Dawkins and Death

Playboy

art wrote: »

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).

Are we talking about the core tenets of Science and Religion here? Dakwins opinion on what the 'purpose of life' is has nothing to do with science. Science cannot and should not be used to try and answer these kind of questions. The purpose of life is a question for individuals, religious leaders and philosophers. Dawkins is someone who consistently tries to blur the line between opinion and fact, science and philosophy. Religion and science can co-exist if you respect where one begins and the other ends. Creationists are a prime example of this .. and Dawkins isnt much better. Dawkins tries to over extend science into areas where is should not be and he is trying to create some scientific or evolutionary inspired philosophy and pass it off to the masses as science.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote: »

Dawkins tries to over extend science into areas where is should not be and he is trying to create some scientific or evolutionary inspired philosophy and pass it off to the masses as science.

Who says he "should not"

Dawkins position is that his scientific understand of the natural world has convinced him that the likelihood of there actually being a Christian God so small as to be sure there isn't one.

The universe works perfectly fine without a god, and study of human beings has provided a pretty convincing model of why humans would invent concepts such as gods. There is no evidence for a god, it isn't necessary that there would be a god, it is illogical that there would be a god, and we understand why humans would invent the concept in the first place.

Knowing that why exactly would Dawkins believe in a god?

Dawkins main issue is that he is some how not supposed to say this because it offends religious people who don't like being confronted with the idea that there isn't a god.

No one seems to care if someone says "science lets me see the majesty of God's creation" We are all supposed to go "Aww, thats nice"

Yet when Dawkins says something like "Scientific understand has convinced me there is no God" everyone (well theists) go "How dare he say that!!"

The simple fact of the matter is that everything that humans once attributed to the work of a god has been shown to be the product of a natural process. This applies to the clouds in the sky to the Sun we orbit. From this we can ask why did the bronze age people believe there was a god in the thunder clouds, and ask is that the same mental process that is going on in the head of people who today believe there is a god in the big bang.

Theists who really really want to hold onto the idea of a deity because of the comfort it brings them simply shift their god out of harms way anytime this happens.

They seem to think that this some how is supposed to excuse their particular god from this inquiry. Yes bronze age people were stupid to believe that a god was in the rain clouds, but you can't apply that to us because we haven't said out god is in the rain clouds, our god is in the big bang or outside time!! Ah ha!

This fails to understand the point that it isn't the particular position of the particular god within the universe that people are saying they don't accept, it is the fact that the humans invented him in the first place to provide an answer to a specific question they didn't actually understand.

We have now come to the rather ridiculous state where God is supposed to live outside of our universe and our time, yet is for some bizarre reason still interested in a curious set of complex chemical reactions on a relatively cold rock and water planet orbiting a completely average star some where on the edge of a completely average galaxy which in turn is in a completely average galaxy cluster.

Now that might "convince" some people, but to Dawkins (and me) that is simply nonsense.

The question then becomes why do people continue to accept this?

Well the answer is obvious, because they want it to be true. Again our understand of this is quite detailed.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote: »

Who says he "should not"

Science says he shouldnt. Whatever his views he is entitled to them. They might be very logical and rational views .. but they are not science .. They are opinion. I dont see any point in replying to the rest of your post because there isnt really anything I disagree with you about. God of the gaps and all that sounds very reasonable to me but to others it doesnt and they choose to believe in a creator. My only point is with art's comment that the core tenets of Science and Religion are in contradiction. I dont believe that is always true. I believe is is very possible to believe in both as long as you know where one ends and the other begins.

If Dawkins wants to philosophize about the purpose and meaning and life and argue about the rationality of certain views then that is also fine. But dont try and pass it off as science because its not. It is a philosophy based on a certain understanding of science.

Seloth

Art you have a serisouse problem with not understanding things properly.For instance whe nI said this should be a sufficant reposnse I was on abotu the quote.The Pope was not claiming that the Bible was a myth but that it was written in a way so that people of that time could understand it.

And the describing of how a the "Christian" and Jewish Gods are diffrent is very much stupid.They are the same God, the Islam God allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God.Christianty came directly from Judaism.

