One last comment- my ideas are based on "intelligent design" which is often conflated with creationism, a characterization that is not strictly true. The designer does not have to be God (see Panspermia and SETI project). I happen to believe in a theistic designer. I also do not agree with the commonly perceived face of creationism- 7-day creationism. I adhere to day-age creationism which accepts astronomy/geology/archeology observations as being fully consistent with the Biblical account.
I agree that this discussion has gone on too long, sorry for monopolizing your page. ID has been hijacked by fundamentalists to mean "new earth" creationism , so you get the backlash from that. if you simply support the "prime mover" idea, that philosophical concept is almost always covered in school discussions of cosmology (which is seperate from the theories about the gensis of life). Panspermia is often discussed as theory for the origin of life, albeit one with insufficient evidence yet.
To MassiveReader-Your logic/rationale is good, given your position from a naturalism worldview. I hope mine is also,from a JudeoChristian Worldview.The first assumes without scientific proof that time/matter/space/time,life& a platform for life (earth),information (DNA)&human intellect arose from naturalistic events. The latter presupposes that there is a designer God behind it all. We won't come to consensus unless one of us is willing to move from our core- scientifically unprovable- worldview
Conflating the two disparate topics is certainly more convient - for you, as it sets up a straw man to deflect the stream of the discussion in your favor - by making an unsupported and inflamatory conclusion. by the way how many comments of mine have you deleted in this string? Tsk, tsk, not very intellectually honest!
I agree that the order of the postings has created a lot of confusion. I occasionally ran across some of your comments that predated my comments - obviously making mine seem out of tune. This format doesn't allow a clear complex discussion. I do appreciate that after an initial few strawmen & ad hominems, you've been straightforward, logical and rational. But I believs that we are far from reaching much agreement, due to a clash of worldviews, which I will be able to summarize in ONE LAST POST
Something awfully odd is going on here in the order of reply/response. The strawman, change subject, ad hominem comments all appeared after my post refering francthom to the article on demagoguery but are marked as if they proceed that post chronologicaly. Very tricky, however it is being done. For the sake of brevity, I will skip over the logic breaks in your arguments and the several strawmen Hitler et all you have been throwing out to get to the core of this arguement.
My primary concern is the effect of teaching faith based science in the classroom. Science is complex. Learning it is hard. Giving students an easy out is counterproductive and will damage the competitive advantage of our country seriously. The goverment has already instituted a program of eviscerating academic rigor in most parts of primary and secondary education. Diluting science as well can have no good long term effect. Is mathematics next?
OK -- I think this started of as a discussion of faith as it relates to science (or not). We've gone to ad hominem characterizations and to a strawman diversion about schools. The point of the video is that Dawkins belief in evolution is an article of faith with no scientific basis that life was created through random events that can't be repeated or observed. There's no science t the root -- it's faith based on a certain worldview (philosophy) that believes there is no God.
While it is understandable that Dawkins might choose to go on the offensive against the theists, it has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific menthod. I suspect it comes down to his stated opinion that there be a level playing field, which infuriates most religious people who are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society. They have no practice in supporting their ideas with fact, so they try to subvert the method by dragging it into theology.
Your comments seem to have a bias that is influenced by your worldview. I can say, "it is understandable that Colson might choose to go on offensive against the naturalists." That's a bias based on my worldview. Will you admit your bias? Paul espoused the scientific method. Want the verse? I think some have made the observation that (some) scientists are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society and have no practice in supporting their worldview with fact. Dawkins worldview - no God
Sorry, no ox to gore here. Agnostic all the way, I neither beleive or disbeleive in a god or divine power. Just waiting for objective proof and/or personal divine revelation to clarify the matter. I do beleive in the scientific method, because it has proved it's utility in the real world and I am incensed with Fundamentalists Christian efforts to bring "faith based science" into the classroom. Would you like to give equal time to the Scientologist's veiws on psychology in science classes?
Whoops! I think you changed the subject. I don't recall talking about schools -- seems to me the point of the Dawkins video is that he is espousing faith-based science. His words. You need to recognize whet you've done. 1) raised a strawman, changed the subject to schools, when the subject was faith/ science 2) applied an ad hominem, characterized others -- implicitly me whom you don't know -- as a demagogue
Your comments seem to have a bias that is influenced by your worldview. I can say, "it is understandable that Colson might choose to go on offensive against the naturalists." That's a bias based on my worldview. Will you admit your bias? Paul espoused the scientific method. Want the verse? I think some have made the observation that (some) scientists are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society and have no practice in supporting their worldview with fact. Dawkins worldview - no God
No one can judge whether you are an atheist or not. Is what you believe a science or opinion ? In evolution and genetics, I strogly advise you to examine the initiator and terminator codones in gene replication. (This is the science.) Here, either these complex replications occur by change or by other means. (This is the opinion.) Please do not mix them.
No, I am an atheistic evolutionist and I say that A God is highly improbable. We are only a young intelligent society and we do not have all the answers but science gives us a tool to discover and debate based on facts. Creationists basically throw their hands in the air and say because it is written. That to me is just giving up on discovery and to me is just boring. I find many creationists try to pick holes in Evolution, go ahead, but be sure to look at the Old Testament for holes as well!
