Atheism, Agnosticism, Politics and Religion

Tartarin

Thanks for the citation ! I've just corrected "qualm" to "calm" after that late night post.

(BTW On "wakefulness" have you tried Gurdjieff yet? Kuvasz and I think he could be "the man" in that department. If you cut a path through some of his weird cosmology you arrive at some interesting psychological insights.)

Fresco,

Frank and I discussed interstellar teapots a while back in this thread: http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7137&highlight=

If I remember correctly, much of the discussion revolved around terminology and definitions, the differences in which, I frequently feel are at the core of most controversy in discussion. It turned out to be a nice reflection on one of the core points from the original article: That loose definitions lead to a hazy realm where fuzzyness can give the illusion of convergence.

Best Regards,

rosborne

My apologies I failed to read that exchange ! I would in fact disagree with Dawkins general position, not of course from the "logical point of view" as explored by Frank, but from the Wittgensteinian view that neither "science" nor "religion" can ever be "clearly defined". For Wittgenstein "meaning" is "usage" and I would add that "usage" involves fashion or style. If Einstein could spend much of his life fighting the "scientific status" of the probabalistic assumptions of Quantum Theory there is clearly a significant degree of fog shrouding the characteristics of "science" which Dawkins choses to ignore.

I keep stumbling on the human ego's desire assert its predominance in perceiving reality. It's just possible the hawk that just screeched out there in our lower pasture knows more than we do?

Hi Fresco,

I think Dawkins is making his argument from within the bounded framework of science, not unbounded philosophy. If this is correct, does it change your impression of his argument?

Tartarin

Not "more"....."different" !

Exactly, Fresco. What I meant -- sorry!

rosborne

I think I am saying that science is not "bounded", but we have to evaluate Dawkins arguments with respect to some of his central preoccupations such as the rejection of creationism based on his technical prowess in evolutionary theory. So to some extent we have to understand his atheism, and his view of theism as a "virus" against this backcloth. I therfore applaud the Dawkins position in terms of its internal coherence and use of sophisticated biological analogies, but I think he underestimates the importance of issues such as "fuzzy logic" which may not fit well in his worldview.

Fresco,

But science *is* "bounded", right? It's bounded by the philosophy of naturalism, and its methodology is empiricism.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but it seems like you're chosing to question Dawkins choice to view the world from the perspective and boundaries implied by science. Granted this choice might be debatable, but once he's made his choice, shouldn't his arguments be measured from within the framework of that choice?

rosborne

"Science" may claim "empirical methodology" in the traditional "experiential" sense, but strictly speaking that claim breaks down when we allow probability on site, or the analysis of the mechanisms of directed observations. (Particle physicists see what they expect to see). We now have "neoempiricism" which may attempt to deal with some of these problems, but its acceptance is far from universal.

Nor am I not sure whether Dawkins advocates a strictly "empirical stance", since the"life sciences" are notoriously difficult to pusue without some a priori concept "of purposeful behaviour" or "functionality" to guide observation and analysis of structure. Of course I agree that Dawkins arguments seem to have coherence relative to his interpretation of science, but so too do the arguments of "renegades" like Rupert Sheldrake.
The (social) force of the argument seems to lie not so much in its internal coherence, but more in the social acceptance of its subject matter.

Apparently Dawkins is as unwilling as you to actually listen to the agnostic position -- or he would not offer an argument that melts in the fact of the reality of agnosticism.

I cannot speak for all agnostics, but just about every agnostic I know frames his/her agnosticism in some form of:

I do not KNOW if there is a God or if there are no gods -- AND THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO MAKE A REASONABLE, MEANINGFUL GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION.

I think almost any agnostic can come up with enough evidence to support a GUESS that the notion of orbiting teapots (or purple tailed Saturnian tax assessors) is bullshit.

No, I would not be able to PROVE there are no orbiting teapots -- but I can certainly feel comfortable making a guess or estimate as to whether they are more likely there -- or not there.

I CANNOT DO THAT WITH REGARD TO "There is a God" "There are gods" "There are no gods."

Dawkins, notwithstanding any credentials he might have, is making an absurd comment -- and any damage you may think he has done to the agnostic position is strictly wishful thinking on your part.

Agnosticism most assuredly is unassailable.

