Berlinski's body language and speech are designed, wittingly or unwittingly, to give the impression of intellectual superiority. Yet what he actually says is idiotic. He shows the traits of a sociopath, someone who will say anything to reach notoriety as he knows he is blessed with intellectual mediocrity in the field of science. To compare Berlinksi with Dawkins is a joke.
I'd take the Evolutionary Biologist over the Theologian any day of the week. He at last has the logic and critical thinking to build an argument backed up with evidence rather than defaulting to the "I Believe" reponse of theologians.
@LogicIrrefutable Those 2 arguments don't belong in the same room. Evolutionary Biology is not an argument against creationism. Hence, why Dawkins treads on thin ice in offering his opinion based on scientific data. Scientific data has yet to prove or disprove intelligent design. Until it does, personal belief will rule. It's simple.
@movieklump Do yourself a favor: Put more thought into your argument. I'm going to immediately dismiss it like I would a court jester who's antics have become old. No matter anyone's opinion, the one that provides the greatest debate is the one that has the most compelling language, not the most elementary school language.
@movieklump Ah. The old "ad hominem" counter from an "ad hominem" counter. Good luck movieklump. You obviously inferred something from my original statement to think it qualifies this type of response. I consider this matter closed.
nothing you said is based on fact I won’t take it to heart. I am not saying the sates is a bad place to live I love visiting. People are nice and friendly, it’s just there are a lot of nut job too, as in the two in this Vid. As for immoral country, not sure on your facts. UK is just as moral or immoral as any other western technologically advanced democratic society, however we don’t have the republican party or their lunatic fringe off shoot the tea party...so at lest we have going for us lol
Though I agree with many of Berlinski's points, this was an unwarranted ad hominem attack against Dawkins. This kind of childish side-swiping is more characteristic of the New Atheist approach to argumentation.
shameful just shocking i hope these nut cases do not cross the pond and pollute British shores. their numbers are few and i hope that they remain that way.
@RAMSEY1987 You mean you enjoy being one the most immoral countries in the world? Enjoy your sharia law. By the way how many adoptions does England participate in every year of children all over the world? How many international charity organizations come from England? Not compare that with the US numbers.
@cctman And how many countryes the U.S. screwed since its foundation? Stole 1/3 of the Mexico territory, supported ALL dictarotships in south america in the 70's,(the lis is LARGE) invaded Irak for oil(there are still today a lot of dictartorships "Saddam-like" in the world, specially Africa, but they don't even show it in the nothramerican media. No sorry, but your country have no morals to criticise others.
Ok Evos explain how abiogenisis can achieve chirality. How can BILLIONS of amino acids form molecules with all left-handedness to form DNA. This isn't debatable you cannot randomly achieve chirality. If you cannot provide a mechanism to explain your theory, Aabiogenesis cannot be considered. Not until you you give a testable, verifiable solution. The scientific method requires OBSERVATION!! You can't say just because we don't know, someday we might. True science demands proof.
"[theists] know deep down they are wrong so what else do they have"
As an ex-atheist, I have to say that this comment is quite a clear-cut case of projection.
When I was an atheist arguing against the theistic position, I used to do so feeling deep down that I was fundamentally in the wrong - despite any meaningful religious teaching in my life.
It took a lot of epistemological reflection to fully appreciate how wrong I was.
@LowresTV Berlinski is an agnostic, not a creationist. Why do atheists call anyone who disagrees with them creationists without having a clue about their true position?
@bestvalue berlinki takes hand outs from the so-called discovery so-called institute the hub of the intelligent design creationist movement. he devotes his energy to sneering at science and never utters a syllable of criticism of dembski, wells, meyer et al. because he knows who lines his pockets. yes he's an agnostic wrt evolution and just about everything else- to be otherwise he might actually involve having to defend a position and he'd then be exposed as the vacuous fraud he is.
@MagnusCattus Gigantic holes? Hardly.There are definitely some "blank spaces",but never big enough for the whole thing to crumble. Yet CREaTIoNiSts cling to them desperately and present as "proofs" in favor of their lunacy. You can't say there are any holes in CREaTIoNiSt theory as it is one big hole filled with your senile "god". And that's why your anti-scientific heroes can only base their assessments on negation of someone's else findings as they have nothing except their own delusion
@XMisanthropyPureX How about the foundation of evolution itself the theory of Abiogenisis? You know the one that has been discredited by Louis Pasteur like 1000 years ago. No foundation no theory. O take a note. If some whacko young earth creationist spouts something untrue that doesn't all of a sudden make evolution true.The scientific method doesn't require a theory to be replaced for it to be proven untrue. Well maybe with the excepton of evolution?
@philackey You are incorrect. Evolution may still be true even if life did not come about without a creator initiating it. Evolution points to variation, therefore the foundations of evolution is this variation.
And I think I might add that even though there are some holes in how abiogenesis occurred, when we test this in a the potential conditions we continuously find that it is possible for the building blocks of life to come into existence naturally. Don't know yet isn't will never know.
The fact that "doctor" Berlinski has no academic credentials would never be a problem for his moronic creationist cheerleaders. They would probably see it as a proof of a huge conspiracy of "darwinists" trying to silence and isolate their opposition. That's the problem with deluded individuals - they will never accept the truth
@XMisanthropyPureX couldn't have put it better myself, there are gigantic holes in the evolutionary theory that are ignored, but the lack of evidence is fine because repetition works better then facts do.
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
The answer from corporate religious fanatics, of the 21st century, to all things mysterious & contrary is: EVOLUTION. To Darwin's caretakers: It's incumbent upon the person making any claim to bring forth evidence. Explain endogenous retroviruses? Explain the common cold virus. Explain porcine influenza. Expound upon the benefits of chemical therapies as proffered by the mainstream cancer industry. Your religion is foundering. Why don't you pursue legitimate studies? What are you afraid of?
"Little bit of a reptile!!"- says the man who pretended to have a doctorate in mathematics when he has none, lied about associtations with various great scientists, lied about von neumann's rejection of evolution....and now thinks he's an expert on reptiles.
I've seen stein's heavily and dishonestly edited "interview" with dawkins.
"nothing else"- really? Nothing? He wrote one of the most influential books in 20thC science (berlinski has written pop math books that should be given away free with matchboxes). he's authored dozens of papers in the scientific research literature of which you've clearly read not a single one. DB has done nothing.
why not find a subject you know something about and pontificate on that.
David Berlinski would win any debate with Richard Dawkins. The word Evolution has been hijacked by Darwinists. Evolution is a fact of how life evolved on earth. Darwinism is a belief system that is promoted as science. Do not confuse the terms. Evolution is not equal to Darwinism. The theory of evolution should be called The theory of Darwinism.
"David Berlinski would win any debate with Richard Dawkins"- he already tried and lost.
" The word Evolution has been hijacked by Darwinists"- you've not the faintest idea what you are talking about.
"The theory of evolution should be called The theory of Darwinism. "- tripe. the TofE has moved on from Darwin. it should no more be called darwinism than relativity should be called newtonism.
@mcmanustony The TTOE has only moved on with trying to brainwash the public into believing this faith system. Neo Darwinsim needs a act of faith to believe that complex life evolved from inorganic matter? Evolutionists are promoting a new(old) religion called Neo Darwinism. The only hope, that a new enlightened team of scientists will one day put this faith based theory to bed.
@TheLogic1010 ToE has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. it is supported by a mass of evidence as great as any scientific theory in history.
It is not religion- who, in your fevered imagination, are the "priests" of evolution? what are its rituals?
I hope you're not waiting for berlinski's enlightenment. He's been doing no more than getting away with it for years. he's discovered nothing, published next to nothing and is treated by gullible fools like you as an intellectual colossus...
@mcmanustony The gullible fool can only be found in yourself! Show me 100% concrete proof of the validity of TTOE. Evidence will not be accepted. Only 100% proof.
have you ANY idea how utterly idiotic that statement is? you've obviously wasted much of you time on this planet being dumbed down by pseudo intellectual frauds like berlinski.....you'll waste no more of mine.
grow a brain....for the love of jesus if no other reason presents itself.