And Joe,people ar eopen to many things,it's just that people dont relise it.And th e 21 grams thing is before a French Scientists I belive it was wanted to test to see if the soul if there is one could be weighed.When he weighed victims after they died they losts 21 grams.There were certain cases where some people lost less or none though,but that could aslo spill into a totally diffrent section.And before some one says its the air leaving the body,well it was taken into account before hand.

Could I add that many Atheists also critise Dawkins as he gives a bad image on atheists.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote: »

Science says he shouldnt. Whatever his views he is entitled to them. They might be very logical and rational views .. but they are not science .. They are opinion.

He has never claimed "they" are science. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. "Science" is the modeling of the universe. There is no "god" in Dawkin's model of the universe, nor is there one is mine.

What he has claimed is that scientific understand of the universe lead him to the opinion that gods as a concept are an invention of the human imagination for a specific purpose. That is Dawkins model of the universe, a model I agree with.

Dawkins has stated a (huge) number of times that science cannot disprove the existence of God because science cannot disprove the existence of anything.

Anyone who thinks that is what science does or claims to do doesn't understand what science is.

That fact is not a reason to conclude from scientific models that God most likely exist. We have a modes of the universe in which "gods" are simply inventions of humans, and this models work perfectly well and explain a heck of a lot, from physics to biology to human psychology.

The biggest problem here seems to be what you think science tries to say.

Playboy wrote: »

I dont believe that is always true. I believe is is very possible to believe in both as long as you know where one ends and the other begins.

Well that is the contradiction.

The constant shifting of concepts like "gods" out of the harmful way of science as soon as science demonstrates that was once believed to be a result of a god isn't in fact, is ultimately an un-scientific way of viewing the world.

You can't do that and still claim to be still scientific or accepting of a scientific view of the world

What you probably mean is that you see no conflict between religion and technology.

IE you are perfectly happy for someone to be religious and still use the fruits of scientific discovery, from DVD Players to MRI Scanners and antibiotics.

That is not the same as accepting science.

Seloth

But religion and reliouse people accept science all the time.

In the states 46% are theists,while the rest are agnostic and atheist.And I wish I could find figures for the Agnostic and atheists with in that as they are to very diffrent things.

Also look at the number of people that are say in the cleregy but have done wonders for the world of science.

art

Playboy wrote: »

My only point is with art's comment that the core tenets of Science and Religion are in contradiction.

I said, explicitly the core tenets of contemporary Darwinism/evolutionary theory and Christian religion are exclusive of each other - never used the term "Science" or scientific method.

art

Seloth wrote: »

Art you have a serisouse problem with not understanding things properly.For instance whe nI said this should be a sufficant reposnse I was on abotu the quote.The Pope was not claiming that the Bible was a myth but that it was written in a way so that people of that time could understand it.

And the describing of how a the "Christian" and Jewish Gods are diffrent is very much stupid.They are the same God, the Islam God allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God.Christianty came directly from Judaism.

I have a serious problem with people who cannot devote enough time, energy and courtesy to spelling properly, using punctuation or just simply forming complete words in posts. Even after the post has been edited :rolleyes:

And your understanding of the history of religion is a bit simplistic. Very simplistic actually. So kind of ironic that you, again, feel compelled to resort to insults in your maladroit missive above. Anyway, you might want to consider, on that issue (as a mere starter), who is "Jesus" according to the doctrines of each religion?

art

Playboy wrote: »

It is a philosophy based on a certain understanding of science.

The same could be said of you given that you have an "understanding" of what you believe science to be (that you have not disclosed here) and you are using that "understanding" to exclude Dawkins deductions from that realm that you have covertly circumscribed?

Zombrex

Seloth wrote: »

But religion and reliouse people accept science all the time.

I don't know why people keep saying that, as if it demonstrates something.

I can "accept" that 2+2=4 and I can "accept" that 2+2=5 at the same time. It doesn't, it logically cannot, but I still go around saying "Oh yes, I accept that"

Its just words, it means nothing.

Seloth

I'm going to start with saying firstly that I did not,nor have I not insulted you.Also,have you even considered thet fact that I may be dislexic.

And Art,yes I do think about that,I am merely debating with you as I'm trying to express something,not religion it's self but the two i.e. Science and Religion are not Opposite facing magnits.

