Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[S.A.M.]

Contrary to what you might think of me, I'm not an "atheist first and foremost." I'm easily swayed by evidence and reason and willing to change my mind on matters of even theology should compelling evidence be shown. I've allowed myself to be convinced of many things over the last few years that I previously held different stances on. And I'm willing to revise these new conclusions yet again with the right evidence.

Now you do me a disservice. There are a few people on this board that I recognise as true rationalists and you're one of them,

Perhaps you might be willing to quote the passage in his book where this was so?

Did you read the bit where he mentioned the biologists with the "raised consciousness of the power of natural selection"? And contrasted this with theists in the very next statement? Assuming mutually exclusive elements.

The entire book is peppered with such assumptions. What does he think of Francis Collins, I wonder? Patent delusion on his part

The remainder of your text was red-herring/straw man in variety, so no sense going down that path. Please don't confuse me with (Q). (incidentally, that was an ad hominem fallacy, but directly somewhat playfully at (Q) rather than you).

okay, I tend to not pay as much attention when posting here so any perceived straw men are inadvertent.

 

[spidergoat]

Did you read the bit where he mentioned the biologists with the "raised consciousness of the power of natural selection"? And contrasted this with theists in the very next statement? Assuming mutually exclusive elements.

Natural selection is a stunningly powerful and parsimonious explanation for the origin of complexity. It is contrasted with an argument for theism, which says that complexity only arises from complexity.

 

[S.A.M.]

Natural selection is a stunningly powerful and parsimonious explanation for the origin of complexity. It is contrasted with an argument for theism, which says that complexity only arises from complexity.

theism? which theism? The assumption that all theists are the same and that there are no biologists who are theists or that natural selection has ANYTHING to do with theism, is one of the many delusions that Dawkins as well as other fundamentalists suffer from.

 

[spidergoat]

Theism is, for the purposes of Dawkins' book, the assumption of a supernatural being who created the universe and is still involved in our lives.

One argument in favor of theism, which Dawkins was debating, is that things are too complex to have evolved gradually without the guiding hand of a creator. Natural selection is the principle that complexity can accumulate through purely natural forces, no need for a supernatural explanation.

I could not care less how many biologists believe in some form of God.

 

[S.A.M.]

Natural selection is the principle that complexity can accumulate through purely natural forces, no need for a supernatural explanation.

Which has nothing to do with theism, unless you believe that Dawkins explanation somehow indicates that he has better ideas than God.

And I was just demonstrating how atheism is a claim in his book.

for the purposes of Dawkins book

Yup, there you go.

 

[Xev]

Its most certainly a claim.

Have you heard of "The God Delusion"?

Which you obviously haven't read, if you think that HItchens spends any time elucidating atheism instead of bashing religion.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which you obviously haven't read, if you think that HItchens spends any time elucidating atheism instead of bashing religion.

Damn, Dawkins and Hitchens are the same man?

Nope my dear, he spends his time telling us what is wrong with the other side.

(and then introduces his way, the way of reason and peace, as defined by him)

Its the American way.

 

[spidergoat]

Seriously, I don't understand what the hell you are saying. Theism is the assumption of a supernatural realm or being. Dawkins is offering reasons why this is not necessary as an explanation for life.

We must define these terms before we can debate them.

 

[S.A.M.]

Seriously, I don't understand what the hell you are saying. Theism is the assumption of a supernatural realm or being. Dawkins is offering reasons why this is not necessary as an explanation for life.

We must define these terms before we can debate them.

Theism is belief in God. Dawkins merely explains a mechanism in biology.

There is no connection. Why would natural selection exclude God?

Every theist knows that the universe runs in an organised way according to natural laws.

 

[Enmos]

Theism is belief in God. Dawkins merely explains a mechanism in biology.

There is no connection. Why would natural selection exclude God?

Every theist knows that the universe runs in an organised way according to natural laws.

Yet, lots of theists say natural selection and God are irreconcilable..

 

[spidergoat]

I see, you assume this one argument is a complete refutation of religion. It is not. He is confronting one point used (contrary to your claim) by many theists to support theism.

He goes on to address several of the main arguments used by theists... If you bothered to read it.

 

[SkinWalker]

Now you do me a disservice. There are a few people on this board that I recognise as true rationalists and you're one of them,

It was not my intent to disservice you...

Did you read the bit where he mentioned the biologists with the "raised consciousness of the power of natural selection"? And contrasted this with theists in the very next statement? Assuming mutually exclusive elements.

I did read it:

Biologists, with their raised consciousness of the power of
natural selection to explain the rise of improbable things, are unlikely to be satisfied with any theory that evades the problem of improbability altogether. And the theistic response to the riddle of improbability is an evasion of stupendous proportions. It is more than a restatement of the problem, it is a grotesque amplification of it.