@mcmanustony Circumstantial evidence that should be. Grow a brain?? Is that a Darwinian belief. I don't do Jesus mate! The biggest pseudoscientist has got to be Dawkins.
@TheLogic1010 you seriously want to compare dawkins with a narcissistic bore like belinski? ok- let's do that.
berlinski has pretended to have a Phd in mathematics. he doesn't. he's held a number of teaching jobs and been fired from each one. he has claimed to have done work on differential topology with Rene Thom though a search of academic publications produced no such work. he's written a pop book on calculus where he got basic ideas wrong. he's a pseudo intellectual poseur- and liar to boot
@TheLogic1010 dawkins wrote one of the most influential books in 20th C science-and many others, has MA, DPhil from oxford, published dozens of research papers in the scientific literature, was professor at UC at Berkeley, fellow of new college Oxford, lecturer then reader then professor at oxford, elected Fellow of the Royal Society (to give you an idea of that in my department of 60 professors 1 was FRS). his academic work had influenced thousands- few of whom have even heard of of berlinski.
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
D. Berlinski has no credibility among the scientific community, nor his mathematician peers:
"Newton's Gift and The Advent of the Algorithm, his only two books to be reviewed on MathSciNet, were criticized for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies" ams(.)org
".. true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data.." E. Scott, exec. dir. of National Center for Science Education
Why is Berlinski complaining about Dawkins philosopy ability? Dawkins isn't a philosopher. He's a scientists. Berlinski is neither. So, what's he talking about? Yeah, Dawkins is smart enough to discuss topics he knows something about. Berlinski isn't.
@blaisingm Do your homework before you start accusing. Dr. David Berlinski graduated from Columbia University and got his Ph.D. from Princeton in Philosophy. He also got a degree in mathematics and has written textbooks such as "A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). And as Im sure you know, math is key in understanding all the sciences.
@gregrutz Your forgetting his degree in mathematics as well as all the books he has written. As I said earlier, mathematics is the foundation for all sciences. Are you as ignorant as you sound? Or did you just read the first two lines and think you were some genius who could immediately prove your point?
@ZShel33 Yes he has a degree in math too, but Evolution is studied in Biology and he shows he does not understand evolution. Thanks for showing he knows nothing about science. And math is the language of science not it's foundation. It is just numbers.
@gregrutz Paleontologist use techniques such as stereology, dinosaur locomotion through biotechnological analysis, carbon dating, statistics, and many more procedures to derive their information. After reading your previous statements, I'm sure you have no idea what any of these things are, but I assure you that they all use math. Don't you need to speak a language to know and comprehend what is going on?
@gregrutz Holy. HOLY. Shit. I have never read something so incredibly ignorant in my entire life. Did you honestly just say a Paleontologist doesn't 'need' math? R-O-F-L! I love the arguments on Yoube, I cannot believe how purposefully dumb some people are. Without the binary elements of mathematics, powers of ten and sixty, division and emergent reality of numerical elements there would be NO SUCH THING as a paleontology. Please, PLEASE stop posting.
@gregrutz You're talking about a job that focuses on the systematic study of extinct societies, and the past of living societies, via the excavation, analysis and interpretation of their artifactual, human, and associated remains. Includes instruction in archeological theory, field methods, dating methods, conservation and museum studies, cultural and physical evolution, and the study of specific selected past cultures. Every single one of those skills requires tools 'based' in mathematics.
Dawkins is a DISGRACE to the scientific community.
Not to mention a possible Freemason and self admitted former Christian.
I dont trust a word that Dawkins has ever said on anything (especially since he is a known global government propagandist)
All anyone has to do is say "where is this shared ancestor?" in any debate with Dawkins to shut him down. Once he says "we BELIEVE it exists" he exposes his own hypocrisy lol
No CHLCA (chimpanzee-human last common ancestor) exists, period.
There are many ideas and beliefs about God. There maybe one out there that has it exactly right. There maybe some that have parts right. But we must honestly consider the possibility that everyone is wrong. Not that God doesn't exist necessarily, but that God is nothing like any of us have ever or could ever conceive.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
Here then, are some reasons to consider... if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...
How have you learned anything, by the way? Mostly by imitation, or diligent searching, study, and listening to others who don't necessarily have the right answers to guarantee a passing grade, in the big scheme, at least. Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God, if He is there, He assures us, "You will seek me and find me; WHEN you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."
How hard have you really looked? So you need to consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded
The "onus" as you put it, is on the individual to use his God given brain for self control of his rambling and willful rebellion and concede there may be a Creator or he couldn't decode a simple language, there couldn't be DNA without a designer, someone smarter than you, cleverly and brilliantly arranged each of us so unique, personally, that our fingerprints, tongues, et.al. are unusual, that is you are special...at least in God's eyes! Personally, I find scoffers rather arrogant and obtuse,
There are a multitude of proofs, and the evidence has been presented and verdict given. You can not use this excuse when you stand before your creator in the near future, and play dumb. If you can read or write, have access to a Bible or true believer in the Bible and it's God, then there will be no citing ignorance based on lack of proof! Comprehension difficulties, legitimate impairments, different story. We've been declaring proofs, actual evidence, along with God, throughout the ages. How h
Berlinski a crank, lol? Dawkins is the crank. Berlinski's right, he's not qualified in philosophy. Dawkins' books could be the course material for a graduate level class on logical fallacies.
Whoa there cowboy. I've read Dawkin's God Delusion book, and here's your problem. Some items, when discussed, take Dawkins OUT of his field of biology and into philosophy and metaphysics. I'm sorry, but when one addresses the topics covered in the God Delusion, it's philosophical, not biological. He is attempting to write philosophy, whether you like it or not. He addresses several of the theistic arguments in this book.
Now it's you who's obviously never read Dawkins. He addresses, for example, the ontological argument in his God Delusion book. This is purely a philosophical argument and has nothing to do with biology. He addresses other philosophical arguments as well.
For an easy example of some of Dawkin's fallacies - he uses the Genetic Fallacy quite often, claiming that the source of the belief determines its truth value. He mentions this in criticizing where people are born...
... and argues that this makes their beliefs questionable. The only problem is, atheism is subject to the same criticism. There are many others we could go through, but I think I've succeeded in proving that you haven't read his book and that you might not really know the difference between biology and philosophy...
The books I am referring to take a scientific approach which is, in light of no positive evidence, the default position is doubt.
If you are referring to "The God Delusion", he states quite clearly that he does NOT conclude that God is non-existent, but that the evidence for God is lacking. Therefore, by any scientific approach, the default position is doubt.
This is not philosophy, it is a productive methodology.
He doesn't take a scientific approach. Do you even know the difference between the scientific method and philosophy? At all?
And it's clear that Dawkins hedges his bets - on the one hand he calls belief in God a "delusion", which CLEARLY implies God does not exist, and then hedges his bets, as if that saves him any intellectual face.
It IS philosophy and it is NOT science. Sorry, you're 100% wrong on this point.
I most certainly do know the difference between the scientific method and philosophy. I have very little use for philosophy, but it is cute to hear philosophers ramble.
As bad as you and Berlinski feel Dawkins is as a philosopher (and I would agree), Berlinski is simply atrocious in his science.
Apparently you do not know the difference if you think that Dawkins' book was "science". You're continuing to step in your own pile of mistakes.
I am aware that Dawkins is a biologist. I'm also aware that the God Delusion was not a book on biology, and contained many philosophical arguments. Apparently this is a distinction (a book being separate and apart from the profession of its author) that you cannot mentally comprehend. Perhaps you DO need some logic lessons.
Actually, if you buy that line of arguments, then you, too, have just committed the genetic fallacy. But then again, you're not really that familiar with philosophy or logic, so I can see why a popular level book like that might entertain you. But the fact remains that his arguments aren't scientific and they're not logically sound at all.
