Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@FBM,

LF, I've already made it explicit:

FBM wrote:

Quote:
I can't help thinking you put a negative connotation on 'emotion'.

This is a good example of the need for caution, I think. I didn't intend any negative connotation on 'emotion' when I wrote it. It didn't even occur to me that someone might have a negative attitude towards it. If I'd intended to diminish the role of emotion, I'd have written 'just' or 'mere emotion.'

More later.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

FBM quote:
Faith is assertion without sufficient evidence. This is not reasoning. This is emotion.

This is the reference I meant. I interpreted that as meaning that faith and reason were mutually exclusive and that faith was merely emotion devoid of reason. That is what I mean by 'mere emotion'.

I of course disagree with that definition of faith. Faith without reason is more accurately called 'blind faith' or wishful thinking.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That is what I mean by 'mere emotion'.

Yes, that's what you mean. But you still neglect to acknowledge that my original post did not contain the word "mere" or the meaning it conveys. It only appeared in the post that rejected your injection of the negative nuance to my use of the word "emotion." It was a counter-example, not my position. So again, I have to ask you to read what I write carefully and craft your responses to what I actually say, not what you or anyone else projects into them. I pledge to do the same in response to your posts. If we're not mindful to do this, then we'll just keep spinning off on semantical derails and never get around to the point.

To wit: My quoted post above does not define "faith without reason," yet you posit a counter-definition of "faith without reason" as if I had done so first. I wonder if you're capable of parsing my sentence(s) accurately. Your response entails is a misrepresentation of what I originally wrote. I tend to chose my words carefully. If you're not sure of what I mean, please feel free to ask for clarification, rather than running off on an assumption-based tangent. Until we can get the basics of successful communication down, the prospects of having a fruitful exchange on more complex topics are slim, no?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I have some catching up to do, so I'd best start with your first effort:

Leadfoot wrote:

...that you are willing to accept as a hypothesis that a God might exist.

Yep.

Quote:

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.

The DE/DM hypothesis is, like I said before, not an answer or solution in the proper sense. It's just a convenient label for something unknown. The hypotheses punted so far include at leas one in which there is no exotic stuff in the first place, and that the observed anomalies are an indication of our lack of knowledge, flawed models and the like.

If we're going to use the same approach that led to the DE/DM hypothesis, then we need to make sure we don't stray away from it to dissimilar approaches. In the DE/DM example, the hypotheses are in limbo until further evidence/data are collected. The possibilities include
a) Exotic stuff
b) No exotic stuff, simply misunderstanding.

If you're intending to eliminate option b) while using the same inferential approach, then it seems you need empirical evidence for the "a) only" answer.

Quote:

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.

The Abrahamic god myths include numerous miracles, so questions regarding the physical possibilities surrounding those miracles are legitimate. Water-to-wine, walking on water, parting a body of water, etc, are alleged physical events and within the scope of physical enquiry.

Quote:

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.

Except for the "mere emotion" error we already cleared up, I'll generally accept these parameters.

Quote:

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.

An amendment: "Are there any apparent effects..."
Since we started with a science-based model, whatever effects must be not only apparent, but objectively measureable, repeatable and falsifiable. Anecdotes, traditioins and subjective impressions fall outside the scope of much besides storytelling and, perhaps, therapy.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"That is what I mean by 'mere emotion'."

Yes, that's what you mean. But you still neglect to acknowledge that my original post did not contain the word "mere" or the meaning it conveys.

Not to belabor the point but I agree we have to make sure we understand each other's terms and the generally accepted meaning of words and that we are dealing with each other in good faith.

You seem to be saying that I am misquoting or distorting what you said when you stated that:

"This [faith] is emotion."

Since that statement implies there is nothing else involved in 'faith' I wanted to clarify what you meant and to show that I disagreed, I used the term 'mere emotion' . This does not change the meaning of the word 'emotion', it just means that it excludes anything else except emotion, which is consistent with your statement.

mere - definition (from Wikipedia)
mir/
adjective
that is solely or no more or better than what is specified.
synonyms: no more than, just, only, merely

So to be sure I have your meaning correctly, are you saying that faith can, or cannot be based on more than emotion?

