A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[bocablkr]

By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: November 21, 2006

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

The rest of the article can be found at - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/scienc...70&emc=eta1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?ex=1164776400&en=f6a1b1fb00d94208&ei =5070&emc=eta1)

[Phil153]

“The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty”

This just became my favorite quote.

I agree that science and scientists need to be more active in spreading scientific knowledge, but I oppose the aggressive stance that people like Dawkins take. I think books like "The God Delusion" do more harm than good. The facts should be stated, questions answered, and their interpretation left to the individual. Science is just another tool with which to know the world, it doesn't give the scientist a monopoly on knowledge.

[moneyfaucet]

You should've posted this in my thread. Good article, but I don't really have time to reply to it right now. I'll get back to you later.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=2#Post8059476 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8059476&an=0&page=2#Post 8059476)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg


[/ QUOTE ]

I really like the following quote:


[ QUOTE ]

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”


[/ QUOTE ]

I was actually thinking that Dawkins should be known as Father Dawkins (or maybe Pope Dickie I) before I looked at the article.

If the religion of science comes, can the Inquisition be far behind?

[David Sklansky]

I thought you said that science and religion are not incompatible. If they are, you again need to deal with the fact that the average scientist is significantly more intelligent than than the average religious person. (Often religious people sweep this fact under the rug. They concentrate on the philosophical differences and forget the monumental amount of knowledge and the great superior mathematical and logical abilities that seperate many scientists from most people.) The chasm is at least as wide as the gap between the religious person and the mildly retarded. And few people believe it is reasonable to think that a retarded person is more likely to be correct about factual stuff when they disagree with the non retarded.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought you said that science and religion are not incompatible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I phrased it that way - if I did, it was incomplete. A more complete statement, which I think all Reformed theologians would agree with, and most Christian theologians of any consequence, would be something like:

Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible.

Augustine said something much like that in the 4th century A.D.

The post I made was concerning the religious nature (often hidden or disguised) of statements made by scientists, which isn't the same thing as a scientific statement.

I've addressed your fixation on intelligence before. If you wish to trust the human intellect over God's revelation, I'm sure you won't complain about the results.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg


[/ QUOTE ]

I really like the following quote:


[ QUOTE ]

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”


[/ QUOTE ]

I was actually thinking that Dawkins should be known as Father Dawkins (or maybe Pope Dickie I) before I looked at the article.

If the religion of science comes, can the Inquisition be far behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is right, she was only half-kidding. She was kidding about indoctrination being a good idea and not kidding about nature and science being beautiful.

[madnak]

Human intelligence is all we have to work with. At least until God deigns to start posting here. You're not asking anyone to listen to God; you're asking us to listen to the theists who, being less intelligent than the atheists, are less credible.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
"The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty."

[/ QUOTE ]

Examining a Believer in Science

Q: Where is there any observation made by science refuting the existence of God?

A: There is no such observation, but my belief in God would require more than the absence of proof of nonexistence. I require affirmative evidence.

Q: And everything that counts as evidence must ultimately be reducible to the data of perception?

A: Absolutely, that is the basis of empirical science.

Q: Where is there any observation made by science establishing the intrinsic properties of an object independent of the conscious mind?

A: That's impossible.

Q: So then there is, in fact, no evidence of the properties of anything independent of their interpretation by subjective perceptions?

A: Correct.

Q: Can these perceptions themselves be subjected to scientific inquiry.

A: Only by relying on other subjective perceptions.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I've addressed your fixation on intelligence before. If you wish to trust the human intellect over God's revelation, I'm sure you won't complain about the results.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is circular logic.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The chasm is at least as wide as the gap between the religious person and the mildly retarded. </font>

You've impressed upon me the importance of intelligence when it comes to almost any endeavor (between humans), during my very first threads on this forum. However, I still question one thing...

You're fond of making reference to the intellectual gap between the average scientist Vs. the average religious person, and now... The average religious person Vs. the average retarded person, and yet...

When dealing with the concept of gods and other deeper philosophical questions, is this really important? I ask because the difference between the average low IQ humans and the next smartest creature in the known universe is significantly greater than the disparities between any of the groups you mentioned.

In other words, the intellect required when it comes to solving the questions of the universe, might be so much greater than man is capable of, that these disparities you point to might be insignifiacnt in the grand scheme of things. If the required intellect is a 90 and the smartest human is at .1, does it really matter that the average scientist are is much smarter than the average religious person? Before you say it...

I understand an edge is an edge, but it might not be as important as you make it out to be. Please clarify for me.

[Skidoo]

"You're either with us or you're with the retards."

[Phil153]

Skidoo,

Your hypothetical answers are flawed. Can you tell me why?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Skidoo,

Your hypothetical answers are flawed. Can you tell me why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dont you think the first answer is reasonable?

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Where is there any observation made by science refuting the existence of God?

A: There is no such observation, but my belief in God would require more than the absence of proof of nonexistence. I require affirmative evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

The first part of the first answer is reasonable. i.e.

Q: Where is there any observation made by science refuting the existence of God?

A: There is no such observation.

[bunny]

I agree - but dont you think the second is reasonable also?

[Phil153]

I'd also add that scientific observations conclusively refute various statements of fact made in a number of holy books, both about the nature God and his contact with the human race.

So in the answer above, "God" has to be undertood in that context. If you replace "God" with "Christian God" then the answer is different.

[thylacine]

Phil153 said:[ QUOTE ]
“The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty”

This just became my favorite quote.

I agree that science and scientists need to be more active in spreading scientific knowledge, but I oppose the aggressive stance that people like Dawkins take. I think books like "The God Delusion" do more harm than good. The facts should be stated, questions answered, and their interpretation left to the individual. Science is just another tool with which to know the world, it doesn't give the scientist a monopoly on knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is important to realize that in many cases when a person is offended by what someone says, it is entirely the fault of the person being offended. Staged and/or conditioned displays of outrage and indignation at what a person says, are in fact mechanisms for stifling or silencing that person's message.

Richard Dawkins clearly articulates many important messages, and I am glad that he does not succumb to pressure from those who would say `Oh dear, you're not supposed to say that!'

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Human intelligence is all we have to work with.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

[ QUOTE ]

You're not asking anyone to listen to God; you're asking us to listen to the theists who, being less intelligent than the atheists, are less credible


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think intelligence equates to credibility? You might also consider the fact that most definitions of science exclude the supernatural so any statement made by a scientist purporting to deny God is by definition unscientific.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is circular logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the circularity in the statement but I'm willing to acknowledge that all human predication concerning ultimate issues involves circular logic - there's no alternative.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd also add that scientific observations conclusively refute various statements of fact made in a number of holy books, both about the nature God and his contact with the human race.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including the Bible in that number, please provide specifics.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Human intelligence is all we have to work with.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists. If you want us to "see the light," first you'll have to lead us out of the darkness. For whatever reason we don't feel any of this "connection with god" you theists are always going on about, and thus we must judge your position based on reason.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not asking anyone to listen to God; you're asking us to listen to the theists who, being less intelligent than the atheists, are less credible


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think intelligence equates to credibility? You might also consider the fact that most definitions of science exclude the supernatural so any statement made by a scientist purporting to deny God is by definition unscientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility. Smart people are right more often, at least in everything we can measure. And yes, of course it's unscientific - but that doesn't mean it's irrational.

