DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Jenna]

I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.

I have no issue with anyone's position on the matter. What bothers me is when dogma attempts to force itself. This [as many athiests seem wholly unaware] is what Dawkins is contemptibly guilty of [in common, granted, with a huge swathe of theists as dictated by their own religion's very mission statement].

Only the professing agnostic can claim any impartiality.

Should Dawkins et al accept their own position as being rigidly dogmatic; verging upon indoctrinated, then I should have no issue whatsoever.

 

[elder999]

I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.

I'm not so sure that all "theists" have ABSOLUTE positions.

I know I don't....lots of the time I refer to the Creator as "the Mystery." THough, more often as "Creator."

Sometimes, though, when I'm feeling whimsical, I call Him/Her/It, "Foot." :lfao:

In a more serious vein, I think Dawkins does accept his position as dogmatic: it's the product of rational thought, which is the only kind worth having, and ,if you think rationally, it's the only acceptable position, and if you don't take that position then there's something wrong with your thinking processes.

Doesn't get much more dogmatic than that....:lfao:

 

[Jenna]

I'm not so sure that all "theists" have ABSOLUTE positions.

I know I don't....lots of the time I refer to the Creator as "the Mystery." THough, more often as "Creator."

Sometimes, though, when I'm feeling whimsical, I call Him/Her/It, "Foot." :lfao:

In a more serious vein, I think Dawkins does accept his position as dogmatic: it's the product of rational thought, which is the only kind worth having, and ,if you think rationally, it's the only acceptable position, and if you don't take that position then there's something wrong with your thinking processes.

Doesn't get much more dogmatic than that....:lfao:

Hmm.. the theists have the belief in the existence of a God or gods. The athiests believe there is no God or gods, yes? I think there is no "probably" involved in either doctrine. Therefore the positions are absolute, no? Where there is a "probably" or any element of uncertainty then we are not talking bout either theists or athiests, rather the agnostic I think? Though I would not argue with you for the sake of it this is just my opinion I am no lexicographer or whatever

Richard Dawkins, in my time of observing has not I think confessed his dogmatism explicitly. I will say this, he is a very erudite marketeer, fuelling his campaigns off the fundamentalism that is inherent in many religions here and elsewhere. Unfortunately I do not believe he is a good persuader [which appears to be his evangelical mission]. To say to a person of faith, "Your faith is a nonsense" and expect an embracing of his ideas demonstrates a lack of even basic psychological and interpersonal understanding that the dogma would seem to have engendered in him.

He argues his theories clearly, of course, yet to preach to the converted is alas no supreme achievement.

 

[Ramirez]

I'm aware it was a joke and maybe he did 'go easy on her', but he still came off as an ******* in tone. He was patronizing in the extreme.

Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?

Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.

 

[Ramirez]

I think Dawkins saw an opportunity to make someone look foolish whom he felt deserved to be ridiculed and he took it. It wasn't about proving his point, it was about creating a laughingstock for his sycophants.

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid ******* American, I clearly don't get it. Right?

No Bill you are being a stupid ******* period for trying to put words in my mouth, right?

 

[elder999]

Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?

Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.

Easy there, Mark. Dawkins is hardly an ethologist on the level of Konrad Lorenz or Jane Goodall. His earlier books were pretty good at popularizing some ideas-that is, in fact, what his chair was largely about: "Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science"-but he's hardly done any noteworthy or groundbreaking research,it's more like he's really good at generalizing and unifying ideas for public consumption, which is, in itself, a very good thing. Since the Selfish Gene in the 70's, and the Extended Phenotype in the 80's, he hasn't really done much of anything but expound upon more evidence for evolution in a popularizing way, and write, and write, and write against creationism, "pseudoscience," alternative medicine, and religion.

Gotta agree with you about the lady, though......

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Not the first time I've heard a christian try to call a belief in evolution "faith." It's quite the misnomer and ignores the fact that everything born on earth is a creature in transition, we see diseases evolve over short term. You pointed out mutation, yet don't seem to get that evolution is a mutation.

Evolution's been observed on micro and macro scale. It's not a matter of faith, but of observable evidence.

You're not reading what I am saying. I did not call evolution a faith. I said that people who believe in it without understanding it are placing FAITH in it. That is indistinguishable from religion.

Evolution is real.

And for all anyone knows, God could be real.

Belief in evolution or God is faith unless one has proof.

There is proof of evolution, but many of the people who profess belief in it do not understand, nor can they articulate, that proof.

Faith has never been about right or wrong - faith is about belief without proof.

Faith in evolution without proof is religion. Q.E.D.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...sigh...that IS evolution.

Mutations that result as a result of the current envirnonment is evolution. This is simple BIO 101

Okay... that's pretty much what I said. Faith does not necessarily require proof, but science does.

