Time Magazine Dawkins, Collins debate.

[Bells]

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

That's because you are looking at it from a theists standpoint.

*Edit*

Sorry missed this point beforehand..

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

On the contrary. He makes a point in his book of praising scientists such as Gregor Mendel who was a monk. Don't forget, most men who were not from wealthy families who wished to study or do research had little else to turn to but becoming priests and monks as they could not afford to do so otherwise.

 

[hrebic]

First off the ten-dimensional universe is theoretical.

...As is any discussion of God.

Secondly we do not percieve the other dimensions even though we are products of a universe with ten dimensions (hypothetically) and therefore ten-dimensional ourselves.

Being a "product" of n-dimensions does not make one "n-dimensional" oneself. For example a conic section (2-dimensional planar cross-section of a 3-D cone) is 2-dimensional, even though the cone it is cut from is 3-dimensional.

Fourthly the concept of time is that of change and movement - flux.
A God lacking temporality, being timeless, would be unmoving, innert and so unthinking and inactive and non-existent.
Thinking is but the temporal succesion of sensual awareness and memory.
Space is but the possibility of an active phenomenon. Therefore an inanctive God would also be spaceless; He would lack dimenson altogether, Being a singularity, and so would not exist.

l:

When we look at a graph of a mathematical function on a piece of paper, we can see that the graph is not moving. Yet the graph depicts changes in f(x) with respect to x. The analogy is that God (at a higher dimension) sees the graph in it's entirety as a completed opus with respect to time, while temporal beings like us trace our individual trajectories on the graph paper, oblivious to the perspective of a higher-dimension.

Again, I must emphasize that I am an Agnostic. Actually I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, which means that I lay awake in bed late at night wondering if there really is a doG.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's because you are looking at it from a theists standpoint.

Thats unjust. I appreciate a good argument from any standpoint.
But when a scientist puts forward a shoddy argument and expects to be treated differently from others who do the same, that's a no-no.

*Edit*

Sorry missed this point beforehand..


On the contrary. He makes a point in his book of praising scientists such as Gregor Mendel who was a monk. Don't forget, most men who were not from wealthy families who wished to study or do research had little else to turn to but becoming priests and monks as they could not afford to do so otherwise.

So is Dawkins an expert on medieval history as well?

Can't have it both ways.

 

[S.A.M.]

Again, I must emphasize that I am an Agnostic. Actually I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, which means that I lay awake in bed late at night wondering if there really is a doG.

Thats funny.

 

[Bells]

Thats unjust. I appreciate a good argument from any standpoint.
But when a scientist puts forward a shoddy argument and expects to be treated differently from others who do the same, that's a no-no.

Why is his argument shoddy?

All he is saying is that religion and "God" has no place in science. Why? Because it has the ability to stunt scientific research in that instead of always looking for an answer, even if an answer is already known, religion relies on "God" as an explanation and that is that. No further research is needed. Everything unknown or unexplained is clumped together under the God banner.

So why is that shoddy? More importantly, how is that shoddy?

Remember the comment I made about the sick person and instead of looking for a cure, the only thing said is 'well it is God's will'? Science will never stop looking for answers, religion does. I don't think it is shoddy. Personally I think his views have quite a bit of merit and make a lot of sense.

So is Dawkins an expert on medieval history as well?

Can't have it both ways.

:jawdrop:
Ermm Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Mendel was literally the founder of genetics and he formulated the theory of biological heredity. One would assume Dawkins would know his work.

I think you'd find that Mendel was pretty much greeted with total silence in the religious community in his day. It was only the biologists who later came to know his work who recognised the genius behind it.

I think if you read The God Delusion, you would find that he was quite a fan of Mendel and even referred to him as a genius.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why is his argument shoddy?

His basic problem is that politicians cater to the religious right and create obstructions in scientific progress.

This can be traced to two root causes:

1. science education is poor
2. politicians are using issues to obfuscate real governance problems

So how does he try to resolve this issue?

By improving science education in schools?

By tackling the problem of poor governance?

