Can Religious Belief Be Studied Scientifically?

[Garth]

Do atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins merely knock down "straw men"?

Following an article in the Radio Times:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins argues in a two-part film (The Root of All Evil?, Mondays, Channel 4)that religion poses a serious threat to the world. Hugh Costello asked "Darwin's rottweiler" why he's sounding the alarm.

Madeline Bunting, in the major British secular newspaper "The Guardian": No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything

Let's be clear: it's absolutely right that religion should be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men.

Garth

 

[arildno]

Richard Dawkins is perfectly correct; religion does pose a serious threat to the world.

Religious individuals today demand that I respect their belief in an entity they have absolutely no evidence of existing. They could equally well have demanded of me that I should respect a madman's conviction that he is Napoleon or a teapot.

Effectively, what is demanded of me is to respect that other humans choose to throw away their reasoning faculties. I'll never respect them for doing this. Period.

 

[Garth]

Effectively, what is demanded of me is to respect that other humans choose to throw away their reasoning faculties. I'll never respect them for doing this. Period.

A good example of Bunting's argment from that 'Guardian' link perhaps?

That lack of empathy also lies behind Dawkins's reference to a "process of non-thinking called faith". For thousands of years, religious belief has been accompanied by thought and intellectual discovery, whether Islamic astronomy or the Renaissance. But his contempt is so profound that he can't be bothered to even find out (in an interview he dismissed Christian theology in exactly these terms). If this isn't the "hidebound certainty" of which he accuses believers, I'm not sure what is.

Garth

 

[chronon]

In science it is generally fairly clear what the official line is, and what is the work of crackpots. This is not so in religion, and as a consequence many arguments put forward in support of a religious viewpoint are pretty daft. I think that Dawkins' arguments aren't particularly persuasive - he doesn't seek out sensible theological arguments to battle against. However, I can't say that I really blame him for this - what is the point of putting together a rational argument if the majority of your opponents are not particularly rational. Hence I can understand why his viewpoint is more of 'Enough of this nonsense!'

 

[Garth]

However, I can't say that I really blame him for this - what is the point of putting together a rational argument if the majority of your opponents are not particularly rational. Hence I can understand why his viewpoint is more of 'Enough of this nonsense!'

Again, a good example of Bunting's thesis.

Yes, there are crackpots all over the place, but there are also deep thinking theologians who wrestle, and have wrestled for hundreds of years, with the deep issues of meaning and purpose in a capricious and painful world.

There may indeed be many irrational opponents, but engage with the rational ones instead; they may not be shouting so loud, but that is all the more reason to listen out for them! Rejecting the "straw men" irrational arguments, which are so easily dismissed, does no credit to a worthwhile polemic.

Garth

 

[chronon]

One can ask why Dawkins tends to see the crackpots as representative of religion. I think that the answer is probably that they are the ones who pester him the most.

More to the point, why does the media see Dawkins as representative of atheism. After all, promoting it isn't his 'day job'.

My answer to that would be that academic philosophers, who should be the people to look at such questions, are failing in their job and make things more obscure rather than clarifying such issues for the general public.

 

[Garth]

A very good point.

Garth

 

[arildno]

Islamic astronomers didn't use the Quran when mapping the heavens.
In fact, that book (as well as the Bible) is utterly worthless as a guide or source of information in such studies.

So, I don't see the relevance of this counter-"argument".

 

[Garth]

You can argue that the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all with an understanding of God as a law giver were predisposed to search for laws in nature as well as in ethics and morality. There may have been other influences too from their faith culture as I suggest here.

Garth

 

[arildno]

You can argue that the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all with an understanding of God as a law giver were predisposed to search for laws in nature as well as in ethics and morality. [/url].
Garth

Sure you can argue that, but when it comes to ethics and morality your argument is simply wrong. Those issues has preoccupied all cultures, and your insinuation that this is not so is a typical chauvinist attitude.
Secondly, if you haven't noticed it already, the notion of "God as a law-giver" makes the actual search after laws not already given by God into a rather subversive activity.

