DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Tez3]

A marriage dispute came before a rabbi, he heard the wife patiently. "You are right" he said. The husband intervened and the rabbi listened to him and considered carefully. "You are right too" he said. A bystander shouted out "If she's right how can he be right?" The rabbi pondered "And you're right too" he exclaimed.


Without mystery what is left?

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious... He who never had this experience seems to me , if not dead then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that out mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious." Albert Einstein


In the end it really doesn't matter how the earth was formed or whether we evolved from apes or not, the important thing is that we look at this world and see it's wonder and don't destroy it. It's no good either side being right if there's nothing left to be right about because we've destroyed each other and the planet.
People need to take a step back and think why do I need to be right about this? Perhaps G-d exists for those who believe and doesn't for those who don't.
Albert Einstein also said " Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas"

From AJ Hershel, an American Conservative Rabbi.

"It is tragically true that we are often wrong about G-d, believing in that which is not G-d, in a counterfeit ideal, in a dream, in a cosmic force, in our own father, in own own selves. We must never cease to question our own faith and ask what G-d means to us. Is He an alibi for ignorance? The white flag of surrender to the the unknown? Is He a pretext for confort and unwarrented cheer? A device to cheat despondancy, fear or despair?
From who should we seek support for our faith if even religion can be a fraud, if by self-sacrifice we may hallow murder? From our minds which have so often betrayed us? From our conscience which easily fumbles and fails? From the heart? From our good intentions? "He that trusts in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26) The heart is decietful above al things, it is exceedingly weak - who can know it" (Jeremiah 17:19)



In the end it comes down to one thing, being true to ones self and not to mind what others believe. As the rabbi said, we are all right.

 

[Ken Morgan]

In the end it comes down to one thing, being true to ones self and not to mind what others believe. As the rabbi said, we are all right.

I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs.

Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them.

I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.

I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.

 

[Tez3]

I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs.

Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them.

I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.

I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.

I've been off to sunny Cornwall! Lovely place,calming for the spirit.
http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/The-Lizard/

I think it's the spirit in us that's important, the indefinable thing that makes us human, I think it's important too to question everything, perhaps my religion is bigger on that than most, we also don't believe our religion is for anyone else, they can join if they wish, not many do but to go out activiely looking for converts would be a very odd thing to do. One rabbi said that we must treat athiests as if there is no G-d and instead of telling them to seek help from Him, we must help them ourselves.
I don't agree or disagree with either religion or lack of it, as long as there's a let and let live attitude I don't see how anyones beliefs are really of any concern to anyone else. Of interest yes because one should always be curious (okay nosy lol) but concern no.

The problem with arguments like the one on the video clip is that it's down to the personality of the people involved how the discussion goes, the same subject between two different people could have engendered a far more lively and intellectual discussion. If the woman had had more wits about her she could have made a far better case for her side. I wouldn't have believed her but it would have been more interesting as I enjoy good debates with erudite combatants! A well presented argument even when you disagree with it is a pleasure to listen to and argue against.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway. Humans will always find an excuse to be barbaric. Look at all the so called religious wars and crusades and there will actually be greed, land lust, power lust and politics at the heart of it, all very human things dressed up in the name of religion. Take away religion and nothing will change, we'll just find other excuses.

But by using religion, those responsible for these barbaric acts can do so on a much larger scale and with much less resistance.

Those that may have resisted or even stopped such acts will not act against them because they are led to believe what they do is justified because "God said so."

Faith is belief without reason, regardless of the evidence. Science is the complete opposite.

True, however the burden of proof is not on the non-believer. There are all sorts of things that you do not believe and have no supporting evidence for their non-existence, however that does not mean we should accept that they exist.

Do you believe in Ghosts? Vampires? Werewolves? Alien Abductions? Zeus? Thor? Elves? Leprechauns? Lizard men? Teapots orbiting the sun?

Why not? You can't provide any proof that they don't exist, at least no more so then a person can disprove the existence of God. I also can't prove that they exist, any more so then I can prove the Christian God (one of many that have been believed in) exists.

However if you believed every idea that was presented to you that could not be disproved you would have a very interesting and inconsistent set of beliefs.

Bingo.

That is just the problem. Dawkins is wholly committed to exactly this kind of evangelism you mentioned. He is often impossible to escape. For a while here we could not go anywhere without the "There's Probably No God" propaganda. It was all over the papers [double-page spreads] it was on billboards, it was on buses all over town..

Again, let me just state, I have no problem with anybody's position. What galls me is those having a position, such as that of Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and all the others here who would shove it down my throat, and do exactly all those aforementioned things you posted.

