Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[elmarko]

I have watched and read just about everything Carl Sagan has put out.

He would have never agreed with Dawkins redefinition of Agnosticism, or his anti-religious stance (Sagan wasn't anti religion..quite the opposite, he held some, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism in high esteem) and he certainly would not have agreed with the soapbox theatre that Dawkins indulges in. In fact many atheists (and agnostics) are increasingly distancing themselves from Dawkins and his soapboxing.

Carl Sagan was the man that Richard Dawkins could have been and sadly is not even a shadow of. If Sagan was alive today, I suspect that Dawkins and his kin would have been sidelined before they had even begun.

He was more diplomatic & inclusive most certainly - also would be a much better person to present science (that I can't argue with).

Regarding the redefinition of agnosticism I'd wager this is more of a case of his aversion to labels. But generally, cosmologists seem to have a better way of understanding & putting forward more palatable & compelling arguments to the people.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better spokesmen for reason... (but I digress)

 

[Castiel]

I must admit, he does come across as a pompous ***** sometimes, but his reach and influence is still nothing compared to that of Christianity in the US. I think his attitude comes from frustration and incredulity at just how entrenched and fundamental Christianity still is in most of the US.

I don't disagree, however he only undermines himself by reacting the way he does. He gets worse the older he gets. The Conservative Evangelicals in the US wouldn't listen to God himself if he told them they were wrong, Dawkins is wasting his time trying to reach that lot.

 

[JonJ678]

@elmarko
Philosophy is reasoning about our environment and being content when the reasoning appears sound
Science is reasoning about out environment, then testing our reasoning and rejecting whatever appears false

The scientific method isn't anything more special than that. It's just testing our ideas. Neither philosophy nor theology do the testing step. The world is full of scientists who are a bit crap at the testing step and a small minority who do it very well.

Reading some of your posts has given the impression that you hold the scientific method in rather higher regard than it warrants. I'd go so far as to say you have more faith in the scientific method than available evidence warrants

 

[elmarko]

@Elmarko
Philosophy is reasoning about our environment and being content when the reasoning appears sound
Science is reasoning about out environment, then testing our reasoning and rejecting whatever appears false

The scientific method isn't anything more special than that. It's just testing our ideas. Neither philosophy nor theology do the testing step. The world is full of scientists who are a bit crap at the testing step and a small minority who do it very well.

Reading some of your posts has given the impression that you hold the scientific method in rather higher regard than it warrants. I'd go so far as to say you have more faith in the scientific method than available evidence warrants

It's the best tool we have at understanding the world around us.

If you could put forward a better way of determine the truth value of a given claim, or to actually understand the world around us then I'd love to know it.

Essentially, as you say - it's not that complicated, it's simply a way of working which mitigates against our failings, bias & disingenuous potential motivates.

Science simply discovers what is there, so in a way I agree - it's nothing special - it's our universe which is magnificent.

 

[JonJ678]

I think we disagree on the axioms. A given claim doesn't have a "truth value" in any objective sense. The truth of a given claim could be assessed by me, by you, by a hundred thousand Christians. We'll all disagree. As such, "truth" is subjective, not objective. We'll realistically have to agree to disagree on that one as it's a statement of faith more than anything else.

Science requires an objective truth. If repeating an experiment yields different results we tend to reject the experiment. This mitigates against whatever failings can be described as human error, but it doesn't help in the cases where a given problem is not repeatable.

It's a tool for understanding our surroundings. I'm not convinced it's the best one.

 

[Castiel]

I think we disagree on the axioms. A given claim doesn't have a "truth value" in any objective sense. The truth of a given claim could be assessed by me, by you, by a hundred thousand Christians. We'll all disagree. As such, "truth" is subjective, not objective. We'll realistically have to agree to disagree on that one as it's a statement of faith more than anything else.

Science requires an objective truth. If repeating an experiment yields different results we tend to reject the experiment. This mitigates against whatever failings can be described as human error, but it doesn't help in the cases where a given problem is not repeatable.

It's a tool for understanding our surroundings. I'm not convinced it's the best one.

I agree. While it helps our universal understanding of our surroundings in an objective way, it is by no means the only way we understand our own existence...which is to all intents and purposes, subjective. The truth that such a method gives us is objective according to the methodology, but can be subjective according to the perception of the observer.

I don't really think it is about whether it is the best tool, but that it is but one tool amongst many for understanding our surroundings and our place within them..both objectively and subjectively.

