God, Science, Homework for ya'all

The Coffee Shop
22

Vitus: 2 quick things and then I’m out and going back to lurking. I’m much more of a voyeur in the LR . . .

  1. If by “theism,” we mean fundamentalist Christian theism (which is Dawkins’s target), then, yes, Dawkins is a militant atheist. And rightly so. The conclusion that the specifically Christian God is the “answer” to all of the “why” questions is patently and demonstrably absurd. And that is why Dawkins is doing what he is doing (frankly, i think it’s a waste of his time, as the arguments he’s making have been made time and again; but I understand why he is doing it–he thinks he can persuade the unpersuadable).

  2. Now, a scientist of Dawkins’s variety cannot be an atheist a priori. Rather, he or she is committed to naturalism and skepticism (yes, those are kinds of faith, but they are not utterly without grounding). With regard to matters beyond the scope of science (and he freely admits that there are many), the Dawkinsian scientist has to be agnostic and go as far as he or she can go toward understanding things in a naturalistic manner. If that quest should lead to God as an answer, then so be it. God or some sort of deity is not ruled out a priori, but neither is a God posited at the outset (a la Collins). In other words, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. And that is why Art (gawd bless him) actually doesn’t receive an A for his homework assignment. Dawkins hasn’t contradicted himself at all, and to think he has is to miss the point altogether.

Collins looks like an absolute dildo (how’s that for loaded language?), I’m afraid. And that’s true even if you are a devout Christian. The guy’s arguments are filled with basic fallacies that a first-year logic student could point out. The arguments he tries to make are horrendous and embarrasing, even if one grants him his faith. And his remarks on morality are . . . beyond atrocious. He’s just not taken the time to familiarize himself with the extant literature in the field. I have respect for him as a geneticist. As a philosopher of biology and a religious thinker? Yikes!

Read Collins’s book and Dawkins’s and then go back to the interview. If at the end of that little project, you really believe that Collins makes one decent argument in the Time piece, then we’ll have to just “agree to disagree.”

23

That’s pretty good…

for those really interesed in Science and with some good math skills, Evolutionary Theory, by Sean Rice, ed. Sinauer is excellent.

24

That was eloquent, apposite and probably many other words of three or more syllables.

25

It seems to me that his admission that there might be a God, but he just doesn’t think it’s likely to be the Christian God, represents a rather significant retreat from his militant atheism.

Dawkins, Dennet, and Lewontin are about as militant as it gets.

For Dawkins to admit that there could be a God out there, just not one that answers people’s prayers (so to speak), would be a big step.

I have long thought that scientists such as these have willfully and erroneously extrapolated their scientific findings and reasearch into developing their philosophy. I also feel that these 3 are often very guilty of mixing their science and their philosophy together so well that many readers cannot tell what is know scientifically and what is being stated philosophically.

Dawkins continually had pseudo-scientists trying to entrap him and agitate him with different things, and really became quite aggressive and jaded about it.

I have always perceived Dwkins to be as arrogant as a single human being could be. He really seems to claim to know things he cannot possibly know … and clarifies by essentially stating no other explanantion could be possible.

Dawkins is famous in circles for his books The Blind Watchmaker (a play on Paley’s intelligent design analogy), and his writings on the “The Selfish Gene”. He gets various reactions to his work, but he is a very smart man … I would appreciate a more professional approach, rather than the 3-year old “I’m right, you’re wrong” tantrums that often seem to come out in his writings. I know there are quite a few people that would like to see Dawkins involved in the televised discussions regarding intelligent design in the classroom, rather than Jeannie whateverhelastnameis. The latter is so polite as to create a climate of intellectual equalization, which is not the case in the scirentific information on the subject. Many folks want Dawkins to come on these programs and tell the pastor, creation scientist, etc how it really is and to do it forcefully so that there is no confusion in the minds of the viewers.

26

I still believe that Dawkins certainly doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist (although he is not trying to do so).
However, as you say, Collins’s arguments are weak…

The God is outside of nature and therefore outside of space and time argument is probably what gets on Dawkins’s nerves. This statement is just like God exists. It’s just faith. Nothing else. Collins seems to be suggesting that there is some kind of scientific value to such a statement.

