system of arbitration.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 5, 2012)

Knotted said:


> Where's Phil these days? This thread needs a good Dwyering.


IIRC, Dawkins disproved his existence.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

Favelado said:


> Dawkin's Twitter feed has gone a bit mental this week. Has something happened to excite him so much? I'm a huge Dawkin's fan by the way, s that's not a diss.


Well he appeared on BBC R4 yesterday, perhaps he also made other appearances also.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

dylans said:


> Religion by definition attempts to make claims about the supernatural, that is, things that are beyond the physical world. Science, by definition can only make claims about the material world. Whether or not there exists such a supernatural realm is an interesting philosophical discussion but it is not a scientific one. It is not therefore, the task of science to answer.
> 
> Science can answer specific questions that religions and religious myth make in so far as such claims trespass on its territory. So, for example the claim that god made man in his image out of a woman's rib, or Noah's ark or a young Earth etc are clearly refuted by science and in so far as such refutation damages the reputation of religious claims in general then, yes, science is incompatible with religion and certainly with fundamentalism and biblical or Quranic literalism. However science cannot and more importantly _should not_ attempt to answer religious claims concerning the non material because such claims themselves are not scientific and as such it is not the task of science to answer such claims. At best science must be neutral about these questions. They are as Gould put it "non overlapping magisteria" .That is, they ask and answer different questions.
> 
> I am an atheist and my atheism is certainly reinforced by scientific knowledge but scientific knowledge is not the basis of my atheism. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe the claims for the existance of the divine or the supernatural but as far as knowledge is concerned I cannot say I know there is no god. If by definition we are talking about something beyond the natural world then it is, by definition, un-knowable at least by science.


 
I think properly speaking you're an agnostic then. Not that I mind if you insist on being an atheist of course.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It is? Then how was the universe supposed to have created itself?


Good question. But you appear to have mistaken me for someone with all the answers. I make no such claim, but I also feel no need to make statements about that which I do not understand that would imply that I understand more than I do.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> No and yes. The way this is often handled in Western theology is that part of God is part of the universe, but that God proper is not a part of the universe. Again you're applying the standards of scientific logic to something which by definition is undefinable.


AKA fictional


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I think properly speaking you're an agnostic then. Not that I mind if you insist on being an atheist of course.


Atheist and agnostic are, strictly speaking, synonymous, certainly by Huxley's original definition of agnostic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

> something which by definition is undefinable


 
Sorry, but lol.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> No, there is a misunderstanding here. You opinion about things is not what is being talked about.
> 
> Material reality exists independently of you or your opinion of it. It is possible to say things about reality- A is bigger than B, particle C preceeds particle D, gravity acts in an inverse square way with respect to distance etc. These are the set of claims that we are talking about. These claims are truth claims about reality and all fall under the scientific system of arbitration.


 
Sure it does, but science, as a collective and conscious effort at getting to a system of truths and supposition about material reality, is organised opinion broadly speaking. It's a social phenomena peculiar to talking animals such as us. Unless you're on about some kind of weird dualistic ontology where opinions don't exist in some essential material way, everything social and psychological, such as liking something or having an opinion, is by definition a claim about a material state of affairs.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Atheist and agnostic are, strictly speaking, synonymous, certainly by Huxley's original definition of agnostic.


 
I thought :

Aetheist: There is no god

Agnostic: There probably is no god, I don't know.


----------



## Crippsie (Sep 5, 2012)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I think he's hilarious


 
Why? He got his arse kicked in both of the interviews that you posted, and to get outmanoeuvred by Bill O'Reilly takes a special kind of stupid!

In fairness, Dawkins can do much better than that in defence of atheism, but would get more respect from me if he concentrated on attacking the various undeniable vagaries of religions, rather than the inconclusive issue of the existence of god/s. He insists on defining god in religious terms, yet another school of thought, deism, may suggest that "god" is simply the set of circumstances that created the "big-bang" (if such a thing occurred) and the laws of science which allowed evolution to take place.