As for searching after laws of nature, that was expressly forbidden by all these three religions, so they certainly do not deserve any credit for the eventual discovery of such laws.

 

[Garth]

Sure you can argue that, but when it comes to ethics and morality your argument is simply wrong. Those issues has preoccupied all cultures, and your insinuation that this is not so is a typical chauvinist attitude.

Of course they have preoccupied all cultures, I have not said otherwise. However the concept of Torah was/is fundamental to the Jewish faith and was inherited in a revised form by Christianity and Islam.

Secondly, if you haven't noticed it already, the notion of "God as a law-giver" makes the actual search after laws not already given by God into a rather subversive activity.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Galileo Galilei

As for searching after laws of nature, that was expressly forbidden by all these three religions, so they certainly do not deserve any credit for the eventual discovery of such laws.

Well I have a good knowledge of the Christian Religion and a working acquantance with the other two - and I have never come across any such prohibition, instead I read "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength" Mark 12:29-30 quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-9. I use my mind to discover the laws of nature, which IMHO I see as God's laws of creation.

Garth

 

[arildno]

You know perfectly well that that citation of Galileo shows that the dominant intellectual climate he lived in was hostile towards free-thinkers like him, on basis of their interpretation of holy scriptures.

He had to defend himself against accusations from the Church establishment that he was an intellectual subversive through his studies.

Since you are commanded to love God with ALL your mind, that doesn't leave much space in your mind for critical thinking, does it?

 

[Garth]

You know perfectly well that that citation of Galileo shows that the dominant intellectual climate he lived in was hostile towards free-thinkers like him, on basis of their interpretation of holy scriptures.
He had to defend himself against accusations from the Church establishment that he was an intellectual subversive through his studies.
Since you are commanded to love God with ALL your mind, that doesn't leave much space in your mind for critical thinking, does it?

That is an interesting point - you obviously believe that "to love God with ALL your mind" is inconsistent with critical thinking - whereas I do not.

Garth

 

[arildno]

Well, you're not actively having thoughts of loving God when doing any sort of scientific research, or, for that matter, any other normal mental activity.

Thus, your mind is not fully occupied with loving God.

 

[Garth]

Well, you're not actively having thoughts of loving God when doing any sort of scientific research, or, for that matter, any other normal mental activity.
Thus, your mind is not fully occupied with loving God.

I disagree, I believe that a person can love God by studying his works in creation. For example, it is well known that in his astronomical research, Kepler only wanted to, as he put it, "think God's thoughts after Him."

Garth

 

[arildno]

If Kepler had said anything differently, he would have shared the fate of his mother.

 

[Vast]

science has to concede that despite its huge advances it still cannot answer questions about the nature of the universe - such as whether we are freak chances of evolution in an indifferent cosmos (Dawkins does finally acknowledge this point in the programmes).

This is a pathetic argument! Science has always made it known that it doesn’t have all the answers, I only wish religion would step up and say the same about the scriptures they force down the throats of their followers; that they are not divine and the word of God.

I find it odd that Richard Dawkins would concede this point. I think she may be twisting his words here, because as far as evolution is concerned we are very much freak chances of evolution in an indifferent universe.

 

[PerennialII]

The extreme arguments, both from science and religion, appear as much fallacious ... faith and science don't need to step on each others toes so there is room for both.

 

[arildno]

Why should one make room for faith?

 

[Garth]

Why should one make room for faith?

The theist interprets the Anthropic concidences ("The world is as it is because we are. Stephen Hawking), apparently necessary to make this universe propitious for life, by saying:"The universe is as it is because God made it so".

The atheist replies: "That 'argument' may satisfy you because you have faith, I don't. Show me your God and I'll believe you, but you cannot. No, the probability that this universe is propitious for life may be a million to one but there are a million or more other universes (Living in the Multiverse Steven Weinberg) and we are in this one because we can be in no other - it is a selection effect."

To which the theist responds: "That 'argument' may satisfy you. Show me one of these other universes and I'll believe you, but you cannot. You have faith; it is just a matter of what you are prepared to put your faith in."

