Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[Another God]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" " and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

 

[ray b]

I wish religion was held to the russia ideal
trust BUT VERIFY

and of course no one can verify any belife

 

[arildno]

It is an excellent program, I've seen it before.
In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today. It is also about time that a prominent scientist says flat out what religious indoctrination of children is:
It is child abuse.

There are too many cowardly scientists about. Thanks to all non-existing gods that Dawkins is not one of them.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Anyone's reaction to Dawkins' anticrusade seems contingent only on his or her prior conceptions of religion. I mostly agree with him myself, but gee! we don't need another pro and con thread on the rationality of religion. There's one already down on Philosophy; it's called So basically. In my opinion that's where it belongs.

 

[MeJennifer]

In particular, Dawkins' clear analyses and unremitting stance that religion IS irrational, and for the most part, im-MORAL is definitely needed in our world today.

A bit of nonsense if you ask me.
While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder IMHO.

 

[Another God]

What do you think would happen in a world where Dawkins was essentially successful though? Let's say the worlds major religions were proven to be wrong, what would the religious of the world do?

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

 

[Doc Al]

While I do not disagree that the belief in supernatural powers including deities is actually irrational I strongly disagree that we can judge under the pretense of science that something is moral or immoral.

Dawkins says no such thing. But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

I'm worried that many of them, without faith in God, would turn immoral. I have heard that argument do many times in anti-evolution threads, Christians saying that without a god there is nothing to stop them from raping etc. It sounds ludicrous to us atheists that anyone would be so morally retarded, but I wonder if religion actually does stiffle the moral development of people by using absolutes and a father like figure version of morality. Suddenlt losing their only concept of morality may indeed leave them not knowing how to behave, and result in a huge increase in criminal behaviour. Serious criminal behaviour.

Read the book! Dawkins addresses this issue and much more.

Dawkins kicks ass... with class.

 

[Another God]

LOL, i intend to read the book. I only just found out about it!

 

[MeJennifer]

But he does argue that religion provides no rational basis for morality.

Well I can agree with that.
But why would it need a rational basis anyway?

There is no rational basis for morality IMHO.

 

[PIT2]

I watched one of the videos, and found it somewhat dissappointing. For instance, he rumbled over the issue of consciousness in a matter of seconds. During an interview, some guy claims that "we can be faily sure that consciousness is produced by the brain", after which Dawkins replies: i completely agree. It is no surprise that after making such a huge assumption, that some of the things religion claims (god, survival after death) can be dismissed. I fully understand however that he didnt want to make a long philosophical tv program. He had a purpose with this show, and had to decide what to keep in and what to keep out of it, and at the same time have it remain interesting for viewers. Its probably an eyeopener for religious people who have never really thought about reality very deeply.

Also, in the same video: he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious. Instead, the video only showed a group of chimpansees interacting with each other. While this obviously is aimed at convincing religious people that we evolved from common ancestors, i think he should have explored our evolutionary origin a bit further, instead of just the part that serves his goal (attacking religion). Even though he may perhaps do this in his books or elsewhere, the videos could give a wrong impression to its viewers (im not familiar with his books).

I haven't watched the other videos yet.

 

[arildno]

A bit of nonsense if you ask me.

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Since I didn't ask you, your comment is just irrelevant and uncalled for.

Her assertian that there is no rational basis for morality is at least a positive, if slightly OT, contribution to this thread, and it seems to me a legitimate topic for a social sciences forum.. What does Dawkins say about this? Any studies?

 

[arildno]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .

 

[MeJennifer]

I was commenting the sub-part of her post that my post was a bit of nonsense, which I didn't ask for, and hence, makes that comment irrelevant by her own words "if you ask me" .

I was not suggesting that your posting was "a bit of nonsense" but instead that Dawkins' alledged claim was.

I took from your statement that Dawkins in his book has a clear analysis that religion is for the most part immoral.
That I find a bit of nonsense.
Now if he actually claims that in his book is yet another issue, I don't know, since I have not read the book.

 

[arildno]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me.

 

[LJM]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dawkins misrepresents science as an agenda, remember he is considered as an authority. I think what he's doing is frankly disgusting, and using tired arguments such as 'evidence' to dispel belief are obvious and easy.

If you base your arguments on the current climate of religious ideals, and use science as an anchor, then it's completely flawed. The scientific method is irrelevant to 'belief' and the only notion spurring Dawkins 'is' current climate, which is not a reflection of belief outside of science. It is a daft and misguided premise that is prompting conflict between religious factions and science. Such things do have an effect, and I think it's a gross misrepresentation of science if such publications are presented to the public.

I'm not religious, before anybody asks.

I repeat, the duelling preconceptions have no place in a serious forum. Dawkins means to be provocative and he is. Can't we all just deal with that without consuming Greg's bandwidth to fume in?

 

[MeJennifer]

That immorality bit is a slight interpolation of mine over Dawkins' view.
Feel free to regard that bit of nonsense to come from me.

No problem, I realize that more than occasionally I am not nonsense free either

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

 

[Another God]

What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious.

That is a wild assumption without basis. 'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements. Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding...

Consciousness is not required in the least.

The only application for consciousness in morality is in revising our emotional instincts. Evolution has trained us for a pre-industrial world. Has the invention of contraceptives changed the reality of sexual intercourse, and thus our hundred thousand year old instincts are now no longer relevent? ETC Plus the individual application of those instincts may change, so consciousness may allow individual consaiderations...

 

[PIT2]

'Moral' behaviour is not based upon consciousness. In fact 90% of the time morality is driven by emotions, which are genetically programmed if-then statements.

Since when are emotions not experienced?

Bacteria can quite clearly benefit from assisting their nearest rneighbours because usually their nearest neighbour is an offspring with virtually identical DNA. Thus any DNA which programs a phenotypic behaviour which promotes an altruistic behaviour in Bacteria (whatever that is) will inevitably be at the benefit of that one piece of coding...

I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without consciousness. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour.

Consciousness is not required in the least.

The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.

Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, sociopaths cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

 

[Another God]

Since when are emotions not experienced?

Its not an exclusivity. To say experience is not required does not mean that morals cannot be experienced. It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.

Afterall, a pacemaker can save a life without requesting any recompense. Isn't that moral behaviour? I guarantee the pacemaker doesn't experience the morality of its actions though...

