0
   

Dawkins and his life

 
 
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2020 03:38 am
@Jasper10,
My point is that one needs to learn to deliberately and consciously override autopilot and LEARN to operate in the manual consciousness state (mentally) more and more or there may come a day when autopilot goes seriously wrong and one is forced to ignorantly fly the plane in total manual when one is incapable of effectively doing so......hence mild examples of this inability are anxiety/depression ...extreme examples are total computer crashes/nervous breakdowns. Clearly, there are other causes of mental ill health as well.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2020 12:59 pm
@mark noble,
People like to wheel out this "love your neighbor" thing as a way to shame Christians for not martyring themselves enough.

Let's ask who is our neighbor...
Quote:
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" 27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise."


-Were the ones who behaved like thieves his neighbor?
-Were the priests and Levites who walked past his neighbor?
No, not everyone is your neighbor. But you are expected to be a good neighbor in hopes they will be. And yet, the entitled secular world expects to be loved while continuing to be thieves and murderers.

I would be only too happy to behave like a neighbor, and love and forgive you. But this comes with the expectation that you behave like a neighbor. That you show others mercy.

So again, why do people fawn over a worthless sack of garbage like Dawkins, and show no mercy to regular Christians who are currently unable to attend church? Why do you show no mercy to the poor who are now unable to work? To those who have lost their jobs to hysteria?
bulmabriefs144
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:01 pm
@maxdancona,
It was MENTIONED in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure you'd have to show me a passage where God said, "Go ahead and rape her."
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:09 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

It was MENTIONED in the Bible.

I'm pretty sure you'd have to show me a passage where God said, "Go ahead and rape her."


Yes Numbers 31:17-18-- (if you assume taking female sex slaves as prisoners of war counts as rape)

Moses gives the command to kill the boys and the girls who aren't virgins... and to keep the virgin girls for themselves.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Dec, 2020 01:23 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
So again, why do people fawn over a worthless sack of garbage like Dawkins...

Can you explain why Dawkins is a "worthless sack of garbage"?
Quote:
...and show no mercy to regular Christians who are currently unable to attend church?

It's not a matter of extending "mercy". Places where people congregate for a period of time in close proximity have been shown to promote the spread of the contagious coronavirus. If anyone should be showing "mercy" it should be the pastors of these churches; they should explain to their congregations that becoming vectors of disease doesn't honor their god, that public services will be reinstated in time, and that for now, true Christians can read their bible in a contemplative manner and demonstrate their faith through good work, kindness, and charity.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2020 12:38 pm
The insidious attacks on scientific truth

Richard Dawkins wrote:
What is truth? You can speak of moral truths and aesthetic truths but I’m not concerned with those here, important as they may be. By truth I shall mean the kind of truth that a commission of inquiry or a jury trial is designed to establish. I hold the view that scientific truth is of this commonsense kind, although the methods of science may depart from common sense and its truths may even offend it.

Commissions of inquiry may fail, but we assume a truth lurking there even if we don’t have enough evidence. Juries sometimes get it wrong and falsehoods are often sincerely believed. Scientists too can make mistakes and publish erroneous conclusions. That’s all regrettable but not deeply sinister. What is profoundly troubling, however, is any wanton attack on truth itself: the value of truth, the very existence of truth. This is what concerns me here.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell’s O’Brien held that two plus two equals five if the Party decrees it so. The Ministry of Truth existed for the purpose of disseminating lies. In the past four years, the US government has moved in that direction. World-weary cynics sigh that all politicians lie: it goes with the territory. But normal politicians lie as a last resort and try to cover it up. Donald Trump is in a class of his own. For him, lying is not a last resort. It never occurs to him to do anything else. And far from covering up a lie, he can stick to it: his well-named ‘base’ will love him the more for it, and will believe the lie, however far-fetched and shamelessly self--serving. Fortunately Trump is too incompetent to fulfil Orwell’s nightmare, and anyway he is on the way out, albeit kicking and screaming and trying to pull the house down with him as he goes.

A more insidious threat to truth comes from certain schools of academic philosophy. There is no objective truth, they say, no natural reality, only social constructs. Extreme exponents attack logic and reason themselves, as tools of manipulation or ‘patriarchal’ weapons of domination. The philosopher and historian of science Noretta Koertge wrote this in Skeptical Inquirer magazine in 1995, and things haven’t got any better since:

“Instead of exhorting young women to prepare for a variety of technical subjects by studying science, logic, and mathematics, Women’s Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination…the standard norms and methods of scientific inquiry are sexist because they are incompatible with ‘women’s ways of knowing’. The authors of the prize-winning book with this title report that the majority of the women they interviewed fell into the category of ‘subjective knowers’, characterised by a ‘passionate rejection of science and scientists’. These ‘subjectivist’ women see the methods of logic, analysis and abstraction as ‘alien territory belonging to men’ and ‘value intuition as a safer and more fruitful approach to truth’.

