Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

I didn't hear of ToE until around age 15. I did find it immediately plausible, though I didn't fully accept it until several years later.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

No empirical evidence I think you mean. This is not the same as no evidence. You seem to be assuming empiricism rules but of course can not validate the assumption. Its a faith based notion ultimately.High school science doesn't concern itself with deep evidence. It states things globally to be the case and the students presume what they are being told is true. Thats indoctrination.Thus you have millions who believe it because they were told so in their textbooks.

In the formal sense I was about that age too. But there is a lot going on before that to instill the notion. To prepare the ground so to speak. I sincerly doubt that you never saw the classic monkey-to-man progression drawings somewhere before then. No references to it on tv? Surely you remember the Britvic ads: showing a Neandrthal man hauling his misses around by the hair (very un-PC in todays world). "Britvic - the original of the species" Never heard the playground taunts of coloured kids being compared to monkeys?

Iano, No, you said faith = evidence & it simply doesn't.Like I said, if you allow that in the god of the bible actually has a mountain of "evidence" stacked against him, & precious little in support.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

No TV in Australia at that time, ergo no references on TV.Sure, I had heard of neanderthals, though I don't know about the particular ads you mention. And I was an avid fan of science. But when a teacher mentioned evolution (in a religion class, as it happens), it came as a surprise and as food for thought.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Perhaps even more profound is the concept of germ warfare by using a cultured strain of smallpox against a civilian population. Since smallpox has been eradicated in the wild, no one has antibodies to aid in immunization. Kind of like how Native Americans were practically doomed to get the common European housecold in the 17-1900's. Sudden exposure to these diseases are actually worse. I was under the impression that Parasomnium and I were speaking strictly in terms of nature and not out of human interests. Humans certainly could stand to benefit not ever getting another parasite, but what is happening to the ecological balance if they were to disappear? Remove apart of the food chain anywhere or introduce a foriegn one and it could have disasterous biological consequences. But anyway, the whole parasite analogy is getting way off topic. Okay. Well, I'm really sure how that applies to the discussion, but whatever. Why does intelligence factor into the argument and where does (in)fallibility play a role? All that was said is that religious affinities exist in human beings for some reason. Perhaps those reasons are inexplicable or abstruse. I've yet to hear a purely naturalistic reason that comes even remotely close to explaining that. Something that has yet to have any conclusive testing or support from other well-established theories within science is a psuedoscience. Memetics falls comfortably in that category. I just find it ironic that someone as scathing of a critic of something he deems as a psuedoscience, argues in favor for his own particular brand of protoscience. Aside from which, I hardly see Memetics would fall into the realm of hard science. Its description seems more appropriately placed in the social sciences. Well, you know all theories have to start out somewhere. And I meant what I said about it being interesting. It took alot of ingenuity to tie evolution into concepts. My only issue is that his memes have virtually no support within any realm of science. If he is going to be such an outspoken critic of ID, he'd better dot all of his own "i's" and cross all his "t's" first. Otherwise he just sounds like a cocky braggard. Its a very unattractive quality IMO.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Whew, I just spent the last few hours watching vid clips from your link (more than just the BBC interview) because they were quite interesting, as well as reading the paper you linked to and finding a good link to an appropriate EP discussion.1) On Dawkins' BBC interview. I thought it was relatively mellow in tone compared to other fare where he has greater control (or seems to at any rate). Some of those other Dawkins clips at your link are good examples, even if I have to admit they were also good entertainment.He does exhibit some of the logical flaws I note from within the OP. I'd start by saying my personal feelings, particularly with regard to Abrahamic culture, are not that far from Dawkins. It is how he uses science, logic, and the demeanor/behavior he adapts in discussing other religions, which I have problems with.Throughout all of his material he tends to conflate fanatical or fantastical forms of theism with theism itself. That is to my mind as unfair as equating Marxism with atheism. He also makes wild claims like "if there were gods this universe would be different", which have no logical or scientific merit. If there were a transcript of his interview it might be fun to go through it and answer his quotes more directly.I'm going to focus on one point and that is his contention that he is seeking truth. To be honest, science does not seek the truth, it seeks better explanations which admittedly may or may not be getting at absolute reality. So he doesn't seek truth at all, but rather more consistent and practical explanations.When asked about purpose he (to my mind accurately) outlines the atheist position that purpose is supplied by the individual. Yet he then turns on the theists for choosing to believe that they have a purpose, which is to choose a purpose, that involves comfort at the expense of more accurate explanations. He derides that as something less respectable. Now why would that be? He even suggests if that were acceptable people could just as well use drugs all the time. That doesn't make sense either. Taking drugs is to alter sensations, while theism is to differentially interpret them. That they both might lead to pleasure does not make them synonymous in activity, or consequence. Also one might ask Dawkins, so what if people did take drugs all the time anyway? What would be lesser in choosing that purpose.Ironically in one of the other clips (hell house) he appears to be unhappy when a theist makes the same form of argument Dawkins did: prefering discomfort as long as it reveals a truth. Suddenly he acts as if that should be thought of as not right, especially for children.Now to loop this back around to his claim about pursuing the Truth. Well the truth (about theism) is that people have held theistic feelings for as long as humans have been around. Faith has shown to be useful for humans when dealing with difficult situations. Theistic communities have prospered, developing sciences, as well as feeling happy. So where in this truth is there any strike against theism? That fanatics can exist there is no question but applies to all endeavours. That they may believe