Thanks for you later post telling me how you perceived my post on 'evidence for a God'. I think we're doing better there so I'll go on.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"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."

The Abrahamic god myths include numerous miracles, so questions regarding the physical possibilities surrounding those miracles are legitimate. Water-to-wine, walking on water, parting a body of water, etc, are alleged physical events and within the scope of physical enquiry.

This is the only part of that post that may be a problem. The question at the outset was:

'Is there any indirect evidence for the existence of God?'

It now looks as if you are asking me to defend the Abrahamic religions as well as the miracles in the bible. This is definitely beyond the scope of where we started and well beyond what either of us has the patience for (at the current rate of progress lol.)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

...I used the term 'mere emotion' . This does not change the meaning of the word 'emotion', it just means that it excludes anything else except emotion, which is consistent with your statement.

Adjectives modify the nouns they're used on. Changing the meaning or the nuance is their purpose. "mere" is very often used with a diminutive connotation, and your first response suggests it.

This is a horse and that is a cow.
This is a horse and that is merely a cow/a mere cow.

Quote:

So to be sure I have your meaning correctly, are you saying that faith can, or cannot be based on more than emotion?

If it's based on fact, then it's knowledge, not faith. I would rather not make a universal blanket statement regarding (im)possibilities. I try to deal with individual claims. I said that faith is assertion without sufficient evidence. I didn't say "no evidence" or anything else. Faith comes in when you make a leap of faith in a direction that is not sufficiently supported by the available, credible evidence. That leap is usually made, as in the case with theism, to an emotionally preferred conclusion. In Western societies, the most popular leap is toward a loving, forgiving version of the Abrahamic god, not Mithra, Shiva or Quetzalcoatl, for example, despite the fact that those are similarly ancient myths, just from other cultures. Thus, it is ultimately emotional and not rational. And no, I do not mean anything diminutive by that, only marking the distinction.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I said that faith is assertion without sufficient evidence. I didn't say "no evidence" or anything else. Faith comes in when you make a leap of faith in a direction that is not sufficiently supported by the available, credible evidence.

Cool, assuming you are willing to accept indirect evidence as discussed, we can go on.

For the present purposes, I am divorcing 'God' from any and all religions. There are too many assumptions, too much dogma and, as you said, leaps of faith in them to tie the possible existence of God to them.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

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.

The universality of curiosity in humans cannot be assumed. It is not inconceivable that some people are incurious regarding the existence of a god or gods or the ultimate nature of the universe. The majority of Koreans, for example, have no religious affiliation, which strongly suggests (but does not prove) that they're not particularly interested in the question of whether or not there is a divine creator. And in any event it would be presumptuous to claim to be able to get inside someone else's - much less everyone else's - thoughts to ascertain their level of curiosity regarding the nature and/or origin of the universe. I would recommend that you be cautious about projecting your own intellectual and emotional experiences onto others.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I would recommend that you be cautious about projecting your own intellectual and emotional experiences onto others.

I did say "As far as I can tell". I have given a bit of effort into seeing if that is true though so it was not just pulled outa my ass, but no, it wasn't an absolute statement.

I do have a theory about possible exceptions but that's too far off topic for now.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ah. OK. I overlooked that. But if it's not universal, then what good does it do for your thesis?

1 Reply

@FBM,

The exceptions seem to be rare enough that it's the same situation as in science. Just because there is an isolated exception to the theory, you don't discard a solution that explains all the others. The usual reaction is to look for a reason for the exception.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Eh? A single instance of a violation of, for example, the conservation laws would require a whole revamping of the theory. The very reason QM reigns supreme right now is that it has so far been unviolated. Violate it once and there's a lot of reworking to be done. QM came about because of observed violations of classical mechanics, after all, no? And not widespread ones, either. Obscure ones known probably only to physicists at the time. If you're going to build a cosmology, you need to be solid on every step along the way. Glossing over the odd exception that doesn't fit your narrative isn't the way to do careful thought.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Glossing over the odd exception that doesn't fit your narrative isn't the way to do careful thought.

