Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

Real Life,

You seem to be saying that religion and science are really the same thing. They clearly are not, and I will argue this from two different directions.

First of all, let's look at the success of science in coming up with concrete measurable solutions to real world problems. Polio used to be a big cause of the death of babies. Science came up with a solution that can be shown to have drastically reduced (almost completely) the number of deaths by polio... and you can measure this number in an objective way. Simple count the number of people who die from polio and then divide by the number people there are.

Religion simply can not match the effect of science in measurable things (that can be objectively counted) such as reducing infant mortality, making more productive crops or allowing people to fly accross the country in a matter of hours.

There is another big difference in science and religion. You are right there are a few precepts you have to make, but these are very basic things like the fact I trust that my eyes are a reliable way to tell if something is there or not.

In science you try to depend on the minimum number of assumptions you possibly can. Then you come up with conclusions by following a mathematical process of proof.

In religion you start with the conclusions-- and there is no attempt to reduce the number of beliefs that you just assume are true. Many people then use logic and observation to find evidence to back up their conclusion.

The biggest difference between religion and science is what happens when your observations and logic contradict with your basic assumptions. In science, if what your experiments return the results that can't be explained by the basic assumptions you make, science will drop or modify the basic assumptions (since they obviously aren't correct).

This is one of the reasons science has been so successful in solving problems and developing technology and changing our world-- when a part of it is unable to explain a basic assumption of science-- it changes. It can improve.

This has happened in a big way several times-- Darwin is an example where basic assumptions were challenged because the explainations at the time were incompatible with logic and what was observed. Einstiens also changed a basic assumption about the nature of time which, given observations were clearly not true.

The basic assumptions of any religion are set. Followers of a religion are incapable of questioning the basic tenets of the religion-- for example if you stop believing that people raise from the dead you stop being a Christian.

This is why many Christians are unable to see the overwhelming evidence for evolution from the people who are using modern biology (which is based on evolution) and getting real results. They are finding cures for diseases and changing agriculture in spite of the fact that many religious people don't think what they do is real.

ebrown_p

Your description of the differences between science and religion as adaptive versus entrenched systems is traditionally correct. However what we are contending with is a rationality which allows "God's Will" to determine whether a child should die of a disease or not, or perhaps "God's Will" deciding what "tentative knowledge" a scientist shall acquire. This is the rationality of paternalism. It is a projection of the psychological security experienced in childhood, which society transfers as protective umbrella status to "leaders" "nations" and "gods".

Let me add back the second dimension of what I am saying. I am not sure if I understand or am comfortable with your use of the word "rationality".

I do not believe that science represents absolute truth. This is one of the reasons I separate myself from Dawkins.

Science provides a mathematical process to answer a certain class of questions. The tools that science provides allows us to be objective in a way that neither religion nor philosophy can.. because there is a way to test our propositions that provides a definite answer that quite often contradicts our preconceived notions.

However there are many questions that science can't answer. Since science works through mathematical proof based on experiment and observation... science has absolutely nothing to say about things that can't be tested. God is certainly beyond mathematical testing or experimentation.

I think Dawkins does both science and religion a disservice by confusing the two,

Even for scientifically testable questions. I am not willing to say that scientific answers are any sort of absolute truth. There are things that are scientifically true (in that they are the only logical answer based on logic and evidence), but of course God could be intervening, or our limited senses and experience could be affecting our ability to understand, or we could just be dreaming the whole thing up.

Even for scientific questions (questions that can be answered with scientific proof) I am not willing to say that science provides the "best" or "truest" answer. Belief in Gods who bestowed power on certain individuals worked very well in some cultures, and believe that God provides miracle cures certainly helps people in our culture today.

I am only saying that if you are talking about science you should represent it correctly.

My chief impression of the piece that opened this thread is the laughable presumptiveness of the author. He blithely assumes he can speak for all scientists and, indeed, science itself. His screed is laced with unscientific assumptions and misstatements of fact, many obvious to a schoolboy. Is this self-important blowhard really the scientific wonderboy of Great Britain?

I agree that no "absolute" truth (or reality) can be defined, due to the entanglement of observer and observed. But at some point we have to stop quibbling about whether or not falling off a cliff will really kill us (because maybe it's all just a dream), and just avoid falling off the cliff.

Even though we know in theory that no 'absolute' truth can be known, we still have to take a reality based stance on things. Almost all of us assume to a certain degree that we perceive reality. Most people don't randomly exchange the reality of corn flakes for rat poison.

Do we really consider it reasonable for people to say that the earth is flat, or that it is only 4000 years old? No. Those ideas are clearly incorrect, and we can say that even knowing that "absolutes" can not be met.