If you take that quote in context of how he uses the phrase "consciousness raising," you'll find that it isn't an unreasonable assumption. For Dawkins, the purpose of his book was to raise consciousness (for which he succeeded admirably) in a variety of topics. One of which is atheism in general, for which he seeks to reassure those that have come to the atheistic conclusions that there is "nothing to be apologetic about" (p. 3). And it is from about pp. 115-119 that he goes into more explanation about "consciousness raising" qualities of natural selection. His argument is, essentially, that once you understand natural selection, things fall into place consciously so that one needn't accept unreasoned arguments wrought out of ignorance. In other words, not knowing or understanding doesn't imply that the supernatural was involved, which, whether you care to admit it or not, drives the beliefs of a great, great many people. He isn't saying that there is anything holy about natural selection nor does he state that one must completely grasp the concept. Only that a good, basic understanding is sufficient to raise consciousness.

He also doesn't imply that merely understanding, even more than basically, natural selection is enough to overcome the spells of belief. Indeed, I think this might be an area that he would have done well to delve into, but perhaps it was outside of the scope of his book. Daniel Dennett does, however, go into some of this in Breaking Spells, where he discusses "belief in belief," an hypothesis I'm not sure I fully accept, but find interesting nonetheless. And it is, perhaps, here that we might find explanations for those such as Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller and others who profess to be religious yet accept natural selection and scientific understanding of the universe.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see, you assume this one argument is a complete refutation of religion. It is not. He is confronting one point used (contrary to your claim) by many theists to support theism.

He goes on to address several of the main arguments used by theists... If you bothered to read it.

I have, but none of it addresses theism, just claims made by some groups.

None of which have anything to do with biology or atheism or even indeed prove that atheists make more sense, except that education is clearly overlooked in this superficial tragedy of science and a scientist fighting silly battles on theism does not help.

 

[S.A.M.]

Skinwalker:

His argument is, essentially, that once you understand natural selection, things fall into place consciously so that one needn't accept unreasoned arguments wrought out of ignorance.

I had the benefit of an education, from theists, by theists.

Unreasoned arguments show a poor education and poor reasoning due to neglect.

As the family structure falls apart, and more and more people have less interest in their children's development, this will be the norm rather than the exception.

Religion, once again is merely a convenient scapegoat. And Dawkins is all too glad to jump on the bandwagon. Sadly, so are a lot of other people who would be better invested elsewhere.

 

[iceaura]

But to state that believers in God are by definition deluded is to make a claim.

I don't think very many atheists make any such claim.

The usual observation is that all the theism so far encountered rests on delusions of a few easily specified types. The claim would be that all possible theism is similarly deluded, by definition of theism - not a common claim.

theism? which theism? The assumption that all theists are the same and that there are no biologists who are theists or that natural selection has ANYTHING to do with theism, is one of the many delusions that Dawkins as well as other fundamentalists suffer from.

Aside from the observation that natural selection is in fact a common topic of theists, many of whom find it in conflict with their particular variety of theism, neither Dawkins nor anyone else I've read makes any such assumptions.

Where are you getting this odd description of Dawkins's writings? And why do you ascribe Dawkins's assertions - even as misunderstood by you - to atheists or atheism generally ?

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't think very many atheists make any such claim.

The usual observation is that all the theism so far encountered rests on delusions of a few easily specified types. The claim would be that all possible theism is similarly deluded, by definition of theism - not a common claim.
Aside from the observation that natural selection is in fact a common topic of theists, many of whom find it in conflict with their particular variety of theism, neither Dawkins nor anyone else I've read makes any such assumptions.

Where are you getting this odd description of Dawkins's writings? And why do you ascribe Dawkins's assertions - even as misunderstood by you - to atheists or atheism generally ?

Perhaps I misunderstand the title of his book or his interviews or his video on theists or his <insert source of polemic>?

Whats Dawkins opinion of racism in scientists?

 

[spidergoat]

I have, but none of it addresses theism, just claims made by some groups.

None of which have anything to do with biology or atheism or even indeed prove that atheists make more sense, except that education is clearly overlooked in this superficial tragedy of science and a scientist fighting silly battles on theism does not help.

Those claims are what the arguments for theism are made of. The overarching theme is that theism is unnecessary for it's explanatory power on a variety of issues. Dawkins doesn't have to disprove every wild and irrational idea, because it's up to those who offer them to provide supporting evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Those claims are what the arguments for theism are made of. The overarching theme is that theism is unnecessary for it's explanatory power on a variety of issues. Dawkins doesn't have to disprove every wild and irrational idea, because it's up to those who offer them to provide supporting evidence.

Yeah, maybe he could start with scientists who say God is a scientific question.

 

[spidergoat]

It can be considered as a hypothesis, which is how Dawkins precedes in his book. When considered as a scientific theory, it doesn't work for many reasons.

 

[S.A.M.]

It can be considered as a hypothesis, which is how Dawkins precedes in his book. When considered as a scientific theory, it doesn't work for many reasons.

Hmm is an unverifiable hypothesis a delusion?