I merely pointed out the conflict between some of Dawkins speculations. If bacteria act altruisticly, and if they are not conscious, then obviously altruistic behaviour can exist without morality. However, if Dawkins wants to believe that morality is a product of evolution because altruistic behaviour is beneficial, then he should also explore the roots of altruistic behaviour.

Altruism is entwined with morality in a way that I can't see how they can be seperated. Morality does not require conscious decision, it simply requires doing 'the right thing'. The right thing can only ever be determined subjectively, and that subjective determination may/may not come from the acting object.

The idea that someone can have morals without any experience, is a purely speculative concept. Look at what happens in sociopaths.

I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.

For instance, talking about 'someone having morals' begs the question, because you have already assumed a subjective consciousness into the equation (someone needs to exist in order for them to have morals). So of course there must be experience in order for 'someone to have morals'.

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.

In other words, conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.

 

[PIT2]

It is simply true that experience is not 'required' for 'moral' behaviour.

This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think we need to establish what "morals" actually means before we bother discussing whether it can exist without existing.

I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

However, for some action to be moral...well, this is actually tricky. Morality is entirely subjectively determined. There is nothing objective about "good and bad" "right and wrong". So there must be experience in order for the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action to be assumed. However, that does not mean that those actions cannot be performed by any possible number of unthinking automaton.

No it doesn't rule out unconscious automatons acting like that. However, there is no evidence that this is the case. We can only go with what we observe in humans, and we observe that our moral actions are driven by our experiences. Its entirely possible that some day someone will built Data from Star Trek and an altruistic android society will arise, but so far this is science fiction.

And suppose it is possible that altruistic behaviour arose without morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals which Dawkins claims they have. Its like saying an organism only needs his eyes, and not his vision, to react to the environment. This takes away the evolutionary function of vision. Similarly, if we only need behaviour for altruism, and not morals, then this takes away the evolutionary function of morals.

...conscious thought is not required for moral action. It is only required for the moral judgement. A judgement, btw, which is entirely subjective and meaningless in reality.

Subjective judgements are not meaningless in reality. Look at the world around u, it has transformed the planet and created the very computer u are typing on.

 

[Another God]

This is such an extensive topic that I don't think I will be able to reply adequately...

This is just an assumption. Moral behaviour is behaviour that is driven by morals. Obviously morals need subjectivity, u admit so urself, and thus moral behaviour does too.

I think this one will do:
"Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong"

OK then, this is where the problem lies. If you want to define morals that way, then of course it involves consciousness. Once again the assumption of willful (conscious) action is in the definition.

However I have to remind you why we are discussing this, earlier you said:

he suggests our morality evolved because altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary advantage for the individual. What he doesn't mention, is that some bacteria also show signs of altruistic behaviour. This claim thus assaults his own earlier idea (that brain produces consciousness), because if bacteria have a morality, then of course they are also conscious

You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.

So, altruistic behaviour in bacteria is entirely appropriate with views of evolution, and in no way contradictory to bacteria lacking consciousness. Just like a pacemaker altruistically saving someones life without conscious thought, bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.


One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable. You can't deny all of the evidence for it, and the complete lack of evidence against it. Dawkins isn't assuming anything in that statement above the usual assumptions of reality.

 

[PIT2]

You have assumed altruistic behaviour = morality, and that morality is defined by its conscious motivations. Altruistuc behaviour is any behaviour which benefits another (an action commonly regarded as 'moral'), yet not necessarily involving conscious motivation. Altruism is entirely based on the improvement of others.

No, i don't assume it, i think (based on what we see happening in humans) that it is a perfectly plausible possibility that morals cause altruistic behaviour. The connection between morals and altruism was made by Richard Dawkins and I of course agree that there is a connection. I do not agree that this connection suddenly stops at some point back in evolution, while altruism continues back further on its own, and that suddenly morals do not only not cause altruism anymore, but that altruism causes morals. Of course Dawkins is allowed to assume that, but basing the origins of morality on such an assumption is no different from basing it on some spiritual entity.

Also like i said earlier, if altruism can exist without morals, then this robs morals of their evolutionary advantageous function.

bacteria may altruistically assist their neoghbours without any moral appraisal of their own actions... the altruistic behaviour being no more than a mechanistic program that they are following.

We can't know. We can only look at ourselves and see that there is a connection between altruism and morals. From this it does not in any way follow that bacteria act altruistically without morals (right/wrong experiences).

One more thing, consciousness is the brain.. they are inseperable.

The brain isn't some magic machine, it consists of the same matter and forces as the rest of the universe. Currently, in science, the brain is used as a box where consciousness has been shoved into and should stay inside. Once we figure out how the box works, then we will also have figured out how consciousness works - or so it is assumed. In reality, all bets are off and the locked-box may be nothing more than contemporary delusion.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I am immediately skeptical of any religious individuals ability to think rationally. It's always refreshing to see members of the scientific community reveal religion to be the disorder that it is.

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of

"The Book," an imaginary book in which God had written down the best and most elegant proofs for mathematical theorems. Lecturing in 1985 he said, "You don't have to believe in God, but you should believe in The Book." He himself doubted the existence of God, whom he called the "Supreme Fascist" (SF), but accused the SF of hiding his socks and Hungarian passports, and of keeping the most elegant mathematical proofs to himself. When he saw a particularly beautiful mathematical proof he would exclaim, "This one's from The Book!".

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic. Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Now that you mention it, I do like to get my head x-rayed to stimulate my brain. No wait, that was Tesla (here, around 8:30). Many accomplished scientists have held irrational beliefs and "suffered" from disorders, especially Obssessive Compulsive Disorder. Mathematician Paul Erdős spoke of

Sounds like you mean something more by the term "religious" than just someone who subscribes to a certain religion.

But maybe I should bring this argument to my teachers, tell them I have "special needs" because I'm a Catholic. Though if Mendel could discover the laws of inheritance, though he was so severely handicapped, maybe I'll be able to get through undergraduate classes.

See. My methods do not fail me. Before I saw the end of your response, I thought you were religious. An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

Being skeptical of someone's ability to think rationally is not the same as denying that they may have that ability. Furthermore, having a disorder does not prevent someone from accomplishing great things - but it can make it more difficult or less probable.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So you're just being offensive in general...