And for the last time, I read the book. Obviously you didn't. Nor do you know logic from a hole in the ground.
You really do not know what you're talking about. Are you wanting a specific quote? We just discussed one. I posted it and then you parroted it. If X belief comes about in Y manner, then it is invalid. That is the classic genetic fallacy. As you yourself pointed out, it's a large part of Dawkins' book, and it's fallacious. I have a hunch you're not familiar with logical fallacies.
He offers geography as an explanation of why people believe whichever faith they follow, not as evidence that the belief is untrue.
You have completely misconstrued his argument.
Perhaps you have read his book, but you did not absorb it.
However, not that this is his argument, but the origin of a belief system that claims to be infallible and unchanging is absolutely relevant to its' veracity.
No, the genetic fallacy does not only apply to geography. It applies to ANY criticism of a belief that is based on HOW that belief came to be held. So not only does Dawkins commit the genetic fallacy with respect to geography, he commits it with respect to his entire line of reasoning related to how man came to believe in God. BOTH are the genetic fallacy.
I've not misconstrued his argument. I did read his book, and it is philosophical garbage.
I didn't say the genetic fallacy only referred to geography.
I said it doesn't apply.
Whether or not a belief is true, geography plays a role in whether or not you believe it, as does childhood indoctrination. That was the whole reason he brought up the grotesquery of identifying children by their parents beliefs.
It was an explanation of one method by which beliefs are propagated, not whether or not they are true.
Well then your logic skills are even more sorely lacking than I thought. You are aware that being born in certain parts of the country or world might increase your chance of being an atheist, too, right? I'm not misconstruing his argument. It's fallacious, and you're trying to put a patch on a fallacious argument and that won't work.
It is correct that being born in certain parts of the world might increase your chances of being atheist. It still has no bearing on the validity of atheistism. It's the same with religion. This part of his argument gives no validity to the veracity of any belief. It only explains why individual beliefs, or non-beliefs, tend to proliferate. Nothing more. And yes, you have clearly misconstrued that entire argument.
Hardly. I'm proving that Dawkins is using the genetic fallacy. You seem to agree that in fact, this line or reasoning is fallacious. Therefore you agree that to the extent Dawkins uses this line of reasoning, he is being fallacious in his arguments. Again, I've not misconstrued Dawkin's argument. If he wants to write a book on the history of religion, great. That in and of itself is not an argument against God.
If Dawkins was using geography as a reason why belief in God is incorrect, then I would agree with you that he is committing a genetic fallacy. As it happens, he does not make that claim (you are free to try to cite any passage where he does).
Simply explaining how religion proliferates is not the same as offering it as a reason for disbelief.
He uses it as an argument to claim that a belief in God is delusional. That is making the claim. Wrong again on your part. Otherwise, why would he mention it? A curious aside? An appeal to ridicule fallacy? Why precisely does he include that in his book if he's not using that to bolster his argument that God doesn't exist?
Answer? Because he is committing the genetic fallacy.
The thesis of the book is the delusion of religion to be certain.
Like any work related to science, he addresses arguments that others might levy against his thesis.
Even Darwin did this with his chapter "problems with the theory".
If you actually have a copy of it, you might notice that the first few chapters are not concerned with supporting his thesis, but but rather with exposing arguments for god as fallacious.
Trust me. I own a copy of it. He isn't saying God isn't real. He does, however, claim that the reasons thus far presented for a belief in God are unsubstantial, therefore, the belief in God, is a form of delusion.
IE, Whether or not there is a God, you must believe in the light of absolutely no evidence. - Which is actually advocated by Jesus, himself.
You still, have yet to quote even one philosophical argument which Dawkins makes in his book.
No thanks. I don't trust someone who thinks that calling a belief "delusional" is not saying that God doesn't exist. Perhaps it's a more politically correct, ass-covering way of stating his premise.
As to the claim that there is no evidence - this is also false. Everything is evidence, it's just interpreted differently.
Why bother quoting anything? You've demonstrated that you don't even know the difference between science and philosophy!
That's different than what I said. For instance, the fine tuning of the universe is evidence. Again, it's how the evidence is interpreted. You seem to not understand the distinction between evidence and proof.
First... If there was no universe, life, or planets, would that be proof that there is no God? If not, then the assumption of God does not predict any sort of fine-tuning at all.
Second, if the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is it that only an insignificant portion of it is hospitable to life and the remainder completely inhospitable.
The crux of your argument is that, if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. It is an empty bit of rhetoric.
It's not a matter of universe or no universe - it's a matter of the extreme tuning that has to occur for any universe to produce life. The assumption of God doesn't predict fine tuning? You have the argument backwards, genius.
Your comment as to why the remainder of the universe is inhostpitable is irrelevant. There is life, and it requires fine tuning of all of the constants.
It's not empty rhetoric, you seem to have trouble understanding logical arguments.
What you are doing is asserting that the universe is fine-tuned. You have no basis for this, nor can you establish that the universes "tuning" is the best tuning needed to accomodate life. You can't even define what life is.
There is nothing logical about your argument. It is based on unfounded assertions.
This will be my last post to you, since you're not an honest person.
I cannot define life? How do you know? You've never even asked me! That claim proves that you don't mind lying in order to try to score points. Sorry, try posting just one post with some actual substance. Prior to that, you might want to think about taking a logic class and then actually reading Dawkins' book.
Scientists have put forth lots of definitions of life, all very similar.
"Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations."
that's just from wiki - seems they deserve a prize, too... you going to send them a cookie?
What precisely is a "scientific source"? Now you're just making up crap. And in any case, the nature of the argument is such that ANY life is sufficient to demonstrate fine tuning. Now, surely you're not going to argue that there really is no life in this universe....
You don't know what a scientific source is and you have the audacity to claim that I am not current on my science.
When a new scientific discovery is made, it is published in what are called SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS with the step-by-step methodology on how such a discovery is made. This is so anyone, even you and I, can repeat the discovery. Others attempt to repeat the findings. This is something called "peer-review".
You're still asserting that life requires fine-tuning.
What, you mean a philosophical argument was dismantled by another philosophical argument?
Imagine that!
Philosophical arguments, especially the anthropic principle, are, by definition, unfalsifiable, and therefore beyond the realm of science.
You may also recall that Hoyle used the anthropic principle to formulate his theory of cometary bombardment as the cause of lifes diversity. How well do you think that little prediction is developing?
What was dismantled? The anthropic principle has not been "dismantled" by one lousy philosophy paper that you reference. Boy, you don't even have the reading comprehension ability sufficient to remember the line of argument you make.
And Hoyle isn't the only one who's made predictions using the anthropic principle. If you were "up to date" on science, you'd surely be aware of this little factoid.
Furthermore, you've negated Dawkins book completely by repeatedly stating that he's not in fact arguing against the existence of God. And if he's not, then the book is pointless. You then said that he's just arguing that the existence of God is "improbable". Great, however, Dawkins provides no rigorous calculation of said probability in the book. Too bad for you.
Again, the book is littered with logical fallacies that only pseudointellectuals like yourself enjoy.
No, he doesn't. Please, CITE ONE ARGUMENT OF DAWKINS in a logical format that clearly refutes any of the theistic arguments for God's existence. I won't hold my breath waiting.
And I hope you realize that all of science relies on math and logic, which are based on axioms, which are, at their core, unfounded assertions. Axioms are not proven. Arguing with a pseudointellectual like yourself gets frustrating - you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
He pretty much deconstructs Pascals wager as a false dichotomy (which it is) and argues that accepting it means you give up a fuller life and waste time with the alternatives being completely unfounded assertions.
Where is he wrong?
Science relies on repeatable, testable, evidence and hypotheses. I would agree that formulating hypotheses and developing theories requires logic, but the foundation of science lies in repeatability.
"fuller life" is subjective and purely Dawkins' opinion, not a logical argument. Dawkins' criticism therefore fails miserably. Since the definition of a "full life" could very easily mean living righteously, monogamously, and soberly, Dawkins has no grounds to say that religious people don't lead full lives. It's strictly opinion.
