Richard dawkins

[footman]

It seems as though an attempt is being made here to equate Dawkins belief in his own ideas as being "faith" in the same way that religious ideas are deemed "faith"
My understanding of religious faith is that it is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dawkins "faith" is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of his notion of the absence of god(s) in the universe.

Hardly equable.

Anyway, I've been up half the damn night looking at different sites on religious faith and found that this one was typical of those that sought to explain religious (particularly Christian) phenomena:
http://www.bethinking.org/

After several hours on this site I am even more convinced than ever that religious faith employs sky hooks to ensure acceptance. Having come to that conclusion I also realise that science does this also.
I'm thinking of such concepts as parallel universes in up to 11 dimensions (or is it 9?) to understand the weakness of gravitational force.

I'd like someone to explain why scientific sky hooks are any more valid than religious ones and before someone like Dolph attacks my credentials for entering this debate, yes, I am educated to B.Sc. level!

 

[Warbie]

Does Dawkins spend much time trying to explain the why? Whenever I see him in interviews, and from the little snippets i've read from his books, he just seems to blow holes in religion.

 

[ChroniC]

It seems as though an attempt is being made here to equate Dawkins belief in his own ideas as being "faith" in the same way that religious ideas are deemed "faith"
My understanding of religious faith is that it is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dawkins "faith" is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of his notion of the absence of god(s) in the universe.

Hardly equable.

Anyway, I've been up half the damn night looking at different sites on religious faith and found that this one was typical of those that sought to explain religious (particularly Christian) phenomena:
http://www.bethinking.org/

After several hours on this site I am even more convinced than ever that religious faith employs sky hooks to ensure acceptance. Having come to that conclusion I also realise that science does this also.
I'm thinking of such concepts as parallel universes in up to 11 dimensions (or is it 9?) to understand the weakness of gravitational force.

I'd like someone to explain why scientific sky hooks are any more valid than religious ones and before someone like Dolph attacks my credentials for entering this debate, yes, I am educated to B.Sc. level!

Simple put because science works as such.

Observation > Deductions made from observation, to create a theory/hypothesis > Predicitons on what should happen > conclusion > If wrong restart if right develop predicitons

Religious sky hooks work more like this

Observation > Deduction based on no evidence > Hypothesis doesnt fit > Conclusion, god works in mysterious ways > Dont restart, God knows better.

 

[Belly]

Dawkins only fault (if it is a fault at all), is a failure to comprehend why others who are free thinking and intelligent believe in a god.

I seem to remember that Dawkins partly answered this by saying that (we) humans, as children are programmed to believe what we are told. Otherwise we wouldn’t be where we are today?

“Don’t go down to the water’s edge or you will be eaten by a crocodile”
“If you don’t be a good boy/girl the Bogey Man will get you”

or where we were older:

"Wear clean underwear 'cus you never know your luck"

Those who didn’t take heed of what they were told didn’t often survive; either the crocodile or the Bogey Man got ‘em and they didn't get laid

I remember as a child seeing the Panorama (?) programme (broadcast on 1st April) on TV showing The Spaghetti Harvest. Spaghetti was growing on bushes and pickers were cutting it with scissors, drying it in the sun etc. Some years later I was watching TV with some of my mates and there was an advert showing Spaghetti Hoops, I casually enquired “I wonder how they manage to grow those hoops because there doesn’t seem to be a join where it was originally attached to the plant”

No I think Dawkins understands why some people believe in God.

One question I would like to ask Dawkins is: Is there anywhere on earth where discoverers went where all the people were atheists? Discoverers went to America, medicine men and ghosts, Australia-spirits, Africa – Witch Doctors, etc, etc. Was there anywhere where people thought: No, there’s only now, yesterday and tomorrow are just illusions, when we die we turn to dust?

 

[ChroniC]

I seem to remember that Dawkins partly answered this by saying that (we) humans, as children are programmed to believe what we are told. Otherwise we wouldn’t be where we are today?