He's a brilliant scientist and as Dylans said above, his books on evolutionary biology are superb and respected by almost everyone, but his basic premise in The God Delusion (that god doesn't exist because it can't be proven) is theory, not science. Just like the (religious) theories for gods existence. He plays the game that most athiests do, and insists that the onus is on believers to prove existence rather than non-believers to do the opposite whereas most religious folk don't really give a toss about Richard Dawkins!

I definitely agree with him that creationism shouldn't be taught as science, but fundamental athiests annoy me just as much as fundamental religionists, and Dawkins' often irrational arrogance irritates me intensely.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> AKA fictional


Well, that's your opinion. 


littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, but lol.


Yeah I see that, but it's no different to saying a mathematical problem is provably unsolvable given a set of axioms. Look up _via negativa_. It's all about the futility of saying something about something that is ineffable.

For the record, I'm not religious and don't believe in a Creator. All I'm saying is that you can't apply the standards of science wholesale to religion, nor to aesthetics or politics for that matter.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

dylans said:


> Religion by definition attempts to make claims about the supernatural, that is, things that are beyond the physical world. Science, by definition can only make claims about the material world. Whether or not there exists such a supernatural realm is an interesting philosophical discussion but it is not a scientific one. It is not therefore, the task of science to answer.
> 
> Science can answer specific questions that religions and religious myth make in so far as such claims trespass on its territory. So, for example the claim that god made man in his image out of a woman's rib, or Noah's ark or a young Earth etc are clearly refuted by science and in so far as such refutation damages the reputation of religious claims in general then, yes, science is incompatible with religion and certainly with fundamentalism and biblical or Quranic literalism. However science cannot and more importantly _should not_ attempt to answer religious claims concerning the non material because such claims themselves are not scientific and as such it is not the task of science to answer such claims. At best science must be neutral about these questions. They are as Gould put it "non overlapping magisteria" .That is, they ask and answer different questions.
> 
> I am an atheist and my atheism is certainly reinforced by scientific knowledge but scientific knowledge is not the basis of my atheism. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe the claims for the existance of the divine or the supernatural but as far as knowledge is concerned I cannot say I know there is no god. If by definition we are talking about something beyond the natural world then it is, by definition, un-knowable at least by science.


 

Good post.
But unfortunately religion does not content itself with discussing things completely disconnected from material reality. Any time it strays from one of Gould's magisteria into another, it must abide by the rules of the new territory. The soul, for example, can perfectly well exist in some non-material realm. But for it to animate the decision-making process of man it must interact with the neural pathways of the human brain, which requires some transceiver and for the third law of thermodynamics to be violated etc...


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Good post.
> But unfortunately religion does not content itself with discussing things completely disconnected from material reality. Any time it strays from one of Gould's magisteria into another, it must abide by the rules of the new territory. The soul, for example, can perfectly well exist in some non-material realm. But for it to animate the decision-making process of man it must interact with the neural pathways of the human brain, which requires some transceiver and for the third law of thermodynamics to be violated etc...


 
Quite. I'm confused as to why you think science shouldn't abide by the same rules.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I thought :
> 
> Aetheist: There is no god
> 
> Agnostic: There probably is no god, I don't know.


That's a common idea today. But agnosticism, according to the man who coined the term, means something very specific: 'do not believe anything without reason to believe it'. That's it, and it's the basis of most people's atheism, ime, including that of Richard Dawkins. Atheism is an absence of a belief, not a belief in itself. Agnosticism is a method by which one can arrive at an atheist position.


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> I think properly speaking you're an agnostic then. Not that I mind if you insist on being an atheist of course.


I'm an agnostic atheist. That is my atheism refers to belief. I don't believe in god. My agnosticism refers to knowledge. I accept that I cannot say 100% that I know there is no god. There may be a god beyond the material world and invisible to all attempts to detect him. I am an agnostic about god then, in the same way that I am agnostic about unicorns. It may be possible that somewhere in some hidden jungle undiscovered lives a unicorn. I very much doubt it, just as I very much doubt there is a god, but I can't say I know there are no unicorns. I can however say, I don't believe in unicorns. The former of course would change if evidence emerged. 