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

The theist interprets the Anthropic concidences ("The world is as it is because we are. Stephen Hawking), apparently necessary to make this universe propitious for life, by saying:"The universe is as it is because God made it so".
The atheist replies: "That 'argument' may satisfy you because you have faith, I don't. Show me your God and I'll believe you, but you cannot. No, the probability that this universe is propitious for life may be a million to one but there are a million or more other universes (Living in the Multiverse Steven Weinberg) and we are in this one because we can be in no other - it is a selection effect."
To which the theist responds: "That 'argument' may satisfy you. Show me one of these other universes and I'll believe you, but you cannot. You have faith; it is just a matter of what you are prepared to put your faith in."
Garth

Conclusion: all rational discussion of god and why we do or do not believe are incoherent. From a Christian perspective, if we could reach agreement about divine matters by rational argument then faith would not be required. But the documents of christianity (primarily Paul's epistles) say that faith is required. QED. And from the atheist perspective this is all gibberish; who can take it seriously?

 

[Garth]

Conclusion: all rational discussion of god and why we do or do not believe are incoherent. From a Christian perspective, if we could reach agreement about divine matters by rational argument then faith would not be required. But the documents of christianity (primarily Paul's epistles) say that faith is required. QED. And from the atheist perspective this is all gibberish; who can take it seriously?

I agree that Paul's argument requires faith in the existence of God, amongst other things, and that if you could prove the existence of God then faith would not be required, the choice is yours as to whether to believe or not.

However, as the atheist perspective would seem to also require faith (in the other unobservable universes) are you saying that that perspective is also incoherent and gibberish?

Garth

 

[daveb]

You know perfectly well that that citation of Galileo shows that the dominant intellectual climate he lived in was hostile towards free-thinkers like him, on basis of their interpretation of holy scriptures.
He had to defend himself against accusations from the Church establishment that he was an intellectual subversive through his studies.

Yes, but this does not by necessity imply Galileo did not also have faith. Yes, he was forced to defend himself, and it's true he used faith as a device to argue his point, as shown in this link.
http://stjohns-chs.org/english/Renaissance/renast.html"
Many great scientists have had an abundance of faith. But they were smart enough to realize that some things can be answered by science - the natural world, and perhaps mankind's place in the universe, and other things are left for faith and philosophy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

However, as the atheist perspective would seem to also require faith (in the other unobservable universes) are you saying that that perspective is also incoherent and gibberish?

What unobservable universes? The atheist is free not to accept any part of modern physics beyond the standard model and GR (including SCC of course!), the limit of what has been demonstrated in experiment. I'm not aware that the SM, GR or SCC predict any unobservable universes?

 

[daveb]

Why should one make room for faith?

One "should" not make room for faith for themself, but they should respect the right of others to make room for it. It's when faith dictates that others cannot have dissenting views that I would agre with you on that point.

 

[arildno]

Many great scientists have had an abundance of faith.

Yes, and that's a tragedy, IMO. What could Newton have accomplished if he hadn't wasted years on metaphysical speculations?

In my view, it is not improbable that he would have developed the rotational kinematics&dynamics that Euler developed; it might well have been that Newton would have made many of those advances in astronomy that Laplace made in Mechanique Celeste.

 

[Garth]

What unobservable universes? The atheist is free not to accept any part of modern physics beyond the standard model and GR (including SCC of course!), the limit of what has been demonstrated in experiment. I'm not aware that the SM, GR or SCC predict any unobservable universes?

Stoeger, Ellis and Kirchner's paper is a good place to start Multiverses and Cosmology: Philosophical Issues

Over the past twenty years the proposal of a really existing ensemble of universes – or multiverse – has gained prominence in cosmology, even though there is so far only inadequate theoretical or observational support for its existence. The popularity of this proposal can be traced to two factors. The first is that quite a few promising programs of research in quantum and very early universe cosmology suggest that the very processes which could have brought our universe or region of the universe into existence from a primordial quantum configuration, would have generated many other universes or universe regions as well. This was first modeled in a specific way by Andrei Linde (Linde 1983, 1990) in his chaotic cosmology scenario. Since then many others, e. g. Leslie (1996), Weinberg (2000), Sciama (1993), Deutsch (1998), Tegmark (1998, 2003), Smolin (1999), Lewis (2000), Weinberg (2000), and Rees (2001) have discussed ways in which an ensemble of universes or universe domains might originate naturally.

