The Evangelical Atheist

[(Q)]

If Dawkins thinks he can test religion with science he is indeed an idiot. He has no right to speak for this atheist.

And under no circumstances are you going to find out his reasonings or begin to understand his tests before making such a comment?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

And under no circumstances are you going to find out his reasonings or begin to understand his tests before making such a comment?

You're not the first person to make that comment and I respect it. However, life is short and I don't have time to read the writings of every idiot, whether it's idiocy transcribed on a word processor or idiocy transcribed on stone tablets. I'm sure I've spent more than half an hour reading reviews, analyses and comments on Dawkins's work, which included copious quotations, and which expressed a wide range of opinions on the subject matter with little probability that I missed a bias.

If Dawkins has found a way to use the scientific method to test for the existence of supernatural phenomena, I'm sure you can give us a summary-level description of it in a few sentences of scholarly language that will bring it the respect you think it deserves.

For now, the assertion that he has done so remains an extraordinary assertion and requires extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to take it seriously, to the point of buying the book or spending another half hour scouring the internet for a quote of the passage you refer to.

Please enlighten us.

 

[(Q)]

Fraggle

So, essentially, you want me to summarize what Dawkins required to explain in an entire book? The fact that you are dismissing a book, which you did not read, as 'idiocy' does not sound like something you would say. Has someone else taken over your account here?

 

[S.A.M.]

I could give a summary.

evolution=yay! religion=boo!

 

[(Q)]

Troll.

 

[iceaura]

, and which expressed a wide range of opinions on the subject matter with little probability that I missed a bias.

If Dawkins has found a way to use the scientific method to test for the existence of supernatural phenomena,

I've read the book, there is no such claim in it.

Quick paraphrase from memory: Dawkins asserts that the domain of the supernatural is as it has been for hundreds of years negotiable, not even now forever fixed, and that none of the claims now made for deity are even now - let alone forever - definitely off limits to scientific inquiry.

Not that the truly supernatural (in your sense) can be investigated by science, but that the label of "supernatural" is contingent and always - always, is his point - up for revision.

That is a paraphrase, using the language here in this thread and forum - Dawkins uses other language. If you have a quarrel with his use of language, that would be a different complaint than one directed against his arguments.

I advise re-evaluation of your confidence in your secondary sources. The book appears to operate as some kind of Rhorshach Blot - various reviews I've seen have been simply bizarre.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is your view of Dawkins polemic on religion vs theism?

Also, based on Dawkins thesis, should we dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as they are labels contingent on revision?

Fraggle:

There is an ongoing discussion of the book here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78191

 

[iceaura]

Also, based on Dawkins thesis, should we dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as they are labels contingent on revision?

1) If you are actually comparing names for analytical techniques or approaches with realities of what is analysed, confusing he names with the realities, see my remarks on "condescension, origin of" in the other thread.

2) The revisable nature of the domain of the supernaturally identified is not given, by Dawkins, as a reason for the dismissal of anything except the contrary claim.

What is your view of Dawkins polemic on religion vs theism?

Haven't read it. I have noted before that I have a fundamental quarrel with Dawkins as I take him, on exactly that matter.

 

[S.A.M.]

1) If you are actually comparing names for analytical techniques or approaches with realities of what is analysed, confusing he names with the realities, see my remarks on "condescension, origin of" in the other thread.

2) The revisable nature of the domain of the supernaturally identified is not given, by Dawkins, as a reason for the dismissal of anything except the contrary claim.

Haven't read it. I have noted before that I have a fundamental quarrel with Dawkins as I take him, on exactly that matter.

My argument with his thesis, as compared to Russell's for example is that neither his views on religion:

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down," he asserts.

or science:

real scientists are naturalists.

have anything to do with God or science.

So I disagree with his stating as a fact:

"the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

While simultaneously saying:

"The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."

As Dawkins then makes clear, his attack upon belief is explicitly and exclusively directed toward belief in supernatural gods.. Dawkins holds no respect for those who believe in the God of the Bible, whom he describes as ruthless, cruel, selfish, and vindictive.

I might as well say I hold no respect for those who believe that nature is ruthless, cruel, selfish and vindictive and if you do not respect nature, you will suffer for it.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So, essentially, you want me to summarize what Dawkins required to explain in an entire book?

So you're saying that this entire book is the presentation of a methodology for using the scientific method to test for the existence of supernatural phenomena? Why have I read about eight reviews, one of which was two pages long, and none of the reviewers even mentioned this? This book has been discussed for months on SciForums, a place where science and the use of science is more important than in most other places, and still none of the threads were on this topic. In fact our colleague Ice, who has read the book, assures us in a subsequent post, "there is no such claim in it."

