|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 11/23/2006 : 00:54:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scottquote:
Originally posted by Kil
Are you suggesting that the investigation into how life on Earth happened should not be pursued? Otherwise, what's your gripe?
I am suggesting that one should not acknowledge that they have finite knowledge, and in the next breath make a truth claim based on odds.
No, actually we should do that and we (everybody) do that all the time.
Are you sure that gravity will work tomorrow as it did yesterday? Do you have infinite knowledge of gravity? Are you sure that your spouse or best friend is not planning to kill you? Can you read his/her mind?
Not all ideas merit pursuit or action.quote:
quote:
quote:
So you, and Dawkins, have simply dismissed a god hypothesis and trumpeted abiogenesis as empirical fact, based on your game of odds?
Ummmmm no. Based on some actual evidence…
What evidence?
For instance, that the complexity of life decreases when we go back in time. That organic molecules can form from non organic processes. That the god hypothesis has never been able to explain anything and that no evidence of a creator/god exist.
The god hypothesis is inferior according to the principle of parsimony. To explain something complex (life today) you invoke something even more complex (gods). We can never be completely sure that it is false but at the moment it does not merit pursuit or action.quote:
I was asking questions on Doctor Dawkins. Why does everyone, by default, ask me to prove the existence of God when I ask these questions?
Because if you wan't to replace the existing explanation for the origin of life, pointing out the fact that there are gaps in this explanation is not enough. You have to provide a superior explanation.
Scientist are not afraid of such gaps, filling them is what the do for a living. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 12:52:08 [Permalink]
|
Bill scott, since others have sufficiently addressed your other comments, this glaring question of yours is left:quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott:
I was asking questions on Doctor Dawkins. Why does everyone, by default, ask me to prove the existence of God when I ask these questions?
First, you were not "asking questions on Doctor Dawkins," you were asking the same tired questions that creationists ask when they think they are about to show all these misguided skeptics the light and disprove that nasty evolution.
Once again I will refer you to, even encourage you to present your points in, the excellent forum on this webpage, Creation/Evolution. There, you may quibble over semantics to you heart's content until everybody else on this site gives up and ignores you.
Here, however, I encourage you to remain on topic. The self-explanatory title of this topic is Free For All - Science & Religion. I understand this can encompass creation; but, as many notables on this site have pointed out, that is merely a "god of the gaps" hypothesis and ultimately Quixotic. The points have been discussed, an impasse has been met. Let's move on.
[/Moderator]
[Discussion]
Does anybody really think Dawkins deserves the Templeton Foundation prize for "progress in spiritual discoveries" when he (Dawkins) espouses an anti-spiritual worldview? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2006 : 17:29:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
Does anybody really think Dawkins deserves the Templeton Foundation prize for "progress in spiritual discoveries" when he (Dawkins) espouses an anti-spiritual worldview?
At times, progress relies on the elimination of paths of research which will ultimately dead-end. In such a light, Dawkins is definitely doing more for "spiritual research" than the entire staff of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture put together.
But no, I think that Kroto was simply trying to make a point by way of absurdity. That comment is, after all, only cited in the article as one possible turning point for the whole discussion going from polite to nasty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 18:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Good times over on page 278 of the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread. First, Altabin notices that William Dembski (yes, that Bill Dembski) wrote on his blog:If Dawkins is going to get the Templeton Prize, perhaps for once the Templeton organization should give the prize to two people. I would be happy to share it with Dawkins. And then Richardthughes offers what is probably the only proper response to such arrogance:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath*
The Isaac Newton of making me pee my pants. (For those not up on the secondary joke in the last line, Bill Dembski has been called "the Isaac Newton of Information Theory," even though he hasn't added even a single bit to it.)
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 21:03:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good times over on page 278 of the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread. First, Altabin notices that William Dembski (yes, that Bill Dembski) wrote on his blog:If Dawkins is going to get the Templeton Prize, perhaps for once the Templeton organization should give the prize to two people. I would be happy to share it with Dawkins. And then Richardthughes offers what is probably the only proper response to such arrogance:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHHAHAH HAHAHAHAH *wheezes for breath*
The Isaac Newton of making me pee my pants. (For those not up on the secondary joke in the last line, Bill Dembski has been called "the Isaac Newton of Information Theory," even though he hasn't added even a single bit to it.)
Looks like they got rid of the reply... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 21:55:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Looks like they got rid of the reply...
If you're getting a "Cannot find server" error when looking for page 278 of the "Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread," that particular website has really crappy servers, unable to keep up with their traffic. Try again later. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 00:20:58 [Permalink]
|
A Dawkins interview was on PBS radio this morning. He holds the view I do. It isn't so much that one needs to prove gods exist. Rather, it's that science can indeed look at the god question. When you apply science, then the evidence is overwhelming that the human version of gods are all in the imagination of people. IE there is no evidence gods exist. And Dawkins feels it's time to say so and quit deferring to the socially correct version, science doesn't investigate gods or the supernatural.
In the interview, the problem was brought up that by making that statement, it plays into the theists hands who claim Darwinism is a construct of evil atheists. Dawkins replied the battle over the validity of evolution is just that, a battle. He sees the war as one between science and religion. It is clear religion is belief in the mythical and science is where the future of human knowledge is. So he's not concerned about the evolution battle, he's concerned about the science vs religion war.
I think the evolution battle can't do worse than set a generation back. The evidence is not going away just as the evidence the Earth wasn't flat could not go away, and the evidence the Earth orbits the Sun could not go away, and the evidence the Earth is 4.5 billion years old can not go away.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 00:23:29 [Permalink]
|
| Antievolution.org Dave? But the header book review is on why ID fails? I'll have to check that out when I have more time. Looks interesting. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/25/2006 00:25:20 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9698 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 03:43:27 [Permalink]
|
It's about time to counter by registering domain names like antievolution.org and make them positive about science.