[David Sklansky]

"Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible.

Augustine said something much like that in the 4th century A.D.

The post I made was concerning the religious nature (often hidden or disguised) of statements made by scientists, which isn't the same thing as a scientific statement.

I've addressed your fixation on intelligence before. If you wish to trust the human intellect over God's revelation, I'm sure you won't complain about the results."

Taking your last point first. I see no reason to think that it is unlikely that if there is God he will be more inclined to reward those who have seriously studied the intracacies of the physics and chemical laws he has created while having contempt for and possibly punishing mere sycophants who don't study those things and try to rationalize their laziness with the mistaken idea that they are pleasing him with their mere "belief".

As to scientist's take on religion, it is important to understand that only some actually come right out and say that they are positive there is no personal god. Those who do say that, I disagree with. What they say is that it is stupid to think that the physical evidence points to a personal god. You once said that all one need do is "look around you". Godboy made the more specific comment that eclipses were obviously God's work. Two reasonable comments 300 years ago. But we now know that this stuff could easily happen without a personal God. A deistic God might be the explanation but you have already pointed out that philophically, deism is the same as atheism.

The fact that mountains, eyeballs, eclipses, and whatever could come into being without a personal god doesn't mean that God isn't the actual explanation. Maybe he is. The problem though is that most "believers" are basing their belief to a large degree on their mistaken idea that the stuff they see, could not occur without a designer that was at work in the recent past. Whereas it has been shown irrefutably, that all this stuff could (not "did") occur without a recent designer. (Possible exception, human consciousness).

If you want to invoke "God's revelation" to make your point, I'll let you argue with the hi falloootin philosophers. But you absolutely can't invoke the physical things you see as any kind of evidence for a biblical type god. Because scientists, magicians, and statisticans, can rip that "evidence" to shreds.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume by human intelligence you mean human reason. Again, how do you establish that's all humans have to work with?

[ QUOTE ]

I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people in the legal profession would disagree with you. You may be confusing credibility with expertise.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I see no reason to think that it is unlikely that if there is God he will be more inclined to reward those who have seriously studied the intracacies of the physics and chemical laws he has created while having contempt for and possibly punishing mere sycophants who don't study those things and try to rationalize their laziness with the mistaken idea that they are pleasing him with their mere "belief".


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any Christian advocates not studying scientific matters if they have the ability and opportunity. I personally love true science and sometimes wish I had pursued it, but I went another direction. Perhaps it was a mistake but I seriously doubt science has lost anything through my absence. But to think that the pursuit of science is God's road to salvation is completely untenable - at best, it's wishful thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

You once said that all one need do is "look around you".


[/ QUOTE ]

I do remember saying something like this. If I didn't make it clear at the time I was referring to existence as such. Why does something exist, rather than nothing. And another place I said that if God did create everything then obviously everything is evidence of God. But I'm not referring to the scientific method. I'm not claiming you can find God at the end of a telescope or microscope except as stated above.

[ QUOTE ]

But we now know that this stuff could easily happen without a personal God.


[/ QUOTE ]

But we don't. That's the whole question and asserting the universe could happen without a personal God is unscientific.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem though is that most "believers" are basing their belief to a large degree on their mistaken idea that the stuff they see, could not occur without a designer that was at work in the recent past. Whereas it has been shown irrefutably, that all this stuff could (not "did") occur without a recent designer.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it hasn't been so shown. Even if evolution were conclusively proved to be true, even if science could show that life magically appeared from non-life, that would not show it could happen without a personal God. You can't even show that the next breath you take could happen without a personal God.

[ QUOTE ]

Because scientists, magicians, and statisticans, can rip that "evidence" to shreds


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one who has.

[David Sklansky]

"But we don't. That's the whole question and asserting the universe could happen without a personal God is unscientific."

I'm not talking about the "universe happening". Scientists do not claim with certainty that the universe could just happen. (Although if it was necessary that something created it, it certainly doesn't have to be the God of the bible). I'm talking about the stuff afterwards. The stuff that most believers point to as evidence for God. The pancreas, the speed of a cheetah, the fact that the moon doesn't fall into the earth. All these things would be true even if there was no god (given there is a universe) or alternatively if there was only a deistic God.

The above is an argument that is not specific to religion. It is akin to the argument that given enough billions of years, the best surviving poker players would play as if they had read my books, even if they hadn't.

As for someone who rips evidence to shreds, I give you Houdini or Randi. (Of course you personally are very careful not to offer up evidence that is susceptible to ripping.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The above is an argument that is not specific to religion. It is akin to the argument that given enough billions of years, the best surviving poker players would play as if they had read my books, even if they hadn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Good one and probably true unless they felt they had to adjust their games because so many knew how to play! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sexypanda]

I highly recommend watching the forum itself which could be found at: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch

I saw the first segment last night and found it extremely interesting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's all we have to work with, we atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume by human intelligence you mean human reason. Again, how do you establish that's all humans have to work with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily just human reason, but it works fine for the purpose of argument.

And I can hardly prove that's all humans have to work with, but given that the atheists on this forum claim not to have any "special" capabilities, unless they're lying (and I happen to be the only one) then it seems they don't. Even if there is something "other than" reason, you can't convince those of us who've never experienced it of that. You can't convince a blind man with a power point presentation - if you're communicating something to a blind man, you must make use of the senses he has available to him - hearing in particular. It's foolish to use visual stimuli in an attempt to communicate with a blind man. In a similar sense, if we are "blind" regarding God, then using God to convince us is absurd. Even if you believe our blindness can be "cured," it hasn't been cured yet and at the present moment visual stimuli will prove 100% ineffective for us.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think intelligence is strongly correlated with credibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people in the legal profession would disagree with you. You may be confusing credibility with expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expertise is a major component of credibility. Assuming no deception, it's the main component. Are you suggesting that smart people are all lying about this issue?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All these things would be true even if there was no god (given there is a universe) or alternatively if there was only a deistic God.


[/ QUOTE ]

But to say there is a universe even if there was no God is to settle the question prior to any evidence. The Bible says, not only that God created all things but that all things constantly depend on Him. A sparrow doesn't fall to the ground apart from the Father's will. Science can never comment on this.

I'm not sure what evidence Houdini and Randi are ripping.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The Bible says, not only that God created all things but that all things constantly depend on Him. A sparrow doesn't fall to the ground apart from the Father's will. Science can never comment on this.
</font>

Then I ask you, what is the point of prayer? You are saying it is God's will when people go hungry, die of cancer, or lose their child after a horrible accident.

Is it your contention that you can petition the Lord with prayer?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Then I ask you, what is the point of prayer?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are several reasons for prayer. None of them are to inform God of what you need or desire. The pupose of prayer is to thank God for His blessing, to remind us of our dependence on Him, to confess our sins and shortcomings, to meditate on Him, and to make petitions for others and ourselves. It is a form of praise and worship.

If I ask Him for something I am admitting I need Him. Even for my daily bread. Even if I was a billionaire, I should ask Him for my daily bread.

[moneyfaucet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then I ask you, what is the point of prayer?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are several reasons for prayer. None of them are to inform God of what you need or desire. The pupose of prayer is to thank God for His blessing, to remind us of our dependence on Him, to confess our sins and shortcomings, to meditate on Him, and to make petitions for others and ourselves. It is a form of praise and worship.

