Richard dawkins

[Dolph]

The scientific truth!!!! That's the only truth I care about and the only truth that can be beneficial to my understanding of the world! I don't care if he's out of his field in theology, theology has no meaning in my life and conveys no benefit to human advancement in my eyes!

Firstly, it isn't theology, it's philosophy.

Secondly, the 'scientific truth' is very limited, science can provide very little 'truth', and even less that is not dependent on a priori (that is, taken without evidence) assumption.

May I suggest you google scientific instrumentalism and scientific realism (two diametrically opposed philosophies of how the scientific method fits into the world at large that both have zero effect on the actual results of science).

I would also suggest that the problem is you have no scientific education (as you confirmed yourself earlier in the thread) and therefore can only treat dawkins like a preacher...

 

[Castiel]

I remember seeing a video of him speaking at Ted, he gave some impressive figures on the percentage of the highly intelligent population that do follow a religion, i think this was it:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

As one of the, if not the, most renowned Biologists of our time his words are certainly not to be passed off as an opinion equal to that of any bloke who has no actual experience of the subject, and his use of logic is infallible.

But it is logic applied to what we know, not what people believe.

The problem with both religion and atheism is the lack of evidence from either side. I like his Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science charity, but I cannot agree with his dismissive attitude which to be fair has gotten more pronounced as he has gotten older.

He must know that attempting to apply current logic to a faith based ideology with our current level of scientific knowledge is pointless.

 

[kylew]

No he doesnt. Rewatch the show or re-read his books. He doesnt portray that at all. It would be a massive waste of time saying that some things arent facts are just perfectly amazing best knowsn guesses (which they are) but when something is tested, proveable and retestable 1 million times it becomes a fact, albiet a massive probable guess, but calling it anything other than a fact is just stupid.

Seriously?

Believing that they're facts is where his belief lays. I'm not saying whether they are or aren't facts, but that his believes they are, which is him putting his faith in that being the truth.

 

[Glaucus]

Which is always going to be more robust than the other side of the arguement.

That is not the point, the point is using the tool for a purpose it was not design for and can't possibly have any use.

 

[THMRK]

Also its a myth that there is a evidence of jesus. Find me some.
In fact I have read that lost books written by Peter I think make no mention of any man known as jesus. (but dont quote me on that)

I'm sure there is a poster on this forum that has studied the bible for many years, something of a theologian in fact, who had made some very knowledgeable postings about this very topic in another thread in SC a while ago.

Can't for the life of me remember who, though.

 

[growse]

Why bother, would a fruitless existence trying to disprove everything, as there is an infinite amount of things i can imagine.
Much rather try proving things that actually do exist. Would be rather stupid to waste of my short time of earth to do otherwise.

I'd suggest that if you'd actually studied any science, you'd realise that occasionally finding evidence which supports the theory of the absence of something would be quite useful.

The person who comes up with very strong evidence for the absence of gravitons, or the Higgs boson (to think of a couple of examples) might be in line for a Nobel prize somewhere along the lines. These are two particles that are theorized but yet to be observed. Demonstrating that they possibly don't exist would hugely affect theoretical physics and push out to a whole new direction.

Hardly 'fruitless'.

Anyway, my underlying point was that science is concerned with theories and evidence about stuff that *can be determined*. Whether the evidence is for the presence or absence of something is entirely immaterial. From my understanding of Dawkin's arguments, he basically says "Logically, X cannot be true. Therefore Y". Which is ridiculous, because he has no evidence of the absence of X, or evidence for Y. I do applaud his encouragement of critical thinking and examining of evidence though. That bit's commendable.

 

[physichull]

That is not the point, the point is using the tool for a purpose it was not design for and can't possibly have any use.

Was not designed for?!?!?!?!

I'm pretty sure the science was designed for creating models of the laws of the universe and it does have a use! Why else would we use science?

It will never be 100% accurate, but it will be as close as we can possibly get.

 

[Dolph]

Was not designed for?!?!?!?!

I'm pretty sure the science was designed for creating models of the laws of the universe and it does have a use! Why else would be use science?

It will never be 100% accurate, but it will be as close as we can possible get.

Science was created to allow us to predict future results based on past ones, and to propose a means by which the two could be related.

That's a far cry from a provider of truth.

 

[Glaucus]

I didn't say it doesn't have a use, it has a massive use. But it has limitations it can't be used to prove a negative and it can't be used for anything outside of scientific model, most of the time it can't even show underlying mechanisms.

 

[ChroniC]

I'm sure there is a poster on this forum that has studied the bible for many years, something of a theologian in fact, who had made some very knowledgeable postings about this very topic in another thread in SC a while ago.

Can't for the life of me remember who, though.

There was a very interesting show called
BBC- The lost gospels of peter

Anglican priest Peter Owen Jones explores the huge number of ancient Christian texts that didn't make it into the New Testament. Shocking and challenging, these were works in which Jesus didn't die, took revenge on his enemies and kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth. Pete travels through Egypt and the former Roman Empire looking at the evidence of a Christian world very different to the one we know, and finds over seventy gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses all circulating in the early Church.

Not available on Iplayer anymore unfortunately.

I'd suggest that if you'd actually studied any science, you'd realise that occasionally finding evidence which supports the theory of the absence of something would be quite useful.