I can say this however, if there is a god, he plays no role in the world. I am 100% an athiest in regards to the truth claims of all religions. I am 100% sure that religions are man made, that prayers don't work and that the myths of religions are merely cultural creations of men


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Sure it does, but science, as a collective and conscious effort at getting to a system of truths and supposition about material reality, is organised opinion broadly speaking. It's a social phenomena peculiar to talking animals such as us. Unless you're on about some kind of weird dualistic ontology where opinions don't exist in some essential material way, everything social and psychological, such as liking something or having an opinion, is by definition a claim about a material state of affairs.


Nothing to disagree with here, but do you concede that there are two different realms of statement that are being discussed?


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> All I'm saying is that you can't apply the standards of science wholesale to religion, nor to aesthetics or politics for that matter.


 
Nor is anyone else here. The specific overlap of religious claims about material reality is all that is being discussed


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I thought :
> 
> Aetheist: There is no god
> 
> Agnostic: There probably is no god, I don't know.


Atheist. I don't believe in god

Agnostic. I can't say I KNOW there is no god

Atheism refers to belief. Agnosticism refers to knowledge. 

(for me at least)


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> Quite. I'm confused as to why you think science shouldn't abide by the same rules.


I'm confused as to why you are confused. What has been posted to lead to this confusion?


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Nothing to disagree with here, but do you concede that there are two different realms of statement that are being discussed?


 
That's my point! Going back to the beginning, when lbj said he didn't get how scientists could be religious because how could they live with the cognitive dissonance I made the point that we do this all the time to varying degrees. So saying "i know that the earth rotates around the earth" and "I like Munch" are both true statements, but they aren't justified in the same way, and you can't apply the truth-standards of one epistemological framework to the other. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. In the same way religious scientists can choose not to be bothered about any inconsistencies between science and religion. Now, of course some scientists can and do get bothered by such dissonance.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

dylans said:


> I'm an agnostic atheist. That is my atheism refers to belief. I don't believe in god. My agnosticism refers to knowledge. I accept that I cannot say 100% that I know there is no god. There may be a god beyond the material world and invisible to all attempts to detect him. I am an agnostic about god then, in the same way that I am agnostic about unicorns. It may be possible that somewhere in some hidden jungle undiscovered lives a unicorn. I very much doubt it, just as I very much doubt there is a god, but I can't say I know there are no unicorns. I can however say, I don't believe in unicorns. The former of course would change if evidence emerged.
> 
> I can say this however, if there is a god, he plays no role in the world. I am 100% an athiest in regards to the truth claims of all religions. I am 100% sure that religions are man made, that prayers don't work and that the myths of religions are merely cultural creations of men


 
In a similar trivial way to saying that we cannot be 100% sure of anything at all. The sun may have risen every day since the first man woke up, but that just means there is a high prior probability that it will rise again tomorrow. All truth claims are probabilistically arbitrated.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> In a similar trivial way to saying that we cannot be 100% sure of anything at all. The sun may have risen every day since the first man woke up, but that just means there is a high prior probability that it will rise again tomorrow. All truth claims are probabilistically arbitrated.


 
Let's not go there.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> I'm confused as to why you are confused. What has been posted to lead to this confusion?


 
It seems to me that you're saying science should be the arbiter as to whether god(s) exist.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> In a similar trivial way to saying that we cannot be 100% sure of anything at all. The sun may have risen every day since the first man woke up, but that just means there is a high prior probability that it will rise again tomorrow. All truth claims are probabilistically arbitrated.


I think I can safely say that the sun will rise again tommorrow!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> It seems to me that you're saying science should be the arbiter as to whether god(s) exist.


I don't recall anyone saying that. However, rigorous thinking can decide whether or not such a question is even meaningful.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I think I can safely say that the sun will rise again tommorrow!