Actually it is science if proof exists that moss grows on the north side of trees...easily provable or disprovable...just check a tree or two. LOL

But you have a point in that when people believe in something without a valid reason it is mostly faith. Faith in what they are told by a trusted individual or other trusted source.

Yes it is. BIO 101.

For example: Darwin made note of the different species of finch in the Galapogos islands and that thier beaks had evolved to adapt to the different food sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

Yup. Natural Selection is a key component in regards to evolution.

Sigh...Isolation is a key variable to the evolution of a species. Refer to above in regards to the Galapagos Finches.

You can't prove creationism and that's the point. However, you also can't really win an argument with someone that devoutly believes in their religion.

Whether it's true or not is beside the point? Not in my world, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone to live in my world. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny I'm not going to try and stop you.

No proof? No facts? Whatever...

There's plenty of proof and facts in any basic Biology text.

Being cynic at heart I tend to believe in things that are supported by fact. I'm not about to try and conduct a basic BIO 101 class here nor am I attempting to poke holes in anyone's religous beliefs.

If you want to believe in things that have no basis in reality and can not be supported by fact I will not stand in your way. It's a free country and you can believe in the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Gremlins, or whatever... As long as you're not trying to replace fact with fiction in our schools' textbooks I don't have a problem with it.

Again, you are not reading what I am saying. I am not saying evolution does not exist or is not real. It does exist, it is real.

I am saying that belief in evolution without understanding it is faith.

You, sir, do not understand evolution. Everything in your statements above is wrong, incorrect, a flawed understanding of the process.

Evolution remains real, but you do not understand it. Yet you believe in it. That, sir, is faith.

Religion may or may not be based in reality - there is no proof either way. It is therefore necessarily based on faith.

The difference between science and religion is that religion is always based on faith. Science is based on faith only by people who do not understand it.

I believe in God - that is faith. I believe in evolution - in my case, it is not faith, because I understand what it is and how it works (based on the latest evidence and scientific proof). What you have is faith in evolution.

Faith is not about fact or fiction, faith is about belief without understanding.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.

Yes and no. Faith is indeed believing something to be true without evidence, but faith is, above all, personal. Mankind does not have a faith in God, individual people do. Mankind does not have faith in Santa Claus, little children do. Is God real? Is Santa Claus real? Faith does not answer this question, and faith remains faith even if God is real (or Santa). It is about how the individual who has it feels, not about what is real.

Evolution is real, provable, it exists.

Nevertheless, there are many people who have faith that it is real. Yes, there are objective proofs that it exists, as you say. But that has nothing to do with individual beliefs. One who believes - in God, Santa, evolution, or bologna sandwiches, without personal understanding of the truth, is necessarily engaging in faith - that is what faith is. That is not the same as saying that belief in evolution is faith - it is saying that some who engage in belief in evolution are practicing faith - it's down to the individual. All faith is individual.

And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.

As to string theory, I have more understanding of string cheese. Which is to say that if I believe in it, my belief is necessarily faith-based, because I do not have personal understanding of it.

 

[Sukerkin]

:lol: At last! Something that Jenna and I completely and irreconcilably disagree on .

I'm not going to lay out my stall on this issue as it is completely pointless trying to contest an idea founded on faith.

My fathers being battering me with religion for more than thirty years (ever since I learned to think independantly of what my parents told me was the truth). I haven't changed my mind and he's not changed his. Pretty much end of story.

 

[Tez3]

Interesting discussion. Does anyone else though appreciate what a luxury we have though in being able to take time to discuss evolution, religion etc? And for that reason the discussion shouldn't get acrimonious?
By luxury I mean, I have been watching the footage from Sumatra etc on the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquakes in the region, to them struggling for survival along with many others in the world Richard Dawkins and the woman he was having the discussion with must seem frivolous to say the least.
What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away? I'm not saying it's not an important discussion but we have to put it in perspective when we consider the realities of the world. Which is more important really, the theory of evolution or being able to pay the mortgage and keeping a roof over your families heads and food on the table? for that reason this discussion should be looked at as a privilege and pleasure for those of us here, not an all out fight over who's right.
Oh and if you have some spare change, pop it over to the Red Cross or Oxfam etc for the survivors regardless of how you think they were created or evolved.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes and no. Faith is indeed believing something to be true without evidence, but faith is, above all, personal. Mankind does not have a faith in God, individual people do. Mankind does not have faith in Santa Claus, little children do. Is God real? Is Santa Claus real? Faith does not answer this question, and faith remains faith even if God is real (or Santa). It is about how the individual who has it feels, not about what is real.

Evolution is real, provable, it exists.