"If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem." Dawkins, with this statement, places natural selection entirely beyond reproach - he makes it non-falsifiable. He has just openly suggested that natural selection, at least in his view, can appeal to its own authority to prove its veracity - this is EXACTLY what he criticizes many theists of doing.
it's authority is validated by overwhelming evidence. something theism lacks, yet still claims authority. that is the difference, and the leg to stand on to make natural selection your problem if you don't believe it because it has survived the burden of proof far greater than creationism in a religious context. he's simply saying if you can explain it better, have at it. it's not up to itself to supersede itself if it is already the best explanation available.
He's not "simply saying" that at all. He's saying, quite clearly: "If you find a hole that can't be filled, it's a fault with you and not the theory." This is entirely unscientific. This places the theory beyond reproach and moves it completely outside of science.
well, don't bother putting quotes around something he didn't say, when it's just your perception of what he said. even if he did say it directly, you're still taking your side of what he coul've meant. it's like the theory of gravity. if you don't like how gravity works. tough. it does. evidence shows it. if you have better evidence for some reason why the theory of gravity is false...come up with it. therefore, your problem. not the theory of gravity.
There is a difference between disproving a theory and simply not knowing how to explain something with it. If everyone was incaplable of understanding General Relativity it would still be right.
I can see how you might think that listening to him, but I don't think this is the case. What Dawkins is pointing out is that there's a big difference between an argument from ignorance (I don't know how it could have happened, therefore it couldn't have) and an argument that shows WHY it couldn't have happened. Being unable to prove something is quite different than being able to disprove it.
There is no reason to believe in any supernatural. Supernatural is any so-called thing or so-called entity that is beyond the study of what is natural. No, supernatural is not natural! Evolution is without any doubt the best explanation of our existence. Evolution does not include speculations of supernatural. Atheism is self defense from consequences of dogma, as well as is the promotion of evolution, science and everything that is real.
You are right ... with slight modification. "Neo-Darwinian/ atheistic evolution does not include speculations of supernatural." There are of course deists and others who believe in theistic macroevolution and they invoke God. The video is an example - repeated endlessly if you look for it - that neo-Darwinism is all about speculation of the unobservable non-falsifiable "faith" of its practitioners
again, this is all you've got, taking a simple word out of context. his faith is based on seeing everything that supports it. there is a matter of uncertainty, but very low. the same cannot be said for there being a god other than having it drilled into you in an impressionable/uneducated state. as far as there being a god who spawned creation, who cares? god is unexplainable, so how could god therefore have any particular religion known to be the one?
Dawkins isn't saying he doesn't know how feathers evolved. We know they evolved from scales, and we have all the transitions in feathered dinosaurs to prove it. What we don't know is exactly why. We're not sure yet what the survival advantage conferred by early feathers was, however it stands to reason there would have been. That's the only kind of "faith" that Dawkins is talking about.
Still, I would point out that a mutation can persist even if it's not useful right away, as long as it does not impede survival to a great extent. An example might be the tail bone in humans. We don't need it, but the efficiency lost by having it is not major enough to affect our survival (I'm also going to point out that the fact we have a tail bone is evidence against design, but for evolution). So even the kind of faith that Dawkins talks about is not necessary for evolution.
Also, I think it's rather crude of you to portray evolution as "atheistic". Most Christians around the world, including the Pope, accept evolution, so there's no justifiable basis for equating it with atheism. The fact that Dawkins is an atheist and also an evolutionary biologist is irrelevant - there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are Christians, such as Ken Miller, or Francis Collins. Equating it with atheism seems propagandistic to me.
I didn't say that all evolutionists are atheists. I said that atheistic evolutionists deny the possibility of the supernatural, ie, God. Dawkins is an atheist, he's proud of it -- and an evangelist for his belief. There are a lot of terms in this debate, that's why I modified the comment. Deists, theistic evolutionists, etc.
Note that Dawkins struggles with the idea that a transitional form is not immediately useful. That is the motivation for his "Mount Improbable", an argument about contingency that Darwin suggested would defeat his theory. And suggesting that a tailbone is unneeded means we know everything, the discussion is closed. Maybe there is a reason. Maybe the creator is whimsical - it's been suggested that a God who creates 300,000 varieties of beetles must really love beetles.
Realize that Dawkins is arguing from an atheistic perspective. The "purchase" of transitional forms is a concept of natural selection. Of course, if there is a supernatural, it/He could form all of the transitions, but that is not evolution by random variation and natural selection. We have all of the transitional forms between a model T and a Lincoln, but they are nonetheless a product of Intelligent Design. And "why" is an interesting theological question, not one of neoDarwinian evolution
The trouble with supernatural so-called "explanations" is that they don't really explain anything at all. If you're allowed to wave a magic wand and make anything you like happen, then there's no reason why purple monkeys couldn't start flying out of your butt, or a pink unicorn suddenly materialize out of nowhere and for no good reason. If on the other hand there are logical rules governing what can happen in the supernatural, you might as well just call it natural.