errant descriptions about the world? That is also true of atheists. Atheism does not equal being a scientist or guarantee rational thought... period.In essence he conflates theism with the worst examples of theism as well as bad science, while conveniently conflating atheism with its most positive examples and good science. He develops a convenient moral philosophy from this which at one time excuses personal choice of purpose, while criticizing those who do not choose the way he does. It comes off to me as bad form, bad philosophy, and bad science. That is true even if I share much the same personal outlook as he does.Oh yes and when looking over the other clips, one finds he describes morality as evolving (using his meme idea), and then adopts the exact evolutionary terminology he would dispute with theists. That is to say evolution of morals, unlike biology, can be seen as progressive (with barbarism at one end and more proper civilization at the other). How does that work? Why isn't it just like physical evolution with no better/worse, regressive/progressive moralities? Why aren't all moral outlooks equal in value with difference coming in description alone?This leads to the next subject...2) Evolutionary Psych (and morality).I definitely believe the human brain is a result of evolution, and hence brain activity/capability can be a product of evolution. This could very well include detailed beliefs or behaviors. There certainly is no logical barrier to that possibility, and I am very interested in quality research toward that end.The problem has never been the speculative possibility, or attempting to research its validity. Rather my only problem as been the methodology involved in uncovering such causal connections, especially when attempting to explain the reason for any behavior to have been adapted. I have a thread in the Is it Science? forum which gives more explanation of my position, as well as containing analyses of EP articles.In short, without physiological evidence (that would be neurological examinations across species), speculations regarding genetically determined (or highly influenced) behaviors, and the source for their origin, will remain just that. Criticisms of potential errors come from legitimate scientists who make some valid points. Gould's spandrels are types of confounding counterexplanations, but some of the best constructive criticism (aka along my line of reasoning) can be found in this article by Panksepp. I'd be interested in your take on this article and his points.I have read stuff by Pinker, including journal articles, but have not read his books. I find his methods to be flawed as per the above.In any case, description of basic instinctual cues are one thing, but when we get into morals that is something that really sets of red flags. I get the idea of the above, but there are two problems. The first is that the behaviors above have nothing inherently to do with morality, The second is that there is no reason to believe that learned behavior (basic interaction learning how to survive in an environment) could not account for what we see without having to discuss genetic predisposition.On that first point. What is morality? Is there such a thing as right and wrong, much less held as a "universal"? Without those defined and to some extent validated or measured, we are simply imposing an artificial construct on events. We take as an assumption that there is such a thing as morality and are looking for things that look like it.To take a page from Dawkins' playbook, we can see that all of these behaviors happen in animals without a moral concept, so why do we need to appeal to morality at all? Animals certainly don't do things because they are right, or avoid things that are wrong. Why then should we view human activity in that light, or discuss it in that way? And more importantly for all the "good" moral behavior they can point to we see just the opposite going on all the time. How is that accounted for? If genetics is the answer behind "good" or "evil" drives then we should see familial patterns for them, rather than socio-political-cultural. Do we? I have not seen any studies that have shown right and wrong effected by brain damage. Only behavior. Whole cultures existed without concepts of right and wrong and so I'm not sure I can accept such a conclusion without a bit more evidence. I certainly would like to see studies along those lines.It is true that behavior can be effected by brain damage, with normal inhibitions lessened or removed. That does not suggest anything about morality, as in another culture the same damage and resulting behavior might not be found wrong or unusual at all. It might have been common activity.But this point leads to the next one... I would like to see more evidence regarding Universals, especially with respect to morals or moral systems. Brown's quest seems somewhat ad hoc-ish, holding out that universality must be found somewhere if only we can figure out where to look... and in the mean time let's doubt what anthropology has found on this subject.When I was studying sociology/anthro I did not see the problems your article claimed as existing in anthro. As part of instruction they emphasized that societies contained both similarities and dissimilarities. The article seems to argue anthropologists spend more time on differences, but I am not sure if there is any documentation to back up that claim.In fact it seems to have a different understanding of cultural relativism, than I have and what I was taught. They made it a bit more hardlined, and also suggested there was divisiveness on issues regarding relativism, which appeared to be an exaggeration.What was not left in question (in my studies) is that cultures sometimes varied widely in beliefs and practices, including subcultures within larger cultures. Morals and other cultural beliefs tend to arise and change according to people interacting with each other, rather than any pattern of reproduction. While it may be true that culture is not infinitely plastic it certainly is pretty maleable. Actually that poses another logical problem. The fact that morality has an organic basis, particularly across species, would not do anything negative to theist arguments.The theist could easily point to such ideas as evidence that the Gods created a moral universe with it encoded in our very molecular fibers. In fact they could start using that as more reason why certain things they dislike are objectively immoral. And its not like that diminishes the utility of religion as ways to instruct/enforce morality. After all the EPist is forced to admit that regardless of any moral encoding, people don't always act morally (for the good). Religion acts as the reminder of what our true being is and how we should be behaving. When our genes fail to make a firm enough emotional case internally so that we want to do right, they will explain it to us in other ways. They become the backup system.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Can you say why not without appealing to an empirically unvalidated philosophy such as empiricism? If you cannot lets leave it at that - its not really on topic.Do you agree with this bit of the post?