If you have any arguments of your own, Fresco, please feel free to offer them. I always enjoy debating you.

For me, neither science nor religion have conquered the summit here. There have been enormous "surprises" in science -- and challenges. Neither addresses the individual human experience very successfully. And since "politics" is in the title of this discussion, I think it's as well to look at both religion and science from the vantage point of human experience. We need to understand how to fully respect individual human development and discovery within the social contract when discoveries present daily challenges to that contract.

I find myself increasingly respectful of people whose lives have been led outside of "disciplines" and whose experiences have been less influenced by (say) formal education or religion. I'm also fascinated by how we've dealt with the stumbling blocks science has presented us with -- Galileo, ourselves as collections of atoms.... stuff we often find difficult to comprehend but which has an enormous impact on our development as humans and our social structures.

Not sure I get Fresco's point about "-- the"life sciences" are notoriously difficult to pursue without some a priori concept "of purposeful behaviour" or "functionality" --" Unless you mean (as a botanist for example) the purposeful behavior of a grass developing a seed head as a guide to observation. Not sure about that. Certainly we all use (scientists and even priests) time/sequentiality as a guide even though, in my view, time is as much of a human construct and probable fallacy as God and angels and "natural human superiority"!

Hi Frank,

Judging from the material Dawkins has written, I would suggest that his definition of "god" is not the same as yours, which is why you consider his point invalid. Dawkins usage of "god" is that of the classic christian god (answers prayers, causes floods, etc). Dawkins' definition supports his argument as something which is as improbable as a teacup in orbit around Pluto (though not an absolute certainty, still an imbalanced probability: which is his point).

Fresco,

Like Tartarin, I'm having trouble following the point you're trying make regarding scientific boundaries and "life sciences". It seems like you're trying to illustrate the fuzzyness of the boundaries by resorting to philosophical challenges of the nature of observation and the human condition; namely that we can not know anything for certain. But if this is your point, I would note that science definitely does make certain assumptions, and besides naturalism, it also assumes that we (human minds) are *capable* of knowing (at least some things) beyond a reasonable doubt. This may not be true, but it *is* an assumption of science.

Appologies if I'm missing your point.

Best Regards,

Here's the bottom line: We will never have all the answers to science or religion. If people wish to believe in god(s), believe as a agnostic or atheist, what's the big deal? Each of us have our own perceptions of what life is all about; and neither science or religion has all the answers. I can only presume that as more knowledge about our world/universe is investigated and understood, the god of the bible will have less creditibility as a source as the word of god - for some. Whether one believes in the bible god or other gods, it's up to the individual to make the best of their own perception of life. That's what matters; not what anybody else believes. c.i.

Hey Rosborne

Good to see ya.

I know that so many people who argue the atheistic position hone in on the god of the Bible -- and feel that since they can show that there are many inconsistencies -- and since the proponents of the god of the Bible can produce absolutely nothing in the way of evidence of the god's existence -- they can make the kinds of statements Dawkins made.

I think Fresco is exceptionally intelligent -- and I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why he cannot, or will not, see that Dawkins' argument is a dead end. One certainly does not have to be a genius to poke holes in it.

But I am hoping that Fresco will take some shots at agnosticism on his own. I'd like to see what he has available. He and I have gone over some of this territory before (over in Abuzz) -- and I've never seen anything that does any damage to the agnostic position at all.

By the way, Rosborne, I am sure I do not have to mention this to you, but...

...while I am agnostics on the question of the existence of the god of the Bible (I honestly do not know if that god exists or not) I certainly feel very, very, very, very comfortable GUESSING (or estimating) that the god is a fictional creation of a bunch of relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious ancient Hebrews.

The god, in my opinion, is a joke.

So if that is what Dawkins was aiming at -- I have no problem with that.

But as we both KNOW -- there is a huge difference between saying that the god of the Bible does not exist (or probably does not exist) and saying that there are no gods.

Tartarin

Your final sentences are close to my position.

