Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Need I remind you of Goedel's Theorem:
For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed.
Just because something can't be proved, doesn't mean it's not true - hence Mathematics' own Catch-22. So with Mathematics, so with Theism.
Well, how are you defining these terms?
It is my understanding that agnosticism is a position regarding whether or not a thing can be known. To be agnostic with respect to god is an intellectual position that holds that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists, at least given our present information and intellectual capacity. I don't think it is proper to regard it as a "middle ground" between atheism and theism.
Atheism is a position of doubt with regard to gods. It does not necessarily completely exclude the possibility that a god exists, but the non-existence of god is the basic assumption or default position for atheists.
Theism, on the other hand, accepts the idea that god exists either on the basis of a "leap of faith" or some rational or empirical argument for that god's existence. The theist can still harbor some doubt about whether or not their belief is true.
I am not so sure that Dawkins' world would be "shattered" if he learned that god exists, but then you are using figurative language and it is difficult to understand exactly what you mean. He would have to reconsider many of his past arguments and methods of reasoning, but then, that's something a good scientist should be in the habit of doing anyway. I can't speak for Dawkins, of course, but I imagine the extent of his shock and distress would also probably depend on the type of god he learned of. A basic deistic, hands-off creator probably would not be too hard to cope with. On the other hand, if he learned that a god such as the one described in a literal reading of the Old Testament were in existence (one that created the world 6,000 years ago), he would likely be very surprised and troubled, as would many people (Christians included).
Why should one "have to" do this? What about agnosticism (or weak atheism) makes it an unreasonable or morally unacceptable position, as compared to theism and strong atheism?
"Learned" implies evidence, and if there were any evidence they would simply change their stance to the appropriate form of theism. That's the rational way to go about things. To date there has not been any single piece of credible evidence for the existence of God(s). I suppose it depends on what you accept as evidence. Theists see evidence for God everywhere, but the standard of evidence for a trained scientist is understandably quite different than what is usually accepted for religious belief.
An objectivist comprehends only empirical senses: Sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. For a thing to exist, it must first be brought into our realm of experience. X-rays, gamma-rays, all other non-visible forms of radiation; we now have tools to detect them and bring them into our perspective. Who knows what other things we are missing (and may yet discover) because we don't have the tools to see them?
Humans have other, more subjective senses too. A sense of quantity, of reason, of intuition, of balance; a moral sense and a spiritual sense. We have ways of knowing and understanding abstract forms. Do you believe in Rights? In benevolence, magnificence, or beauty? There is no litmus test, no standard experiment for any of these things, yet they exist. We have sensed and experimented with them in the ways that we know how.
The empirical scientific method is useful for many things, albeit a limited and finite number of things. To deal with abstract quantities, you need mathematics. Ethics requires philosophy and reason. Spirituality will frequently demand a form of religious devotion. There are interesting combinations of these things that lead down different paths of discovery.
When an evolutionary biologist asserts that there is no evidence for God, he is correct in a very specific way. In truth, though, he is speaking of something that he knows nothing about. He is like the blind man who denies the possibility of color because he has no evidence for it. To everyone who has sensed the reality of color, such an assertion is silly. Likewise are the assertions of atheists to those who have experienced spiritual things.
You're right, it was a 15 minute interview and so neither of them could expand on arguments. You're really abusing the term when you suggest that he was at any point "defining God into existence" -- again, this would come from an Ontological argument which isn't raised. Cosmological arguments call the "first mover" "God"; contentious again, but not defining him into existence (they just need to substantiate the properties that they then attribute to this being).
The context in which free will was brought up was anything but irrelevant -- free moral agency can be a serious problem for naturalism, and he brought it up in the section of providing arguments for theism. Even if you disagree with determinism, you don't automatically get free will (randomness or indeterminism don't help free will much). Anyway, determinism on the macro-scale is precisely what is presumed in Science. That determinism and free will are incompatible is also another contentious Philosophical position.
I'm not asking you to care about objective morality so I have no idea where you got that from. He only raised the fact that there's an argument from Ethics for the existence of God. This is also another problem for naturalism (I'm not saying it's solved by introducing God), see G.E. Moore, David Hume, etc. The problem is not answered by Dawkins in the interview as well, but he of course introduces the strawman of all religious people saying you cannot be moral without religion.
While I understand that it is not an argument for or against theism, I don't see the beauty in a universe in which all that I am and all that I love will disappear into oblivion in just a few short years (or at all). On the contrary, I find it to be quite ugly.
Let's say group A claims to genuinely understand evolutionary biology, and has applied rational methods in finding these truths. They have unraveled almost all of the mysteries, know exactly what makes everything tick.
Let's say group B espouses very bizarre beliefs, obtains through demonstrably non-rational methods.
Let's further say that group B's gene frequency increases much faster than A's.