Well, you can safely *believe* that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and I hope you're right


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't recall anyone saying that. However, rigorous thinking can decide whether or not such a question is even meaningful.


 
You certainly seemed to be implying it. The irony is that religious folks don't care whether the question is meaningful or not as they live in the presence of God. Or so they claim.


----------



## dylans (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> In a similar trivial way to saying that we cannot be 100% sure of anything at all. The sun may have risen every day since the first man woke up, but that just means there is a high prior probability that it will rise again tomorrow. All truth claims are probabilistically arbitrated.


Well Gould defined a fact as something so well established that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. He actually used the sun rising as an example. I paraphrase but he said something along the lines of "I guess I could concede that the sun might one day not rise but that doesn't mean we should teach it in the science class"  

We have confidence enough in the Sun rising every day to say it is a fact. A fact, of course, that is perfectly explained by well established theory and supported by evidence not only for the fact that it does rise but as to why it rises.

I think my unicorn example is trivial and wish I hadn't used it now because if unicorns do exist then they would be natural creatures and part of the natural world. I think I remain agnostic about claims for the supernatural because of the rules that the definition of supernatural applies to itself. That is, something beyond the material world and beyond all attempts at testing for its existence. As such, unlike our unicorn, the claim for the supernatural is by definition un-knowable. Therefore it seems only reasonable to withhold the firm claim that such a realm doesn't exist. I doubt it does but I can't hand on heart say I know it doesn't. Therefore I have to remain, reluctantly agnostic on this or on any question that puts itself beyond the reach of testability


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't recall anyone saying that. However, rigorous thinking can decide whether or not such a question is even meaningful.


Whether it's decided by scientists as meaningful or not doesn't really matter, when you've got a majority of the world signed up to some kind of religion. Thinking that scientific arguments can significally defeat religion is a kind of sciencism.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

Lbj/kropotkin, do you still want a worked example of fact v truth or has the conversation moved past that? (apologies, but I'm working in between posting)


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well Gould defined a fact as something so well established that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. We have confidence enough in the Sun rising every day to say it is a fact. A fact, of course, that is perfectly explained by well established theory and supported by evidence not only for the fact that it does rise but as to why it rises.
> 
> I think my unicorn example is trivial and wish I hadn't used it now because if unicorns do exist then they would be natural creatures and part of the natural world. I think I remain agnostic about claims for the supernatural because of the rules that the definition of supernatural applies to itself. That is, something beyond the material world and beyond all attempts at testing for its existence. As such, unlike our unicorn, the claim for the supernatural is by definition un-knowable. Therefore it seems only reasonable to withhold the firm claim that such a realm doesn't exist. I doubt it does but I can't hand on heart say I know it doesn't. Therefore I have to remain, reluctantly agnostic on this or on any question that puts itself beyond the reach of testability


 
I'd substitute "un-knowable" with "un-provable", else we're pretty much on the same wavelength. And on that note I've got to get back to bloody work. And that's a fact.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Whether it's decided by scientists as meaningful or not doesn't really matter, when you've got a majority of the world signed up to some kind of religion. Thinking that scientific arguments can significally defeat religion is a kind of sciencism.



And also, why would scientists even want to?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> Well, you can safely *believe* that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and I hope you're right


 
No, it is more than belief, we know how the earths rotation works and because of this fact, the sun reappears every morning. It would take a catastrophe of monumental proportions to prevent the sun from rising in the morning.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> No, it is more than belief, we know how the earths rotation works and because of this fact, the sun reappears every morning. It would take a catastrophe of monumental proportions to prevent the sun from rising in the morning.



But you cannot say for sure, because you cannot preclude the possibility of a catastrophe of some sort. But it's a fairly safe belief based on probabilities.


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> But you cannot say for sure, because you cannot preclude the possibility of a catastrophe of some sort. But it's a fairly safe belief based on probabilities.


