|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2006 : 22:10:14 [Permalink]
|
Marf, I came across this article by Dawkins while looking up something else and was struck by some of the things he wrote.
quote:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously?
None at all, of course. But that's the point. Faith in many ways requires the absence of knowledge. It is the fanciful answers one settles for when there are no answers. But the very idea that you can answer an unanswerable question is not reasonable. Faith is necessarily irrational.
quote:
Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.
Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y, and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a teapot, then X, Y, and Z should be spelled out--because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments that should be evaluated. Don't protect them from scrutiny behind a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Atkins' teapot theory, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with respect to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims. Moreover, religious apologists try to have it both ways. When talking to intellectuals, they carefully keep off science's turf, safe inside the separate and invulnerable religious magisterium. But when talking to a nonintellectual mass audience, they make wanton use of miracle stories--which are blatant intrusions into scientific territory.
All more or less true, in my opinion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/23/2006 22:13:05 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2006 : 00:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sorry you see it that way. No one involved in this conversation in a nutjob. Everyone is actually pretty damn smart and a lot of really smart things have been said
There are a lot of very intelligent people who believe some pretty crazy things. I have said nothing here about anyone's intelligence or made any claims about their medical status. This is what I mean about a cobweb. It's not a comment about your intelligence or even your craziness. You seem to try to take everyone in a myriad of directions in order to deflect them from any kind of reasonable conversation. How they've stayed with you is beyond me.
That's not a statement against any of you, that just simply means that I see trying to keep up with you as trying to follow a thread in a tangle of cobwebs. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 15:35:40 [Permalink]
|
In response to Humbert: quote:
No, it doesn't dismiss them, it provides a more reasonable alternative (and therefore more likely) explanation for them.
Saying they are explained naturally is not a sufficient answer. The explanations for some experiences truly are mysterious as of right now. And while some have some scientific explanation (such as research that has begun to explain near-death experiences), there are plenty of things that fall into the category of “spiritual experiences” that do not yet have a concrete scientific explanation. The most logical explanation, given current available information, is that they have a naturalistic explanation. I do not agree that that is the most reasonable explanation from every individual person's perspective, though I do think it is unreasonable for anyone with whatever stance to be self righteous about it.
quote:
You disagree that "spiritual" experiences are more likely a natural phenomenon rather than a supernatural one?
Using pure rationalism, yes, they are. I do not think it is unreasonable for a person to not apply pure rationalism all the time. I do, but that is because of how my brain is wired. I think a certain way. But I'm humble enough and, frankly, reasonable and realistic enough to acknowledge that my way of thinking may not be the most useful in all scenarios, and that people who are wired for other types of thinking are not necessarily “insane”.
quote:
Emotions are not necessarily devoid of reason, only the bad ones are.
Emotions themselves are not bad. Whether an emotion is rational or irrational determines whether it is bad or good.
Emotions are not rational or irrational. They just are. Thoughts and actions can be rational or irrational. Emotions have a relationship to thoughts and actions, but by themselves, again, they are not rational or irrational.
quote:
For instance, love can be a great benefit when it bonds us to a suitable mate or leads us to protect our offspring. That is rational love. Irrational love is the type that keeps a woman from leaving an abusive boyfriend. Obviously the relationship is not in her best interest, yet she finds herself unwilling to part. Another example would be rage. Channeled to protect oneself or one's family from attack, it is a good thing. Unbridled rage that leads you to get into a bar brawl is bad. Reason is what allows people to control themselves. Reason is what separates us from animals.
People control themselves with both emotion and reason. If the abused girlfriend leaves her boyfriend, it is not just because of reason, but because of the healthy love and respect she has for herself, and perhaps also for her loved-ones who she sees suffer with her. Reason is what allows us to best figure out which of our actions will put us in a preferable position, regardless of conflicting emotions.
quote:
Letting one's emotions run unchecked by reason is dangerous because one's passions can lead one anywhere, to any outcome. Likewise, faith is dangerous because it can be used |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2006 16:02:45 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 21:31:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To say this is true of all religions is dishonest.
Name one to which it doesn't apply.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2006 : 21:48:01 [Permalink]
|
I also want to add:
To claim that agnosticism somehow leaves open the possibility of any god is a misunderstanding of the concept.
Agnosticism is the logical default position wherin evidence is required before god-claims can be assigned a value of true.
It makes no effort to disprove any god-claims, and this is why people seem to misunderstand the concept. Just because you recognize that "god does not exist" is a logically untenable position it in no way equates with the claim "god might exist". An agnostic who understands the concept would put all three claims in the same category as totally unevidenced.
And without evidence you cannot assign a value of true to any claim.
