Off Topic > Beyond Belief
Tyson, Dawkins, and religion
Valis:
--- Quote from: Echnaton on January 15, 2013, 10:38:44 AM ---That is certainly true. But science does not matter to all people in all circumstances.
--- End quote ---
Of course not. An often mentioned example of this is "why do I find this song beautiful?" Science can't answer that question, at least at the moment. However, when you are making claims about a deity or deities affecting our lives, you are making a claim that can be tested by the scientific method.
--- Quote ---Sorry for the confusion, it is properly spelled "holism." Holism is the counterpart to reductionism. It is the view that takes things as a whole, with no objective basis for a reduction into constituent parts. We get into trouble when we apply reductionism to what is not reducible, either because it is inherently irreducible or because we lack sufficient knowledge of the constituent parts.
--- End quote ---
OK. What are those irreducible parts? The elementary particles (quarks, gluons, electrons, and so on)? What part of a human is irreducible in your opinion?
--- Quote ---Literature is one category that reductionism does not work well on and romanticism is a literary response to the over reaching of reductionism.
--- End quote ---
Now we are talking about value judgements. One might claim that a collection letters in a certain order brings forth the emergent property of beauty in the text, but you'll probably also find people who don't find the produced text beautiful.
--- Quote --- We divide literature in a way that makes sense to us, not because the division approximates something in nature.
--- End quote ---
Sure. That's because value judgements in this sense have little to with more fundamental things like survival or basic particle interactions. You need an intelligence capable of making those evaluations in the first place, and the results of the evaluations may well be the result of more fundamental properties of the intelligence.
--- Quote ---The conception that God, envisioned as an all powerful supernatural entity, can be reduced by looking at essentially arbitrary chapters and verses of the Bible has always appeared to me as the height of arrogance.
--- End quote ---
You lost me here. Should we not judge the God of the Bible by his actions depicted in the book?
--- Quote ---One poor use of reductionism that scientist are prone to use is extending into areas where the knowledge of nature is far to incomplete for a meaningful division to me made. I have read critiques of Dawkins books from fellow atheist evolutionary biologist that make this claim.
--- End quote ---
This sounds like hand-waving. Dawkins is surely and correctly critiqued on a scientific basis for some of the scientific hypotheses he is putting forth in his books, but I've yet to see a proper rebuttal of his religious claims, i.e. the lack of evidence and the problem of the cornucopia of different religions.
--- Quote --- The technique is useful in developing hypothesis, but Dawkins appears to some, to extend his claims regarding religion from hypothetical in a scientific theory without sufficient evidence. That is what, in my opinion, make him appear arrogant.
--- End quote ---
Have you actually read for example God Delusion? He acknowledges the possibility of a god or gods, that's why he puts himself to a grade of 6.9 out of 7 on the disbelief scale, meaning that he's pretty sure at the moment that there is no higher power, but still doesn't outright deny the supernatural. That's the scientific stand: There is no evidence at the moment, so we discard the hypothesis, but reserve the right to revisit it if any evidence emerges at a later point.
--- Quote ---I think we should embrace holism, for what it is, and be adamant in pointing out the overreaching of reductionism when it occurs.
--- End quote ---
Again, what is this "holism" of a human? Are we not a collection cells? Do our brains not work by the combination of electric and chemical interactions, governed by the laws of physics? What is the holism we should embrace?
Valis:
--- Quote from: gillianren on January 15, 2013, 11:35:43 AM ---And the thing is, he does need to pull punches if he wants to convince people.
--- End quote ---
What are the punches he should pull? Do you deny that he has actually made an impact in turning people away from religion?
--- Quote ---Very few people are fence-sitters on the subject on religion; I'm pretty rare because I know my religious beliefs don't make any sense, and that if it were entirely under my control, I wouldn't believe.
--- End quote ---
There may be few fence-sitters in the US, but that's not the case in the rest of the world.
--- Quote --- Belief in a deity is not scientific, because I have no evidence and I know it. However, I believe nonetheless and cannot explain why. Is it a delusion? Perhaps. Is telling me so going to change what I believe? No. And if I can't be reasoned out of my beliefs, who is he going to convince?
--- End quote ---
No offence meant, but I've seen this time and time again. What do you believe in? Is it omnipotent, omniscient, the ultimate good, and so on? Would you believe in another deity, had you been born in India, Afghanistan, or Japan? What is your basis for believing in the deity? And most importantly, what would be the evidence that'd make you not believe in your deity?
gillianren:
--- Quote from: Valis on January 15, 2013, 12:02:39 PM ---What are the punches he should pull? Do you deny that he has actually made an impact in turning people away from religion?