No- by creating a poorly constructed argument that religion is the cause of all problems in the world today and an even poorer argument that God is a virus that needs a vaccine, immediately.

Has he done anything that will lead to improvement in the education of science or benefit scientific progress? I don't see it. His books are convincing only to those already convinced of his views and he has polarised people and pushed the real issues into the background.

All he is saying is that religion and "God" has no place in science. Why? Because it has the ability to stunt scientific research in that instead of always looking for an answer, even if an answer is already known, religion relies on "God" as an explanation and that is that. No further research is needed. Everything unknown or unexplained is clumped together under the God banner.

Can I have an example of ONE religious scientist who says that?

So why is that shoddy? More importantly, how is that shoddy?

Because if that is his issue it is being very poorly addressed. Or not at all.

I too believe that religion has no place in science, simply because they address two very different aspect of human being.

Remember the comment I made about the sick person and instead of looking for a cure, the only thing said is 'well it is God's will'? Science will never stop looking for answers, religion does. I don't think it is shoddy. Personally I think his views have quite a bit of merit and make a lot of sense.

One cannot force someone to accept a treatment they do not want. I have known many people to refuse therapy on various grounds, some being age, some being a dislike to extend suffering. Difficult as it is sometimes we just have to accept what people want for themselves.


:jawdrop:

Ermm Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and Mendel was literally the founder of genetics and he formulated the theory of biological heredity. One would assume Dawkins would know his work.

He would know that Mendel became a monk not because he was religious but because it was the only way he could get funding to carry on research?

I think you'd find that Mendel was pretty much greeted with total silence in the religious community in his day. It was only the biologists who later came to know his work who recognised the genius behind it.

There are lots of scientists who have been treated as quacks by the scientific community. And lots of quacks treated as scientists. Have you heard about the Nobel prize winner for lobotomy?

A lot of people who devote themselves to God (and I don't mean the ones who wear Prada and Gucci) are genuinely interested in searching for answers to the cosmos. It is ridiculous to say that with more than 80% theism in the world today and the extent of progress, that religion impedes science. Ignorance impedes science, precisely of the kind that Dawkins frequently demonstrates.

I think if you read The God Delusion, you would find that he was quite a fan of Mendel and even referred to him as a genius.

Goody.

 

[Prince_James]

One must ask this:

What scientific advance have any religious person stopped in the last 500 years?

 

[Satyr]

...As is any discussion of God.


Being a "product" of n-dimensions does not make one "n-dimensional" oneself. For example a conic section (2-dimensional planar cross-section of a 3-D cone) is 2-dimensional, even though the cone it is cut from is 3-dimensional.

A dimension is not absent by being small.

There is nothing that lacks all 4 perceptible dimensions.
A sheet of paper has two pronounced dimensions and one tiny one. On it we draw representations of two-dimensional figures.

I am on board with Heidegger on this.
We are temporality manifest.
Space represents our possibilities - we perceiver 3 dimensional possibilities and so we function within their parameters.
The other dimensions are not absent they just do not enter in our perceptual evaluations of our possibilities.

A two-dimensional being, if we can imagine one, would not lack a third dimension, because that would constitute it impossible, but it lacks awareness of the third.

Theoretically we exists in every temporal direction but we only perceive the past, while we remain oblivious to the future.
Why?
Because of the mechanics of the flux.

The flux is constant fragmentation, caused by the disparity between ordering and disordering forces.
Knowledge, genes, life is an ordering process.
We know because we can order, store and remember what we’ve experienced.
So our temporal awareness is unidirectional…no not forward, but backwards. We perceive only the past and extrapolate the future from it, even if the future is part of our temporal Becoming.
In one of the other dimensions, that of folded time, we already exist in the future.

We only perceive the past because, like I said memory is about abstracting sensuous information, simplifying it and storing it.
This storage, which is called by us experience or knowledge or memory, is ordered time.

In the opposite temporal direction, where entropy decreases, we cannot perceive because here, if we can imagine it, we would be forgetting or disordering in relation to the temporal flow. Here life, as we know it, is impossible, since genes rely on this storage and passing forward of information that has been ordered.