The extent of the paper is given in the Abstract:

The idea of a multiverse – an ensemble of universes or universe domains – has received increasing attention in cosmology, both as the outcome of the originating process that generated our own universe, and as an explanation for why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life and consciousness. Here we carefully consider how multiverses should be defined, stressing the distinction between the collection of all possible universes, and ensembles of really existing universes, which are essential for an anthropic argument. We show that such realized multiverses are by no means unique, and in general require the existence of a well-defined and physically motivated distribution function on the space of all possible universes. Furthermore, a proper measure on these spaces is also needed, so that probabilities can be calculated. We then discuss several other major physical and philosophical problems which arise in the context of ensembles of universes, including the emergence and causal effectiveness of self-consciousness, realized infinities, and fine-tuning, or the apparent need for very special initial conditions for our universe – whether they or generalized generic primordial conditions are more fundamental. Then we briefly summarise scenarios like chaotic inflation, which suggest how ensembles of universe domains may be generated, and point out that the regularities which must underlie any systematic description of truly disjoint multiverses must imply some kind of common generating mechanism. Finally, we discuss the issue of testability, which underlies the question of whether multiverse proposals are really scientific propositions.

Of course the atheist is free not to accept any part of this, however, is the propitious nature of the universe then not to be explained?

Garth

 

[PerennialII]

Yes, and that's a tragedy, IMO. What could Newton have accomplished if he hadn't wasted years on metaphysical speculations?
In my view, it is not improbable that he would have developed the rotational kinematics&dynamics that Euler developed; it might well have been that Newton would have made many of those advances in astronomy that Laplace made in Mechanique Celeste.

On this note disagree, strictly sticking and obeying methods of science is not IMO always the most productive way of producing truly 'new things'. Metaphysical and epistemological speculation, which inevitably introduces 'faith' in one form or another can be a contributing factor. Stagnant dogma is then another thing.
.

 

[sameandnot]

i have faith in the science that goes into engineering and maintaining the aircraft or cruise ship i am on.

if i didn't have faith, how could i do anything?

eventually, i would have to concede that i have faith in my rationality, at the very least.

faith is required at the first step of any endeavor or journey. or else, there is no first step.

 

[Garth]

Yes, and that's a tragedy, IMO. What could Newton have accomplished if he hadn't wasted years on metaphysical speculations?
In my view, it is not improbable that he would have developed the rotational kinematics&dynamics that Euler developed; it might well have been that Newton would have made many of those advances in astronomy that Laplace made in Mechanique Celeste.

IMHO the "what if" game is a waste of time and effort, the 20-20 vision of hindsight can be so deceptive. Who knows what might have happened if Newton had not believed in a rational and law-giving God? Perhaps he would never have even looked for his laws of motion and gravitation, nevermind finding them.

Laplace lived and died a Catholic, receiving the last rites on his death bed; Copernicus was a polish Monk; Galileo professed faith even if he did (thankfully) disagree with the establishment of his time - his initial opponents were fellow scholastic academics; Kepler did more than pay lip service to 'God' language as was suggested above in #16, his own prayer is still used today; Faraday was a devout member of a small Christian church; Einstein described himself as a pantheist; John Polkinghorne - ex-professor of theoretical physics at Cambridge University is an Anglican priest.

The list could go on and proves nothing in itself except to belie the assumption that faith is irrational incoherent gibberish and necessarily in conflict with good scientific practice.

Garth

 

[selfAdjoint]

Of course the atheist is free not to accept any part of this, however, is the propitious nature of the universe then not to be explained?

Weak anthropic; if it were not that way, we should not be here to wonder about it. As to causes, Smolin's evolutionary hypothesis gives at least a possible mechanism. Since there is a possible mechanism, the atheist doesn't have to "believe" in anything, even Smolin, in order to be content that the fine tuning need not be supernatural in origin.