I distinctly remember mistyping the URL to Talk Origins and ended up on an evangelical site. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 08:55:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Antievolution.org Dave? But the header book review is on why ID fails? I'll have to check that out when I have more time. Looks interesting.
Yes, beskeptigal. Antievolution.org is "The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution" and runs on the same server as The Panda's Thumb, by mostly the same pro-evolutionary people. In other words, you can't judge a Website by its URL. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 12:15:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
So he's not concerned about the evolution battle, he's concerned about the science vs religion war.
Why should we be at war with those of faith who have no problem with science? What's the point? Seems to me those people are our allies in reason, even if we don't agree on the god question. And those of faith are going to be far more inclined to listen to their own…
If Dawkins wants to expand the war to include those of faith who do not represent an impediment to science, count me out.
It's a waste of time and energy and it's also counter productive.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 15:08:11 [Permalink]
|
Here's a review on The god Delusion by Robert Carroll. quote:
The hurrah side of The God Delusion (hereafter G-D) is the message that "you can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." The boo side is that to achieve this you have to give up your belief in an infinitely powerful but genocidal egomaniac who is watching your every move and is especially concerned about your sex life; and many of your family and friends will disown you for doing so. Some Jews and Christians—he doesn't say much about Muslims, perhaps because there are many members of that peaceful religion who threaten to kill anyone who offends their religious sensibilities—some Jews and Christians might take offense at characterizing their deity this way, but Dawkins has the nasty habit of finding Biblical stories that support his depiction of JHWH, such as the story of Noah and the Flood and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Dawkins doesn't ignore Islam, however. He spends a few pages on the Danish cartoon fiasco and he's especially critical of the way women are treated in that religion. He ends his book with a strange analogy between the burka and the electromagnetic spectrum. But, for the most part, when Dawkins talks about God and religion, he talks about the God of the Jews and Christians.
I'm looking forward to reading the book.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 21:32:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
beskeptigal:
So he's not concerned about the evolution battle, he's concerned about the science vs religion war.
Why should we be at war with those of faith who have no problem with science? What's the point? Seems to me those people are our allies in reason, even if we don't agree on the god question. And those of faith are going to be far more inclined to listen to their own…
If Dawkins wants to expand the war to include those of faith who do not represent an impediment to science, count me out.
It's a waste of time and energy and it's also counter productive.
That's the argument against Dawkin's position and many people besides yourself hold that position.
When all we see in the faith based belief systems are altruism and love thy neighbor, then there probably is no harm in comforting yourself with religion. But that is hardly what we have today.
We have Islamic fanatics who think killing people is a way to gain the favor of the gods. You have the Republican base that would vote in the worst administration this country has seen because someone beat the drum roll gay marriage is a sin. You have anti-abortion fanatics making sure we increase teen pregnancy with abstinence only education rules and then stacking the Supreme Court with Evangelicals who's top qualification for getting the job will be their anti-abortion stand. And dare I bring up the "God gave the land to us" battle over Israeli territory?
The point is the above thinking is not qualitatively different from the astrologers' thinking or the homeopathic remedy believers' reasoning. Some is benign, some is very harmful, but all of it is based on fantasy and myth, on illogical thinking, on lack of understanding/accepting evidence based beliefs and the scientific process.
How can you reject astrology and keep the Bible?
Our country is in an anti-science war with Evangelicals who think they can force science to accept false evidence and unsupported conclusions. Why address it one subject at a time? Maybe it's time to address it as a whole, even if it looks like a hopelessly uphill battle.
People's religious indoctrination is the problem. Science stands on its own merits. We have reached a point where successes in science are so obvious they can't be discounted. It would seem that is part of the threat to Evangelicals. Science can cure you and prayer cannot.
In the past science's threats to the Church and the Bible have been overcome, absorbed and religion remains. But eventually, as more and more scientific breakthroughs occur and society becomes one that is evidence/science based, the "educated elite" no longer applies to scientists. We need everyone to understand the basics of science. It moves our society forward and those failing to adapt will really be the ones left behind*.
There are whole countries being left behind right now. It's mind boggling to see the incredible ignorance in this country but in the world even that is an understatement. I agree it may not yet be the time to fight the science vs religion war. But at the same time, I'm not going to be disingenuous about my belief that it eventually has to and will happen and science will win if we live long enough as a species.
(*Hey, that gives me an idea of a new fish for science. How about a rocketship-science fish speeding away from a Jesus fish with "left behind" written in the middle?)
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/25/2006 21:35:52 |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 21:45:34 [Permalink]
|
Just to toss this in -- for your enjoyment.
Series of Science/Skeptic video stream lectures from
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
Hall Center for the Humanities....
Richard Dawkins speaks...
http://www.hallcenter.ku.edu/video/index.shtml
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 23:14:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
How can you reject astrology and keep the Bible?
As you well know, that's not what was suggested. The thrust is to reject both the astrology fanatics and the Bible fanatics (whom you call Evangelicals, although that's not completely correct, either).
There's no good reason to label someone who reads his horoscope "just for fun" an "enemy" in the war on science, just as there's no good reason to label a liberal Christian evolutionary biologist an enemy. The battle lines are drawn where people claim their faith overrides scientific knowledge.
Alienating people who would certainly be allies of yours just because they're not 100% in agreement with you is a sure way to turn an "uphill battle" into a devestating loss. It is already the case that the vast majority of scientists would prefer to just do their work, and stay out of public disputes about religion. Getting rid of those scientists who do speak out but happen to also be religious would winnow an already tiny majority of friends down to just Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and a handful of other "devout" atheists, many of whom are already criticized by less-strident atheists for their carpet-bombing of religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