That way madness lies. As reported by Barbara Ehrenreich and Janet McIntosh in The Nation in 1997, the social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth, at an interdisciplinary seminar, praised the virtues of the experimental method. Audience members protested that the experimental method was ‘the brainchild of white Victorian males’. Ellsworth acknowledged this, but pointed out that the experimental method had led to, for example, the discovery of DNA. This was greeted with disdain: ‘You believe in DNA?’

You can’t not ‘believe in DNA’. DNA is a fact. The DNA molecule is a double helix, a long spiral staircase with exactly four kinds of steps called nucleotides. The one--dimensional sequence of these four nucleotide ‘letters’ is the genetic code which specifies the nature of every animal, plant, fungus, bacterium and archaean. DNA sequences can be compared, letter for letter, between any creature and any other, much as one might compare folios of Hamlet. From this we can compute a numerical figure for the closeness of cousinship of any two creatures and hence, eventually, build up a complete family tree of all life.

For, whether we like it or not, it is a true fact that we are cousins of kangaroos, that we share an ancestor with starfish, and that we and the starfish and kangaroo share a more remote ancestor with jellyfish. The DNA code is a digital code, differing from computer codes only in being quaternary instead of binary. We know the precise details of the intermediate stages by which the code is read in our cells, and its four-letter alphabet translated, by molecular assembly-line machines called ribosomes, into a 20-letter alphabet of amino acids, the building blocks of protein chains and so of bodies.

If your philosophy dismisses all that as patriarchal domination, so much the worse for your philosophy. Perhaps you should stay away from doctors with their experimentally tested medicines, and go to a shaman or witch doctor instead. If you need to travel to a conference of like-minded philosophers, you’d better not go by air. Planes fly because a lot of scientifically trained mathematicians and engineers got their sums right. They did not use ‘intuitive ways of knowing’. Whether they happened to be white and male or sky-blue-pink and hermaphrodite is supremely, triumphantly irrelevant. Logic is logic is logic, no matter if the individual who wields it also happens to wield a penis. A mathematical proof reveals a definite truth, no matter whether the mathematician ‘identifies as’ female, male or hippopotamus. If you decide to fly to that conference, Newton’s laws and Bernoulli’s principle will see you safe. And no, Newton’s Principia is not a ‘rape manual’, as was ludicrously said by the noted feminist philosopher Sandra Harding. It is a supreme work of genius by one of Homo sapiens’s most sapient specimens — who also happened to be a not very nice man.

It is true that Newton’s laws are approximations which need modifying under extreme circumstances such as when objects travel at near the speed of light. Those philosophers of science who fixate on the case of Newton and Einstein love to say that scientific truths are only ever provisional approximations that have so far resisted falsification. But there are many scientific truths — we share an ancestor with baboons is one example — which are just plain true, in the same sense as ‘New Zealand lies south of the equator’ is not a provisional hypothesis, pending possible falsification.

The physics of the very small also goes beyond Newton. Quantum theory is too weird for most human brains to accommodate intuitively. Yet the accuracy with which its predictions are fulfilled is shattering and beyond all doubt. If I can’t get my head around the weirdness of a theory which is validated by such predictions, that’s just too bad. There’s no law that says truths about nature have to be comprehensible by the human brain. We have to live with the limitations of a brain that was built by Darwinian natural selection of hunter-gatherer ancestors on the African savanna, where medium-sized things like antelopes and potential mates moved at medium speeds. It’s actually remarkable that human brains — even if only a minority of them — are capable of doing modern physics at all. It is an open question whether there remain deep truths about the universe which human brains not only don’t yet understand but can never understand. I find that open question immensely exciting, whatever the answer to it may be.

Theologians love their ‘mysteries’, such as the ‘mystery of the Trinity’ (how can God be both three and one at the same time?) and the ‘mystery of transubstantiation’ (how can the contents of a chalice be simultaneously wine and blood?). When challenged to defend such stuff, they may retort that scientists too have their mysteries. Quantum theory is mysterious to the point of being downright perverse. What’s the difference? I’ll tell you the difference and it’s a big one. Quantum theory is validated by predictions fulfilled to so many decimal places that it’s been compared to predicting the width of North America to within one hairsbreadth. Theological theories make no predictions at all, let alone testable ones.

Of course, not all the sciences can boast the formidable accuracy of physics. We biologists stand in awe of the LIGO experiments in which gravitational waves, having travelled a billion light years, are detected by measurements accurate to less than a thousandth the width of a proton. Biological experimenters have to confront problems like the subjective bias of the experimenter — ‘intuitive ways of knowing’. Medical scientists have perfected safeguards aimed precisely against intuitive ways of knowing, because these are highly likely to mislead. The double blind control test has become the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of a medical treatment. A new drug must be compared with a placebo control and the comparison tested statistically. Neither the patients, nor the doctors running the tests, nor the nurses administering the doses, nor the analysts evaluating the results are allowed to know which patients were given the placebo, which the drug, until all the results are in.

I myself conducted a double blind test of dowsing (water divining). It was pathetically touching to witness the sincere distress of the professional dowsers when they failed — every single one of them — to perform above chance level. The poor things had never before been tested under double blind conditions: never before been deprived of whatever subliminal cues normally inform their ‘subjective ways of knowing’. I treasure the remark of a homeopathic doctor who, when his methods failed under double blind testing conditions, said: ‘You see. This is why we don’t do double blind tests any more. They never work!’