You're right. But a myth is not necessarily untrue. One definition:"a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people". The "bronze age myths" are based on underlying facts. It is equally valid to say that "his faith is based on myths, not bronze age facts." The discussion should involve a probe of whose myth is rooted in truth.
myth is fiction. it doesn't matter whether it's a half truth. that's called doublespeak to say myths are true based on parts of them having some sort of fact. you then transform bronze age myths magically into bronze age facts, as if we're too stupid to notice. you're trying to say white is black and up is down. sorry, but redefining the world to fit your view doesn't trick anybody else with at least 2 brain cells to rub together.
hahahahahahaha This is the best you got?! "OMG this atheist scientist trusts facts and evidence, that's the exact same as my belief in an invisible man in the sky despite their being overwhelming evidence against such beings"
It seems as if the religious have become unhinged by the advance of science. The elaborate mental gyrations that are now required to convince oneself that a superbeing created and controls the universe while remaining beyond the observation of anything that exists within it, have become tortuous to the point of absurdity. Natural Selection has been a cornerstone of biology for 148 years. Find a more perfect theory to replace it and you can be sure Dawkins will applaud you.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Scientific theories and applications of them to the natural world are not matters of faith, they're matters of evidence and practicality.
Absolutely. His use of the word 'faith' in this context is no more religious than the word 'confidence' or 'expectation'. He's only making the point there is not 100% certainty, like any responsible scientist would do.
Wasn't really an admittance of faith, seeing as faith is belief without proof, which is unwaverable. Dawkins by his own admission regards evolution by natural selection as fact because of the overwhelming evidence in all forms of science for it. He also says that if it were disproven he would change his beliefs. That's not faith.
Dawkins regards natural selection as a fact, which means that he HAS FAITH that it won't be disproved. "Science" could conceivably disprove natural selection, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for "science" to disprove naturalistic origins.
"Science" is in quotes, not because I am skeptical about science, but because one popular definition requires that science only be used to identify natural explanations for causes behind observations in nature. This "science" cannot address facts about God
Dawkins obviously regards the theory of evolution, part of which is the process of natural selection, as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not his beleif. His "belief" and what he proselytizes is that conglomerations of theists are inherently more dangerous than a society based on rationality rather than emotion and faith, which places him in a political sub-set of atheists that I would label anti-theists
Actually, Dawkins has more information to assert his antitheism as fact. He's made observations & drawn conclusions, but his data collection is biased & his analytical tools derived from a strongly held worldview. Flat earth is a scientific conclusion, it's just wrong. Conversely, there is no scientific explanation for most of the core tenets of naturalism.There is no scientific observation or demonstrated factual basis for creation of space/energy/mass/time nor of life nor of information(DNA)
I have to disagree. There is no scientific explanation for the core tenets of theism, or "supernaturalism". By definition science limits itself to investigation into the observable and testable. The core tenet of naturalism is that science is the only valid way to investigate reality. Suppositions must have evidence to support them otherwise they are unprovable hypotheses and "unfalsifiable" Science as of yet makes no claims about the core validity of beleif in the inherently unprovable.
Wow! Science limits itself. Sounds like a confession to me. I like to think of myself as not limiting myself to either naturalistic or theistic explanations. I suspect that you consider yourself more broadminded than I, yet you have defined yourself as narrowminded. Here's what I believe - both science and religion are both in search of the truth and if properly pursued, they will be consistent. While there may be no scientific explanations for theism, theistic explanations for science abound
I agree that many religious people are on a search for truth, others are on a search for divine revelation - a very different thing and one that is not falsifyable; they beleive what they beleive. What is constantly being missed here is the scientic method is DEFINED as requiring objective, concrete evidence. Any variation in that requirement invalidates the results and method. You are welcome to teach unfalsifiable precepts in philosophy or religion classes where they properly belong.
Of course science limits itself! It limits itself to verifiable fact and testable hypotheses. That is how science is designed to work and why it is so effective in predicting physical processes. Which goes right back to why there is an arguement here. Theism is covered by other areas of study - philosophy and para-psychology and comparative religion. Where it does not belong is in physical science - unless it can provide verifiable, repeatable evidence that can succesfully survive peer review.
Any claims Dawkins makes about the social danger of theism are unproven and untested suppositions. These have nothing to do with science or atheism per se. This is a highly politicized debate which comes down to the fact that religious demagogues are threatened by science, as beleif in the rational has been successfully funneling away their adherents for decades, and naturalist are defending the right of science not to be co-opted by persons intentionaly trying to subvert the method.
They might be unproven, but they can be tested. Some would say they've been disproved, or there is at least strong evidence that they are wrong. Man has murdered more people in the 20th century than at any other time in history. Let's add up the numbers - which have been pegged conservatively at 100 million. Atheists -- Mao, Stalin, Hitler. The inference to the best explanation is that JudeoChristianity has killed fewer people than militant atheism.
Your facts concerning the twentieth century are true, when looked at from the standpoint of absolute numbers, but cary less weight when those deaths are considered as a percentage of the world's relative population. From that perspective they may well be comparable to countless historical genocidal actions. It also overlooks that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot et all primarily killed the citizens of their own countries for racial or political reasons, how does that involve militant atheism?
Communist states are atheistic -- they endorse it and and imprison people. They killed people, that's pretty militant. I conflated the two, which is at least more convenient than trying to disentangle them to justify the lack of relationship. You win. We can define people as religious - Dawkins is religious by my standard- he has steadfast core beliefs - there is no God. Did you know that Stalin was in seminary and left when he heard of Darwinism? That Naziism at the core is social Darwinism?
Fortunately saying so doesn't make it so, that is the advantage of scientific inquiry. Picking one variable in a complex mix at whim and claiming it with certainty as a causitive factor for a type of human behavior is an invalid methodology in science. All other identifyable dynamics must be examined and evaluated or eliminated as well, such as: mental and physical health, possibility of drug addiction or childhood abuse, education, philosophy, political factors, etc. etc. etc.