No, I was simply agreeing with you that you base your view , which you term 'scientific', upon unprovable philosophic assumptions.

You claim to have a 'clearly defined right answer' when you have assumed it (by eliminating all else from consideration) from the start.

Rosborne,

We cannot describe "reality" without recourse to "fixed categories" which constitute functional "stabilities" for our relationships. These relationships include "self with self" in internal conversations about "rat poison and cornflakes". What science does, unlike religion is to highlight the relativistic, idiosyncratic and temporary function of these categories. We can even include in such deconstructive analysis the category "self" itself. This move is a key nail in the coffin of "believers" who require "self" and "God" to be a fixed foundation stone for their particular concept of reality. (BTW The earth is flat for particular purposes like building a house.....function informs "reality")

ebrown_p

You seem to be confusing "science" with the mathematical models on which hypothesis formation and observation rest. A mathematical model has internal coherence separate from its applicability to observation. The history of the evolution of ideas about sub-atomic processes well illustrates this. Further, the rise of "probability" within that field and associated non binary logic reinforces the the idiosyncratic aspect of "categories" in my reply to Rosborne above. "Rationality" boils down to "what works" wth respect to a particular level of analysis,

Hi Fresco,



I really wish I could understand all that.

Real life, obviously any human endevour (i.e. both science or religion) is affected by the limitations of human abilities to understand and to observe. Science is well aware of this and it factors into much scientific thought.

But here is the difference between religion and science.

Science starts with a small set of propositions (which can't be proven) and then goes through a process to reach a conclusion. If the facts don't match the initial propositions, they will be changed.

Religion starts with a conclusion. This starting point can't be changed. If the facts or the logic don't match this initial conclusion, they will be changed.

As I understand it, what fresco writes means that concepts are not fixed values. 'Self' and 'god' are only fixed conceptually, not in 'reality'. They are the x and y of an equation in a way, their values and attributes being assigned to them by the entity solving it. Throughout the process the values of x and y, or 'self' and 'god', change many times.
...if life was a mathematical equation.

If I'm way out here fresco I'd appreciate to be set straight

Rosborne and Cyracuz,

To elaborate....

"Fixed" is a psychological sleight of hand within the ceaseless flux of interaction. In what way is the "tree" outside the same "tree" which "I" perceived yesterday ? Some of its molecules have certainly changed as indeed have those of myself. Identity is functional and relativistic, not absolute. We have the fuzzy set situation....when does "an apple" cease to be "an apple" as successive bites are taken out ?. When does a "benign God" cease to be a "benign God" as we observe successive incidents of innocents suffering ? etc.

Bearing in mind that formal binary logic is based on the concept of static sets with clearly defined boundaries how applicable is such logic in understanding the nature of what we call "reality" ?

Fresco

Good question. The belief in an absolute 'human self' has cast many people into misery. I started reading a book yesterday about personality disorder. One of the first things the author does in the book is to offer up a lot of suggestions of what personality might be, only to proceed with saying that there is no sufficient definition of the term. After that I put down the book.
Next, I thought about writing a letter to the author inviting him to participate on A2K's spirituality and religion thread. He'd fit right it

Hear-here

I liked Dawkin's comments at first glance, and I'm not sure if I agree or don't with the quibbles. I might not. Back later. Not that Dawkins or anyone else should flinch if I express myself. Posting for my own edification, or process, as they call it now.

By starting with your presuppositions, you have foreordained your conclusion.

But you either don't understand that or don't want others to understand it.

True science would not begin with a presupposition that everything has a natural cause.

Why would it?

True science does start with the assumption that everything has a natural cause.



Because without it, magic would be used to explain everything, and the process of scientific inquiry would come to a halt.

having just finished the God Delusion...

well I advocate anybody to read it.

Letter in yesterday's independent

"Religious indoctrination is child abuse. Child abuse at taxpayer's expense is an outrage". (paraphrased)

What is the 'independent'?

a newspaper, sorry

http://www.independent.co.uk/

Nonsense.

Modern science flourished, was actually established by many who believed in a supernatural God who had created the world.

Why is it not simply enough to say:



This would be far preferable to assuming the unprovable, namely: that ALL things MUST have a natural cause.

Does this mean that some things should be 'off limits' , that science should not even attempt to study or analyze?

Of course not.

Many things that were , say 500 years ago, considered to be beyond study have been successfully determined to have natural cause and observable properties.

But to assume that ALL things and events will ALWAYS have a natural cause is simply an assumption. An unproven and unprovable one.

Unprovable (and hence unfalsifiable) assumptions are not good science, are they?