The only way in which agnosticism leaves room for god-claims is by being willing to evaluate new evidence. This is a far cry from the idea that agnostics are somehow undecided or some middle spot of compromise between theists and atheists. Agnostics are not the "undecided" group, and in no way should they be conflated with "undecidedism" (just made that up  )
I can't tell you how irritated I am by the widespread misunderstanding of what the word "agnostic" actually means.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 08:20:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dawkins:
Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.
And no agnostic in his right mind would assign an equal value to those claims. Frankly, this is one great big load of a strawman argument that is not becoming of a man like Dawkins. He continues to perpetuate a myth about agnostics that has become every tiresome.
quote:
Dude:
The only way in which agnosticism leaves room for god-claims is by being willing to evaluate new evidence. This is a far cry from the idea that agnostics are somehow undecided or some middle spot of compromise between theists and atheists. Agnostics are not the "undecided" group, and in no way should they be conflated with "undecidedism" (just made that up )
I can't tell you how irritated I am by the widespread misunderstanding of what the word "agnostic" actually means.
Me too.
In fact, I am agnostic because I am a skeptic. And once again I will point out that as an agnostic it follows that I am also an atheist, just so's ya know…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 08:49:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ricky:
And I would imagine there are some people who call themselves agnostic and leave open the possibility of a god.
The door is only open as far as the evidence for a god will allow. Since the existence or non-existence of a god is unknowable, which pretty much defines agnosticism, the idea that those two positions, god or no god, are treated equally, is ridiculous. Basicly, they are not treated by the agnostic at all because there is really not much point to it unless some evidence pops up that is worth considering.
I would suggest that those “fence sitting” agnostics are not really agnostics at all. If anything, they are on their way to becoming agnostic, atheist or theist…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 15:11:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I would imagine there are some people who call themselves agnostic and leave open the possibility of a god.
And some people call themselves Native American because their great grandfather was 1/4 Cherokee. Are they?
Anyone calling themselves agnostic who assigns a value of true to "god might exist", is undecided, not agnostic.
It is a failure to understand basic science to claim that something might be true just because another mutually exclusive claim has not been proven true.
We've been over this before, Ricky. You were of the opinion then that there is some possibility, however small, that a human could shit out a fully functional SUV.
The only way in which agnosticism leaves open the possibility of assigning a true value to god-claims is by being willing to evaluate new evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 17:34:10 [Permalink]
|
| I prefer to think of it like Schrödinger's god - it exists and doesn't exist. ha ha |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2006 : 18:27:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
quote:(Dawkins)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(marf) To say this is true of all religions is dishonest.
(Dude) Name one to which it doesn't apply.
I will do better than one: Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, Zen Buddhism, Ethical Culture (which does and always has defined itself as "religious"), nondenominational Christianity that is humanistic, Pantheism, and all more conservative religions as they are conceived and practiced by progressive adherents.
Here we will run into the problem (maybe) that many atheists insist that progressives like Episcopal John Spong are just deists or even atheists who call themselves Christians. Not surprising since there are progressive Christians (like the one in the Orion article I cited) who claim that compassionate atheist activist are engaging in Christian evangelism. Different words words words, all for the same shit.
Anyway, on the agnostic debate, Ricky is totally right. Any linguist will tell you that language evolved based on usage. I've been a Humanist activist for 10 years, Dude, I know the dictionary definition of agnostic. Actually, it has several. Here's three that slightly differ from each other from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
In its purest form "agnostic" means someone who takes the philosophical stance that its impossible for any human to know the truth about God, and by extension, spiritual matters. But that doesn't say anything about personal worldview. Sure, someone can internalize and accept total doubt on the matter, and thus, not deny or accept anything of a spiritual nature. But since belief is not exactly the same thing as knowledge I fail to see how it is impossible to be a believer and agnostic at the same time. I know I've talked extensively on such matters with people who would fit this definition of an agnostic believer perfectly, and so I use it because I feel it is important to distinguish between different kinds of believers rather than just putting them all on some kind of sliding scale with atheism as the only worldview truly separate from generalized belief. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/26/2006 18:29:37 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 01:21:24 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
quote:
Am I undecided, Dude?
This wasn't, until just now, a discussion of your opinion. It was a discussion of what agnosticism is.
But yes, if you assign a true value to "god might exist", then you are undecided. There is no evidence to support the claim. The proper treatment for an unevidenced claim is to dismiss it, pending the actual appearance of evidence. I can't explain it any better than I have in the past, and it just pisses you off anyway, but I'll give it one more shot anyway.