An atheist would have been far less likely to misinterpret my post as you did.

You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

So you're just being offensive in general...



You mean less likely to challenge them.

Do you actually believe subscription to religion is a disorder?

No. I mean a clear misinterpretation (or twisting around) of what I actually said. Terminology is semantics. Religious belief is the result of mental illness and could be cured through psychiatric methods - if that is what you mean. Religion itself isn't the disorder but a byproduct. I don't know if he was the first to suggest it, but Freud saw that religion was the result of mental disfunction.

I might concede, if convinced that it is possible, that some people are religious for reasons outside mental disfunction, but I would certainly say the vast majority of people are not.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

hehe, I don't think appealing to Freud as an authority will lend any support to your claims.

I concede - you aren't making any real claim, you're just being offensive. Is it the case that most non-religious people you encounter are rational? Seems to me that people in general are most often irrational. Though I guess you could explain even this by saying that most people in the world follow some religion.

Wikipedia

1. Christianity 2.1 billion
2. Islam 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Atheist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Nontheist 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism 900 million
5. Buddhism 708 million (see also Buddhism by country)
6. Chinese folk religion 394 million
7. Primal indigenous ("Pagan") 300 million
8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million
9. Sikhism 23 million
10. Juche 19 million
11. Spiritism 15 million
12. Judaism 14 million
13. Bahá'í Faith 7 million
14. Jainism 4.2 million
15. Shinto 4 million (see below)
16. Cao Dai 4 million
17. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
18. Tenrikyo 2 million
19. Neo-Paganism 1 million
20. Unitarian Universalism 800,000
21. Rastafari movement 600,000

What of cultural beliefs in general, of which religious belief is just one example? Some say is comparable to religion in this way, as a cultural belief in its own way.

The following statistics show the number of adherents in all known approaches, both religious and irreligious worldwide. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are the largest world religions today. Approximately 75% of humanity follows one of these four religions. Christianity is the religion with the largest number of professed religious adherents, followed by Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism respectively. However, the third-largest "group" of approximately 1 billion people adhere to irreligious approaches which include Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism.

(my bold)
These are treated as just another human approach to life, just as historically and culturally contexualized as well as human as religous approaches.

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)

 

[Another God]

And is Dawkins an amazing scientist? He's a great thinker, philosopher even, but is he an amazing scientist? (Honestly asking here)

I would say that an amazing philosopher is at least half of being an amazing scientist, and certainly the most important because no amount of facts will reveal the answer. It requires a well constructed theory to make sense of the facts so that we may attain understanding.

I have no idea how good Dawkins is at measuring stuff, organising experiments, and no idea if his aseptic technique is above average, but at the end of the day it is the thepries which are remembered, and that is what generally stands the test of time as measuring the 'amazing scientists'.

Darwin wasn't remembered for his tests on the affects of salt water on seedpods, and einstein was certainly not remembered for his experiments on the travel of light.. they are both remembered for their theories of evolution and relativity. As Newton implied with his quote about being able to see far by standing on the shoulders of giants, the great scientist need not do the work..they only need to have access to the facts which can be re-assembled into a logical story of how it might actually work...

And hence Dawkins has the theory of the selfish gene, which I think is a brilliant insight into biology, although it isn't Earth shattering. Time alone will really reveal his 'brilliance' or not.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

His selfish gene theory certainly fits in with physical anthropology's position on culture as an adaptive strategy, though the cultural anthropologists try to keep it from taking over their field.

 

[Another God]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Yes. Dawkins (outside his religious views) is an amazing scientist. He contributed a lot to his field. I am not an expert when it comes to determining whether someone is an "amazing" scientist - in fact the idea is quite subjective. However, Dawkins' contributions are hard to overlook regardless of belief.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

His works have influenced my perspectives on evolution and biology immensely. I do tend to define life (in a strict philosphical sense) as any accurately replicating unit. And yes, this easily extends to all sorts of 'dead' things like computer viruses et al. I just accept that life is just dead things organised in a way which allows for replication...

So the selfish gene makes perfect sense because life is dna replicating. The dna controls everything, and everything is for the DNA!

but anyway, I think I am getting off my own topic.

BTW, Firefly rocks! How can we force them to continue the series, or start making serenity 2 serenity 3 etc?

Seems ones definition of life could be expanded or contracted depending on precisely what they want to talk about (i.e. defining it in those terms). I'm not particularly interested in non-organic things, so I don't normally consider them as constituting life. In my biology class, we had a checklist of what constituted life, so no on the computer viruses and bubbles Of course, they didn't want to talk about such things so this makes sense.

I think it's too late for Firefly, been over for 2 years now and Joss has moved on to other projects. Serenity was meant to be a wrap-up of what he wasn't allowed to finish in the tv series. He's now working on "Wonder Woman" (2007) and "Goners," I think using James Marsters aka Spike

Whedon has said the new movie will be "very dark" and not unlike the Whedonverse he created in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

yay!

 

[Another God]

Seems ones definition of life could be expanded or contracted depending on precisely what they want to talk about (i.e. defining it in those terms). I'm not particularly interested in non-organic things, so I don't normally consider them as constituting life. In my biology class, we had a checklist of what constituted life, so no on the computer viruses and bubbles Of course, they didn't want to talk about such things so this makes sense.

To quote douglas adams, "without a God, life is only a matter of opinion." And I agree completely. Life is just something we instinctively recognise, but when we push ourselves to define it, it is clearly not obvious. (like everything in nature..)

The only consistency I can find is self replication. Once that is established, then that thing is free to evolve..and in the end, that is all life *really* is.

But I don't see much point arguing the matter.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,210,Stephen-Colbert-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Colbert-Report" with selected comments from visitors to Dawkins' website (he's like a British pop star ).

 

[metacristi]

I'm posting this in social sciences because it seems like Richard Dawkins is on a crusade against the social aceptance of religion. So this topic is sort of a religion topic, sort of a biology topic, sort of a physics topic, but allin all its about our society and how we accept beliefs.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins" " and so I have been watching a few videos on You Tube.

Personally I agree with virtually everything Dawkins says and think his logical consistency and philosophical integrity is unsurpassable. The potential ramifications of this 'crusade' I'm not so sure about though. (though I don't disagree with him doing it at all)

Anyway, watch these films and tell me what you think of what he is saying.