In essence life is a resistance to entropic decay and to fragmentation. This is why we are attracted to patterns and we seek power.
Absolute power is absolute order.

When we look at a graph of a mathematical function on a piece of paper, we can see that the graph is not moving. Yet the graph depicts changes in f(x) with respect to x. The analogy is that God (at a higher dimension) sees the graph in it's entirety as a completed opus with respect to time, while temporal beings like us trace our individual trajectories on the graph paper, oblivious to the perspective of a higher-dimension.

Again, I must emphasize that I am an Agnostic. Actually I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, which means that I lay awake in bed late at night wondering if there really is a doG.

You consistently fail to get the point.
The graph is moving, just not in the way you imagine. The graph is on paper or electronically stored and so the graph itself is either pulsating or deteriorating as you perceive it. Its movement is so slight, in relation to your perceptual abilities and your own temporality that it appears static.

A slam of metal is in the midst of temporal decay. Its hardness is in relation to your temporal decay and your perceptual abilities.
Movement is temporality; temporality is change.
Without is consciousness is impossible.
Consciousness is stream-of-thought, and so it is movement; it is temporality manifest.

All life is activity, as all that appears is in constant flux.

 

[(Q)]

A lot of people who devote themselves to God (and I don't mean the ones who wear Prada and Gucci) are genuinely interested in searching for answers to the cosmos. It is ridiculous to say that with more than 80% theism in the world today and the extent of progress, that religion impedes science. Ignorance impedes science, precisely of the kind that Dawkins frequently demonstrates.

Yes, let's just ignore the centuries of religious persecution against science, reason and rationale, and the current debate over stem cell research.

Ignorance, indeed.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, let's just ignore the centuries of religious persecution against science, reason and rationale, and the current debate over stem cell research.

Ignorance, indeed.

I am pretty sure stem cell research is being carried out by privately funded agencies.

Have any of them been attacked by the Pope?

Ergo, the problem is political.

 

[Bells]

No- by creating a poorly constructed argument that religion is the cause of all problems in the world today and an even poorer argument that God is a virus that needs a vaccine, immediately.

I personally do not think his argument is incorrect. Look at the wars of today for a perfect example? Fought on religious grounds.. the Christian West vs the Muslims. In places like Sudan where millions have perished due to their religious ties or sects.

The my God is better than your God ideology fuels so much angst and hatred. You can't deny that Sam.

Has he done anything that will lead to improvement in the education of science or benefit scientific progress? I don't see it. His books are convincing only to those already convinced of his views and he has polarised people and pushed the real issues into the background.

On the contrary, I think he is quite confronting in his views of religion and its role in society. He considers it to be a plague. And in a way it is. It is a spreading plague that is permeating into every aspect of life, whether we want it to or not. Religion has gained such a foothold in society that it is simply everywhere. And with it comes paranoia. Look at the issues of banning the hijab for example. Paranoia.

You have Governments stating quite openly that they believe in a Christian ethic, completely destroying any notion of separation of church and state. You have Governments following their own religious beliefs and that of their most ardent backers (the religious right) and stifling scientific research into areas such as stem cell research. You have Governments fighting to overturn abortion laws, not just because of their religious beliefs but also because the religions of that country have demanded it and will pull their votes if they do not get what they want. Religions are in effect holding Governments and society as a whole to ransom.

His views aren't meant to make it better. His books and his views bring to light what most are scared to speak of. Look at your own reaction as a perfect example. You lay the blame on Governments and while the blame does lay at their feet somewhat, you refuse to see that religion has become the driving force behind the Governments of today. And this is what he criticises in his book.

Can I have an example of ONE religious scientist who says that?

Read the article and the book for some prime examples. Martin Rees, who for example, says that some questions about astronomy are more in the field of theologians.

One cannot force someone to accept a treatment they do not want. I have known many people to refuse therapy on various grounds, some being age, some being a dislike to extend suffering. Difficult as it is sometimes we just have to accept what people want for themselves.

