A Tale of Two Tactics: Dawkins versus Dennett

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is that he can push moderate people away from even looking at the idea. At least some people I've tried to explain evolution to were quick with Dawkins quotes they got from religious sources showing that believing in evolution was the stuff of heathens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the new 'moderate'?

luckyme

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is that he can push moderate people away from even looking at the idea. At least some people I've tried to explain evolution to were quick with Dawkins quotes they got from religious sources showing that believing in evolution was the stuff of heathens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the new 'moderate'?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad word choice.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
He's part of the reason evolution is having such problems being accepted by a lot of people. He needs to zip it sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? Evolution has problems being accepted for several reasons. One being that it makes people uncomfortable. Two being that it contradicts much established religion. Three being that's it's hard to understand, and experts such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to explain the important issues clearly in layman's terms. Four being that experts such as yourself aren't exceedingly open and honest about the very shaky evidence for various stages of the goo->people continuum. There's far too much of a "trust us, we're right" feel to your public dialog.

I don't think Dawkins is anywhere near those four reasons.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is that he can push moderate people away from even looking at the idea.

[/ QUOTE ] If this is true, I think dawkins has failed in part of his purpose.
[ QUOTE ]
At least some people I've tried to explain evolution to were quick with Dawkins quotes they got from religious sources showing that believing in evolution was the stuff of heathens.

[/ QUOTE ] If thats the case, I think Dawkins is accomplishing his purpose, making quality arguments that deserve to be rebuffed.
However, I don't think you and I have much to really argue about regarding this considering your amended position.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing the issue is of paramount importance because that is what has not been happening. When you corner a theist about contradictions or about -- well, anything relating to their faith -- inevitably it ends with a road block of not listening...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who you mean by "a theist" and what particular epoch in history they're part of, so to give a slightly dated extreme theist's point of view:

<font color="brown">Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)

We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus)… Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
</font>

I'm wondering if your issue is more with the rate of progress, than being no progress at all. I really doubt anyone would argue the point that Western Civilization has become more "secularized" over the last 50 years or so. And yes, other cultures haven't progressed and Western Europe is further along the curve than the U.S., but to conclude that the trend is going in one direction, when it's not, is simply not an honest assessment of reality.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
but to conclude that the trend is going in one direction, when it's not, is simply not an honest assessment of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I never made that statement, I will make it now, here. I suggest we both attempt to gather census data on percentages of people who believe in a personal god every 10 years for the past fifty years and post it. I'll make you a $5 even money wager that atheism is increasing as a percentage of population in Europe and the U.S.---Though for the wager I would just say it is more now than it was 50 years ago (since it's conceivable that there would be a back-step in a ten year period). Is it a deal???

If somebody wants to make some variables we could use to argue being more secular, I'd go another five on that.

As for the stuff in red, I also agree that truth cannot contradict truth. If it appears that way, then there is probably some variable or understanding we are missing. I don't want to say that for sure, just because I don't know enough about every area of study, but as a general statement, I would think that it should be true (and with a better definition and some data, we could prove it!).

However, theology is not a legitimate field of study to find truth any more than a complete research of Stephen King books is a field of study for finding truth. In what sense could it provide "truth"?? I suppose it could merge into philosophy for some kind of definition of truth, but then it's called philosophy.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, but their reasons for being religious are as seriously flawed

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just not true. Even among extremists, some have better reasons than others for being religious.

[ QUOTE ]
and they support the extremists whether deliberately or not. Perhaps its donations to churchs, teaching the mythology to their kids who grow up to be extremists, or being non-believers who still fill in a census as "Christian" and give people the idea religions are popular and worthy organisations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some religions are worthy organisations, some arent. Are you really suggesting I shouldnt donate to my local church's fundraiser for recent bushfire victims on the grounds that I am lending support to some other group with more sinister objectives?

This argument makes no sense to me. "You cant agree with a fundamentalist a little bit because you're lending them credibility or support." I do this all the time, I believe in a social safety net for people disadvantaged by circumstance - is this tacit support for communist dictatorship?

[ QUOTE ]
Im also as disgusted by the moderates' denial of search for knowledge, and passing on of absurd moral codes, as the extremists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Being religious does not preclude searching for knowledge, neither does it necessitate an absurd moral code.

[ QUOTE ]
The moderates should step back and admit their religion is hurrendous and based on untrue premises instead of helping to propogate the philosophical ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only do we not agree with your judgement of our religion, we also believe the premises, remember? This whole post seems to imply we're just pretending to believe for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

By demanding respect for their religion, moderates shelter fundamentalists. After all the fundamentalist is getting his ideas from the same book as the moderate. And the fundamentalist has actually read the whole book. Religion shelters bigotry. Moderates shelter fundamentalists.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I never made that statement, I will make it now, here. I suggest we both attempt to gather census data on percentages of people who believe in a personal god every 10 years for the past fifty years and post it. I'll make you a $5 even money wager that atheism is increasing as a percentage of population in Europe and the U.S.---Though for the wager I would just say it is more now than it was 50 years ago (since it's conceivable that there would be a back-step in a ten year period). Is it a deal???


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll double-down and accept your wager!!!

[John21]

Okay, I lost. I reread your post, and I was saying that secularism is on the rise, which happened to be the same thing you were saying. So PM me and I'll send you a check or PayPal. (my firepay and neteller accounts are registered in Nevada, and they won't let me transfer after the new legislation.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
However, theology is not a legitimate field of study to find truth any more than a complete research of Stephen King books is a field of study for finding truth. In what sense could it provide "truth"?? I suppose it could merge into philosophy for some kind of definition of truth, but then it's called philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're hitting on the heart of the whole issue. The way I see it is, in the battle for ideas, there are three contenders: science, philosophy and religion. Considering their influence and impact on human society, I don't think it's fair to discount or negate any of them. The question, to me, is how to prioritize or relegate them.

As to definitions:
Science - it's investigative. It describes the facts and gives us knowledge of the facts.

Philosophy - it's reflective and it does more than simply describe. It attempts to explore the underlying reality, i.e. it tries to explain the facts and give us an understanding of them.

Religion - it simply accepts and believes. While not always being knowable or understandable - it can go beyond the confines of philosophy and science and explore realms they cannot penetrate.

So then we're left with the issue of how to relegate them. For instance, Comte decided that science was the primary form of knowledge; philosophy was speculation; and religion was superstition. Another camp would argue that because each discipline differs in its objective and method, they should all be considered, in a sense, as equals, and not have to face off.

Personally, I think both definitions lead to paradoxes and I try to reframe the issue to resolve them. My attempt, and it's open to debate, is to not ask what the individual disciplines are but what they do, and particularly what they do for mankind. All things aside, and taking into account the historical progress of the human race as a whole, I conclude: philosophy is more beneficial to mankind than science; and religion is more beneficial to mankind than philosophy.

Although my personal argument is more elaborate, the synopsis is that we needed religion to get together to develop philosophy; and we needed philosophy to form science.

Can we jettison the tools that got us to where we are today? Maybe, and I'm leaning towards yes. But I don't think we need to discount or demean our heritage - it's who we are. Personally, I feel that if you're strong, you're strong enough to carry the stragglers. It's not really an issue of who they are - it's defining who you are. Animals lean the pack and unburden themselves of the weak. As humans, I'm hoping we're past that - are we?