Dawkins avoids the real issue concerning "science of the gaps". The real issue is that atheistic scientists assume that the answers to the "meaning of the universe" can at all be found by science. This is a faith based assumption, with no justification from the science lab, especially in light of spiritual realities like love, justice, kindness, self control and piety, which are not chemical realities.
I think.. when talking about how life began, saying we totally don't know isn't true.
It's more that we know part of it but are missing some crucial pieces and thus can't give the FULL story.
There's much more known about abiogenesis then people (who at all know what it is) think. Incomplete data and no data are not the same thing.
And I personally think we DO know enough to comfortably conclude that the origin of life was (of course) a completely natural process (as if it'd not be anyway.)
I don't even think it's all that hard anyway to imagine something inbetween bacteria and chemistry, namely because we HAVE something like that today; virusses.
Now of course virusses come in many types, but they ARE examples of something that doesn't fulfill all biological criteria for life, but does fulfill some of them. It's not hard to take the simplest virusses and consider how they might have become more like the more complex virusses I think.
Nor is it that hard to imagine something even simpler then something like the simplest virus, but with some similarities to that. And thinking like that the sequence seems pretty logical.
The viroid, a plant pathogen without the protein coat virusses have.
Honestly? Stuff similar to the stuff life came from is probably still AROUND. Things that work stick, and things that don't die or change. That's how not just evolution, but how actually pretty much anything works.
I think though most people don't know much about virusses beyond that they are tiny and can cause disease, and have never heard of things like viroids or prions and things like that.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Oleh, you speak as if you have any idea when, where, or how often he does speak strictly about biology. The god stuff is just the only thing that makes it to youtube. You just wanted to degrade him by calling him a preacher.
@ReadingFlyer Indeed, but if there are loads of events where he speaks about biology I would very much like to see them. I enjoyed some of the videos that are online where he speaks about biology, but he usually works the god bit in. I certainly wouldn't call him a preacher though.
@stokesterful No, some people do not KNOW how life began. They BELIEVE in a story about how life began. The same way a child KNOWS Santa Claus exists. Belief and knowledge are very different.
@PacmanBonez That's just a play on words, of course, since humans are not gods. But I get your point... if someone believes everything any single person says -- even if they are right -- then yes, that's the same religious mindset that plagues most religious people, and it's true of some people who claim themselves to be scientists. The problem is -- even if you are right -- you didn't arrive there by logic and reason. So you're just as likely to be right or wrong.
@JDoucette "humans are not gods".. hold your horses bud.. the bible actually says all people are gods.. look it up if your dont beleive me.. but i wouldnt condemn you for saying something u dont know much about.
Yeah, Richard Dawkins is our God. We touch our foreheads to the ground five times a day and pray facing the Galapagos Islands. We chant that there is no God at all and Dawkins is his prophet. We believe that Christopher Hitchens died for your sins and came back to life three days later to forgive you for believing in deities. We knock over crippled people on television and yell BE HEALED, and then take their money and turn the camera before they crawl away.
@jityr2 My screen name is made from my real name, Jason Doucette. I am not sure which signer you were thinking of, but I know of a few with the last name Doucette; I am not related to any of them.
Dawkins falls short of his own standard here. When it comes to explaining the phenomenon of culture Dawkins does exactly what he accuses religion of. Memetics is the 'emperors clothes' of pseudo-science postulation about culture. Dawkins preaches rigour, reason and rationalism and yet his whole ill-judged memetic theory is as fictional as the fairies. In 'The Extended Phenotype' he gives four solid reasons why memes can't be looked on as like genes and then says he hadn't done the reading. Poor.
@naturalpreservation You got all that from this video? From what I see, he's simply making a distinction between admitting you don't know something and saying you're working on it, and filling in the gaps of the unknown with something arbitrary.
There is a problem with RD's biography and it's only underlined with all this 'poster boy of anti-theism' stuff. He frequently litters his often literary style of scientific explanation with personal conjecture, often within the works where he is trying to advocate the rigour, reason and rationalism of science.
Memetics, group selection, the social (accused of 'veneer theory' by De Waal), rejecting Gaia, there is a pattern of RD falling short of his own science standard.
Dawkins calls some unknown areas of knowledge legitimate "gaps" and other unknown areas "sky-hooks" , a derogatory term. I'm sure he would say his theory of aliens designing human DNA is legitimate speculation but any other world view involving a Designer is unscientific. The pomposity and hypocrisy of this small minded bigot is unfathomable. I just want to know why those darn aliens made us ape-like - out of spite, I guess. We can ask them when the mothership returns.
listen to what he says a skyhook is filled in with the answer.. Science admits it doesnt know thats why he refers to it as a gap. They represent two different definitions
A scientist saying "I don't know" is being intellectually honest. A bible basher shouting "Aha, that means God did it" is only using a band-aid to cover his own ignorance.
Christian's often have a bad rap due to everyone assuming that they say "God did it" to EVERY unknown, or due to some persons' experience of a christian saying that.
Relity is, intelligent chistians say the exact same answers that scientists say - I don't know.
Alot of the time, however, from the christian's perspective, it is written in the bible that "God did it". Therefore, just like the higg's boson is true for some, then "God did it" is true for some as well.
Never forget also that there is a MARKED difference between a christian (or professed christian - but that's another can of worms) saying "Aha, that means God did it!" in response to some unknown, as opposed to another christian saying "I don't know - but I'm sure that an answer exists, and it is an answer which is compatable with modern christian theology, and an answer which God created."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mr Dawkins, that is a ridiulous argument.
Skyhooks = Temporary waiting until we find them,
and
Temporary waiting until we find them = Skyhooks.
It's the exact same thing as when someone says calls in forcing of an idea on somebody as "indoctrination", whilst another calls it "socialisation/culturalisation" (and vice versa). Similarly, one person may call you a "terrorist", but to others, you're a "freedom fighter" (and vice versa).
All you're doing is putting a positive spin on it.
If you watched the video, you would notice that I was referring to a specific part of dawkin's speech where he answers a member from the audience's question on skyhooks.
He effectively calls what really are skyhoooks as just 'temporary waiting until we find them" things. So all he's doing is just taking all the scientific skyhooks which exist and just putting a positive spin on them.
Yazzarh . Not sure whether you understand the point about skyhooks vs cranes. Maybe Dennett/Dawkins should use a term other than crane. But watch the video again and see the distinction.
You are also confused about the 'gap in knowledge'. If we don't have an explanation, we don't have an explanation. If we don't have one now, the only way to have one is at a later time - so it must require time. 'Excuse' is a false analogy.
You don't get Plato's point. You don't skyhooks vs cranes.
No, I perfectly understand the point. What I'm trying to say however, is that Dawkins, in all his arrogance,attempts at superiority and bigotry, is trying to claim that so called "gaps in science" and "skyhooks" are completely different things. No, they're not. Just as science can't explain some things at the moment, but is hoping to be able to do so in the future - so is religion ding the same thing.
So thus, gaps in knowledge or excuses mean the exact same thing from either end.
No arrogance and not a shred of bigotry (do you know what the word means?) by Dawkins. The fallacy of the 'skyhook' is to simply move across the gap by saying 'God did it', without any evidence, without any need to actually explain it. The god hypothesis is the single most unsuccessful hypothesis in human history. It has never shown anything, other than the ignorance of those proposing it. You fail to see the difference between a gap and a skyhook.
It seems as though you don't know the meaning of bigotry. Here's a quick definition: intolerance towards those of different creeds or beliefs. How exactly does dawkins NOT fit that?
And what I'll now try to say which I didn't mention before is that the INTELLIGENT christians today DON'T try and say to everything "Oh, it doesn't matter, God did it." They use the exact same arguments which you claimed scientists use - waiting until it is possible for religion to be ABLE to justify that issue.
"INTELLIGENT Christians today DON'T try and say to everything "Oh, it doesn't matter, God did it." "
But they're Christians - a belief system built on ignorance and fraud. So if they do take this position then it is an irrational one. If they really did wait for the evidence, they wouldn't be Christians. So such a person is intellectually dishonest.
Personally, I wouldn't be prepared to say that something is simply 'irrational' or 'illogical' just because it has jumped to a conclusion. I would agree, however, that it is perhaps 'hasty' or 'temporarily unjustified' or something similar. None of those definitions have negative connotations, and nor should they - if a conclusion has been reached which isn't totally ridiculous, why should it be shafted simply because it is an assumption?
"if a conclusion has been reached which isn't totally ridiculous, why should it be shafted simply because it is an assumption? "
So where is the conclusion being reached with a religious belief that is justified by evidence? It's all assumption - and time and time again it is shown to be false. So it most certainly qualifies as totally ridiculous to keep on believing in something contradicted by evidence - it's irrational.
But for you to try and say that a "gap" is LOGICAL, you must have some serious neurons misfiring. A "gap" in scientific knowledge is not logical. It is a skyhook, much like "It doesn't matter, God did it" is, and as you said it, is illogical, or as i said it, is hasty or temporarily unjustified.
However, as I've said in some of my other posts - an intelligent, honest, wholly scripture based and logical Christian (And please think before you contemplate attacking that phrase with some idiotic ad hominem. You just look stupid.) will almost never try to claim that God has done something - unless it is mentioned in the scripture.
You'll find, more often than not, that Christians say "I don't know" just as often as scientists say "I don't know".
The only things that I really agree with you on there are that the Bible's a book, and that it was written by humans and translated lots and lots of times.
Reality is though - refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls - the modern day Bible and the ancient Bible aren't as different as you would perhaps believe, or as you'd like others to believe. Noticeable differences really just boil down to the inability of some words to be translated with proper accuracy from one language to another.
There are certainly translation errors, but not from ancient to modern bibles. The errors are the words meanings: E.g. 'earth' means the land before vs. 'earth' meaning the entire planet today. This causes problems when you read "the 'earth' was flooded".
The next part of your post really just boils down to why I would choose Christianity over any other religion (and hence, why I would believe one holy book over another).
For me, that's easy. Christianity is the one and only religion in this world that says that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans by ourselves to go to heaven/reincarnate/reach nirvana - it teaches that there is nothing that man can do that will make man worthy of heaven. Rather, it says that the ONLY way to heaven is through...