A layperson’s version of the pernicious philosophy I mentioned earlier is the familiar bleat of: ‘Well it may not be true for you but it is true for me.’ No, it’s either true or it isn’t. For both of us. As somebody once said (authorship multiply attributed), you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

Some of what I have claimed here about scientific truth may come across as arrogant. So might my disparagement of certain schools of philosophy. Science really does know a lot about what is true, and we do have methods in place for finding out a lot more. We should not be reticent about that. But science is also humble. We may know what we know, but we also know what we don’t know. Scientists love not knowing because they can go to work on it. The history of science’s increasing knowledge, especially during the past four centuries, is a spectacular cascade of truths following one on the other. We may choose to call it a cumulative increase in the number of truths that we know. Or we can tip our hat to (a better class of) philosophers and talk of successive approximations towards yet-to-be-falsified provisional truths. Either way, science can properly claim to be the gold standard of truth.

spectator
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2020 12:58 pm
@hightor,
Last sentence....you HOPE....
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2020 04:18 pm
@Jasper10,
Lets recall, that a very few years ago, I believe the MISSISSIPPI Legislature tried to vote up a bill that would make pi,( The mathematical result of a circles circumferential length divided by its diameter) equal to 3.00. Reason? because of some lame Biblical reference that was believed to be inerrant by some uneducated state lgislators.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 01:36 am
@farmerman,
I don’t hope in science,I hope in the one who created science.I think about all the sciences when I think about the bigger picture...I don’t “pigeon hole” myself to just one aspect of science to try to understand things.The sciences of the mind are Connected/Related/Embroiled with every other science.One shouldn’t just observe science one has to become a part of it.Become a player rather than a spectator.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 05:44 am
Quote:
Dawkins wrote:
But science is also humble. We may know what we know, but we also know what we don’t know.

How is it possible that people miss the obvious lie(s) here?
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 05:52 am
@Leadfoot,
Why don't you point them out?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 05:58 am
@hightor,
Ok, I’ll get you started.

First lie: 'Science' (as far as Dawkins and atheism goes) is far from humble.

Can you spot the next one?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 06:39 am
@Leadfoot,
Well, I think it's sort of silly accuse someone like Dawkins (who you apparently already dislike because he's — gasp! — an atheist) of spouting "obvious lies" when he's simply voicing his opinion. In his opinion the fact that science "knows" that there's much it still doesn't "know" counts as a form of professional humility. It makes more sense when you read it in the context of the whole essay and don't just extract one or two sentences in order to parade your perceived superiority to some hapless atheist you've taken such a dislike to. I doubt that Dawkins knowingly penned falsehoods to deceive his readers so I don't agree that he's spreading "obvious lies".

And why would you even take a statement like "but science is also humble" as if it were a finding of fact? "Science" isn't a person. Science doesn't have moods, emotions, or character defects. The fact that he'd make such an unscientific statement tells you right away that he's just trying to defend the reputation of science in the public sphere, not writing a dissertation of the topic. He's simply one scientist, after all. When you have the president suggesting that internal applications of disinfectant might be a suitable treatment for covid, the need for greater respect for the scientific method should be obvious.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 11:16 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
I don’t hope in science,I hope in the one who created science.


I cannot prove it but I see no compelling evidence that such a "ONE" even exists. It just sounds like some bumper sticker phrase that accompanies the fish cartoon
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 01:14 pm
@farmerman,
Well I used to think the same as you do but I suppose God works in mysterious ways and I am glad he does.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 01:31 pm
@Jasper10,
if that works for you, fine. So far though, you cant provide ANY evidence to support your belief and Science doesnt work on faith.
So we agree to disagree .
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 02:08 pm
@hightor,
OK, so you couldn’t or wouldn’t call out the next lie.

I won’t bother asking about the ones in the other 95% of his drivel.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 04:12 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

First lie: 'Science' (as far as Dawkins and atheism goes) is far from humble.

How do you figure?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2020 07:22 pm
@Leadfoot,
Youve got to understand that Dawkins major idiocy was to get involved arguing (in public) with lame biblical "cientists" like Ken Ham. His arguments were powerful , just over zealously delivered when he shot ham down.
His arguments could have been more gently constructed because all he managed to do was divide the audiences into those feeling superior and those who felt they got insulted for being people of faith. Ham did deserve to be corrected but not childishly berated.
I have little use for Dawkins in his public roles but he still is a great communicator of the growth of the sciences behind evolutionary theory.
When asked what evidence does he bring??Only after Dawkins ran a rather insulting explanation sequence as some hip hop traducers, he said. "Well, because everything I said works in the natural world, can you say the same???"

Faith and science can only coexist like lions and hyenas.

Right now Im pissed at Dawkins because he values cleverness too much .

Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2020 01:26 am
@farmerman,
There is more going on than .....the world according to Dawkins....When one truly starts figuring out how one works mentally one will realise it.He claims he knows enough to mock people like Ken Ham....he doesn’t.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/01/2021 at 07:31:11