They might be unproven, but they can be tested. Some would say they've been disproved, or there is at least strong evidence that they are wrong. Man has murdered more people in the 20th century than at any other time in history. Let's add up the numbers - which have been pegged conservatively at 100 million. Atheists -- Mao, Stalin, Hitler. The inference to the best explanation is that JudeoChristianity has killed fewer people than militant atheism.
I agree that they could be tested in a perfectly rational universe - devoid of all filial emotion - I strongly doubt many people are going to volunteer their children for a double blind test. "Some" would be wrong, making unfounded inferences based on inaccurate assumptions, Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and became a beleiver in astrology and gnostic mysticism. The "faith" of Stalin and Mao was dialectic materialism. They even had their own holy books!
characterization of religious people as demagogues is typically characterized as a "strawman" without what is typically considered a scientific definition. Is this a scientific discussion? If so, give me a scientific definition of demagogue, and I'll let you know if I think Richard Dawkins fits the definition
There is no definition in science. Demagogy refers to a strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes. Dawkin's anti-theistic arguments are far from impassioned rhetoric, in fact they are dry and cerebral. But they are arguements and not science as he shows no proof for the hypotheses he puts forward.
I recommend the wikipedia article on demagogory to you. Your Hitler/Stalin mass murder arguement fits several seperate parts of the suggested methodology for effective demagoguery as do many of the arguements I have seen used on this topic. That is why I chose the word. This is not science, but hopefully reasoned debate.
"Dawkins obviously regards the theory of evolution, part of which is the process of natural selection, as proven beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe in the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither is a scientific scientific position. Are we talking about worldview, or about science? If you want to talk about worldview (religion/ philosophy) let me know. Otherwise, let's keep this on a scientific plane. I infer that that is your area of interest
Agreed, we should leave belief out of scientific discussions. Isn't that what the arguement is about? I suspect few people in this forum object to religious beleifs in and of themselves, since they are not out picketing churches, etc. Neither are they trying to subvert the tax exempt status of churches or actively steal away their adherents. Dawkins and his fellow activists are atypical of the type and are reacting to an attack that can damage the effectivness of science by going on the offense.
This is a question of worldview. Two such worldviews are Naturalism and Christianity. Some naturalists believe there is no God (atheists) and all arguments must be derived from natural observations/ deductions. Dawkins in this group (no claim of agnosticism!), so he cannot be swayed by any assertion of supernaturalism.
In contrast, some Christians believe that that book provides the sole revelation; science says little about God's role in Creation.
no claim of agnosticims?. You can play the sementics game all you want. For one dawkins has said on many occations that these are just words. He's said he's and toothfairyagnostic or osmething like that. He's also said during interviews that he is waiting for the evidence to be found of a creator/god. More semantics with the word faith. I define faith as belief with no evidence. So therefor science is not faith. Describing faith as just belief is wrong. The word belief means belief not faith.
Well, your definition is flawed. Those with religious faith have evidence for their beliefs. I submit that you define faith not simply as "belief without evidence" but instead, belief without evidence that you, personally, deem to be insufficient.
Yes, both have a role but only one has a role in science or even "science" the other is an old story book for adults who should know better and outside the 4% of the world who inhabit the US, most (who can read) do. Time for the US collective intellect to get out of the 10th century
Science and biblical revelation are not mutually exclusive. Properly pursued, understanding one will strengthen belief in the other. Simple example: 5,000 years ago, the Bible asserted everything was created from nothing. Naturalistic science has only recently begun struggling with the Big Bang beginning, plus evolution of life-compatible environments, chemical evolution at the spark of life, information-rich structure of DNA, and anti-survival instincts described by Christians as Soul
Only by the kind of extreme over-simplification you just demonstrated can you begin to make the bible coincide with scientific fact. Interesting that you would compromise the scripture to fit in with the fact though, rather than try to mutilate and vigorously deny scientific facts. For that I'll give credit to you rather than Kent Hovind any day.
One last comment- my ideas are based on "intelligent design" which is often conflated with creationism, a characterization that is not strictly true. The designer does not have to be God (see Panspermia and SETI project). I happen to believe in a theistic designer. I also do not agree with the commonly perceived face of creationism- 7-day creationism. I adhere to day-age creationism which accepts astronomy/geology/archeology observations as being fully consistent with the Biblical account.
frankcthom 3 years ago
I agree that this discussion has gone on too long, sorry for monopolizing your page. ID has been hijacked by fundamentalists to mean "new earth" creationism , so you get the backlash from that. if you simply support the "prime mover" idea, that philosophical concept is almost always covered in school discussions of cosmology (which is seperate from the theories about the gensis of life). Panspermia is often discussed as theory for the origin of life, albeit one with insufficient evidence yet.
massivereader 3 years ago
To MassiveReader-Your logic/rationale is good, given your position from a naturalism worldview. I hope mine is also,from a JudeoChristian Worldview.The first assumes without scientific proof that time/matter/space/time,life& a platform for life (earth),information (DNA)&human intellect arose from naturalistic events. The latter presupposes that there is a designer God behind it all. We won't come to consensus unless one of us is willing to move from our core- scientifically unprovable- worldview
frankcthom 3 years ago
Conflating the two disparate topics is certainly more convient - for you, as it sets up a straw man to deflect the stream of the discussion in your favor - by making an unsupported and inflamatory conclusion. by the way how many comments of mine have you deleted in this string? Tsk, tsk, not very intellectually honest!
