Time Magazine Dawkins, Collins debate.

[Satyr]

Saty,

I'm not sure if I'm following the temporal part of your argument. So, I'm going to have to ask a question about time.
If, lets suppose, I have a perfectly round sphere and it rests in the middle of an otherwise empty universe. The sphere is not moving, this is because there is nothing relative to it (nothing else exists) and so it is impossible to detect any change - therefore it is not temporal. I'm not sure if one would say it is eternal as there would be no time because there is no change.
Sorry about the wording but you get the drift, aka Am I correct so far?
But it is so it exists.

Does this fit within your argument? It doesn't seem so - maybe I missed something.

Thanks,
Michael

PS: Pardon me if there was a blatantly obvious answer (of which I truly hope there is

Everything is moving if it exists.
If it were not moving it would be timeless and spaceless, and so non-existent.

A sphere with nothing there to percieve it would never be apparent.

The universe is in flux. Entropic decay is the disparity between ordering and disordering forces - the winner here being disordering - causing a temporal flow.
In essence knowledge, life, Becoming is a resistane to temporal decay.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

According to the link I provided you:

"He states in Chapter 4 that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane”, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook” that merely postpones the problem. He uses an argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to suggest that "God almost certainly does not exist": "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747."[19]

The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement made by Fred Hoyle: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747".[20] Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. Here, he furthers this argument by presenting examples of apparent design. Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so".[21] Dawkins reports that Daniel Dennett calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.[22]"

And so...?

This is a major point of disagreement among philosophers, as I'm sure you're aware.

The only critique could come from subjective idealists.

I disagree, but this is another discussion.

So then I was right: His arguments are mostly, if not really exclusively, against Abrahamic religion?

No, you were wrong. They aren't. He uses Abrahamic religions as examples more than other religions, though, and he explains why.

In matters that require a great deal of specialized knowledge, surely experts should be given superior weight in their arguments. Or again, do you expect us to listen to Britney Spears' explanation of the human genome project with the same respect we would give Collins, the head of it?

But this was not your argument.

You argued that Dawkins could not comment on religion because he isn't trained in it and isn't the expert you claim to be. You weren't comparing Dawkins to a superior authority. You were simply denying his right to be heard, a priori.

And yes, Britney Spears is also entitled to comment on the human genome project if she wishes.

I agree it must be judged on its own merits. But the sophomoric analyses given by Dawkins seem to imply that his book is not worthy of serious merit.

You're really not in a position to comment. You haven't even read the book.

Come back to me when you have and we might be able to have a useful discussion.

 

[S.A.M.]

But this was not your argument.

You argued that Dawkins could not comment on religion because he isn't trained in it and isn't the expert you claim to be. You weren't comparing Dawkins to a superior authority. You were simply denying his right to be heard, a priori.

And yes, Britney Spears is also entitled to comment on the human genome project if she wishes.

You're really not in a position to comment. You haven't even read the book.

Come back to me when you have and we might be able to have a useful discussion.

Isn't this a contradiction of terms?

 

[Bells]

Isn't this a contradiction of terms?

How so? If he is going to criticise a book, its content and author, one would expect that he would have at least read it.

 

[S.A.M.]

How so? If he is going to criticise a book, its content and author, one would expect that he would have at least read it.

Which is exactly what he is saying about Dawkins and theology/philosophy.

Yes, no one can doubt his excellent biological knowledge. Just his whole Atheism is poorly constructed as he knows so very little about philosophy and theology, that he really ought to take the time out and study.

Doesn't he teach at Oxford or Cambridge? Surely he can get one of his fellow professors to tutour him in the subject, or enroll in one of their classes likely for free?

 

[James R]

samcdkey:

I'm not denying PJ's qualifications to comment. I'm denying that his comments are worth listening to, when he obviously hasn't done even the bare minimum research (i.e. actually reading the book he is denouncing).