This is what I hate about religion. It's so judgmental. Judging me and who am I and who I can become before even knowing me. I am worthy. The way I live my life indicates this. I don't start life without being worthy and require to telepathically tell some invisible super sky daddy that I love him so that I become worthy. It's just a silly fable. A fairy tale. Religion needs to stop judging people.
...one of the perfect three parts of the creator being - Jesus Christ. And that's what sets Christianity apart from every other religion, and that's how I know that it is true - and correspondingly, that's one reason why I believe it. Quite simple really.
Finally, you make a HUGELY presumptuous statement in the last part of your post - no, no author of the Bible has ever lied in its pages. Every word is the truth, and there are no lies present in any part of the Bible.
The bible says the universe is 6,000 years old. There's an abundance of evidence that suggests the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13+ billion years old. The bible is lying.
Because, how can anyone claim to know the answers with absolute certainty without evidence? Even science with an abundance of evidence never claims to know anything with absolute certainty. Thus the reason Gravity is called a Theory.
The bible does not say that the universe is 6,000 years old. Fundamentalist Christians believe that, but its not biblical. You are presenting a straw man. Also, gravity is a Law, not a theory.
What you're trying to SAY, however, is that _you_ don't think some of those statements could be true - you think that it's just the author saying "God did it" or something. If God revealed himself to the authors of the Bible, however - then who are you to say that the authors're lying? They are telling the complete and utter truth!
The simple matter of this case here is that you don't want the Bible to be giving a definite answer (God's design) for something that you don't understand.
There is no complete and utter truth. There's only what the evidence suggests. To claim you know anything to be absolutely true means you have stopped listening to reason. Nothing can be proven for sure. And this isn't philosophical. It's just the path the truth, as close as we can get. This is what science is about. Search for the truth.
JDoucette, is your statement that "there is no complete and utter truth" true? Isn't it an informal fallacy (perhaps even a formal one) to insist so strongly that we shouldn't insist strongly?
It wasn't my statement. My statement is: to know something is absolutely true you must know everything about it. Since it's impossible to know everything about a certain topic, you cannot know that it is absolutely true. Thus, Gravity remains forever a theory.
Science is humble.
If you want philosophical discussion, and ask "how do you know we'll never know everything about a certain subject?" The answer: "we don't know what we don't know."
According to wikipedia: A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.
Gravity is not designed to explain anything. Gravity is simply an observation, which is why it is know as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton's theory ABOUT gravity is the mathematical formulae that describe its behaviour. But Gravity in and of itself isn't a theory. Best not to use that example in your argumentation.
That is presumptuous. I am not going to be good with hope of reward, and avoid being bad for fear of hell. I am going to be me. And people should judge me based on myself. And not before they've met me. I know there's possibilities of higher powers, but without evidence, I will never claim they absolutely exist. That is claiming to know something you do not know. That is lying.
My only certainty is that there's no evidence of an afterlife, so I'm going to live this life to the fullest.
@JDoucette well if u dont beleive in God then please define good or bad.. and how can any one person stand over me and tell me what im doing is wrong when its survival of the fittest
@PacmanBonez Science doesn't offer to judge you on whether you are right or wrong. But it can give you answers regardless, much better than most holy books stating you must kill atheists. Altruism is arrived at by evolution. Survival of the fittest implies only the strong and selfish survive -- this is untrue. Much of our morality and social behaviour comes from evolution. And science itself can show societies and individuals live better when individuals are not being selfish.
"He who saith unto himself, I must believe, I must not question is not a man but a mere pusillanimous mental gelding. He who believes because it has been handed down is a menial in his heart; and he who believes because it has been written... is a fool in his folly. Sagacious spirits doubt all things, and hold fast only to that which is demonstrably true." -Ragnar Redbeard
You can't try and claim on one hand that science must be logical because it will EVENTUALLY propose an answer to everything, and then claim that religion is illogical without allowing it the same chance to prove itself, nor indeed, acknowledging that nothing in the bible disagrees with any of the current scientific theories.
Science is rational because it has proven itself. It has been shown to be the only way of understanding the world around us.
"religion is illogical without allowing it the same chance to prove itself"
This summarises the intellectual fraud in your position - religion has been given plenty ofchances and has failed dismally time and time again. And all the religions grossly contradict each other anyway. there is no logic associated with it - only irrationality.
Each type and style of argument is the same. Each has it's respective "gap in science" or "skyhook", and each has it's justifiable answers. I'll repeat again - it's down to what you're more predisposed to, and what you believe.
So in conclusion, yeah...um....I certainly do get the point. Perhaps it is you who needs to stop dogmatically accepting the tripe your role model spits out, and need to start thinking for yourself so you CAN get the point (among other things...)
Incorrect. As Dawkins explains, a gap is a gap. if we don' know, we don't know. We can try to fill the gap by working out the explanation - that's how science works. But religious belief keeps saying that there is no gap - it's god. But that's a useless explanation. In fact the 'god hypothesis' has never been shown to explain anything. Consistent with it being all about make-believe. Science is not a skyhook.
@Yazzarh Incorrect. A skyhook is saying "we don't know, but instead of admitting it, let's just throw this in there and say it's true." His argument is that science says says "we don't know. We admit we don't know, so let's look for the answer."
Science (like all humans fields of experience) names. Names take on a meaning, are the sources of articles and conjecture, so the idea that science just says "We'll be silent until we can work this thing out" is simply wrong. I'll give you two, dark matter and singularity. Michael Shermer calls them "linguistic place fillers" and as soon as something is named there are all manner of articles we can look back on as being drivel, but in time and place they are 'science' of the day.
There is no question that science has strengths, but there are three important things to note:
(1) science didn't MAKE the Universe, it's our way of sophisticating our understanding of large parts of it.
(2) it is a human creation so it's going to be good and bad. Science records the effects of climate change, but science also facilitates and enables the industrial process that causes it.
(3) science is poor on the subjective human experience, music, feelings, religion, etc.
Science and religion are connected, but they are tellingly different. Religion has been around for 1,000s of years and through periods of historical tension accepts large parts of science, certainly evolution is no longer the pressing issue it was, or some would advance it is for organised faith.
People will use all technological and science boosted comforts and still go to church on Sunday. Science tells us little or nothing about morality and values, that's part of its strength
RD can't come to terms with the fact that he hasn't squared the circle of the Darwinian revolution and brought culture into evolutionary theory. So in a very real sense (and this remains the case while a general theory of culture eludes science) humans are exceptions to evolutionary theory.
Culture emerged FROM the evolutionary process, but evo theory can't account for culture which is our second nature and primary source of experience in the world around us. It's important.
The most glaring example of RD not saying what you said science does is when he crudely cut & pasted his gene-centrism and slapped it on culture with his ill-thought out, under-read (he admitted he had not done the reading in The Extended Phenotype) psuedo-theory of memetics.
So he can go on and on all day about what science should embody, but if we take RD's career as a yard-stick he falls short of this standard, and in some cases undergraduate short.
@naturalpreservation I don't believe in magic, so to ask questions about a god is a waste of time for someone like myself. Bottom line is: science seeks to find the truth through research and study; religion presumes to know it based on "believing". For me, up until now study has been very rewarding. I enjoy "knowing." For some people, "believing" is enough. You can ask all sorts of philosophical questions, but in the end, we didn't get to where we are today by praying.
I think you are underestimating the power of believing. Due to human cognitive and emotional depth to be a human being is to be a human believing. For example, most of the knowledge you have in your head comes there through personal experience and belief. You didn't scientifically distill all that information, it would take too long and would be frankly exhausting.
Most of science remains significantly below any e=mc2 standard and it is the goal for science to refute itself.
Now you may well read some of Dawkins' books and be persuaded but don't be confused with a popular science book as science fact. Evolution is a science fact but there are many, many debates within and through the theory that have yet to be cemented, and may never be. Different theorists have different views on some parts than others, so this idea that science is some kind of opinion-free, purism is a lasting fiction.
Dawkins confuses the 'ought' from the 'is' of science.
You're right, I didn't. But I can see the effects. You're trying to equate ignorance of complicated science with ignorance of a god. That I didn't research it myself does not mean it's blind faith. I don't need to know exactly how medicine works to appreciate the fact that someone figured it out through study as opposed to the idea that it just magically appeared.
I'm glad that you accept that it is faith, I didn't say it was blind faith. Millions, indeed billions of people of faith have a belief in God which is easy to place on a spectrum through faith, through experience-based belief, right through to almost agnosticism.
There are plenty of specific medicines that people have had faith in that have turned out to be dangerous themselves, indeed the placebo effect is an endorsement of the the causative effect of belief.
It might not be a comfortable notion for you but most of science content and debate within accepted theories involves opinions, views and beliefs that later turn out to be proved wrong. Theoretical physics is a particularly fertile field where speculation can be particularly flowery.
You are locked into this idea that science is an open-minded panacea to enlightenment and all religion is blind faith. Such belief is fundamentally self-limiting.
As long as you think that religion and God are magic, or fairies (Dawkins is full of meaningless diversions of late) then there is no point in me talking to you about science and religion. It seems I have far more of a grasp of what science is and does, than you have about religion.
You've clearly closed your mind to the idea of God (as is your choice) but it's worse than that. You boast of your lack of thinking on religion, and yet you would hail science which demands such focus
First of all it you that brings 'magic' into the discussion. I take it you value the thoughts and considered opinion of Carl Sagan, he said:
"What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles. But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years.......
"Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people who never knew each other, citizens of distant epochs. Books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic."
@naturalpreservation This is weak. It's pretty clear he's using the term "magic" in a poetic sense to emphasize the importance of books. He's not talking about "abracadabra" here, suggesting people have magical powers.
Right now you are re-interpreting Sagan are you. The ability to record complex thoughts that can influence other minds underpins what culture is all about and in this sense beyond primordial and proto-culture, humans are the only species from 100s of millions to have culture (proper).
This comes from our over capacity (Dawkins calls it "the gift") to design and create trillions and trillions of artifacts which are in turn our primary source of experience in the world around us.
