Is Richard Dawkins' crusade against religion causing controversy in our society?

[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:tongue2: 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:tongue2: ).

 

[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.


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.

 

[PIT2]

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? ...

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.

Science isn't atheism is it? And the one claiming superiority wasnt me.

 

[Another God]

Science isn't atheism is it?

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

 

[PIT2]

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

Maybe science is atheistic, in the sense that god-ideas arent allowed in scientific theories. But science is only a method for humans to investigate reality. If the method is atheistic, then it doesn't logically follow that reality atheistic too (unless u define reality by the capabilities of the scientific method).

 

[Another God]

hmmm good point.

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

 

[sneez]

But any theory which is flawed on its metaphysical level can be disproven by its own findings. So even if Science assumes no God and then goes looking for stuff expecting no God to ever interfere...then if there was a god, it would eventually become apparent in the evidence.

In limited degree yes. In absolute sense, no.

If spiritualist (like Buddhists) postulate that 'Brahma/super consciousness/..' is beyond physical and description of limits of logic then it hardly will disprove itself of this concept.

Just like science (physicalism) which postulates/assumes that only physical things exists can never prove itself wrong on this postulate.

So it is really about one method being superior in certain circumstances to the other. To learn correctly apply them when appropriate is wisdom.

As far as Dawking's 'crusade', it is pathetic concept to begin with. HE is eventually starting the same nonsense like mid-evil-age Christians practices of being just 'one-dogmatic-official-truth' to be enforced (isn’t this what he is trying to fight against as far as religions? Well, he is using the same method to do so).

Yes, to withhold/suppress exposure to such ideas as god/non-physical is really disgusting in concept and should be abhorred by rational ppl.

I think that soon enough adherents of this non-sense crusade will behave just like psychopaths of 11th century totally devoid of reasoning just sticking to the dogma. IMHO this concept of getting away with religion (just to replace it with another one), is very old in humanity and never produces anything nice to be looking forward to. Scientific ppl/community who really know what science is , should put Mr. Dawking back on earth.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think atheism is superior regardless of the method you use to assess the universe because atheism does not rely on any illogical leaps.

Pray tell, how did you logically leap to the conclusion that no god or gods exist?

Oh, and incidentally... you believe in empiricism, right? Then you have no legs to stand on here, since you too rely on an "illogical leap".

ignorance is NEVER a good argument for something.

Of course. In particular, ignorance of evidence for a god or gods is not a good argument that they do not exist.

It does, however, work as an atheist. With no presumption of god or gods. Science may not be atheism, but science is atheistic.

It works as a theist too. Science is agnostic; a priori, it neither assumes nor denies the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Rade]

Hurkyl,

I do not follow your argument above. If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise. Thus, as I see it, science does a priori deny any attempt to "knowledge" of the existence of god. Now, you are correct that science does not a priori assume the existence of the supernatural. But please do let me know where my thinking fails.

As to Dawkins, he is but one of a long line of humanists. That he is a scientist with an interest in pushing forward the humanist philosophy to the general public head-to-head against organized religion worldwide makes him unique in the history of science. In many ways Dawkins rivals all great religious figures, somewhat ironic that Dawkins and Jesus both preach the virtues of the absolute. Perhaps the truth lies in the dialectic union of both their positions.

 

[Hurkyl]

I do not follow your argument above.

Which one? I'm presuming the last point I made.

Well, go look at the scientific method. Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

What about the study of biology? Economics? {insert scientific field here}? As far as I know, none of them take "deities do not exist" as one of their fundamental tenets.

In any of those topics, can the nonexistence of deities be rigorously logically deduced? Again, to the best of my knowledge, no.

Thus, it follows that, a priori, science does not deny the existence of deities.

If science a priori does not deny the existence of gods, and the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural), then one must conclude that science a priori is a way to knowledge of the supernatural, which is of course a false premise.

I don't see how, from
(1) science a priori does not deny the existence of gods
(2) the concept god is by definition that which is outside the physical (e.g., supernatural)
you intend to conclude
(3) science is a way to knowledge of the supernatural.

I suspect you've made a fallacy of the excluded middle: you've confused "does not deny" with "does affirm", forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something.


Now, mind you, I disagree that (3) is a false conclusion. If you have two theories of the supernatural that wind up having mundane differences, or you have a way of gathering supernatural evidence, then science can, in fact, be used to accumulate knowledge of the supernatural.

Of course, (3) is only true if you assume you can do one of those things, or something similar... but the point is that you have not given sufficient premises to be able to conclude (3) must be false.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, go look at the scientific method. Is "deny the existence of deities" one of its procedures? Nope.

What about scientific theories? Is "deities do not exist" one of the axioms of Newtonian mechanics? Special relativity? General relativity? Quantum mechanics? Nope.

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.

 

[Rade]

... forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something...

?? confused. Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ? -- how so ? On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? I realize this is off topic of Dawkins, but the statement just caught me as being odd.

 

[Another God]

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you saying the scientific method does not allow one to falsify a null hypothesis ?

I don't see why you would think that.

On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ?

Nor that.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ah, but philosophical monism IS one of its founding principles. There is, for science, only one source of movement and life in the universe, and that source is the proper study of science. Any concept that can not be consistently introduced without appealing to dualism (or polyism) can not coexist amicably with science.

This is not to say that the source has to be seen as simple or mechanical; but it must be one in its role as cause of all.

Would you care to elaborate? There are at least two points I'd like to hear you say more about:

(1) When I think "science", I think "the process of gaining knowledge via the scientific method". What additional meaning are you ascribing to the term?

(2) Could you spell out how monism applies here? In particular, in what sense science is monistic, while any concept of deity must be pluralistic?

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps some relevant articles.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html

The New Unbelievers
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061105/13atheism.htm

I think the matter is more the clash of thoughts, beliefs and ideas. Take religion out of the picture, and one will still have conflicts among humans, and just as often, groups of humans, who share similar thoughts, beliefs and ideas.

Then the matter becomes - how to develop rational behavior that is peaceful and productive (i.e. positive) rather than negative (i.e. with attritubes such as aggression, hostility, greed, vanity, . . . ).

As for morality and ethical behavior, that ultimately comes down to one's choice (internal influence or direction - guided by one conscience), even when there is an external influence.

Then there is the matter of the individual vs the community (e.g. clan, tribe, nation, religion, race, . . . . ) How does one choose between conscience vs deferrence to the group thought or belief?

 

[ValenceE]

hello to all,

Astronuc, imho, I think that in order to start anything on the proper path, you have to really pay attention to the massive emotions that are part of the equation. Emotions will throw off and derail any rational set of laws, however 'good for mankind' they could be, and that's ashame...

 

[Rade]

Rade Quote:
On a more human note, are you saying you can neither affirm nor deny your existence ? Hurkyl Reply : I don't see why you would say that

See your post # 58 where you state as a conclusion of an argument that I have somehow made the error of...forgetting that it is possible neither to affirm nor to deny something. So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything--which I take to also mean your own existence. Hopefully all is now clear.

 

[Hurkyl]

So, clearly you state that it is not possible for you to either affirm or deny anything

How so?

 

[VonWeber]

I haven't watched his films yet or read his book. The only thing I am familiar with is his notion of memes. After Sept 11 he said:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

At first I thought this was sage, but after a while I thought since when has he ever had any respect for religion or thought it was harmless.

So one possible way of reading Dawkins is that he is trying to create nonreligious memes and send them out into the population.

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

 

[Chris Davison]

When I was around age 6 a teacher said that a some guy
was turned into a pillar of salt by God. I am now 67 and have taken
religion with a "pinch of salt" since then. Have I missed something?

I am reading Dawkins's book The God Delusion, of course
he is right but I am frustrated by the fact that we are now
in the 21st century and such a book is needed. Perhaps
humans will always have some who believe in a God, my advice
is keep out of high buildings.

 

[Garth]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Garth