 

[S.A.M.]

samcdkey:

I'm not denying PJ's qualifications to comment. I'm denying that his comments are worth listening to, when he obviously hasn't done even the bare minimum research (i.e. actually reading the book he is denouncing).

He is commenting on the debate i.e. sophomoric analyses. Does he need to read all Dawkins books to comment on the debate? Perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[Bells]

Which is exactly what he is saying about Dawkins and theology/philosophy.

PJ said that Dawkins has no right to comment on religion or God because he is not a philosopher. He then went on to comment on The God Delusion without having read it.

The difference lies in the fact that one would expect if you are going to comment on or criticise a book, you would be expected to have at least read it. God is not a "book" but a belief system and the book discusses said belief system. To then critique that book and then say the author has no right to comment on God because he is not a philosopher, while never having read the book... Do you see the contradiction?

 

[S.A.M.]

PJ said that Dawkins has no right to comment on religion or God because he is not a philosopher. He then went on to comment on The God Delusion without having read it.

The difference lies in the fact that one would expect if you are going to comment on or criticise a book, you would be expected to have at least read it. God is not a "book" but a belief system and the book discusses said belief system. To then critique that book and then say the author has no right to comment on God because he is not a philosopher, while never having read the book... Do you see the contradiction?

I was under the impression that he was criticising the concepts that Dawkins uses to deny God as they are poorly constructed both theologically and philosophically.

 

[Bells]

I was under the impression that he was criticising the concepts that Dawkins uses to deny God as they are poorly constructed both theologically and philosophically.

When asked if he had read The God Delusion, his reply was thus:

Only parts. However, I've also read summaries of many points and frankly, his lack of philosophical acumen shows.
Link

So how can he know from reading a few parts of the book and then summaries, written by others (eg based on the opinion of others), that not only does Dawkins lack the philosophical background (as he made the claim that only philosophers should discuss God or religion as they are the only ones qualified to do so), but also that his arguments against God were not sound?

 

[S.A.M.]

When asked if he had read The God Delusion, his reply was thus:



So how can he know from reading a few parts of the book and then summaries, written by others (eg based on the opinion of others), that not only does Dawkins lack the philosophical background (as he made the claim that only philosophers should discuss God or religion as they are the only ones qualified to do so), but also that his arguments against God were not sound?

I could actually tell this from just this:

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no

This not only shows his lack of philosophical acumen, it also brings in to question his scientific acumen.

 

[Bells]

This not only shows his lack of philosophical acumen, it also brings in to question his scientific acumen.

So because he says there is no God to speak of, he is automatically disqualified?

 

[S.A.M.]

So because he says there is no God to speak of, he is automatically disqualified?

No because he claims it is a scientific question. And he claims the answer is no.

So where is the evidence?

One cannot use the scientific method to prove a negative in the absence of any supporting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

And so...?

Ergo, he uses evolution to disprove God.

No, you were wrong. They aren't. He uses Abrahamic religions as examples more than other religions, though, and he explains why.

Let me ask you this, James R.: Does he ever address the specifics of Hindu, general polytheistic, et cetera, et cetera, deities? There are arguments specifically made for them alone.

But this was not your argument.

You argued that Dawkins could not comment on religion because he isn't trained in it and isn't the expert you claim to be. You weren't comparing Dawkins to a superior authority. You were simply denying his right to be heard, a priori.

And yes, Britney Spears is also entitled to comment on the human genome project if she wishes.

And you will give her the same time of day as a scientist?

In a religious debate - which essentially the Time Magazine article is - the participants should be professionals, no? Dawkins is a professional - of biology. Collins is also a professional - of biology. In each instance, they are out of their element. It shows.

It is the equivalent of having a neurosurgery debate between two plumbers and using them as the "benchmark" for public discussion.

You're really not in a position to comment. You haven't even read the book.

Come back to me when you have and we might be able to have a useful discussion.

I agree with SamCDKey's assessment of this being contradictory to your contra-authority argument.

 

[Bells]

No because he claims it is a scientific question. And he claims the answer is no.

