The New Atheism
- Thread starter baumgarten
- Start date
]KennyJC
Its not clear how evolution meets these same standards
and because that window period of time escapes the powers of empirical evidence you have, at least according to the authority of empiricism, a theory
so in other words it is not observable
gravity can be measured and it can be physically evidenced
Its not clear how evolution meets these same standards
know? The only evidence appears to be that things appear similar
the moment such reasoning enters the sphere of direct perception is the moment you will have science
Just cut in with the social angle and see where it leads
I cut in twice, and you're one of maybe two or three people who addressed it. I guess the familiar territory of the old "epistemology circuit" is preferable to most. It's a little confounding how no one ever makes any progress here, anyway. It's not hard to understand at all, especially if things are stated clearly.
My suspicion is that the motivation for revisiting the issue of religious epistemology (and its relation to the philosophy of science) is mostly ideological. The truth is that science and religion are not at odds, and the most colorful demonstration of this is how many here have tried to reconcile the language of each to show that they are two different approaches to the same problem, all to no avail. The reason why people haven't been able to conclusively prove that religion is an inadequate explanation of nature is that religion doesn't have to be an explanation of anything. Sure, a Catholic priest might suck at explaining the origin of species or why meteors in the atmosphere leave different color trails. But -- literal interpretation of mythology be damned -- that isn't really his job. On the other hand, science doesn't tell us anything about the supernatural, and it never will. It can't possibly refute magical thinking, because magical thinking has no rational basis. You can say that's a bad thing, but it's not possible to explain why. The question of rational versus irrational thought processes obviously transcends rationality.
But keep this in mind: science is founded on empiricism, and empirical knowledge naturally has an irrational origin. And that's something that theists like to bring up a lot, because it seems to validate the irrational in a way. I suppose if you want to say that it's God dictating reality, you're entitled to that interpretation. It's not a very philosophical way of putting it, though, and it certainly won't convince anyone who believes otherwise. You can assign whatever characteristic you want to anything and still not be wrong, just so long as you don't imply anything that affects its natural behavior. Lo, God is Supernatural. There are no physically measurable effects of his existence. And that is why, to science, God is wholly unnecessary.
So it can be plainly seen, by keeping in mind the difference between natural and supernatural things, why science is separate from and unopposed to religion. For if science could oppose religion, then it would have to try to refute religion's supernatural claims. And science cannot say anything supernatural.
The supernatural cannot be refuted by science in the same way that magical thinking cannot be refuted by rationality. So why try either refutation if, rationally, it is futile? Even though science and religion, reason and intuition, can conceivably coexist, perhaps one himself has decided that they cannot, so when he claims that science opposes religion, what he really means is that he opposes religion. Of course, this is a purely philosophical opposition. Nothing here is said about social or political reasons, like opposition to religious establishments for the practice of indoctrination or violent atrocities. The only argument here is that he believes religious claims to be wrong, because it is this epistemological issue that we are discussing. I think it is possible to see, with what has already been laid out, that in a purely philosophical scope this belief is essentially arbitrary. Therefore I would be inclined to say that it is reasonable that he could have adopted these beliefs because they agree with, and appear to reinforce, the aforementioned social or political opposition to religion. To put it tersely, who cares what you believe if it doesn't affect me at all?
Chris, part of what Dawkins is proposing is to treat 'believers' negatively (socially). Additionally, pure rationality doesn't provide an outlet for an array of psychological needs that humans have.
I'll say it once and I'll say it again. Religion is not the problem... there is evidence that it (or an equivelant) might be absolutely necessary for human psychology. Magical thinking is the problem.
What is your opinion on the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?
Is it wrong for parents to indulge in such childish fantasies?
It would certainly be a problem if billions of adults worldwide believed in this fantasy figures.
Millions of children do.
Should they ban Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?
What about RPGs? That may distort the sense of reality of a lot of children.
Perhaps those should be banned as well?
What about bedtime tales that feature fairies, gnomes, elves, leprechauns, banshees, goblins, Harry Potter?
Children obviously believe in that stuff when they are little. Its obvious brainwashing in magical thinking.
Whats your idea about banning those?
Then we could move on to animation films, movies, etc.
I would agree, if religions would merely make supernatural claims and their followers would leave it at that. To state that there is a creator existing outside the laws of our universe, which by definition we can't observe, measure and deduce, that's perfectly fine. It's a statement beyond the scope of science. It holds no additional value for me, but that's beside the point.
Some, however, don't stop at that. The Bible, for example, is not interpreted just a collection of stories which deals only with the supernatural. It is perceived by some as giving an account of historical events.
For example, the story of Noah's arc has a supernatural side to it, we will both agree on that. However, if it is believed to be a literal truth, it is supposed to have been a real event. That does place it into the realm of science. If science can't find the evidence of such an event, where it should, science can proclaim it to be unlikely that such an event ever occurred. Moreover, if science has produced models of reality which contradict such events described in the Bible, it seems only normal to make clear to those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, that it just doesn't make sense to do so.
It is not futile to disproof a young earth theory. It is, of course, futile to disproof the existence of one or more Gods.
They only can coexist, if those who follow religion make no claim about the validity of the stories, which do relate to our observable world, they happen to believe in.
In the society I move around in, that is more or less the case. There is no intelligent design movement trying to get the attention in the class rooms. Being either an atheist or a theist in my country generally makes little difference for most careers. Dawkin's ridicule seems therefore unnecessary in my own environment. Theists do not affect me. Their ideologies do not affect me. On the same token, we, atheists, let theists go around their business. Rare acts of fundamentalism aside, but all parties, regardless of their beliefs, agree that any violent act is deplorable.
