DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Omar B]

So I guess I'm speaking to the passive Omar now?

I could say anything about religion and you get all up in arms, even if I removed the gods from it and used a Bunny. I'm not passive, you're just high strung. I'm totally willing to discuss my stand on the issue, but anything said about the christian god offends.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I could say anything about religion and you get all up in arms, even if I removed the gods from it and used a Bunny. I'm not passive, you're just high strung.

I'll remember that the next time I get you crying! From now on whenever you get offended, the next post shall include, "Oh Omar, you're just highly strung." :rofl:

 

[Omar B]

Well the pattern of this thread thus far has been making my point or saying "sorry" for offending your gentle sensibilities when it comes to religion. Not everyone's gonna have the same reverence for your god that you do, or any for that matter.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Well the pattern of this thread thus far has been making my point or saying "sorry" for offending your gentle sensibilities when it comes to religion. Not everyone's gonna have the same reverence for your god that you do, or any for that matter.

Then don't apologise. Say what you mean. The annoying thing about you is that you make comments intended to cause offense, then you apologise when you are called on it, then you do the same thing over again.

There are others here who have used similar analogies to express their opinions on worshipping the deity on this thread but have been unapologetic. That's fine with me, they feel that their analogies are justified and therefore I conclude that their analogies are not intended to cause offense. You, Omar have apologised and then gone about doing the thing you apologised for in the first place. This tells me a couple of things about you; that your apologies are insincere, that you understand your analogies are offensive and that you intend to cause offense.

Am I wrong mate?

 

[Omar B]

Dude, I don't know what's gonna offend your delicate sensibilities. As you yourself pointed out I have apologized when I you found what I said offensive, but when others make similar analogies you are fine with it. Maybe it's my unyielding stance against religion you don't like so everything I say offends you. After all, you see religion as a sacred issue while I don't so I guess it's tough for you to talk about it with a non believer.

Either way, I've got no quarrel with you, you can always block yourself from seeing my posts.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Dude, I don't know what's gonna offend your delicate sensibilities. As you yourself pointed out I have apologized when I you found what I said offensive, but when others make similar analogies you are fine with it. Maybe it's my unyielding stance against religion you don't like so everything I say offends you. After all, you see religion as a sacred issue while I don't so I guess it's tough for you to talk about it with a non believer.

Either way, I've got no quarrel with you, you can always block yourself from seeing my posts.

Refer to my last post. You obviously refuse to accept what I'm saying. Oh and BTW, I'm not religious!!

 

[Carol]

As a personal matter, I surely don't begrudge you your individual beliefs--I personally believe that my two children are the most intelligent products of evolution, and that "Enter the Dragon" is the most important piece of art mankind has ever produced. The freedom to believe what you want to believe, to think what you want to think, is surely among the most fundamental of all rights. But I have to say, it's 2009 and I'm surprised that people still cling to millennia-old myths intended to explain why it rains.

Unfortunately I think it has become an issue of power, not faith.


My parents are of the WWII generation, my dad was a vet. They had me later in life so my folks are older than the parents of most people my age. They were also much stricter and more conservative (by conservative, I mean in terms of social standards, not politics.) Being active in the church was always a big part of their life. But if a creationist were to approach my 75 year old mom, a devout Protestant, she would likely shake her head in a polite way and say "We don't believe the Bible is a science textbook."

So why has this become an issue now? I don't recall, in my memory, the question of evolution being asked of presidential candidates in prior debates. I don't recall it being such a prominent debate when I was younger. Why was it not such a big deal when we were in times of strong leaders such as President Reagan, Prime Minister Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II?

From what I can tell, it is borne out of concern of some churches, especially Protestant churches, losing their membership and finding that the people in their community are becoming more and more apathetic. They want the schools and the politicians to do what they have been unable to do, which is enforce the literal interpretation of the Bible to a captive audience.

There are many religious folks, including Christians like my mother, that find this practice to be abhorrent.

But philisophically, it seems to be very difficult for faithful to embrace this common ground with some atheists, when faithful people are smugly denigrated in a pandemic fashion -- and vice-versa.

 

[Omar B]

Refer to my last post. You obviously refuse to accept what I'm saying. Oh and BTW, I'm not religious!!

So my apologizing for hurting your feelings but sticking to my guns is what hurts then?

I thought you said you believed in god? I call that being religious, if there are shades of religious piety then I didn't know.

 

[Xinglu]

So my apologizing for hurting your feelings but sticking to my guns is what hurts then?