massivereader 4 years ago
I agree that the order of the postings has created a lot of confusion. I occasionally ran across some of your comments that predated my comments - obviously making mine seem out of tune. This format doesn't allow a clear complex discussion. I do appreciate that after an initial few strawmen & ad hominems, you've been straightforward, logical and rational. But I believs that we are far from reaching much agreement, due to a clash of worldviews, which I will be able to summarize in ONE LAST POST
frankcthom 4 years ago
Something awfully odd is going on here in the order of reply/response. The strawman, change subject, ad hominem comments all appeared after my post refering francthom to the article on demagoguery but are marked as if they proceed that post chronologicaly. Very tricky, however it is being done. For the sake of brevity, I will skip over the logic breaks in your arguments and the several strawmen Hitler et all you have been throwing out to get to the core of this arguement.
massivereader 4 years ago
My primary concern is the effect of teaching faith based science in the classroom. Science is complex. Learning it is hard. Giving students an easy out is counterproductive and will damage the competitive advantage of our country seriously. The goverment has already instituted a program of eviscerating academic rigor in most parts of primary and secondary education. Diluting science as well can have no good long term effect. Is mathematics next?
massivereader 4 years ago
OK -- I think this started of as a discussion of faith as it relates to science (or not). We've gone to ad hominem characterizations and to a strawman diversion about schools. The point of the video is that Dawkins belief in evolution is an article of faith with no scientific basis that life was created through random events that can't be repeated or observed. There's no science t the root -- it's faith based on a certain worldview (philosophy) that believes there is no God.
frankcthom 4 years ago
While it is understandable that Dawkins might choose to go on the offensive against the theists, it has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific menthod. I suspect it comes down to his stated opinion that there be a level playing field, which infuriates most religious people who are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society. They have no practice in supporting their ideas with fact, so they try to subvert the method by dragging it into theology.
massivereader 4 years ago
Your comments seem to have a bias that is influenced by your worldview. I can say, "it is understandable that Colson might choose to go on offensive against the naturalists." That's a bias based on my worldview. Will you admit your bias? Paul espoused the scientific method. Want the verse? I think some have made the observation that (some) scientists are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society and have no practice in supporting their worldview with fact. Dawkins worldview - no God
frankcthom 4 years ago
Sorry, no ox to gore here. Agnostic all the way, I neither beleive or disbeleive in a god or divine power. Just waiting for objective proof and/or personal divine revelation to clarify the matter. I do beleive in the scientific method, because it has proved it's utility in the real world and I am incensed with Fundamentalists Christian efforts to bring "faith based science" into the classroom. Would you like to give equal time to the Scientologist's veiws on psychology in science classes?
massivereader 4 years ago
Whoops! I think you changed the subject. I don't recall talking about schools -- seems to me the point of the Dawkins video is that he is espousing faith-based science. His words. You need to recognize whet you've done. 1) raised a strawman, changed the subject to schools, when the subject was faith/ science 2) applied an ad hominem, characterized others -- implicitly me whom you don't know -- as a demagogue
frankcthom 4 years ago
Your comments seem to have a bias that is influenced by your worldview. I can say, "it is understandable that Colson might choose to go on offensive against the naturalists." That's a bias based on my worldview. Will you admit your bias? Paul espoused the scientific method. Want the verse? I think some have made the observation that (some) scientists are used to being held up as admirable pillars of society and have no practice in supporting their worldview with fact. Dawkins worldview - no God
frankcthom 4 years ago
No one can judge whether you are an atheist or not. Is what you believe a science or opinion ? In evolution and genetics, I strogly advise you to examine the initiator and terminator codones in gene replication. (This is the science.) Here, either these complex replications occur by change or by other means. (This is the opinion.) Please do not mix them.
RogerWishman 4 years ago
No, I am an atheistic evolutionist and I say that A God is highly improbable. We are only a young intelligent society and we do not have all the answers but science gives us a tool to discover and debate based on facts. Creationists basically throw their hands in the air and say because it is written. That to me is just giving up on discovery and to me is just boring. I find many creationists try to pick holes in Evolution, go ahead, but be sure to look at the Old Testament for holes as well!
speedie67 4 years ago
It is the religious folks who need to justify their belief in the great santa claus.
frozen78996587 4 years ago
"If you can't think of one, then that's your problem, not natural selection's problem." Dawkins, with this statement, places natural selection entirely beyond reproach - he makes it non-falsifiable. He has just openly suggested that natural selection, at least in his view, can appeal to its own authority to prove its veracity - this is EXACTLY what he criticizes many theists of doing.
BloatedSensations 5 years ago
it's authority is validated by overwhelming evidence. something theism lacks, yet still claims authority. that is the difference, and the leg to stand on to make natural selection your problem if you don't believe it because it has survived the burden of proof far greater than creationism in a religious context. he's simply saying if you can explain it better, have at it. it's not up to itself to supersede itself if it is already the best explanation available.
Thrashaero 5 years ago
He's not "simply saying" that at all. He's saying, quite clearly: "If you find a hole that can't be filled, it's a fault with you and not the theory." This is entirely unscientific. This places the theory beyond reproach and moves it completely outside of science.
