Dawkins and Death

Seloth

Well there are extremists with everything,be it Cahtloic,Muslim,Atheist.

As for the tranchware fare,well take the Iirsh who fought in WWI.They did it as they tohught Ireland would be rewareded with freedom,others may have done it as thye did not know what they were getting into,or needed the money,or simply fought as they thought they had too.But you have to remember,no war was fought at such a scale before this,so they had no example to terrify them so much to stay away.Thus the drafting of WWII.

TheThing!

Death enriches life. Without death, life is meaningless. If you do not know darkness then light is nothing special, if you do not know despair, happiness is nothing.

Joe1919

In my view Dawkins is an absolutist and for this reason I think a lot of skeptics would find him equally as fundamental in his beliefs as any extreme religious believer. Personally I prefer the skeptical view which states that we cant ever really know anything but we cant really get away from having some sort of beliefs in order to function e.g. do you believe in education? do you believe your house is worth what you paid for it ,do you believe in yourself, your family.........? We all have historical,economic, scientific, social, political....................................beliefs

Seloth

@The Thing

So what your saying is that people take things for granted e.g life,yet many people dont.For instance I'm trying to cram as much experiances in as possible but I'm not Atheist.Thats a guess at what you said as in turn it dosent make much sense,people still fear death as it is the unknown be you atheist or theist so your argument is flawed.

@Joe.

Complements to your post,not many people in this world say that there are also Atheist extremists as well.And yeah,While I do believe in a God I'm also not sure theres one as well.I am open to that one does not exists,but that one exists too.Thats why I dont see why people who say they believe in science and not God,well thats quite stupid as Science is the workings of old and new things and the discovery of the new while being open to all things rather than saying that something is not possible on a subject which we cant know about such as religion((but of course something such as a current human flying with out any help on our planet and others like that are exceptions)).

Joe1919

Belief goes well beyond religion. What the difference between belief, knowledge &opinion? Whats the difference between been an Abosolutist, Objectivist, Subjectivist, Skeptic, Relativist, Nihilist............? Scientific absolutism could be a bigger threat than religious absolutism. Nietzche said God was dead before the twenteeth century yet the twentieth century was the probably worse century ever for war.Is the use of science doing irrepairable damage to the enviorment? Is mass comsumarism not another religion? Are we not constantly bombarded with advertisments to spend? Where can we go to escape this?

JoeB-

Dawkins doesn't consider himself to be a fundementalist... He isn't 100% certain that there is no God, he is only as certain that there is no God as I am that there is no Santa Claus or elves in my garden (i.e 99.9% certain)... he believes fundementalism is when people are 100% certain that an unprovable God exists.. as many religious people do believe, absolutely, 100%, that God exists, despite any evidence to support this.

The problem I have with religion is that firstly the religions often claim the existence of an eternal soul, despite there being no evidence to support this... then they use the presence of this eternal soul to exert influence over people, by saying they must follow their rules to ensure an eternal life... it's all a scam in my opinion.

Joe1919

The point I'm making is that religion may be a belief system rather than an absolute truth or reality. The idea of god is that of the "unmoved mover" (Aristotle) or as Saint Anselm says "than which nothing greater can be conceived" and this suggests God to be a man made concept..The Soul (Psyche) is something we cant explain but is a way of trying to explain our consciousness as something independent of the body.Materialist may try to reduce the soul down to the material body. But what then if a computer was built that was as intelligent as a human and you turned it off. Would you be a murderer? We cannot prove whether God exists in reality or not as we cannot prove whether the world exists in reality or not. Certain 'things' in life seem to exist although they have no real existence.An example is the border between two countries or counties. It only exists on the map. If you go and look at it in reality you will see it has no real existence, it is merely a concept of the mind. Property ownership is another human concept. Yet people have fought and died over borders and property.Of course ideas of property are like religious ideas. A Marxist is a property non-believer!The people in power or control will always use human concepts or 'the order of things' to their advantage. You can take a pragmatic view of 'belief systems' and this reduces these to there usefulness. Myths and Christianity was useful in the past but some people may see the newer scientific and economic and political viewpoint as more useful. ( Comte)But Scientific,Economic & political 'truths' cannot really be proven true (but only false)(Hume and Popper's skepticism on induction & all swans are white)Darwinism may be seen as a great myth in the future.

