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

iano, How can empiricism be empirically unvalidated? And why would I not appeal to the only method of knowing things, as evidenced by our standard of living. Faith has given us no such thing, I would say that's empirically validated, wouldn't you?Faith is non-data. It's ultimately plucked out of nowhere & as such cannot be applied to the real world in order to lend credence to or to falsify a hypothesis.Mark

---

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

Empiricism says that all that can be known is that which is empirical (or received through the 5 sense I suppose they mean). This cannot be demonstrated to be the case: empirically or otherwise. All that can be said is that that knowledge which is empirical in nature (ie: received through the 5 senses) is...er...empirical knowledge.Now it can be that there is no evidence to be detected outside the empirical but if there were then the ability to percieve that evidence must be present in order to detect it - the 5 senses patently being of no use to us here. A person who claims to be able to sense such evidence cannot be expected to demonstrate empirically that which is not empirical. This is not to say that non-empirical evidence does not exist - just that it is non-empirical (ie: non-demonstrable in the way that empirical evidence is)The Bible happens to talk of this non-empirical evidence. It calls it faith. Now this doesn't bolster the case in any empirical way but that doesn't lessen anything about it. Empiricism is good for some things but not all things.The trouble with Dawkins approach, it seems to me, is that he ignores this potential and plumps for indoctrination only. The only possible explaination for people saying they have non-empirical evidence. He decides that empiricism rules without being able to ground his case in any way other than pointing to how useful empirical evidence has been to us.Anyway, what do you think of indoctrination as the means whereby vast numbers of people come to believe in Evolution? The millions of man-in-the-street out there who would say they believe in Evolution "because the scientists say so"?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's fine, however, wouldn't you say that it has less to do with Dawkins/Harris than it does with bias as it relates to religion/irreligion? I've understood the OP to be using those two as 'examples' of this, rather than the immediate topic, per say.

---

"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, that's patently false. Empiricism is a method, not a position. It's a means of developing knowledge. There may be other means, but as yet, you have not supplied any, despite being asked to do so for over a year now. (I guess you're still "thinking about it.") If you've already stipulated that this "evidence" is not that which can be sensed, then it would by definition (your definition) be impossible for a person to truthfully claim to be sensing it. If they are sensing something, then whatever they're sensing is empirical evidence, again by definition.The idea of evidence that can be sensed and is yet not empirical is a contradiction in terms; therefore it makes no sense to talk about the consequences of that. You're describing an impossible situation so it's irrelevant to discussions of evidence. But faith, by definition, is belief in the absence of evidence; thus, faith cannot be evidence. Faith cannot be what it is defined as the lack of.

Yeah, I'd have to agree about the indoctrination. The vast preponderance maintains that naturalism is certainly true, but how much other possibilities are he and those of his ilk rejecting alternative notions either a priori or a posteriori? Exactly. I'm certain that the majority of those in agreement concerning evolution say so on the grounds that they defer to people they assume know the answer. This is a clear cut case of faith. You could argue that Dawkins has first-hand knowledge, but the average layman simply concedes because he's been indoctrinated to believe that it is real. You could extend this argument to certain religious people too. My wife was talking to a teenager yesterday who couldn't explain why he believed in God. Its just something he grew up believing. After some persuasion, my wife recommended that he do some of his own research and soul seeking into the matter for not only his own benefit, but of those that ask questions of him about his own faith.I think whenever possible, we shouldn't just refer to the experts and say, "Well, there, its settled." Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"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

All of the ones for which no evidence has been brought forward. In the case of the supernatural, what evidence could anyone possibly bring forward for something that even it's proponents can't meaningfully define? I imagine that the majority of people don't even think about it. They probably don't even have a position on evolution because it's not something they think about. And in a country where more than 50% of the population are creationists, I don't think you have a leg to stand on in terms of accusing people for accepting the results of science on nothing more than faith. I think you're right, and I hope it's in that spirit that you approach your dealings on this forum. But I don't see it as an act of faith to accept the conclusions of accredited experts. It's an act of trust when you accept your doctor's recommendations without being able to understand the medicine. It's an act of faith when you accept the position of a clergyman on a subject he has absolutely no training or credentials in.