Interview
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

The root of all evil
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C10sSC2kB3Q&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr_qZ3P4nl4&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-cZGGD5grkQ&mode=related&search=

And a funny interview with Stephen Colbert
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1fTkvefu5s

Shane

I think he does a very good job by exposing the dogmas propagated by existing religions but I don't think that he succeeds in his main task, namely showing that atheism (at least weak atheism) is the only rational position for all would-be rational people (because hypothesis God can be safely ignored). He can easily be accused of scientism here, unfortunately science is not the infallible / unassailable monolith (surely approaching at least approximate Truth, in absolute) which some claim it is.

I'm rather closer to Wittgenstein who, during his discussions with some of the members of the so called Vienna Circle, dismissed Carnap's view that mystical experiences are necessarily mere figments of human's imagination (in Wittgenstein's view mystical experiences can be used to support a belief in God, though they cannot be expressed meaningfully in words they may be the expression of a transcedental reality, God)...This is not to say that Carnap was necessarily wrong, no, but neither do we have now sufficient reasons from science to strongly underestimate hypothesis God (merely defined as the Creator of our universe, even the omni-all variant is still viable).


Here are some of my thoughts regarding Dawkins worldview (from a post of mine on another forum some time ago):

I think it would be interesting to comment some characteristics of Dawkins' worldview. I may be mistaken in interpreting his views in some parts but I don't think this will affect crucially my further comments.

R. Dawkins' view:

1. Science is characterized by methodological naturalism.


2. Very probably there will never exist a proof, decisive demonstration, for God’s existence / nonexistence (the transcendental omni-all type - capable of intervention in our universe).


3. The current scientific methodology (or scientific methodologies if you wish) is the best existing methodology at our disposal to make sense of observed facts and this will very probably stay the same at all further times.


4. There is nothing in the actual science which to suggest the existence of a God (Darwinian Evolutionism is one of the best examples here; gradual changes over long periods of time are enough to explain how existing species appeared).


5. Fideism (God’s existence does not need justification, God cannot be an object of study for science) is not acceptable because hypothesis God is amenable to scientific scrutiny (being capable of truth or falsity).


6. None of the existing logical 'proofs' (deductive or inductive) for God’s existence is sound, they cannot ground a rational belief in a Deity.


7. Anyway the omni-all concept of God needs ad-hoc auxiliary hypotheses (to save internal coherence) so that basically God’s actions become unintelligible to human beings. Something which means that he’s not worth of worship.


8. Given that the actual scientific methodology proved very reliable in the past, whilst other methodologies - religious, common sense etc - had proved very unreliable, all would be rational people are always obliged to interpret any subjective experiences via naturalistic explanations (mystical experiences are among them). Subjective experiences cannot assure justification for a belief in a Divinity. Even if no explanation is found in short or medium term all scientists (rational people in general) must continue to seek naturalistic explanations. Basically no significant paradigm shift is ever expected here.


9. Conclusion: ‘Hypothesis God’ is never a reasonable explanation. Thus rational people are basically forced to not believe in God.[/color]


My comments

1. Science is characterized by methodological naturalism.

1. The most rational solution now. This means, in my interpretation, that supernatural is not discarded because naturalism has only a provisional status. In other words the possibility to find extraordinary evidence 'pros' God is accepted.

2. Very probably there will never exist a proof, decisive demonstration, for God’s existence / nonexistence (the transcendental omni-all type - capable of intervention in our universe).

2. If this ‘proof’ involves certitudes then I agree but if this means that an important paradigm shift (which to make hypothesis God a provisional part of science) is never possible then I totally disagree. Indeed for example when people are told by a fire in the sky - pretending to be the omni-all Creator of our universe - that the usual laws of nature will be changed on Earth for 48 hours (for example the gravitational interaction will change, measurable inter-subjectively) or that the Andromeda Galaxy will suddenly disappear forever (and things happen exactly subsequently) then it's clear that 'God hypothesis' should become the first choice program (the 'normal paradigm' of those days) in science.

3. The current scientific methodology (or scientific methodologies if you wish) is the best existing methodology at our disposal to make sense of observed facts and this will very probably stay the same at all further times.

3. Nothing can guarantee such a thing, science should always be considered fallible in a non trivial way, its currently accepted basis and methodologies included (I think that a form of externalism based on a neo-popperian critical philosophy, non foundationalist, is the best approach to the problem of infinite regress - diallelus - in epistemology).

4. There is nothing in the actual science which to suggest the existence of a God (Darwinian Evolutionism is one of the best examples here, gradual changes over long periods of time are enough to explain how existing species appeared).

4. Hypothesis God is not necessary yet in science indeed. But neither does this mean that a God does not exist or that he is less probably to exist.

5. Fideism (God’s existence does not need justification, God cannot be an object of study for science) is not acceptable because hypothesis God is amenable to scientific scrutiny (being capable of truth or falsity).

5. In my view is acceptable as much as fideists do not make open claims that their alternative system of knowledge (having God as one axiom) is now at least on a par with the actual scientific system (having the assumption methodological naturalism). The epistemological problem of justifying the basis for our 'web' of knowledge is far from being solved once and forever so we must be rather reserved here, all we can say is that a system based on methodological naturalism has currently more arguments 'pros' than a system having God at basis (we can still say however that we deal with underdetermination here, a system having God at core - as a fixed axiom - vs a system based on methodological naturalism) .

6. None of the existing logical proof (deductive or inductive) for God’s existence is sound, they cannot ground a rational belief in a Deity.

6. While this is true it can be argued that some of these arguments (coherent logically) are acceptable for justifying a purely personal belief (here the argument from design has some weight, after all the argument from analogy for example is used even by modern science - though usually having also a probabilistic support), especially if accompanied by some personal subjective experiences. Of course this as much as no open claims are made and, preferably, if the possibility of being mistaken in the interpretation of facts is acknowledged.

Indeed the fact that those logical arguments are not yet sound does not mean that they are also logically invalid or in real contradiction with all existing evidence .

7. Anyway the omni-all concept of God needs ad-hoc auxiliary hypotheses (to save internal coherence) so that basically God’s actions become unintelligible for human beings. Something which means that he’s not worth of worship.

7. Maybe some parts of the ‘worship’ involved by some religions can be attacked but fact is that the core of Abrahamic religions, an omni-all God, is still viable logically. Moreover it does not follow from here that all of God’s actions must be unintelligible for us.