Sorry, you fail for that reason and another main reason - Pascal's Wager is not a theistic argument for God's existence. Oops again on your part.
"righteous" and "soberly" are also abstract terms. What he addresses is specifically the catholic position on condoms and other harmful decrees of religion.
Again, I fully admit that philosophy is not my area. Please define, or give an example of a "theistic" argument.
I didn't say abstract, I said subjective. Learn the difference. And who are you (or Dawkins) to dictate what a "full life" is? It's subjective, ergo Dawkins' Wager fails miserably.
I've kind of let you ask all the questions and make demands so far, without really pressing you to put forth an argument (which you haven't so far). So, which argument of Dawkins, stated formally, do you think is his best argument against the God? I'll wait to respond to any further messages from you until you post a response to this.
No, but Dawkins is still arguing against the existence of God in his book, which you like to defend. And you've still not posted one single logical argument supporting his arguments.
Also, if we're not allowed to infer design or intelligence from digital information contained in nature, or the order of the universe, how precisely are SETI researchers supposed to be able to tell that a particular message is from an intelligent life form?
""How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is much better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'
Appeal to ridicule fallacy. This is an untrue assertion, and ignorant of the Bible itself.
So what's his point? Just to insult intelligent people with broad generalizations, or to show that God doesn't exist? Again, if he spends 3/4 of the book making fun of religious people, what good is the book, except to stroke the egos of atheists?
You don't have to be psychic to catch his appeal to ridicule fallacies. A little skill in reading comprehension will allow you to grasp that he is.
In context, it doesn't prove anything because it's both an appeal to ridicule fallacy and certain of those fallacies also commit the genetic fallacy.
I personally don't find it insulting in the least. But that's because the book is so poorly written with so many errors that I cannot force myself to take it seriously.
And yet you can't make your case that it is poorly written. The best you can say is that you disagree and then follow it with your own preordained bias.
I have made the case. I've named many instances where he's used logically fallacious reasoning. That indicates it is poorly written. It's not bias, it's logic, lol.
You've named instances where you are expecting the refutation of an ID assertion to be a refutation of the existence of God.
Creationists (not that I think you are one) often assume that disproving evolution proves creation. You are somehow applying that flawed logic as a criticism of Dawkins refutations of ID assertions.
Read the chapter as a stand-alone and you will see my point.
Berlinski's body language and speech are designed, wittingly or unwittingly, to give the impression of intellectual superiority. Yet what he actually says is idiotic. He shows the traits of a sociopath, someone who will say anything to reach notoriety as he knows he is blessed with intellectual mediocrity in the field of science. To compare Berlinksi with Dawkins is a joke.
movieklump 3 weeks ago
Argument from authority...and ad hominem.
There is no argument here
ThieleM 1 month ago
I'd take the Evolutionary Biologist over the Theologian any day of the week. He at last has the logic and critical thinking to build an argument backed up with evidence rather than defaulting to the "I Believe" reponse of theologians.
LogicIrrefutable 2 months ago
@LogicIrrefutable Oh, by the way, He is a mathematician.
chichipukaka 1 month ago
@chichipukaka
But he isn't a very good mathematician.
mathforphysics 1 month ago
@LogicIrrefutable Those 2 arguments don't belong in the same room. Evolutionary Biology is not an argument against creationism. Hence, why Dawkins treads on thin ice in offering his opinion based on scientific data. Scientific data has yet to prove or disprove intelligent design. Until it does, personal belief will rule. It's simple.
quanahblaine 3 weeks ago
@quanahblaine Design is not intelligent. eg, your teeth, your back, your appendix etc etc Therefore there is
a) no intelligent design.
b) the designer is an idiot
c) people who believe in intelligent design are idiots.
movieklump 3 weeks ago
@movieklump Do yourself a favor: Put more thought into your argument. I'm going to immediately dismiss it like I would a court jester who's antics have become old. No matter anyone's opinion, the one that provides the greatest debate is the one that has the most compelling language, not the most elementary school language.
quanahblaine 3 weeks ago
@quanahblaine Four ad hominem attacks without ANY argument what so ever.
"Put more thought into your argument". ad hominem
"....court jester" ad hominem.
"....most compelling language" ad hominem
"elementary school language" ad hominem.
Four ad hominem attacks in one paragraph, all delivered with smug derision without ANY counter argument at all.
Congratulations!
You just proved that personal belief is like mental manure without the scientific method.
movieklump 3 weeks ago
@movieklump Ah. The old "ad hominem" counter from an "ad hominem" counter. Good luck movieklump. You obviously inferred something from my original statement to think it qualifies this type of response. I consider this matter closed.
quanahblaine 3 weeks ago
If you lack factual argument, insert insult.
Lobos222 2 months ago
reptile has this guy looked in the mirror?
RAMSEY1987 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RAMSEY1987
"reptile has this guy looked in the mirror?"
He probably wasn't referring to Dawkins' appearance.
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
nothing you said is based on fact I won’t take it to heart. I am not saying the sates is a bad place to live I love visiting. People are nice and friendly, it’s just there are a lot of nut job too, as in the two in this Vid. As for immoral country, not sure on your facts. UK is just as moral or immoral as any other western technologically advanced democratic society, however we don’t have the republican party or their lunatic fringe off shoot the tea party...so at lest we have going for us lol
RAMSEY1987 2 months ago
Though I agree with many of Berlinski's points, this was an unwarranted ad hominem attack against Dawkins. This kind of childish side-swiping is more characteristic of the New Atheist approach to argumentation.
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 really? side swiping.
RAMSEY1987 2 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RAMSEY1987
Sideswipe n. an unexpected criticism of someone or something while discussing another subject
Calenfeyn41 1 month ago
David Berlinski, Marry me.
modill31788 3 months ago
shameful just shocking i hope these nut cases do not cross the pond and pollute British shores. their numbers are few and i hope that they remain that way.
RAMSEY1987 3 months ago
@RAMSEY1987 You mean you enjoy being one the most immoral countries in the world? Enjoy your sharia law. By the way how many adoptions does England participate in every year of children all over the world? How many international charity organizations come from England? Not compare that with the US numbers.
...I here crickets!
cctman 2 months ago
Comment removed
LowresTV 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cctman And how many countryes the U.S. screwed since its foundation? Stole 1/3 of the Mexico territory, supported ALL dictarotships in south america in the 70's,(the lis is LARGE) invaded Irak for oil(there are still today a lot of dictartorships "Saddam-like" in the world, specially Africa, but they don't even show it in the nothramerican media. No sorry, but your country have no morals to criticise others.
LowresTV 2 months ago
Ok Evos explain how abiogenisis can achieve chirality. How can BILLIONS of amino acids form molecules with all left-handedness to form DNA. This isn't debatable you cannot randomly achieve chirality. If you cannot provide a mechanism to explain your theory, Aabiogenesis cannot be considered. Not until you you give a testable, verifiable solution. The scientific method requires OBSERVATION!! You can't say just because we don't know, someday we might. True science demands proof.
philackey 4 months ago 11
@philackey Dang, you're right. God did it. Well, back to the drawing board.
murdocha 2 weeks ago
Why are creationists so arrogant? The ignorant's arrogance.
LowresTV 4 months ago 3
@LowresTV Last time I checked Richard Dawkins was still an evolutionist!
cctman 2 months ago
@cctman Sure. Do you want him to go crazy and go to the CREaTIoNiSts club?
LowresTV 2 months ago
@LowresTV they know deep down they are wrong so what else do they have
RAMSEY1987 2 months ago
Comment removed
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RAMSEY1987
"[theists] know deep down they are wrong so what else do they have"
As an ex-atheist, I have to say that this comment is quite a clear-cut case of projection.
When I was an atheist arguing against the theistic position, I used to do so feeling deep down that I was fundamentally in the wrong - despite any meaningful religious teaching in my life.