If I ask Him for something I am admitting I need Him. Even for my daily bread. Even if I was a billionaire, I should ask Him for my daily bread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should ask Him to make you less ignorant then.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You should ask Him to make you less ignorant then.


[/ QUOTE ]

I pray for wisdom continually.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
A sparrow doesn't fall to the ground apart from the Father's will. Science can never comment on this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure science does - it's called gravity.

God could have created all the laws of the universe, and while not everyone will agree with that claim, I think most would at least grant its possibility.

I happen to believe in a Creator, but where I run into problems with the majority of religions is this idea of intervention. Out of nothing came the creation of the cosmos, and with that the potential of a planet forming that had the potential for life. Then out of that potential for life came a being that has free-will.

That's plenty to be grateful for in my mind, without even attributing the whole process to divine origin. I'm grateful for it all, but what I'm most grateful for is, at least the impression of, a free-will. Not only do we get all this, but we also have the ability to remove ourselves from some of the deterministic forces every other element of nature is bound by.

But with a stroke of a pen, religion attempts to usurp this gratitude that should be directed towards a God or a Creator and claim it for itself. And it does this in a very subtle way - by ordaining that God intervenes. No matter how you twist it around, once you grant that God intervenes, you deny free-will, and ultimately deny God the gratitude of a being who has it.

In my mind, belief in God is simply the gratitude I feel for the gifts He has given me. And the way I see it, denying the greatest of those gifts, free-will, is the greatest sacrilege I could commit.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Even if I was a billionaire, I should ask Him for my daily bread. </font>

I understand asking forgiveness for your sins, but what is the point in asking Him for your daily bread? You stated whatever is God's will, will be. Asking for something you do not have, is to ask God for something not of His will. That seems disrespectful. It might sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if you are suffering it is God's will. So what are your blessings? Is it simply that you are fortunate enough to have found and know God? If so, isn't this (along with forgiveness), the ONLY things you should pray for? Everything else is to question God's wisdon. That's what seems disrespectful to me. Assuming you believe God is omnipotent.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Even if I was a billionaire, I should ask Him for my daily bread. </font>

I understand asking forgiveness for your sins, but what is the point in asking Him for your daily bread? You stated whatever is God's will, will be. Asking for something you do not have, is to ask God for something not of His will. That seems disrespectful. It might sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Also, if you are suffering it is God's will. So what are your blessings? Is it simply that you are fortunate enough to have found and know God? If so, isn't this (along with forgiveness), the ONLY things you should pray for?

[/ QUOTE ]

have you ever seen trading places? i wonder is ackroyd prayed for his daily bread.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You stated whatever is God's will, will be.


[/ QUOTE ]

We pray for our daily bread because Jesus said we should. We understand the reason for this is because all that we receive is by grace. We work because God says to - "He who will not work, neither let him eat", yet the Bible also says "What do you have that you have not received?".

In theology this comes under the heading of secondary or proximate cause. God has an eternal plan by which all things are known to Him and under His control. Yet we are to be involved in life, to pray, study work, etc., because we don't know the details of His plan and because His plan includes the concept of proximate causes.

But there is mystery here, past any human understanding I've found so far. God is omnipotent and omniscient, yet what we do as humans matters. I can't explain it. But it is only because of God that what we do matters. Under any non-theistic world view we don't even amount to automotons, we are less than nothing, free will is impossible, human responsibility is absurd, and all human hopes, dreams and loves are illusory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure science does - it's called gravity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad science has finally come around - please email Dawkins at once, I don't think he's heard yet.

[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you twist it around, once you grant that God intervenes, you deny free-will, and ultimately deny God the gratitude of a being who has it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow the logic of this. Take an analogy - you tell your child not to stick his hand in the fire then leave him alone but watch him. Just when he's about to stick his hand in the fire you stop him. Did you prevent him from exercising free will?

Of course, the larger reality is much more complex. God didn't stop Adam, and we all got burned. Some say genuine free will ceased at that time and is then restored through conversion to Christ. Others say each human has free will at least concerning their response to God, and that response determines their destiny. At any rate, the Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign and man is responsible. It's difficult to go past that, but nowhere does the Bible hint that God's intervention in this universe absolves man of responsibility and I don't see any logical requirement that it should.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sure science does - it's called gravity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad science has finally come around - please email Dawkins at once, I don't think he's heard yet.

[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you twist it around, once you grant that God intervenes, you deny free-will, and ultimately deny God the gratitude of a being who has it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow the logic of this. Take an analogy - you tell your child not to stick his hand in the fire then leave him alone but watch him. Just when he's about to stick his hand in the fire you stop him. Did you prevent him from exercising free will?

Of course, the larger reality is much more complex. God didn't stop Adam, and we all got burned. Some say genuine free will ceased at that time and is then restored through conversion to Christ. Others say each human has free will at least concerning their response to God, and that response determines their destiny. At any rate, the Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign and man is responsible. It's difficult to go past that, but nowhere does the Bible hint that God's intervention in this universe absolves man of responsibility and I don't see any logical requirement that it should.

[/ QUOTE ]

Terrible analogy. Real analogy:

You teach your child that it is wrong to put his hand in fire, then you leave the room to watch him. You then neglect to create or allow the concept of fire to exist anywhere in the world. Did you interfere with your child's free will?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You then neglect to create or allow the concept of fire to exist anywhere in the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the tree of knowledge did exist. Forgiveness of sins in Christ exists. I don't get your point.

[vhawk01]

The point is that no one is arguing that God prevents free will because he could smack your hand away from a fire if he wanted to.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I phrased it that way - if I did, it was incomplete. A more complete statement, which I think all Reformed theologians would agree with, and most Christian theologians of any consequence, would be something like:

Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or rather:

The correct interpretation of the Bible is that which no genuine scientific facts contradict.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No matter how you twist it around, once you grant that God intervenes, you deny free-will, and ultimately deny God the gratitude of a being who has it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow the logic of this. Take an analogy - you tell your child not to stick his hand in the fire then leave him alone but watch him. Just when he's about to stick his hand in the fire you stop him. Did you prevent him from exercising free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I phrased it that way - if I did, it was incomplete. A more complete statement, which I think all Reformed theologians would agree with, and most Christian theologians of any consequence, would be something like:

Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or rather:

The correct interpretation of the Bible is that which no genuine scientific facts contradict.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
Err - so children dont have free-will since their parents have the power to intervene? I thought you were a believer in free-will /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
You should've posted this in my thread. ...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=2#Post8059476 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=8059476&amp;an=0&amp;page=2#Post 8059476)

[/ QUOTE ]


I love the "didn't you see that other thread about science and religion?" implication in this post

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to intervene denied the results of the child's exercise of his free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it.


[/ QUOTE ]

The ability to intervene denied the results of the child's exercise of his free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
More it was the actual exercise of intervening that denied the results - the ability you had to intervene was merely a necessary but not sufficient condition.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's which consideration should carry more weight - adhering to the correct interpretation of the bible or fitting our beliefs to scientific facts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's which consideration should carry more weight - adhering to the correct interpretation of the bible or fitting our beliefs to scientific facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

I got the subtlety of emphasis, thanks.

[bunny]

Sorry - I dont read between lines very well.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
Err - so children dont have free-will since their parents have the power to intervene? I thought you were a believer in free-will /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial statement was in regards to notready saying that 'everything' is God's will. I assumed his subsequent analogy that I responded to was within that context.