BloatedSensations 5 years ago
well, don't bother putting quotes around something he didn't say, when it's just your perception of what he said. even if he did say it directly, you're still taking your side of what he coul've meant. it's like the theory of gravity. if you don't like how gravity works. tough. it does. evidence shows it. if you have better evidence for some reason why the theory of gravity is false...come up with it. therefore, your problem. not the theory of gravity.
Thrashaero 5 years ago
There is a difference between disproving a theory and simply not knowing how to explain something with it. If everyone was incaplable of understanding General Relativity it would still be right.
RapidAssassin 4 years ago
I can see how you might think that listening to him, but I don't think this is the case. What Dawkins is pointing out is that there's a big difference between an argument from ignorance (I don't know how it could have happened, therefore it couldn't have) and an argument that shows WHY it couldn't have happened. Being unable to prove something is quite different than being able to disprove it.
TheMathGuy 4 years ago
There is no reason to believe in any supernatural. Supernatural is any so-called thing or so-called entity that is beyond the study of what is natural. No, supernatural is not natural! Evolution is without any doubt the best explanation of our existence. Evolution does not include speculations of supernatural. Atheism is self defense from consequences of dogma, as well as is the promotion of evolution, science and everything that is real.
JohnHasSeriousQ 5 years ago
You are right ... with slight modification. "Neo-Darwinian/ atheistic evolution does not include speculations of supernatural." There are of course deists and others who believe in theistic macroevolution and they invoke God. The video is an example - repeated endlessly if you look for it - that neo-Darwinism is all about speculation of the unobservable non-falsifiable "faith" of its practitioners
frankcthom 5 years ago
again, this is all you've got, taking a simple word out of context. his faith is based on seeing everything that supports it. there is a matter of uncertainty, but very low. the same cannot be said for there being a god other than having it drilled into you in an impressionable/uneducated state. as far as there being a god who spawned creation, who cares? god is unexplainable, so how could god therefore have any particular religion known to be the one?
Thrashaero 5 years ago
Dawkins isn't saying he doesn't know how feathers evolved. We know they evolved from scales, and we have all the transitions in feathered dinosaurs to prove it. What we don't know is exactly why. We're not sure yet what the survival advantage conferred by early feathers was, however it stands to reason there would have been. That's the only kind of "faith" that Dawkins is talking about.
quiIl 4 years ago
Still, I would point out that a mutation can persist even if it's not useful right away, as long as it does not impede survival to a great extent. An example might be the tail bone in humans. We don't need it, but the efficiency lost by having it is not major enough to affect our survival (I'm also going to point out that the fact we have a tail bone is evidence against design, but for evolution). So even the kind of faith that Dawkins talks about is not necessary for evolution.
quiIl 4 years ago
Also, I think it's rather crude of you to portray evolution as "atheistic". Most Christians around the world, including the Pope, accept evolution, so there's no justifiable basis for equating it with atheism. The fact that Dawkins is an atheist and also an evolutionary biologist is irrelevant - there are plenty of evolutionary biologists who are Christians, such as Ken Miller, or Francis Collins. Equating it with atheism seems propagandistic to me.
quiIl 4 years ago
I didn't say that all evolutionists are atheists. I said that atheistic evolutionists deny the possibility of the supernatural, ie, God. Dawkins is an atheist, he's proud of it -- and an evangelist for his belief. There are a lot of terms in this debate, that's why I modified the comment. Deists, theistic evolutionists, etc.
Was that crude?
frankcthom 4 years ago
Note that Dawkins struggles with the idea that a transitional form is not immediately useful. That is the motivation for his "Mount Improbable", an argument about contingency that Darwin suggested would defeat his theory. And suggesting that a tailbone is unneeded means we know everything, the discussion is closed. Maybe there is a reason. Maybe the creator is whimsical - it's been suggested that a God who creates 300,000 varieties of beetles must really love beetles.
frankcthom 4 years ago
Realize that Dawkins is arguing from an atheistic perspective. The "purchase" of transitional forms is a concept of natural selection. Of course, if there is a supernatural, it/He could form all of the transitions, but that is not evolution by random variation and natural selection. We have all of the transitional forms between a model T and a Lincoln, but they are nonetheless a product of Intelligent Design. And "why" is an interesting theological question, not one of neoDarwinian evolution
frankcthom 4 years ago
The trouble with supernatural so-called "explanations" is that they don't really explain anything at all. If you're allowed to wave a magic wand and make anything you like happen, then there's no reason why purple monkeys couldn't start flying out of your butt, or a pink unicorn suddenly materialize out of nowhere and for no good reason. If on the other hand there are logical rules governing what can happen in the supernatural, you might as well just call it natural.
TheMathGuy 4 years ago
Yes but his faith is based on facts not bronze age myths.
brighteyes498 5 years ago
You're right. But a myth is not necessarily untrue. One definition:"a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people". The "bronze age myths" are based on underlying facts. It is equally valid to say that "his faith is based on myths, not bronze age facts." The discussion should involve a probe of whose myth is rooted in truth.
frankcthom 5 years ago
LOL "a myth is not necessarily untrue"
myth is fiction. it doesn't matter whether it's a half truth. that's called doublespeak to say myths are true based on parts of them having some sort of fact. you then transform bronze age myths magically into bronze age facts, as if we're too stupid to notice. you're trying to say white is black and up is down. sorry, but redefining the world to fit your view doesn't trick anybody else with at least 2 brain cells to rub together.