I am well aware of that. I was using it as an example. While the individual might not want the treatment, does not mean that science should simply stop researching the treatment.

He would know that Mendel became a monk not because he was religious but because it was the only way he could get funding to carry on research?

Most probably because it is common knowledge that education was only something the wealthy could 'indulge' in. If the plebs wanted an education, they joined the church as monks or priests.

There are lots of scientists who have been treated as quacks by the scientific community. And lots of quacks treated as scientists. Have you heard about the Nobel prize winner for lobotomy?

You think Mendel is a quack?

António Egas Moniz was not seen to be a quack in 1949 when he won the Nobel Prize. He had, in his time, offered the only treatment to schizophrenia. In hindsight and with scientific advancement we have come to see that the lobotomy was not a viable alternative due to its severe side effects (for lack of a better term).

But Mendel is hardly in the same category. He laid the foundations for genetics Sam. Hardly a quack. More a hero to be honest.

A lot of people who devote themselves to God (and I don't mean the ones who wear Prada and Gucci) are genuinely interested in searching for answers to the cosmos. It is ridiculous to say that with more than 80% theism in the world today and the extent of progress, that religion impedes science. Ignorance impedes science, precisely of the kind that Dawkins frequently demonstrates.

Yes but what are they searching for?

Are they searching with an open mind? Or are they searching for proof that "God did it"?

As I said, when you have Governments dictating the scientific arena, holding it to ransom, due to religious belief or religious ethic and well supported by religions, one could correctly assume that it has helped impede science rather than advance it.

You are quite correct that ignorance impedes science. But religion helps breed ignorance. After all, how will science of tomorrow develop when religion has ensured that schools today do not teach pure evolutionary science but instead teach ID for example?

I am pretty sure stem cell research is being carried out by privately funded agencies.

Have any of them been attacked by the Pope?

Err Sam, yes they have been publicly denounced by the Pope and the Vatican.

Scientists who engage in stem-cell research using human embryos should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, a senior Vatican official said, raising the likelihood that the church is poised to take a more aggressive stance on this controversial issue.

In an interview with the Catholic weekly Famiglia Cristiana published Thursday, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo said that stem-cell researchers should be punished in the same way as women who have abortions and doctors who perform them.

``Destroying an embryo is equivalent to abortion," Trujillo said. ``Excommunication is valid for the women, the doctors and researchers who destroy embryos."
Link

That's just one. Here is another example of the Church entering the scientific and political arena to attempt to force the public to curb to its ideology and therefore stifle science:

Pope Benedict XVI on Monday endorsed a call by Italian bishops for voters to boycott next month's referendum that could repeal some aspects of a 2004 law that banned embryonic stem cell research and restricted access to assisted reproductive technology, the New York Times reports (Fisher/Povoledo, New York Times, 5/31). The law allows fertility treatments only for heterosexual couples who live together and are of childbearing age and bans the use of donated sperm or eggs, prohibits prenatal screening for abnormalities, and prohibits doctors from freezing embryos or using them for scientific research (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 1/18).
Link

I could go on but I think you get the general drift..

 

[Enterprise-D]

All he is saying is that religion and "God" has no place in science. Why? Because it has the ability to stunt scientific research in that instead of always looking for an answer, even if an answer is already known, religion relies on "God" as an explanation and that is that. No further research is needed. Everything unknown or unexplained is clumped together under the God banner.

Can I have an example of ONE religious scientist who says that?

Um...Collins himself? He fills the gaps of 'how did the big bang start' or 'if anyone, who controlled evolution' with god. Clearly says so in his debate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Um...Collins himself? He fills the gaps of 'how did the big bang start' or 'if anyone, who controlled evolution' with god. Clearly says so in his debate.

I have heard Collins speak and have personally questioned him.

He does not "fill in the gaps" merely shows that science is not incompatible with faith.

And any theory about the big bang is just that, a conjecture, he is not claiming to have solved it all.

 

[S.A.M.]