I thought you said you believed in god? I call that being religious, if there are shades of religious piety then I didn't know.

There is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist, one is emphasizing the spiritual teachings the other the religious organization and it's dogmas.

There are also varying degree's in between those two as well.

 

[arnisador]

There is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist

Truly, distinguishing between the varieties of the superstitious is an endeavor of dubious utility...though they're certainly more dangerous when organized. But if you believe in supernatural entities, whether you band together with others of that ilk or not, your reasoning is, in my opinion, flawed.

We hope to hear R.D. speak on Monday at Indiana U. This story seems to address the matter under discussion here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...dawkins-strident-do-they-mean-me-1796244.html

 

[Xinglu]

I think it is an important distinction - the spiritualist is not knocking on your door to convert you, the religionist is. The Spiritualist is more interested in their spiritual path than yours, the religionist is more interested in making sure you're beliefs fall in line.

While I agree that both's reasoning are flawed in regards to asserting a God exists, I can at least respect the spiritualist approach to it all. For them, it is a personal journey and they are not looking for other people to justify or convert. Heck, not all spiritualist believe in God or make any assertions about God. Look at Buddhists, they don't even address the God issue and yet they are very spiritual people.

 

[yorkshirelad]

there is a difference between a spiritualist and a religionist, one is emphasizing the spiritual teachings the other the religious organization and it's dogmas.

There are also varying degree's in between those two as well.

qtf!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But if you believe in supernatural entities, whether you band together with others of that ilk or not, your reasoning is, in my opinion, flawed.

In my opinion, nearly all reasoning is flawed, including my own.

I am not therefore certain that the reasoning of all people of religious faith is any more flawed than that of people who do not profess a religious belief.

Alister Crowley said some time ago, "We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon; our method is science, our aim is religion."

Not many people seem to have figured out what the old Beast was on about, but I think I've got him sussed out pretty well.

We place our faith (yes, faith) in science, and it treats us pretty well, on the surface. It has laws and they work, mostly. We certainly have come to depend upon them continuing to work as we believe they should for our modern lives, and they do. But that is for the layperson. What goes on behind the scenes for the scientist is a roiling, bubbling, never-ending series of upheavals and arguments and dust-ups and brouhahas and donnybrooks of Brobdingnagian proportions, over all manner of things, great and small, and from time to time, we laypersons may even hear of one or two of them. E=MC2 and String Theory and Grand Unified Theory and so on, as it pops up on the Discovery Channel or for the bluebloods, Nova.

We still have no idea whatsoever of the answers to any of the really big questions (except for Douglas Adams, of course, blessed be His Name).

We do not know what the original cause for The Singularity was. We do not know what existed before it brought all space-time, energy, and matter into being. We do not know if the universe has boundaries. We do not know if it will continue to fly apart forever, or if it will one day collapse upon itself. We do not know where most of the mass of the universe has gotten itself off to, which based on our best theories, ought to be there and doesn't appear to be.

We do not know what the purpose of our type of intelligence is from an evolutionary standpoint.

We do not know what the smallest unit of matter is, or what causes gravity.

We do not know what constitutes life, or if a virus is a living creature.

We do not know how life began.

And, importantly, in the 'Age of Reason', we have placed science as it was understood at that time upon the mantle of correct thinking, and worshiped (yes, worshiped) it as if it were unchanging truth. We have ridiculed and terrorized, tortured and imprisoned people for daring to challenge science - exactly as an earlier age of religion did to men of science.

Ironically, we have at each step of our knowledge proclaimed our knowledge to be complete, and we have taken special pains to root out those who disagreed that we had reached the pinnacle and had anything left to learn, even minority-viewpoint scientists, from crackpots to those whose theories have fallen out of favor in the scientific community.

In the 1300's, we knew that the sun revolved around the earth, in the 1700's, we knew that rocks did not fall from the sky, and now we know...what? Everything, apparently. And those of us who profess that science does indeed have every answer or can go fetch it like a good dog, and that therefore it is not a faith like unto religion to trust in it without understanding - those people will quietly refuse comment when, in five minutes or five years, one or more of their cherished truths becomes invalidated by newer scientific proofs.

At every moment in the days, months, and years to come, those who place their, um, 'not faith but belief rooted in fact' will continue to scoff at those who place their faith in religion (or supernatural if you prefer), but as scientific knowledge continues to advance, and change, and be refined and redefined, most of those who claim to believe in it won't even know about the big-ticket items being debated around them, won't be aware that the scientific bedrock upon which they stand is prone to earthquakes and mudslides. They're smug, they're content - why, they're just like smug, content, believers in the supernatural.