Wait, what? The understood criticism of empiricism is that it can't be deductively validated; but you're sitting right in front of the empiric validation of empiricism.The idea that you can't empirically validate empiricism is a non-starter. The practical results of empiric processes such as science are the validation.

Would that be as condescending as calling the religious minded, irrational? Not I. I'm just letting you know that people don't attack strawmen.

quote:

---

:God, unlike the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, has always had that effect, even in the unbeliever, to offer a twinge of doubt in the atheist towards His existence.

---

I can't read minds, however, I can make some logical inferences about peoples behavior. I believe psychologists do this all the time. But maybe you can explain to me why some people get angry when speaking about God if they don't believe He exists. Making an inference like this isn't unfounded. And there is some of that psychology that I too employed. You are certainly welcome to think as you will about me. I don't get upset at fallacious assertions because, again, strawmen can't hurt me. Perhaps if I got upset at this statement you might have been proven right. And the only one who tests me that matters is God. I can't be burdened at the inevitable prospect that not everyone is going to like the things I say. You can't please everyone. Heck, somebody didn't even like Jesus or Ghandi enough to murder them. It seems inconceivable, but even still, its true.

quote:

---

:But my saying that he is interested in getting back at God was a bit of a Freudian slip on my part. I wouldn't expect an atheist to understand what I'm talking about. I would expect a former atheist who is now a theist to understand what I'm talking about. Its about tacit recognition. I'll just leave it at that.

---

Its just deductive reasoning. We all do this in many facets of life. Try not to be offended. That is not what I'm trying to do. Yes, but you keep conveniently glancing over the central issue. You speak about that disparagingly, but if we are the product of sole naturalism, then there is no right or wrong in that. It just is. So why even mention it if its in the natural order of things? Humans are biased by their experiences, be it good or bad-- indeed if we can refer to nature in such a way as being either good or bad. You speak about uncorroborated conjecture with such certainty. Isn't that what you charge me with? I guess you meant it for reasons of equivocating some more of that human bias. I see. What do you propose we do about that?

quote:

---

Can I assume that you must think of yourself and those of your ilk to be, perhaps, superior from an evolutionary standpoint?

---

What do you suggest we do to unlearn all those years of hardwired predispositions?