Over at CERN the LHC, a quasi-magical product of human mind and culture is trying to re-create the conditions fractions of a second after the big bang of the Universe. Dawkins accepts that humans are the only "intelligent designers" the world has ever seen and being able to "internalise the very cosmos" while not the stuff of miracles remains the stuff that evolutionary theory is unable to explain.
I don't call it magic, you did. I call it human exceptionalism.
I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists, it's clear you revel in your closed-mindedness. However, the uncomfortable fact for you remains that as long as humans remain exceptions to evolutionary theory (which mind and culture most certainly do) then that underlines the arguments from faith and religion that humans are in some way 'of' God.
I'll repeat, trillions of artifacts which are our primary source of experience, including science, education, books, internet, etc.
@naturalpreservation Exceptins to evolutionary theory? You know nothing about evolution do you? The human mind and culture are as much products of human evolution as anything else.
Cultural expression emerges from the evolutionary process, don't show yourself up here child. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was all about man's methodical selection, or artificial selection which is the only certain foresighted design in the history of life on earth. From this he metaophorised the tendency for nature to preserve from random mutations.
Artificial selection is part of culture, and it remains a mystery to evolutionary theory now and for the last 151 years.
Where is this evolutionary theory of mind and culture then? I'll keep asking.
Like I said you're commenting beyond your pay grade and you've been found out. In my book that makes you a complete ponce. So unless you come back with an answer to my question that'll remain the case until you remedy it.
You've dived in here and immediately you've been found wanting. It's gonna be difficult for you to come back from this because you are SO wrong. Unless you confuse science as story telling about mind and culture (which I don't) then there is no general theory of culture and mind out there.
There's no point in praising Darwin for generating a theory with a mechanism underlying natural phenomena and then 'settling' for memetics, or evolutionary psychology: both psuedo sciences.
Take this video Dawkins is quite wrong when he says that science doesn't 'positively postulate' where there are gaps and this is exactly what he did back in 1976 with his misguided, under-read, under-thought (a bit like you) thought as theory in 'memetics.'
His dogma and closed minded thinking pushed him to square the Darwinian revolution and account for culture. He later conceded that he hadn't done the reading on culture in The Extended Phenotype.
The point is simple. Evolution can't account for the human mind and culture. Over the last 151 years evolutionary theory has tried numerous times. There are two very important things to distill from this:
(1) Darwin couldn't crack culture in his time from the point of view of natural selection. He called what humans did 'artificial selection' from which he metaphorised the tendency for nature to preserve as natural selection.
(2) Hasn't been cracked in the last 151 years and counting.
"Which superficially appears to explain something but does't" says Dawkins, like a unicorn. This is good, so when we listen to Dawkins on 'The Purpose of Purpose' he now says..
"Cultural evolution is a new kind of evolution. Superficially similar to the old genetic evolution capable of producing advances in technology which mirror the old genetic advances but at a rate which may be a million times faster."
So in memetics we have the unicorn that Dawkins says doesn't exist.
And Sagan isn't the only one to speak of this kind of magic. Richard Dawkins (A Devil's Chaplain) writes that humans "have the gift of internalising the very cosmos."
There is a dimension of difference between 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years for whom it's all localised environments and 'ecological niches' and then one species emerges from the evolutionary process with "the gift" of internalising the very cosmos, and of course capable of working magic.
It's been 151 years since 'Origin' and despite numerous attempts a general theory of culture from evolutionary theory remains elusive, so the idea that humans and culture are exceptional from evolutionary theory (in full) it at this time an indisputable fact.
Now you can shut your mind down to that profound anomaly but don't think that people of faith can't think about the material world, and certainly to deeper levels that you seem capable of.
And this is an important point which is not going to go away anytime soon, science is a human product. It is one of trillions of human products so rather than undermining human exceptionalism, it underlines it.
Science is a method, an idea given life by fields of enquiry and it's resultant findings, some of which will stand the test of time. Science at its most technical level though remains an idea acting through bodies. In this sense it as non-corporeal than the God you'd deny.
Quote-mining? Oh my, all too often this is the undergraduate defence from someone who is under-read, and in your case under-thought. Skyhooks is the term from Dennett who said in 1995 that culture MUST have a Darwinian origin when it's clearly an emergence from the evolutionary process.
Moreover, culture is more neo-Lamarckian in it's workings. Only a dogmatic would deny that. Sagan's reference to 'magic' is/was more than poetic when we can read minds from the past. Keep trying.
You are a poor and unfortunately frequent example of an under-read, under-thought undergrauduate mode of modern non-thinker that thinks because you can read a few popular science books you can argue on the basis that religion is magic and fairies.
You haven't responded to a single point I made, and even more disturbing your lack of interest in clear differences in dimension you think enables you to speak for science. That does make me chuckle.
You are not reading what I am saying and this is why you rather lamely state I am dancing around the issue. Dawkins writes that humans "have the gift of internalising the very cosmos." This is true and once we manage to work out how the big bang started 123.3 trillion trillion clock years (if you are travelling at 60mph) do you think we'll stop there?
Sagan called book making magic, human exceptionalism is much more than book making. I don't need luck, I've got a human mind Jin Boy.
You don't get it and it's right in front of you. Science comes from human exceptionalism, and it is only one of trillions of things that the human mind has designed, and that includes realising the process of evolution in the nature setting.
You think that science undermines God but it only underlines the difference from what humans know about the world beyond ecological niche going right back to the big bang. Look at what we're doing at CERN, that's human exceptionalism in action Jin
When I quote it's from authors arguing a point and while it's uncomfortable for you to read/hear Dawkins now conceding that culture is "a new kind of evolution" (you tube video 'The Purpose of Purpose') tough, get used it. Human exceptionalism and culture as a phenomenon are going nowhere.
Darwin threw a lot at culture, artificial selection (our own selection, wow) man's methodical selection, unconscious selection, sexual selection and even natural selection and still came up short.
@naturalpreservation You have not made me at all uncomfortable, any more than you have offered any kind of logical alternative to the evolutionary process.
Ah, quote mining, the tourette-defence of the under-thought anti-theist. At what point do you or the writers you revere/follow take some responsibility for what they say and write?
Dawkins goes on in the same lecture to say that culture is "throwing our stately Darwinian evolution into runaway overdrive."
So take a moment and tell me where I can get this theory of mind and culture from evolutionary theory that is the settled will of the scientific community?
Your reluctance to even attempt to ponder on some of those questions tells me that you are pretty closed minded on that area, which is cool but don't come on here and kid on that you are some bastion of science, of critical thinking and reason and rigour when it's clear that is not the case.
You don't want your current beliefs affected by any critical thinking, fine. I would remind you that thought experiments and philosophical questions are replete in the history of science.
Your continued reference to faith/religion as magic only underlines your poor reading and understanding of what it is about. For you then to go about research and critical thinking is a bit contradictory when it's clear with each reference to magic (and fairies I guess) your understanding is virtual rather than empirical.
So far all I've seen from you is a persistent misrepresentation of religion as magic, which while you may well feel smug/smart about doesn't address the issue, so by caricaturing faith you shield yourself from having to think about it deeper. So that's one point.
The other one you make about medicine is terribly general. The spectrum of belief involves confidence, blind faith, experience-based awareness, etc. To be a human being is to be a human believing.
Just because science states that, doesn't mean that scientists themselves don't try and make predictions about things on little more than happenstance and coincidence.
The problem with Richard is that he tries to make science out to be idealistically p[erfect - entirely honest in its adventures and achievements. Reality is though, because science is constantly modified by falliable humans, it will NEVER be idealistically perfect - and this is attested to by numerous...
...failings that scientists have done in their areas of expertise. The problem of thalidomide ring a bell? How about the case of the MMR vaccine and the suggestion that it causes autism in young children?
On the basis of this then, one CANNOT assume or make the claim that whilst "scientists themselves are falliable, science itself is honest in its pursuit of knowledge", or words to that effect. It's simply untrue - you can't extricate the architects of science, scientists...
...themselves, from what they've contributed to, which is science. So if scientists have been dishonest in their work, and not always been pure and honest in their endeavours for scientific truth, then one CAN say that SOME parts of science must also be dishonest and not pure and honest in its truth. This is simple deductive reasoning.
Hear me out - I'm not saying that all science is like this, just some science, but if we can determine that even SOME science is like this...
...then this nullifies Richard's statement that science is inherently self-correcting, honest, and always pleads ignorance when it comes to question that it has no answers for (as this isn't always true), allowing this position of Richard's to be discounted.
Anyway, getting back to the actual issue here - what I was trying to say is that if a religion says "We don't know the answer for this, but I'm sure that God has one", and science says "We don't know the answer for this...
...but I'm sure that we'll work one out eventually", they are BOTH the EXACT SAME THING. NEITHER is any more justified or reasonable - and to claim otherwise would either be to say that science has knowledge over things that it can't possibly know, or that the religious have secret universal knowledge that others don't have. Neither statement is more true.
So thus, getting to the crux of the issue - if one calls one of those statements a skyhook, then the other is a...
@Yazzarh But science isn't really saying "we'll work one out eventually." It's saying, "we don't know and can't prove the answer, but based on this, or that, or the other thing that we have proved in the past, this answer makes sense." They aren't just pulling stuff out of their asses. Saying god did it is based on nothing.
What I was meaning to say was that the position "God did it" in response to some unknown phenomena, as well as the response "science will have an answer", are both as intellectually unstimulating and stifling of inquisitivity as each other. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
However, I would further say this: statements such as "we don't know, and can't prove the answer" can be used from both a religious AND scientific perspective, and both perfectly justifiably.
As I said in my previous comments - you can't restrict the use of such a phrase to JUST science or JUST religion, as among other things, it creates a false dichotomy between the two topics - and it also positions the two topic as being diametrically opposed to each other, when in actuality, they aren't. The NOMA theory is an archaic, ill-founded and long-refuted one that simply doesn't hold ground when you think about it - reality is, MANY scientists are able to reconcile...
...their religious beliefs with their scientific pursuits. So thus, trying to say that the two are irreconcilable, or that the two present fundamentally different views of the world via an entirely different way - and a way which is illogical at that - is simply intellectually and academically dishonest.
So whilst I'd agree with you in saying that 'God did it' isn't really an answer for anything at all - science, sometimes, does also commit the same fraud too.