Yes, the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the ken of man, and thus cannot be defined as true or false, which gives those who believe in science the willies, since science cannot grasp it.

Yes, science is a good and loyal friend, and even when we do not understand gravity, we know that it works, since we do not simply float away off the face of the earth. We can observe the effects of gravity in a way that we cannot observe the effects of a deity.

And yet, each set of assumptions - for those who dislike the term 'faith' applied to what it is that they choose to believe - has parts in it that are self-evident, and parts in it which are subject to change and which defy understanding to date. Each is very much like the other when defined as a set of things we know versus a set of things we do not know. Each is very much like the other when defined as a set of operating principles that seems to have valid application to our everyday lives and how we interact with each other.

And each is often utterly at each other's throat, as if the one somehow threatened the existence of the other. Believers in science claiming they never attack, only defend, as they hurl blow after blow, believers in religion saying the same thing. Each pointing out the worst flaws in the opposite camp, whilst proclaiming that the flaws attributed to their own camp apply only to a shabby minority of fringe thinkers, not the mainstream.

And yet, some of us can see both sides of the river, and do not think it impossible to travel from one side to the other and back again.

Science says, with reference to The Singularity, the moment before (if the word 'moment' has meaning here) all space-time, matter, and energy came into being, that there was nothing, a void.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And then, there was an explosion. In a fraction of a fraction of a second, all energy, all matter, all space-time, came bursting into being and exploded. From the energy there was light and heat, from the matter there was shadow wherever light did not strike.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And as the mass congealed, drawn together inexorably together by gravity, planets and stars were formed, and galaxies, and everything began to spin and hurtle away from each other. Planets formed and began to cool.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Well, it goes on like that for awhile. I see no great disparity there. It seems to me that there isn't much difference, philosophically, from saying "the universe was created and we don't know how," and "the universe was created and God did it on purpose." Even supposing that science someday does think it knows how the universe was created, experience has shown that it will eventually change its mind, and what was once settled fact will again be in a state of flux.

I believe in God. I can't prove the existence of God, and I have some serious doubts that any of my beliefs are 'the right ones' concerning any particular creator. I don't really care. It does not keep me up at nights, although it can make for some fascinating debates and late-night coffee conversations.

I also believe in science. I think that science has done a wonderful and amazing job of explaining and understanding the universe we find ourselves in, and I trust that scientists will continue to explore, discover, refine, and otherwise learn about our reality and to share that information in meaningful and useful ways with the rest of us.

I do not suspect that there will someday be any great harmonic convergence of religion and science. They operate on different principles and their language of description is completely different. They're also too much alike to ever get along.

But for those of my friends who believe that science is not based in a belief system, and that religion is necessarily based on falsehoods because it cannot be proven...we'll find out, one day. Pity none of us will be able to share our 'ah-ha' moment with the others.

Until then, shalom. I think that's all I've got.

 

[elder999]

This experience is shared and common, unlike religious revelation. If we accept that what appear to be other humans are indeed separate, intelligent, autonomous individuals, capable of communicating with us, then we have the check of multiple reports of the data. If we reject that and believe that we are the sole intelligence in the universe...well, that might lead to different conclusions. Hence, while each person's experience of the world is by definition personal to them, the data of science is subject to open review and criticism, and is subject to refinement as more data is obtained.

First, let’s consider a rather clumsy metaphor:

Jose, Steve and I were driving down highway 64, between Dulce and Chama, New Mexico. It was about 3 in the morning, and there was virtually no one else on that long, isolated stretch of road through marvelously remote country. In a field to the south, we saw a spacecraft land! We pulled over to the side of the road, taking in the details, when three rather tall alien beings emerged, and began gathering grass from the field! One of them approached the fence where we were on the side of the road, and said, “What’s up dudes? Don’t be afraid; we’re just here for the grass!” With that, he turned around, filled a container with grass, and the three of them got in their craft and shot-silently-into the sky. Jose, Steve and I talked a little about what we’d seen, got in the car, drove off, and talked some more…..of course, we had no evidence of what had happened: no artifacts, no photographs, no measurements-no evidence, other than that of our senses. We had seen, smelled, and spoken with an alien, who we saw get out of and into his spacecraft, which we had seen land and later rise into the sky. When we told people, they’d come up with a number of rationalizations: insanity, mass hypnosis, we’d had a hoax played on us, drug use, we were liars, etc., etc., etc., but we were not to be believed. Of course, that didn’t alter the fact that we knew-knew what we had seen and experienced for ourselves. At best, we might all be at a gathering where others might say words to the effect that “man is alone in the universe,” and look knowingly at each other, with the secret knowledge that they were wrong. We might decide to keep our knowledge secret-that way, no one might accuse of insanity, drug use or lying……such knowledge might be considered a revelation-equivalent to, say, any number of other metaphors, like a bush that does not burn (everyone always calls it a “burning bush,” they’re wrong! The “bush was on fire but did not burn.” Bit more curious&#8230

Of course, you might believe us-based on what we said we’d seen. That’s called taking it on faith.