I personally do not think his argument is incorrect. Look at the wars of today for a perfect example? Fought on religious grounds.. the Christian West vs the Muslims. In places like Sudan where millions have perished due to their religious ties or sects.

The my God is better than your God ideology fuels so much angst and hatred. You can't deny that Sam.

I do deny it. People may bond together because of religion, but if they are killing each other, it is not because they are more attached to their religion but because they are insecure where land, food or personal security is concerned.

On the contrary, I think he is quite confronting in his views of religion and its role in society. He considers it to be a plague. And in a way it is. It is a spreading plague that is permeating into every aspect of life, whether we want it to or not. Religion has gained such a foothold in society that it is simply everywhere. And with it comes paranoia. Look at the issues of banning the hijab for example. Paranoia.

Paranoia, yes. But religious paranoia?

We have people wearing both bikinis and hijab in India.

The problem is not the religion, the issues are related to discrimination, ostracism and economic insecurity. Well paid, well fed people in a secure society are not the ones looking for trouble.

You have Governments stating quite openly that they believe in a Christian ethic, completely destroying any notion of separation of church and state. You have Governments following their own religious beliefs and that of their most ardent backers (the religious right) and stifling scientific research into areas such as stem cell research. You have Governments fighting to overturn abortion laws, not just because of their religious beliefs but also because the religions of that country have demanded it and will pull their votes if they do not get what they want. Religions are in effect holding Governments and society as a whole to ransom.

Again I doubt it. Hindus deeply believe that life is sacred. However abortion is legal in India. There are Roman Catholics in India too and no abortion clinics have been burned down. If it is happening in "liberal societies" like the US, then there is a need to educate people, not put their backs up.

His views aren't meant to make it better. His books and his views bring to light what most are scared to speak of. Look at your own reaction as a perfect example. You lay the blame on Governments and while the blame does lay at their feet somewhat, you refuse to see that religion has become the driving force behind the Governments of today. And this is what he criticises in his book.

I'm from a country with less than 1% atheism. If a government cannot keep state and church separate, its certainly NOT going to happen by calling them clowns and nutters. Are we interested in resolving the issue or polarising the people?

Read the article and the book for some prime examples. Martin Rees, who for example, says that some questions about astronomy are more in the field of theologians.

He would still be subject to peer review and his work would only be published if it met scientific criteria.

And this is exactly my problem with Dawkins. By turning religion into a scientific question, he joins the camp of these woo-woos who cannot differentiate between empirical evidence and faith.

I am well aware of that. I was using it as an example. While the individual might not want the treatment, does not mean that science should simply stop researching the treatment.

Research in science is determined by funding. If there are enough people clamoring for a treatment, there will be research, regardless of what individual beliefs are. If not, then no one will invest in it, and any talk is pointless.

Most probably because it is common knowledge that education was only something the wealthy could 'indulge' in. If the plebs wanted an education, they joined the church as monks or priests.

So if there was no religion, Mendel would never have happened?

You think Mendel is a quack?

António Egas Moniz was not seen to be a quack in 1949 when he won the Nobel Prize. He had, in his time, offered the only treatment to schizophrenia. In hindsight and with scientific advancement we have come to see that the lobotomy was not a viable alternative due to its severe side effects (for lack of a better term).

But Mendel is hardly in the same category. He laid the foundations for genetics Sam. Hardly a quack. More a hero to be honest.

No he was the scientist who was treated as a quack.

Yes but what are they searching for?

Are they searching with an open mind? Or are they searching for proof that "God did it"?

As I said, when you have Governments dictating the scientific arena, holding it to ransom, due to religious belief or religious ethic and well supported by religions, one could correctly assume that it has helped impede science rather than advance it.

Since when was government synonymous with religion?

If you have enough ignorant people in a country, they will oppose any change, and they do not have to be religious to do so.

You are quite correct that ignorance impedes science. But religion helps breed ignorance. After all, how will science of tomorrow develop when religion has ensured that schools today do not teach pure evolutionary science but instead teach ID for example?

Again, since when are schools synonymous with religion?