Afterall - to claim that evidence can only be interpreted a certain way, or only one particular way, is mightily assuming of anyone, and quite a faith-based position in itself there...and it would betray the screen of objectivity and the ACTUAL feeling behind any statements such as "searching for the truth" that may be said...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean what you say that. In my experience, I find people who work to find out answers for religious and scientific questions on both the religious 'side' and the secular 'side' (although again, you're creating a false dichotomy here between religion and science - none exists, as the numerous examples of Christian witness in the sciences give testament to) of the issue.
@Yazzarh People on the religious side don't work to find answers to religious questions. Everything is written down for them, and they either believe it or they don't.
My, what dogmatic, arrogant, unsupported by the evidence and BLATANTLY assertive statements you're making there! EXACTLY the type of thing that the prominent new atheists of today spew from their mouths and which is then regurgitated by willing sheep such as yourself without any questioning or even THINKING (with respect to what actually IS the case) as to whether or not it's true!
I can GIVE you examples of the religious working to find answers to religious questions. That's what the ENTIRE SUBJECT of 'theology' is about! The religious working to find answers to religious questions, and in the context of Christianity, for example, it's been going on for a LOT longer (~1700 years longer) than any modern science!
So whilst the religious might have holy texts that they refer to - and I'm not saying they don't - that doesn't mean that they don't question.
It seems to me that you just much prefer to live in your own little deluded world of broad generalisations and stereotypes compared to ACTUALLY formulating some EVIDENCE-BASED conclusions for yourself, ones which might actually cause you to think and reevaluate your position on certain people groups in life!
I mean - who ever said that the religious always like everything that's printed in their holy texts. Some of the time, it's difficult to swallow - yet that's what...
...MAKES it a challenge, and an INHERENTLY inquisitive, questioning, and investigative exercise in itself!
And atheists have the audacity to claim that the religious (Christianity in particular) don't like criticism and dislike asking or being asked questions about their holy texts. Believe you me, Christians have been criticising and analysing their own text for FAR longer than ANY other belief systems have been, including atheism.
@Yazzarh It's not faith based. Atheists don't need to have any position on the "why" of the universe and life. Religious people do. An atheist's lack of belief in one thing does not equal faith or belief in something else. I'm sorry if "we're done here" sounds pompous. I respectfully refrain from replying until I read something that hasn't already been beat to death. Feel free to continue to criticize. Amen.
Here, I'll define 'faith' for you: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Atheism has neither logical proof of its certainty, nor material evidence in support of it, therefore it is a faith-based position. That's something that is pretty much agreed upon by all philosophers I have ever listened to, and is something that isn't really difficult to understand intellectually - so I fear for you if that's too incomprehensible.
Reality is, believing in ANYTHING without evidence, or believing in the lack of evidence, is a FAITH-BASED BELIEF SYSTEM. Even if you lack belief at all, and your 'belief', so to speak, is in non-belief. You cannot circumvent the issue by saying that 'atheism is outside the realm of faith'. That's simply not true. You present a claim counter to religion regarding the universe - thus, the two claims can be compared side by side and on the same grounds.
@Yazzarh Atheism IS outside the realm of faith, but only in regards to religion. We all have a nature of faith, that is the nature of believing something, even when something has strong evidence, we still have to have faith that that evidence is true, but the faith we are referring to here is not a religious faith, it's human nature one, hence your definition of a belief system is not correct because it refers directly to the anti religious stand.
Not exactly (although, of course, partially, as all claims are). Here's why:
1) We have enough knowledge about the creatures of this planet to be able to reject the statement that a hominid-type creature from Irish myth and fairytale most probably does not exist.
2) We have enough knowledge about the properties of light and how it affects objects to say that (true) invisbility cannot occur, or at the very least, does not currently exist.
3) We have enough knowledge about the effect of gravity on matter to be able to say that levitation, unassisted by any lift-generating process, is impossible, or at the very least, inconceivable by modern standards.
4) We have enough knowledge about the creatures of this planet to be able to conclude that such arbitrary properties such as the specific detection of the Homo sapiens species or the voluntary/involuntary reaction of a creature to a member of the...
@Yazzarh Once you properly define atheism and faith it becomes clear that atheism requires no faith.
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Faith - belief that is not based on evidence.
'Disbelief' is not synonymous with 'belief'. I am going to ask you a question. I might be working under the false assumption that you are a Christian, but would you say that your disbelief in Allah is somehow "faith based"?
Well, to give you the benefit of being able to reply, it does really depend upon how one defines 'atheism', particularly with regards to its relationship to 'gnosticism'. If you're using the narrow definition of atheist, what Richard Dawkins would call the 'hard-line/strong' atheist position (and what is colloquially referred to today as being the 'atheist' position), then I'm sorry, but your position requires faith. Saying that one KNOWS that there is No God is a...
...logically positive claim, and one that has no evidence to support its veracity. Thus, the burden of proof would rest on the claimer to proove that there is absolutely NO God (or rather, 'god') - and because there is no uncounterable evidence for or against this axiomatically-positive claim, your position is faith based. Your use of the term 'disbelief' (a positive non-belief), as opposed to 'lack of belief' (no belief), suggests to me that you may fall in this camp.
To cut what would be an equally-as-long justification for (what is colloquially called) agnosticism short - the position that Dawkins and his ilk would call the 'soft/weak atheist' or 'agnostic atheist' position, it is only if one were to take this position could one say that one's belief relies solely on reason and evidence, and not on faith. Although, I suppose, depending upon whether one classified oneself as an agnostic theist or atheist, there could be plausibility...
...scenarios that might come into play which could affect how LIKELY your belief is (note, though, that LIKELINESS has nothing to do with BURDEN OF PROOF, or whether your beliefs came as a result of FAITH or EVIDENCE-based reasoning). So effectively, only if you used THIS definition, AND classified yourself as an agnostic atheist, could you say that your position does not require faith. Coincidentally, most 'atheists' fall in this category. Consequently, then...
@Yazzarh Every atheist Is an agnostic atheist(agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism is about disbelief). If you argue that atheism is really a belief that there is no god, then I can argue that my belief is based on evidence, particularly the lack of evidence for the alternative.
Excellent Prof Dawkins.
modelleg 1 month ago
"Spiritual realities" First you have to define the spirit.
dkthg 2 months ago
Dawkins avoids the real issue concerning "science of the gaps". The real issue is that atheistic scientists assume that the answers to the "meaning of the universe" can at all be found by science. This is a faith based assumption, with no justification from the science lab, especially in light of spiritual realities like love, justice, kindness, self control and piety, which are not chemical realities.
patientthomist 3 months ago
I think.. when talking about how life began, saying we totally don't know isn't true.
It's more that we know part of it but are missing some crucial pieces and thus can't give the FULL story.
There's much more known about abiogenesis then people (who at all know what it is) think. Incomplete data and no data are not the same thing.
And I personally think we DO know enough to comfortably conclude that the origin of life was (of course) a completely natural process (as if it'd not be anyway.)
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I don't even think it's all that hard anyway to imagine something inbetween bacteria and chemistry, namely because we HAVE something like that today; virusses.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Now of course virusses come in many types, but they ARE examples of something that doesn't fulfill all biological criteria for life, but does fulfill some of them. It's not hard to take the simplest virusses and consider how they might have become more like the more complex virusses I think.
Nor is it that hard to imagine something even simpler then something like the simplest virus, but with some similarities to that. And thinking like that the sequence seems pretty logical.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Also as for a real thing simpler then a virus.
The viroid, a plant pathogen without the protein coat virusses have.
Honestly? Stuff similar to the stuff life came from is probably still AROUND. Things that work stick, and things that don't die or change. That's how not just evolution, but how actually pretty much anything works.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
I think though most people don't know much about virusses beyond that they are tiny and can cause disease, and have never heard of things like viroids or prions and things like that.
TheSkunkCat 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
??? He didn't even answer the question.
user6773 6 months ago
There is no need for "sky hooks"... just say "god did it". oh.. wait...
Hopefulfilment 7 months ago
oh, creationists... SNAP!
ComputerScience54 9 months ago
Religions are the biggest most rediculous gap known to man. More like fairy tales
MrJohnnyrace 9 months ago 2
Oleh, you speak as if you have any idea when, where, or how often he does speak strictly about biology. The god stuff is just the only thing that makes it to youtube. You just wanted to degrade him by calling him a preacher.
ReadingFlyer 10 months ago 5
@ReadingFlyer Indeed, but if there are loads of events where he speaks about biology I would very much like to see them. I enjoyed some of the videos that are online where he speaks about biology, but he usually works the god bit in. I certainly wouldn't call him a preacher though.
Setzer 9 months ago
Don't you reckon that nowadays Dawkins talks more about god then about biology?
He's become more of a preecher then a scientist...
oleh2007 10 months ago
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
Everywhere I go I see human / ape hybrids walking around they are called NIGGERS!
JonKinchIsLegit 1 year ago
@JonKinchIsLegit
Not cool, man.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@stokesterful No, some people do not KNOW how life began. They BELIEVE in a story about how life began. The same way a child KNOWS Santa Claus exists. Belief and knowledge are very different.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
you atheist say u dont beleive in a god.. well actually u do.. richard dawkins is your god and beleive every word that comes out his mouth is true
PacmanBonez 1 year ago
@PacmanBonez That's just a play on words, of course, since humans are not gods. But I get your point... if someone believes everything any single person says -- even if they are right -- then yes, that's the same religious mindset that plagues most religious people, and it's true of some people who claim themselves to be scientists. The problem is -- even if you are right -- you didn't arrive there by logic and reason. So you're just as likely to be right or wrong.
JDoucette 1 year ago
@JDoucette "humans are not gods".. hold your horses bud.. the bible actually says all people are gods.. look it up if your dont beleive me.. but i wouldnt condemn you for saying something u dont know much about.
PacmanBonez 1 year ago
@PacmanBonez Even if that were true, how would that make them worse than Christians? At least Dawkins is real.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@PacmanBonez
Yeah, Richard Dawkins is our God. We touch our foreheads to the ground five times a day and pray facing the Galapagos Islands. We chant that there is no God at all and Dawkins is his prophet. We believe that Christopher Hitchens died for your sins and came back to life three days later to forgive you for believing in deities. We knock over crippled people on television and yell BE HEALED, and then take their money and turn the camera before they crawl away.