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Lets steer back to the topic---which has to do mainly with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I do not accept the charges you have made regarding Rind, nor the extent of that such flaws, if they existed, would effect the conclusions of the study.I am very critical of social studies and especially metastudies... which is what Rind involved. Contrary to your claims, I have discussed limitations and flaws with respect to that study. Regardless of flaws and limitations their findings were sufficient to negate claims regarding evidence of harm and sexual activity in minors, and at the very least are suggestive of very different psychological concepts regarding such. More research is definitely needed, but there arguments/position hold the ground right now. I have already dealt with some of these criticisms earlier, I believe within that thread. If this is something you want to raise again, go to that thread. I am more than happy to address them there. I might point out that your criticisms would not effect just the Rind study but ultimately any conclusions regarding sexuality and harm. This is not an accurate discussion of my criticism. There is no reason to bring it up here when it is still sitting in the same thread. Go there if you wish to debate the particulars on it. 1) I have no stake in the Rind study. My personal and legal position was created before it and would stand without it. In fact my personal and legal position does not involve its findings whatsoever (somewhat it contrast with what some may take from it in fact). It is important for those who do link moral or legal wrong to harm, as well as standing as an example of politics successfully overriding science.2) I have no stake in the findings of legitimate EP research. I am interested in solid research along those lines coming from neuro and comparative development fields. Even if all of our behaviors were found to be hardwired genetically, that would not upset me and I am free to accept that concept. That I state it appears to be inconsistent with findings from other fields, and that the most common methodology used is flawed, does not suggest I have a personal dislike for that conclusion being found.3) I am very clear about the methodological issues involved, and what I have problems with. Correlations do not prove causations. Correlations to speculative evolutionary advantages, which inherently assume behavioral predisposition took place at a certain time in our development, do even less. The theory in your t-shirt example was actually countered by later research which I posted, and you never replied to. The fact that it got nixed in the way I said it could, backs my contention.Please, if you want to address either Rind or specific EP articles, go to those threads. That is what they are there for.I do not understand the level of emotion and personal insult you have been lacing your posts with from the beginning here. If you don't like me, don't write to me. That is what I was doing for you.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yeah, I suppose so. But like I said to Iano its difficult to administer the test on a forum because the tester can just look up the answers.

---

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2^nd Corinthians 10:4-5

Well, we tried that. Unfortunately, you chose to respond to statements that you later admitted I had not made rather than substantiating your arguments or showing how your methodological quibbles actually undercut the conclusions as presented in the research (and not simply the conclusions predictably overstated by the public press reporting.)I'm sorry that you found that discussion insufficient or otherwise unsatisfying; your odious debate conduct was once again the sole cause of that. It's nothing of the sort. If you didn't want to address your assertions that the proponents of evolutionary psychology are as bad as creationists in this thread, you should not have made them in this thread.Instead you chose to once again level snide and spurious charges against an entire scientific field without providing a single supporting example, instead referring others to a thread where you yourself behave in exactly the way you're accusing. These accusations are pulled from thin air, Holmes. There's been no personal insult or emotion in my posts - only the proof that you're precisely guilty of what you're accusing everybody else of.

Almost your entire line of argument appears to be that Dawkins is being taken out of context within the first article and so misrepresented... insisting that he says something else in his book.My OP did not say that I was going to review Dawkins' new book. I said that I did not like what he (and others) were saying and doing in those articles, and was using what was shown in those articles as examples of bad ways to advance science and atheism.It is a trend I find disturbing.If the articles misrep'd Dawkins or anyone else, then it seems to me that is a separate issue altogether. My point still stands that I would not want to see what was depicted, being a representation of science or atheism. And I would only add that if this is how Dawkins et al are being seen by journalists and so their readers, then there is another problem as well. Rather than that D et al are acting as evangelists and engaging in poor logic/science, that that is how science and atheism is being portrayed.I will point out that he was in a church and he did make the commentary about god that he did, and certainly was using that as part of an argument against theism in general... which is a huge error. That alone I did not like.If you have counterevidence to what the article said he said, perhaps you can share it. I'm sorry, but that seems stretched. I believe they can be criticized too. But there is a difference in how that can be done and still be a multiculturalist. He stated in a BBC interview regarding God Delusion that his ambition was for everyone to stop being religious. Aiming High he said.That is not multiculturalism.Perhaps you should watch those clips that straggler gave to me, they seem in conflict with your notion of what he is saying, particularly with regard to religion.When you use the activities of fanatics of a single strain of theistic belief, not to mention writings, as your example for theism, that is both fallacious and insulting.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)