Appears to me that people have invested too little in education in such places and are now churning out morons by the thousands.

Err Sam, yes they have been publicly denounced by the Pope and the Vatican.

And they care about this because?

That's just one. Here is another example of the Church entering the scientific and political arena to attempt to force the public to curb to its ideology and therefore stifle science:

I could go on but I think you get the general drift..

Thats nitpicking.

I believe that the Pope has on several occasions condemned the arms trade and the stocking of weapons. So what has been the effect of that?

Media and politics play a MUCH bigger role in determining the direction of science. Why else would Michael J Fox come on TV and talk to potential voters about the necessity for stem cell research?

And there are many more issues like race, color, class, gender discrimination.

Do you think that all these are based on religion?

 

[Enterprise-D]

I have heard Collins speak and have personally questioned him.

Immaterial and not that impressive.

He does not "fill in the gaps" merely shows that science is not incompatible with faith.

And any theory about the big bang is just that, a conjecture, he is not claiming to have solved it all.

Pure, pure semantics sam. Yes evolution and the big bang are both theories. Darwinian evolution (conversely) has been shown time and again to be a likely logical conclusion.

For Collins to say "hey, maybe (darwinian) evolution is god's method" is FILLING THE GAP question of "what catalyzed evolution". Whatever his stated intentions are, this is what part of his debate boils down to. If it walks like a duck....

 

[S.A.M.]

Immaterial and not that impressive.



Pure, pure semantics sam. Yes evolution and the big bang are both theories. Darwinian evolution (conversely) has been shown time and again to be a likely logical conclusion.

For Collins to say "hey, maybe (darwinian) evolution is god's method" is FILLING THE GAP question of "what catalyzed evolution". Whatever his stated intentions are, this is what part of his debate boils down to. If it walks like a duck....

I don't believe he propounds his notions of the big bang on the same level as a scientific theory, he merely says that his notions of faith do not contradict with his work as a scientist.

And since his work is primarily with the human genome your analysis makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Come now sam...I've simply rehashed what HE said in his debate with Dawkins. I made no analysis that Collins did not. Collins strikes me as one whose objectivity is clouded by his sky-fairy.

No matter how you cut this cheese, even given that Collins may or may not allow religion to interfere with his research (although I note this goal is mostly unachievable for a theist), Collins, in the debate with Dawkins, FILLS IN GAPS with his fanciful assumptions. His religious assumptions have no place in scientific theory, yet still he guessworks his way in the Time article.

Matter of fact, if his religion did not contradict with his work as a scientist, he would not even bother to combat Dawkins on a public forum. Going out there and making an a$$ of himself in the largely atheist/agnostic scientific community is hardly what I'd call non-contradictory.

 

[S.A.M.]

Come now sam...I've simply rehashed what HE said in his debate with Dawkins. I made no analysis that Collins did not. Collins strikes me as one whose objectivity is clouded by his sky-fairy.

No matter how you cut this cheese, even given that Collins may or may not allow religion to interfere with his research (although I note this goal is mostly unachievable for a theist), Collins, in the debate with Dawkins, FILLS IN GAPS with his fanciful assumptions. His religious assumptions have no place in scientific theory, yet still he guessworks his way in the Time article.

Matter of fact, if his religion did not contradict with his work as a scientist, he would not even bother to combat Dawkins on a public forum. Going out there and making an a$$ of himself in the largely atheist/agnostic scientific community is hardly what I'd call non-contradictory.

Perhaps he does it for the sake of other theists and also because he meets atheists like you?

And casting aspersions on his research only indicates your bigotry, since he is well respected among his peers, atheists and theists alike.

 

[Michael]

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.

Hey, I remember reading this! Anyway, Fred Hoyle is making a mistake in that evolution is an accumulation of selected changes. Not one big happenstance!

Hoyle either doesn't understand the basis of evolution or he is having fun with strawmen - may guess is stawmen...

Michael

 

[Michael]

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

yes, and they were polytheistic.
Also, because polytheism was in practice millennia before monotheism - therefor there are more than one Goddesses...

Right?