Oh wait, no we don't.
rkyeun 1 year ago
I don`t like the man that much, but what he says is based on logic.
lizazoon 1 year ago
I'm addicted to Richard Dawkins videos. Thanks for posting.
youwantthey 1 year ago 2
JDoucette is it a coincidence or did you pick that screen name after a singer?
jityr2 2 years ago
@jityr2 My screen name is made from my real name, Jason Doucette. I am not sure which signer you were thinking of, but I know of a few with the last name Doucette; I am not related to any of them.
JDoucette 1 year ago
@JDoucette In 1978 the singer Jerry Doucette had a tune called "Let 'em play some rock n' roll".
jityr2 1 year ago
@jityr2 Ah, so that's why when I search "Doucette" his name comes up. Ha ha. He must be somewhat popular! ;)
JDoucette 1 year ago
Cosmogony, Cosmgoni, Cosmogineeeee.....
aerycksmusic 2 years ago
Good video.
(Looks like the creationist vote bots hit this video too.)
JDoucette 2 years ago
Dawkins falls short of his own standard here. When it comes to explaining the phenomenon of culture Dawkins does exactly what he accuses religion of. Memetics is the 'emperors clothes' of pseudo-science postulation about culture. Dawkins preaches rigour, reason and rationalism and yet his whole ill-judged memetic theory is as fictional as the fairies. In 'The Extended Phenotype' he gives four solid reasons why memes can't be looked on as like genes and then says he hadn't done the reading. Poor.
naturalpreservation 2 years ago
@naturalpreservation You got all that from this video? From what I see, he's simply making a distinction between admitting you don't know something and saying you're working on it, and filling in the gaps of the unknown with something arbitrary.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
There is a problem with RD's biography and it's only underlined with all this 'poster boy of anti-theism' stuff. He frequently litters his often literary style of scientific explanation with personal conjecture, often within the works where he is trying to advocate the rigour, reason and rationalism of science.
Memetics, group selection, the social (accused of 'veneer theory' by De Waal), rejecting Gaia, there is a pattern of RD falling short of his own science standard.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
you said "we've got general ideas and a working theory"
if a "working theory" isn't a decent understanding on something, then what IS a decent understanding ??
The probability of evolution being false is close to the probability of people being kidnapped by aliens being true.
notToast 2 years ago
Dawkins calls some unknown areas of knowledge legitimate "gaps" and other unknown areas "sky-hooks" , a derogatory term. I'm sure he would say his theory of aliens designing human DNA is legitimate speculation but any other world view involving a Designer is unscientific. The pomposity and hypocrisy of this small minded bigot is unfathomable. I just want to know why those darn aliens made us ape-like - out of spite, I guess. We can ask them when the mothership returns.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
listen to what he says a skyhook is filled in with the answer.. Science admits it doesnt know thats why he refers to it as a gap. They represent two different definitions
Tmack1015 2 years ago
Well said Richard Dawkins.
Did anyone listen to that?
peteq1972 2 years ago
A scientist saying "I don't know" is being intellectually honest. A bible basher shouting "Aha, that means God did it" is only using a band-aid to cover his own ignorance.
Infidelerious 2 years ago
Christian's often have a bad rap due to everyone assuming that they say "God did it" to EVERY unknown, or due to some persons' experience of a christian saying that.
Relity is, intelligent chistians say the exact same answers that scientists say - I don't know.
Alot of the time, however, from the christian's perspective, it is written in the bible that "God did it". Therefore, just like the higg's boson is true for some, then "God did it" is true for some as well.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
Never forget also that there is a MARKED difference between a christian (or professed christian - but that's another can of worms) saying "Aha, that means God did it!" in response to some unknown, as opposed to another christian saying "I don't know - but I'm sure that an answer exists, and it is an answer which is compatable with modern christian theology, and an answer which God created."
Yazzarh 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mr Dawkins, that is a ridiulous argument.
Skyhooks = Temporary waiting until we find them,
and
Temporary waiting until we find them = Skyhooks.
It's the exact same thing as when someone says calls in forcing of an idea on somebody as "indoctrination", whilst another calls it "socialisation/culturalisation" (and vice versa). Similarly, one person may call you a "terrorist", but to others, you're a "freedom fighter" (and vice versa).
All you're doing is putting a positive spin on it.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
But what is the point of assuming a skyhook to fill a gap in knowledge?
As Plato said: to say 'god did it' is not an explanation at all - it's an excuse for not having an explanation.
dbes02 2 years ago
If you watched the video, you would notice that I was referring to a specific part of dawkin's speech where he answers a member from the audience's question on skyhooks.
He effectively calls what really are skyhoooks as just 'temporary waiting until we find them" things. So all he's doing is just taking all the scientific skyhooks which exist and just putting a positive spin on them.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
So your comment to do with Plato: to say that "everything requires time" is not an explanation at all - it's an axcuse for not having an explanation.
All science is doing here is "assuming a skyhook to fill a gap in knowledge"
Yazzarh 2 years ago
Yazzarh . Not sure whether you understand the point about skyhooks vs cranes. Maybe Dennett/Dawkins should use a term other than crane. But watch the video again and see the distinction.
You are also confused about the 'gap in knowledge'. If we don't have an explanation, we don't have an explanation. If we don't have one now, the only way to have one is at a later time - so it must require time. 'Excuse' is a false analogy.
You don't get Plato's point. You don't skyhooks vs cranes.
dbes02 2 years ago
No, I perfectly understand the point. What I'm trying to say however, is that Dawkins, in all his arrogance,attempts at superiority and bigotry, is trying to claim that so called "gaps in science" and "skyhooks" are completely different things. No, they're not. Just as science can't explain some things at the moment, but is hoping to be able to do so in the future - so is religion ding the same thing.
So thus, gaps in knowledge or excuses mean the exact same thing from either end.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
No arrogance and not a shred of bigotry (do you know what the word means?) by Dawkins. The fallacy of the 'skyhook' is to simply move across the gap by saying 'God did it', without any evidence, without any need to actually explain it. The god hypothesis is the single most unsuccessful hypothesis in human history. It has never shown anything, other than the ignorance of those proposing it. You fail to see the difference between a gap and a skyhook.
dbes02 2 years ago
It seems as though you don't know the meaning of bigotry. Here's a quick definition: intolerance towards those of different creeds or beliefs. How exactly does dawkins NOT fit that?
And what I'll now try to say which I didn't mention before is that the INTELLIGENT christians today DON'T try and say to everything "Oh, it doesn't matter, God did it." They use the exact same arguments which you claimed scientists use - waiting until it is possible for religion to be ABLE to justify that issue.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
"INTELLIGENT Christians today DON'T try and say to everything "Oh, it doesn't matter, God did it." "
But they're Christians - a belief system built on ignorance and fraud. So if they do take this position then it is an irrational one. If they really did wait for the evidence, they wouldn't be Christians. So such a person is intellectually dishonest.
dbes02 2 years ago
Dawkins is an arrogant fool, and what's more, those who have unbiased, objective (and therefore), REAL scientific backgrounds recognise this.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
It just depends on which on you're more disposed to, and which one you yourself find more appealing, logical, and believable.
So yes sir, I do indeed get the point.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
It's not a question of arbitrarily choosing between the two. On is logical (gap) and one is irrational (god).
So no, you most certainly do not get the point.
dbes02 2 years ago
Personally, I wouldn't be prepared to say that something is simply 'irrational' or 'illogical' just because it has jumped to a conclusion. I would agree, however, that it is perhaps 'hasty' or 'temporarily unjustified' or something similar. None of those definitions have negative connotations, and nor should they - if a conclusion has been reached which isn't totally ridiculous, why should it be shafted simply because it is an assumption?
Yazzarh 2 years ago
"if a conclusion has been reached which isn't totally ridiculous, why should it be shafted simply because it is an assumption? "
So where is the conclusion being reached with a religious belief that is justified by evidence? It's all assumption - and time and time again it is shown to be false. So it most certainly qualifies as totally ridiculous to keep on believing in something contradicted by evidence - it's irrational.
dbes02 2 years ago
'free decision' or something to do with that 'hasty' part would also work.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
But for you to try and say that a "gap" is LOGICAL, you must have some serious neurons misfiring. A "gap" in scientific knowledge is not logical. It is a skyhook, much like "It doesn't matter, God did it" is, and as you said it, is illogical, or as i said it, is hasty or temporarily unjustified.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
"I don't know. Let's find out."
is different than
"God did it."
JDoucette 2 years ago
Most certainly.
However, as I've said in some of my other posts - an intelligent, honest, wholly scripture based and logical Christian (And please think before you contemplate attacking that phrase with some idiotic ad hominem. You just look stupid.) will almost never try to claim that God has done something - unless it is mentioned in the scripture.
You'll find, more often than not, that Christians say "I don't know" just as often as scientists say "I don't know".
Yazzarh 2 years ago
>> "...unless it is mentioned in the scripture."
The scripture is a book. Written by humans. Translated by humans. Ripped apart and put together, with chapters removed, by humans.
So, if this book claims God did it, you believe it?
I read a book that says Allah did it. Do you believe it?
I read another book that says the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Do you believe that?
Of course not. They are just words. Like yours and mine. The author is lying instead of saying "I don't know."
JDoucette 2 years ago
The only things that I really agree with you on there are that the Bible's a book, and that it was written by humans and translated lots and lots of times.
Reality is though - refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls - the modern day Bible and the ancient Bible aren't as different as you would perhaps believe, or as you'd like others to believe. Noticeable differences really just boil down to the inability of some words to be translated with proper accuracy from one language to another.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
There are certainly translation errors, but not from ancient to modern bibles. The errors are the words meanings: E.g. 'earth' means the land before vs. 'earth' meaning the entire planet today. This causes problems when you read "the 'earth' was flooded".
JDoucette 2 years ago
The next part of your post really just boils down to why I would choose Christianity over any other religion (and hence, why I would believe one holy book over another).
For me, that's easy. Christianity is the one and only religion in this world that says that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans by ourselves to go to heaven/reincarnate/reach nirvana - it teaches that there is nothing that man can do that will make man worthy of heaven. Rather, it says that the ONLY way to heaven is through...
