Dawkins in Tubridy this morning

Dades

Nothing to see here.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

Nothing to see here.

Is, indeed, pretty much where it leaves us.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Nothing to see here.

Is, indeed, pretty much where it leaves us.

Actually, I think that may have been in relation to use of the Smite key (see the note under binomate's name). It's incident tape, rather than a philosophical conclusion.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

In one sense, you’re right. Even if we ultimately determine conclusively that we don’t have free will, however defined, it’s not as if we can then choose to change that. At the same time, these points do have a relevance – even if its just because these points will be raised by people seeking to find a flaw in an atheist outlook.

On the other hand, it isn't specifically a logical flaw in the atheist position. I must admit, I suspect that the question as to whether we have free will, or only the appearance of it, may not make any sense.

Schuhart wrote:

Perhaps, strictly speaking, there is no atheist outlook. On the other hand, if atheism simply consists of pointing out that claims like Moses got ten commandments on stone tablets, Jesus came back from the dead and Gabriel recited a book to Mohammed are bunk, it runs out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

Atheism, surely, is more like a starting point rather than either a journey or a destination.

Schuhart wrote:

It may well be that enquiry into the nature of the universe and how we function within it just fall to be dealt with by science, with no particular engagement with people in general. However, faced with that vacuum I think its time to lose the sense of wonder about why many retain a theist outlook.

I agree. Strictly speaking, neither Atheism nor Science answer the question "why are we here?" except with a shrug. Again, one is a starting point free of gods, and the other is a tool of physical enquiry.

Personally speaking, I never found the idea of being part of God's Great Plan satisfying or meaningful in any way - it just punts the question of meaning up a couple of levels. But then, I'm self-employed, so I suppose that's just part of my nature...

I do find the utter lack of "objective" (externally imposed) meaning very liberating. One is free to turn the whole question on its head, and impose one's own meaning on a blank canvas. I suspect I too would survive the Total Perspective Vortex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, I think that may have been in relation to use of the Smite key (see the note under binomate's name). It's incident tape, rather than a philosophical conclusion.

Heh, for the record Binomate isn't actually banned - just confusing the rest of us with his home-made monikor description.

Schuhart wrote:

Perhaps, strictly speaking, there is no atheist outlook. On the other hand, if atheism simply consists of pointing out that claims like Moses got ten commandments on stone tablets, Jesus came back from the dead and Gabriel recited a book to Mohammed are bunk, it runs out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

You could say atheists don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything. Maybe thats why having determined their own stance with respect to religion they never shut up talking about stuff that is not within the remit of their chosen pigeonhole.

ianmc38

Life is rigged.

Beruthiel

Scofflaw wrote:

Strictly speaking, neither Atheism nor Science answer the question "why are we here?"

Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

robindch

> Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

There doesn't have to be one -- humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

Anyhow, what happens is that religion turns up banging on the front door, says that there is a meaning (coincidentally, one which vastly inflates the importance of humans), which it then goes on to provide in incomprehensibe, contradictory and interminable terms, while slagging off horrible, boring old fact-based science for not being able to speak in as glowing terms as it. All a bit predictable, really!

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

You could say atheists don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything.

That's an interesting idea.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I do find the utter lack of "objective" (externally imposed) meaning very liberating. One is free to turn the whole question on its head, and impose one's own meaning on a blank canvas.

robindch wrote:

humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

Just to be clear, its not that I expect the universe to have some intrinsic meaning or purpose – why should it? And I’d agree the idea that humans are as clever a creature as we’re ever likely to come across is actually something that brings a lot of potential. What I find interesting is exploration of where that leads.

aidan24326

robindch wrote:

> Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

There doesn't have to be one -- humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the philosophy forum.

But it is surely the case that there doesn't have to be a reason for our existence. In looking for a 'reason' for the universe being here (as a necessary precursor to our own existence) we are foisting a construct of the human mind onto a universe that in all likelihood does not concern itself with such matters. This is the problem we will always encounter when considering phenomena that are outside and beyond our own tangible experience. Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile. Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to be something beyond the scope of what we can understand (that's not to necessarily say that we could never understand, just that we would still be a long way from any such ability).

