Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[navneet1990]

which point??

 

[navneet1990]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

 

[Another God]

*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.

What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.

Empiricism is measurable observable, directly inferable facts about our world. The world which affects us. The one thing which matters to us all...reality. Anything which isn't measurable, observable or directly inferable can only be described as 'imagined' and hence part of a dream world.

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself. The only real goal of science, naturalism, empiricism etc is to find out facts about our existence. We do this by looking at our existence. Everytime we learn something new, we apply it, and it produces results. Circular? Sure, why not. Practical? Absolutely.

Better than living in a dream world where 'praying' for answers does stuff only because you believe it does.

 

[Another God]

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews

Actually he quite clearly explains what his objectives are. They are not to target extremist religions (although obviously he uses them in his discussion of the consequences of religion). He isn't just trying to target christianity judaism etc. He is systematically arguing that any belief system, ANY belief system, is a scientific statement.

There is a God. That is a scientific statement. We are reincarnated after death. Scientific statement. We must induce trance like states and worship gods or else they will be displeased with us... Scientific Statement.

Everything that any religion says about our universe is a statement which should be critically analused and tested. A universe created by an intelligent God would clearly be very different from a Universe which arose without intelligent design.

Thus, Dawkins point is that while we may not be able to completely disprove the existence of God (just as you can't disprove an assertion that there is a fine china teacup orbitting the sun between Mars and Jupiter), we can look at all of the evidence and reasonably conclude that God doesn't exist, and pretty much every religious claim is irrelevent.

ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all

Organised religions bring about toleration of irrational precepts which allow extreme people to build up extreme ideas, therefore opening up much greater possibility for fundamentalist murderers, suicide bombers etc.

If people were less accepting of irrational beleifs, maybe these suicide bombers would have had their beliefs challenged before they got to the "When I suicide, I will go to eternal bliss with the virgins and the clouds and the best everything..bla blah". Clearly that belief is irrational and ridiculous, but they only formed it because it was the conclusion of their slightly less irrational belief system. Question it from the beginning, and they will never reach the "Suicide is a cool option because I will be rewarded" stage.

when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altogether..

what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?

Yes. But he does spend most of his energy on christianity because that is the civilisation we live in, the dominant religion of the english language, and the most popular religion. But all religions are treated equally, and the point is the same across the whole table. Christianity is as unlikely as hinduism is as unlikely as Apollo and Zeus.

so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...

Wrong. Simply wrong.

 

[Another God]

im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them

Actually its quite the opposite. Religion is the eternally avoided question. People just assume the answer everytime they get into it. Dawkins is actually tackling one of the most difficult questions ever because it is about time someone stood up and did it.

while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...

No, nothing wrong with the definition of religion, infact it has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Dawkins is a scientist and he is dedicated to the truth. So forget religion, let's talk about the truth. Does God exists? In reality? No.

If you want to 'believe' God exists, then fine, 'believe' it, but DO NOT say that your belief is real, because you have no basis for that.

 

[Hurkyl]

While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself.

Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

 

[SF]

You believe in empiricism.

I expect you believe in rationalism too.

You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.

Why do you think that?

Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :D
It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.

ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him

He discusses the general idea of "gods", and sais that the probability of existence of any "gods" is very little.. as little as the existence of ogres and tooth fairies. This applies to all supernatural religions.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

The talk about dangerous religions is indeed an argument to appeal to the majority of his readers, who will be Christians (less jews, less muslims, but it applies to them too - and almost no buddhists or whatever).

Further more, he tries to make a case for atheism, to create a proper brand.
Currently, calling yourself an atheist is the end of your political career, etc, etc. He hopes to change that.

Here is a nice collection of Dawkins videos, selected from YouTube and Google Video: http://physicshead.blogspot.com/search/label/Dawkins
(NOT SPAM!)