 

[Joel]

The extreme arguments, both from science and religion, appear as much fallacious ... faith and science don't need to step on each others toes so there is room for both.

Exactly. Some questions are still fruitless to approach scientifically, but our curiosity towards them isn't any less for that. On the other hand, science can answer an increasing amount of traditionally religious questions and faith isn't required to understand them anymore. The conflict arises when a questions moves from the religious domain to the scientific, so to speak.

 

[Garth]

Weak anthropic; if it were not that way, we should not be here to wonder about it. As to causes, Smolin's evolutionary hypothesis gives at least a possible mechanism. Since there is a possible mechanism, the atheist doesn't have to "believe" in anything, even Smolin, in order to be content that the fine tuning need not be supernatural in origin.

Leaving aside the question of whether black holes actually do spawn new universes that carry forward characteristics of the progenitor universe with small changes, as an evolutionary process requires, the CNS hypothesis depends on the physical property that those conditions that maximise the number of BHs in a universe are also those that are propitious for life. If this is in fact the case does not that seem a little coincidental?

Garth

 

[Vast]

Garth, if I were to ask you how the Earth is so well suited to life, you would reply with an answer detailing the probability of a planet evolving with the right conditions that were suitable for life to evolve, would you not? Until we had observational evidence of other planets, we had no idea of how many others there were, and so thought the Earth was rare. You wouldn’t conclude that it had been designed or created with life in mind by some sort of intelligence, would you? (Or I hope you wouldn’t)

The fact that life happened to occur on Earth, is not however surprising or unlikely. It is just an application of the Weak Anthropic Principle: if life had appeared instead on another planet, we would be asking why it had occurred there.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html"

So why should we invoke the design argument for the whole universe? If the universe appears to be fine tuned in a similar manner that the Earth appears to be fine tuned, perhaps there is simply some selection effect for the universe as there is for the Earth. There may not even need to be many universes, it just seems traditionalistic to appeal to the God of the gaps argument.

 

[Garth]

Garth, if I were to ask you how the Earth is so well suited to life, you would reply with an answer detailing the probability of a planet evolving with the right conditions that were suitable for life to evolve, would you not? Until we had observational evidence of other planets, we had no idea of how many others there were, and so thought the Earth was rare. You wouldn’t conclude that it had been designed or created with life in mind by some sort of intelligence, would you? (Or I hope you wouldn’t)
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html"
So why should we invoke the design argument for the whole universe? If the universe appears to be fine tuned in a similar manner that the Earth appears to be fine tuned, perhaps there is simply some selection effect for the universe as there is for the Earth. There may not even need to be many universes, it just seems traditionalistic to appeal to the God of the gaps argument.

Hi Vast!
The case of the Earth being propitious for life is instructive in teasing out the implications of the WAP. The point is: yes, we do know of other planets and planetary systems, and even before exo-planetary systems were discovered it did not require too much faith to accept that other systems than our own did exist, after all we can see that there are ~ 10²² stars out there!

However, when we apply this logic to the universe as a whole then the ball game changes, for we cannot observe other universes in which the laws of physics are different, and it may be the case that we shall never be able to do so. Therefore any argument of a selection effect requires invocation of an ensemble of unobservable universes, the multiverse. It may be perfectly reasonable to believe that such exists, but on the basis of faith rather than observation.

Garth

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Stoeger, Ellis and Kirchner's paper is a good place to start Multiverses and Cosmology: Philosophical IssuesThe extent of the paper is given in the Abstract:
Of course the atheist is free not to accept any part of this, however, is the propitious nature of the universe then not to be explained?
Garth

Who's to say a zillion zillion universes, if they exist are not all propitious to some form of life? We have certain evidence of one and 'God' needs no spokesperson or believers to confirm whether/whatever exists. Human curiosity and the benefits derived is an end in itself.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

One of the mysterious goals of religion is to reverse the role of government from protector of the rights of the individual (to pursue their own rational self-interest and to profit from the fruits of their own intellectual and physical labors) from the unjustified ravages of their enemies, to delivering the producers of values that sustain and promote human existence into the hands of their enemies on a silver platter. The ‘faithful’ are making great strides towards accomplishing this goal in recent times.