However, the true point of Dawkins is not the non existence of God, or the Bible being just a story, the point he makes is that a lot can be explained without the God axiom. A somewhat natural argument for a scientist…

27

a lot can be explained without the God axiom.

A lot can be described by science … I’m not sure science explains as much as advertised.

Granted many use the terms describe and explain as basically synonyms, but in this context they are not the same.

28

If Science didn’t actually explain ‘things’ how would you have technological progress?

30

The last point of Dawkins is precisely that God(s) could exist…He doesn’t believe in God. However, he does not exclude that myriads of Gods could exist.

31

Science is pretty good at coming with receipes from a cookbook. Sure, we can create a model of how an apple falls to Earth. When it comes to explaining why the apple falls to Earth the way it does, science is pretty much clueless.

33

I was expecting much better from you Art. The only thing that is clueless is this statement you just made.

35

quick things and then I’m out and going back to lurking.

Coward. :wink:

The conclusion that the specifically Christian God is the “answer” to all of the “why” questions is patently and demonstrably absurd.

Is that so. Why? Since it’s so patent, I’m sort of embarassed not to see it. Demonstrate it for me.

a scientist of Dawkins’s variety cannot be an atheist a priori. Rather, he or she is committed to naturalism and skepticism

I find the notion that someone as committed to naturalism and skepticism as Dawkins cannot be an a priori atheist laughable. It’s the very meaning of his brand of naturalism to assert that there is nothing outside of nature. If he actually is an agnostic, who for some reason rejects Christian accounts of God, that’s one thing, but it isn’t naturalism, and he usually goes way, waaaaaaay past such a modest position in his hostility towards religion.

In other words, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

They are every bit as mutually exclusive as theism and agnosticism. Obviously.

The guy’s arguments are filled with basic fallacies that a first-year logic student could point out.

Perhaps you could condescend to tell us what they are. (I suppose, for some reason, that you don’t find calling one’s opponents “clowns”- or “dildos”, for that matter- to be a logical fallacy. I seem to remember otherwise, but I won’t press that particular point.)

The arguments he tries to make are horrendous and embarrasing, even if one grants him his faith. And his remarks on morality are . . . beyond atrocious.

Do tell. Don’t leave all of us hanging. That would just be mean, seeing as how I think you’re the only one who’s managed to view Collins’ points so negatively.

37

Sure Francois. No problem. Just explain the mechanisms behind the F=Gm1m2/r**2 and why the mechanism works that way rather than some other way.

While you are at it, let us in on why G takes the value it does rather than some other value.

While you are at it, please let us know why the speed of light it is the speed it is rather than some other speed.

Be sure to pick up your Nobel Prize in the process.

38

Not really.

You don’t have to be able to explain why something works the way it does or how it came to be … understanding its patterns and predictability leads to technological progress. In other words “describing” somethng or its behavior is often usefull enough, without being able to explain the various aspects of it.

Electron movement/location, why there is gravity, genetic information (saince we’re talking about Dawkins … who focuses on the predictability, rates, and causation of genetic mutations and inheritance), etc … just a couple of examples of things not completely explained, yet we use the behavior quite effectively.

Science doesn’t completely explain things because it’s not always possible, that’s not the primary function of science and technology.

Science is what is … we shouldn’t make it out to be more or less than that. It has limitations; it is incredibly useful.

40

the point he makes is that a lot can be explained without the God axiom.

If that was actually Dawkins’ point, he’s wasted his a whole lot of time. Everyone agrees with that point.

41

I didn’t say we would never have a clue. Maybe, someday, we will.

Today, we can not begin to answer my very simple questions. Pardon me if I have no tolerance for scientific arrogence. We are a long way from earning it. I do admit there is slow progress, mostly in the realm of finding receipes.

Maybe, one day, we will learn how the cookbook was written. That day is no time soon.