I didn't say 'gloss over', I said look for the reason behind the apparent exception.

In this case there is reason to think they may not remain an exception. They were not dead at the time.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

If you're going to build a cosmology, you need to be solid on every step along the way...Violate it once and there's a lot of reworking to be done.

FBM has no clue how ironic this is. Because he has virtually every non-disciple of scientism on "ignore." He actually believes that "inflation," dark matter and energy, infinite universes, etc. are "solid on every step along the way."

No religious fundy could ever top that kind of faith and distortion of reality.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Glossing over the odd exception that doesn't fit your narrative isn't the way to do careful thought.
I didn't say 'gloss over', I said look for the reason behind the apparent exception.

I didn't attribute "gloss over" to you. That was all mine. And, yes, double-checking for operator error and the like is assumed. Big changes are only justified when everything else is ruled out and the exception stands.

Quote:

In this case there is reason to think they may not remain an exception. They were not dead at the time.

Before I comment on this, let me ask for clarification. When you say "the urge to know," what are they wanting to know? I can see pretty good reasons to look towards evolutionary psychology for the existence of basic curiosity. Are you talking about an urge to know the answers to ultimate questions like the origin of the universe, what happens to people after they die and whatnot?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

When you say "the urge to know," what are they wanting to know?

Pretty much as you said, or like Douglas Adams put it, 'The answer to life, universe and everything'. Really, they all boil down to the question of 'is there a God'.

I think the Buddhists are the most hypocritical on the question. They feel the urge to know but most of them explicitly deny the existence of any God and yet believe they will be reincarnated. Way worse answer than atheism in my view.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
When you say "the urge to know," what are they wanting to know?
Pretty much as you said, or like Douglas Adams put it, 'The answer to life, universe and everything'. Really, they all boil down to the question of 'is there a God'.

This seems terribly eurocentric and modern. I would guess that the proverbial caveman was asking things like, 'Why did that volcano erupt and kill those people?' Ignorance + naturally evolved false attribution of agency > invisible spirit-beings in the volcano were pissed off at us. Solution: throw some very desirable virgins (or whatever) into it so that it will chill out.

Quote:

I think the Buddhists are the most hypocritical on the question. They feel the urge to know but most of them explicitly deny the existence of any God and yet believe they will be reincarnated. Way worse answer than atheism in my view.

Pro tips on Buddhism: 1) They (for the most part) believe in a multitude of gods and spirits, heavens and hells, just not a creator of the universe. 2) The rebirth (no soul/spirit) issue is distinct from reincarnation (yes soul/spirit) and doesn't have anything to do with a sentient creator; it's punted as a natural law like gravitation. Bullshit, probably, but not of the sort that you seem to think. In brief, the Buddhist question is how to resolve the experience of individual suffering (dukkha)*, not the origins of the universe. Very different sort of investigation.

* Alternatively, how to escape samsara, the cycle of rebirth that entails dukkha. Quite the opposite of looking for a way into an eternally blissful heaven. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Correct, I'm not a 'pro' on Buddhism and they come in a wide variety but from reading a few books and talking with several Buddhists, that is the impression I got. One reference was so adamant about no gods or even Buddha(!) that it said 'If you meet one, kill it because it is false'. I may not understand the mind set at all.

I also interpret the central tenant of how to deal with suffering as the same question - 'The meaning of life', since they seem to feel that life is mainly made up of suffering, and in some ways they are right.

But I'm interested to hear that some or all believe in a multitude of gods. Must research that further. Sources welcomed.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

My M.A. thesis is on aspects of it. Google "Buddhist gods" or grab a volume of the Pali Canon. This might also be useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya (#4 in particular.)

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know