So where is the evidence?

One cannot use the scientific method to prove a negative in the absence of any supporting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What you failed to understand in the article and the book is that Dawkins makes the point (repeatedly) that the scientific community and science itself should not just stop all research or merely stop looking at the 'why's' because of the whole notion of "God". He sees it as a "cop out" and he is right. For example, from the article alone:

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."
Link

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.
Link

He makes a valid point.

To merely decree everything as "God did it" and therefore stating that God is somehow above all and no further research is needed does not prove diddly squat. The "God" argument, as far as Dawkins sees it, is a shut down on scientific discussion. And those who provide such arguments provide no proof of their beliefs that "God did it". As he says, there could be millions of Gods, we simply do not know, so science and most importantly scientists should not merely attribute everything unknown or unsolved to "God" and leave it at that. In that, the "God" argument is a "cop out". As he says, what "God"?... 'Can you prove that this unsolved phenomenon is caused by "God"?'.. Believers, as far as Dawkins is concerned, feel that no other explanation needs to be sought.. Again the "cop out" of "God did it" so no further investigation needs to be done... Dawkin's argument is that science should never stop looking.

 

[S.A.M.]

His argument is baseless, since the earliest science was done by monks and other religionists.

Collins has invested more in genetics than Dawkins.

Even today, it is politics rather than religion that dictates scientific advancement. After all, no one seems concerned with Jesus' pacificism.

 

[Bells]

His argument is baseless, since the earliest science was done by monks and other religionists.

Collins has invested more in genetics than Dawkins.

Even today, it is politics rather than religion that dictates scientific advancement. After all, no one seems concerned with Jesus' pacificism.

Why do you think his argument is baseless?

Because he says 'we' should never stop searching for answers? Because he says that to merely attribute the unknown aspects of life and the universe itself to "God" is a cop out? Do you think the search for answers should stop simply based on the belief that "God did it"? For example if a person is ill and instead of searching for a cure, the argument is made that "it is God's will", should that suffice? Of course not. You would want to keep searching.

He also says that politics, driven by religion, is dictating scientific advancement, something he thoroughly disagrees with and disapproves of. And who can blame him in light of the fact that politics is determining how science is taught in schools and putting in place religious doctrines and displacing science itself (eg evolution) and also the argument behind stem cell research, to name but a couple.

As he says, God has no place in science and once God enters the scientific arena, the search seems to stall as the cop out argument of "God did it" will surface. That is the danger that theists pose to science.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do you think his argument is baseless?

Because he says 'we' should never stop searching for answers? Because he says that to merely attribute the unknown aspects of life and the universe itself to "God" is a cop out? Do you think the search for answers should stop simply based on the belief that "God did it"? For example if a person is ill and instead of searching for a cure, the argument is made that "it is God's will", should that suffice? Of course not. You would want to keep searching.

He also says that politics, driven by religion, is dictating scientific advancement, something he thoroughly disagrees with and disapproves of. And who can blame him in light of the fact that politics is determining how science is taught in schools and putting in place religious doctrines and displacing science itself (eg evolution) and also the argument behind stem cell research, to name but a couple.

As he says, God has no place in science and once God enters the scientific arena, the search seems to stall as the cop out argument of "God did it" will surface. That is the danger that theists pose to science.

Then he should be fighting politicians.

And if he wants to fight theologians, he should better prepare himself, not twist the meanings of established scientific principles.

Otherwise, he is merely misusing science to further his own agenda.

 

[Bells]

Then he should be fighting politicians.

And if he wants to fight theologians, he should better prepare himself, not twist the meanings of established scientific principles.

Otherwise, he is merely misusing science to further his own agenda.

Ah but God is not a scientific principle. That is what he is argueing against.

His agenda is that science be left alone.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah but God is not a scientific principle. That is what he is argueing against.

His agenda is that science be left alone.

Perhaps he should refine his arguments. To anyone educated in scientific philosophy, he sounds like an undereducated quack.