So within that framework, I simply claimed my inability to see how you could have an 'absolute' will co-existing with another free-will. If it's all God's will, there's no place for our free-will.

If God's will is 'everything' like notready claims, would there be any room left for a free-will?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that interpretations of the Bible are post-hoc to make room for scientific discovery, they don't actually hold up to science.

Basically, people didn't have an interpretation of the Bible 500 years ago that worked with today's science - in fact, most of the falsifiable predictions made through those interpretations did, in fact, end up being falsified. Now, if science has shown us nothing to contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible, that would strongly support the Bible.

But science does contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible - in fact, interpretations have been changing at breakneck speed in order to catch up with scientific knowledge. That strongly undermines the Bible (at least if you assume inerrancy - in order for such changes to be justified rationally, the Bible would have to be dynamic like a scientific theory).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God's will is 'everything' like notready claims, would there be any room left for a free-will?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not exactly correct. God is sovereign and He is in control of everything. I'm reluctant to use the phrase "free will" because it isn't in the Bible except in a very limited context, and it's very difficult to define. I maintain that man is responsible, that his guilt is real, that we are not automatons. I personally believe that in some sense free will is involved in the guilt of mankind but I can't state it dogmatically or support it from Scripture. But I can state dogmatically that we are truly guilty and responsible. Mystery remains.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The difference is that interpretations of the Bible are post-hoc to make room for scientific discovery, they don't actually hold up to science


[/ QUOTE ]

Some are. Augustine's wasn't though.

But science does contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible - in fact, interpretations have been changing at breakneck speed in order to catch up with scientific knowledge

This is a very generalized statement. But there are many Christians that don't lock the Bible into a particular scientific mould. Because the Bible isn't a science textbook. Augustine was almost prescient again on this issue. He gave a very strong warning about making Bible interpretations that contradicted common knowledge.

For many centuries theologians considered there to be two books of God's revelation - nature and Scripture - and firmly believed they never contradicted one another. At various times science has changed and at various times Bible interpretation has changed.

We are often accused of being rigid and inflexible. The truth is, for me at least, that I want to know the correct interpretation of the Bible and genuine science. As far as I know I've never made a dogmatic statement about what the Bible says concerning any scientific issue. I avoid taking a position on the age of the earth, for instance. I don't exclude the possibility of evolution guided by God (you can even find some statements in Augustine that are compatible with some concepts of evolution). I reject chance in the sense of true randomness, but that isn't science.

Even very skilled theologians make mistakes. The really good ones are not inflexible and are willing to change their understanding of Scripture when appropriate. Geocentricity is a good example. The Bible never says the earth is the center of the universe. But science said so for thousands of years. The Church went along with that, and no doubt would have been labelled obscurantist and ignorant had they denied it. But there's no way to support geocentricity from Scripture. Or heliocentricity either. Had I been alive before Copernicus and thought the way I do now I probably would have said the earth is likely the center of the universe but I can't state it dogmatically from Scripture. That is the correct Scriptural attitude. The Church went beyond that and got caught (the Galileo thing).

I can guess that if Augustine were alive today he would take a reserved attitude toward, say, human evolution. I think he would doubt the evidence supports it conclusively, and he would be uncertain how to interpret Genesis (which gave him difficulty anyway), and so he would probably take a noncommittal stance. I think he would be correct, and that is often what theologians in the past have done.

But the real test is simply Scripture, not what the Church has said over the centuries. If the Church was wrong so be it. If it can't be clearly decided, so be it.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're different, the second is inferred from the first, but they're not the same.

In any case, what you just agreed to is that the "correct" interpretation of The Bible will as time goes by, follow the steps of science so as to not to be contradicted.

In other words, when science proves something The Bible says is wrong (and it will, as it has), theists will just adapt their interpretation and claim that it's just a matter of understanding the "real meaning" of the statement. So really The Bible contains no real truths.

It's like grabbing a newspaper and say it contains the ultimate knowledge, then as scientific knowledge progresses you adapt your interpretation of the original newspaper so as to fit the discovered information.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In any case, what you just agreed to is that the "correct" interpretation of The Bible will as time goes by, follow the steps of science so as to not to be contradicted.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't say that at all. The Bible makes few, if any, scientific statements. What Christians believe is the truth may be guessed at from the Bible without actually being in the Bible. Geocentricity, for instance. Christians rightly thought that this world and mankind were important to God. Without any further evidence, and relying on current science, it wasn't unreasonable for them to accept that science. But the Bible doesn't teach geocentricity. So when it turns out heliocentricity is correct, Christians can change their understanding of the solar system without changing anything they believe about what the Bible actually teaches.

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, when science proves something The Bible says is wrong (and it will, as it has)


[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree - but dont you think the second is reasonable also?

[/ QUOTE ] I'll answer the rest:

Q: And everything that counts as evidence must ultimately be reducible to the data of perception?

A: This is a non question. This is not a requirement of science, but of life. To know anything external to an individual - in fact to know anything at all, or to be conscious - requires the actual existence of an outside world, which is perceived through our senses. So all of life and all of belief is ultimately reducible to the data of perception.

Q: Where is there any observation made by science establishing the intrinsic properties of an object independent of the conscious mind?

A: Again, this is not specific to science. The assumption that an external world exists is the foundation of both science and religion. Provided you accept that assumption (and you have to to even have this conversation), then the intrinsic properties of objects can be established, independent of the conscious mind.

Q: So then there is, in fact, no evidence of the properties of anything independent of their interpretation by subjective perceptions?

A: Only if you deny science the assumption that an external world exists.

Q: Can these perceptions themselves be subjected to scientific inquiry.

A: Well that's called psychology. However, the quality of these perceptions, and the degree to which they describe reality, can be tested by requiring that perceptions can be replicated, and that models based on these perceptions fit with all available data.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I reject chance in the sense of true randomness, but that isn't science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually. It's kind of the crux of the hidden variables debate in QM.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds concerning chance. If we're talking pure randomness, a completely uncaused event, it isn't science because there's no possibility to show it empirically. If it just means something like chance in cards, for instance, then it means "I don't know" or "we can't calculate it", which is different from absolute chance.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds concerning chance. If we're talking pure randomness, a completely uncaused event, it isn't science because there's no possibility to show it empirically. If it just means something like chance in cards, for instance, then it means "I don't know" or "we can't calculate it", which is different from absolute chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd hate to rehash old ground. But it can be shown empirically. It's one of the outcomes of the EPR experiments (though one open to interpretation). 'Hidden Variables' is equivalent to 'we don't/can't know'. Hidden variables theories are falsifiable. This may qualify as arcana to most folks here, so I'll just say it and drop it, rather than banter back and forth any more. But it's good stuff - the most philosophically interesting part of QM IMO, if you have an interest in those things.

[madnak]

But this means the Bible makes no concrete predictions at all. Meaning it can never be empirically supported.

And it also means that you have no system for interpreting the Bible. In other words, what's to prevent a totally arbitrary interpretation? What makes it any less valid than your interpretation?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Q: And everything that counts as evidence must ultimately be reducible to the data of perception?

A: This is a non question. This is not a requirement of science, but of life. To know anything external to an individual - in fact to know anything at all, or to be conscious - requires the actual existence of an outside world, which is perceived through our senses.