Also Art you critisie me for spelling and punctuaction yet you are the one who replies with several diffrent posts,one after the other.


Wicknight could you please express you last post further,If I'm right your trying to say that Religion and science going together are like 2+2=5.Yet Science and religion go together all the time.We know for a fact that 2+2= 5 as we can do so by counting our fingers or using 4 objects.But we can also show that those go together by looking around the world.The Vatican for example funds many Scientific research facilities not to mention the many Vatican Obserbatories around the World.Or the Number of Scientis that also have some kind of religiouse faith.

People are saying this allot as other people keep saying that they cannot go together.

The internet is a terrible place for debating or sharing of opions as 3/4 of the time you cannot see or hear the expresions in some one face or tone of voice.Say if we were discussing this in person I'm sure we'd all come off better but meh.

Most people use the past to judge Religion and science yet the two are with each other in modern times.The Bible was written by man,not by a God like figure or a Son of man.It started off as one thing and has been changed so many times that things come off as bad and such.Lo,Some times I argue with My self if I should enter the priesthood,not to preach about God but to reorganize the whole thing to give it a better and more modern image

art

Seloth wrote: »

I'm going to start with saying firstly that I did not,nor have I not insulted you.Also,have you even considered thet fact that I may be dislexic.

Being dyslexic does mean pathologically creating typos. Nor would it prevent you from using punctuation. Nor using a spell-checker...

Seloth wrote: »

And Art,yes I do think about that,I am merely debating with you as I'm trying to express something,not religion it's self but the two i.e. Science and Religion are not Opposite facing magnits.

I never said the latter.

I don't don't know what you are referring to in the former, that you think about, but if it is the last question I asked you, "who is "Jesus" according to the doctrines of each religion", then you would not be saying I am very stupid for pointing out that the god of Judaism is not the god of Christianity.

Seloth wrote: »

The Vatican for example funds many Scientific research facilities not to mention the many Vatican Obserbatories around the World.Or the Number of Scientis that also have some kind of religiouse faith.

People are saying this allot as other people keep saying that they cannot go together.

Most people use the past to judge Religion and science yet the two are with each other in modern times.The Bible was written by man,not by a God like figure or a Son of man.It started off as one thing and has been changed so many times that things come off as bad and such.Lo,Some times I argue with My self if I should enter the priesthood,not to preach about God but to reorganize the whole thing to give it a better and more modern image

I think you'll find many people have already tried that, including the Vatican itself. More than once. And the fact that the Vatican sponsors scientific projects is completely meaningless to the debate. They have also sponsored genocide in their history afterall. A scientific project could be simply finding the optimum speed to transfer data over a copper wire. Or it could be uncovering the most efficient method of releasing the greatest about of energy to unleash the largest quantity of damage to a target. Saying the Vatican sponsor "stuff" is meaningless.

What is pertinent however is that a certain branch of scientific study has matured over the last one hundred and fifty years or so and reached an understanding of the motivations and mechanisms of life that are distinct, and ultimately incompatible, with the core beliefs of the typical, large, popular, western religions, like Christianity. For those who truly accept Scientific method, it is impossible to admit the conclusions of one branch of Scientific study yet disregard the other. However, there are those who will sit deriving the pleasures of the successes of Scientific method, like posting on the Internet, yet still doubt the successes in a biological field like Evolutionary theory. That is just human nature: people spend a lot of time in self deception. Which is mostly insignificant. When the try to convince others of the content of their self deception though it becomes problematic.

Zombrex

Seloth wrote: »

Wicknight could you please express you last post further,If I'm right your trying to say that Religion and science going together are like 2+2=5.

Not quite. I'm saying that just because you have scientists who are also religious doesn't mean science is compatible with religion and vice versa

Someone can claim anything they want, that doesn't mean that what they claim makes sense. Someone can say I'm very religious but I also apply scientific standards to everything I believe. They can claim that but that doesn't actually that religion therefore has no issue with science and vice versa.

Seloth wrote: »

But we can also show that those go together by looking around the world.The Vatican for example funds many Scientific research facilities not to mention the many Vatican Obserbatories around the World.Or the Number of Scientis that also have some kind of religiouse faith.

