A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[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.