Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 199 of 203 (361422)
11-04-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by mick
11-04-2006 8:21 AM


We may not be completely in disagreement. Let's see if I can clarify my position based on your points.
It seems to me that linking theism and science (that is, incorporating a theistic world view into a scientific enterprise) is a terribly inconsistent thing to do, for the simple reason that science cannot falsify theistic hypotheses.
This is true.
Yet it is also true that science can say nothing about atheism either. The fact that it restricts debate to materialist causes in describing phenomena is NOT the same as taking a stand on the presence of such things as Gods or lack thereof. It is an epistemological focus, not a metaphysical declaration of truth.
The debate regarding gods or no gods is a metaphysical debate, and wholly in the realm of theoretical philosophy, not natural (practical or empirical) philosophy.
Furthermore, a disbelief in gods in no way means that the person achieved this view through rational means, nor uses the scientific method. Wholly ignorant people, who dispute or ignore claims of science, may also disbelieve theism.
Thus, when one conflates the two one is doing a disservice to both. One cannot use science to make ones philosophical case, nor can one (or does one) use that philosophical belief to understand or practice science. And to start practicing that starts one down a shaky road of introducing other nonscientific arguments (as Dawkins does with morality).
That is because atheism is consistent with the scientific process, while theism is not.
I believe the more accurate statement is that the tenets of atheism do not inherently conflict with scientific method, nor do they currently conflict with evidence and theories derived from that method.
Specific theists might (and certainly do) run afoul of the methods, as well as evidence and theories derived from that method. The more specified the nature of gods or manifestations of their powers (in history), as well as having to not allow such claims to be challenged, the more problematic it will be for them.
I'm a bit doubtful on the 95% bio atheism claim, but even so the 5% indicate there is no inherent exclusivity of science and theism.
It may be that 99% of hardcore punk rockers are atheists. Given that their methods toward gaining knowledge may have very little to do with scientific processes, it is hard to state that atheism has come inherent consistency with science Just as it would not be fair to say that this indicates there is some consistency between atheism and a specific musical process.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mick, posted 11-04-2006 8:21 AM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by mick, posted 11-05-2006 8:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 200 of 203 (361802)
11-05-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Silent H
11-04-2006 9:10 AM


Hi Holmes,
Thanks for replying. I have a great deal of sympathy for your stance but I'm not sure i agree with everything you say. However I will need to read a little more before putting together a worthy reply, and I may well set up a new thread on "scientific atheism" where this can be discussed outside the context of Richard Dawkins.
Cheers
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2006 9:10 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 4:09 PM mick has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 201 of 203 (361931)
11-05-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by mick
11-05-2006 8:04 AM


I'm not sure i agree with everything you say. However I will need to read a little more before putting together a worthy reply, and I may well set up a new thread on "scientific atheism"
That's fine... The new thread sounds like it would be quite interesting.
I just wanted you to know in advance that my "free" time for EvC is going to be dropping over the next few weeks, perhaps to nil. That's the nature of my life these days. Suddenly I might be out for days at a time. This last week or so has just been a lucky gap.
So no problem if you take your time with a response or to start the new thread. If for some reason I don't reply (quickly) when you do, that would be why.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by mick, posted 11-05-2006 8:04 AM mick has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 202 of 203 (362217)
11-06-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Silent H
11-04-2006 7:54 AM


Holmes,
I am criticizing the whole of a person's actions and arguments on "my behalf". Given that he does not confine himself to one book, I think everything else is as fair game as the book... and concentrating unduly on that book is itself an error.
The God Delusion lays out Dawkins arguments fully. All you are getting are snippets.
Regardless of the fact that, like Dawkins, I am an atheist and a firm supporter of the scientific method, I disagree with his arguments. Just as it has been argued that linking theism and science results in poor theism and science, the same goes for the conflation/conjoining of atheism and science.
Linking theism & science does lead to poor science. Not always, but it can & does, & as such is a perfectly valid criticism.
As for the conflation of atheism & science, all you provided was a quote by someone else which managed to be wrong. In fact Dawkins very point is that aspects of religion are open to scientific enquiry. Regardless, theism can & does discourage understanding of aspects of science, ergo a lack of religion on balance leads to a better understanding of science. Just look at some of the people on these boards, would they be anti-science if their religion hadn’t done a job on them? Again, not always, but that it can be & is the case makes it a valid criticism.
Atheism doesn’t systematically do anything to anyone.
There is no point discussing this with you when you are drawing conclusions from a part of the argument. Everything to you seems to be an absolute. Dawkins said xyz makes for bad science, so that must hold true in all circumstances? But when his arguments are fully examined you’ll find this is not what he is saying at all. He points to evolutionary biologists who are believers in a six-day creation but do perfectly good science, for example. That doesn’t stop xyz being a valid argument of bad science, however.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2006 7:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 5:23 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 203 of 203 (362945)
11-09-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by mark24
11-06-2006 7:04 PM


The God Delusion lays out Dawkins arguments fully. All you are getting are snippets.
What on earth do you mean by snippets? I watched at least one full program which he appeared to be in complete control.
Your statement simply does not answer my question. That he has a book with a very rational explanation of a position, does not counter other appearances where he says or acts something completely different.
theism can & does discourage understanding of aspects of science, ergo a lack of religion on balance leads to a better understanding of science.
That is a logical error. At best your argument would be that atheism on balance leads to fewer possible conflicts for those who try to understand science.
Atheists can have no knowledge of science and involve themselves with equally ridiculous attitudes and practices. They may also engage in other beliefs which discourage understanding of aspects of science.
How many of those alien-abductee people are atheists?
Dawkins said xyz makes for bad science, so that must hold true in all circumstances?
That is not exactly an accurate description of my position.
He points to evolutionary biologists who are believers in a six-day creation but do perfectly good science, for example.
That statement suggests to me that you STILL have not gone and watched the interview he gave about his book on BBC. He specifically dealt with that question. His commentary came off as "I have a friend who's gay/black/fundie/etc".
He starts by arguing that most scientists who say they are religious aren't really Xians or other full theists. That is they are like him or Einstein who view the universe as something awe-inspiring (and science worship). He had to be pressed on the point a couple times before admitting that some scientists really do have faiths. And then his answer to that was while they still could do good science he didn't know how they were capable of handling both systems, without serious compartmentalization. He didn't get it.
That would be part of my problem with him and the way he talks. Atheists are not scientists, and theists are not nonscientists. The decision to choose atheism/theism is a philosophical position with no inherent relation to science. He does not seem interested in discovering how theists practice valid science, but would rather pan them broadly with dismissive comments of compartmentalization.
None of this is useful to my mind, and in fact is counterproductive. If he is going to speak as an atheist, about what atheism is, or as a scientist about what science is, I wish he'd do it right.
My head is still whirling from hearing him state how science is the search for Truth. That it uncovers Truth. He sounded like an ID theorist.
I should note I was a good boy and when I was at the bookstore the other day I looked for that book. They had everything he wrote EXCEPT God Delusion. Not sure if it was sold out or just not in yet. When I'm around I'll be keeping my eye out for it.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by mark24, posted 11-06-2006 7:04 PM mark24 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024