Off Topic > Beyond Belief

Tyson, Dawkins, and religion

<< < (33/35) > >>

Echnaton:

--- Quote from: Andromeda on January 21, 2013, 02:09:27 AM ---Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to say about the difference between having a belief and making a claim.

--- End quote ---

To tie this back to the origins of this thread (without putting words in your mouth,) my opinion is that Dawkins ignores this and other subtleties of thought then oversteps the sound science of his work to bash people over the head about religion.  In doing so he is practicing social science not biology.  He deserves to be criticized for doing so based on the strengths and weakness of the social sciences and his practice thereof.  Religion is a broad descriptor for a vast array of assumptions, assertions, thought processes, personal identifications, and needs for community that occur within and outside of any theistic beliefs. I can't think of a broader topic in human history.  It seems to me that focusing on religion and trying to explain a very complex and ill-defined array of thought and behaviors within the developing theories of gene centered evolution has some similarity to Social Darwinism and is an ultimately as counter productive as that movement was a century ago.  Science seems to be developing the ability to enlighten us on the constituent elements of thoughts and belief, common to so many human endeavors, but the current focus on one manifestation of them is overstepping, IMHO.

Jason Thompson:

--- Quote from: Valis on January 21, 2013, 06:15:54 AM ---Sorry.
--- End quote ---

Apology accepted.


--- Quote ---There's nothing irrational in giving a qualified answer like "probably yes", if you have a proper basis for the qualification. It'd be irrational to answer "probably yes, because I have dreamed of green Martians".
--- End quote ---

Yes, but this is the whole point of what we are trying (and apparently failing) to put across. There is no issue with giving an irrational answer unless you try to pretend it is rational and act as if it is. There is no issue with believing something that cannot be proven unless you treat it as though it is.

Do some religious people do this? Undoubtedly. Do all religious people do this? No. Many are happy to admit that their belief in a god or gods is irrational and nothing more than personal faith. As long as that admission of irrationality exists and they treat it accordingly then they are being perfectly honest about it.

And a further point to consider is that for some people the burden of proof for the existence of a god has been met to their satisfaction. Whether it's because of the amazing beauty and elegance of our natural world, the incredible intricacies and complexities of the interactions of matter and energy, or simply someone who lost his job, wrote off his car, got divorced and accidentally dropped a toolbox on his beloved pet cat all in one week who prayed for help and won the lottery the next day, to them that qualifies as evidence of a god, and therefore they are still applying the 'burden of proof' rules to their internal beliefs about that god and coming out with a satisfactory answer to say he exists. There's no dishonesty there either.

And that was why we took issue with your original blanket statement that religious scientists are intellectually dishonest.

Valis:
I'll try to take this spot to sum up the reasons for my participation in this thread.
--- Quote from: LunarOrbit on January 20, 2013, 10:31:00 PM ---I think the problem is that Valis considers a statement of belief to be the same as a claim of knowledge.
--- End quote ---
No, I don't consider them exactly equal. This is in part a language problem (there's a difference between belief without basis and belief with basis, for starters), and part philosophical (how can we ever really know anything?).  An example:

I believe that a water molecule is made from one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. Is this a statement of belief or a claim of knowledge? It's the former, for I have to acknowledge that it can be incorrect. Does that matter? No, for all intents and purposes I can treat is as the latter.

Going a step further, there's the question about alien life. "I believe there is alien life" clearly can't be treated equally to the statement of belief in the nature of water molecules. I'll need to add a qualifier, like "probably", to make the higher probabilistic nature of the statement clear. The big distinction is that I can't treat this case as practically true.

Enough with scientists at this point. When a person tells me "I believe that UFOs are alien craft", I can be pretty sure that the person doesn't mean "I assign a probability over 50 % based on this and that to the hypothesis that UFOs are alien craft", he means "UFOs are alien craft". At least, I've never met one. Same goes for many Apollo hoax believers; they don't usually come here to compare evidence, it's to show why their version is true. And, unfortunately, that's the case with many religious believers.

I really don't have much to say about a person who has a religious belief and keeps it to him/herself. I can only show the scientific world-view, which may contain parts that go against specific tenets of the faith, like a young earth. It's up to the person to decide whether he wants to listen or even amend his faith. It's no more telling him what to think than the members here showing evidence based on the official Apollo record to a hoax believer are telling him what to think. While I do not understand willful ignorance, it's not my decision.

What I strongly object in these beliefs is that they seldom are contained within the believer. Indoctrination of children has already been mentioned. So is the inequality based on sexual orientation. Most recent example for me is our deeply religious interior minister demanding tighter limitations to situations where abortion is allowed.

Another objection is that religious faith seems to be out of bounds for criticism. Just recently a suggestion was made in UN to classify such criticism as hate speech. Criticizing a faith is not criticizing the person, and neither is showing that teachings of a religion don't match the observed reality.

Andromeda:

--- Quote from: Valis on January 21, 2013, 11:52:49 AM ---What I strongly object in these beliefs is that they seldom are contained within the believer.

--- End quote ---

How would you know?

Echnaton:

--- Quote from: Valis on January 21, 2013, 11:52:49 AM ---and part philosophical (how can we ever really know anything?). 
--- End quote ---

I believe we can all agree that the problem of knowledge has been adequately dealt with.  As you describe, science hold knowledge tentatively and subject to revision.  It is an approximation of reality that becomes scientific theory when the chance that the theory does not mirror reality is very small.  This effectively answers proponents of philosophical skepticism, the proposition that we can't really know anything.


--- Quote ---What I strongly object in these beliefs is that they seldom are contained within the believer. Indoctrination of children has already been mentioned.
--- End quote ---

This is a social problem, not science.  I am not sure what you would propose as an alternative to the practice of parents passing along culture to their children? Should we censor parents? 


--- Quote ---Another objection is that religious faith seems to be out of bounds for criticism. Just recently a suggestion was made in UN to classify such criticism as hate speech.
--- End quote ---

100% agreement with you here.  That some people want to censor criticism is a the most blatant sign of the weakness of their position.  Dawkins and anyone else can pound away day and night.  But it is not just the religious that call for this, there is a secular social science trend that supports censorship too when applied to "race."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version