[/ QUOTE ]

We basically agree except for the possible implication that all knowledge is received through the senses.

[ QUOTE ]
So all of life and all of belief is ultimately reducible to the data of perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not follow.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Where is there any observation made by science establishing the intrinsic properties of an object independent of the conscious mind?

A: Again, this is not specific to science. The assumption that an external world exists is the foundation of both science and religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We basically agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Provided you accept that assumption (and you have to to even have this conversation), then the intrinsic properties of objects can be established, independent of the conscious mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your perceptions of the outside world don't necessarily tell you anything about its properties independent of your perception.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: Can these perceptions themselves be subjected to scientific inquiry.

A: Well that's called psychology. However, the quality of these perceptions, and the degree to which they describe reality, can be tested by requiring that perceptions can be replicated, and that models based on these perceptions fit with all available data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology is yet another set of perceptions.

[RJT]

David and to others whom it may concern:

Here is a quick lesson on how to put quotes in a box when posting. It makes ones’ post much easier to read.


1) type the following:

[ quote]


(Yes, type the left bracket, then the word “quote” then the right bracket.

2) Copy the words you are quoting that you want to put in the box. (Cut and paste or retype it, however you want to do it.)

3) type the following:

[/quote ]

This ends what you are putting in the box.


That’s it.


The only thing you have to do differently is not leave any spaces between the brackets and the word quote or forward slash quote. I had to leave a space in my instructions because if I didn’t my wording would put itself in a box.




Hope that makes sense.


RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...I agree that science and scientists need to be more active in spreading scientific knowledge, but I oppose the aggressive stance that people like Dawkins take. I think books like "The God Delusion" do more harm than good. The facts should be stated, questions answered, and their interpretation left to the individual. Science is just another tool with which to know the world, it doesn't give the scientist a monopoly on knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree with you Phil. (First time I have, fwiw.)I would reword the last sentence, but I get your point.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">The chasm is at least as wide as the gap between the religious person and the mildly retarded. </font>

You've impressed upon me the importance of intelligence when it comes to almost any endeavor (between humans), during my very first threads on this forum. However, I still question one thing...

You're fond of making reference to the intellectual gap between the average scientist Vs. the average religious person, and now... The average religious person Vs. the average retarded person, and yet...

When dealing with the concept of gods and other deeper philosophical questions, is this really important? I ask because the difference between the average low IQ humans and the next smartest creature in the known universe is significantly greater than the disparities between any of the groups you mentioned.

In other words, the intellect required when it comes to solving the questions of the universe, might be so much greater than man is capable of, that these disparities you point to might be insignifiacnt in the grand scheme of things. If the required intellect is a 90 and the smartest human is at .1, does it really matter that the average scientist are is much smarter than the average religious person? Before you say it...

I understand an edge is an edge, but it might not be as important as you make it out to be. Please clarify for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I was going to post similar sentiments. I was going to word it this way:

So, what? If one scientist can convince why Science is the be all and end all, I will fly to England and kiss Dawkins’ feet.

I don’t understand the ego that I see in folk like Dawkins.

I am not talking about when religion harms people - like the twin towers, or even less harmful effects that a religion might have others.

This symposium was not about addressing harmful affects some aspects of some religions might have. Or harm caused by some who misinterpret their religion.

They were basically talking about ending religion, yet give no real reason to.


RJT

[vhawk01]

I think Dawkins feels like religion ALWAYS harms people, and the events like 9/11 are the only times people take note of it. While Dawkins certainly feels science is superior to religion, I think he would be perfectly happy to see religion gone and not necessarily to see science as the be all and end all. If there is something that could take religions place BESIDES science it would probably be preferable to religion. I dont know what that would be, exactly.

[RJT]

hawk,

[ QUOTE ]
I think Dawkins feels like religion ALWAYS harms people, and the events like 9/11 are the only times people take note of it…

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are exactly correct that Dawkins feels religion ALWAYS harms people. That is the irony of it all. Harms people? What does that even mean?

[ QUOTE ]
…I think he would be perfectly happy to see religion gone and not necessarily to see science as the be all and end all…

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think so. I think he thinks science is the be all and end all. If not, then what is his goal? If he has no goal then why is he so passionate about ending religion?

RJT

[Lestat]

RJT-

Religion as a means to seek personal inner peace and learning how to love you fellow man, and being a good neighbor of course, is fine. However, I do agree with Dawkins to a point and in order for you understand why you'll have to imagine for one brief moment; what if religion indeed is really all one big fairy tale? This is what people like Dawkins (and myself) believe. So now...

Can it really be a good thing to indoctrinate impressionable children (who are too young to think for themselves and all too ready to believe the adults in their lives), to believe in whatever fantasy their parents happen to believe in?

I suppose it's fine if people turn out like you, but what about all the children who are being brought up to hate all infidels and that they must be killed? What about Christian children who are brought up to believe stem cell research (and other science which can help people), is a BAD thing?

These are the real detriments to religion. It's not just about people (like you), who take away mostly positive things from their religion. Some go overboard and are willing to start wars and otherwise kill or deprive others over their beliefs in fictitious nonsense. This is the real problem with religion as I see it.

[RJT]

Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
... So now…Can it really be a good thing to indoctrinate impressionable children (who are too young to think for themselves and all too ready to believe the adults in their lives), to believe in whatever fantasy their parents happen to believe in?…

[/ QUOTE ]

It can only be a good or a bad thing relative to one’s own goal. For example: If one’s goal is for mankind to survive for the next 10,0000 years then we should look at whether Religion is a good thing or a bad thing to that end. Perhaps, Religion might be a bad thing here, because it might take some smart peoples’ time and energy away who could otherwise figure out how to sustain mankind for that long (this was somewhat David S.’s point from the git-go) .


[ QUOTE ]
…What about Christian children who are brought up to believe stem cell research (and other science which can help people), is a BAD thing?…

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it depends on one’s goal. If one’s goal is to cure x disease by any means necessary, then here Religion might be a bad thing.

If one’s goal is peace on Earth, then we have to look at if Religion is a good or bad thing. I can see arguments for and against Religion here.

The problem is that, from what I read and what the post here was about, Dawkins finds Religion harmful, period.

I want to know how he can talk the way he does without some context.


RJT

[vhawk01]

Right, so looking at what Dawkins goals are, religion is always bad. Looking at what my goals are...I dont know what my goals for humanity are. I imagine that us surviving 10,000 more years makes the list although I think thats probably more than will be necessary (for what, thats another thread). If you took a poll of everyone in the world and, as neutrally as possible, asked them what their goals for humanity, or whats best for humanity are, I would venture a guess that religion is anti-THAT.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, so looking at what Dawkins goals are, religion is always bad. Looking at what my goals are...I dont know what my goals for humanity are. I imagine that us surviving 10,000 more years makes the list although I think thats probably more than will be necessary (for what, thats another thread). If you took a poll of everyone in the world and, as neutrally as possible, asked them what their goals for humanity, or whats best for humanity are, I would venture a guess that religion is anti-THAT.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, that assumes Dawkins’ goal is that or similar. I have no idea what his goal is or if he even has any goal(s). (It seems to me his only goal is to end Religion, seriously.)

Let’s assume his goal is similar to what I gave as an example: the survival of mankind for then next 10,000 years. That seems like a terrible waste of time to me. Why, for what reason would one have such a goal?