Most people seem oblivious to the movement of the religious fundamentalists to overtake control of the government for their own unearned gain and the people wielding governmental powers follow hand-in-hand in attempts to reap their own unearned gains.

Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head by convincing the masses that damning the best among us will somehow make things better for the worst among us and that we are all of us, especially those of us who acknowledge responsibility for our own lives, the worst.

Religion, the bastion of faith, is evidently the bastion of evil and the wolf in sheep’s clothing for science. Scientists of the world; ignore this evidence at your own peril, the peril of those you cherish and the downfall of human civilization if you continue to deliver the best that can be achieved into the hands of the worst examples of the human species.

 

[Garth]

Who's to say a zillion zillion universes, if they exist are not all propitious to some form of life?

Absolutely correct, it is possible to say that. But is the hypothesis that, these other (maybe an infinite number) of universes (all of which may or may not be be propitious for life) do exist, falsifiable?

We have certain evidence of one and 'God' needs no spokesperson or believers to confirm whether/whatever exists. Human curiosity and the benefits derived is an end in itself.

On the basis of a scientific act of observation we have evidence of the one universe that is ours.

On the basis of faith we may believe in other universes, indeed on that basis if one believes that God is infinite, and his/her creative power infinite, yet this universe proves to be finite then one would presumably conclude that there would consequently have to be an inifinte number of them. However, this multiverse would be postulated as an act of faith, not as a scientific act of verifiable observation.

Garth

 

[Garth]

One of the mysterious goals of religion is to reverse the role of government from protector of the rights of the individual (to pursue their own rational self-interest and to profit from the fruits of their own intellectual and physical labors) from the unjustified ravages of their enemies, to delivering the producers of values that sustain and promote human existence into the hands of their enemies on a silver platter. The ‘faithful’ are making great strides towards accomplishing this goal in recent times.
Most people seem oblivious to the movement of the religious fundamentalists to overtake control of the government for their own unearned gain and the people wielding governmental powers follow hand-in-hand in attempts to reap their own unearned gains.
Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head by convincing the masses that damning the best among us will somehow make things better for the worst among us and that we are all of us, especially those of us who acknowledge responsibility for our own lives, the worst.
Religion, the bastion of faith, is evidently the bastion of evil and the wolf in sheep’s clothing for science. Scientists of the world; ignore this evidence at your own peril, the peril of those you cherish and the downfall of human civilization if you continue to deliver the best that can be achieved into the hands of the worst examples of the human species.

An example of the "straw man" polemic described in the OP link perhaps?

On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again) to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a two-part Channel 4 programme, The Root of All Evil? His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on Narnia. By all means, let's have a serious debate about religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence, there's the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the march again.
There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularisation there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.
There's an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed. Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big questions of life, we shelve them - we certainly don't develop the awe towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins's anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers.

This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.

Of course there are some things you say Dmstifik8ion that I do agree with:"Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head " Perhaps 'might is right' is not a good moral principle for a civilized society, that instead the poor and weak should have a say as well, because of the intrinsic worth of every individual.

On the other hand, I could be wrong about this; so could it be that, in fact, the principle of the survival of the fittest ought to consign those less than perfect to oblivion?

Garth

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

An example of the "straw man" polemic described in the OP link perhaps?
Of course there are some things you say Dmstifik8ion that I do agree with:"Religions primary function is to turn the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest on its head " Perhaps 'might is right' is not a good moral principle for a civilized society, that instead the poor and weak should have a say as well, because of the intrinsic worth of every individual.
On the other hand, I could be wrong about this; so could it be that, in fact, the principle of the survival of the fittest ought to consign those less than perfect to oblivion?
Garth

We are all ‘consigned’ to oblivion; it is just a matter of when and how, by whom or what. If an individual freely chooses to extend a hand to another who is teetering on the brink, this is not just acceptable but honorable provided that individual has the resources to spare without endangering the welfare of another in the process.