--- End quote ---
Well, he should stop calling religious people mentally ill. I am mentally ill and religious both, but I know plenty of people who are only one--and it isn't all the same one.
--- Quote ---There may be few fence-sitters in the US, but that's not the case in the rest of the world.
--- End quote ---
I don't know if that's true or not; my definition of "fence-sitter" in this case is one who can be convinced of the existence, or not, of God/gods by pure reason. However, I don't think there's ever been a study that showed how frequent it is, so we'll have to agree to disagree here.
--- Quote ---No offence meant, but I've seen this time and time again. What do you believe in? Is it omnipotent, omniscient, the ultimate good, and so on? Would you believe in another deity, had you been born in India, Afghanistan, or Japan? What is your basis for believing in the deity? And most importantly, what would be the evidence that'd make you not believe in your deity?
--- End quote ---
I don't know what evidence would make me not believe, because evidence isn't why I believe in the first place. I have intellectually accepted that there almost certainly is no God, and yet I still self-identify as religious. I haven't reasoned myself into the position; quite the opposite. Ergo, I don't see any way I can be reasoned out of it. I know it's unscientific of me, and I wish there were something I could do about it, but there doesn't seem to be. Why do I believe? I don't know. I have no basis for believing, and quite a lot for not, but I just feel something resonate sometimes. I can't help it.
And certainly my deity isn't the ultimate good, because I do not believe in such a thing. I'm not quite a "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so," but I certainly don't believe that most of the universe cares what we do. I don't believe in an interventionist deity--but on the other hand, I do find myself praying, probably out of the force of habit instilled by a Catholic childhood. I might well believe in another deity were I born somewhere else, but I don't know. I do know that the deity I currently believe in isn't the one I was raised to believe--in a few months, I'm going to have to have the "I'm not having the baby baptized" conversation with my mother, which isn't going to be fun. In a sense, the deity I believe in is the rules of the universe. This may be a variation on the anthropic principle; I don't know. Of course, I also believe that any deity that a human can truly understand isn't much of a deity.
Echnaton:
Perhaps I should have said this earlier in case there was a misunderstanding. My initial response to you was not to dispute what you say, so much to explore a tangent that your post brought to my mind, I do that alot and it simultaneously annoys and amuses my friends.. I do not think we have any fundamental disagreement about science and I appreciate your taking the time to read my post and respond with pointed questions.
--- Quote from: Valis on January 15, 2013, 11:54:45 AM ---
--- End quote ---
OK. What are those irreducible parts? The elementary particles (quarks, gluons, electrons, and so on)? What part of a human is irreducible in your opinion?
The human spirit, the joy of music and literature, the sacrifices we make for our children... Many things that give meaning to our lives.
You lost me here. Should we not judge the God of the Bible by his actions depicted in the book?
The God of the Bible is a literary character, I see no more need to judge him that I do for Sauron in Lord of the Rings. But we certainly need to understand why people see one as as more than a literary character and not the other, and how that view affects their lives and ours. Something that cannot be done by parsing people into "quarks, gluons, electrons, and so on."
Now we are talking about value judgements.
Life is full of value judgements. The more we understand the human nature of assigning value the better off we are. That is why I chose to study economics and finance rather than science. (Finance also lets you support a family with a bachelors or master degree.) We do make value judgements in characteristic ways, no doubt driven in part by biology, but not universally nor predictably.
This sounds like hand-waving.
It is a personal opinion supported by my thoughts on the mater and presented as such.
Have you actually read for example God Delusion?
No, reviews and excerpts. The digression from the OP was started largely to discuss why several of us perceive Dawkins as an abrasive or arrogant. This is my contribution. To me, and some in his field, he gives an veneer of science to his public presentations on atheism, and against religion, beyond that which is supported by science. I make no claim to expertly judge the science. Dawkins abrasiveness has nothing to do with the science of evolution, but Dawkins is making his case directly to the public sphere with the intent of affecting how we live and govern ourselves. There is more to life and governance than science. The arts of life and governance need to be addressed for what they are.
Again, what is this "holism" of a human?
Holism is an approach to understanding meaning. That meanings are gained by taking works as a whole that can cannot be empirically broken into constituent parts because the parts do not retain the meaning they have within the whole. That a sentence in a book is not the same as identical words used as a song lyric. This stands in counterpoint to science, where a hydrogen atom extracted from dung is indistinguishable from hydrogen taken from the sun. The human body yields to reductionism. A human life does not.
Sus_pilot:
--- Quote from: gillianren on January 15, 2013, 01:26:25 PM ---Of course, I also believe that any deity that a human can truly understand isn't much of a deity.
--- End quote ---
This is probably the most profound thing I've read in weeks. Brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's "The Nine Billion Names of God".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version