This is my whole point - it is simply absurd for him to be so emphatically anti-Religious.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is my whole point - it is simply absurd for him to be so emphatically anti-Religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, when you step back , it's actually hard to understand why more people haven't taken that stance. Essentially, religion can throw random irrational obstacles into a wide range of social interaction. Besides the specific problems that causes, accepting it in those cases legitimizes irrational argument which can bleed through to discourse in general.

Women's health ( such as the burka's preventing enough sunlight exposure), medical treatment for children, whatever.

We can't say, "Let's talk about real issues with actual facts" if somebody religious beliefs run counter to either of those, which is common, or if they've been raised/trained to find validity in obfuscating lines of thought.

Dawkins specific actions may not be the way to approach the problem but there is a major problem for civilization, even ignoring the 'death to infidels' level.

luckyme

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…Women's health ( such as the burka's preventing enough sunlight exposure), medical treatment for children, whatever…

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if women’s health is your goal – to make them live as long as possible with less health problems than if they wear a burka – if that is important to you; then one might want to try to extinguish the Muslim Religion.

I would never have such a goal. If a woman lives a shorter time wearing a burka, I have no problem with that.



[ QUOTE ]
…Dawkins specific actions may not be the way to approach the problem but there is a major problem for civilization…

[/ QUOTE ]

So, your goal is for civilization to last as long as possible? Or that there is less burden on hospitals who treat women who don’t get enough exposure to sunlight?

My point is, what is your (Dawkins, your examples, etc.) point? What is it that you are looking for?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I put that firmly in the domain of science, actually.


[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds concerning chance. If we're talking pure randomness, a completely uncaused event, it isn't science because there's no possibility to show it empirically. If it just means something like chance in cards, for instance, then it means "I don't know" or "we can't calculate it", which is different from absolute chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'd hate to rehash old ground. But it can be shown empirically. It's one of the outcomes of the EPR experiments (though one open to interpretation). 'Hidden Variables' is equivalent to 'we don't/can't know'. Hidden variables theories are falsifiable. This may qualify as arcana to most folks here, so I'll just say it and drop it, rather than banter back and forth any more. But it's good stuff - the most philosophically interesting part of QM IMO, if you have an interest in those things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but I'm with NotReady here. Absolute randomness can't be proven unless you can prove that you know absolutely every factor that interacts with the particular experiment. In other words it can't be proven unless you know EVERYTHING.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
But this means the Bible makes no concrete predictions at all. Meaning it can never be empirically supported.

And it also means that you have no system for interpreting the Bible. In other words, what's to prevent a totally arbitrary interpretation? What makes it any less valid than your interpretation?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, what is your (Dawkins, your examples, etc.) point? What is it that you are looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I can't speak for Dawkins, even if I understood your question. I don't live in terms of 'having points' or have a list of things I'm looking for. I do a lot of community volunteer work for whatever motives and that desire to help people improve their situation both specifically and in general may be what you are asking about?

[ QUOTE ]
I would never have such a goal. If a woman lives a shorter time wearing a burka, I have no problem with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer not to get bogged down in one example but you are misframing the situation. It makse some sense once you realize the lady doesn't 'want to shorten her life' any more than the blind person wants to get hit by a car or an illiterate person doesn't 'want to not be able to read'.

does that make some of it clearer, but I suspect we're on different pages totally,
luckyme

[RJT]

lucky,

[ QUOTE ]
…I prefer not to get bogged down in one example but you are misframing the situation. It makse some sense once you realize the lady doesn't 'want to shorten her life' any more than the blind person wants to get hit by a car or an illiterate person doesn't 'want to not be able to read'…

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am not “misframing the situation”. What you said “… It makse some sense once you realize the lady doesn't 'want to shorten her life' “ is exactly my point. Right, I don’t realize the lady doesn’t want to shorten her life. I have no idea what she wants out of life. And neither do you nor Dawkins. Yet, you assume she wants longevity of life.

That is what I think folk like Dawkins take as their goal - and I just want them to say it, admit it. They want longevity of life and longevity of the human race. If that is one’s goal then just say it. If that is one’s goal then perhaps Religion is harmful towards achieving that goal.

(And then we can talk, too, about whether that is a worthwhile goal or not.)


RJT

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, you assume she wants longevity of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting example-bound.
Nah, I'm like you. My default assumption with people is that they want to suffer as much as possible and then die young, so I don't push them out of the way of cars until I've discussed with them what their views are on early death or quadriplegia.

Let's pretend she's not your typical person and a conversation with her would go along these lines ..
" You're suffering in poor health and also shortening your life span, would you like to change those?"
" Yes."
" Not wearing your burka in the daytime hours would pretty well do it."
"oh, I couldn't do that, it's my religious belief".

or,
"your son needs a transfusion".. etc.

Now, I'd like to force a transfusion on her son, but if somebody wants accupuncture instead of radiation, or no blood, or keep the burka, that's their choice. But for the same reason that I like to see schools in 3rd world countries and arkansas - people having the knowledge to help them make better choices, their choices, is the reason I'd love to see religion eradicated.

We're a social animal, we're altruistic and empathetic ... what can I do about that? :-)

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"That is what I think folk like Dawkins take as their goal - and I just want them to say it, admit it. They want longevity of life and longevity of the human race. If that is one’s goal then just say it. If that is one’s goal then perhaps Religion is harmful towards achieving that goal.

(And then we can talk, too, about whether that is a worthwhile goal or not.)"

If you defend that flank you open yourself up from attack from the other flank. In other words if you claim that that people care about deeper or more worthwile things than merely being healthy, happy and feeling good, then I say what is deeper and more worthwile than "truth"?

Put another way the only arguments for religions (or any other ideas for that matter) are either that they make people happier or that they are true. Conversely the only arguments against religion is that they make people unhappier or that they are not true.

[vhawk01]

Right, and for some reason it seems that whenever anyone argues that religions arent true, religious folks feel they can take the easy route of claiming that at least they make people feel better. And whenever anyone argues that religion makes the world less happy, religious people whine about why no one is focusing on the 'truth.'

[RJT]

luckyme

Ok, let me try it this way, since the religion example seems to muddy the waters:

This past April I quite smoking cigars (which I enjoyed). I quit because there is a high probability that down the road, smoking will cause me health problems. A few weeks ago I found out my cholesterol is a bit high.

So, now I have to look to changing my diet (and start to exercise, which is no big deal). A few years ago I watched my wife’s brother die after laying in a nursing home for a year, paralyzed caused by a stroke. I fear such a death. I will probably choose to change my diet. But, I gotta tell you that if I knew that I would die instantly (from whatever cause), I might choose not to change my diet.

I enjoyed smoking cigars and I enjoy all the foods that are giving me high cholesterol. No, I’ll take a shorter life if I can smoke cigars and eat my salami and sharp provolone with a glass of red wine. Since, I can’t be guaranteed a quick death, I’ll change my lifestyle. (But, I might as well be dead - lol.) My point is that things aren’t so simple as: I want to live longer.

If the woman is happy with her burka, “God Bless” her. So long as she doesn’t have a bomb under it, why should anyone care?

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If you defend that flank you open yourself up from attack from the other flank. In other words if you claim that that people care about deeper or more worthwhile things than merely being healthy, happy and feeling good, then I say what is deeper and more worthwhile than "truth"?