It took a lot of epistemological reflection to fully appreciate how wrong I was.
Calenfeyn41 1 month ago
@LowresTV Berlinski is an agnostic, not a creationist. Why do atheists call anyone who disagrees with them creationists without having a clue about their true position?
bestvalue 2 weeks ago
@bestvalue berlinki takes hand outs from the so-called discovery so-called institute the hub of the intelligent design creationist movement. he devotes his energy to sneering at science and never utters a syllable of criticism of dembski, wells, meyer et al. because he knows who lines his pockets. yes he's an agnostic wrt evolution and just about everything else- to be otherwise he might actually involve having to defend a position and he'd then be exposed as the vacuous fraud he is.
mcmanustony 1 day ago
Tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz
Tweedle dumb, and Tweedle dumber.
nolobede 4 months ago
@MagnusCattus Gigantic holes? Hardly.There are definitely some "blank spaces",but never big enough for the whole thing to crumble. Yet CREaTIoNiSts cling to them desperately and present as "proofs" in favor of their lunacy. You can't say there are any holes in CREaTIoNiSt theory as it is one big hole filled with your senile "god". And that's why your anti-scientific heroes can only base their assessments on negation of someone's else findings as they have nothing except their own delusion
XMisanthropyPureX 4 months ago
@XMisanthropyPureX How about the foundation of evolution itself the theory of Abiogenisis? You know the one that has been discredited by Louis Pasteur like 1000 years ago. No foundation no theory. O take a note. If some whacko young earth creationist spouts something untrue that doesn't all of a sudden make evolution true.The scientific method doesn't require a theory to be replaced for it to be proven untrue. Well maybe with the excepton of evolution?
philackey 4 months ago
@philackey You are incorrect. Evolution may still be true even if life did not come about without a creator initiating it. Evolution points to variation, therefore the foundations of evolution is this variation.
And I think I might add that even though there are some holes in how abiogenesis occurred, when we test this in a the potential conditions we continuously find that it is possible for the building blocks of life to come into existence naturally. Don't know yet isn't will never know.
TheAtheologian 4 months ago
The fact that "doctor" Berlinski has no academic credentials would never be a problem for his moronic creationist cheerleaders. They would probably see it as a proof of a huge conspiracy of "darwinists" trying to silence and isolate their opposition. That's the problem with deluded individuals - they will never accept the truth
XMisanthropyPureX 5 months ago
@XMisanthropyPureX couldn't have put it better myself, there are gigantic holes in the evolutionary theory that are ignored, but the lack of evidence is fine because repetition works better then facts do.
MagnusCattus 4 months ago
@MagnusCattus
so um what evidence is lacking?? Or is only your understanding lacking?
rafko250 4 months ago
For the truth about religion & top Bible scholarship try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life '. Also Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, John W. Loftus, Victor J. Stenger. For humanity's shared moral core & belief in Matt 7v12 The Golden Rule try wisdomcommons. Also try comparative religion- read the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani & the Koran & Book of Mormon on skepticsannotatedbible. No one would give credence to such writings except for peer pressure & threats of death & hell. See. RichardDawkinsnet
zytigon 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The answer from corporate religious fanatics, of the 21st century, to all things mysterious & contrary is: EVOLUTION. To Darwin's caretakers: It's incumbent upon the person making any claim to bring forth evidence. Explain endogenous retroviruses? Explain the common cold virus. Explain porcine influenza. Expound upon the benefits of chemical therapies as proffered by the mainstream cancer industry. Your religion is foundering. Why don't you pursue legitimate studies? What are you afraid of?
procommenter 5 months ago
cute :)
TJae1 5 months ago
"Little bit of a reptile!!"- says the man who pretended to have a doctorate in mathematics when he has none, lied about associtations with various great scientists, lied about von neumann's rejection of evolution....and now thinks he's an expert on reptiles.
what a pretentious, vacuous fraud of a man.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony Pfft!, watch dawkins interview with Ben stein, then you will see who the real fraud is!.
dawkins is clearly all about throwing his own opinion and pomp around, nothing else.
85Aheadstix 5 months ago
@85Aheadstix
I've seen stein's heavily and dishonestly edited "interview" with dawkins.
"nothing else"- really? Nothing? He wrote one of the most influential books in 20thC science (berlinski has written pop math books that should be given away free with matchboxes). he's authored dozens of papers in the scientific research literature of which you've clearly read not a single one. DB has done nothing.
why not find a subject you know something about and pontificate on that.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@85Aheadstix Better to give you own opinion that profess to give the opinion of an invisible guy in the sky who doesn't exist.
hydrolito 5 months ago
wow.. he actually makes ben stein look smart
DaFleegsta 6 months ago
David Berlinski would win any debate with Richard Dawkins. The word Evolution has been hijacked by Darwinists. Evolution is a fact of how life evolved on earth. Darwinism is a belief system that is promoted as science. Do not confuse the terms. Evolution is not equal to Darwinism. The theory of evolution should be called The theory of Darwinism.
TheLogic1010 6 months ago
@TheLogic1010
"David Berlinski would win any debate with Richard Dawkins"- he already tried and lost.
" The word Evolution has been hijacked by Darwinists"- you've not the faintest idea what you are talking about.
"The theory of evolution should be called The theory of Darwinism. "- tripe. the TofE has moved on from Darwin. it should no more be called darwinism than relativity should be called newtonism.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony The TTOE has only moved on with trying to brainwash the public into believing this faith system. Neo Darwinsim needs a act of faith to believe that complex life evolved from inorganic matter? Evolutionists are promoting a new(old) religion called Neo Darwinism. The only hope, that a new enlightened team of scientists will one day put this faith based theory to bed.
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 ToE has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. it is supported by a mass of evidence as great as any scientific theory in history.
It is not religion- who, in your fevered imagination, are the "priests" of evolution? what are its rituals?
I hope you're not waiting for berlinski's enlightenment. He's been doing no more than getting away with it for years. he's discovered nothing, published next to nothing and is treated by gullible fools like you as an intellectual colossus...
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony The gullible fool can only be found in yourself! Show me 100% concrete proof of the validity of TTOE. Evidence will not be accepted. Only 100% proof.
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010
"Evidence will not be accepted"- good grief.
have you ANY idea how utterly idiotic that statement is? you've obviously wasted much of you time on this planet being dumbed down by pseudo intellectual frauds like berlinski.....you'll waste no more of mine.
grow a brain....for the love of jesus if no other reason presents itself.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony Circumstantial evidence that should be. Grow a brain?? Is that a Darwinian belief. I don't do Jesus mate! The biggest pseudoscientist has got to be Dawkins.
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 you seriously want to compare dawkins with a narcissistic bore like belinski? ok- let's do that.
berlinski has pretended to have a Phd in mathematics. he doesn't. he's held a number of teaching jobs and been fired from each one. he has claimed to have done work on differential topology with Rene Thom though a search of academic publications produced no such work. he's written a pop book on calculus where he got basic ideas wrong. he's a pseudo intellectual poseur- and liar to boot
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010 dawkins wrote one of the most influential books in 20th C science-and many others, has MA, DPhil from oxford, published dozens of research papers in the scientific literature, was professor at UC at Berkeley, fellow of new college Oxford, lecturer then reader then professor at oxford, elected Fellow of the Royal Society (to give you an idea of that in my department of 60 professors 1 was FRS). his academic work had influenced thousands- few of whom have even heard of of berlinski.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010
can you give an example of a scientific theory you accept and the piece of evidence that you regard as having provided "proof"?
you don't seem to know what these words mean....
mcmanustony 5 months ago
@mcmanustony Lets stick to Evolution theory before moving on!
TheLogic1010 5 months ago
@TheLogic1010
before you can move anywhere you have to learn the meanings of these words. you don't understand them at present.
mcmanustony 5 months ago
Evolutionism demands a disconnection from reality. Its purpose is to numb, anesthetize, beleaguer & tranquilize. Logic, experience, morality, altruism can find no home, nor niche, in this inhuman, eugenics-based orthodoxy that purports a science (a knowledge) of an antiquity that realistically could not be. An antiquity populated by mutants in transition; weakened by their impossible plight of digits/appendages & internal organs irreconcilably at odds with the water, land & climate.