I'm opposed to indoctrination. Ideally, the man in the street would accept evolution on the evidence. But that's unrealistic. So here are a couple of realistic position that reasonable people could take:

Scientists are pretty solidly in support of evolution. And, generally speaking, they are trustworthy on questions of science. So I am going to tentatively accept evolution, while witholding complete support for the present.

and

Scientists are generally trustworthy on technical issues, and they are solidly behind evolution. However, it does not seem plausible to me at present. So, while I will allow the possibility that they might be right, I intend remaining skeptical for the present.

In my opinion, those are both rational positions. The average man in the street does not need to be able to settle the issue for himself. And he/she should not be taking a rigidly strong position on something that he has not studied enough to fully understand.

Either of those positions seems fine if the question is of no particular importance to one.However, some significant number of people in the US population (but not in most other countries) are making political, financial and education decisions based on which side is correct on the issue of evolution.For such people the correct position is to invest just the amount of effort that is appropriate to how important the answer is to see if what they encounter leads one way or the other.That does involve some effort (minimum 50 or so hours for someone with a bit of general education 3 or 4 times that for the other half of the population) to understand the opposing views. Then some examination of the facts of one small part of the argument is needed. Does the argument stand up to that little bit of examination or not? If so that might be enough to move someone from one position you're suggested to the other.There are only two rational approaches to any issue:1) It doesn't matter that much so "I don't know" remains a perfectly fine answer.
2) I need to know more to assign some likelyhood to a position.

Of course I agree with that. Thanks for the comments.

You mean like, memes? I'm a firm believer, after reviewing nature, biblical, and extra-biblical sources that there will never be direct proof of the existence of God-- at least not while we are bound by physical properties. That's partly why I object to people claiming that they can prove the existence of God. However, inductive and deductive reasoning leads me to believe that an Intelligence exists beyond my immediate and full comprehension. Philosophically, theologically, teleologically, and ontologically, I see no logical way for life to appear or sustain itself through a series of unseen, fortuitous events. I find that inference logically affirms my suspicions that a Creator must exist. I am fully aware, however, that identifying that intelligence, in regards to placing a face behind it all, is exceedingly difficult and perhaps even impossible. But I take the stance that just as one could find a watch in the woods and surmise that an intelligence was surely behind its design, they could also surmise after reviewing all the evidence that the woods itself was also surely designed.Dawkins seems incapable of looking past his preconceived notions to even give the prospect a fighting chance. I find that insuperable. Its one thing to review it honestly and come to a different conclusion, but as the OP has pointed out, he speaks out of complete bigotry rather than impartiality. Did I not say that some theists are just as guilty of referring to others on the basis of faith? I think its a problem everywhere, personally-- whether the US or Turkmenistan. I have a very unique position. I believe the Bible, to include what it alludes to about nature. However, I find it more and more difficult to refer to myself as a creationist, 1. because I don't pretend to know how God does what He does, but certain creationists will come up with satisfying reasons for how its feasible by nature. And 2. because I believe that tying religious beliefs into science is not in the best interest for either religion or science.Having said that, I find myself almost in total agreement with ID which does not attempt to offer theology via science. ID does not try to tie the Bible into matters of science. What it does is simply recognize and draws upon inference that something of cognizance is at work here and that happenstance just does not work in its own favor. What that Cognizance is, is totally a matter of theological debate, not a scientific one. Science isn't equipped to answer philosophical or theological questions, and theology isn't equipped to answer scientific questions. When I mention "God" as the 'Creator' or 'Designer,' those are my personal beliefs that I've garnered for a variety of reasons, but that isn't something I can offer empirically. Of course. On some level, we are going to have to come to believe some things, otherwise we might find ourselves becoming neurotic, trying to find out every nugget of knowledge on our own. There is a reason why they have been accredited as 'Experts,' and certainly in most cases, that probably works out just fine. I think what's really at heart is how we formulate our opinions to begin with and how we might find ourselves stubbornly sticking to those conclusions, irrespective of new information coming into our possession. I guess this is what I meant by creation and evolution oftentimes having a cult-like following. It might be dangerous for all of us if it becomes more about trying to prove ourselves right, rather than allowing ourselves to be righteous. And by righteous, that is not necessarily inclusive to religious semblances, but rather synonymous with fairness and impartiality.I have no illusions about this. I have to be mindful of it myself. Maybe we all do. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