Put another way the only arguments for religions (or any other ideas for that matter) are either that they make people happier or that they are true. Conversely the only arguments against religion is that they make people unhappier or that they are not true.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am not saying what is or isn’t worthwhile. And I am not arguing for religion. I am arguing against religion bashers like Dawkins. There is a difference.

Dawkins wants to destroy religion. Firstly, I see no reason to. Does he see it getting in the way of something? If so, what is that something? Secondly, he wants to destroy something that we don’t even know how it got started.

Religion either came into existence because of one of (at least) 3 reason (there might be other reasons that I can’t think of). 1) There is a God and there is Divine inspiration. 2) Because of ignorance and it has just perpetuated itself thus far. 3) Some evolutionary quirk or evolutionary need.

If #1 is true then he is in big trouble. If 2, then it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Let’s take 3 as very likely. We don’t know why we evolved to become beings, some of whom believe in certain things. Yet, we should destroy this evidence? That seems foolish to me.

I am not Don Quixote. I can’t fight windmills. Why does Dawkins, et al want to destroy Religion is all I would like to know? It seems like a precarious undertaking let alone such a waste of time.


(Btw, I agree with you when you ask “what is deeper and more worthwhile than “truth”. Right behind “Truth”, I think, is the search for “Truth”. But that is what I find worthwhile. Doesn’t mean it is for everyone.)

[alphatmw]

if religion has perpetuated itself out of ignorance and continues to do so, why do you say it doesn't matter one way or the other?

[luckyme]

"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect"

[ QUOTE ]
Dawkins wants to destroy religion. Firstly, I see no reason to. Does he see it getting in the way of something? If so, what is that something? Secondly, he wants to destroy something that we don’t even know how it got started.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's keeping his reasons a secret. Besides the above, he objects to the brainwashing of children and it's rather cute to see the american fundamentalists discussing how the mulah's brainwash the kids in muslim countries. Really, there's no lack of Dawkins comments on 'why' he's taken this on, are you too angry with the title of his book to read a page or two ? :-)

Your second point - why would where it came from matter? The value of anything is the role it performs currently. Do you think Dawkins should think differently if he finds out it came from a lonely drunk in siberia, cave men wondering about lightening and dreams of dead parents, or political influence on our natural desire to assign cause-effect and intent to actions?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If the woman is happy with her burka, “God Bless” her. So long as she doesn’t have a bomb under it, why should anyone care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every 30 days I swear off of examples and analogies. I have no idea why people care about others ( ok, I do have a good idea but it's not relevant), but they do. You'll just have to learn to deal with it. ;-)

luckyme

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Is Dawkins only against fundamentalist religion? Because honestly, from what I've read from him, he is clearly against *all* religion. Maybe the articles I have read were a little more aggressive than he usually is, and it distorted his views somewhat?

I am at least *somewhat* hostile to fundamentalist religion as well. I don't necessarily think this means we should constantly attack it -- unless it begins to harm others (which, it can and often does... but it isn't necessarily true). I am hostile to it in the sense that I think it is less than optimal, and it would be a good thing of they didn't adhere so strictly to certain beliefs. So perhaps I agree, in part, with Dawkins and have an inaccurate view on his beliefs based on my few readings of him.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Is Dawkins only against fundamentalist religion? Because honestly, from what I've read from him, he is clearly against *all* religion. Maybe the articles I have read were a little more aggressive than he usually is, and it distorted his views somewhat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read his God Delusion, not likely to either, but from his other writing I'd say he is down on all religion, astrology, water dowsing, any magical/nonsensical beliefs. Fundamentalists just make the bad aspects obvious and, as we know, are more likely to be overtly dangerous.

So, I wouldn't take him off you 'evil' list yet :-)

luckyme

[Matt R.]

OK, I guess I still think he's at least somewhat misguided then.

I don't have an evil list, but if he's so down on a group of people that he uses words like "war" to describe how we should react to them, then I think he may be a bit dangerous. This is of course situational -- sometimes we may need to be at war with fundamentalists if they harm others. But it certainly is dangerous to blanket all beliefs (such as religion) in the same way simply because it is convenient... or you don't like the way they think.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
But it certainly is dangerous to blanket all beliefs (such as religion) in the same way simply because it is convenient... or you don't like the way they think.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the basic action is the same then it reasonable to blanket things. Like 'crime', we understand that some are heinious and others are petty but at a basic level it's the "disregard for law and order" or "the rights of others" that they share and one can be Anti-crime without meaning that they think squeegee kids are in the same class as cannibals.

True or not, New Yorks 'war on crime' used that same blanket approach, get rid of the criminal-thinking at the small level assists in getting rid of the big stuff.

For Dawkinsians, 'Magical Thinking' would be nice to be rid of, the mild harm in some of it not withstanding.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

Also, I am wondering, does theoretical particle physics make Dawkins really angry?

I mean, when you think about it, all they are doing is hypothesizing based on... baseless assumptions and going with the mathematics to see where it takes them. If the mathematics feel "right" and it describes stuff well, they go with it. There are competing theories, and no one can be sure which is right until further notice. There is no proof right now.

Some people hypothesize that the elegance of our universe was brought about by a God, and thus they are religious. There is no proof one way or the other. It is a baseless assumption that they like and they feel like it fits the beauty and symmetry they observe in nature very well. This makes Dawkins angry, I think.

Since we cannot apply the scientific method to a *lot* of aspects of theoretical physics to test the assumptions, is Dawkins next book going to be "The war on sciences I don't like"? Or will he wait for a nuclear bomb to go off and kill people... i.e. when it becomes dangerous? Err wait... he's also against all religions, even Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc. who go out of their way to help others in the name of God. So it appears that "dangerous" isn't really his criteria -- he only doesn't like it if he doesn't like it or believes it isn't based on the scientific method.

I still don't quite fully understand where his position is coming from.

[Matt R.]

I don't like the crime analogy, btw.

Crime, by definition, is as you said "disregard for law and order" or "the rights of others". So, we should be "at war" with all crime -- since, at least in theory, laws are in place because they are needed to PREVENT harm to others.

Religion, as commonly defined, is a set of beliefs dealing with the cause, nature, etc. of the universe which usually leads to the idea of "God". It takes some serious distortions to turn this into something that will hurt others. Hey, it definitely happens, which sucks. But it isn't a necessary component. Crime is almost "harmful" by definition.

[luckyme]

I use lots of analogies and I hate them all.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion, as commonly defined, is a set of beliefs dealing with the cause, nature, etc. of the universe which usually leads to the idea of "God". It takes some serious distortions to turn this into something that will hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the harm is seen as in the acceptance of 'magical thinking'. I take Dawkins as seeing the willingness to make decisions based on magical thinking to be a action that the world would be better off without. Not because each magical thought in itself does direct and immediate harm, but it lays the foundation for it. "Harm" could be looked at as 'keeping the desire for truth' from people, or some such.

It matters not that the mullah's and Fallwell think they have the secrets of the universe handed to them by some desert wanderers some millenium ago, to Dawkinsians the scientific method is a route to understanding the universe and knowledge is a good thing. Falwell or mullah's don't get a vote on this, mere acknowledgment that they disagree.

luckyme

[Matt R.]

Ah! I, at least, see where you are coming from now (not Dawkins yet).