Thrashaero 5 years ago
hahahahahahaha This is the best you got?! "OMG this atheist scientist trusts facts and evidence, that's the exact same as my belief in an invisible man in the sky despite their being overwhelming evidence against such beings"
Epyon42 5 years ago
Very nice clip, has nothing to do with religious faith of course, which is belief despite contray evidence.
vavictus 5 years ago
It seems as if the religious have become unhinged by the advance of science. The elaborate mental gyrations that are now required to convince oneself that a superbeing created and controls the universe while remaining beyond the observation of anything that exists within it, have become tortuous to the point of absurdity. Natural Selection has been a cornerstone of biology for 148 years. Find a more perfect theory to replace it and you can be sure Dawkins will applaud you.
methinxaweezil 5 years ago
Ps. Thanks for the clip.
methinxaweezil 5 years ago
Couldn't have put it better myself. Scientific theories and applications of them to the natural world are not matters of faith, they're matters of evidence and practicality.
lolharbandhar 5 years ago
Absolutely. His use of the word 'faith' in this context is no more religious than the word 'confidence' or 'expectation'. He's only making the point there is not 100% certainty, like any responsible scientist would do.
methinxaweezil 5 years ago
Wasn't really an admittance of faith, seeing as faith is belief without proof, which is unwaverable. Dawkins by his own admission regards evolution by natural selection as fact because of the overwhelming evidence in all forms of science for it. He also says that if it were disproven he would change his beliefs. That's not faith.
lolharbandhar 5 years ago
Dawkins regards natural selection as a fact, which means that he HAS FAITH that it won't be disproved. "Science" could conceivably disprove natural selection, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for "science" to disprove naturalistic origins.
"Science" is in quotes, not because I am skeptical about science, but because one popular definition requires that science only be used to identify natural explanations for causes behind observations in nature. This "science" cannot address facts about God
frankcthom 5 years ago
Dawkins obviously regards the theory of evolution, part of which is the process of natural selection, as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not his beleif. His "belief" and what he proselytizes is that conglomerations of theists are inherently more dangerous than a society based on rationality rather than emotion and faith, which places him in a political sub-set of atheists that I would label anti-theists
massivereader 4 years ago
Actually, Dawkins has more information to assert his antitheism as fact. He's made observations & drawn conclusions, but his data collection is biased & his analytical tools derived from a strongly held worldview. Flat earth is a scientific conclusion, it's just wrong. Conversely, there is no scientific explanation for most of the core tenets of naturalism.There is no scientific observation or demonstrated factual basis for creation of space/energy/mass/time nor of life nor of information(DNA)
frankcthom 4 years ago
I have to disagree. There is no scientific explanation for the core tenets of theism, or "supernaturalism". By definition science limits itself to investigation into the observable and testable. The core tenet of naturalism is that science is the only valid way to investigate reality. Suppositions must have evidence to support them otherwise they are unprovable hypotheses and "unfalsifiable" Science as of yet makes no claims about the core validity of beleif in the inherently unprovable.
massivereader 4 years ago
Wow! Science limits itself. Sounds like a confession to me. I like to think of myself as not limiting myself to either naturalistic or theistic explanations. I suspect that you consider yourself more broadminded than I, yet you have defined yourself as narrowminded. Here's what I believe - both science and religion are both in search of the truth and if properly pursued, they will be consistent. While there may be no scientific explanations for theism, theistic explanations for science abound
frankcthom 4 years ago
I agree that many religious people are on a search for truth, others are on a search for divine revelation - a very different thing and one that is not falsifyable; they beleive what they beleive. What is constantly being missed here is the scientic method is DEFINED as requiring objective, concrete evidence. Any variation in that requirement invalidates the results and method. You are welcome to teach unfalsifiable precepts in philosophy or religion classes where they properly belong.
massivereader 4 years ago
Of course science limits itself! It limits itself to verifiable fact and testable hypotheses. That is how science is designed to work and why it is so effective in predicting physical processes. Which goes right back to why there is an arguement here. Theism is covered by other areas of study - philosophy and para-psychology and comparative religion. Where it does not belong is in physical science - unless it can provide verifiable, repeatable evidence that can succesfully survive peer review.
massivereader 4 years ago
Any claims Dawkins makes about the social danger of theism are unproven and untested suppositions. These have nothing to do with science or atheism per se. This is a highly politicized debate which comes down to the fact that religious demagogues are threatened by science, as beleif in the rational has been successfully funneling away their adherents for decades, and naturalist are defending the right of science not to be co-opted by persons intentionaly trying to subvert the method.
massivereader 4 years ago
They might be unproven, but they can be tested. Some would say they've been disproved, or there is at least strong evidence that they are wrong. Man has murdered more people in the 20th century than at any other time in history. Let's add up the numbers - which have been pegged conservatively at 100 million. Atheists -- Mao, Stalin, Hitler. The inference to the best explanation is that JudeoChristianity has killed fewer people than militant atheism.
frankcthom 4 years ago
Your facts concerning the twentieth century are true, when looked at from the standpoint of absolute numbers, but cary less weight when those deaths are considered as a percentage of the world's relative population. From that perspective they may well be comparable to countless historical genocidal actions. It also overlooks that Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot et all primarily killed the citizens of their own countries for racial or political reasons, how does that involve militant atheism?