8. Given that the actual scientific methodology proved very reliable in the past, whilst other methodologies - religious, common sense etc - had proved very unreliable, all would be rational people are always obliged to interpret any subjective experiences via naturalistic explanations (mystical experiences are among them). Subjective experiences cannot assure justification for a belief in a Divinity. Even if no explanation is found in short or medium term all scientists (rational people in general) must continue to seek naturalistic explanations. Basically no significant paradigm shift is ever expected here.

8. I’ve encountered often this stance among ‘skeptics’ and ‘atheists’. The problem is that science is neither infallible nor unassailable, those well accustomed with philosophy know probably how difficult is to settle the problem of epistemological infinite regress once and forever and even to fight relativism (though many scientists usually consider philosophy as irrelevant the hard fact is that the roots of science (still) lies in philosophy).


Science’s actual methodology is merely our best way so far to make sense of observed facts and the possibility of strongly non trivial paradigm shift here must never be underestimated. Even the methodologies used may change in time (the fact that science ‘works’ does not automatically mean that it approaches Truth, in absolute, or that it will ever be only cumulative with only small possible detours).


I don't think that the existing evidence requires from the part of all rational people to identify the so called 'mystical experiences' with brain functioning, nothing more than mere illusions without any real epistemological content. If there is no claim that the 'theistic' interpretations must be now part of science or that all rational people should believe the same I don’t think that such a personal belief, based on mystical experiences, is necessarily irrational (as some atheists claim).


In my view mystical experiences can provide support for a personal belief though, of course, we do not have now the sufficient justification to accept theistic interpretations inside science (theistic interpretations being part of an alternative program, basically a personal 'research program', which the believer hope to become progressive, in an inter-subjective fashion, sometime in the future - in spite of being rather stagnant for the moment).

9. Conclusion: ‘Hypothesis God’ is never a reasonable explanation. Thus rational people are basically forced to not believe in God.

8. Seems to be saying "I accept methodological naturalism and thus I remain open to the possibility of supernaturalism but at the practical level hypothesis God is never an acceptable solution so it should always be ignored (moreover all would be rational people should do the same). The only alternative left for rational people is thus to not believe in such a God." Well if this is the case then I don't see any difference between such a stance and supporting metaphysical naturalism, they are indistinguishable at the practical level. For the reasons presented above I don't think we are entitled now to underestimate hypothesis God in such a manner. Neither is the underestimation of 'hypothesis God' benefic for a real freedom of science, why block (still) legitimate directions of research when basically no known facts really impose this on us? Though I admit that a science dominated by dogmatic atheists is a better solution than a science dominated by Religion finally the best path is the middle way...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know the questions in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!"
(Paul A. Moody, PhD. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont) in Introduction to Evolution, Harper & Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p 513)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends by accepting what it has previously scorned."
(Eiseley, Loren C., [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book Club: London, 1960, p.5)

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

 

[metacristi]

I forgot to talk of Dawkins main argument [from 'God Delusion'] pro (strong) atheism (God has to be very complex, this complexity require an explanation for we cannot automatically justify something very complex and seemingly improbable - our ‘fine tuned’ universe - with something even more complex - God; a possible creator of the universe is very probably the creation of a process similar to our Darwinian Evolution, therefore we can conclude that the omni-all God is very very improbable). Well I find his argument 'from complexity' weak, far from being sound (not because science cannot investigate ultimate questions but simply because we are not entitled for the moment to draw such strong conclusions about possible different levels of Reality - which could be ‘guided’ by totally different laws, if there really are laws).

Dawkins says that God is not exempt from requiring an explanation. This is correct in principle but I don't think his pro-atheist case become stronger, after all there are enough theoretical constructs in science which are merely posited as existing (and considered fundamental at least provisionally) but not testable in isolation (some of Holton's 'themata' for example).

These theoretical constructs are indeed absolutely necessary to explain the empirical success of the theories they are part of (something which God hypothesis is not currently; though it can be argued that in Berkeley's version God hypothesis is absolutely necessary, being very coherent with the rest of assumptions).

But nothing we are aware of really impede God hypothesis to become necessary in the above mentioned sense sometime in the future. At most we can say that God hypothesis is not necessary to explain observed facts, its introduction in science being ad-hoc and redundant currently (thus methodological naturalism is the best methodology to use currently in science).

Even if all existing religions disappeared now (assuming ceteris paribus in all other parts) I'm afraid there would still be room for theism, in a form or another, in the future (even without dogmas, after all there is no need of dogmas in order to believe in a God). And some of these forms of theism would still be rational (though rather at limit)...not to mention 'weak' agnosticism (I agree with Dawkins that 'strong' agnosticism, a la Huxley, is not the most rational solution, for example if a successful Theory of Everything (in physics) is ever found that will certainly lower the probability which we can assign to a omni-all God, interested in human affairs; in other words it is conceivable a time when God hypothesis could become as plausible as some theoretical constructs accepted within current science or as implausible as our today's expectation of finding life on Jovian, gaseous, planets).

Finally it is debatable that the existing (Abrahamic) religions are really 'the roots of all evil', I am even less convinced that the [refined] forms of theism of tomorrow will be so...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know the questions in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!"
(Paul A. Moody, PhD. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont) in Introduction to Evolution, Harper & Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p 513)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends by accepting what it has previously scorned."
(Eiseley, Loren C., [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book Club: London, 1960, p.5)

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

 

[arildno]

First of all, Dawkins himself didn't like the title "ROot of all evil". That's a catchy phrase the production company decided upon.

Furthermore, I don't see that your objections amount to more than that one in response should moderate the statement to "any rational person TODAY should be "forced" into an atheist position." ("forced" is not the word I'd use here)
The fact that surprising evidence MIGHT be unearthed in a 1000 years or so cannot be used as a justification for the rationality of a position depending crucially upon such evidence.

Being convinced that at some point of space&time there exists a human with eyes in the place of fingernails is not the attitude of a rational person today.

Whoever has said that rational beliefs are necessarily TRUE beliefs, or that irrational beliefs are necessarily untrue?



As for "inner visions", that's what they are. Inaccessible, and hence DISMISSABLE, for others.