---

"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

Like memes what? We were speaking of epistomologies. Your reasoning is faulty if it leads you to conclusions that aren't true, such as the existence of a god. I imagine that, shortly, the logical fallacy you've committed will reveal itself... Ah, here it is. The argument from incredulity. The problem is that your ignorance doesn't constitute a logical proof. Just because you don't understand how something could have happened is not a logical proof that it did not occur. You can't infer from ignorance, so you've committed no such inference. Oh? You read his book, then? No? The OP hasn't read his book either, so I don't see what basis either of you have to conclude this. You both state that Dawkins hasn't given the other side "a fighting chance" but you don't actually know that's not true, because you haven't yet aquainted yourself with his actual argument. You've been informed only of his conclusion, and from that, you've concluded that the conclusion is all there is. That's another argument from ignorance. Philosophy and theology aren't equipped to answer any questions, theology especially. Theology as a field of study possesses no rigor whatsoever, no way to answer even it's own questions. Philosophy is almost just as bad. In science, poor scientific reasoning is exposed almost as soon as the evidence against it comes to light, because science as a field is rigorous. Wrong arguments in philosophy and theology persist for decades because those fields have no rigor whatsoever; no established, rigorous methodology for determining which philosophical or theological arguments are in error.There are no relevant theological questions. If they cannot be addressed by science, it's only because the questions of theology are meaningless and irrelevant. Theology is a game of make-believe. Not everybody is like you, NJ. Many of us - the evolutionists, anyway - have absolutely no problem adjusting their conclusions in the light of new evidence.Creationists criticize people who adjust their conclusions in the light of new evidence. Creationists offer the fact that creationism never changes in response to evidence as a point in favor of it. That the central dogmas of religion do not ever change in response to new information about the world is a central feature of religion; they call it "timelessness." Another way to refer to it is "always being wrong." Well, ok. What evidence would it take to convince you of evolution? I had thought my post about theoretical protein modeling and ATP binding activity in the other thread would have done it; as far as I can tell it's an irrefutable proof that microevolutionary change is sufficient to account for all of life's diversity in the past and present.You didn't respond so apparently it wasn't sufficient. What will be?You're free to turn the question around, of course. If you want to know what would disprove evolution for evolutionists, there's a couple threads about exactly that. We've told you what to go out and find. What do I need to find to convince you?

Holmes, But if he isn't doing what the articles has him saying, then how can you object to Dawkins?As for bad ways to advance atheism, I think that he is more attacking religion than advancing atheism, however semantic that may seem. It is a trend I find uplifting. Faith has occupied a strange position of invulnerability as far as criticism goes. You can piss people of in arguments of politics, abortion etc. but you mustn't offend their personal religious beliefs. Despite the fact that their religious beliefs are foisted on the impressionable innocents without their consent. Again, this practice is never criticised in public. It's about time. I want more of the same. I want more people standing up & saying, "er, excuse me, but this is wrong". Fair enough (I don't think the misrepresentation was deliberate, I should add), but then the title of your post should possibly be altered to condemn journalism's coverage of science & atheism, rather than the message the people are actually advancing. It seems to me that Dawkins is incredibly easy to misrepresent. If you read almost any article about him you are reading not only someones interpretation, but they draw conclusions about other things based on that, they have no right to do this & pass it off as Dawkins as journalists. And they often seem to get it wrong, it would appear. It's not so much that I didn't like it. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference where he says what he says, it's what he says. But doing it in a church was just plain wierd, I agree. What church would allow an atheist to criticise their religion in that way?Maybe an open & honest one? Nah... I believe I already testified, your honour. It's all in The God Delusion. I'm not being lazy, I've lent the book out, otherwise I'd at least give you chapter numbers. Maybe not, but at what cost must we maintain diversity? Religion imposes itself on others, it does so with the joint carrot & stick of paradise juxtaposed with the threat of unimaginable suffering if you don't believe. Combine that with the abhorrent imposition on impressionable children, without their consent, like they are old enough to give it anyway. Children are taught to fear what god will do to them. It IS child abuse.Wanting to be rid of fanatics isn't multiculturalist, either. Yet we all want rid of them without seeing ourselves as bigots. In fact there are all sorts of cultural practices you wouldn't want in your neck of the woods, does that particularly make you an anti-multiculturalist? No, some aspects of cultures are harmful & Dawkins makes the point that religion, even moderate religion can be harmful. He is as allowed to say that & still be a multiculturalist as much as you are to want rid of fanatics.I am a multiculturalist, I am happy to coexist with all races & personal religions that don't foist themselves upon the vulnerable, or seek to dominate & cause harm, either physical or mental. I am not a multiculturalist with the rest. Again with the strawman.Dawkins does mention fanatics, but doesn't tar everybody with the same brush. Many arguments are forwarded, some apply to some, others to others.Isn't misrepresenting Dawkins' position fallacious & insulting?MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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

