Dawkins' Preachings

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.

---

Similarly, people used to "feel" that the brain was a cooling system for the body's humors.They were eventually shown to be wrong, of course, once rational inquiry (i.e. dissection of human bodies) was widely done.It is interesting that the taboo against dissection of bodies was maintained by the Christian Church.Anyway, perhaps you can demonstrate the "feelings" you have about something in such a way that shows how they are just as reliable a descriptor of some phenomena as actual physical evidence?

Delbert Grady As an atheist I do not personally have any problem with you believing in pink unicorns orbiting Saturn just don't give us the impression that you have any means of showing us evidence that such a thing exists without having an arguement that can be investigated.
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. You mistake a mindset for a requirment of an arguement being more than just opinion.If an arguement has a basis that holds up under questioning then it can claim some level of validity.Can you provide a decent arguement that shows air really isn't there? Perhaps you would care to step into a hyperbaric chamber while it is cycled through different pressures and see if perhaps some evidence would make itself clear in your viewpoint? Well perhaps you can show something else that it demonstratable and repeatable that would buttress your arguement.If an atheist such as myself finds that the methods of science are the most persuasive and
offer the best support for their arguements then that is the way that I will follow since it is my choice to make why trouble yourself over it? Science requires HUGE imagination. Scientists do not simply think up something and jot it down get a few friends together and say that the problem is solved or the questioin is answered.Perhaps it would do you good to try and see if you can grasp some of the findings of science that you do not think are so by trying to do some actual science. Have you tried any means of investigation to see if there is any explanation for these feelings? Would you faer such a test to see if there is? Do you never wonder if feelings can be explained or do you just push such thought aside as impenetrable? I never based my atheism on science. Science supports my views but the reasons for atheism are far more numerous than that and as such are quite independent of this.Perhaps you shouldn't paint all atheists with the same brush. So you need no part of science in your life and as such your subjective world can exist independent of the objective findings of science.Good for you.It must be wonderful to be able to do that.This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-05-2004 10:20 AMThis message has been edited by sidelined, 12-05-2004 10:21 AM

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

quote:

---

This book is based in its entirety on a simple mistake. It is not often that one can find exactly the point where an author goes off the track, but here one can. It is in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book, which begins, "Similar accusations of barren desolation, of promoting an arid and joyless message, are frequently flung at science in general." However, what people object to in Dawkins is not the science but the atheism.

---

It seems ironic that the author of that article, while claiming Dawkins makes a fundamental mistake in his books conception, makes a fundamental mistake in his reading of the book.Mr. Hambre articulated it best. The books isn't about which world view, atheistic or theistic, is correct. It is simply a reply to those who think that science somehow sucks the beauty and wonder out of life and look upon the scientific endeavor with disdain. I think specifically, it is against the English intellectual community who seem so rooted in liberal arts and don't appreciate the value of science.The thesis of the book is clearly written on the back, where it says:

quote:

---

Mysteries don't lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution often is more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering deeper mysteries.

---

I realize this topic isn't just about the book, and the review was mainly introduced as a segue your main points. But I just wanted to clear this up. Don't bother replying to this is you want to debate about what the book was about since it will probably just lead this thread off into a tangent.

This is a curious statement. Shraff. Are you saying you require evidence to know when you're hungry, or that somehow "knowing" you're hungry is evidence? Must be one or the other I'm afraid.Even though you are rationalists, you force out unobservables, according to your convenience. For example, possible supernatural agencies.Did Homo Erectus have knowledge that he hungered? Can we know things through our senses and feeling, and therefore without evidence? Did he know he was hungry without evidence? Indeed, I suppose he never survived, and we don't exist - because he didn't have any science tools to evidence the fact that he was hungry.(Sarcasm).Are you correspondence theorists then? You can't have it both ways. You rule out God and agree with the above, yet you don't rule out the following; You see, you obey the fact that you yourself cannot locate God externally - or through observing facts, and rule him out - yet with these wild theories, like abiogenesis, comes instant belief. likewise - abiogenesis is simply a belief system. You cannot hold rational or the other, you cannot observe it - or locate it, the same as God. Yet people claim to sense God. I say that you are correspondence theorists when it suits you. A quantum mechanical abiogenesis-admirer yet a ruler-outer of God. Look here free-thinker;" Even force in Newton's mechanics becomes suspect in this philosophy, because we can neither see nor touch it; we only conclude that it exists by observing the movements of material bodies."Even God in the bible becomes suspect in this philosophy, because we can neither see nor touch him; we only conclude he exists by observing the movements in the lives of human bodies. (Man I'm good, )This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-05-2004 12:05 PM

It would probably be helpful if you would use the little red reply button at the bottom of the post you are responding to.Standing alone it is not clear what your post is talking about.

quote:

---

Are you saying you require evidence to know when you're hungry, or that somehow "knowing" you're hungry is evidence? Must be one or the other I'm afraid.