That has really got nothing to do with it. Do the members of the Vatican apply scientific standards to what they believe? I seriously doubt it. If they did they probably wouldn't believe what they believe. And the Vatican is just as likely to object to scientific advances that contradict their held religious beliefs.

There is more to accepting science than saying "I accept science, have some money" Accepting science means accepting the particular philosophy of discover. Even scientists have a hard time with that concept, as demonstrated by how many scientists are still deeply religious.

Playboy

Wicknight wrote: »

He has never claimed "they" are science. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. "Science" is the modeling of the universe. There is no "god" in Dawkin's model of the universe, nor is there one is mine.

What he has claimed is that scientific understand of the universe lead him to the opinion that gods as a concept are an invention of the human imagination for a specific purpose. That is Dawkins model of the universe, a model I agree with.

I didnt say he claimed that his views were 'science'. What I said was that he tried to pass them off as science. Dawkins is a clever man and he manipulates people. He blurs the line between science and philosophy and he is happy to let people who dont know any better think that his philosophy is science. He is the professor of the public understanding of science and I believe that he abuses this position. He is more interested in the public understanding of his views on religion than he is of the public understanding of science.

Are you claiming that Dawkins model of the universe is science? Are you claiming that just because someone has a model of the universe that it is science? If not then can we do away with that ridiculous explanation of what science is. Science is about modeling but there is a system to it. A system which does not allow you to make claims about the existence of a God or creator. Dawkins scientific understanding of the universe may lead him to believe there is no God but someone elses scientific understanding of the universe may lead him to beleive there is a god. Neither view has anything to do with science. It is personal philosophy and nothing more.

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins has stated a (huge) number of times that science cannot disprove the existence of God because science cannot disprove the existence of anything.

Anyone who thinks that is what science does or claims to do doesn't understand what science is.

That fact is not a reason to conclude from scientific models that God most likely exist. We have a modes of the universe in which "gods" are simply inventions of humans, and this models work perfectly well and explain a heck of a lot, from physics to biology to human psychology.

The biggest problem here seems to be what you think science tries to say.

Ok can we back up here for a second? What do I think Science tries to say? Please enlighten me because I dont believe I made any claim to this effect.

What models are you talking about that work perfectly when the explain god as a human invention? Please tell me. Is it the ever so famous meme theory? Is it evolutionary psychology? Is it anthropology? I have yet to come across this perfect model yet. I have seen plenty of unfalsifiable models .. something that Popper thinks essential for something to be considered science. Some of these models seem to make sense but that doesnt mean they are science. All it means is that they make sense. If something just needed to make sense to make it science then what would the difference between science and philosophy or other disciplines be?

I am not claiming that based on scientific models you should conclude that god exists or doesnt exist. What I am saying is that God should be kept out of science and especially science classrooms. I believe Dawkins is as bad as the creationists. Both try to use science for their own agendas .. to prove or disprove God. I have no problem with someone using science to demolish any claims that creationists make but I do have a problem when they try and go one step further.

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is the contradiction.

The constant shifting of concepts like "gods" out of the harmful way of science as soon as science demonstrates that was once believed to be a result of a god isn't in fact, is ultimately an un-scientific way of viewing the world.

You can't do that and still claim to be still scientific or accepting of a scientific view of the world

What you probably mean is that you see no conflict between religion and technology.

Dont put words in my mouth or try and tell me what I really mean please. There is no conflict between science and God. There might be conflict between science and certain religious claims. But just because religion makes a claim which science can show to be untrue does not mean that the relgion or the concept of god is false. Just as with genesis and the catholic church, maybe it was just a misinterpretation.

Wicknight wrote:

IE you are perfectly happy for someone to be religious and still use the fruits of scientific discovery, from DVD Players to MRI Scanners and antibiotics.

That is not the same as accepting science.

Science is not a worldview. It is not a philosophy. You can understand science, use science and appreicate it but it doesnt mean you have to apply it to every aspect of your life.

Playboy

art wrote: »

The same could be said of you given that you have an "understanding" of what you believe science to be (that you have not disclosed here) and you are using that "understanding" to exclude Dawkins deductions from that realm that you have covertly circumscribed?