My position is that all people from all stations are best served (directly or indirectly) by a civilization that respects the essential rights of the responsible and free individual. If these essential rights are ignored then we are all at the mercy of reality none-the-less. When it comes to discriminating between the 'rich' and 'poor' or the 'strong' and the 'weak' reality does this job with a skill I would never attempt to duplicate or attempt to usurp.

I discriminate based on how well a person demonstrates their respect for the value of their own life in spite of how 'rich, poor, weak or strong' they might be and I consider others who do my friend and me as theirs. Those who claim that helping others is a duty (whether dictated by ‘God’ or the ‘social welfare’), are enemies of us all; 'rich, poor, weak or strong' alike. Those who insist that we were put here to save us all from the inevitable are sentencing civilization to oblivion.

For the record, I am not a ‘Republican’ nor do I rank among the wealthy.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Absolutely correct, it is possible to say that. But is the hypothesis that, these other (maybe an infinite number) of universes (all of which may or may not be be propitious for life) do exist, falsifiable?On the basis of a scientific act of observation we have evidence of the one universe that is ours.
On the basis of faith we may believe in other universes, indeed on that basis if one believes that God is infinite, and his/her creative power infinite, yet this universe proves to be finite then one would presumably conclude that there would consequently have to be an inifinte number of them. However, this multiverse would be postulated as an act of faith, not as a scientific act of verifiable observation.
Garth

Saying is not what makes truth true. "Who's to say", does not mean I say and indeed I did not say that any other universe exists or not. I just do not get anyone saying that any, all or none universes are "propitious" for any other reason than that they are. Propitious ness does not summon up any need for the existence of anything other than the universe which evidently is. Religionists can interject 'God' into any and every aspect of the universe and I still hear not 'HIS' voice nor see 'HIS' reason nor hath he brainwashed me with his blood? I am however beginning to feel justification for 'HIS' wrath.

I am really curious now to hear this Dawkins guy. Thanks for the tip. I've been longing for a voice of reason regarding this issue.

 

[Garth]

I am really curious now to hear this Dawkins guy. Thanks for the tip. I've been longing for a voice of reason regarding this issue.

You should, his explanation of evolution is brilliant, but as far as his polemic against religious faith and science is concerned, watch out for the 'straw men'!

You may also like to check out the atheist and 'Edge' contributor http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/rees.html and his work on the multiverse to explain Numerical coincidences and 'tuning' in cosmology.

Garth

 

[Royce]

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?

Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?

A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Whose evidence?

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?
Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?
A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

And the scientists do precisely this. Only they demand of the evidence that it be apparent to all. Otherwise, on what basis shall we decide to accept one person's evidence, say yours or Les's or the Buddha's, and reject someone else's, say Joe Schmoe, UFO contactee, or I. M. Wikkid, amateur satanist?

 

[Royce]

And the scientists do precisely this. Only they demand of the evidence that it be apparent to all. Otherwise, on what basis shall we decide to accept one person's evidence, say yours or Les's or the Buddha's, and reject someone else's, say Joe Schmoe, UFO contactee, or I. M. Wikkid, amateur satanist?

Some scientists do this just as some religious, spiritual people look at science and philosophy.

The thing with Buddha, Les's and my evidence is that it is verifiable by everyone personally. There is no secret, no hidden agenda nor any mysticism. Thousand have done it for over 3000 years and nearly all report essentially the same phenomena. BTW Buddha never addressed religion or spirituality. His whole thing was about how to live this life on this earth. And, Les is not religious nor spiritual at all. He is more into a Universal consciousness.

While I admit, that I was biased or at least leaning toward the belief in a God it only took me a few years after learning how to meditate to experience the presence of a higher consciousness that I took to be God. This was not my intent nor purpose for meditation. It is just what happened. My experiences are consistent within themselves and consistent with those reported by many others. It is too much to ignore and dismiss out of hand because it isn't empirical nor physical evidence.