I've thought about raising a point more clearly, and this may be a good spot. I'd be interested in you or Ned (or mark's) opinion on this issue.The debate seems to have been posed as if theism leads to poor science, and atheism means belief in science. I don't necessarily see that as true at all.While specific theistic beliefs can certainly fall into conflict with science, it is usually pretty specified in nature. There are certainly some very good theistic scientists even if they fall apart on some particular theory or another. Atheists are NOT immune to the exact same behavior when scientific theories or findings conflict with personal beliefs they happen to hold.More importantly though, just because one is an atheist does not guarantee one has taken that based on some rational/evidentiary argument, nor that one knows or follows rational thought (or science) at all.I've met scientifically brilliant Xians, and intellectually worthless atheists. Heck I've known atheists that make the same stupid statements about evo as creos, but think that's what scientists say and its right!This is part of the confounding problem I see going on in debates as I see in the OP. There is no atheism = science. And there is no connection between atheism or science and morality. They are three separate issues with no direct connection.

---

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

I completely agree.Let's remember, however, that "atheism" has two meanings. One of those is "a-theism" or without theism. Science is atheistic in the sense that it is conducted without theistic assumptions. Even a strongly theistic scientist attempts to be objective in science studies, and not allow any theistic assumptions intrude on the investigation. Similarly, no anti-theist assumptions should intrude. I do think some creationists make a deliberate play on this double meaning. Me too.I'll point out, and I'm sure you agree, that not being a scientist does not make one intellectually worthless. There are other worthwhile intellectual pursuits than science. (Just commenting, so that readers don't get the wrong idea). I agree. However, the term "atheist" can be used in emotion laden ways, and creationists often use it that way for effect. And I suspect that is part of the reason why "atheism" so often comes up in the evc debates.---------A little story here. I was in a mathematics department coffee room discussion with colleagues a few years back, when the question of atheism came up. I remember asking "What do you call an atheist who attends Church?" One of my colleagues immediately shot back "the organist." (The colleague was an avid organist).