It's based on a very good theory, which afaik fits the available data. Isn't that the best that science can offer?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Whether it's decided by scientists as meaningful or not doesn't really matter, when you've got a majority of the world signed up to some kind of religion. Thinking that scientific arguments can significally defeat religion is a kind of sciencism.


That's a different argument entirely.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> Lbj/kropotkin, do you still want a worked example of fact v truth or has the conversation moved past that? (apologies, but I'm working in between posting)




We have moved on but I'm still interested! If both could be confined to the set of statements being discussed here that would be better (statements about external material reality rather than subjective opinions on it). I'm being sense but can't think off the top of my head of a difference


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> Lbj/kropotkin, do you still want a worked example of fact v truth or has the conversation moved past that? (apologies, but I'm working in between posting)


up to you.  I'm working in between posting too.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> It's based on a very good theory, which afaik fits the available data. Isn't that the best that science can offer?


Well, it's certainly better than some other methods of predicting what's going to happen in the future, that's for sure.


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a different argument entirely.


No it's not. because you were talking about "a given value of meaningful." There are others.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> No it's not. because you were talking about "a given value of meaningful." There are others.


Yes it is. You're talking about some kind of campaign to persuade others. I haven't mentioned any such thing.


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes it is. You're talking about some kind of campaign to persuade others. I haven't mentioned any such thing.


You said that science can "decide whether such questions are even meaningful" (iirc). It's not so.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> No, it is more than belief, we know how the earths rotation works and because of this fact, the sun reappears every morning. It would take a catastrophe of monumental proportions to prevent the sun from rising in the morning.



It is a probabilistic belief based on all the data that have been collected before. As is every single statement we make about truth of the external world. Which is why the theist claim that because something can't be completely disproved it must be held to possibly exist is absurd. In interacting with the universe we use probabilistic grades of truth arbitration(as opposed to binary 100% \ 0%) all the time. 
The claim that 2000 years ago a man walked on water and came back from the dead are therefore untrue to the extent that we usually decide that something is true or false in real life.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> You said that science can "decide whether such questions are even meaningful" (iirc). It's not so.


I actually said 'rigorous thinking', not 'science'. And most certainly I think this is the case. But I did not make any claim to the effect that it is possible - or sensible - to attempt to dissuade the world from religious belief by appeal to the ability to think rigorously. I have been silent on that.

And define 'sciencism' for me, please. I'm at a loss to as to what that word means.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> And also, why would scientists even want to?


 
Cuz they can't stand other people's cognitive dissonance?


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> We have moved on but I'm still interested! If both could be confined to the set of statements being discussed here that would be better (statements about external material reality rather than subjective opinions on it). I'm being sense but can't think off the top of my head of a difference






			
				lbj said:
			
		

> up to you.  I'm working between posting too.



Ok, how about this:

*A is a fact*
"Earlier today, a phrase painted in red gloss paint was discovered on the bus shelter outside The Metroplitan University. The phrase was "ALL TROTS ARE CUNTS". A group calling itself the Proletarian Democracy have claimed responsibility".

* A is a truth *
"Earlier today, we the Proletarian Democracy, claimed responsibility for letting the students using the bus shelter outside the Metroplitan University know that ALL TROTS ARE CUNTS. We painted it indelibly, in red, comrades."


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

The scientific method is all about evidence, testing and proof.

Religion is all about faith.

Who would you trust to build your next car?


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> Ok, how about this:
> 
> *A is a fact*
> "Earlier today, a phrase painted in red gloss paint was discovered on the bus shelter outside The Metroplitan University. The phrase was "ALL TROTS ARE CUNTS". A group calling itself the Proletarian Democracy have claimed responsibility".
> ...



Statement b is claiming responsibility for an act that expresses an opinion. The first part of that can be verified and is the same kind of claim as the first statement, the second is an opinion and is not.


----------



## cesare (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> Sorry, statement b is an opinion. Explicitly not the domain of statements being discussed in the thread.



It's not an opinion. It's their truth.