art

Joe1919 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that religion may be a belief system rather than an absolute truth or reality. The idea of god is that of the "unmoved mover" (Aristotle) or as Saint Anselm says "than which nothing greater can be conceived" and this suggests God to be a man made concept..The Soul (Psyche) is something we cant explain but is a way of trying to explain our consciousness as something independent of the body.Materialist may try to reduce the soul down to the material body. But what then if a computer was built that was as intelligent as a human and you turned it off. Would you be a murderer? We cannot prove whether God exists in reality or not as we cannot prove whether the world exists in reality or not. Certain 'things' in life seem to exist although they have no real existence.An example is the border between two countries or counties. It only exists on the map. If you go and look at it in reality you will see it has no real existence, it is merely a concept of the mind. Property ownership is another human concept. Yet people have fought and died over borders and property.Of course ideas of property are like religious ideas. A Marxist is a property non-believer!The people in power or control will always use human concepts or 'the order of things' to their advantage. You can take a pragmatic view of 'belief systems' and this reduces these to there usefulness. Myths and Christianity was useful in the past but some people may see the newer scientific and economic and political viewpoint as more useful. ( Comte)But Scientific,Economic & political 'truths' cannot really be proven true (but only false)(Hume and Popper's skepticism on induction & all swans are white)Darwinism may be seen as a great myth in the future.

This is a very confused jumble and much, like that fact that God is a concept etc, fairly states the obvious. But I've no idea how you went from stating that the myth of Christianity was useful to some people (notably the Roman empire of course) could indicate that Darwinism may be a myth? Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

art

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I wasn't arguing against atheism at all. My only only digression with Dawkins is that I think society isnt yet ready for a full scale atheist revolution because our lives are pathetically short and some people need the crutch of religion to deal with the crappy reality that they are going die and I cant blame them at all for that. Ending is everywhere in this reality with every moment passing away into oblivion. In this case evolutionary programming and entropy "kills" people.

The reverse outlook on this is that perhaps we will never mature further as a species unless we look death in the eye and get on with life, without falling back on the crutches of these thousand year old myths and fairy tales.

Seloth

You see JoeBallantine, you proved a point of mine.

Most religiouse people are Fundametalists,most are very much open to the thought that God may not exist.

Also There is no evidense for the soul not to exists either but there was also the 21 grams and before some one says that was disproved well it wasent.What annoys me about your post is that you say there is no soul despite the lack of evidense that the thing dosent exist.You claim religion uses it to make people follow orders when it fact it is stated that these a guide lines.

And art what he is saying is that if Jesus did exist people would have said he was observable and measureable,Same for King arther or any other person from times since past,but as your self would probably say,Jesus is a myth,King arthur is considered by allot to be a fairytale but in a thousand years time so could Darwin.It could be said about anyone famouse,Bush,Bertie, anyone.

Joe1919

art wrote: »

Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

If reading the decent of man, especially ChapterV, (On the devolopment of intellectual and moral Faculities), Darwin appears to to be making moral speculations (which are difficult to measure )(and promoting Psychological Egoism) in reducing morality down to natural selection.
Incidently I like Darwin but I think its OK to be critical.

art

Joe1919 wrote: »

If reading the decent of man, especially ChapterV, (On the devolopment of intellectual and moral Faculities), Darwin appears to to be making moral speculations (which are difficult to measure )(and promoting Psychological Egoism) in reducing morality down to natural selection.
Incidently I like Darwin but I think its OK to be critical.

Reducing contemporary Darwinism down to one passage of text in "Decent of Man" is (nicely ironically) specious.

brianthebard

art wrote: »

This is a very confused jumble and much, like that fact that God is a concept etc, fairly states the obvious. But I've no idea how you went from stating that the myth of Christianity was useful to some people (notably the Roman empire of course) could indicate that Darwinism may be a myth? Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

How do you measure and observe evolution (which I presume you mean when you refer to Darwinism). Are you referring to the so called "Darwin's finches"?

art

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you measure and observe evolution (which I presume you mean when you refer to Darwinism). Are you referring to the so called "Darwin's finches"?