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I'm willing to address this within the thread as an issue. Certainly if these people are not doing what is being obviously portrayed in these articles, there is a problem.I took the articles at face value because they were two separate authors/publications, that were not attempting to rip into these people, and to a large degree supported each others' claims.While Harris was someone I had never heard of before, the description of what Dawkins was saying was not vastly different from things I had heard him say before. Unfortunately I cannot cut n paste his appearances on Discovery channel docs I have seen recently, nor do I have any of his books to quote from... most especially this latest book which I admittedly have not read and am not attempting to criticize.Your description does not seem quite accurate to what I have seen and read by him, but as you may have read more perhaps you are in a better seat to judge. But its not like I've read or seen nothing by him, and these people clearly are getting a similar vibe to the one I have gotten in the past. The place made the visual complete, which was only part of the point I was trying to make. Atheists playing preacher. What he said was certainly more important than where and I do stand by my criticism that it was "fire & brimstone" style condemnation of other belief systems. Even within the BBC interview on his book, he is drawing a connection between religion and barbaric behavior. That is a scare tactic with religion leading to barbarism and Truth (aka science aka atheism, which is a false connection) leading to civilization. That simply is not true. It is an oversimplification. SOME religions do exactly that. Certainly many Abrahamic sects do, and have it as a mandate. But that does not suggest anything inherent to a belief in deities, nor even all Abrahamic sects.I am aware that in our modern times (sheesh in modern times) there is a great threat posed by several different Abrahamic traditions. They threaten civil liberties, as well as lives. Fanatics run the show, though some moderates deserve criticism for allowing fanatics to retain power.That does not bring me to challenge theism itself. Fanaticism and ignorance are equally capable under atheism, and if tables were reversed I would not like theists condemning atheists in the same way. Ugh. This is a whole separate issue, but I could not disagree more. This societal fixation on protecting children is extremely unhealthy and mistaken. It is a graphic overstatement to call religious indoctrination, based merely on its beliefs, abuse.Every kid is taught something without their consent, every single one. That's the nature of being a kid, or being a parent (or guardian/teacher). There is nothing abhorrent about someone teaching something you don't like, or that you find upsetting to their kid.I am way behind you that I would not want MY kids raised with such ideas. I want to have my kids separated from such beliefs until they have a greater understanding of a different way of life. But I realize that it won't kill them, or wreck them to have such exposure. I sure as heck went through it and while I look back at it as a huge waste of time, and waste of learning, it did not bust my mind and I became an atheist and a scientist all the same.I totally respect the fact that some theist will have the same idea about my philosophy. I would not want them labeling my beliefs or instructing my kids as I want as somehow a horrific act, especially just because they have no choice. I don't want to have fanatics attacking me. Within the borders of my nation, which is supposed to be based on human rights, I don't want fanatics effecting my personal rights either. I will certainly state where I disagree with other cultures, and they can disagree with me.Beyond that, multiculturalism has to allow for some of the things you mention above within another culture... or its simply not multiculturalism. Its like a Xian saying they are all for peace and understanding as long as it is within the parameters set by god.Concepts of what harm (mental or physical) will be different between cultures as well as what counts as domination over someone else. To judge another culture using such values from your own perspective is inherently not multicultural in outlook.I realize you are well meaning, and our personal outlook/practices may be quite the same, but I am seeing that we do differ in how we view other cultures. Yours appears part of a trend of intolerance, and moral righteousness, which I do not like and think is unhealthy.Think about this question, what cultures are allowed to exist within your view, and what allows you to determine what counts as harm or who is oppressed when you make your judgement? Won't your opinions be based on current tastes, just as those in other cultures will have theirs?Isn't what you just expressed for condition of coexistence pretty much the same moral reasoning which justified british imperialism in the past?I am willing to coexist with cultures that are offensive and unfair to my way of living, because I expect many will have to do the same for me or we will be at war. Yes. I told you where you could find an example of what I was talking about. This is one way we can start getting on the same page, using Dawkins own words. Go to the link supplied by straggler on Dawkins. There are many clips about or by him.I do not believe my statement that he uses the actions of fanatics, or specific writings of specific religious groups, to help make his case against theism in general is misrepresenting his position.Watch those clips and see if you think I have missed something. I want people to say "Wrong? Its none of your fucking business what I think or do." People should be concentrating on themselves and their own families, and not worrying about others. That's the problem I see these days: too much intolerance plus nosing into other people's affairs.Certainly Xians have been doing it for a long time. That's what evangelizing and missionary work was all about. I am for putting a stop to that crap. But it cuts both ways.I do not want to see atheists and scientists following in those same footsteps, with their "enlightened" way of thinking, going to save other people from their "mistaken" ways of thinking and acting... even if I do believe I am enlightened and they are making mistakes.In the BBC interview, when Dawkins discusses his way as leading to Truth, and that he would want everyone to stop being theists (that is certainly what he said was his ambition in God Delusion, even if he had to settle for less) I see a missionary, not a scientist, not an atheist. I do not see a commitment to reason.Edited by holmes, : clarification

---

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