The fact that you are dismissing a book, which you did not read, as 'idiocy' does not sound like something you would say. Has someone else taken over your account here?

I haven't read the New Testament either. I trust the peer review process. It's one of the pillars of science.

I've read the book, there is no such claim in it. Quick paraphrase from memory: Dawkins asserts that the domain of the supernatural is as it has been for hundreds of years negotiable, not even now forever fixed, and that none of the claims now made for deity are even now - let alone forever - definitely off limits to scientific inquiry.

Science is by definition about the natural universe. In fact the fundamental premise of science is that the natural universe is all there is. To say that science can be used to investigate something that is "outside" the universe is syntactically nonsense. Its falsity is proven by abstract reasoning and does not require empirical observation, just like 1+1=2, or if A implies not B then B implies not A.

Not that the truly supernatural (in your sense) can be investigated by science, but that the label of "supernatural" is contingent and always - always, is his point - up for revision.

Religion is about the supernatural. Not all citations of the supernatural are religion, but all religion includes postulates of supernatural phenomena. Their gods are universally supernatural creatures. That's what relegates systems like the Dao, Confucianism, and some sects of Buddhism to the no man's land of "maybe religion/maybe not." It's obvious that much of what religionists believe has been and will continue to be demystified as science marches on and their supernatural universe will lose some of its furnishings. But if their god comes tumbling down and breaks his ankle in the landing, then they haven't got a proper religion anymore. This portion of this thread is specifically about a claim attributed to Dawkins that we can apply the scientific method to claims of the existence of gods. If we can perform the test then they're emigrated from their supernatural realm, and if they've done that then they're not gods, and in fact what they left behind may not even be a religion anymore.

That is a paraphrase, using the language here in this thread and forum - Dawkins uses other language. If you have a quarrel with his use of language, that would be a different complaint than one directed against his arguments.

I have a huge complaint about his language, based upon the quoted passages I have seen, although it has nothing to do with this particular point. He uses hyperbole inappropriately, and in conjunction with being too argumentative and insufficiently scholarly it comes across as downright inflammatory. I can't imagine who all the people are who are reading this book. He's not going to convince any religionists of the error of their ways, and he's an embarrassment to atheists.

But then I'm a linguist and finding fault with language is what I do. I also criticize Stephen Hawking for speaking as though more than one universe might exist. Sorry dude. If there's something more than what we've been calling "the universe," then that just means we were wrong to call it that. The universe is by definition everything real. This kind of language will do nothing but confuse laymen.

I advise re-evaluation of your confidence in your secondary sources. The book appears to operate as some kind of Rohrshach Blot - various reviews I've seen have been simply bizarre.

I've read enough quoted passages to not doubt the scholarship of my sources and if you read three reviews you're bound to find they all disagree with each other so there's not much danger of overlooking a bias.

I obviously was not wrong to state that he has no way to use the scientific method to test for the existence of a supernatural supreme being, which is what this argument is about. I've seen his errors of hyperbole in his own words so I'm not wrong about that either. As for calling him an "idiot," I'm sure he has an above average IQ, but he's not housebroken and I resent the fact that for all practical purposes, since he has a much larger audience than mine, he claims to speak for me.

 

[(Q)]

So you're saying that this entire book is the presentation of a methodology for using the scientific method to test for the existence of supernatural phenomena?

I never said that. What I said was that I wasn't prepared to summarize what Dawkins required an entire book to explain.

Why have I read about eight reviews

I have read reviews too. So what? Read the book and then comment. And since you haven't read the New Testament either, then you're fully ignorant to the claims of theists and Dawkins argument.

 

[iceaura]

I might as well say I hold no respect for those who believe that nature is ruthless, cruel, selfish and vindictive and if you do not respect nature, you will suffer for it.

Are you claiming that cruelty, ruthlessness, etc, is not found in nature ? Not found in the Biblical (or Quranic, for that matter) God?

You seem to be arguing with nothing but straw men, on both sides.

Even if Dawkins confuses religion and deity, which I haven't really seen but agree is easy to slide into from his books, that is no reason for his critics to do so.

My argument with his thesis, as compared to Russell's for example is that neither his views on religion:

or science:

have anything to do with God or science.

So far, you have yet to describe those views accurately as I have read them. Further, your views on God or science are not necessarily the standards for comparison. Strawmen on both sides.

This portion of this thread is specifically about a claim attributed to Dawkins that we can apply the scientific method to claims of the existence of gods.

And that is manifestly true of some of the claims of certain meanings of existence of some kinds of gods - those that trespass upon what we have demarcated as the "natural" world. Dawkins is claiming that the demarcation is not fixed; that, in theory, what we now actually - in fact, in the churches of West Virginia say - describe as the supernatural is not identifiably different in kind from the mysteries of the past.