“Don’t go down to the water’s edge or you will be eaten by a crocodile”
“If you don’t be a good boy/girl the Bogey Man will get you”

or where we were older:

"Wear clean underwear 'cus you never know your luck"

Those who didn’t take heed of what they were told didn’t often survive; either the crocodile or the Bogey Man got ‘em and they didn't get laid

I remember as a child seeing the Panorama (?) programme (broadcast on 1st April) on TV showing The Spaghetti Harvest. Spaghetti was growing on bushes and pickers were cutting it with scissors, drying it in the sun etc. Some years later I was watching TV with some of my mates and there was an advert showing Spaghetti Hoops, I casually enquired “I wonder how they manage to grow those hoops because there doesn’t seem to be a join where it was originally attached to the plant”

No I think Dawkins understands why some people believe in God.

One question I would like to ask Dawkins is: Is there anywhere on earth where discoverers went where all the people were atheists? Discoverers went to America, medicine men and ghosts, Australia-spirits, Africa – Witch Doctors, etc, etc. Was there anywhere where people thought: No, there’s only now, yesterday and tomorrow are just illusions, when we die we turn to dust?

Probably not, as its a survival instinct to cluster in like minded groups.
Humans that live a singular existence, tend to have no companionship and that was vital to survive in times when things where harder. Animals for instance that try to join groups from outside are usual killed.
Its easier to have a common acceptance to help join from the outside.
Now we have stability and society it has become easier to become singular as my survival is no longer based apon a group as such, but rather a system.

 

[NormanPorkinson]

One of the problems with the human brain and human society is that we can't be satisfied with not knowing and accepting the limitations of our brains, to such an extent that we'd rather make things up than accept we don't have the answer! Massive piece of illogic!

 

[Dolph]

This is all well and good but that philosophical view point of science doesn't have any practical significance when it comes to using science to help mankind! Philosophy is a useless notion for the most part, it's not pointless one but it just doesn't provide anything that is that useful - when we find that an asteroid is heading for earth, which will happen, it's science that will provide the answer, same goes for curing disease or helping us to inhabit other planets!

Of course not, you're just confirming my point, namely that science is brilliant when used in context...

The problem is Dawkins (and others) have a tendancy to use it out of context, for example, trying to explain the meaning of life, looking at the existence of god(s) and so on.

 

[Dolph]

I don't envisage any other context but a scientific one and believe that science can provide the answer to any question, ok we might not know the answers to 99% of the questions but that's not because science can't answer them, it's just our brains aren't developed enough. As dawkins says if science can't answer the question, do better science!

That's fine, and there's nothing wrong with that position, it just isn't more valid than alternative ones.

Perhaps the problem is that some people view 'faith' as something that is wrong, it isn't. Saying that there is faith involved in a position isn't, or shouldn't be, an insult, just a recognition of the limits of knowledge or process.

 

[B&W]

It' s human nature to believe in something or another.

We fear the unknown and if we can't prove it by science or rationality then we use our belief to form some sort of idea about it.

It's just another tool in our set, we shouldn't disregard it the way Dawkins does.
Belief and imagination are very powerful, without these things we wouldn't be human the way we know we are human today.

Long after Dawkins is gone, as long as man is alive we will always employ these tools. They are part of us just as much logic and rationality are part of us.

 

[Naffa]

It' s human nature to believe in something or another.

Absolutely. Religion is the absolute epitome of our inferiority as a species.

 

[Dolph]

It seems as though an attempt is being made here to equate Dawkins belief in his own ideas as being "faith" in the same way that religious ideas are deemed "faith"
My understanding of religious faith is that it is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dawkins "faith" is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of his notion of the absence of god(s) in the universe.

Hardly equable.

Hardly what is being argued either. Dawkins faith doesn't lie in his position on god, but his position on science. The position on god follows naturally on from a belief in scientific realism, which is completely unprovable and requires a similar level of belief in the 'truth' of the assumptions of the scientific method to that of believing that the 'truth' that the bible is the word of god.