Atheists can be [and often are] as indoctrinated and evangelistic and proselytising as supporters of religion.. ref. this bloody thread right here! WAKE UP AND HEAR YOURSELVES!!!

True, it's distasteful having any ideology forced down your throat regardless of where it's coming from.

I've never disagreed with that TEZ, (BTW, where have you been??? a vacation I hope?) it's only online on these forums when the line gets drawn or if someone asks me specifiacally than I will talk about my beliefs.

Many of the people I love are religious, I will attend church on special days just for them.

I think we all agree that its the ignorant people who try to shove their beliefs down others throats that are the problem.

I disagree with religion, but I will defend your right to it.

Well said.

 

[Tez3]

But by using religion, those responsible for these barbaric acts can do so on a much larger scale and with much less resistance.

Those that may have resisted or even stopped such acts will not act against them because they are led to believe what they do is justified because "God said so."



Bingo.



True, it's distasteful having any ideology forced down your throat regardless of where it's coming from.



Well said.

The magic word there is 'using' religion though isn't it ? People use religion, if they can't, they will use something else.. communism for instance, that as a system isn't inherently evil but used by people it's as evil as any Inquisition. People with the intent to do evil will use whatever and yes they will persuade themselves it is the right thing to do often quite easily. this is why you don't trust your heart, you should question everything but of course most like to take the easy way out and have others thinking for them whatever the religion or political system. No one should believe blindly in anything.

'"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.'' Bertrand Russell.

I agree heartily though that having anything rammed down your throat is extremely annoying and causes me to have outbreaks of extreme sarcasm!

 

[celtic_crippler]

The magic word there is 'using' religion though isn't it ? People use religion, if they can't, they will use something else.. communism for instance, that as a system isn't inherently evil but used by people it's as evil as any Inquisition. People with the intent to do evil will use whatever and yes they will persuade themselves it is the right thing to do often quite easily. this is why you don't trust your heart, you should question everything but of course most like to take the easy way out and have others thinking for them whatever the religion or political system. No one should believe blindly in anything.

'"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.'' Bertrand Russell.

I agree heartily though that having anything rammed down your throat is extremely annoying and causes me to have outbreaks of extreme sarcasm!

Nationalism can be just as bad (Hitler, Stalin, etc...) but even those singular cases are not as far reaching or have they had the extreme impact that religion has by comparison.

I believe Emperor Constantine was probably the first to really recognize the power of using religion to obtain his militaristic goals when nationalism wasn't enough.

Historically, the era of the Christian Reformation alone resulted in more bloodshed than any other time prior to WWII. The only reason WWII compares is because we found a better way to kill the masses quickly... the nuclear bomb. Can you imagine what the Reformation would have been like if they could have traded in their hot pokers and iron maidens for a nuke?

I agree that sheeple are at the root though. It's much easier to have somebody else do your thinking for you. LOL

 

[Chris Parker]

Constantine the first to use religiou to obtain military goals? Maybe the first military/governmental leader to use a form of Christianity, but not the first to use religion.

The full legend of the War of Troy has Agamemnon going to the Delphic Oracle to obtain a good omen for his war, and being denied unless he makes a supreme sacrifice. He then lures his daughter up there, and kills her quite violently in front of all his men, in order to prove the religious backing he had for going to Troy. He did pay for it when he returned, though, with his wife killing him for it (he didn't go home after sacrificing his daughter, surprisingly, just headed off with all his ships...).

Now, this is a legend, but the beliefs behind it (Oracles, Gods blessings etc) did govern many decisions military and governmental, and I think it would be quite naive to think that those beliefs would not be manipulated for personal gain (power, conquest, etc). Remember that the Spartans were highly observant of their religious ceremonies and holidays (the original use of that word, holy days). One of the main reasons there were only 300 of them at Thermopolae was because at the last major battle they had not attended (it fell at the same time as a religious festival, and they did not want to offend the Gods), so Athens had gotten all the glory for, frankly, an incredible victory (the first time the Persians tried to invade, led by Xerxes' son). When the Persians returned, it was again at festival time, and the Oracles warned against any Spartans going. But Sparta was a dual-King society, and one of the Kings (Leonides) could not accept Athens taking more glory again, so he took a small number, specifically chosen (only those with sons to carry on their lines), with the idea that the other King would come with back up soon. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive in time, but were in time to stop the Persian fleet closer to Athens.

The point here is not a history lesson, but that religion has been used as long as religion has been. Both to help, and to hurt.

But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did, in hoc signo vinces.