My understading of science is similar to that of people like Popper and Kuhn. If you understand them then you will know why I think dawkins crusdade against religion isnt very scientific.

Playboy

art wrote: »

I said, explicitly the core tenets of contemporary Darwinism/evolutionary theory and Christian religion are exclusive of each other - never used the term "Science" or scientific method.

Really? I dont remember you state that explicitly. Could you show me where? I asked in an earlier post for clarification on whether we were talking about Science and Religion because I was unsure as to what you meant. As far as I am aware the catholic church accepts evolution as a theory .. they are christians arent they?

art

Playboy wrote: »

Really? I dont remember you state that explicitly. Could you show me where? I asked in an earlier post for clarification on whether we were talking about Science and Religion because I was unsure as to what you meant.

At the very top of this same page

Playboy wrote: »

As far as I am aware the catholic church accepts evolution as a theory .. they are christians arent they?

The answer to this is essentially the same as the answer I just gave to Seloth, claiming that a theory has some validity as some christians do, and accepting its full consequences are not the same thing.

Playboy wrote: »

My understading of science is similar to that of people like Popper and Kuhn. If you understand them then you will know why I think dawkins crusdade against religion isnt very scientific.

That does now follow. Your reading of the writings of Popper and Kuhn has given rise to an interpretation of "science" from which you further extend to disagree with Dawkins interpretation: I can't argue with that unless you explain what is your understanding of science, based on your readings of Kuhn/Popper.

Zombrex

Playboy wrote: »

I didnt say he claimed that his views were 'science'. What I said was that he tried to pass them off as science.

Perhaps I'm not following, but those two things sound exactly the same

Playboy wrote: »

Dawkins is a clever man and he manipulates people.

He does? Who has me manipulated?

Playboy wrote: »

He is the professor of the public understanding of science and I believe that he abuses this position.

Do you have specific examples?

Playboy wrote: »

Are you claiming that Dawkins model of the universe is science?

Yes, because Dawkins excludes anything that cannot be scientific demonstrated from this model (as far as I know from reading his work). Dawkins model of the universe is the definition of science.

You may say that since science has not proven God does not exist it is unfair to exclude "God" from any model of the universe. But to be honest that simply demonstrates that you aren't quite sure of what science is. The whole point of science is to exclude what cannot be considered or tested from the models. You interpret that to be the same as stating that there is God. But what you are not following is that from a scientific point of view there is no God because God has never been modelled or tested and therefore does not go into the model. If you want to believe in things that are outside of this model then go ahead. But Dawkins doesn't have that need, because the model works quite fine as it is.

Playboy wrote: »

Are you claiming that just because someone has a model of the universe that it is science?

No

Playboy wrote: »

A system which does not allow you to make claims about the existence of a God or creator.

Dawkin's claim is that it is unlikely that God exists. That is his assessment, one I agree with. You don't agree, but to be honest it seems to me that you don't agree more because you don't want that to be true, than because you have considered everything rationally.

Playboy wrote: »

Dawkins scientific understanding of the universe may lead him to believe there is no God but someone elses scientific understanding of the universe may lead him to beleive there is a god.

Certainly. But again I think you are missing the point. Science doesn't proclaim anything. Science models, and in scientific models there is no gods. If someone wants to believe that God exists anyway they can, but one would have to ask why they believe that if it has never ever been demonstrated that he does exist. And then someone has to look at the human condition, why people want to believe in these things. Those two areas combined lead to a conclusion, in my view and Dawkins view, that humans invented concepts like "god"

Playboy wrote: »

What models are you talking about that work perfectly when the explain god as a human invention? Please tell me.

There is vast study in the area of human psychology, human socialogy, and evolutionary biology that studies religion and how humans develop religious ideas. Religion seems quite closely linked with the early development of civilisations, and language. If one looks at say ritual burial, for a long time in our past humans didn't bury their dead, they simply left them where they were. Gradually ritual around dead members of the tribe began, and the this seems to coralate with the development of humans from hunter gatherers to farmers and the formation of settlements.