Gravity might be the result of invisible pixies pushing everything down. I have no evidence to support that claim, and there is certainly no evidence to disprove it (yet). But by your reasoning I should say that "gravity might be pixies" is true.
marfknox said:
quote:
I will do better than one: Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, Zen Buddhism, Ethical Culture (which does and always has defined itself as "religious"), nondenominational Christianity that is humanistic, Pantheism, and all more conservative religions as they are conceived and practiced by progressive adherents.
I'm not sure what "ethical culture" is, but every other religion you listed does indeed make some claim about the world which, on analysis, is a scientific claim. Mostly that the world/universe was created by some supernatural being or some form of life after death. Anyone who makes a claim about the nature of the universe, or some portion of it, is making a scientific claim.
I think, perhaps, that you are offended by Dawkins and it has clouded your reasoning ability with regard to this particular statement. Seriously, you don't think that the claim of karma, rebirth, life-after-death, heaven/hell, or even the existance of a supernatural creator... are claims about the universe?
Certainly they are. And if you bother to consider them you will find that they are scientific claims. As is ANY claim that attempts to describe and explain some aspect of the world around us.
quote:
Anyway, on the agnostic debate, Ricky is totally right. Any linguist will tell you that language evolved based on usage. I've been a Humanist activist for 10 years, Dude, I know the dictionary definition of agnostic. Actually, it has several. Here's three that slightly differ from each other from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Ricky is not right.
Sure, language evolves based on usage. But so what? The way the word was intended when coined is still in use today. It is the logical default position with regard to god-claims. Mainly that all such claims are unevidenced and therefore meaning-free.
Some do use the word to describe the "undecided", but nearly everyone I have ever spoken with at length on the topic agrees with the original intent of the word as its most proper usage. Some days I hate the vagaries of language. I only part company with Huxley's definition when he starts to make claims about what can and cannot be known.
I would agree that this word has seen more than its fair share of "usage" vagaries though.
quote:
In its purest form "agnostic" means someone who takes the philosophical stance that its impossible for any human to know the truth about God, and by extension, spiritual matters. But that doesn't say anything about personal worldview.
No, it isn't. That is one usage of the word, but it is only a part of the definition that Huxley gave it. More importantly it is the stance that evidence is required to assign any value (true/false/maybe) to a claim.
The idea that you cannot know something is absolutely relevant to "personal worldview". It is a stance on the very basic questions of epistemology. I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that something like that "doesn't say anything about personal worldview".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 06:49:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This wasn't, until just now, a discussion of your opinion. It was a discussion of what agnosticism is.
But yes, if you assign a true value to "god might exist", then you are undecided. There is no evidence to support the claim. The proper treatment for an unevidenced claim is to dismiss it, pending the actual appearance of evidence. I can't explain it any better than I have in the past, and it just pisses you off anyway, but I'll give it one more shot anyway.
In response to the first part, I'm showing you how your definition is flawed based on an example, specificially myself.
I think that not a single God exists, Dude. How the hell is that undecided? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2006 : 09:08:52 [Permalink]
|
By the way, after pretty much echoing what Dude has been saying about agnosticism I think it might be helpful to at least explain what I mean when talking about that which is unknowable. To my thinking, not in the realm of the falsifiable would qualify as something that is unknowable. That said, things that we thought were not falsifiable have, from time to time, changed status based on evidence. So far though, I can't think of a single supernatural claim that has made its way in to the realm of the falsifiable with the exception extraordinary claims by people who think they can do amazing things. And even then we are only testing that persons claimed abilities and not the root of the claim, which is outside of what can be falsified. Since all comers with a supernatural claim have failed testing, at least for now, it is safe to say that supernatural claims lack the support required to even consider a shift in our thinking with regard to those kinds of claims.
On the other hand, I don't think everyone with a God belief is crazy. There are many reasons that have been suggested as to why so many people follow a spiritual path. The most compelling reason to me is that we are naturally wired to do that as a survival mechanism. And even though there will be those who object to this premise, I think it's probable that even a loose affiliation of like minded people, freethinkers for example, are in some way fulfilling our natural desire of having some kind of religiosity. For example, I find the pursuit of science fulfilling. There are wonders and mysteries begging to be probed and figured out. My logic and rationality does not prevent me from being thrilled by those pursuits at a very deep level that some might call spiritually fulfilling. Have I replaced faith with science or have I put my faith in science? Admittedly, science has earned my confidence and religious faith has not. But I'll be damned if I can explain why some of us tend toward what we see as rational, while most do not.
In any case, I do not think that most of those with that other kind of faith are inherently dangerous. Group-think can be dangerous, but we all take part in that more or less. (Although, I would like to think that we skeptics really are dangerous to those who seek to spread crazy and harmful ideas.) Religion isn't going to go away. It might be best in the long run to understand religious faith rather than to constantly attack it if we ever really want to learn how to deal with it…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