The person who comes up with very strong evidence for the absence of gravitons, or the Higgs boson (to think of a couple of examples) might be in line for a Nobel prize somewhere along the lines. These are two particles that are theorized but yet to be observed. Demonstrating that they possibly don't exist would hugely affect theoretical physics and push out to a whole new direction.

Hardly 'fruitless'.

Anyway, my underlying point was that science is concerned with theories and evidence about stuff that *can be determined*. Whether the evidence is for the presence or absence of something is entirely immaterial. From my understanding of Dawkin's arguments, he basically says "Logically, X cannot be true. Therefore Y". Which is ridiculous, because he has no evidence of the absence of X, or evidence for Y. I do applaud his encouragement of critical thinking and examining of evidence though. That bit's commendable.

I cant think of the word to use that would descrive how massively redundent your point is, compared to what i said.
At least that scientist is trying to fill a gap within a current theory. He's looking for something that may not exist as such, but he's not looking for every possible answer like magically fluffy bunnys or gods who create gravitons to fill the gap, he has used his evidence to lead him to a conclusion and tried to further it
You cant live in a world where everything is possible because it would be like trying to win the lottery every time you tried to test something if everything was possible.

 

[physichull]

Science was created to allow us to predict future results based on past ones, and to propose a means by which the two could be related.

That's a far cry from a provider of truth.

The truth will never be fully certain, but that is excessive to say that is is a far cry from a provider of truth!

 

[semi-pro waster]

Ah, the monthly religion and Dawkins is a genius/git thread. It's almost as if many people see the two states to be mutually exclusive except that Dawkins is a genius in his field and seems to be a bit of a git when he steps outside it and abuses his (well deserved) scientific reputation speaking on religious matters.

This is one of a relatively small number of topics where I almost feel it's worth everyone posting their opinion and then the thread gets locked right there and then since almost no-one ever changes their mind or learns anything new. Or perhaps I should say none of the people who tend to post the most about this topic are likely to alter their position so it becomes circular very quickly.

 

[Dolph]

The truth will never be fully certain, but that is excessive to say that is is a far cry from a provider of truth!

It is in philosophical terms, which is the big area of contention here.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Ah, the monthly religion and Dawkins is a genius/git thread. It's almost as if many people see the two states to be mutually exclusive except that Dawkins is a genius in his field and seems to be a bit of a git when he steps outside it and abuses his (well deserved) scientific reputation speaking on religious matters.

This is one of a relatively small number of topics where I almost feel it's worth everyone posting their opinion and then the thread gets locked right there and then since almost no-one ever changes their mind or learns anything new. Or perhaps I should say none of the people who tend to post the most about this topic are likely to alter their position so it becomes circular very quickly.

Indeed. If it were up to me, I'd lock it, especially as I'm deeply suspicious that the OP is just trolling, given the nature of the opening post.

 

[ChroniC]

It is in philosophical terms, which is the big area of contention here.

It is almost to me like the 0.99r arguement, to some there will always be a minute gap no matter what, to others they just except that the gap is redundant as its so small its silly to assume that its not 1

 

[Castiel]

Also its a myth that there is a evidence of jesus. Find me some.
In fact I have read that lost books written by Peter I think make no mention of any man known as jesus. (but dont quote me on that)

Well in fact it is not a 'myth' that a man named Jesus existed and that he was indeed crucified at the given time.

Tacitus, the Roman Senator and Historian wrote in his Annals about Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion, it is among the first secular historical works to mention Christ by name.

Josephus a Jewish Historian also wrote about Christ and affirms he was crucified by Pilate.

There are various mentions of him throughout the first and second centuries and it is mainstream thought that Jesus as a historical figure existed. Whether he was the Son of God however is something entirely different.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It's easy to make Dawkins look rational and sensible when he purposely puts himself on a TV show with the nuttiest fruitcakes he can find.

 

[Castiel]

Indeed. If it were up to me, I'd lock it, especially as I'm deeply suspicious that the OP is just trolling, given the nature of the opening post.

Indeed. simply mentioning Prof Dawkins to illicit exactly this response.

 

[Dolph]

It is almost to me like the 0.99r arguement, to some there will always be a minute gap no matter what, to others they just except that the gap is redundant as its so small its silly to assume that its not 1

And if only those who assume would acknowledge their faith based position things would go much smoother.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It is almost to me like the 0.99r arguement, to some there will always be a minute gap no matter what, to others they just except that the gap is redundant as its so small its silly to assume that its not 1

I agree with Dolph here - science does not deal in truth, only prediction. Any models that fall out along the way are useful, but science can not assert that they are true, only that they are useful for the purposes they were intended - as predictive models.

Honestly, it pains me to even think of scientific equations or whatever as "true" because it's not a question of true and false, it's a question of accuracy, suitability for purpose, and so on. We know that Newton's laws of motion hold true on a large scale at moderate speeds, say for planets, or for cars, but they are near useless on an atomic scale. Quantum mechanics helps there, but again it has its limits. Maybe we can press it further and figure out something more, but it will still not be true, it will just be the best model that we have for the scenario in question.

Also, while science is very good at dealing with "what happens if" and it can have a good stab at "how", it's hopeless when it comes to "why", which is what a lot of people here seem to believe it can do just perfectly.