I could go on and on, but one simply has to look at the history of human religion to see that these concepts are being invented for specific reasons, to explain natural events, or provide comfort and explanation.

Playboy wrote: »

What I am saying is that God should be kept out of science and especially science classrooms.

God is kept out of science and science classrooms. As far as science is concerned God does not exist. God is not present in any scientific model I have ever come across.

Playboy wrote: »

I believe Dawkins is as bad as the creationists.

I know you do. But I think that has more to do with your issues with not wishing to consider that God probably doesn't exist than with Dawkins.

Playboy wrote: »

Both try to use science for their own agendas .. to prove or disprove God.

Dawkins has never tried to disprove God. The fact that you keep saying that leads me to strongly suspect that you aren't actually bothering to read or listen to what Dawkins is saying.

Playboy wrote: »

Dont put words in my mouth or try and tell me what I really mean please.

Why not? It cuts down on a lot of time drawing honest response out from you.

Playboy wrote: »

There might be conflict between science and certain religious claims. But just because religion makes a claim which science can show to be untrue does not mean that the relgion or the concept of god is false.

You are right, but that isn't where the conflict is.

The conflict comes from the fact that science requires that one disregard what one cannot test or evaluation. Religious people don't like that, because they can't test or evaluate their own supernatural beliefs but they certainly don't want to disregard them, because it provides them with great comfort.

Playboy wrote: »

You can understand science, use science and appreicate it but it doesnt mean you have to apply it to every aspect of your life.

Certainly, but if you aren't then you are not accepting science.

Playboy

My oh my! I think you need to get some perspective Wicknight. Really you need to pick up some literature on 'Science' and the History and Philosophy of Science. You speak of science like it is a way of life or a religion. Science is simply a method or a system and the knowledge acquired using the system. It is not a religion, it is not a way of life, it is not a philosophy. You are trying to construct a worldview or a philosophy out of science. You confuse science with reason, logic and rationality. You seem to be trying to apply scientific principles to all aspects of your life .. and thats fine .. but that doesnt make it science. What you are describing in your posts is Scientism. And thats fine too .. believe what you will (I belive Michael Shermer shares your beliefs but he is aware if the difference between science and scientism). But there is no point responding to any of your points individually because they do not make any sense to me. Where have you developed this idea of science that you talk about? Do you get it from Dawkins or have you just developed it yourself? Do terms life falsifiabilty mean anything to you? Just because there are anthropological, sociological and evolutionary explanations for why humans developed religion does not mean that they are scientific. If you knew anything about science as you claim to then you would know this. Meaurement, observation, fasifiability, empiricism etc etc. Freud has a nice explanation for human behaviour .. is it science? What was the difference between Freud and Skinner? If you understand that then you will see where I am coming from.

And just for the record .. I am not religious. I dont believe in a 'God'. Am I open to the possiblity of there been more to this universe than we currently understand or know about? Absolutely! Im not afraid of there being no God .. I suspect that a God as we imagine it as highly unlikely. So please stop putting words in my mouth and stop assuming what I believe or dont believe. I know you spend alot of time repeating similar discussions such as this day in and day out on boards and im not interested in really having a science versus religion debate because it doesnt interest me and eventually ends up going nowhere. If you want to have a 'What is Science' discussion or a discussion on the philosophy of science then by all means go ahead.

Ekancone

Why is eternal life so desirable anyway? I think it would be rather a bore.

Seloth

I thought about that before and did think about how it may get boring but then thought if such a state exists then thinkof all the information you could find out,all the diffrent scenraios you could see and such if there is indeed a heaven and it lets you do and create what you wish.There would be an infinity of things to do.

Joe1919

Infinity may have a different meaning in Christianity than in mathematics. In religion, infinity often means eternal or "outside or beyond time".
Now time is a measurement of change and since eternity is outside time, then one could conclude that no change is possible within eternity, as no time exist except the presence. ( God been infinate and eternal, is also considered unchangable)
Now this does fit into some but not all, Christian thinking that heaven is the pure (100%)presence of God, so that would leave no time ( anyhow time will not exist in eternity) for doing anything else,........ (St Augustine discusses time in Confessions Book XI and states "my soul is on fire" at the difficulty of explaining time )