What empirical and/or physical evidence do you have of your own consciousness or that of any other consciousness?

 

[selfAdjoint]

The thing with Buddha, Les's and my evidence is that it is verifiable by everyone personally. There is no secret, no hidden agenda nor any mysticism.

And many have faithfully followed the directions with zero results, including yours truly. Of course that's "our fault"; we're "doing it wrong". Perish the thought that your belief could be in error.

 

[Dawguard]

When one looks only to the physical sciences, how can one expect to see anything but physical phenomena? When one looks only to the metaphysical or spiritual philosophies, how can one expect to see anything but the metaphysical and spiritual?
Only when we look at both with open minds and rational and logical reasoning can the truth be found. To close our minds to any part of reality is to deny reality at least in part and thus ourselves. Why close our minds and restrict our thinking and observations to any part of reality?
A true scientist philosopher remains open and objective and follows where the evidence, logic and reason lead and accepts what is found. He does not reject evidence or observations out of hand because it does not fit his mind set or paradigm.

Excelently stated Royce, it's good to see reason being used. I've never understood either why scientist so blindly cast off religion. For people who claim to use logic, most scientists seem to be very willing to abhor any notion of a god, and are very willing to paint all religious people as extremists. I'm sorry to tell you, but most religious people in the world love scientists and what they do. When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma? Didn't the Vatican recently state that evelution should be taught in schools, not intellegent design? Maybe religions are more willing to accomidate scientists then you think. The same should be said vice versa. Balance is the key for both parties, and a logical mind. To blatantly discount and vilify all religions is reprehensible, and in my blunt opinion, remarkibly stupid.

 

[selfAdjoint]

When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma?

Constantly. At the website of "Answers in Genesis", at the school boards in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and many other places where religious zealots try to prevent the teaching of evolution and modern cosmology. Plenty of religious groups in this USA of ours are dead set against any scientific investigation that contradicts a literal reading of the Bible.

A scientist follows the evidence she knows. If she has had a revelation or for some other reason is convinced that some faith is correct then she will be religious, and many scientists are. But if she has not received any message from on high then she will have no evidence for religion and will not personally promote it. This does not mean that most scientists are against religion, just that they don't favor it. Dawkins and Dennett are in a small minority among scientists.

 

[Royce]

And many have faithfully followed the directions with zero results, including yours truly. Of course that's "our fault"; we're "doing it wrong". Perish the thought that your belief could be in error.

I apologize selfAdjoint, for taking so long to respond. I have been debating with myself if it was worthwhile or not as I have said most if not all of this before.
I first became interested in Meditation and Zen in my early 20's and read as much as I could find on it. I tried to envision burning candles, mantra and counting my breaths but nothing worked for me either.
In my mid-thirties while living in S. Cal. (where else) I started listening to Roy Masters on the radio and sent for his tapes. I followed his instructions and in a few weeks was meditating and getting good results. In a few more weeks I no longer had to listen to his tapes to meditate and a few months I no longer had to use his method to reach a meditative state but simply breathed in through my nose and out through my mouth noticing my breath, the air coming in and down into my lungs and out again.
If you or anybody else is interested Roy Masters has his own website and the meditation exercise can be downloaded and copied, burned, to a CD to use on a portable CD player etc.http://www.fhu.com/" Just click on the meditation button and follow the instructions. It will take a while if you have a dial up connection as I do, but I think that it is worth it. Give it a try if your at all interested. All I can say is that it worked for me and my wife.

As far as fault is concerned, there is none. Each and everyone of us has to find the way that works for them. A number of books and articles that I read said that it was best to have a mentor teach, lead or guide you into meditation.

As I said it took me 10+ years to find a way that worked for me. Let me know how it turns out if you decide to give it a try. As I said with Roy's help it was only a matter of a few weeks before we started getting results and learning to meditate.

 

[Royce]

Dawguard,
Thank you. There are fanatics and zealots on both sides of the issue. I believe that they are, by far, the minority, but also, by far, the loudest as they have to shout loud to be noticed and to drown out the voices of reason on both sides.