However, if I were to be living in a town where creationism is on the curriculum of a high school, Dawkin's attitude has a point. If theories of religion become part of a science class, it should be made unequivocally clear that this is unacceptable. At that point, religion stops being in the sphere of the supernatural, and claims to have a say in our observable universe. That can not be allowed, if it fails to pass the scientific method we usually apply to model our universe.
In this, purely philosophical scope, you are right. However, I do not think that the motivations of Dawkins and company, are of this philosophical nature. I suppose they urge atheists to "come out of the closet", to create a counter balance to the influence theists may have on politics and education programs. That seems like a sensible thing to do, if you feel the objective and secular nature of public education and the state is at risk.
I have absolutely no problem with those. If I was dumb enough to ever have children, I would read them stories like Humpty Dumpty and not mind if the child takes it literally. But the difference between Humpty Dumpty and god is that the child won't grow into an adult and use their belief in Humpty Dumpty to influence political decisions, war, descrimination etc.
Fairytales based on fiction are harmless, but the problem with religion and god is that the parents themselves don't recognise them as fairytales. And the child will more often than not believe in these things into adulthood failing to recognise them as fairytales because of the way in which they were indoctrinated.
Are you not tormented?
That example was already refuted as nonsense on the grounds of your ignorance of science. Why do you continue to pursue it?
And to the person who had direct perception of a god?
Last edited by a moderator:
The response to these two statements is the same. A scientist doesn't rely on their credentials or authority as a prominent scientist, although one shouldn't discount that entirely. They rely on reason and measured fact. Anyone can prove a scientist wrong even if they are a high scool student.
Do you reject the use of reason entirely, Lightgigantic? Darwin used concrete examples and logical reasoning to deduce the fact of evolution. Have you read the evidence?
Some aspects of science are theories, and no one would have you accept them 100%, doubt is integral to the process of learning. But some things are more probable than others.
You don't have to believe that WWII happened because you have no direct perception of it, but it is reasonable and likely that it did. What knowledge are you willing to reject when it doesn't make it through your rigorous filtering process?
Scientists have succeeded in altering animals through artificial selection, resulting in a separate species. But, I'm sure you're aware that scientists defined what constitutes a separate species. They propose that there was never any clear line between the earliest life forms and a primate. It was a gradual transition, exactly like the experiment breeding generations of fruit flys until there were ones that could no longer breed with the original population, only their own.
LG is on a different time zone. He seems to generally post around late-evening/early morning compared to CST in the States.
And therein lies the rub, to paraphrase some guy who wrote some stuff a while back.
samcdkey said:
My opinion is that indulging any fantasy is a very healthy. Whether it be dressing up as Santa Claus, acting like a wizard, chanting to aliens,... it's all just fine. When fantasy is asserted as truth, the ol' magical thinking, that's when they have a problem.
As a child, I always knew that Santa and the tooth fairy were fantasy. I enjoyed in indulging the fantasies, but I never once mistook them for reality.
First of all I want to complement you Baum, for posting this link, it was a very interesting read, I don't totally agree with the "bright" movement, but still it's a step forward, such as the Reinesance was a step forward from the occult of doom, the end of the dark ages, and religious rule over the state.
With that said, is it obvious that control is the goal of any religion, and control of government is were the right movement has done, and that does directly affect everyone. When theists want to rule by their rhetoric of their doctrine, then we are all doomed back to the dark ages. Indeed that is the drive, make idiots of our kids as they fight to bring ID as a curriculum for science class, then yes it affects everyone. When theist "force" their moral agenda on the rest of us, then our rights get violated for their moral code does not support hommosexuality, pornography, consuming of alcohol beverages, etc.. when these steps are taken to make such things illegal cause it's against their religion, then we all pay the price! we loose civil liberties, "as if we havent loss many already such as prostitution" and a variety of victimless crimes, these laws affect every single one of us, and the laws are broght forth by the religious majority!
So a movement by atheist to educate "critical thinking" is not such a bad idea, however the method has to be subbtle, the idealogy of mysticism is very strong, people live, and die by their beliefs, so critical thinking must be tought not by deliberately calling theist "delusional" but by making them think logically of what they believe, by experiencing and learning of others beliefs and religion, thus to examine other religions customs and beliefs a person can more critically think of their own.
As for evolution? Well I don't know much about evolution I'm no versed in evolution as I am about cosmology, but I did find this video that basically "proves" evolution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rM0gwNjVts
With that said, is it obvious that control is the goal of any religion, and control of government is were the right movement has done, and that does directly affect everyone. When theists want to rule by their rhetoric of their doctrine, then we are all doomed back to the dark ages. Indeed that is the drive, make idiots of our kids as they fight to bring ID as a curriculum for science class, then yes it affects everyone. When theist "force" their moral agenda on the rest of us, then our rights get violated for their moral code does not support hommosexuality, pornography, consuming of alcohol beverages, etc.. when these steps are taken to make such things illegal cause it's against their religion, then we all pay the price! we loose civil liberties, "as if we havent loss many already such as prostitution" and a variety of victimless crimes, these laws affect every single one of us, and the laws are broght forth by the religious majority!
So a movement by atheist to educate "critical thinking" is not such a bad idea, however the method has to be subbtle, the idealogy of mysticism is very strong, people live, and die by their beliefs, so critical thinking must be tought not by deliberately calling theist "delusional" but by making them think logically of what they believe, by experiencing and learning of others beliefs and religion, thus to examine other religions customs and beliefs a person can more critically think of their own.
As for evolution? Well I don't know much about evolution I'm no versed in evolution as I am about cosmology, but I did find this video that basically "proves" evolution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rM0gwNjVts