You can argue with the claim, using examples of actual claimed gods whose actual claimed properties of existence you can prove are forever beyond investigation, but that is not the same as dismissing the claim without argument.

I have a huge complaint about his language, based upon the quoted passages I have seen, although it has nothing to do with this particular point. He uses hyperbole inappropriately, and in conjunction with being too argumentative and insufficiently scholarly it comes across as downright inflammatory.

He deals with the issue of his language in the book, and I found myself satisfied - the book can be taken is inappriately inflammatory only by those who do not understand it, IMHO. I can see how various quotes out of context could be used to criticise him thus, but in context - no.

Religion is about the supernatural. Not all citations of the supernatural are religion, but all religion includes postulates of supernatural phenomena. Their gods are universally supernatural creatures. That's what relegates systems like the Dao, Confucianism, and some sects of Buddhism to the no man's land of "maybe religion/maybe not."

They are religions, in all ordinary usage - no "maybe". And the question of to what extent, exactly how, in fact, religion is "about the supernatural" is not settled, according to Dawkins.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you claiming that cruelty, ruthlessness, etc, is not found in nature ? Not found in the Biblical (or Quranic, for that matter) God?

You seem to be arguing with nothing but straw men, on both sides.

Are you saying that nature is a moral construct?

Even if Dawkins confuses religion and deity, which I haven't really seen but agree is easy to slide into from his books, that is no reason for his critics to do so.
So far, you have yet to describe those views accurately as I have read them. Further, your views on God or science are not necessarily the standards for comparison. Strawmen on both sides.

Then its fortunate for you that I am not describing my views on God or science. Just his.

e.g. do you agree that "real" scientists are naturalists and everyone else is just faking it?

do you agree that religious fundamentalism is dependent on theism?

 

[(Q)]

Then its fortunate for you that I am not describing my views on God or science. Just his.

You would be lying if you said you read the book, hence you are lying that you're describing his views, and not your own.

 

[S.A.M.]

You would be lying if you said you read the book, hence you are lying that you're describing his views, and not your own.

So why don't you represent him?

Does Dawkins believe it is possible to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew AND a real scientist?

[or even a Hindu, since Ramanujan was known to frequently say: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."]

Does Dawkins believe that there is religious fundamentalism apart from theism?

Do you agree with him?

 

[(Q)]

Does Dawkins believe it is possible to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew AND a real scientist?

Does Dawkins believe that there is religious fundamentalism apart from theism?

You see, you didn't read the book, hence you've been lying. :spank:

 

[S.A.M.]

You see, you didn't read the book, hence you've been lying. :spank:

I have it right here, could you direct me to the page numbers that would answer my questions?

 

[iceaura]

Then its fortunate for you that I am not describing my views on God or science. Just his.

You are misdescribing his, and you are comparing your misdescriptions to somebody's - if not yours, whose and which?

e.g. do you agree that "real" scientists are naturalists and everyone else is just faking it?

I agree that people doing real science are not employing their theistic beliefs in the process. I think someone can be both theistic and scientific - just not at the same time. And I really doubt Dawkins would have meant, by anything he ever said, that no real science has ever been done by a theist.

do you agree that religious fundamentalism is dependent on theism?

Agree with whom ? Dawkins say that somewhere ? As you know I classify the Communism of the Soviet State as a religion, and it was definitely "fundamentalist" as we say now.

 

[S.A.M.]

You are misdescribing his, and you are comparing your misdescriptions to somebody's - if not yours, whose and which?

I agree that people doing real science are not employing their theistic beliefs in the process. I think someone can be both theistic and scientific - just not at the same time. And I really doubt Dawkins would have meant, by anything he ever said, that no real science has ever been done by a theist.

So when he said "real" scientists are naturalists and "great scientists" believe in a metaphorical God, he was not saying that those who are not naturalists and do not believe in the physicists God are not real or cannot be great?

As you know I classify the Communism of the Soviet State as a religion, and it was definitely "fundamentalist" as we say now.

So you are saying it is possible to be athiest and fundamentalist?

If yes, does Dawkins agree?

 

[iceaura]

So when he said "real" scientists are naturalists and "great scientists" believe in a metaphorical God, he was not saying that those who are not naturalists and do not believe in the physicists God are not real or cannot be great?

Yep.

So you are saying it is possible to be athiest and fundamentalist?

Of course. I've been complaining about the confusion of theism and religion, atheism and lack of religion, in your postings in particular, for months now.

If yes, does Dawkins agree?

Don't know. Or care, really. It would revolve around his take on vocabulary like "fundamentalism".