There's all sorts of examples across the spectrum of animal and plant life, I wasn't referring to just cases Darwin raised. Specific mechanisms at play in evolution may still be part of debate but the overall result is very measurable: species do evolve.

Seloth

Art he was saying the Darwin himself could be seen as a myth in the future,not the theory.

And Dawins theory of evolution while credible is still not correct as he says it takes long periods of time.Well for is instance take the modern super rat scavaging many city's.It's larger,producs 4 times the litter of a normal rat,lives longer and is resistant to most rat posions.And that only happened in the past few years.

brianthebard

art wrote: »

There's all sorts of examples across the spectrum of animal and plant life, I wasn't referring to just cases Darwin raised. Specific mechanisms at play in evolution may still be part of debate but the overall result is very measurable: species do evolve.

Perhaps they do, but there are still questions being asked about evolution, and how they evolve. We shouldn't see it as cut and dry.

art

Seloth wrote:

Art he was saying the Darwin himself could be seen as a myth in the future,not the theory.

And Dawins theory of evolution while credible is still not correct as he says it takes long periods of time.Well for is instance take the modern super rat scavaging many city's.It's larger,producs 4 times the litter of a normal rat,lives longer and is resistant to most rat posions.And that only happened in the past few years.

Okay - I found that post to be fairly confusing, if he was claiming Darwin the man may become mythological in a thousand years then that is, indeed, a different argument. Note I mentioned "contemporary darwinism" - I think its fair to avoid close readings of Darwins text given he was obviously compromised by the Zeitgeist, as are most of course. As you say, there are many examples of super fast evolution - though this, in turn, helps to substantiate the core essence of Darwin's writing, the actual existence of evolution.

brianthebard wrote: »

Perhaps they do, but there are still questions being asked about evolution, and how they evolve. We shouldn't see it as cut and dry.

On the contrary, I think it should be considered more "cut and dry" than not. This way we can avoid the daftness of having quackery like "Intelligent Design" intrude on rational debate. There is no doubting the fact of evolution, which is the important thing - the mechanisms involved may still have academic nuances but the core concept of evolution, that was derived from Darwin, is unambiguously real.

Seloth

Religion and still exist with evolution you know.

With out Religion science is boring -Albert Einstein.

art

Seloth wrote: »

Religion and still exist with evolution you know.

Buddhism is a good example of that. Christianity (and other Bible based religions) obviously not.

Seloth

If you truly believe that then I can honestly say your an idiot as thinking one and the other cannot cooperate in modern times is completly sensless.And Actualy the Pope said himself that evolution is the greater theory and must been looked apon by most costs.

Many Vatican sponsored schools find new scientific discoveries all the time.

art

Seloth wrote: »

If you truly believe that then I can honestly say your an idiot as thinking one and the other cannot cooperate in modern times is completly sensless.And Actualy the Pope said himself that evolution is the greater theory and must been looked apon by most costs.

Many Vatican sponsored schools find new scientific discoveries all the time.

Less with the insults ffs, the core tenets of each are in contradiction: The fact that the pope is disingenuous in this regard should hardly be revelatory, it is an attitude they have practised for two millennia now.

brianthebard

Art you seem to see religion and science as two totally seperate factions, but that's very naiive of you. Many scientists hold strong religious beliefs, which can either further their studies or cloud their judgement(see the recent abortion debates in Britain). Darwin was a Christian. And on the other hand, the rise of science in the nineteenth century cause a parallel rise in what is called higher criticism, where theologians sought to read the bible as a literal text, giving rise to many of the arguments such as creationism and ID that you find so abhorrent today. Also the fact that you nominate Buddhism as a religion shows you lack understanding of what it really is.

The fact is, you have closed your mind to the possibility of a different theory than evolution, in much the same way you as you think that creationists have closed their minds to evolution.

art

brianthebard wrote: »

Art you seem to see religion and science as two totally seperate factions, but that's very naiive of you. Many scientists hold strong religious beliefs, which can either further their studies or cloud their judgement(see the recent abortion debates in Britain). Darwin was a Christian. And on the other hand, the rise of science in the nineteenth century cause a parallel rise in what is called higher criticism, where theologians sought to read the bible as a literal text, giving rise to many of the arguments such as creationism and ID that you find so abhorrent today. Also the fact that you nominate Buddhism as a religion shows you lack understanding of what it really is.