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the philosophy forum.

But it is surely the case that there doesn't have to be a reason for our existence. In looking for a 'reason' for the universe being here (as a necessary precursor to our own existence) we are foisting a construct of the human mind onto a universe that in all likelihood does not concern itself with such matters. This is the problem we will always encounter when considering phenomena that are outside and beyond our own tangible experience. Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile. Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to be something beyond the scope of what we can understand (that's not to necessarily say that we could never understand, just that we would still be a long way from any such ability).

Confusion is easy to generate. If I say "we need meaning", many will take this statement as being equivalent to "there has to be a meaning". The two are not equivalent.

1. We (us, humans, most of us) need (desire, would like to have, find important) meaning (some reason for our existence, some purpose to our lives). This, I think, is easily demonstrable, and I believe it to be the truth.

2. There has to be (it is necessary that there be, there cannot not be, universally necessary) a (one single, specific, universally applicable) meaning (some reason for our existence, some purpose to our lives). This is not easily demonstrated, and I think it's completely untrue.

Meaning is easy to provide, though. Consider the question - is art meaningful to the artist? Your life is a blank canvas, you are the artist. Splash out!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Isn't it great how a scientist isn't allowed to say "I don't know", or else the default alternative answer is god...? What is it with religious people that they don't realise the on-going, endless nature of science?

I would think that it's a relatively easy concept to grasp -- that we're still learning about the universe...

robindch

> We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're
> intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the
> philosophy forum.

Having just checked up the difference between intrinsic and inherent, I stand corrected on this point. And even if I'm not yet quite sure what the precise philosophical difference is between 'em, I'm completely sure that discussion of it is best left to our friends in the philosophy forum

> Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses
> 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may
> make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile.
> Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to
> be something beyond the scope of what we can understand

It's not clear to me why you jump from saying that there isn't one, to saying that there might be one, but we can't understand it. What about the option that there is one and we can understand it?

But again, the question seems largely pointless anyway. What's the reason for the color red, or the moon? They just are. Same as we seem to be.

Scofflaw

In respect of the discussion about free will, and knowing that we have some physicists about the place, perhaps one of them would like to read this paper and comment:

THE FREE WILL THEOREM

As far as I can see (as a non-physicist), they are using entangled particles to show that the information-state of one of the entangled particles after an experimenter measures the state of the other is not directly dependent on the information available to the particle immediately prior to the experiment - that the state at time t1 does not flow directly from the state at time t0.

The authors conclude that this allows for free will rather than determinism, and I would tend to agree - but then I wouldn't spot flaws in the theory.

Actually, now I come to think about it, how does a completely deterministic universe operate as a single 'machine', when any particle in the universe can only be impacted by events occurring within its own past light cone?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

In respect of the discussion about free will, and knowing that we have some physicists about the place, perhaps one of them would like to read this paper and comment:

THE FREE WILL THEOREM

It caused quite a stir in when they released it, but it would appear that he is correct. If a human experimenter has the ability to act even slightly independently of what occurred in the past (i.e. can break determinism) then Quantum Mechanics forces you to accept that particles have free will as well.
Of course it is a "dumb" free will, the particles can't choose what to do, they can simply do things slightly independent of their past.
As people have said it is more like "Free whim". Regardless however it is a bizarre consequence of QM. My second favourite after the QM Zeno paradox (possibly the most confusing thing in QM).

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, now I come to think about it, how does a completely deterministic universe operate as a single 'machine', when any particle in the universe can only be impacted by events occurring within its own past light cone?

It can't really, it's a consequence of General Relativity that the universe is really a collection of neighbourhoods. Particles in the Milky Way are only influenced by Andromeda particles in their, by now, 2 million year old state. Andromeda "now" is a completely untouchable independent system.
Add to this the fact that what makes up the machine is different to each part of the machine and you get more complications.
(e.g. If somebody is travelling at a constant speed in a vacuum, they see a vacuum. However somebody accelerating greatly will see dense swarm of particles.)

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote:

Isn't it great how a scientist isn't allowed to say "I don't know", or else the default alternative answer is god...? What is it with religious people that they don't realise the on-going, endless nature of science?.