We place our faith (yes, faith) in science…...

Well, Bill, we do and we don’t. We have to remember a couple of things: firstly, that like us, science evolves. Secondly, that science’s job isn’t to provide “answers.” What science does is provide models (seems I’ve said all this somewhere before.. :lol While, as you’ve pointed out, in the remote past we have had certain knowledge that proved to be wrong, there’s usually room in the way 21st century science operates for that to occur without that absolute certainty you speak of- most scientist recognize that they’re operating from models, and that the models are flawed. Our job is to improve the models with more data and theorizing.


Getting back to your “oxygen analogy,” when I was at LANSCE (the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center) I spent a chunk of my time “counting neutrons.” Of course, I couldn’t see them, couldn’t touch them, couldn’t sense them in any way-I had to rely upon instrumentation to do this.


Knowing, of course, how the instrumentation worked (I made it!) means that I wasn’t taking it on faith-my counter provided me with reliable numbers which I could use, and correlate with other data. As physics evolves, though, perhaps the very term for what I was counting, neutron, may well become obsolete-the understanding that current science has may well be (will probably be) supplanted with a more detailed model-and it might be one that doesn’t include “neutrons,” though I doubt it……in any case, belief in the models of science is not in any way based on “faith”: it is based on data and theory-generally, it can be repeated, duplicated and proven or disproven.


In the case of “God,” what data there may be is generally unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It’s like my UFO story, though-I/we experienced this, even if no one believes it. I’m certainly not going to waste my time-as a spiritual being or as a scientist-trying to convince anyone who chooses not to believe, that they must. Nor am I going to waste that time trying to provide them with “proof.” As far as what is repeatable, duplicable, and, if not provable or unprovable, at least capable of providing evidence in the form of data, the experience is out there for those that truly seek it.
(Yes, if you like, someone can take you and show you "the UFO," and you can decide what the experience is for yourself. :lfao: )


Your conflation of the Genesis creation myth and the Big Bang theory is clumsier than even my UFO metaphor, and well, it's been done many times before. Numerous apparent parallels can be drawn between modern physics and various scriptures and mythologies, but this completely sidesteps the fact that they are generally meant as allegories, pointing to deeper human truths, rather than physics and history.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, Bill, we do and we don’t.

I specifically excluded the 'scientists' here on MT. You can build a machine that count neutrons. I cannot. I'm betting not many people here can besides you. You count the neutrons, and you have a completely different understanding of what it is you're doing than I do by your description. I don't doubt you do it - I believe you do it - but I still have to take it on faith that you do it.

While, as you’ve pointed out, in the remote past we have had certain knowledge that proved to be wrong, there’s usually room in the way 21st century science operates for that to occur without that absolute certainty you speak of- most scientist recognize that they’re operating from models, and that the models are flawed. Our job is to improve the models with more data and theorizing.

First, it wasn't that remote in the past. We're not talking about an epoch, we're talking about a century and a half or so.

I take your point about models, but consider that 99% of everybody is not a scientist and they do look to science for answers - and they take the consensus agreement as fact. Science may have decided that rocks do in fact fall from the sky, but although science has merely adjusted their atrological model, the public has utterly had the rug pulled out from under their feet. They once believed rocks did not fall from the sky as a matter of fact - even to the extent of incarcerating people as insane who insisted on having seen a rock fall from the sky. Someone, it seems, did indeed take the 'hypothosis' that rocks did not fall from the sky as fact, to the extent that people who believed it did not think they were operating on faith.

Of course, I take as proven my statement that no matter how 'wrong' science was in the past, current science refuses to accept that what they know as fact now could likewise be wrong in the future. It's a very smug and overconfident point of view, one utterly unsupported by history. Models? Still subject to being completely wrong based on what we have yet to learn. Don't get me wrong, I'm great with the fact that scientific understanding keeps advancing - I just find many scientists, as well as their sycophants, a tad smug; and for no good reason. They always see their forebears as primitives, and themselves as the apex. They're not.