Rationality has to do with your METHOD of truth-seeking more than anything else.
In that regard, ALL religions fail to begin with.

 

[metacristi]

It is clear from the title (Root of all Evil?) that the documentary is not asserting that religion is the root of all evil (that question mark makes a difference indeed). However from Dawkins' approach results enough clearly that in his view religion is at least the main source of evil in the world. I'm afraid it is not so, sadly we have many other sources of huge evil, all stemming from dogmatic approaches, some of them much more harmful for the future of humankind, capitalism for example. And yes here we can enumerate scientism too (though only at a lower level), it’s not at all so clear that we have a 'bedrock solid' basis for current science and that it surely approach at least approximate Truth - in absolute - as some claim.

It’s not at all my intention to defend existing religions (or religion in general). But, as I said, while Dawkins does (in my view) a very good job by exposing religious dogmas and defending Science-Religion and State-Religion separations he utterly fails in his main task (evident in all he says), namely showing that rationality is compatible only with atheism (at least with weak atheism). While current science is one of the pillars of rationality (the current scientific methodology is the best methodology we know so far to make sense of observed facts) I don’t think that a rational belief [especially in a problem where science does not have a clear answer] have necessarily be close to accepted science at a certain moment in time (thus I don’t think that atheism is the ‘default position’ or that atheism is the only compatible stance with being an open minded scientist).

If I had for example a close encounter in a remote place with a strange spacecraft [totally different from what our technology could produce now], with strange creatures flying around, it would be patently absurd to argue (as much as I do not make open claims that all others should believe the same) that my interpretation of facts (it was a alien ship, hence a provisional belief that Aliens, visiting Earth, do exist) is necessarily irrational and that, as a would be rational person, I should necessarily interpret those facts via explanations closer to established science (hallucinations, Chinese, Russians etc) or at least remain agnostic. You are of course rational to not accept my interpretation but this does not automatically make my belief in Aliens irrational (merely asserting reliabilism is not enough).

As far as I am concerned I’d say that we should wait first for a much more detailed theory of consciousness before jumping to dismiss mystical experiences…till then a ‘metaphysical research program’ (to quote Popper) interpreting those subjective experiences as links to a God is fully valid if some degree of fallibilism is retained (as purely personal ‘research program’ of course whilst still accepting methodological naturalism as the first choice methodology for current science, simply because that assumption ‘worked’ well so far).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'To attempt to bolster it up [capitalism] is a useless diversion of energies which might be expended upon building something new. Whether the new thing will be Bolshevism or something else, I do not know; whether it will be better or worse than capitalism, I do not know. But that a radically new order of society will emerge, I feel no doubt. And I also feel no doubt that the new order will be either some form of Socialism or a reversion to barbarism and petty war such as occurred during the barbarian invasion. If Bolshevism remains the only vigorous and effective competitor of capitalism, I believe that no form of Socialism will be realized, but only chaos and destruction. This belief, for which I shall give reasons later, is one of the grounds upon which I oppose Bolshevism.' - Bertrand Russell, 'The practice and theory of Bolshevism' 1920


„...we have nowhere really overcome what Thomas Veblen called 'the predatory phase’ of human development” – A Einstein

 

[arildno]

I don't really think there is a lot of disagreement between us, a few points:
It is not my impression that Dawkins thinks religion is THE main source of evil in the world (in which case I would strongly disagree with him), rather he seems to mean that religion is A major source of evil (with which I concur).


Since any individual's personal experiences constitute his set of immediate evidence for whatever he might believe in, every such experience he might have that cannot be "reasoned away" may constitute a basis for a RATIONAL belief.
However, he cannot reasonably demand that others are to believe in his belief, or even respect his belief, if that experience is wholly at odds with the set of intersubjective experiences (which, really, is just the set of experiences a proper science can deal with).

As for possibly rational belief systems:
Considering the actual, existing alternatives to atheism, though, I cannot see anyone of them having the degree of rationality that atheism has. So, today, atheism seems to be the best possible rational choice of belief.

 

[metacristi]

Considering the actual, existing alternatives to atheism, though, I cannot see anyone of them having the degree of rationality that atheism has. So, today, atheism seems to be the best possible rational choice of belief.

This depends also on the definition of rationality (a fuzzy term indeed) one uses. Alvin Plantinga for example presents in his book 'Warranted Christian Belief' a model of rationality close to fideism, named by him 'the Aquinas/Calvin Model', where belief in God appears fully justified (an inbuilt 'sense of divinity' - 'sensus divinitatis' - appears as a basic postulate; the A/C model of rationality rejects the view that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis competing with naturalism):

"...awareness of God is natural, widespread, and not easy to forget, ignore, or destroy. Seventy years of determined but unsuccessful Marxist efforts to uproot Christianity in the former Soviet Union tend to confirm this claim. Second, it also sounds as if Calvin thinks knowledge of God is innate, such that one has it from birth, “from his mother's womb.” Still, perhaps Calvin doesn't really mean to endorse either of these suggestions. The capacity for such knowledge is indeed innate, like the capacity for arithmetical knowledge. Still, it doesn't follow that we know elementary arithmetic from our mother's womb; it takes a little maturity. My guess is Calvin thinks the same with respect to this knowledge of God; what one has from one's mother's womb is not this knowledge of God, but a capacity for it. Whatever Calvin thinks, however, it's our model; and according to the model the development of the sensus divinitatis requires a certain maturity (although it is often manifested by very young children)."

"According to the A/C model I am presenting here, theistic belief produced by the sensus divinitatis can also be properly basic with respect to warrant. It isn't just that the believer in God is within her epistemic rights in accepting theistic belief in the basic way. That is indeed so; more than that, however, this belief can have warrant for the person in question, warrant that is often sufficient for knowledge. The sensus divinitatis is a belief-producing faculty (or power, or mechanism) that under the right conditions produces belief that isn't evidentially based on other beliefs."

"On this model, our cognitive faculties have been designed and created by God; the design plan, therefore, is a design plan in the literal and paradigmatic sense. It is a blueprint or plan for our ways of functioning, and it has been developed and instituted by a conscious, intelligent agent. The purpose of the 'sensus divinitatis' is to enable us to have true beliefs about God; when it functions properly, it ordinarily does produce true beliefs about God. These beliefs therefore meet the conditions for warrant; if the beliefs produced are strong enough, then they constitute knowledge."