Someone interviewd on Penn and Tellers "Bullsh!t" series tackled this breifly.

She said that to a theist who believes in the literal Bible (for example) everything has to be correct. Any sign of uncertaintly is a sign that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, it isn't all know, and therefore cannot stand on its own.

Almost without thinking theists apply this same type of thought to science, and thing that is in doubt or is unknown is a sign that science isn't all knowing. What they don't realise is that science doesn't claim to be all knowing, unlike the Bible.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Dawkins was crap, which is what happens when he gets cranky. If fairness, I’m not saying I’d do any better. But if religion is a virus, then applying a weak antidote only leaves the worst bits behind to grow strong again.

Saying free will is not a big issue to him is like the kind of dodging that theists do when they shrug nonchalantly about some piece of obtuse belief and say only God/Allah/Ganesha knows.

I think Dawkins is just not very good at arguing on his feet or anticipating the type of questions theists ask, probably because Dawkins doesn't think like a theist

Quinn can quite bizzarely state that the existence of matter is the evidence for God, and when pressed just say that such a statement is simply obvious, cause and effect. I mean how do you argue that beyond "no it isn't" If Quinn won't accept that not only is his logic flawed but he actually doesn't have any logic there in the first place Dawkins might just as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dawkins doesn't know how to argue that because its nonsense to start with. All Dawkins can do is point out that that is nonsense, and then looks like he is being dismissive.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I think Dawkins is just not very good at arguing on his feet or anticipating the type of questions theists ask, probably because Dawkins doesn't think like a theist

Quinn can quite bizzarely state that the existence of matter is the evidence for God, and when pressed just say that such a statement is simply obvious, cause and effect. I mean how do you argue that beyond "no it isn't" If Quinn won't accept that not only is his logic flawed but he actually doesn't have any logic there in the first place Dawkins might just as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dawkins doesn't know how to argue that because its nonsense to start with. All Dawkins can do is point out that that is nonsense, and then looks like he is being dismissive.

On the other hand, if he's going to set himself up as an evangelistic atheist, he needs to be able to predict/understand theistic thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, if he's going to set himself up as an evangelistic atheist, he needs to be able to predict/understand theistic thinking.

True, and I don't think Dawkins is very good at that. If I had to pick one evangelistic atheists I wouldn't pick Dawkins.

5uspect

I'd imagine he's getting plenty of practise on his book tour.

stevejazzx

Dawkins was much more cohesive when in the company of Paxman. Paxman was failrly logical in his questioning and Dawkins had no problem answering them all. The Quinn fella in this interview sounded like a complete fanatic. He was attacking Dawkins rather than having a conversation. He was asking Dawkins for proof there is no God and all those other impossible to answer questions, impossible to even stagger blindly in the right direction under the duress of Quinns illogical insistance that he doesn't know x, y or z.
Dawkins was too honest with him and most probably a more than a little surprised by his antics.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Dawkins was much more cohesive when in the company of Paxman. Paxman was failrly logical in his questioning and Dawkins had no problem answering them all. The Quinn fella in this interview sounded like a complete fanatic. He was attacking Dawkins rather than having a conversation. He was asking Dawkins for proof there is no God and all those other impossible to answer questions, impossible to even stagger blindly in the right direction under the duress of Quinns illogical insistance that he doesn't know x, y or z.
Dawkins was too honest with him and most probably a more than a little surprised by his antics.

Hey, he should come and spend a while on the Creationism thread...

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Dawkins on the Colbert Report. At least there still some humour out there.

Beruthiel

I love Colbert

Zillah

Wicknight wrote:

Someone interviewd on Penn and Tellers "Bullsh!t" series tackled this breifly.

She said that to a theist who believes in the literal Bible (for example) everything has to be correct. Any sign of uncertaintly is a sign that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, it isn't all know, and therefore cannot stand on its own.

Almost without thinking theists apply this same type of thought to science, and thing that is in doubt or is unknown is a sign that science isn't all knowing. What they don't realise is that science doesn't claim to be all knowing, unlike the Bible.

What a clever observation.