ScientificalnessUSA 7 months ago
PS: It should be said that I fully agree with Berlinski - He's dead on.
lamuziq 8 months ago
@lamuziq Butinski bad-mouths evolution, he adds nothing to science. A paid bull shitter.
gregrutz 8 months ago
simply becuase you dont like waht he added(critiscism) does not mean he added nothing
zenithar6666 6 months ago
D. Berlinski has no credibility among the scientific community, nor his mathematician peers:
"Newton's Gift and The Advent of the Algorithm, his only two books to be reviewed on MathSciNet, were criticized for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies" ams(.)org
".. true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data.." E. Scott, exec. dir. of National Center for Science Education
ZZzzzzzWhat 9 months ago
Comment removed
ZShel33 9 months ago
What a slouch.
gregrutz 9 months ago
He has Dawkins pegged, huh?
TheXiantruth 10 months ago
Why is Berlinski complaining about Dawkins philosopy ability? Dawkins isn't a philosopher. He's a scientists. Berlinski is neither. So, what's he talking about? Yeah, Dawkins is smart enough to discuss topics he knows something about. Berlinski isn't.
blaisingm 1 year ago
@blaisingm Do your homework before you start accusing. Dr. David Berlinski graduated from Columbia University and got his Ph.D. from Princeton in Philosophy. He also got a degree in mathematics and has written textbooks such as "A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). And as Im sure you know, math is key in understanding all the sciences.
ZShel33 10 months ago
@ZShel33 Ph.D. from Princeton in Philosophy.
THANK YOU FOR SHOWING MR. BUTINSKI IS NOT A BIOLOGIST, AND NOT A SCIENTIST !
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Your forgetting his degree in mathematics as well as all the books he has written. As I said earlier, mathematics is the foundation for all sciences. Are you as ignorant as you sound? Or did you just read the first two lines and think you were some genius who could immediately prove your point?
ZShel33 9 months ago
@ZShel33 Yes he has a degree in math too, but Evolution is studied in Biology and he shows he does not understand evolution. Thanks for showing he knows nothing about science. And math is the language of science not it's foundation. It is just numbers.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@ZShel33 '' math is key in understanding all the sciences. ''
Wrong, why does a Paleontologist need to understand math?
Mr. Butinski knows math and he doesn't understand Evolution.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Paleontologist use techniques such as stereology, dinosaur locomotion through biotechnological analysis, carbon dating, statistics, and many more procedures to derive their information. After reading your previous statements, I'm sure you have no idea what any of these things are, but I assure you that they all use math. Don't you need to speak a language to know and comprehend what is going on?
ZShel33 9 months ago
@gregrutz Holy. HOLY. Shit. I have never read something so incredibly ignorant in my entire life. Did you honestly just say a Paleontologist doesn't 'need' math? R-O-F-L! I love the arguments on Yoube, I cannot believe how purposefully dumb some people are. Without the binary elements of mathematics, powers of ten and sixty, division and emergent reality of numerical elements there would be NO SUCH THING as a paleontology. Please, PLEASE stop posting.
lamuziq 8 months ago
@lamuziq Why do you need math to study fossils dummy.
gregrutz 8 months ago
@gregrutz You're talking about a job that focuses on the systematic study of extinct societies, and the past of living societies, via the excavation, analysis and interpretation of their artifactual, human, and associated remains. Includes instruction in archeological theory, field methods, dating methods, conservation and museum studies, cultural and physical evolution, and the study of specific selected past cultures. Every single one of those skills requires tools 'based' in mathematics.
lamuziq 8 months ago
@lamuziq archeologists?!?! I said Paleontologist.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Dawkins evolved from a Reptile :D
bader3dwan 1 year ago
Dawkins is a DISGRACE to the scientific community.
Not to mention a possible Freemason and self admitted former Christian.
I dont trust a word that Dawkins has ever said on anything (especially since he is a known global government propagandist)
All anyone has to do is say "where is this shared ancestor?" in any debate with Dawkins to shut him down. Once he says "we BELIEVE it exists" he exposes his own hypocrisy lol
No CHLCA (chimpanzee-human last common ancestor) exists, period.
buffboynick 1 year ago
There are many ideas and beliefs about God. There maybe one out there that has it exactly right. There maybe some that have parts right. But we must honestly consider the possibility that everyone is wrong. Not that God doesn't exist necessarily, but that God is nothing like any of us have ever or could ever conceive.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.
ymoore2563 1 year ago
Here then, are some reasons to consider... if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...
ymoore2563 1 year ago
How have you learned anything, by the way? Mostly by imitation, or diligent searching, study, and listening to others who don't necessarily have the right answers to guarantee a passing grade, in the big scheme, at least. Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?
ymoore2563 1 year ago
When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God, if He is there, He assures us, "You will seek me and find me; WHEN you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."
ymoore2563 1 year ago
How hard have you really looked? So you need to consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded
ymoore2563 1 year ago
Personally, I find scoffers rather arrogant and obtuse, but he is much more patient and merciful than humans could ever hope to be.
ymoore2563 1 year ago
The "onus" as you put it, is on the individual to use his God given brain for self control of his rambling and willful rebellion and concede there may be a Creator or he couldn't decode a simple language, there couldn't be DNA without a designer, someone smarter than you, cleverly and brilliantly arranged each of us so unique, personally, that our fingerprints, tongues, et.al. are unusual, that is you are special...at least in God's eyes! Personally, I find scoffers rather arrogant and obtuse,
ymoore2563 1 year ago
There are a multitude of proofs, and the evidence has been presented and verdict given. You can not use this excuse when you stand before your creator in the near future, and play dumb. If you can read or write, have access to a Bible or true believer in the Bible and it's God, then there will be no citing ignorance based on lack of proof! Comprehension difficulties, legitimate impairments, different story. We've been declaring proofs, actual evidence, along with God, throughout the ages. How h
ymoore2563 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins checks under his bed and in the closet for Berlinski before lacing up his night gown
salmagnum 1 year ago
Berlinski a crank, lol? Dawkins is the crank. Berlinski's right, he's not qualified in philosophy. Dawkins' books could be the course material for a graduate level class on logical fallacies.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
I realize you can't be bothered to actually read Dawkins writings, but if you did, you would know that Dawkins does not claim to be a philosopher.
His arguments are based on scientific evidence.
Philosophy, by definition, is based on pure speculation.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Whoa there cowboy. I've read Dawkin's God Delusion book, and here's your problem. Some items, when discussed, take Dawkins OUT of his field of biology and into philosophy and metaphysics. I'm sorry, but when one addresses the topics covered in the God Delusion, it's philosophical, not biological. He is attempting to write philosophy, whether you like it or not. He addresses several of the theistic arguments in this book.
So, you're wrong. Sorry.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Feel free to give an example and then, go further than Berlinski and explain exactly why this philosophical argument is flawed.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Now it's you who's obviously never read Dawkins. He addresses, for example, the ontological argument in his God Delusion book. This is purely a philosophical argument and has nothing to do with biology. He addresses other philosophical arguments as well.
For an easy example of some of Dawkin's fallacies - he uses the Genetic Fallacy quite often, claiming that the source of the belief determines its truth value. He mentions this in criticizing where people are born...
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
... and argues that this makes their beliefs questionable. The only problem is, atheism is subject to the same criticism. There are many others we could go through, but I think I've succeeded in proving that you haven't read his book and that you might not really know the difference between biology and philosophy...
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Which book are you referring to?
The books I am referring to take a scientific approach which is, in light of no positive evidence, the default position is doubt.
If you are referring to "The God Delusion", he states quite clearly that he does NOT conclude that God is non-existent, but that the evidence for God is lacking. Therefore, by any scientific approach, the default position is doubt.