Think about what 'magical thinking' or 'mysticism' is for a second. It it speculation on the nature of something which we do not understand. We used to have 'magical thinking' about pretty much everything... the stars, plants, animals, us... the nature of just about anything and everything. This is what gets the thought process started. We apply reasoning and the scientific method to wittle away at the possibilities. As we understand something, an ASPECT of our world becomes "less mystical". Einstein's theory of relativity was CERTAINLY seen as "magical thinking" at one point... virtually no one accepted his theory initially. At least in the mainstream (who knows who accepted it outside of the scientific community's watchful eye...).

Now consider, we can *never* answer the question of "why" something is the way it is down to an infinite level of regression. There will be something "further back" or "smaller" that we want/need to know how it works. Science, in all probability, will *never* be able to answer every question. Thus, there will always be a mystical element to our universe... 'magical thinking' will always be around.

Now before you dismiss this as simply limitations to the human mind or in the amount of time we have to discover everything. Look at what was mystical in the past. Pretty much everything -- physics, biology, botony, anatomy, etc. We've just re-classified it because we can figure out what "works best" or makes the most sense. We have demystified it... or have we?

Imagine, for a second, that there are supernatural events which occur in our world. Now this is certainly "magical thinking" as you would classify it. Specifically, let us call it a miracle done by God. Now, suppose we can take measurements and analyze this miracle. We find out the miracle takes place via manipulations in the physical -- i.e. we can pick apart the physics of the interaction and understand it. We have now explained it -- it is no longer mystical and it can be understood scientifically. It simply ceases to be defined as "mystical" because we understand it a bit better. The concept it is referring to is EXACTLY the same though.

I don't want to make the idea of miracles the crux of my argument though, so I'll explain a bit further. We used to view life as "the miracle of life". Now we understand it. Some people now think it is no longer a miracle because we understand how it works. But why? Of COURSE we should be able to understand how something works. Just because we do, does not take away from how incredible something is. It is still a "miracle", if you will. We have just changed the wording -- but we certainly don't understand all the of the "why's" about it.

Now, where I am going with this is the following: Science and the mystical and not mutually exclusive. Science pretty much always starts out as "magical thinking". We have tricked ouselves into believing that because we can classify and understand something we have figured everything out. This is extremely far from the truth. We make useful discoveries regarding the "mystical" and our understanding branches from there.

Magical thinking is an inherent property of any conscious being. I do not think we can get rid of it, nor should we try. Thus, it is only harmful when it CAUSES HARM. It certainly does not lay the foundation for immediate harm -- it lays the foundation for *everything* based on knowledge. It is our creativity and imagination. It is just as useful in mathematics, philosophy, and science as it is in religion. The only time we should be hostile towards it is when it becomes dangerous due to the actions of certain people.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
The only time we should be hostile towards it is when it becomes dangerous due to the actions of certain people.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much how I feel about the whole issue. But Dawkins seems to conclude that as long as the concept of religion is present the possibility of that occurring will also be present.

He brings up some very good points in his book though, and got me to thinking about what we could do to prevent some of the problems.

Where it falls short is his seeming inability to grasp the idea that human beings have an almost innate need for certainty. I believe it's that desire which sustains religion, and not the carrot and stick idea he relies on. If he's aware of that issue, he offers no possible solution to it, and as you alluded to with the mysterious, until a replacement for certainty is found - religions will continue to flourish.

The only other problem I had with the book, is ignoring the question of how we managed to get as far as we have with this savage beast of religion and superstition on our backs. He almost turns it into a political argument, by saying we have progressed with its (religion's) influence, but we could have done a lot better without it. Maybe we would have and maybe we could do better in the future, but I think it's a stretch to conclude it with as much certainty as he does.

But all in all it's worth reading.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"As a scientist," Richard Dawkins writes, "I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. Is Dawkins only against fundamentalist religion? Because honestly, from what I've read from him, he is clearly against *all* religion. Maybe the articles I have read were a little more aggressive than he usually is, and it distorted his views somewhat?

I am at least *somewhat* hostile to fundamentalist religion as well. I don't necessarily think this means we should constantly attack it -- unless it begins to harm others (which, it can and often does... but it isn't necessarily true). I am hostile to it in the sense that I think it is less than optimal, and it would be a good thing of they didn't adhere so strictly to certain beliefs. So perhaps I agree, in part, with Dawkins and have an inaccurate view on his beliefs based on my few readings of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is probably less negative towards fundamentalist religion than he is mainstream religion. And for good reason, if you ask me. One is much more pernicious.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I guess I still think he's at least somewhat misguided then.

I don't have an evil list, but if he's so down on a group of people that he uses words like "war" to describe how we should react to them, then I think he may be a bit dangerous. This is of course situational -- sometimes we may need to be at war with fundamentalists if they harm others. But it certainly is dangerous to blanket all beliefs (such as religion) in the same way simply because it is convenient... or you don't like the way they think.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is that if Dawkins made up his Top 10 list of things he is 'down on' to use your term, you would agree with 9 of them.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">It is a baseless assumption that they like and they feel like it fits the beauty and symmetry they observe in nature very well. This makes Dawkins angry, I think. </font>

I don't know the guy personally, but I don't think this is what makes him angry. It seems to me, what makes him angry about organized religion are some of the same things that make me angry; i.e. the brainwashing of defenseless children, the degradation of women, self supremacy over those with differing beliefs, and outright irrational thoughts and views in a political sense. Other than that, I don't have any problem with religion, and I doubt Dawkins would either.

[David Sklansky]

"Einstein's theory of relativity was CERTAINLY seen as "magical thinking" at one point... virtually no one accepted his theory initially."

What nonsense. No one thought his theory was magical thinking. Many thought it might be incorrect. But all knew it came from meticulous deduction, a knowledge of advanced physics, tensor analysis, Riemann geometry, and from the mind of someone who can think a hundred times better than the morons who throw out ridiculous religious theories with no deep thought behind them.

[smurfitup]

I love Richard Dawkins' ideas, but he is incredibly arrogant.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I love Richard Dawkins' ideas, but he is incredibly arrogant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite as arrogant as most theists. At least he doesn't claim divinity on his side! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Matt R.]

David,
If someone throws a ridiculous physical theory out there with some mathematics and reasoning to back it up, but it is still based on ridiculous assumptions most scientists would not be too far off in calling it "magical thinking".

It took a LONG time for the community to accept relativity because it was so vastly different than what they were used to. The fact that it was right and later accepted is not my point. It had to start somewhere, and in the beginning most scientists thought it was ridiculous... i.e. it was "magical thinking" that it could possibly be true that this was how the universe works.

There have been mathematicians in the past who believed in God, and who tried to use mathematics to prove it. Their analysis is certainly a lot more rigorous than your typical religious person. For them, is belief in God no longer "magical thinking", even though it may be wrong?

I am simply trying to show that "magical thinking" is essentially the creativity and imagination of the human mind. It is used in every aspect of life. Science and religion. Science can be wrong sometimes too, yet we aren't arguing to throw out all science. Religion can be wrong sometimes, yet we are arguing all religion is irrational and dangerous.

[Matt R.]

Lestat,
Definitely. I have a big problem with those aspects of religion as well.

[MaxWeiss]

I'm on Sam Harris's website's mailing list. He sent out video links to a lot of these talks. Good stuff.

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/