massivereader 4 years ago
Communist states are atheistic -- they endorse it and and imprison people. They killed people, that's pretty militant. I conflated the two, which is at least more convenient than trying to disentangle them to justify the lack of relationship. You win. We can define people as religious - Dawkins is religious by my standard- he has steadfast core beliefs - there is no God. Did you know that Stalin was in seminary and left when he heard of Darwinism? That Naziism at the core is social Darwinism?
frankcthom 4 years ago
Fortunately saying so doesn't make it so, that is the advantage of scientific inquiry. Picking one variable in a complex mix at whim and claiming it with certainty as a causitive factor for a type of human behavior is an invalid methodology in science. All other identifyable dynamics must be examined and evaluated or eliminated as well, such as: mental and physical health, possibility of drug addiction or childhood abuse, education, philosophy, political factors, etc. etc. etc.
massivereader 4 years ago
They might be unproven, but they can be tested. Some would say they've been disproved, or there is at least strong evidence that they are wrong. Man has murdered more people in the 20th century than at any other time in history. Let's add up the numbers - which have been pegged conservatively at 100 million. Atheists -- Mao, Stalin, Hitler. The inference to the best explanation is that JudeoChristianity has killed fewer people than militant atheism.
frankcthom 4 years ago
I agree that they could be tested in a perfectly rational universe - devoid of all filial emotion - I strongly doubt many people are going to volunteer their children for a double blind test. "Some" would be wrong, making unfounded inferences based on inaccurate assumptions, Hitler was raised Roman Catholic and became a beleiver in astrology and gnostic mysticism. The "faith" of Stalin and Mao was dialectic materialism. They even had their own holy books!
massivereader 4 years ago
characterization of religious people as demagogues is typically characterized as a "strawman" without what is typically considered a scientific definition. Is this a scientific discussion? If so, give me a scientific definition of demagogue, and I'll let you know if I think Richard Dawkins fits the definition
frankcthom 4 years ago
There is no definition in science. Demagogy refers to a strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes. Dawkin's anti-theistic arguments are far from impassioned rhetoric, in fact they are dry and cerebral. But they are arguements and not science as he shows no proof for the hypotheses he puts forward.
massivereader 4 years ago
I recommend the wikipedia article on demagogory to you. Your Hitler/Stalin mass murder arguement fits several seperate parts of the suggested methodology for effective demagoguery as do many of the arguements I have seen used on this topic. That is why I chose the word. This is not science, but hopefully reasoned debate.
massivereader 4 years ago
"Dawkins obviously regards the theory of evolution, part of which is the process of natural selection, as proven beyond a reasonable doubt." I believe in the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither is a scientific scientific position. Are we talking about worldview, or about science? If you want to talk about worldview (religion/ philosophy) let me know. Otherwise, let's keep this on a scientific plane. I infer that that is your area of interest
frankcthom 4 years ago
Agreed, we should leave belief out of scientific discussions. Isn't that what the arguement is about? I suspect few people in this forum object to religious beleifs in and of themselves, since they are not out picketing churches, etc. Neither are they trying to subvert the tax exempt status of churches or actively steal away their adherents. Dawkins and his fellow activists are atypical of the type and are reacting to an attack that can damage the effectivness of science by going on the offense.
massivereader 4 years ago
This is a question of worldview. Two such worldviews are Naturalism and Christianity. Some naturalists believe there is no God (atheists) and all arguments must be derived from natural observations/ deductions. Dawkins in this group (no claim of agnosticism!), so he cannot be swayed by any assertion of supernaturalism.
In contrast, some Christians believe that that book provides the sole revelation; science says little about God's role in Creation.
In fact both have a role (see next post)
frankcthom 5 years ago
no claim of agnosticims?. You can play the sementics game all you want. For one dawkins has said on many occations that these are just words. He's said he's and toothfairyagnostic or osmething like that. He's also said during interviews that he is waiting for the evidence to be found of a creator/god. More semantics with the word faith. I define faith as belief with no evidence. So therefor science is not faith. Describing faith as just belief is wrong. The word belief means belief not faith.
boozehound420 5 years ago
Well, your definition is flawed. Those with religious faith have evidence for their beliefs. I submit that you define faith not simply as "belief without evidence" but instead, belief without evidence that you, personally, deem to be insufficient.
BloatedSensations 5 years ago
Yes, both have a role but only one has a role in science or even "science" the other is an old story book for adults who should know better and outside the 4% of the world who inhabit the US, most (who can read) do. Time for the US collective intellect to get out of the 10th century
LEATSLAN 5 years ago
Science and biblical revelation are not mutually exclusive. Properly pursued, understanding one will strengthen belief in the other. Simple example: 5,000 years ago, the Bible asserted everything was created from nothing. Naturalistic science has only recently begun struggling with the Big Bang beginning, plus evolution of life-compatible environments, chemical evolution at the spark of life, information-rich structure of DNA, and anti-survival instincts described by Christians as Soul
frankcthom 5 years ago
Only by the kind of extreme over-simplification you just demonstrated can you begin to make the bible coincide with scientific fact. Interesting that you would compromise the scripture to fit in with the fact though, rather than try to mutilate and vigorously deny scientific facts. For that I'll give credit to you rather than Kent Hovind any day.
DantheJazzman8 5 years ago