This is not philosophy, it is a productive methodology.
qabala 1 year ago
He doesn't take a scientific approach. Do you even know the difference between the scientific method and philosophy? At all?
And it's clear that Dawkins hedges his bets - on the one hand he calls belief in God a "delusion", which CLEARLY implies God does not exist, and then hedges his bets, as if that saves him any intellectual face.
It IS philosophy and it is NOT science. Sorry, you're 100% wrong on this point.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
I most certainly do know the difference between the scientific method and philosophy. I have very little use for philosophy, but it is cute to hear philosophers ramble.
As bad as you and Berlinski feel Dawkins is as a philosopher (and I would agree), Berlinski is simply atrocious in his science.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Apparently you do not know the difference if you think that Dawkins' book was "science". You're continuing to step in your own pile of mistakes.
I am aware that Dawkins is a biologist. I'm also aware that the God Delusion was not a book on biology, and contained many philosophical arguments. Apparently this is a distinction (a book being separate and apart from the profession of its author) that you cannot mentally comprehend. Perhaps you DO need some logic lessons.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Actually, His book proposes a very predictable, and evidence based, explanation for why people have a belief in the supernatural.
If you didn't catch that, you obviously didn't read his book at all.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Actually, if you buy that line of arguments, then you, too, have just committed the genetic fallacy. But then again, you're not really that familiar with philosophy or logic, so I can see why a popular level book like that might entertain you. But the fact remains that his arguments aren't scientific and they're not logically sound at all.
And for the last time, I read the book. Obviously you didn't. Nor do you know logic from a hole in the ground.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
You still have yet to post any philosophical argument he made in the book. You've simply made the blanket statement that his thesis is philosophical.
Again, if you had read the book, you would be able to post which arguments he makes which are philosophical.
At best, he refutes philosophical arguments with scientific reasoning.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
You really do not know what you're talking about. Are you wanting a specific quote? We just discussed one. I posted it and then you parroted it. If X belief comes about in Y manner, then it is invalid. That is the classic genetic fallacy. As you yourself pointed out, it's a large part of Dawkins' book, and it's fallacious. I have a hunch you're not familiar with logical fallacies.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Ahhh. Now I see where you are going.
And you are wrong.
He offers geography as an explanation of why people believe whichever faith they follow, not as evidence that the belief is untrue.
You have completely misconstrued his argument.
Perhaps you have read his book, but you did not absorb it.
However, not that this is his argument, but the origin of a belief system that claims to be infallible and unchanging is absolutely relevant to its' veracity.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
No, the genetic fallacy does not only apply to geography. It applies to ANY criticism of a belief that is based on HOW that belief came to be held. So not only does Dawkins commit the genetic fallacy with respect to geography, he commits it with respect to his entire line of reasoning related to how man came to believe in God. BOTH are the genetic fallacy.
I've not misconstrued his argument. I did read his book, and it is philosophical garbage.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
I didn't say the genetic fallacy only referred to geography.
I said it doesn't apply.
Whether or not a belief is true, geography plays a role in whether or not you believe it, as does childhood indoctrination. That was the whole reason he brought up the grotesquery of identifying children by their parents beliefs.
It was an explanation of one method by which beliefs are propagated, not whether or not they are true.
And yes, you are misconstruing his argument.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
"I said it doesn't apply."
Well then your logic skills are even more sorely lacking than I thought. You are aware that being born in certain parts of the country or world might increase your chance of being an atheist, too, right? I'm not misconstruing his argument. It's fallacious, and you're trying to put a patch on a fallacious argument and that won't work.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
It is correct that being born in certain parts of the world might increase your chances of being atheist. It still has no bearing on the validity of atheistism. It's the same with religion. This part of his argument gives no validity to the veracity of any belief. It only explains why individual beliefs, or non-beliefs, tend to proliferate. Nothing more. And yes, you have clearly misconstrued that entire argument.
You've been making a null point.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Hardly. I'm proving that Dawkins is using the genetic fallacy. You seem to agree that in fact, this line or reasoning is fallacious. Therefore you agree that to the extent Dawkins uses this line of reasoning, he is being fallacious in his arguments. Again, I've not misconstrued Dawkin's argument. If he wants to write a book on the history of religion, great. That in and of itself is not an argument against God.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
If Dawkins was using geography as a reason why belief in God is incorrect, then I would agree with you that he is committing a genetic fallacy. As it happens, he does not make that claim (you are free to try to cite any passage where he does).
Simply explaining how religion proliferates is not the same as offering it as a reason for disbelief.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
He uses it as an argument to claim that a belief in God is delusional. That is making the claim. Wrong again on your part. Otherwise, why would he mention it? A curious aside? An appeal to ridicule fallacy? Why precisely does he include that in his book if he's not using that to bolster his argument that God doesn't exist?
Answer? Because he is committing the genetic fallacy.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
The thesis of the book is the delusion of religion to be certain.
Like any work related to science, he addresses arguments that others might levy against his thesis.
Even Darwin did this with his chapter "problems with the theory".
If you actually have a copy of it, you might notice that the first few chapters are not concerned with supporting his thesis, but but rather with exposing arguments for god as fallacious.
Even Christian apologists do this.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
If something is a delusion, then it is not real. Ergo, Dawkins is saying that God isn't real.
Those "other arguments" are philosophical.
Yes, I have my copy, the same chapters are philosophical in nature, not scientific.
Look, just run out and buy a copy and read it.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Trust me. I own a copy of it. He isn't saying God isn't real. He does, however, claim that the reasons thus far presented for a belief in God are unsubstantial, therefore, the belief in God, is a form of delusion.
IE, Whether or not there is a God, you must believe in the light of absolutely no evidence. - Which is actually advocated by Jesus, himself.
You still, have yet to quote even one philosophical argument which Dawkins makes in his book.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
No thanks. I don't trust someone who thinks that calling a belief "delusional" is not saying that God doesn't exist. Perhaps it's a more politically correct, ass-covering way of stating his premise.
As to the claim that there is no evidence - this is also false. Everything is evidence, it's just interpreted differently.
Why bother quoting anything? You've demonstrated that you don't even know the difference between science and philosophy!
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
"Everything is evidence".
Okay then. Tell me what testable, repeatable, predictions we can make about the universe based on the assumption that God exists.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
That's different than what I said. For instance, the fine tuning of the universe is evidence. Again, it's how the evidence is interpreted. You seem to not understand the distinction between evidence and proof.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
Comment removed
qabala 1 year ago
The universe is fine-tuned?
Really?
For what?
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
The existence of life, the creation of stars and planets, etc.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
First... If there was no universe, life, or planets, would that be proof that there is no God? If not, then the assumption of God does not predict any sort of fine-tuning at all.
Second, if the universe is fine-tuned for life, why is it that only an insignificant portion of it is hospitable to life and the remainder completely inhospitable.
The crux of your argument is that, if things were different, they wouldn't be the same. It is an empty bit of rhetoric.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
It's not a matter of universe or no universe - it's a matter of the extreme tuning that has to occur for any universe to produce life. The assumption of God doesn't predict fine tuning? You have the argument backwards, genius.
Your comment as to why the remainder of the universe is inhostpitable is irrelevant. There is life, and it requires fine tuning of all of the constants.
It's not empty rhetoric, you seem to have trouble understanding logical arguments.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
What you are doing is asserting that the universe is fine-tuned. You have no basis for this, nor can you establish that the universes "tuning" is the best tuning needed to accomodate life. You can't even define what life is.
There is nothing logical about your argument. It is based on unfounded assertions.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
This will be my last post to you, since you're not an honest person.
I cannot define life? How do you know? You've never even asked me! That claim proves that you don't mind lying in order to try to score points. Sorry, try posting just one post with some actual substance. Prior to that, you might want to think about taking a logic class and then actually reading Dawkins' book.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
If you can define life, you would be able to collect one hell of a prize.
To this day, scientists have no idea where to draw the line between life and non-life.