 

[Omar B]

All these dictators mentioned who were atheists, so what, they saw a good business plan and ran with it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao have pretty much placed themselves at the head requiring full servitude and obedience. The talk about them versus us, they stress brother love among their own while spreading their facisim or whatever "ism" they might be about. They start early making usre the kids are good and indoctrinated, much of those dictators MO follow pretty closely to how a religious organization run, just replacing the god with the leader.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did, in hoc signo vinces.

I agree. However, I trace it back further.

In many ways, we cannot really play comparison games, simply because the 'what if' turns on Saul (Paul) of Tarsus.

Without Paul, there arguably would be no Christianity. Jesus-worshiping Jews would be a distinct minority, if they survived at all (other Jewish offshoots did not). Without Christianity, everything since that time changes in radical ways that cannot be reliably modeled.

Paul is the lynchpin to all Western history since his time, and all history of the world as it relates to and interfaced with Christianity.

Just a side-note...

 

[celtic_crippler]

Constantine the first to use religiou to obtain military goals? Maybe the first military/governmental leader to use a form of Christianity, but not the first to use religion.

The full legend of the War of Troy has Agamemnon going to the Delphic Oracle to obtain a good omen for his war, and being denied unless he makes a supreme sacrifice. He then lures his daughter up there, and kills her quite violently in front of all his men, in order to prove the religious backing he had for going to Troy. He did pay for it when he returned, though, with his wife killing him for it (he didn't go home after sacrificing his daughter, surprisingly, just headed off with all his ships...).

Now, this is a legend, but the beliefs behind it (Oracles, Gods blessings etc) did govern many decisions military and governmental, and I think it would be quite naive to think that those beliefs would not be manipulated for personal gain (power, conquest, etc). Remember that the Spartans were highly observant of their religious ceremonies and holidays (the original use of that word, holy days). One of the main reasons there were only 300 of them at Thermopolae was because at the last major battle they had not attended (it fell at the same time as a religious festival, and they did not want to offend the Gods), so Athens had gotten all the glory for, frankly, an incredible victory (the first time the Persians tried to invade, led by Xerxes' son). When the Persians returned, it was again at festival time, and the Oracles warned against any Spartans going. But Sparta was a dual-King society, and one of the Kings (Leonides) could not accept Athens taking more glory again, so he took a small number, specifically chosen (only those with sons to carry on their lines), with the idea that the other King would come with back up soon. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive in time, but were in time to stop the Persian fleet closer to Athens.

The point here is not a history lesson, but that religion has been used as long as religion has been. Both to help, and to hurt.

But if you mean that Constantine was the first to use Christianity, well, there had been uprisings, so you could argue that the religion was used by early Christians, but not to Constantine's scale. They certainly never used the iconography and relics the way that Constantine did, in hoc signo vinces.

...where nationalism failed...

But thanks for elaborating.

 

[Xinglu]

First war waged in the name of religion... Joshua used religion to invade the "holy land" and wage a genocidal war. Let's see, that is late bronze age... 1400 BCE-ish The trojan wars where 1330 BCE at the earliest with most historians thinking it was closer to 1200 BCE.

 

[celtic_crippler]

...so...should religion be considered a cause of death? LOL

 

[elder999]

There are no shades of truth, nor are there different flavors like religion. Facts stand as immutable, not to be interpreted one way or another by different churches. A=A

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "truth," and "facts". In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

For example, (again!), the 68 degree rule :

I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.

I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

 

[Xinglu]

...so...should religion be considered a cause of death? LOL

LOL niiiice. Well, when religion is used as a tool to carry out death, perhaps so. For a stabbing victim's cause of death may be exsanguination, but the cause of that exsanguination was a knife. A knife was the tool used to carry out the will. So yes, religion can be, has been, and is currently used as a tool and a weapon. Many people died on 9/11, yes, the direct cause was fire, or building collapse, or aircraft impact. But what caused that? Religion.

So while you can accurately claim that religion cannot directly kill, you cannot say with any cogency that it is not used to kill people.

 

[Xinglu]

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "truth," and "facts". In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

For example, (again!), the 68 degree rule :

I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.

I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.

My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

Perhaps a vin diagram might help you illustrate this point :wink:

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

As I've mentioned before, I'm a scientist and an agnostic. I'm agnostic rather than atheist because this position is more congruent with the requirements for evidence in science that we've been discussing. Frankly, I have no interest in religion or metaphysics or what will happen to me after I'm dead.

I have loved ones (my mom and best friend) who are devout Christians. They are cool with my beliefs and I am cool with theirs. When my best friend tells me that she prays for me, it makes me feel warm and loved, not offended. When I see religious people contributing toward society or helping someone out, I think "That is awesome". When I hear of atrocities or inequities being perpetrated in the name of religion, I think "That sucks".