And again, you can't have it both ways. If a person of that time believed rocks did fall from the sky, a belief which is now justified by fact but which was not at the time, one cannot say they did have faith that rocks fell from the sky, then it retroactively wasn't faith because now we know it is true. Either they had 'faith' at that time or they did not. If they did, their faith cannot be retroactively waved away. So faith is based on personal understanding and not upon objective facts. Q.E.D.

In the case of “God,” what data there may be is generally unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It’s like my UFO story, though-I/we experienced this, even if no one believes it. I’m certainly not going to waste my time-as a spiritual being or as a scientist-trying to convince anyone who chooses not to believe, that they must.

I agree entirely. What I do not understand is why people keep responding to me to insist that I cannot prove the existence of God. I know that, and I not only do not think I can prove God, I also do not even assert God. Why do you keep 'correcting me' and think I am doing so? What am I saying that gives you that notion?

Your conflation of the Genesis creation myth and the Big Bang theory is clumsier than even my UFO metaphor, and well, it's been done many times before. Numerous apparent parallels can be drawn between modern physics and various scriptures and mythologies, but this completely sidesteps the fact that they are generally meant as allegories, pointing to deeper human truths, rather than physics and history.

It has been done before, but I still like it. And regardless of what the Creation Myth of Christianity was intended to do, I like the way it fits when held up against the current understanding of the moment of The Singularity. It comforts me and gives me pleasure. That's my deeper human truth, and it is meaningful to me.

Like faith - in science or in religion - it's personal and not dependent upon objective reality.

 

[elder999]

I agree entirely. What I do not understand is why people keep responding to me to insist that I cannot prove the existence of God. I know that, and I not only do not think I can prove God, I also do not even assert God. Why do you keep 'correcting me' and think I am doing so? What am I saying that gives you that notion?.

I'm not correcting you-at least, not about your intent-I'd never do that.And, for the record: I assert God.

 

[Archangel M]

I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".

 

[elder999]

I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".

Oh, I believe them. At least, I'm willing to take what they say on faith... :lol:

 

[arnisador]

Of course, you might believe us-based on what we said we’d seen. That’s called taking it on faith.

You can't always get full and complete evidence, but it doesn't always matter. Not everything is worth the effort. If my dept. head says I'm teaching 4th hour next term, I don't ask for a group of people to check it then analyze the data. On the other hand, if my dept. head says gravity won't be in effect 4th hour next term, I'd want more evidence than one person saying he saw a rock falling up.

We have to remember a couple of things: firstly, that like us, science evolves. Secondly, that science’s job isn’t to provide “answers.” What science does is provide models

The nature of what we call science has changed considerably over the years, and esp. since the 1500s. The usual point of view now is that "All models are wrong; some are useful" (statistician George Box). Science is self-correcting and is not a body of facts but a method of assessing data and claims.

In the case of “God,” what data there may be is generally unrepeatable, unduplicable, unprovable, and incapable of being disproven. It’s like my UFO story

Well, it's quite easy to make up statements and hypotheses incapable of being disproved. How do you know you're in The Matrix until Keanu Reeves wakes you up? How do you know that all dogs have four legs until you inspect them all? Although the idea of falsifiability has taken some lumps (e.g., from Paul Feyerabend), it's still an important idea. If something can't be established to be true or false, one can still have an opinion on it, but can hardly claim it's more than just that.

I don't for a minute believe that the "religion haters" are doing so out of a quest "for truth". Say what they will, the name calling, belittling and "snark" tell me that they need to hold onto their definition of "reality" just as firmly as the religious do. Deny it all they want, it's as much (or more) about placing themselves above the ignorant idol worshiping savages as it is any "quest for truth".

Religion and science are not two sides of the same coin. And while science may not be precisely a quest for truth...what's closer?

In unrelated news, it looks like Richard Dawkins' talk is expected to be so full that we probably can't expect to get there in time after I leave work. We'll miss it.

 

[elder999]

You can't always get full and complete evidence, but it doesn't always matter. Not everything is worth the effort. If my dept. head says I'm teaching 4th hour next term, I don't ask for a group of people to check it then analyze the data. On the other hand, if my dept. head says gravity won't be in effect 4th hour next term, I'd want more evidence than one person saying he saw a rock falling up..

What if your department head invited you, and you could see the rocks falling up for yourself? Would you go, or simply dismiss him out of hand?

What if he told you "God" was going to make it happen, and you saw it for yourself?