 

[JonJ678]

An online discussion reaching an agreement is a rare thing. Thank you Castiel

 

[Nitefly]

For the millionth time, I absolutely loathe statements relating to the limitations of science. It's soooo tedious.

a) You cannot say with 100% guaranteed certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

b) The statement in a) is correct.

c) The statement in a) is pointless to the extent of stupidity. It is entirely reasonable to say, with certainty, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning as it's an affirmation of everything everyone has ever seen.

Why the sun rises is a totally different matter. I think people confuse their whys with their whats, hows and whens.

 

[JonJ678]

You're a biologist by training if I recall correctly. So you should have come across many, many limitations in biology. Which statements are annoying you?

 

[413x]

I beg to differ, science does not require faith. It does require trust which, unlike faith, has to be earned. When I get in my car and go to work, I trust the science behind the car parts and I expect to get there in one piece. On the other hand, faith guarantees nothing, promises a lot but provides returns similar to those given by a flip of a coin.

thats a better word

 

[Nitefly]

You're a biologist by training if I recall correctly. So you should have come across many, many limitations in biology. Which statements are annoying you?

Science is limited in the same sense that my car is limited because I can't drive across the sea.

I think these statements irked me...

Science requires an objective truth. If repeating an experiment yields different results we tend to reject the experiment. This mitigates against whatever failings can be described as human error, but it doesn't help in the cases where a given problem is not repeatable.

It's a tool for understanding our surroundings. I'm not convinced it's the best one.

I agree. While it helps our universal understanding of our surroundings in an objective way, it is by no means the only way we understand our own existence...which is to all intents and purposes, subjective. The truth that such a method gives us is objective according to the methodology, but can be subjective according to the perception of the observer.

I don't really think it is about whether it is the best tool, but that it is but one tool amongst many for understanding our surroundings and our place within them..both objectively and subjectively.

... because to me you are both saying, in many words, that you think that cars are not necessarily suitable for driving across the sea. Well, great. To me, it's abundantly clear that el marko was stating that a car is a pretty good way of getting across land. It's sort of an "highbrow" non-argument about nothing. Which is why I very, very rarely comment in threads like these any more.

I apologise to you all for bah-humbugging the discussion, but you made me do it with your quip about the limitations of biology *shakes fist at the moon*.

 

[dowie]

Firstly, you are assuming that people "falsely" attributing God to phenomena which is subsequently explained, somehow disproves the existence of God. It does not, it just proves that people have "falsely" attributed the explainable to him.

I don't assume that - I'm pointing out that humans often attribute magical thinking to any number o areas they don't currently understand - its been observed across many different culture... The idea that Prince Phillip is a god is ridiculous to anyone else int he world... No it doesn't disprove someone else's God - it is however an illustration of how silly their god also is to anyone who exercises some level of critical thinking.

Secondly, you also assume that the explainable cannot be attributed to God, but it can.

Of course it can - you can make up a God of anything explainable too if you like. You can make up any beliefs you like and construct them in such a way that its impossible to disprove... I've not assumed that the explainable can't be attributed to 'God' or anything else you want to believe...

Just because you know how an earthquake works, does not mean God did not create it. Just because you know tectonic plates shifting causes earthquakes to occur does not mean God has not caused it to occur based on a plan he created billions of years ago when he formed the earth. An inability to perceive the plan or the "hand" in action does not disprove God.

That's very true... you're absolutely correct... it also doesn't mean that magical trolls didn't do it, or sky pixies, or flying spagetti monsters or infinite other irrelevant things we can make up based on nothing at all....

Thirdly, even if we assume that everything that occurs within our universe is directed by natural (not divine) laws of physics and so forth, that does not dispel the possibility of a creator.

Completely agree - it also doesn't dispel the spaghetti monster, the greek or roman gods or me... actually screw it - I created it all in another life and you can't disprove it...

What I find sad, is when people have such narrow-minded views of the big questions. The fact you have already signed up to Fedora Monthly and MLP Weekly is evidence that you lack an open mind. Your blind adherence to the notion that "science explains everything" is tantamount of post-modern fundamentalism.

open minded?

LOL that old chestnut - stop being so naive...

 

[Castiel]

Science is limited in the same sense that my car is limited because I can't drive across the sea.

I think these statements irked me...





... because to me you are both saying, in many words, that you think that cars are not necessarily suitable for driving across the sea. Well, great. To me, it's abundantly clear that el marko was stating that a car is a pretty good way of getting across land. It's sort of an "highbrow" non-argument about nothing. Which is why I very, very rarely comment in threads like these any more.