Personally I accept that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis and that current scientific methodology represents the best ‘tool’ we have so far to make sense of observed facts (one of the pillars at the base of rationality). However, while I don't deny that probably most natural facts have natural causes, I don't think that we are entitled, currently at least, to adopt a position close to metaphysical naturalism as a basic assumption of science. In other words the assumption of naturalism in science is still largely heuristic (methodological naturalism implies merely that scientists should look first for naturalistic explanations but ‘supernatural’ should not be underestimated as a possible explanation). Current science is rather silent in the problem of God's existence/inexistence.

Further, in my view, there is still plenty of space for the rationality of some variants of theism even when it is accepted that God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis + scientific methodology is at the basis of rationality (in other words scientism has to be rejected for the moment: interpretations of subjective experiences far enough from what is accepted by current science, even when acquired with methodologies far from methodologies used by current science, may still appear justified now).

My justification stems primarily from the fact that we lack a sufficient reason to think that science has a 'bedrock basis' and that it surely approach at least approximate Truth in the absolute (with only minor possible detours). Sure such a view is certainly very controversial among scientists but it is way less so among philosophers (though there are of course plenty of philosophers who think, wrongly in my view, that doing something of real value implies necessarily backing the epistemology promoted by scientists).

I have yet to see a strong enough argument pro the assumption that 'science has a ‘bedrock’ basis, surely approaching at least approximate Truth, with only minor possible detours'…till then I don't think that atheism has any sort of privilege (a critical approach - non foundational – is in my view the best way to stay out of all types of dogmas; Laudan’s account of scientific practice is one example). Of course I don't think that atheism is irrational (as much as fallibilism is retained) however if God is defined merely as the Creator of our Universe I'd say that a strong atheism - belief that such a God does not exist - is far away from being the most rational solution).

 

[metacristi]

I want to make some further comments against the assumption that atheism is somehow superior, being the 'default position' at the moment.

I will begin from the observation that science is not really a monolith, in fact we can make a clear difference between different parts of the so called ‘normal science’: for example the confidence in let’s say Inflation Theory is not the same as that in GR.

This is even clearer in the case of those problems where science does not have a clear answer (the problem of consciousness for example), clearly we cannot put a very incomplete ‘working hypothesis’ to the same level with a theory which is already part of the ‘normal science’ even if it respects the requirements of reliabilism.

Of course some of these ‘working hypotheses’, constructed with methodologies close to those used by the currently accepted science, may look very promising [progressive] at a certain moment in time; no one denies this fact. Here falls for example Dennett’s physicalist account of consciousness, relevant for the case of mystical experiences, based entirely on the statements and methodologies used by currently accepted science.

However this does not entitle us to say that Dennett’s hypothesis is anywhere near the level of Inflation Theory for example; work is still in progress and we are still far from having a theory of consciousness which to really deserve the status of ‘normal science’. Moreover Dennett’s account (based on the currently accepted science and methodologies) may be progressive for the moment (in some aspects, rather limited though) but this does not mean automatically that all parts of his account will become ‘normal science’ eventually; as a matter of fact the parts of his account which are corroborated are fully compatible with let’s say Chalmers view (and his ‘first person’, rather new, methodology):

We just need to add something else, some new fundamental principles, to bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience. Actually, I think my view is compatible with much of the work going on now in neuroscience and psychology, where people are studying the relationship of consciousness to neural and cognitive processes without really trying to reduce it to those processes. We are just getting much more detailed knowledge of the associations and correlations between them. Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate. Of course that's a long way off yet.”

So far no existing explanation [naturalistic] of mystical experiences really succeeds to impose as ‘the right path’…

To this we have to add the fact that there is reasonable justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory experiences. Thus I’d say that a theistic interpretation of mystical experiences is not really inferior at all [there is no ‘naturalistic normal science’ here, though there are some physicalist attempts to ‘explain away’ these experiences] and even if we accept that a theistic interpretation is not the first choice approach in science [not of real help so far] we cannot conclude from here that a naturalistic explanation is more probable to be the right answer (or that it will be the ‘winner’ in the long run). If a certain level of fallibilism is retained I’d say that a personal belief in God based on mystical experiences (especially first hand) appears justified, moreover for the moment it is not really inferior to atheism.

I was saying that there is some justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory perception (not beyond criticism of course but we must remember that even the basic assumptions of science are not really beyond rational criticism), indeed we find for example in “The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion” that:

1. Experiences of God have a subject-object structure, with a phenomenological content allegedly representing the object of the experience. Also, subjects are moved to make truth claims based on such experiences. Furthermore, as with sense perception, there are mystical procedures for getting into position for a mystical experience of God, and others can take up a suitable mystical path to try to check on the subject's claims (Bergson). In all these ways, experiences of God are like sense perception.

2. Perception-like experiences count as (at least some) evidence in favor of their own validity. That a person seems to experience some object is some reason to think he or she really does have experiential contact with it (Swinburne). So, experiences of God count as (at least some) evidence in favor of their own validity.

If this is so then we have enough justification for using the normal epistemology of perception (that used in the case of usual sensory perception: for example a statement like ‘there is a tortoise in that chamber’ is at least partially justified if my visual perception indicates me that something, having the attributes of a tortoise, is crawling in that chamber. Of course it may be only a robot, imitating very well a tortoise, or even a form of idealism may be true - without knowing it - but as I said above I do have at least a partial justification to prefer provisionally my interpretation, hence a rational belief at that moment). In such a case the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences appears at least partially justified.


.

It is tempting to adopt the view that a ‘normal science’ ('obejctive knowledge') is more probably attainable using only methods that at least approximate those used by currently accepted science…of course if this form of scientism is accepted then belief in a God appears inferior now indeed [in the sense that we are entitled to assign a greater ‘objective' probability for naturalism].

But for the reasons already presented in my posts here I don’t think this is the most rational solution to adopt now. Unfortunately there is no sufficient reason yet to think that science will be only cumulative, with small possible detours, from now on; at most we can use the existing methodologies as the first choice approach in science, based on their previous ‘successes’ in the last 100 years, but this in no way means that all methodologies used by current science are more probable to remain progressive in the future (this does not amount to say that this cannot be the case).