Anyway, I've been up half the damn night looking at different sites on religious faith and found that this one was typical of those that sought to explain religious (particularly Christian) phenomena:
http://www.bethinking.org/

After several hours on this site I am even more convinced than ever that religious faith employs sky hooks to ensure acceptance. Having come to that conclusion I also realise that science does this also.
I'm thinking of such concepts as parallel universes in up to 11 dimensions (or is it 9?) to understand the weakness of gravitational force.

I'd like someone to explain why scientific sky hooks are any more valid than religious ones and before someone like Dolph attacks my credentials for entering this debate, yes, I am educated to B.Sc. level!

That wasn't an attack, more a curiousity, because my experience is that the most ardent believers in science are often those with the least academic exposure to it, normally because they never reached the point where you start looking at mechanically contradictory models that are both predictively accurate and therefore equally scientifically valid, as that tends to really kick in (for most hard science subjects) around the late 2nd/3rd year of the course at degree level. You also tend to start exploring the known issues with exisiting models that are ignored because they don't matter to the predictive result about the same time (for an example, see splitting the electron by Humphrey Maris).

As to why some skyhooks are considered more acceptable than others, a lot of it is lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to acknowledge limitations. Science has supplanted religion as a great explainer, but just as most laymen took religion at face value, a great many now take science at face value, and prominent scientists have taken the same roles that the clergy used to take in providing the explanations and guidance.

 

[Naffa]

and prominent scientists have taken the same roles that the clergy used to take in providing the explanations and guidance.

I could not disagree more. I can't actually believe, for a second, that you actually believe that. You honestly believe that a modern day scientist takes the same role, that a clergyman would have taken however long ago, in 'guidance' and 'explanation'?

I'm sorry, I cannot accept that you were sincere in that comment.

 

[Dolph]

This is such a cop out arguement though. Just cause we cant, doesn't mean its any less worthy, as its validity is secured by its use and results. Even if both hold a faith position, and your whole arguement on this point seems to depend on scientist not realising they have faith, at the very least they have the right to tell you your wrong, because your faith does not create an discernable results or conclusions, it doesn't work thus it isnt correct.
Its the only arguement that you have against Dawkins is that he doesnt realise he is also in a faith based system, (used very losely) then its better to use a system that has 99.9% evidence and .1% faith than 1% evidence and 99% faith.

I saw a Youtube video saying why this is a totally useless point and it explained it so well, because this offen comes up, I wish I could find it now.

You can't use recursion to prove anything, certainly not in this context. The predictive accuracy of science as a result of the assumptions employed cannot then be used to justify the accuracy of those assumptions, it makes no sense.

As for the rest of it, you have to first define evidence, because most religious people, while not completely evidence driven, do have evidence that they accept. It is important to remember the limitations of science for gathering evidence in such a discussion as well.

Likewise, you don't have to reject scientific evidence to have religious faith, the two deal with different things and are not mutually exclusive. The only parts that are incompatible are the philosophy of scientific realism and religious faith, but scientific realism is pretty much a faith in itself, and not part of science as it is used.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I could not disagree more. I can't actually believe, for a second, that you actually believe that. You honestly believe that a modern day scientist takes the same role, that a clergyman would have taken however long ago, in 'guidance' and 'explanation'?

I'm sorry, I cannot accept that you were sincere in that comment.

There are some who loudly state global warming exists and is a very serious problem. There are others who say it is nothing but a media scare to sell papers and over priced solutions.

Science, all science is a matter for debate, as it should be. The greatest failing your belloved science befalls is its inability to accept grey lines in what it supposes to be an infinite cosmos of binary decisions.

For any one person to take absolutely either side without consideration of the other is hypocrisy beyond belief.

 

[Dolph]

I could not disagree more. I can't actually believe, for a second, that you actually believe that. You honestly believe that a modern day scientist takes the same role, that a clergyman would have taken however long ago, in 'guidance' and 'explanation'?