I usually advocate a position of "reality being a social construct" and in this vein "truth" is a matter of consensus or pursuasion. "Politics" is therefore central to ideas of "truth".
Social construction involves shared motivations or purposes from which consensus arises. For me then, the essential difference between what we call "science" and what we call "religion" are degrees of consensus, rather than degrees of "empirical evidence", since I am rejecting an "objective reality" upon which we rest a concept of "empirical evidence". This scenario also implies that "knowledge" is degree of confidence we have in the outcomes of our interactions, rather than being based on "objective facts".
i.e. as cognitive creatures with a concept of "time" our instinct is to predict (or retrodict) and thereby to seek to control "our destinies".


Into this backcloth we can weave many associated topics concerning homo sapiens: the teleological explanations of the life sciences, the transmission of social constructs via linguistic categories, the relatively high consensus levels amongst scientists with their culture free usage of mathematics etc, the insurance value of religious concepts when personal control breaks down.

So those who seek to confine this debate to matters of "logic" - a subsystem of general semantics - are in my opinion missing the central issues about the nature of human cognition.

And may I apologize to members of this distinguished audience who have heard all this from me before !

Tartarin

Your final sentences are close to my position.

I usually advocate a position of "reality being a social construct" and in this vein "truth" is a matter of consensus or pursuasion. "Politics" is therefore central to ideas of "truth".
Social construction involves shared motivations or purposes from which consensus arises. For me then, the essential difference between what we call "science" and what we call "religion" are degrees of consensus, rather than degrees of "empirical evidence", since I am rejecting an "objective reality" upon which we rest a concept of "empirical evidence". This scenario also implies that "knowledge" is degree of confidence we have in the outcomes of our interactions, rather than being based on "objective facts".
i.e. as cognitive creatures with a concept of "time" our instinct is to predict (or retrodict) and thereby to seek to control "our destinies".


Into this backcloth we can weave many associated topics concerning homo sapiens: the teleological explanations of the life sciences, the transmission of social constructs via linguistic categories, the relatively high consensus levels amongst scientists with their culture free usage of mathematics etc, the insurance value of religious concepts when personal control breaks down.

So those who seek to confine this debate to matters of "logic" - a subsystem of general semantics - are in my opinion missing the central issues about the nature of human cognition.

And may I apologize to members of this distinguished audience who have heard all this from me before !

Hiccups in the technology !! I was locked out

My latest post(s) now seem to have unswered questions preceding them. So let me first write this:


Frank

We cannot debate if we don't agree to the rules of engagement. !

For me the "logical status" of atheism agnosticism or theism is a side show and I have explained why .

Dawkins represents a" tour de force" in militant atheism and his logical analysis of the opposition ifs fuelled by his passion to fight "the virus" of religion. So for him (and maybe me sometimes) "he who does nothing" is complicit in perpetuating the epidemic. He fights to win, and he might fight dirty ! I merely dispute his choice of weapons.

And now to others especially rosborne.

Scientists may indeed operate in the main as though there were an objective reality, but many would freely admit that this is more by convention than conviction. The "success" of quantum theory has done much to lay the ghost of naive realism and that success has done much to shift "knowledge" from a factual to a predictive status. Many are also acutely aware of the commercial and political pressures which direct or curtail "scientific enquiry" . So yes, we seem capable of predicting "what matters" but that may simply be a description of the nature of human cognition rather than a statement about the "laws of nature".

truth
Fresco, I agree with most (virtually all) of your orientation, particularly your central notion that "truth" has a political dimension. But here I refer to truth as (ontological and axiological) statements, propositions and beliefs ABOUT reality. Not Reality itself which necessarily (metaphysically) transcends opinions. Most statements (particuarly ideological and moralistic opinions) we make about the nature of reality become rules and propositions sullied by considerations of power and competition (Nietzsche and Foucault). Also, for me the matter of "consensus" is always problematical. Many may agree publically while disagreeing privately. People can vote and worship as their community votes and worships, but only for fear of the consequences of deviation. Moreoever, people may share premises and conclusions but for different motives and reasons. I too reject the notion of "objective reality" but only as something which people claim to reflect immaculately in their propositions about it. We must engage the world (i.e., objective reality) interpretively (a subjective reality, which is also an objective fact in the world) and do so on the basis of our interests and learned categories. This is how I interpret your interactionist model of human cognition. There is no disinterested engagement with reality; it is always motivated, always interested. This makes you a Pragmatist and an Existentialist--if I may presume to define you. That's how I define myself.