---

Well, we can test anyone's "feeling" that they are hungry. We can, through blood sugar analysis, MRI's to show brain activity, possibly ultrasound or endoscope views to show stomach muscle contractions, etc. to determine if someone who reports feeling hungry shows any difference in any of these factors compared to people who do not report feeling hungry.We can also show, through animal brain lesioning tests, that it is possible to remove the ability for an animal to feel full, and it is possible to affect hunger and eating patterns in other ways as well.So, I am afraid that it isn't as simple as you want it to be.

quote:

---

Even though you are rationalists, you force out unobservables, according to your convenience. For example, possible supernatural agencies.

---

Well, "it happened by magic" can always be invoked, but where does that leave you? What understanding have you gained into the workings of some phenomena? It doesn't increase understanding in the least. It causes inquiry and learning to cease completely.

quote:

---

Did Homo Erectus have knowledge that he hungered?

---

I imagine so, yes. It is a basic biological imperative to consume fuel.

quote:

---

Can we know things through our senses and feeling, and therefore without evidence?

---

Senses are not the same as feelings.My sense of hearing is roughly the same as anyone else's with normal hearing. Same with my senses of sight and touch. My senses of smell and especially taste are possibly a bit better trained than average due to my profession, but the basic ability to taste and smell are the same as most people.If 1000 people with normal ability to taste are given some a sample of ocean water to taste, I predict that well over 90% of them will report that it tastes salty.Now, can we make the same claims about the similarities of people's subjective feelings?

quote:

---

Did he know he was hungry without evidence? Indeed, I suppose he never survived, and we don't exist - because he didn't have any science tools to evidence the fact that he was hungry.(Sarcasm).

---

Oh, but he did have science tools. He felt the sensation of pain in his belly that was a result of muscle contractions from his empty stomach.

Yes. If you want to know about things then you have to examine things. This is what science does. Unless god is a thing science cannot examine him.

To add to what S said, some people have a condition that means that they never feel full (I think Elvis was one of those) - how good are your feelings then?

Yellow = Knowledge.
Red = Evidence.The knowledge is already there Shraff, it precedes the evidence. It's correct that you can verify whether I'm hungry etc, That's a good point - and Jar made the same. But the knowledge that you are hungry - is still known and correct before the science (red).So Homo Erectus didn't need science to know he was hungry - as he couldn't do any experiment and didn't need to. My argument is that knowledge necessarily can precede evidence/science. I think you win this point - we can all test whether we're hungry etc with science but we can't test if we felt God. However, knowledge of hunger preceded the science - Thus science would give an optical illusion that hunger has more credence than feeling God, yet we know both before the science. Think hard about what I mean.

quote:

---

The knowledge is already there Shraff, it precedes the evidence.

---

No, the feeling is there, from which one forms a hypothesis. Then we test the hypothesis by observing evidence.

quote:

---

It's correct that you can verify whether I'm hungry etc, That's a good point - and Jar made the same. But the knowledge that you are hungry - is still known and correct before the science (red).

---

No, it is a feeling that one is hungry.

quote:

---

So Homo Erectus didn't need science to know he was hungry

---

He used his senses to feel hungry. The sensory information that traveled along his nerves to the neurons in his brain caused him to feel hunger.

quote:

---

- as he couldn't do any experiment and didn't need to.

---

If he eats and stopps feeling hungry, or doesn't get to eat and the hunger goes away, he is doing a crude kind of experiment. Cause and effect.

quote:

---

My argument is that knowledge necessarily can precede evidence/science.

---

You are conflating "feelings" and "knowledge".

quote:

---

However, knowledge of hunger preceded the science

---

No, feelings of hunger preceeded the science.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-08-2004 04:27 PM