It may be very well that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [not necessarily implying the omni all God] will eventually have the edge, more generally some of the ideas of some religious doctrines may be of help in an extended science of the future. We should not underestimate such a possibility. This is valid even at the level of the methodologies used by science; some of those ideas in religion – though possible not many - might at least enrich some of the methodologies used by current science (even if such methodologies, used by religions, do not seem to be particularly progressive now they might become so in the future when the ‘background’ assumptions will become enough prepared for their rise).

I do not claim that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [involving a personal God] will have ‘the edge’ one day, I do not know, but while intellectual honesty make me oppose any form of religious dogmas (as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins demand, of course I am not an activist) the same intellectual honesty oblige me to let things open enough: such a hypothesis is still fully viable [we can produce some justification for it] hence neither is irrational to believe in a God [as a personal belief] nor is this belief really inferior to, let’s say, atheism.

 

[Another God]

So far no existing explanation [naturalistic] of mystical experiences really succeeds to impose as ‘the right path’…

To this we have to add the fact that there is reasonable justification for holding that mystical experiences are analogous to usual sensory experiences. Thus I’d say that a theistic interpretation of mystical experiences is not really inferior at all [there is no ‘naturalistic normal science’ here, though there are some physicalist attempts to ‘explain away’ these experiences] and even if we accept that a theistic interpretation is not the first choice approach in science [not of real help so far] we cannot conclude from here that a naturalistic explanation is more probable to be the right answer (or that it will be the ‘winner’ in the long run). If a certain level of fallibilism is retained I’d say that a personal belief in God based on mystical experiences (especially first hand) appears justified, moreover for the moment it is not really inferior to atheism.

If this is so then we have enough justification for using the normal epistemology of perception (that used in the case of usual sensory perception: for example a statement like ‘there is a tortoise in that chamber’ is at least partially justified if my visual perception indicates me that something, having the attributes of a tortoise, is crawling in that chamber. Of course it may be only a robot, imitating very well a tortoise, or even a form of idealism may be true - without knowing it - but as I said above I do have at least a partial justification to prefer provisionally my interpretation, hence a rational belief at that moment). In such a case the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences appears at least partially justified.

It is tempting to adopt the view that a ‘normal science’ ('obejctive knowledge') is more probably attainable using only methods that at least approximate those used by currently accepted science…of course if this form of scientism is accepted then belief in a God appears inferior now indeed [in the sense that we are entitled to assign a greater ‘objective' probability for naturalism].

But for the reasons already presented in my posts here I don’t think this is the most rational solution to adopt now. Unfortunately there is no sufficient reason yet to think that science will be only cumulative, with small possible detours, from now on; at most we can use the existing methodologies as the first choice approach in science, based on their previous ‘successes’ in the last 100 years, but this in no way means that all methodologies used by current science are more probable to remain progressive in the future (this does not amount to say that this cannot be the case).

It may be very well that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [not necessarily implying the omni all God] will eventually have the edge, more generally some of the ideas of some religious doctrines may be of help in an extended science of the future. We should not underestimate such a possibility. This is valid even at the level of the methodologies used by science; some of those ideas in religion – though possible not many - might at least enrich some of the methodologies used by current science (even if such methodologies, used by religions, do not seem to be particularly progressive now they might become so in the future when the ‘background’ assumptions will become enough prepared for their rise).

I do not claim that the theistic interpretation of mystical experiences [involving a personal God] will have ‘the edge’ one day, I do not know, but while intellectual honesty make me oppose any form of religious dogmas (as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins demand, of course I am not an activist) the same intellectual honesty oblige me to let things open enough: such a hypothesis is still fully viable [we can produce some justification for it] hence neither is irrational to believe in a God [as a personal belief] nor is this belief really inferior to, let’s say, atheism.

It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?

 

[metacristi]

It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?

More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified here) does atheism really appear superior.

 

[metacristi]

It was difficult to trawl through your post, but correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that
1. Past performance of Science is no indication of future performance
2. Religious experience is akin to visual, auditory etc sensation, and so should be considered evidential on that basis.
3. Science hasn't provided adequate explanation for these experiences, therefore they shouldn't be dismissed.

Is that right?

More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science [anyway probabilistic justification is not a sufficient indicator that science really approach Truth, in absolute] fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified now) does atheism really appear superior.

 

[Another God]

More or less, you're close anyway. Even if I concede that induction is used by science fact is that the problem of consciousness (and of mystical experiences) is not one of those where we can produce a probabilistic justification for the view that naturalistic explanations, close to currently used scientific methodologies, are more probable to be successful. Only if we adopt scientism (not at all justified here) does atheism really appear superior.

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps. Atheism is the default position, and most importantly, ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something. Just because scientism "might be wrong", and maybe we don't know the answers...maye our entire world construct is wrong... Not knowing is a terrible argument FOR the existence of God.

You might as well say "I've never been to the North Pole, so I don't know for sure that Santa Claus doesn't exist, therefore I will assume he does"

 

[PIT2]

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps. Atheism is the default position, and most importantly, ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something. Just because scientism "might be wrong", and maybe we don't know the answers...maye our entire world construct is wrong... Not knowing is a terrible argument FOR the existence of God.

But 'god' is not just a word or an object that does or does not exist, it represents a bunch of general ideas about reality, like "there is an intelligent cause to the universe". Atheism in that sense is (usually/always) coupled with opposing ideas, such as that an intelligent cause isn't necessary, or that intelligence can arise out of non-intelligence. There is nothing superior or more logical to those ideas than the ones god represents.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But 'god' is not just a word or an object that does or does not exist, it represents a bunch of general ideas about reality, like "there is an intelligent cause to the universe". Atheism in that sense is (usually/always) coupled with opposing ideas, such as that an intelligent cause isn't necessary, or that intelligence can arise out of non-intelligence. There is nothing superior or more logical to those ideas than the ones god represents.

Valhalla also represents a cluster of general ideas and Norse mythology gives its own answers to life questions. Should we then adopt it as superior to our scientific ignorance about life or consciousness? The point of your god priors is that you only assume the ones you do because you have been culturally conditioned to those memes. Many others are conditioned otherwise and there is no way of bringing them and you into full agreement. On the other hand people from all cultures can agree that abandoning culturally imposed god-memes is refreshing, and the enterprise of science, incomplete as it is at this moment, is superior to blind assumptions.