42

I should also add to your points that it is not exactly sporting to compare the latest and greatest scientific discoveries with a book which was mostly written 3,000 or so years ago.

The Bible is not a scientific text. The concepts we take for granted today, and even the language to express them did not exist 3,000 years ago. If you wanted to describe the details of the big bang and the formation of the Sun and Earth and development of life 3,000 years ago, you would be hard pressed to do better than Genesis.

43

Hey! I thought we were wating until Monday!! I had to pick up a copy of Time tonight at the grocery store since all you nerds came in early off the playground to start with the homework!

As someone who foolishly got an advanced degree in philosophy before going off to get another one in science, I have never been able to make myself worry about this “dichotomy”. I just can’t see where the loggerheads are. Every definition I have ever looked at in any detail in any subject area gets slippery around the edges when you push on it. It’s the nature of trying to define things. The margins are always tricky. Scientific definitions might be more precise - if you think of precison as having to do with measurement error - than definitions about faith. But definition is always hard and always incomplete (probably even my definiton of “definition”), and most of the science vs. faith problematic (problematization?) seems to turn on how you define things. Inside of nature, outside of nature, inside of time, outside of time, etc. What the hell does that mean?

Seems to me that if you have faith you have it. Great. If you don’t you don’t. Fine. Arguing it one way or the other can be fun, and arguing the big questions especially. Particularly if there are whiskey and cigars and good looking women involved. But it doesn’t amount to much in practical terms. Maybe faith can help you with the “why” questions, it can’t and shouldn’t help you with the “how” ones (how meaning the scientific how). I understand what Dennett, for example, is trying to do by describing faith as a natural phenomenon. But that postion requires him to force it into being only a psychological construct, and that’s already breaking the assumption among the faithful that it actually corresponds to something immeasurable. To the extent that intelligent design is a rehash of creationism, so is the latest scientific reductionist approach of Dawkins et al. a rehash of the Vienna Circle logical positivism that was discredited in the 1930’s. I’ve even heard Dawkins say things to the effect that propositions of faith are meaningless because they can’t be verified. Straight out of the Positivist playbook.

So anyway, I just don’t get what the ruckus is about with the proof of the existence or non existence of God. It’s not a proof question.

Now if you want to argue about the politics of science vs faith and how that affects policy, I’m all over that.

44

the point he makes is that a lot can be explained without the God axiom.

If that was actually Dawkins’ point, he’s wasted his a whole lot of time. Everyone agrees with that point.

I agree.

That’s hardly been Dawkins’ “point” for much of the past. He’s been much more specific and self-assured in making claims that are much different than “we don’t need God’s existence to explain things”. If that were the case, no one would really care who Richard dawkins is.

45

I laugh every time a “scientist” tells me that it can be clearly proven that God is not the answer. What a load. Believe in God, or a god for that matter, or don’t believe. That’s up to you. However, the very statement that was made by Dawkins about how if a god ends up being the answer, it will be on a much larger scale than ever thought up by the religious, shows a clear lack of understanding about the concept of the Christian God. It simply doesn’t get any larger than a God who is outside of time and space and brought all of existence into being.

The problem with science is that it has the potential to breed arrogance. Certainly science can be used to describe any number of natural processes, and can even “explain” them to many people’s satisfaction. None of that, however, reduces even one iota the possibility of the existence of God.

46

<<<“The problem with science is that it has the potential to breed arrogance.”>>>

I thank the Great Spaghetti Monster each and every day that religion avoids that problem.

<<<"the very statement that was made by Dawkins about how if a god ends up being the answer, it will be on a much larger scale than ever thought up by the religious, shows a clear lack of understanding about the concept of the Christian God. ">>>

That shows a clear lack of understanding about the concept that Dawkins was presenting.

<<<“Believe in God, or a god for that matter, or don’t believe. That’s up to you.”>>>

Amen to that. Anyone’s beliefs are entirely their own domain and their own business. It’s only people who believe they hold the ONE & ONLY TRUTH and want to apply it to laws and behaviours that affect the rest of us who are a concern.