Off Topic > Beyond Belief
Tyson, Dawkins, and religion
raven:
Perhaps I did overreact, I apologize. :-[
Echnaton:
--- Quote from: Valis on January 15, 2013, 07:28:03 AM ---the feeble basis of a theistic belief
--- End quote ---
The basis for theistic belief only look "feeble" from a reductionist point of view. If one does not hold a reductionist point of view, then beliefs, theistic or not, can be firmer than any narrative or proof offered by science. The "problem" is that humans are by nature not universally reductionist. My reading of Dawkins is that he dismisses the human characteristic of "wholism," for lack of a better word. A characteristic that make up the essential nature of a sizable portion of the human kind, and always will. That is what make him come off as an ass to many people.
Valis:
--- Quote from: Echnaton on January 15, 2013, 08:43:58 AM ---The basis for theistic belief only look "feeble" from a reductionist point of view.
--- End quote ---
No. The basis is feeble from a scientific point of view, i.e. the one where evidence is what matters.
--- Quote --- My reading of Dawkins is that he dismisses the human characteristic of "wholism," for lack of a better word. A characteristic that make up the essential nature of a sizable portion of the human kind, and always will. That is what make him come off as an ass to many people.
--- End quote ---
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What do you mean by "wholism"?
Echnaton:
--- Quote from: Valis on January 15, 2013, 08:54:24 AM ---
--- Quote from: Echnaton on January 15, 2013, 08:43:58 AM ---The basis for theistic belief only look "feeble" from a reductionist point of view.
--- End quote ---
The basis is feeble from a scientific point of view, i.e. the one where evidence is what matters.
--- End quote ---
That is certainly true. But science does not matter to all people in all circumstances.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote --- My reading of Dawkins is that he dismisses the human characteristic of "wholism," for lack of a better word. A characteristic that make up the essential nature of a sizable portion of the human kind, and always will. That is what make him come off as an ass to many people.
--- End quote ---
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What do you mean by "wholism"?
--- End 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. Reductionism has been the game since modern science, from Newton, began to show its vast explanatory power. Since that time, people have sought to apply it everywhere.
Literature is one category that reductionism does not work well on and romanticism is a literary response to the over reaching of reductionism. Many fundamentalist use a reductionist strategy to explain theological beliefs and give meaning to the Bible. Breaking the Bible, for instance, into chapter and verse and selecting individual constituents to make a larger point. The wrongness of the approach starts with the fact that that division or groupings in literature are largely arbitrary, that is non-empirical. We divide literature in a way that makes sense to us, not because the division approximates something in nature. 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.
One poor use of reductionism that scientist are prone to 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. Sorry I don't have citations, just casual reading. The technique is useful in developing hypothesis, but Dawkins appears to some, to extend his claims regarding religion from the hypothetical into a scientific theory without sufficient evidence. That is what, in my opinion, makes him arrogant.
The reductionist explanation appeals to modern humans because we are so used to accepting its explanatory power. Many of us on "faith," because few of us can personally perform an empirical check. The dark side of reductionism is that when misapplied it gives us a false sense of the underpinning of our beliefs. I think we should embrace holism, for what it is, and be adamant in pointing out the overreaching of reductionism when it occurs.
edited for clarity
gillianren:
And the thing is, he does need to pull punches if he wants to convince people. 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. 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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version