Yazzarh 2 years ago
This is what I hate about religion. It's so judgmental. Judging me and who am I and who I can become before even knowing me. I am worthy. The way I live my life indicates this. I don't start life without being worthy and require to telepathically tell some invisible super sky daddy that I love him so that I become worthy. It's just a silly fable. A fairy tale. Religion needs to stop judging people.
JDoucette 2 years ago 3
...one of the perfect three parts of the creator being - Jesus Christ. And that's what sets Christianity apart from every other religion, and that's how I know that it is true - and correspondingly, that's one reason why I believe it. Quite simple really.
Finally, you make a HUGELY presumptuous statement in the last part of your post - no, no author of the Bible has ever lied in its pages. Every word is the truth, and there are no lies present in any part of the Bible.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
One example of a lie:
The bible says the universe is 6,000 years old. There's an abundance of evidence that suggests the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13+ billion years old. The bible is lying.
Because, how can anyone claim to know the answers with absolute certainty without evidence? Even science with an abundance of evidence never claims to know anything with absolute certainty. Thus the reason Gravity is called a Theory.
JDoucette 2 years ago 2
The bible does not say that the universe is 6,000 years old. Fundamentalist Christians believe that, but its not biblical. You are presenting a straw man. Also, gravity is a Law, not a theory.
scsteeldrums 2 years ago
What you're trying to SAY, however, is that _you_ don't think some of those statements could be true - you think that it's just the author saying "God did it" or something. If God revealed himself to the authors of the Bible, however - then who are you to say that the authors're lying? They are telling the complete and utter truth!
The simple matter of this case here is that you don't want the Bible to be giving a definite answer (God's design) for something that you don't understand.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
There is no complete and utter truth. There's only what the evidence suggests. To claim you know anything to be absolutely true means you have stopped listening to reason. Nothing can be proven for sure. And this isn't philosophical. It's just the path the truth, as close as we can get. This is what science is about. Search for the truth.
JDoucette 2 years ago 5
JDoucette, is your statement that "there is no complete and utter truth" true? Isn't it an informal fallacy (perhaps even a formal one) to insist so strongly that we shouldn't insist strongly?
Mentat1231 2 years ago
That statement is not true. There are truths.
It wasn't my statement. My statement is: to know something is absolutely true you must know everything about it. Since it's impossible to know everything about a certain topic, you cannot know that it is absolutely true. Thus, Gravity remains forever a theory.
Science is humble.
If you want philosophical discussion, and ask "how do you know we'll never know everything about a certain subject?" The answer: "we don't know what we don't know."
JDoucette 2 years ago
According to wikipedia: A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.
Gravity is not designed to explain anything. Gravity is simply an observation, which is why it is know as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Newton's theory ABOUT gravity is the mathematical formulae that describe its behaviour. But Gravity in and of itself isn't a theory. Best not to use that example in your argumentation.
scsteeldrums 2 years ago
But - at the end of it all, that's your problem. Believe what you like, but don't think you're going to be changing my beliefs any time soon.
I pretty comfortable knowing that a God exists. You obviously don't have such certainty.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
That is presumptuous. I am not going to be good with hope of reward, and avoid being bad for fear of hell. I am going to be me. And people should judge me based on myself. And not before they've met me. I know there's possibilities of higher powers, but without evidence, I will never claim they absolutely exist. That is claiming to know something you do not know. That is lying.
My only certainty is that there's no evidence of an afterlife, so I'm going to live this life to the fullest.
JDoucette 2 years ago 6
@JDoucette well if u dont beleive in God then please define good or bad.. and how can any one person stand over me and tell me what im doing is wrong when its survival of the fittest
PacmanBonez 1 year ago
@PacmanBonez Science doesn't offer to judge you on whether you are right or wrong. But it can give you answers regardless, much better than most holy books stating you must kill atheists. Altruism is arrived at by evolution. Survival of the fittest implies only the strong and selfish survive -- this is untrue. Much of our morality and social behaviour comes from evolution. And science itself can show societies and individuals live better when individuals are not being selfish.
JDoucette 1 year ago
"He who saith unto himself, I must believe, I must not question is not a man but a mere pusillanimous mental gelding. He who believes because it has been handed down is a menial in his heart; and he who believes because it has been written... is a fool in his folly. Sagacious spirits doubt all things, and hold fast only to that which is demonstrably true." -Ragnar Redbeard
SecksyCletus 2 years ago 2
In many cases, neither science, nor religion, has yet provided answers.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
You can't try and claim on one hand that science must be logical because it will EVENTUALLY propose an answer to everything, and then claim that religion is illogical without allowing it the same chance to prove itself, nor indeed, acknowledging that nothing in the bible disagrees with any of the current scientific theories.
Yazzarh 2 years ago
Science is rational because it has proven itself. It has been shown to be the only way of understanding the world around us.
"religion is illogical without allowing it the same chance to prove itself"
This summarises the intellectual fraud in your position - religion has been given plenty ofchances and has failed dismally time and time again. And all the religions grossly contradict each other anyway. there is no logic associated with it - only irrationality.
dbes02 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yazzarh 2 years ago
Each type and style of argument is the same. Each has it's respective "gap in science" or "skyhook", and each has it's justifiable answers. I'll repeat again - it's down to what you're more predisposed to, and what you believe.
So in conclusion, yeah...um....I certainly do get the point. Perhaps it is you who needs to stop dogmatically accepting the tripe your role model spits out, and need to start thinking for yourself so you CAN get the point (among other things...)
Yazzarh 2 years ago
"Each type and style of argument is the same"
Incorrect. As Dawkins explains, a gap is a gap. if we don' know, we don't know. We can try to fill the gap by working out the explanation - that's how science works. But religious belief keeps saying that there is no gap - it's god. But that's a useless explanation. In fact the 'god hypothesis' has never been shown to explain anything. Consistent with it being all about make-believe. Science is not a skyhook.
dbes02 2 years ago
@Yazzarh Incorrect. A skyhook is saying "we don't know, but instead of admitting it, let's just throw this in there and say it's true." His argument is that science says says "we don't know. We admit we don't know, so let's look for the answer."
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Science (like all humans fields of experience) names. Names take on a meaning, are the sources of articles and conjecture, so the idea that science just says "We'll be silent until we can work this thing out" is simply wrong. I'll give you two, dark matter and singularity. Michael Shermer calls them "linguistic place fillers" and as soon as something is named there are all manner of articles we can look back on as being drivel, but in time and place they are 'science' of the day.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
There is no question that science has strengths, but there are three important things to note:
(1) science didn't MAKE the Universe, it's our way of sophisticating our understanding of large parts of it.
(2) it is a human creation so it's going to be good and bad. Science records the effects of climate change, but science also facilitates and enables the industrial process that causes it.
(3) science is poor on the subjective human experience, music, feelings, religion, etc.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Science and religion are connected, but they are tellingly different. Religion has been around for 1,000s of years and through periods of historical tension accepts large parts of science, certainly evolution is no longer the pressing issue it was, or some would advance it is for organised faith.
People will use all technological and science boosted comforts and still go to church on Sunday. Science tells us little or nothing about morality and values, that's part of its strength
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
RD can't come to terms with the fact that he hasn't squared the circle of the Darwinian revolution and brought culture into evolutionary theory. So in a very real sense (and this remains the case while a general theory of culture eludes science) humans are exceptions to evolutionary theory.
Culture emerged FROM the evolutionary process, but evo theory can't account for culture which is our second nature and primary source of experience in the world around us. It's important.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
The most glaring example of RD not saying what you said science does is when he crudely cut & pasted his gene-centrism and slapped it on culture with his ill-thought out, under-read (he admitted he had not done the reading in The Extended Phenotype) psuedo-theory of memetics.
So he can go on and on all day about what science should embody, but if we take RD's career as a yard-stick he falls short of this standard, and in some cases undergraduate short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Dust down the critical thinking faculties and push yourself with some questions like:
'If God were real, what gives us the idea that we know enough to presume to know more than God?'
'If the relationship between God and humans is profoundly a subjective one, how would science go about measuring that?'
'Could it be the case that people feel and connect with God, see God in a fundamentally positive way, and not through this 'gaps' notion?'
Don't dismiss them straight away.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation I don't believe in magic, so to ask questions about a god is a waste of time for someone like myself. Bottom line is: science seeks to find the truth through research and study; religion presumes to know it based on "believing". For me, up until now study has been very rewarding. I enjoy "knowing." For some people, "believing" is enough. You can ask all sorts of philosophical questions, but in the end, we didn't get to where we are today by praying.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I think you are underestimating the power of believing. Due to human cognitive and emotional depth to be a human being is to be a human believing. For example, most of the knowledge you have in your head comes there through personal experience and belief. You didn't scientifically distill all that information, it would take too long and would be frankly exhausting.
Most of science remains significantly below any e=mc2 standard and it is the goal for science to refute itself.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation
Now you may well read some of Dawkins' books and be persuaded but don't be confused with a popular science book as science fact. Evolution is a science fact but there are many, many debates within and through the theory that have yet to be cemented, and may never be. Different theorists have different views on some parts than others, so this idea that science is some kind of opinion-free, purism is a lasting fiction.
Dawkins confuses the 'ought' from the 'is' of science.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation "You didn't scientifically distill all that information"
You're right, I didn't. But I can see the effects. You're trying to equate ignorance of complicated science with ignorance of a god. That I didn't research it myself does not mean it's blind faith. I don't need to know exactly how medicine works to appreciate the fact that someone figured it out through study as opposed to the idea that it just magically appeared.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I'm glad that you accept that it is faith, I didn't say it was blind faith. Millions, indeed billions of people of faith have a belief in God which is easy to place on a spectrum through faith, through experience-based belief, right through to almost agnosticism.
There are plenty of specific medicines that people have had faith in that have turned out to be dangerous themselves, indeed the placebo effect is an endorsement of the the causative effect of belief.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
It might not be a comfortable notion for you but most of science content and debate within accepted theories involves opinions, views and beliefs that later turn out to be proved wrong. Theoretical physics is a particularly fertile field where speculation can be particularly flowery.