In other words, I try to evaluate each behavior outside the context of religion or secularity. Just because I am agnostic, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that religion is the source of most of human suffering. We can discuss the historical influence of religion til Hell freezes over (isn't that a clever allusion?) but there is no metric for human suffering or human happiness. Since we cannot measure the influence of religion, it boils down to who can shout the loudest or post the most. Seems to me that the best way to combat ignorance and cruelty (no matter what you perceive the source to be) is to perform acts of generosity and tolerance in your own life, as often as possible.

 

[Omar B]

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that there is a difference between "truth," and "facts". In fact, it's a lot like tequila-all tequila is mezcal, but not all mezcal is tequila. All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.
For example, (again!), the 68 degree rule :
I’m in a room at 68 degrees Fahrenheit-that’s a fact.
I say “It’s cold in here,” which, for me, is the truth.
My co worker gets up from his chair sweating, walks right over to the thermostat, turns it down even more and says, “It’s too hot in here,” which, for him, is the truth.
And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

Elder, good shot man! Brought me back to a freshman year English lecture. Great point, yet another reason why we need to choose our words carefully, precision of language, love it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And there we have it: one fact, two truths, all valid.

In your example, the subjective evaluations of 'cold' and 'hot' are void for vagueness. Language is too imprecise to contain the values that make the words 'hot' and 'cold' unique to the individual who utters them.

In addition, we have to consider the language of metaphysics. Something can be true, false, or meaningless.

The statement, "the universe was created by an intelligent being" cannot be true, because it cannot be proven.

It also cannot be false, because it cannot be proven false (as you know, the inability to prove something true does not make it false).

The proposition cannot be falsified, so it does not fall within the purview of science at all (at least, not until such time as it can be falsified).

But it does fall into the domain of (Common Western) metaphysics, which promptly classifies it as meaningless. The map is not the territory.

That does not mean that the universe was not created by an intelligent being. There clearly is an objective reality; since the universe exists, it either was or it was not created by an intelligent being. It is meaningless because we cannot establish an answer at this time.

This also avoids the trap of a priori factual flip-flops. If an intelligent being did create the universe, then that statement was always true, it was never false. If an intelligent being did not create the universe, then the statement was always false. By assigning a value of true or false to a meaningless statement at this time, we would have (at some X time in the future when the fact becomes known) reverse our (supposedly) objective 'true' to be 'false' or 'false' to be 'true'.

I recommend Peter Von Inwagen's book, "Metaphysics," or anything by Robert Anton Wilson (when in doubt, consult your pineal gland).

 

[arnisador]

I believe that Dawkins books are based on scientific research, but i believe him to be more of a controversial author and salesman. Did Einstein Have E=MC2 all over the side of buses?

Were people arguing that physics shouldn't be taught in school, or that alternative theories should be given equal weight even in the absence of evidence for them?

He has also denied the existance of God, a being that is still in the realm of possibility, which is a very unscientific thing to do.

Philosophically, perhaps; practically, no. If I do a study intended to demonstrate the link between smoking and cancer, I don't want the conclusion to be that any of the following are equally likely to be true:

a.) Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of various cancers;
b.) Smoking cigarettes increases the risk of God giving you various cancers;
c.) Smoking cigarettes does not increase the risk of various cancers, but space aliens give smokers cancer as a practical joke on scientists;
d.) Certainty is impossible so I decline to draw a conclusion.

As a practical matter, we need to rule out things for which there is no evidence or we will get nowhere. We can revise our opinions when evidence is presented for things, as science is process and method, not a body of facts. But if you take the attitude that God might exist to be a scientific fact to be factored into scientific discussions, despite the total lack of evidence in that regard, you'll accomplish nothing. If every time I drop a rock I say "It's either gravity or the will of god", how can I do science?

 

[elder999]

The two theories in physics that "disagree" with each other, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, yes that is a problem. In essence, General Relativity works wonderfully for large objects (larger than an atom), and Quantum Mechanics has very different rules and laws to govern the behaviour of small objects (sub-atomic particles). The problem is when you get an incredibly small object with incredible mass, such as a black hole singularity. Which laws do you use? General Relativity because it has a huge mass, or Quantum mechanics because it is very small? Problem...

That is, of course, one of the problems with quantum mechanics, among others.The ever-amusing Dr. N. David Mermin wrote a deligthful paper 24 years ago in which he used quantum mechanics to show that it is demonstrably provable that when no is looking at it, the moon does not exist. :lfao: