Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
FBM has yet to make an argument, just likes to fling charges of 'red herring' and taunt 'No proof! No proof!' From the sidelines.

Set, if you're going to make the charge of 'strawman', you have to give some rational for why that is, just as I have given supporting argument why it is not.

Look back no further than our brief 'multiverse' exchange.

Really--you don't know what a straw man fallacy is? As an example, that BS you posted about "multiverse" and atheists is a straw man fallacy--unless you are contending that all atheists always bring up "multiverse," in which case your claim is hilariously unbelievable.

Any time you ascribe a claim or an argument to someone who has made no such claim nor advanced any such argument, that's a straw man fallacy. Get it?

You could add to that the sleight-of-word changing "evidence" to "proof." Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Often the more shallow and mundane one's thinking is, the more "profound" he (and often others) thinks he is. Go figure, eh?

Quote:

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's always the same routine with these cheese-eaters, eh, Leddy?

Quote:

You have a DUTY to woo me. You must gain my approval. You must convince me. I'm the one who is sought-after and important here, let's get that straight, pal.

And guess what, chump? You CAN'T convince me. You are obligated to "try" to seduce me, but ya aint never gunna succeed, no matter how seductive or convincing you are. I'm gunna piss on ya. Now git on over here, I'm ready to take a piss now.

The pretentious pomposity is palpable.

The megalomania of it all, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Very strange when in the discussion of the most important thing in the world, the most insignificant detail becomes all important to them.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Sort of like when somebody posts a strawman fallacy, eh? Laughing

Of course, it's not surprising that you would try so hard to trivialize and mock the demand for evidence that supports your invisible guy in the sky hypothesis, since evidence is the one thing that you need to make it plausible, and at the same time the very thing that you lack most. Empty rhetoric and logical fallacies, you have no shortage of.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Since science and the scientific method seem to be the only thing you would accept, I tried to establish a scientific basis for gathering evidence of God with you (dark matter and determining its existence by measuring its effect on known objects). I pointed out that DM was an accepted reality in science in spite of the fact that we have no way of directly detecting it.

You countered by denying that dark matter was accepted in science (!) (without supplying any supporting arguments). As layman pointed out, that is tantamount to denying the law of gravity. When you deny that and the methods for gathering evidence accepted by science, I don't know where to go after that other than to let you dwell on your own contradictions.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Well, there's also the basic rules of logic that I'm OK with. And if you'd work on your reading comprehension a bit, you'd see that I didn't deny that DM was accepted by science. Either you're not reading carefully, don't have the wherewithal to comprehend what I write, or are deliberately composing yet another strawman. When you've shown that you're capable of comprehending what I've already written about it, I'll be glad to pursue it further.

In any event, appealing to the unknown regarding DE/DM as evidence for your god hypothesis is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Google it if you have to.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

In any event, appealing to the unknown regarding DE/DM as evidence for your god hypothesis is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Google it if you have to.

I was not appealing to the existence of DM/DE as evidence of God. I was appealing to the method by which it was discovered. The conversation would have to go well beyond that to get to evidence of God. I was just looking for a starting point that you would consider.

So make it clear, do you accept the methodology used to discover DM/DE or not? If not, what is wrong with the science used? If you do accept it, exactly what was your objection to my starting point?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

My objection to your starting point was that it sure looked like an appeal to ignorance. But, if as you say, you only mean to appeal to the inference used, viz its gravitational effects on ordinary matter, knock yourself out.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

In reality, there are but 2 proprties ascribed to DM that sort of define its existence absent anything else. We have leaned upon this concept as a creation by one guy followed by a "bandwagon" of Physicists agreeing that two properties (each of which can be explained in a myriad of other ways) are "evidence" of DM.
I am not really impressed with the "way" this work was done.
For example, we can use the same "mathturbation" to explain the increasing velocity of outer galaxies by a simple proportionality of the SQUARE of acceleration to G (not just v^2).

I believe we should exhaust relativistic and Newtonian Dynamics before we create something that we have yet to explain properly and evidence AT ALL.

I dont deny DM's possibility but am not yet convinced that weve got a firm handle on anything profound and unique.
Dr Zwicky"s hypothesis (actually a wild ass idea) has gotten such sticky feet that anything countering it would seem heretical. Yet there is a vocal minority who (such as geophyicists who dwell in a gravity world that is suspended between Newton and Einstein) have stated "Wait a minute".

I agree with you , to this extent, that the Methodology by which DM is a "default concept" is sort of a way that god could be "proven".

I think "evidence" has gotta be something better.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I agree with you , to this extent, that the Methodology by which DM is a "default concept" is sort of a way that god could be "proven".

Well, you can always find a decenter or few from the 'bandwagon' of physicists. That usually does not stop scientists from accepting an idea that fits as well as DM does. I do object to the name myself, invisible or transparent matter seems more appropriate.

'Default concept' is better than I would have expected, so I'll take it, despite the many qualifiers before and after it.

@KBM Not ignoring your invitation, I'll be there. Just don't want to go off half cocked before I begin.

0 Replies

"Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" aren't even really answers or solutions to the problem. They're just convenient, but empty labels put on whatever that answer/those answers turn(s) out to be. As far as I can tell, there exist only best guesses. Could be exotic stuff, or it could be flaws in the current cosmological model. If you follow the same sort of inference, I'm not sure how an explanation for a god could turn out to have any more certainty. But give it your best shot.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I am assuming up front that by your willingness to be open to evidence of it, that you are willing to accept as a hypothesis that a God might exist. Not that I'm asking you to accept anything on faith, just a hypothetical. I haven't done this before so if I belabor points unnecessarily or skip over others, feel free to point that out. That said, I'll get on with it.

If you accept that an apparent effect on things we do know can be used as evidence that there exists something causing that effect, even if we cannot detect it any other way, then there is some basis on which we can explore the possibility for God's existence.

By 'apparent effects' I take it as obvious that we are not talking about physical effects on matter as in the parallel example of dark matter and its gravitational effects on visible matter. The known laws of physics explain those effects sufficiently even if we don't agree on the origin of those laws.

If there is any reason to debate the existence of God, it has to be the effect of his existence on peoples' lives. And by 'lives' I mean the progression of the life of our minds rather than that of our bodies which is explained (mostly) by medical science. If there were no possible effects on the 'life of the mind', there really would be no point to the existence of God, even if he exists. I assume even skeptics would agree with me that an impersonal God that has no personal interaction with us is of no interest at all. Since you have expressed a distrust of 'mere emotion' I want to say right off that I'm not talking about that although it cannot be denied that even the most logical thought can have a profound effect on our emotions.

So the question is: Are there any apparent effects on peoples' minds that could be attributable to God? I think there has to be at least two levels to that question. The first would be a universal one felt by every human and the second felt by those who act on that effect, even if that action is only mental. I say this based on the implied contract that would exist between a God and any sentient being that he created. True, there is no law that says that has to be true but if this isn't the case, who cares if there is a God or not? For the moment, we are assuming there might be a God that we could give a **** about.

More later if I haven't bored you already. There's a project downstairs I have to finish up now.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Over the course of the past several decades, cosmologists have used countless observations to come up with...a model of the history and structure of the universe often called the "Standard Cosmology".

Give me some accurate empirical data and I can predict how many people in America will attend church next Sunday.

Give me the "standard" model of cosmology, and I can predict...uh.....well....ya see, it's like this here.....uh....well, we know this much: It's SCIENCE, by God!

1 Reply

@layman,

We KNOW this much, at least:

Quote:

The Present Composition of the Universe:

- Matter: ~5% of the mass in the universe. This is ordinary matter composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. It comprises gas, dust, stars, planets, people, etc.

-Cold Dark Matter: ~25%
This is the so-called "missing mass" of the universe. It comprises the dark matter halos that surround galaxies and galaxy clusters, and aids in the formation of structure in the universe. The dark matter is said to be "cold" because it is nonrelativistic (slow-moving) during the era of structure formation. Dark matter is currently believed to be composed of some kind of new elementary particle, usually referred to as a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP).

-Dark Energy: ~70%
Through observations of distant supernovae, two research groups have independently discovered that the expansion of the universe appears to be getting faster with time. This seems to require some kind of "antigravity" effect which we do not understand. Cosmologists believe that the acceleration may be caused by some kind of new energy field that permeates the universe, perhaps even the cosmological constant that Einstein imagined almost a century ago.

Next thing ya know, some of y'all will wanna be askin: "how, if we aint knowwin **** about 95% of what's out there, can Richard Dawkins know how all this unknown stuff was created?" Well, that's easy to answer: It's SCIENCE, by God!

How do we know that? Easy, we know that Dawkins is a scientist, see?

0 Replies

Let me suggest a little scientific experiment which can settle all of this, eh? Here's what we do:

1. Have 5 fundy Christians, all with a big-ass Bible in front of them, sit on one side

2. Have 5 fundy Scientists, all with a big-ass Physics books in front of them, sit on the other.

3. Then, when the flag drops, they all take to thumpin, see?

4. Then, whoever comes out soundin most like this wins:

1 Reply

@layman,

Then, again, I dunno. This kinda settles it all right here, doncha think?

Quote:

•In the first 10-34 seconds or so of the universe's history, it underwent a brief period of extremely fast expansion, known as inflation. This period smoothed out the universe's original lumpiness and left it with the homogeneity and isotropy we see today. Quantum mechanical fluctuations during this process were imprinted on the universe as density fluctuations, which later seeded the formation of structure

How can ya not be convinced by all them scientific words and clear concepts?

Ya take a normal second, then ya cut it down to trillions of trillions, of trillions of parts.

Then, durin one of them parts of a second, ya had "inflation." Pretty simple. Now what? Well, it's all self-explanatory, I figure. Then ya got:

"lumpiness"
"homogeneity"
"isotropy"
"Quantum mechanical fluctuations"
"density fluctuations"
"imprinted"
"on the universe"
"seeded"
"formation of structure"

Says it all, right there, don't it?

Actually, it's all so obvious that Hegel said the same thing, a good long time back. Or something that sounded just as good, anyway. I don't think his empirical measurements of time were quite as exact though. They didn't have that technology back then.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

If we're to proceed with this, there's one ground rule that I think is indispensable: intellectual honesty. I'm willing to concede the hypothetical possibility that you might have simply made an honest mistake here, but regardless of whether or not it was intentional, this is not an accurate representation of anything I've said:

Quote:

Since you have expressed a distrust of 'mere emotion'

If you're either unable or unwilling (insofar as those things can be distinguished) to represent my statements accurately, I don't see much point in even attempting this dialog. If you can/will, I'll of course return the courtesy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

I promise you that if I misrepresented you as having a mistrust of 'mere emotion' it was an honest mistake.

I really though you said that (possibly in different wording) in a previous exchange when we were talking about reasons for people's belief in a God. I assure you it was not meant as a criticism because - I DO have a mistrust of 'mere emotion' which in the context of that exchange meant making a decision about something based solely on emotion without reason or logic. I thought we agreed on that.

Let me know what you actually meant in that exchange and I will honor your ground rule.
Back to the subject.

First order effects:

As far as I can tell, the first order effect of God on people or 'the urge to know', is present to one extent or another in everyone. In spite of the lack of direct evidence for a God and the many reasons to reject the idea, most people when asked anonymously in a neutral way if they believe in 'a God or higher being' answer 'yes'. This is true as long as the question is asked in a way that does not associate that belief with any sort of religion. Put any other way, asking if they are Christian for instance, and the figure goes way down. The Gallup poll as late as 2011 (last year I saw) still puts the figure at over 90% in the US. It was higher in earlier years. The majority of them would deny being 'religious' and don't attend any church. This is in spite of all the negative connotations that belief has acquired in post Darwin times and the lack of religious influence in most American lives.

There are of course alternative explanations for this but mass 'delusion' as Dawkins contends lacks any credibility. What would the source of that 'delusory' influence be if not a God itself? Some say it is just the comforting wishful thinking that accounts for it but the negative factors would seem to more than counter-balance that. Public declarations of belief (unless you are a politician where it is ironically almost required) are generally looked down on. In academia that influence is especially apparent where a belief in God is regarded as ignorant and unsophisticated. And yet the anonymous poll results where peer pressure is not a factor, are only slightly lower.

Don't confuse what I'm saying with 'argumentum ad populum' appealing to populism. I'm just looking for possible first order effects for now. But it is worth noting at least initially, that this first order effect, the urge to know if a God exists, has a default answer of true.

But this isn't necessarily the best indicator of the effect. The flip side is at least as persuasive to me. Among those who answered 'no' to the God or higher being question, the urge to know is far from absent. In fact, their interest in the question seems far stronger than the average joe who answered 'yes'. The main difference between them is that they have given it at least a little active thought. But that begins to get into second order effects where things get much more interesting.

More on that later. Gotta go see if yesterday's mods have quieted down that damn hotrod's exhaust.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Among those who answered 'no' to the God or higher being question, the urge to know is far from absent. In fact, their interest in the question seems far stronger than the average joe who answered 'yes'. The main difference between them is that they have given it at least a little active thought.

I agree, Leddy. The sense of "certainty" in this own knowledge (and self-bestowed "superiority," but let's leave that aside) that Dawkins comes away with is, by his own admission, immensely gratifying to him. He says he would rather "know" than "be happy." His "qualifications" about his certainty are strictly pro forma.

This seems to be a common theme amongst most committed atheists.

I suppose that, in many areas, "knowing" that there is no God can be just as "useful" as "knowing" that there is. Both can give a certain "structure" to one's outlook on life and serve to sidestep the delay that hesitation, due to doubt, that might otherwise impose upon the pursuit of their goals.

0 Replies

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know