The fact is, you have closed your mind to the possibility of a different theory than evolution, in much the same way you as you think that creationists have closed their minds to evolution.

Explain how it is "naiive (sic)" because I can see nothing in what follows of your post that backs up that assertion. All I see are some non-sequiturs.

Though I am curious to know why you apparently believe that the fact that some people hold a belief in religion and a belief in science means they are in some way related, by definition. Does this also apply to Science and Politics too? Obviously many scientists also are Communists for example. Science and Football support perhaps, given many scientists are Man Utd supporters ...? And so on.

And the fact that the rise of Scientific method gave rise to reading the Bible as a literal text means absolutely nothing in terms of an inter-relationship. Science can of course prove that a literal reading of the Bible is impossible though, given it explicit contradictions on recorded issues like dates, facts etc. However, a simple reading of the bible itself should be enough to achieve that anyway.

Also, to say Buddhism is 'not a religion' is to be pointlessly pedantic, it serves as a religion for millions and you will see it described as a religion in practically any encyclopaedia of religions you pick up. So, before you start throwing stones about regarding what I do and don't know:

Darwin was not a Christian. (Nor had Einstein a belief in the Christian god, before you throw that myth into the mix too.)

All in all, my mind is open to facts but closed to superstition, palpable nonsense and certainly closed to the very blatant fallacies of something like "Creationism" which, in terms of a "theory" of how the diversity of life occurred, is simply laughable.

Playboy

art wrote: »

Less with the insults ffs, the core tenets of each are in contradiction: The fact that the pope is disingenuous in this regard should hardly be revelatory, it is an attitude they have practised for two millennia now.

How are the core tenets of each in contradiction? The Bible, The Torah and the Koran claim the existence of a supernatural creator who has the power to do what he wills. Science does not and cannot rule out the possibility of such a being. If you interpret Genesis as poetic allegory instead of literal fact then I dont see how Relegion and Science (or evolution) contradict each other. The claims of religion in most instances are neither observable or measurable so science really doesnt have very much to say on the subject unless you want to start talking about probabilities. And really you start running into all sorts of problems when you try and do those kind of maths. While creationism is nonsense and can be refuted by refering to science, I dont think ID can be dismissed as a logical argument. To say evolution occured and developed (the evolution of evolution) as a system by chance or for 'unknown reasons' isnt so different as claiming that a higher power or force designed it. There is no real way of testing the argument and proving the other side wrong. All Science can say on the matter is that it doesnt know .. Science should not be pulled into these kind of arguments unless religion is making some specific claim that science can test, measure or observe. I not too familiar with ID arguments but if they are claiming there is evidence for design then it should be quite easy for evolutionary theory if its robust enough to refute these arguments.

Seloth

Einstein was Jewish I'll have you know which is the same God and he held a belief in a God like being.

Also A scientist being a Man U fan as well is a tottaly diffrent thing comapred to religion.Religion is a unknow mystery.

As for when you use creatism agaisnt us even though most modern Christians dont belief in it but rather in Religion.This should be a sufficant reply to all your uses to us agaisnt the bible

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".-Pope JohnPaul II,1986.

What he says is the truth,the bible was written by man,and by a type of man where the worlds sciences havent progressed to our level our our knowlegde.

JoeB-

Seloth wrote: »

You see JoeBallantine, you proved a point of mine.

Most religiouse people are Fundametalists,most are very much open to the thought that God may not exist.

Also There is no evidense for the soul not to exists either but there was also the 21 grams and before some one says that was disproved well it wasent.What annoys me about your post is that you say there is no soul despite the lack of evidense that the thing dosent exist.You claim religion uses it to make people follow orders when it fact it is stated that these a guide lines.

And art what he is saying is that if Jesus did exist people would have said he was observable and measureable,Same for King arther or any other person from times since past,but as your self would probably say,Jesus is a myth,King arthur is considered by allot to be a fairytale but in a thousand years time so could Darwin.It could be said about anyone famouse,Bush,Bertie, anyone.

To be honest I don't understand much of this post.

I don't accept that most religious people are open to the thought that God may not exist...

I don't know what the 21 grams refers to....