I'm sorry, I cannot accept that you were sincere in that comment.

In all cases? Probably not. In many cases, they certainly do.

The method and approach are different, but that does not mean the role isn't the same. We all do it, if we want to know something, what is the first point of call? There aren't that many who actually conduct the experiments to gain their knowledge, they read it, they get told what is right, what is wrong, what is going to have good results, and what is not. They rely on others to tell them, to find out, to research, just as people once relied on the clergy to interpret the information and give instructions from god, many people now rely on scientists to interpret the information from observation, and give instructions of how to improve it.

How is that really any different (ignoring the mechanism by which the recommendation is derived) to the role the clergy once played?

I know I don't personally verify every bit of scientific information I'm given, I take much of it on the words of those qualified to interpret it in that area, and where the area is muddy, I listen to all opinions, and usually make a choice based on what I feel is right.

Can you say, honestly, that you do differently?

 

[BunnyKillBot]

There aren't that many who actually conduct the experiments to gain their knowledge, they read it, they get told what is right, what is wrong, what is going to have good results, and what is not.

And indeed, it is a basic principle of all scientific research to consider the bias in the evidence presented to you. That study which proves just how nutty is a bowl of Kelloggs was almost certainly conducted by Kelloggs themselves.

 

[Naffa]

Likewise, you don't have to reject scientific evidence to have religious faith, the two deal with different things and are not mutually exclusive. The only parts that are incompatible are the philosophy of scientific realism and religious faith, but scientific realism is pretty much a faith in itself, and not part of science as it is used.

I'm sorry, but again, yes, you do have to reject scientific evidence if you're to have religious faith. If we take Christianity as an example (as no faith is better than another), I know that there's such a thing as parthenogenesis, and that theoretically, however unlikely, a woman could conceivably conceive of a virgin. However, there are other parts of the Bible, such as the resurrection, that are less compatible with science. For example, as written in the Gospel of Matthew, on the day that Jesus was resurrected, in itself scientifically impossible, all of the dead in Jerusalem rose from their graves and visited friends and family. You think that's compatible with science?

There are countless other examples.

 

[Dolph]

I'm sorry, but again, yes, you do have to reject scientific evidence if you're to have religious faith. If we take Christianity as an example (as no faith is better than another), I know that there's such a thing as parthenogenesis, and that theoretically, however unlikely, a woman could conceivably conceive. However, there are other parts of the Bible, such as the resurrection, that are less compatible with science. For example, as written in the Gospel of Matthew, on the day that Jesus was resurrected, in itself scientifically impossible, all of the dead in Jerusalem rose from their graves and visited friends and family. You think that's compatible with science?

There are countless other examples.

Science is really bad at dealing with one off events, to the point where it will discard them as evidence, but that's not the same thing as stating it did not happen.

 

[Belly]

Is there a society somewhere (Australia, USA, Iceland, Papua New Guinea etc) where their God actually comes and visits them every 20 years or so? Brings them presents from other worlds, (No, not Mars Bars, Milky Ways or Galaxy chocolate bars) gives them a bit of advice and encouragement, has a photo-shoot with his believers? Hands out updated copies of his bible incorporating modern thinking on homosexuality, female priests, getting blitzed on Lowenbrau on a Saturday night etc, etc, etc?

Someone who is a bit long in the tooth, say as old as Enoch? That way we’d all know it was true, there’d be no doubting Thomases then, no; because each time we saw him we’d recognise that he was getting older.

Why do all these societies have faith in a God that is not tangible? I don’t mean someone who thinks he’s God (Terry Wogan sit down please). Surely with the world’s diversity of religion ONE of those Gods should exist and should be able to show himself to us, come to our homes for a bit of a chat before zooming off to outer space?

Wouldn’t this country be better off spending the money it is going to spend on the forthcoming Pope’s visit to fund a University science laboratory to try to discover a cure for xxxxxxx’s disease?