Hasn't group B demonstrated a better theory, given that adhering to the implied life rules of their belief set, exploits the rules of natural world much better (and therefore better predicts the natural world) than group A's?
Once you know your answer, let me say that this actually is the case: group A is evolutionary biologists, and group B is Christian fundamentalists.
If beliefs are judged by their *practical implications*, it looks like the fundies have the scientists beat. The best you can say is, "Well, you don't really need to posit all that 6,000 year-old-earth crap." (but then, would they go out and be fruitful and multiply...?)
Another way I like to put that idea is: I'm not an expert on car crashes, but I can still assert that I don't want to be in one. The visible results of theism are sufficient reason for me to avoid it - without needing a reason that would satisfy a professional theologian.
One important point about Dawkins has been overlooked: for years he wrote primarily about biology, with the issues of religion taking a back seat. I get the impression that The God Delusion and the surrounding debates are almost a retirement project for him, a decision to "push the boat out" and have a little fun with something not strictly scientific. His title at Oxford is Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and it is IMHO logical to start the promotion of science by attacking anti-scientific beliefs such as "Intelligent Design". Plus, he wrote his book after the Dover School Board case, which was reported widely in the UK, and was an eye-opener about just how nuts things had gotten in the USA.
I'm not suggesting they are exclusive. You can of course be free of theism, and believe god does not exist. I'm saying the statement "God does not exist" is as valid as "God exists".
Neither can be proved true.
I think a lot of the people with a lot of money are Scientologist. That doesn't make them "more fit to survive" than Christians, Buddhists, or atheists, and it certainly doesn't mean we should subscribe to their dubious dogma.
Ability to make money means nothing in the wild. Ability to lead the sheep may be a good trait, but it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It has more to do with the ability to manipulate the hearts/minds of the people by whatever means available. Religious leaders have a leg up in that area because they are taking advantage of a common thread in humanity (that Dawkins attempts to get people to dispel).
Remember, Atheism is "Free of Theism", not "God does not exist"
My position is that God does not exist. How am I not an atheist?
What makes you think he attacks theism without understanding it? I hear this clam often and am enquiring as to the reasoning behind it.
As another point what is faith if not belief (or any such related word)? The definition of faith incorporates the notion that its a choice not based on proof. In fact the second definition on dictionary.com is exactly this: "2. belief that is not based on proof:". To argue that this is a mistake to say as such is to say that our current definition of faith is wrong.
That's disingenuous: He was rejected because he stated that he would be compelled to force his religiously based views on others -- it had nothing to do with him being Catholic.
This is a fallacy. You positively do not have to be understand very much about Norse mythology to realize that's it's a silly belief system. The same applies to other gods.
"Learned" implies evidence, and if there were any evidence they would simply change their stance to the appropriate form of theism. That's the rational way to go about things. To date there has not been any single piece of credible evidence for the existence of God(s).
Like the other poster said: Please just read The God Delusion, it explains all of this.
I do think Dawkins does do one thing that is harmful: he attacks theism without understanding it. He makes the common mistakes atheists make that faith is synonymous with belief and that that belief an arbitrary, unreasoned choice.
Many Slashdot posters do something else that is both harmful and dishonest: associating atheism with evolution. The vast majority of Christians (and most people I meet of other religions) accept the theory of evolution as well proven.
In fact, creationism is more of an characteristically American belief than a Christian one: every Christian creationist I have ever come across is either American or belongs to a heavily American influenced evangelical church. The other major stronghold of creationism is in the Middle East, where Islamic fundamentalists have a very similar mindset to Christian ones (or intolerant groups of any religion, or none, in general).
Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists..
Dawkins should promote a homogeneous population based on currently prevailing environmental conditions? Methinks someone needs another crack at understanding evolution.
Can't say I agree with your premise, either: the only place where that stigma actually matters is politics, and it's easy enough to fake it there.
(also, the word you are looking for is "stigmatization", but it's still kind of an awkward turn of phrase)
It's because of Occam's razor. Theism posits that a God or Gods exist(s). However, observable evidence doesn't necessitate that one exist; that is, a God is an 'extra', if you will, there's no phenomena that cannot be explained without the existence of a God. As such, the principle of Occam's razor - do not make theories more complicated than necessary - eliminates the existence of a God, because the world is simpler without one. This leaves atheism as the remaining scientific theory. Another way of thinking about this is that all parts of scientific thought have doubt inherently as a part of them, not just ones surrounding God. So, atheism and agnosticism are essentially equivalent - few atheists would argue that they can prove that there is no God.
They mock theists for their faith, but there's certainly no way to prove that there's not a god, so aren't they also believing in something independent of scientific proof?
What a novel and exciting argument, no one's thought of that before!
Theism and agnosticism are orthogonal (as the kids say) concepts. Most atheists are agnostic, most theists are gnostic (not to be confused with Gnostic). There are some gnostic atheists out there, but not many - like you say, it's a hard position to end up in.