You are locked into this idea that science is an open-minded panacea to enlightenment and all religion is blind faith. Such belief is fundamentally self-limiting.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
As long as you think that religion and God are magic, or fairies (Dawkins is full of meaningless diversions of late) then there is no point in me talking to you about science and religion. It seems I have far more of a grasp of what science is and does, than you have about religion.
You've clearly closed your mind to the idea of God (as is your choice) but it's worse than that. You boast of your lack of thinking on religion, and yet you would hail science which demands such focus
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation Tell me then, what your definition of magic is.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
First of all it you that brings 'magic' into the discussion. I take it you value the thoughts and considered opinion of Carl Sagan, he said:
"What an astonishing thing a book is. It's a flat object made from a tree with flexible parts on which are imprinted lots of funny dark squiggles. But one glance at it and you're inside the mind of another person, maybe somebody dead for thousands of years.......
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
"Across the millennia, an author is speaking clearly and silently inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people who never knew each other, citizens of distant epochs. Books break the shackles of time. A book is proof that humans are capable of working magic."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage
Episode 11 - The Persistence of Memory
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation This is weak. It's pretty clear he's using the term "magic" in a poetic sense to emphasize the importance of books. He's not talking about "abracadabra" here, suggesting people have magical powers.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Right now you are re-interpreting Sagan are you. The ability to record complex thoughts that can influence other minds underpins what culture is all about and in this sense beyond primordial and proto-culture, humans are the only species from 100s of millions to have culture (proper).
This comes from our over capacity (Dawkins calls it "the gift") to design and create trillions and trillions of artifacts which are in turn our primary source of experience in the world around us.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Over at CERN the LHC, a quasi-magical product of human mind and culture is trying to re-create the conditions fractions of a second after the big bang of the Universe. Dawkins accepts that humans are the only "intelligent designers" the world has ever seen and being able to "internalise the very cosmos" while not the stuff of miracles remains the stuff that evolutionary theory is unable to explain.
I don't call it magic, you did. I call it human exceptionalism.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists, it's clear you revel in your closed-mindedness. However, the uncomfortable fact for you remains that as long as humans remain exceptions to evolutionary theory (which mind and culture most certainly do) then that underlines the arguments from faith and religion that humans are in some way 'of' God.
I'll repeat, trillions of artifacts which are our primary source of experience, including science, education, books, internet, etc.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation Exceptins to evolutionary theory? You know nothing about evolution do you? The human mind and culture are as much products of human evolution as anything else.
rocas511 1 year ago
@rocas511
Cultural expression emerges from the evolutionary process, don't show yourself up here child. Darwin's first chapter of 'Origin' was all about man's methodical selection, or artificial selection which is the only certain foresighted design in the history of life on earth. From this he metaophorised the tendency for nature to preserve from random mutations.
Artificial selection is part of culture, and it remains a mystery to evolutionary theory now and for the last 151 years.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation "don't show yourself up here child" I guess you think insults will help you case here. It hasn't and it won't.
rocas511 1 year ago
@rocas511
Where is this evolutionary theory of mind and culture then? I'll keep asking.
Like I said you're commenting beyond your pay grade and you've been found out. In my book that makes you a complete ponce. So unless you come back with an answer to my question that'll remain the case until you remedy it.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@rocas511
You've dived in here and immediately you've been found wanting. It's gonna be difficult for you to come back from this because you are SO wrong. Unless you confuse science as story telling about mind and culture (which I don't) then there is no general theory of culture and mind out there.
There's no point in praising Darwin for generating a theory with a mechanism underlying natural phenomena and then 'settling' for memetics, or evolutionary psychology: both psuedo sciences.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@rocas511
Take this video Dawkins is quite wrong when he says that science doesn't 'positively postulate' where there are gaps and this is exactly what he did back in 1976 with his misguided, under-read, under-thought (a bit like you) thought as theory in 'memetics.'
His dogma and closed minded thinking pushed him to square the Darwinian revolution and account for culture. He later conceded that he hadn't done the reading on culture in The Extended Phenotype.
Intellectually that is criminal.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation "quite wrong..misguided..under-read..under-thought (a bit like you)"
It seems you are no more capeable of engaging in intelligent civilized conversation than you are in making a point.
rocas511 1 year ago
@rocas511
The point is simple. Evolution can't account for the human mind and culture. Over the last 151 years evolutionary theory has tried numerous times. There are two very important things to distill from this:
(1) Darwin couldn't crack culture in his time from the point of view of natural selection. He called what humans did 'artificial selection' from which he metaphorised the tendency for nature to preserve as natural selection.
(2) Hasn't been cracked in the last 151 years and counting.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@rocas511
"Which superficially appears to explain something but does't" says Dawkins, like a unicorn. This is good, so when we listen to Dawkins on 'The Purpose of Purpose' he now says..
"Cultural evolution is a new kind of evolution. Superficially similar to the old genetic evolution capable of producing advances in technology which mirror the old genetic advances but at a rate which may be a million times faster."
So in memetics we have the unicorn that Dawkins says doesn't exist.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
And Sagan isn't the only one to speak of this kind of magic. Richard Dawkins (A Devil's Chaplain) writes that humans "have the gift of internalising the very cosmos."
There is a dimension of difference between 100s of millions of species over 100s of millions of years for whom it's all localised environments and 'ecological niches' and then one species emerges from the evolutionary process with "the gift" of internalising the very cosmos, and of course capable of working magic.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
It's been 151 years since 'Origin' and despite numerous attempts a general theory of culture from evolutionary theory remains elusive, so the idea that humans and culture are exceptional from evolutionary theory (in full) it at this time an indisputable fact.
Now you can shut your mind down to that profound anomaly but don't think that people of faith can't think about the material world, and certainly to deeper levels that you seem capable of.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
And this is an important point which is not going to go away anytime soon, science is a human product. It is one of trillions of human products so rather than undermining human exceptionalism, it underlines it.
Science is a method, an idea given life by fields of enquiry and it's resultant findings, some of which will stand the test of time. Science at its most technical level though remains an idea acting through bodies. In this sense it as non-corporeal than the God you'd deny.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation 5 replies and a hell of a lot of quote mining, and still didn't answer my question. What is your definition of magic?
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Quote-mining? Oh my, all too often this is the undergraduate defence from someone who is under-read, and in your case under-thought. Skyhooks is the term from Dennett who said in 1995 that culture MUST have a Darwinian origin when it's clearly an emergence from the evolutionary process.
Moreover, culture is more neo-Lamarckian in it's workings. Only a dogmatic would deny that. Sagan's reference to 'magic' is/was more than poetic when we can read minds from the past. Keep trying.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation Forget it man, I'm not going to ask you a direct question for the third time and have you dance around the answer. Good luck.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@Jin Drinker,
You are a poor and unfortunately frequent example of an under-read, under-thought undergrauduate mode of modern non-thinker that thinks because you can read a few popular science books you can argue on the basis that religion is magic and fairies.
You haven't responded to a single point I made, and even more disturbing your lack of interest in clear differences in dimension you think enables you to speak for science. That does make me chuckle.
Read (and think) on Jin.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Jin Boy,
You are not reading what I am saying and this is why you rather lamely state I am dancing around the issue. Dawkins writes that humans "have the gift of internalising the very cosmos." This is true and once we manage to work out how the big bang started 123.3 trillion trillion clock years (if you are travelling at 60mph) do you think we'll stop there?
Sagan called book making magic, human exceptionalism is much more than book making. I don't need luck, I've got a human mind Jin Boy.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@Jin Boy,
You don't get it and it's right in front of you. Science comes from human exceptionalism, and it is only one of trillions of things that the human mind has designed, and that includes realising the process of evolution in the nature setting.
You think that science undermines God but it only underlines the difference from what humans know about the world beyond ecological niche going right back to the big bang. Look at what we're doing at CERN, that's human exceptionalism in action Jin
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation Quote mining is desperate refuge of the creationist.
rocas511 1 year ago
@rocas511
When I quote it's from authors arguing a point and while it's uncomfortable for you to read/hear Dawkins now conceding that culture is "a new kind of evolution" (you tube video 'The Purpose of Purpose') tough, get used it. Human exceptionalism and culture as a phenomenon are going nowhere.
Darwin threw a lot at culture, artificial selection (our own selection, wow) man's methodical selection, unconscious selection, sexual selection and even natural selection and still came up short.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation You have not made me at all uncomfortable, any more than you have offered any kind of logical alternative to the evolutionary process.
rocas511 1 year ago
@rocas511
Cosmic Inflation/Expansion
Natural Evolution
Cultural Expression
Dawkins himself lectures on "a new kind of evolution." Actually it's expression.
1. The social world of humankind is made from human expression
2. Not sustained by biology but by expressed interest.
3. It's an express process, Gould called culture "the Lamarckian Juggernaut"
4. Humans are conscious agents: i.e. to give your 'express' permission
5. Expression is not evolution. Evolution is a kind of change, not all change
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@rocas511
Ah, quote mining, the tourette-defence of the under-thought anti-theist. At what point do you or the writers you revere/follow take some responsibility for what they say and write?
Dawkins goes on in the same lecture to say that culture is "throwing our stately Darwinian evolution into runaway overdrive."
So take a moment and tell me where I can get this theory of mind and culture from evolutionary theory that is the settled will of the scientific community?
I'll keep asking.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Your reluctance to even attempt to ponder on some of those questions tells me that you are pretty closed minded on that area, which is cool but don't come on here and kid on that you are some bastion of science, of critical thinking and reason and rigour when it's clear that is not the case.
You don't want your current beliefs affected by any critical thinking, fine. I would remind you that thought experiments and philosophical questions are replete in the history of science.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@naturalpreservation If not believing in magic is closed minded, then yes, I am closed minded. I can't really defend myself against that accusation.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Your continued reference to faith/religion as magic only underlines your poor reading and understanding of what it is about. For you then to go about research and critical thinking is a bit contradictory when it's clear with each reference to magic (and fairies I guess) your understanding is virtual rather than empirical.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
So far all I've seen from you is a persistent misrepresentation of religion as magic, which while you may well feel smug/smart about doesn't address the issue, so by caricaturing faith you shield yourself from having to think about it deeper. So that's one point.