 

[Gib Z]

Lol i thought Richard Dawkins was a fictional character, he appears in a 2 Recent South Park episodes that I believe you may find interesting. It basically pictured Dawkins Lobbying for Atheism and then, well..i don't want to ruin the ending for you :D If you want the south park edisodes, here they are:

http://movies4.viettunes.com/1fileprotection/southpark/

The Dawkins Episodes are a 2 parter, named Go God, Go! and Go GOd, Go, II!, episode numbers 1012 and 1013, theyre around the bottom and hilarious, although you don't want your kids seeing it...

 

[Hurkyl]

It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

 

[Tony11235]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Why not just "not believing in God(s)?" You're loading up the definition to suggest that anyone who is not an atheist is irrational.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

 

[Another God]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.

Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

 

[Tony11235]

Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.

To be agnostic is to hold the position that something cannot be proved or disproved. When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic. But that doesn't mean either way is equally likely. Like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend. So one might as well lean towards the likelihood of non-existence.

 

[Another God]

I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism goes into the problems with the term agnosticism. I don't know if there are attempts to redefine it into atheism, if anything someone agnostic is more theist than atheist (since they qualify the concept of God with a chance of existence).

Dawkins does talk about it somewhat in TGD, and he simply argues that to be agnostic towards theism is not a reasonable opinion because you are saying that there is just as much chance of there being a God as there is of there not being a God. That implies that there is evidence for and evidence against. The argument then of course proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for Gods... afterall, if there was, why sit on the fence over the matter? If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

 

[Hurkyl]

When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic.
...
But like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend.

Now why do you think that?

I assume that it is because you believe that reason and experiment are the only sources of knowledge. Can you justify that belief?

So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

 

[Tony11235]

Now why do you think that?

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being? If so, then I can certainly lean towards there not being a god.

 

[Hurkyl]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:

Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?

Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?

I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

 

[Tony11235]

Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.

Unknowable isn't the right word. Not disprovable would better describe it. From a scientific standpoint at least. Say something is not disprovable, does that imply that I have zero knowledge on or about it?

 

[PIT2]

If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition. Here's a suggestion for judging arguments 'against' and 'for' the existence of god:

Notice of the paralels between 'god' and human mind. Whenever someone talks of god and assigns a probability to it, ask urself if his reasoning doesn't equally apply to human mind.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?

In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress.

This commentary reasonably describes the current situation regarding persistent elements of segregation in the US (and it is certainly not unique to the US, but is generally the case world wide).
The Last Race Problem
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Published: December 30, 2006

Accompanying public integration has been the near complete isolation of blacks from the private life of the white majority.

Another area where the US seems to be digressing is the rise of fundamentalist religious views - in which 'critical scrutiny' of beliefs and ideas is excluded, especially the exclusion of contradictory ideas - and the concommitant intolerance of alternative or contradictory beliefs and ideas.

Religion is not the problem - it's the people and the belief in the supremacy of one's beliefs which are the problem. The problems ascribed to religion are not because of religion, but the misuse or misappropriation of religion.

 

[Another God]

What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition.

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

 

[SF]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.

Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.

I'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)

(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.

Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

 

[Hurkyl]

Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).

Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. You explicitly assume that experiment is the only source of truth. (I'm surprised you don't accept reason!) And thus, your argument means absolutely nothing to someone who assumes that there are other sources of truth. The devout ancient Greek doesn't suppose that Zeus exists: it's a fact he's learned from his religous teachings.

Basically, when you start with the hypothesis that empiricism is the only source of truth, you have assumed what you're trying to prove.

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena.

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

 

[Another God]

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.

 

[SF]

Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.

I am not a native English speaker and in my native language they are much more similar.

Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)

Nobody claimed that math created the universe, or that there is a Guardian Differential Equation for each of us.
Not that I know of :)

 

[Hurkyl]

Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)

Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.

Only evidence can be relied upon.

Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical.


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

 

[Another God]

Really?

(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}

Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.

The only way (*) can be false is if

(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.

But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).

Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical.


How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:

(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}

Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?


(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)

I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.

A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.

Simple no?