Of course there is no evidence that the soul doesn't exist... likewise there is no evidence that orange and purple spotted elephants don't exist, but only a fool in my opinion would believe in the existence of green and purple elephants simply because they haven't been disproven. It would lead to a situation where everything that can be imagined would have to be accepted as possibly existing... including flying rocks and singing clouds.

art

Playboy wrote: »

How are the core tenets of each in contradiction? ... I not too familiar with ID arguments but if they are claiming there is evidence for design then it should be quite easy for evolutionary theory if its robust enough to refute these arguments.

Ask R Dawkins what is the purpose of life. Then ask the pope. In those short imaginary dialogues one would find the essence of my point.

Contemporary Evolution theory has on many occasions clearly refuted ID. That, however, does not stop some people continuing to believe in the fallacy that it has some authenticity: selective ignorance can, afterall, be a comfort to some people.

art

Seloth wrote: »

Einstein was Jewish I'll have you know which is the same God and he held a belief in a God like being.

Which is why I specifically referred to the "Christian" god. However, it should also be noted that the Jewish god of the old testament is understood quite differently from the christian god of the new. Finally, it should also be understood that Einstein believed in neither god anyway.

Seloth wrote: »

Also A scientist being a Man U fan as well is a tottaly diffrent thing comapred to religion.Religion is a unknow mystery.

I'd disagree. I think it's just as much an unknown mystery why anyone supports Man Utd.

Seloth wrote: »

As for when you use creatism agaisnt us even though most modern Christians dont belief in it but rather in Religion.This should be a sufficant reply to all your uses to us agaisnt the bible

The above poster was indicating some credence in creationism.

Seloth wrote: »

What he says is the truth,the bible was written by man,and by a type of man where the worlds sciences havent progressed to our level our our knowlegde.

The fact that the pope recognises that the Bible is myth just reinforces the secularity of christian religion, religion is a man made thing just as much as the bible is. The fact that it was made by an "immature" man is not a valid excuse for retaining it in modern society.

Playboy

art wrote: »

Ask R Dawkins what is the purpose of life. Then ask the pope. In those short imaginary dialogues one would find the essence of my point.

Could you be so kind as to just state your point? What Dawkins and the Pope believe to be the purpose of life has zero to do with science and everything to do with opinion. I fail see how the opinion of a scientist and a theologian someone make 'the core tenets contradictory'?

art wrote:

Contemporary Evolution theory has on many occasions clearly refuted ID. That, however, does not stop some people continuing to believe in the fallacy that it has some authenticity: selective ignorance can, afterall, be a comfort to some people.

Fair enough .. I'm not too familiar with ID. They must be making claims for evidence of design if evolutionary theory can refute it.

The comfort of selective ignorance is something I wouldnt be too quick to dismiss. We all do it everyday in many aspects of our lives. If people want to try and scientifically prove the existence of a creator because it makes them feel better then good luck to them. (As long as they dont manipulate the truth along the way though )

art

Playboy wrote: »

Could you be so kind as to just state your point? What Dawkins and the Pope believe to be the purpose of life has zero to do with science and everything to do with opinion. I fail see how the opinion of a scientist and a theologian someone make 'the core tenets contradictory'?

I'm using both as reference points. The thread is afterall entitled "Dawkins" and he is the exponent of evolutionary theory being discussed. It was then another poster that added the pope as being an example of how the two beliefs could co-exist but the core tenet of each regarding what is the purpose of life, obviously differs: Dawkins would say something akin to the purpose of life is to re-produce, and that is all; the pope something akin to honour god, the saints and go to heaven. One can't in good faith believe in both (but, again, that certainly does not stop people trying to do so).

Playboy wrote: »

Fair enough .. I'm not too familiar with ID. They must be making claims for evidence of design if evolutionary theory can refute it.

The comfort of selective ignorance is something I wouldnt be too quick to dismiss. We all do it everyday in many aspects of our lives. If people want to try and scientifically prove the existence of a creator because it makes them feel better then good luck to them. (As long as they dont manipulate the truth along the way though )

Agreed to an extent, but, for example, the use of "selective ignorance" as an entrenched position from which to argue that something like Creationism has potential merit (or, even more ludicrously, equal merit) is something that I would abhor.