The other one you make about medicine is terribly general. The spectrum of belief involves confidence, blind faith, experience-based awareness, etc. To be a human being is to be a human believing.
naturalpreservation 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Just because science states that, doesn't mean that scientists themselves don't try and make predictions about things on little more than happenstance and coincidence.
The problem with Richard is that he tries to make science out to be idealistically p[erfect - entirely honest in its adventures and achievements. Reality is though, because science is constantly modified by falliable humans, it will NEVER be idealistically perfect - and this is attested to by numerous...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...failings that scientists have done in their areas of expertise. The problem of thalidomide ring a bell? How about the case of the MMR vaccine and the suggestion that it causes autism in young children?
On the basis of this then, one CANNOT assume or make the claim that whilst "scientists themselves are falliable, science itself is honest in its pursuit of knowledge", or words to that effect. It's simply untrue - you can't extricate the architects of science, scientists...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...themselves, from what they've contributed to, which is science. So if scientists have been dishonest in their work, and not always been pure and honest in their endeavours for scientific truth, then one CAN say that SOME parts of science must also be dishonest and not pure and honest in its truth. This is simple deductive reasoning.
Hear me out - I'm not saying that all science is like this, just some science, but if we can determine that even SOME science is like this...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...then this nullifies Richard's statement that science is inherently self-correcting, honest, and always pleads ignorance when it comes to question that it has no answers for (as this isn't always true), allowing this position of Richard's to be discounted.
Anyway, getting back to the actual issue here - what I was trying to say is that if a religion says "We don't know the answer for this, but I'm sure that God has one", and science says "We don't know the answer for this...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...but I'm sure that we'll work one out eventually", they are BOTH the EXACT SAME THING. NEITHER is any more justified or reasonable - and to claim otherwise would either be to say that science has knowledge over things that it can't possibly know, or that the religious have secret universal knowledge that others don't have. Neither statement is more true.
So thus, getting to the crux of the issue - if one calls one of those statements a skyhook, then the other is a...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh But science isn't really saying "we'll work one out eventually." It's saying, "we don't know and can't prove the answer, but based on this, or that, or the other thing that we have proved in the past, this answer makes sense." They aren't just pulling stuff out of their asses. Saying god did it is based on nothing.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
What I was meaning to say was that the position "God did it" in response to some unknown phenomena, as well as the response "science will have an answer", are both as intellectually unstimulating and stifling of inquisitivity as each other. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
However, I would further say this: statements such as "we don't know, and can't prove the answer" can be used from both a religious AND scientific perspective, and both perfectly justifiably.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
As I said in my previous comments - you can't restrict the use of such a phrase to JUST science or JUST religion, as among other things, it creates a false dichotomy between the two topics - and it also positions the two topic as being diametrically opposed to each other, when in actuality, they aren't. The NOMA theory is an archaic, ill-founded and long-refuted one that simply doesn't hold ground when you think about it - reality is, MANY scientists are able to reconcile...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...their religious beliefs with their scientific pursuits. So thus, trying to say that the two are irreconcilable, or that the two present fundamentally different views of the world via an entirely different way - and a way which is illogical at that - is simply intellectually and academically dishonest.
So whilst I'd agree with you in saying that 'God did it' isn't really an answer for anything at all - science, sometimes, does also commit the same fraud too.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Afterall - to claim that evidence can only be interpreted a certain way, or only one particular way, is mightily assuming of anyone, and quite a faith-based position in itself there...and it would betray the screen of objectivity and the ACTUAL feeling behind any statements such as "searching for the truth" that may be said...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh I'm throwing in with the side that works to find answers, not the side that is content with simply believing.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I'm not exactly sure what you mean what you say that. In my experience, I find people who work to find out answers for religious and scientific questions on both the religious 'side' and the secular 'side' (although again, you're creating a false dichotomy here between religion and science - none exists, as the numerous examples of Christian witness in the sciences give testament to) of the issue.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh People on the religious side don't work to find answers to religious questions. Everything is written down for them, and they either believe it or they don't.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
My, what dogmatic, arrogant, unsupported by the evidence and BLATANTLY assertive statements you're making there! EXACTLY the type of thing that the prominent new atheists of today spew from their mouths and which is then regurgitated by willing sheep such as yourself without any questioning or even THINKING (with respect to what actually IS the case) as to whether or not it's true!
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I can GIVE you examples of the religious working to find answers to religious questions. That's what the ENTIRE SUBJECT of 'theology' is about! The religious working to find answers to religious questions, and in the context of Christianity, for example, it's been going on for a LOT longer (~1700 years longer) than any modern science!
So whilst the religious might have holy texts that they refer to - and I'm not saying they don't - that doesn't mean that they don't question.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
It seems to me that you just much prefer to live in your own little deluded world of broad generalisations and stereotypes compared to ACTUALLY formulating some EVIDENCE-BASED conclusions for yourself, ones which might actually cause you to think and reevaluate your position on certain people groups in life!
I mean - who ever said that the religious always like everything that's printed in their holy texts. Some of the time, it's difficult to swallow - yet that's what...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
...MAKES it a challenge, and an INHERENTLY inquisitive, questioning, and investigative exercise in itself!
And atheists have the audacity to claim that the religious (Christianity in particular) don't like criticism and dislike asking or being asked questions about their holy texts. Believe you me, Christians have been criticising and analysing their own text for FAR longer than ANY other belief systems have been, including atheism.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh Atheism is not a belief system.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
I'm not calling it a religion - don't get me wrong.
But I am calling it a faith-based position regarding the 'why' of the universe and life, however.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh It's not faith based. Atheists don't need to have any position on the "why" of the universe and life. Religious people do. An atheist's lack of belief in one thing does not equal faith or belief in something else. I'm sorry if "we're done here" sounds pompous. I respectfully refrain from replying until I read something that hasn't already been beat to death. Feel free to continue to criticize. Amen.
HentaiGaiJin 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
err...but it IS faith based.
Here, I'll define 'faith' for you: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Atheism has neither logical proof of its certainty, nor material evidence in support of it, therefore it is a faith-based position. That's something that is pretty much agreed upon by all philosophers I have ever listened to, and is something that isn't really difficult to understand intellectually - so I fear for you if that's too incomprehensible.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@HentaiGaiJin
Reality is, believing in ANYTHING without evidence, or believing in the lack of evidence, is a FAITH-BASED BELIEF SYSTEM. Even if you lack belief at all, and your 'belief', so to speak, is in non-belief. You cannot circumvent the issue by saying that 'atheism is outside the realm of faith'. That's simply not true. You present a claim counter to religion regarding the universe - thus, the two claims can be compared side by side and on the same grounds.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh Atheism IS outside the realm of faith, but only in regards to religion. We all have a nature of faith, that is the nature of believing something, even when something has strong evidence, we still have to have faith that that evidence is true, but the faith we are referring to here is not a religious faith, it's human nature one, hence your definition of a belief system is not correct because it refers directly to the anti religious stand.
mrd8532 1 year ago
@Yazzarh Would you say that the disbelief in a levitating leprechaun who becomes invisible when a human is within 100 feet from him is "faith-based"?
B01318182 1 year ago
@B01318182
Not exactly (although, of course, partially, as all claims are). Here's why:
1) We have enough knowledge about the creatures of this planet to be able to reject the statement that a hominid-type creature from Irish myth and fairytale most probably does not exist.
2) We have enough knowledge about the properties of light and how it affects objects to say that (true) invisbility cannot occur, or at the very least, does not currently exist.
(cont'd)
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@B01318182
(cont'd)
3) We have enough knowledge about the effect of gravity on matter to be able to say that levitation, unassisted by any lift-generating process, is impossible, or at the very least, inconceivable by modern standards.
4) We have enough knowledge about the creatures of this planet to be able to conclude that such arbitrary properties such as the specific detection of the Homo sapiens species or the voluntary/involuntary reaction of a creature to a member of the...
(cont'd)
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh Once you properly define atheism and faith it becomes clear that atheism requires no faith.
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Faith - belief that is not based on evidence.
'Disbelief' is not synonymous with 'belief'. I am going to ask you a question. I might be working under the false assumption that you are a Christian, but would you say that your disbelief in Allah is somehow "faith based"?
(cont.)
B01318182 1 year ago
@B01318182
Well, to give you the benefit of being able to reply, it does really depend upon how one defines 'atheism', particularly with regards to its relationship to 'gnosticism'. If you're using the narrow definition of atheist, what Richard Dawkins would call the 'hard-line/strong' atheist position (and what is colloquially referred to today as being the 'atheist' position), then I'm sorry, but your position requires faith. Saying that one KNOWS that there is No God is a...
(cont'd)
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@B01318182
(cont'd)
...logically positive claim, and one that has no evidence to support its veracity. Thus, the burden of proof would rest on the claimer to proove that there is absolutely NO God (or rather, 'god') - and because there is no uncounterable evidence for or against this axiomatically-positive claim, your position is faith based. Your use of the term 'disbelief' (a positive non-belief), as opposed to 'lack of belief' (no belief), suggests to me that you may fall in this camp.
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@B01318182
To cut what would be an equally-as-long justification for (what is colloquially called) agnosticism short - the position that Dawkins and his ilk would call the 'soft/weak atheist' or 'agnostic atheist' position, it is only if one were to take this position could one say that one's belief relies solely on reason and evidence, and not on faith. Although, I suppose, depending upon whether one classified oneself as an agnostic theist or atheist, there could be plausibility...
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@B01318182
...scenarios that might come into play which could affect how LIKELY your belief is (note, though, that LIKELINESS has nothing to do with BURDEN OF PROOF, or whether your beliefs came as a result of FAITH or EVIDENCE-based reasoning). So effectively, only if you used THIS definition, AND classified yourself as an agnostic atheist, could you say that your position does not require faith. Coincidentally, most 'atheists' fall in this category. Consequently, then...
(cont'd)
Yazzarh 1 year ago
@Yazzarh Every atheist Is an agnostic atheist(agnosticism deals with knowledge, atheism is about disbelief). If you argue that atheism is really a belief that there is no god, then I can argue that my belief is based on evidence, particularly the lack of evidence for the alternative.
B01318182 1 year ago