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I actually said 'rigorous thinking', not 'science'. And most certainly I think this is the case. But I did not make any claim to the effect that it is possible - or sensible - to attempt to dissuade the world from religious belief by appeal to the ability to think rigorously. I have been silent on that.
> 
> And define 'sciencism' for me, please. I'm at a loss to as to what that word means.


I'm trying to point out the very limited value of you use of the word "meaningful." Do you take the point?

Sciencism is the support of science as a belief and a culture, rather than simply a method.


----------



## Random (Sep 5, 2012)

weltweit said:


> The scientific method is all about evidence, testing and proof.
> 
> Religion is all about faith.
> 
> Who would you trust to build your next car?


I'm sure many cars have been built and designed by religious people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Sciencism is the support of science as a belief and a culture, rather than simply a method.


Who does that? IMO, that's the same kind of mistake that religious folk make when they insist that atheism is itself a belief.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 5, 2012)

Random said:


> I'm sure many cars have been built and designed by religious people.


Using faith no doubt!!


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

cesare said:


> It's not an opinion. It's their truth.


misread it and edited. 


I don't really understand the point that you are making to be honest.


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> misread it and edited.
> 
> 
> I don't really understand the point that you are making to be honest.


 
It's the same point I was making. Besides you're still persisting in saying that opinions are not truth-statements about a state of affairs in material reality.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

But here you acknowledge that these are different claims. Why are you now saying that they are the same?



TruXta said:


> That's my point! Going back to the beginning, when lbj said he didn't get how scientists could be religious because how could they live with the cognitive dissonance I made the point that we do this all the time to varying degrees. *So saying "i know that the earth rotates around the earth" and "I like Munch" are both true statements, but they aren't justified in the same way, and you can't apply the truth-standards of one epistemological framework to the other. *Which doesn't bother me in the slightest. In the same way religious scientists can choose not to be bothered about any inconsistencies between science and religion. Now, of course some scientists can and do get bothered by such dissonance.[/B]


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> But here you acknowledge that these are different claims. Why are you now saying that they are the same?


 
You're not getting me. What I'm saying is that there is no essential ontological difference between opinions and scientific facts. They are both claims about material reality. The difference is in the way they are justified. I can't justify scientific claims in the same way I justify my opinions and vice versa. In much the same way a scientist must justify his or her religious beliefs using one set of criteria and his or her scientific beliefs using a different set of criteria.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You're not getting me. What I'm saying is that there is no essential ontological difference between opinions and scientific facts.



That doesn't sound right to me, but I'll have to have a think about it.
Thanks


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

kropotkin said:


> That doesn't sound right to me, but I'll have to have a think about it.
> Thanks


 
Sorry, that was meant to read "*can't* justify scientific claims.. etc.". Will edit.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 5, 2012)

TruXta said:


> You're not getting me. What I'm saying is that there is no essential ontological difference between opinions and scientific facts. They are both claims about material reality. The difference is in the way they are justified. I can't justify scientific claims in the same way I justify my opinions and vice versa. In much the same way a scientist must justify his or her religious beliefs using one set of criteria and his or her scientific beliefs using a different set of criteria.



Pfft no no it's always black or white
And someone always has to be right..

*stamps foot*


----------



## TruXta (Sep 5, 2012)

In that case I'm right.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Sep 5, 2012)

Crippsie said:


> Why? He got his arse kicked in both of the interviews that you posted, and to get outmanoeuvred by Bill O'Reilly takes a special kind of stupid!


Dear me, are you serious? He clearly didn't get his arse kicked but demonstrated by application of logic how dogmatic, self certifying truth claims are not a sound basis for belief. O'Reilly is a rancourous fool and his performance with Dawkins, which I found uncharacteristically subdued, showed nothing but dogmatism. I saw no outmanoeuvring whatsoever

Dawkins is an atheist, but I don't believe that is the point or at least not something to labour upon since his work has more interesting implications. I think in both his scientific and philosophical approaches he is an empiricist and this speaks to people because it is more readily absorbed into our culture than faith and dogma.


----------