I apologise to you all for bah-humbugging the discussion, but you made me do it with your quip about the limitations of biology *shakes fist at the moon*.

What we are saying is that Life (as in our existence) is not simply about to use an analogy, driving across the land...and it is not limitations of science that are being discussed, but the limitations of Human Understanding.

So you are getting irked about nowt.

 

[D.P.]

Accepting what Scientists (and by association Science) state when you have neither the understanding or ability to peer review does.

For example, I accept the Theory of Evolution as being pretty much a Fact...I do not fully understand its complexity or specificity..I trust and have faith in both the scientific method and that it has been applied correctly along with the individuals having assessed the evidence accordingly. I have faith in their assessment and I use that, along with what evidence and information I do have and understand to formulate my own position. This is an example of having Faith.

Blind faith, would be if I simply took what someone told me about evolution without any evidence or understanding at all and put my complete and unwavering trust in it...even if it could be demonstrated otherwise. This is an example of Blind Faith.

Faith doesn't mean blind acceptance, and it does imply a level of trust.

There is a fundamental difference between religion and science.
If I wanted to find out the truth on whether God exists there is no viable way I or any organization can answer that question, even given infinite time and resources. However, any scientific theory I can personally or a 3rd part organization can verify that the theory is sound given reasonable time and resources.

Therefore belief in God requires faith, belief in science requires merely trust that the sources are accurate, for which there are mechanisms in place to ensure this.

 

[Castiel]

There is a fundamental difference between religion and science.
.

No one said there wasn't..in fact people have been saying that there are.

That doesn't mean that the way in which people apply such subjective emotions as Trust and/or Faith to each is fundamentally different.

If I wanted to find out the truth on whether God exists there is no viable way I or any organization can answer that question, even given infinite time and resources. However, any scientific theory I can personally or a 3rd part organization can verify that the theory is sound given reasonable time and resources.

Well, given such an exhaustive amount of time and resources then I would say the logical position would be that every possible and probably arena could be covered...so a little bit of an exaggeration there D.P....and any Philosophical position can also be verified as Sound given reasonable time and resources, it is after all, Rational Analysis is a basic tenet of philosophical thought and by association through Theology, Religion has its own mechanism for applying this and therefore can also be verified in this way albeit subjectively. And that is the difference, that one is subjective and the other objective..they are also tackling different things, one (science) is the objective search for knowledge, the other (philosophy) is the subjective pursuit of understanding.....both seek to better understand the Universe..one from a pragmatic and external (from the Human Condition) perspective..the other from a subjective, internal (to the Human Condition) perspective. ..Religion is but one manifestation of this internal search for understanding..it is not comparative to Science...as you say they are fundamentally different.

Therefore belief in God requires faith, belief in science requires merely trust that the sources are accurate, for which there are mechanisms in place to ensure this.

You are missing the point...If the observer doesn't understand the mechanism, they take it on faith that they work....the underlying requirement in both cases for the individual is the same. It matter not whether the mechanisms are different, we are not discussing the mechanisms..but the observers reaction to the unknown and how they accept positions on trust.

 

[V F]

For the millionth time, I absolutely loathe statements relating to the limitations of science. It's soooo tedious.

a) You cannot say with 100% guaranteed certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

You're right. It's always bloody overcast here.

 

[NirK]

science

noun: science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[NirK]

religion

noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

[V F]

 

[Xordium]

There is a fundamental difference between religion and science.

And no-one is saying otherwise.

If I wanted to find out the truth on whether God exists there is no viable way I or any organization can answer that question, even given infinite time and resources. However, any scientific theory I can personally or a 3rd part organization can verify that the theory is sound given reasonable time and resources.

And if you were testing something on the scale of god then there is no viable way you or anyone else could test it. You are a scientist are you not - compare like with like.

Therefore belief in God requires faith, belief in science requires merely trust that the sources are accurate, for which there are mechanisms in place to ensure this.

You've got belief and faith the wrong way around. And once again your bias shows there as you are limiting one side of the debate whilst allowing the other side no such limitation.

Which goes back to your original point that they are different so why try to describe one by the rules of the other. You are guaranteed to fail both ways if you try that. Do you criticise qualitative work because it attempts to provide personal meaning?

Horses for courses I don't really understand how so called clever people can't get such a simple concept.

And Dawkins is a nutjob he should have become an evangelist he's got the nature for it.