I suppose I should apologize for assuming you had succeeded where nobody else, to date, has been able to.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Scientists have put forth lots of definitions of life, all very similar.
"Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations."
that's just from wiki - seems they deserve a prize, too... you going to send them a cookie?
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
So now wikipedia is a scientific source?
If that definition is accurate, why can't scientists come to a consensus on whether viruses or prions are alive?
Find a scientific source for your definition and I'll send them a cookie, but I'll give you all the credit.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
What precisely is a "scientific source"? Now you're just making up crap. And in any case, the nature of the argument is such that ANY life is sufficient to demonstrate fine tuning. Now, surely you're not going to argue that there really is no life in this universe....
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
You don't know what a scientific source is and you have the audacity to claim that I am not current on my science.
When a new scientific discovery is made, it is published in what are called SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS with the step-by-step methodology on how such a discovery is made. This is so anyone, even you and I, can repeat the discovery. Others attempt to repeat the findings. This is something called "peer-review".
You're still asserting that life requires fine-tuning.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Uhh, the paper you're referring to was a philosophical paper, not a scientific one. Maybe you should add it to your reading list.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
What, you mean a philosophical argument was dismantled by another philosophical argument?
Imagine that!
Philosophical arguments, especially the anthropic principle, are, by definition, unfalsifiable, and therefore beyond the realm of science.
You may also recall that Hoyle used the anthropic principle to formulate his theory of cometary bombardment as the cause of lifes diversity. How well do you think that little prediction is developing?
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
What was dismantled? The anthropic principle has not been "dismantled" by one lousy philosophy paper that you reference. Boy, you don't even have the reading comprehension ability sufficient to remember the line of argument you make.
And Hoyle isn't the only one who's made predictions using the anthropic principle. If you were "up to date" on science, you'd surely be aware of this little factoid.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Let's do this the other way around then. Try citing a peer-reviewed paper on anything which uses the anthropic principle to predict anything.
Or even better, a peer-reviewed paper which establishes the anthropic principle as a reality.
You keep saying I'm not up to date on science, but you seem to get your science from pop-culture publications.
And BTW, Dawkins takes on the anthropic principle in two separate chapters.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Furthermore, you've negated Dawkins book completely by repeatedly stating that he's not in fact arguing against the existence of God. And if he's not, then the book is pointless. You then said that he's just arguing that the existence of God is "improbable". Great, however, Dawkins provides no rigorous calculation of said probability in the book. Too bad for you.
Again, the book is littered with logical fallacies that only pseudointellectuals like yourself enjoy.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Dawkins does, however, dismantle most of the arguments commonly used to support belief in God.
Once the arguments for a proposition are dismantled, there is no reason to accept it. This is the default position of science.
I have no argument with you if you agree that the only arguments for God are philosophical, but philosophy, at best, is unfounded assertions.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
No, he doesn't. Please, CITE ONE ARGUMENT OF DAWKINS in a logical format that clearly refutes any of the theistic arguments for God's existence. I won't hold my breath waiting.
And I hope you realize that all of science relies on math and logic, which are based on axioms, which are, at their core, unfounded assertions. Axioms are not proven. Arguing with a pseudointellectual like yourself gets frustrating - you really don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
He pretty much deconstructs Pascals wager as a false dichotomy (which it is) and argues that accepting it means you give up a fuller life and waste time with the alternatives being completely unfounded assertions.
Where is he wrong?
Science relies on repeatable, testable, evidence and hypotheses. I would agree that formulating hypotheses and developing theories requires logic, but the foundation of science lies in repeatability.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
"fuller life" is subjective and purely Dawkins' opinion, not a logical argument. Dawkins' criticism therefore fails miserably. Since the definition of a "full life" could very easily mean living righteously, monogamously, and soberly, Dawkins has no grounds to say that religious people don't lead full lives. It's strictly opinion.
Sorry, you fail for that reason and another main reason - Pascal's Wager is not a theistic argument for God's existence. Oops again on your part.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
"righteous" and "soberly" are also abstract terms. What he addresses is specifically the catholic position on condoms and other harmful decrees of religion.
Again, I fully admit that philosophy is not my area. Please define, or give an example of a "theistic" argument.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
I didn't say abstract, I said subjective. Learn the difference. And who are you (or Dawkins) to dictate what a "full life" is? It's subjective, ergo Dawkins' Wager fails miserably.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
We aren't discussing "Dawkins' wager" we're discussing the weakness of Pascals wager which, beside any subjective arguments, is a false dichotomy.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Dawkins responds to Pascal's Wager by forming a wager of his own. Had you read the book, you'd know that.
Again, where have you stated an argument at all in this entire discussion? I don't think you even can.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@qabala
I've kind of let you ask all the questions and make demands so far, without really pressing you to put forth an argument (which you haven't so far). So, which argument of Dawkins, stated formally, do you think is his best argument against the God? I'll wait to respond to any further messages from you until you post a response to this.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
I already told you I don't find any of his arguments against God compelling.
Shall I quote myself for you?
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
No, but Dawkins is still arguing against the existence of God in his book, which you like to defend. And you've still not posted one single logical argument supporting his arguments.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@qabala
Also, if we're not allowed to infer design or intelligence from digital information contained in nature, or the order of the universe, how precisely are SETI researchers supposed to be able to tell that a particular message is from an intelligent life form?
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Good question.
The answer is, SETI is a waste of money.
First, they are actually looking for specific frequencies that they have no reason to expect a signal on.
Second, they are monitoring radio waves which degrade to white noise within 1 single light year.
qabala 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The universe is fine-tuned?
Really?
For what?
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
""How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is much better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'
Appeal to ridicule fallacy. This is an untrue assertion, and ignorant of the Bible itself.
There's one.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Certainly it's an appeal to ridicule, but it is a comment on the nature of religious people, not on the veracity of the claim that God exists.
You and I both know that nothing in the quote denotes that God doesn't exist on this basis.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
So what's his point? Just to insult intelligent people with broad generalizations, or to show that God doesn't exist? Again, if he spends 3/4 of the book making fun of religious people, what good is the book, except to stroke the egos of atheists?
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
He might be making fun of religious people. I don't know. I don't claim to be psychic.
In, context, however, it seems only to shed light on the irrational arguments which the religious use to defend their adherence to their beliefs.
If you find that insulting, that's on you. I, however, see no insult at all.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
You don't have to be psychic to catch his appeal to ridicule fallacies. A little skill in reading comprehension will allow you to grasp that he is.
In context, it doesn't prove anything because it's both an appeal to ridicule fallacy and certain of those fallacies also commit the genetic fallacy.
I personally don't find it insulting in the least. But that's because the book is so poorly written with so many errors that I cannot force myself to take it seriously.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
And yet you can't make your case that it is poorly written. The best you can say is that you disagree and then follow it with your own preordained bias.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
I have made the case. I've named many instances where he's used logically fallacious reasoning. That indicates it is poorly written. It's not bias, it's logic, lol.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
You've named instances where you are expecting the refutation of an ID assertion to be a refutation of the existence of God.
Creationists (not that I think you are one) often assume that disproving evolution proves creation. You are somehow applying that flawed logic as a criticism of Dawkins refutations of ID assertions.
Read the chapter as a stand-alone and you will see my point.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Actually, no, I'm not using the same logic. Dawkins rejects ID, although there's no scientific basis on which to do so. The fallacy is all his.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago
@XForceBowhunter
Of course he rejects ID. It is completely useless scientifically.
It is not supported by any empirical evidence.
It makes no testable or repeatable predictions whatsoever.
It has no practical application whatsoever.
It can not be falsified.
From a scientific view, it is completely invisible.
Whether or not there is a God is a completely philosophical question. It has no place in science whatsoever.
qabala 1 year ago
@qabala
Yes, but it's not useless philosophically, which is where Dawkins steps in it big time.
So, once again, you post a bunch of rubbish not relevant to the discussion at hand.
XForceBowhunter 1 year ago