Nevertheless, there are many people who have faith that it is real. Yes, there are objective proofs that it exists, as you say. But that has nothing to do with individual beliefs. One who believes - in God, Santa, evolution, or bologna sandwiches, without personal understanding of the truth, is necessarily engaging in faith - that is what faith is. That is not the same as saying that belief in evolution is faith - it is saying that some who engage in belief in evolution are practicing faith - it's down to the individual. All faith is individual.

And in this, faith in evolution is fundamentally like faith in religion.

As to string theory, I have more understanding of string cheese. Which is to say that if I believe in it, my belief is necessarily faith-based, because I do not have personal understanding of it.

You know, I'd actually alter that a bit. I would define faith as a belief that does not require proof. In this way, faith (in a Divine) is believing in their presence/existance, belief in Santa is not so much faith in this regard, as the existance of Santa can be proved or disproved (any little ones reading this? Santa is real, kids, and he knows what you did... you know what I mean...) quite easily with a trip to the North Pole, or traps set on Christmas Eve...

Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science. At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.

And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.

As to string theory, I have a belief that it is, if not actually a very good model for a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, it at least points in a very good direction for one... but that is based on my reading, studying, and understanding of it...

Oh, and Tez's post came up while I was typing this, so I'm just going to echo her sentiments here. Fortunate doesn't begin to cover it, I'm sure everybody has places around to donate (I know one of the groups I belong to here sent me an email invite to a charity event next week).

 

[Jenna]

:lol: At last! Something that Jenna and I completely and irreconcilably disagree on .

I'm not going to lay out my stall on this issue as it is completely pointless trying to contest an idea founded on faith.

My fathers being battering me with religion for more than thirty years (ever since I learned to think independantly of what my parents told me was the truth). I haven't changed my mind and he's not changed his. Pretty much end of story.

I think dear Mark, whilst your father and our cherished Mr. Dawkins may have been at diametric opposites in their perspectives, they may not have been so very unalike in their hefty methods of exhortation. Beating a rational person over the head with an idea serves nothing cept only to strengthen the arm of the beater and strengthen the resolve of the beaten, to which my friend I am guessing, you can bitterly attest.

To me, a dogmatist with a little power and influence can readily become the despot. Ridiculous? We see this too often on the "religious" side of the argument [bringing in their wake the most horrendous consequences], yet we fail to acknowledge those same veiled despotic yearnings of our "science is god" athiest voices.

Ah but of course, we do not need to be at odds my friend, nope, you just accept that my position is undeniably right, then we will have wonderful harmony haha.. I am just joking I would have none of it.. there is no opinion that is not valid beyond he who tries to convince humanity of his own absolute righteousness Jenna x

 

[Sukerkin]

As ever, you bring a smile to my face with your genuine warmth and bright humour, Jenna - you also make a very good point too .

I think that there is a fundamental difference between certitude based upon faith and that based upon experimentation but staying clear of dogmatic certainty is important in either case.

I think that, in part, the exasperation that sometimes filters through from the rational side of any debate that has religion in the balance is born from the different foundations both edifices were built upon. It is the nature of science to reduce the probable explanations for things by proving as many of them 'wrong' as possible'. Religion doesn't work that way and, from my personal experience, neither do it's followers.

So you end up with a clash that feels like the hammer of science battering at the armour plate of religion. I personally think that the clash is regretably necessary if the human race is ever to call itself truly enlightened, otherwise superstition will endure until we destroy ourselves. I would prefer it if were possible not to have such an acrimonious debate that divides societies but without challenge and question then nothing changes - and the status quo is not an acceptable state given the wars and persecution that are born out of competing doctrines.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, I don't know how you do it, Sukerin, I just can't argue with that girl... she always ruins it by being right.

But a little more seriously, I am with Jenna here, no true scientist should consider themselves an atheist (absolute), as to do so is to close your mind to possibilities. Me personally, I'm definately agnostic. I have no empirical evidence one way or the other, and have not the virtue of faith when it comes to religious matters, so I cannot say definitively that there is or is not a Divine Creator or Deity in some form... I feel that what there is is a wide variety of names for explaining the universe around us, Dawkins uses science as his word, others use God, others use both for different aspects, and all are correct. We can leave it at that, right?

 

[Flea]

By luxury I mean, I have been watching the footage from Sumatra etc on the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquakes in the region, to them struggling for survival along with many others in the world Richard Dawkins and the woman he was having the discussion with must seem frivolous to say the least.
What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away? [ ... ] Oh and if you have some spare change, pop it over to the Red Cross or Oxfam etc for the survivors regardless of how you think they were created or evolved.

Thank you Tez!!

I think this also verges on Wendy Wright's point (or at least, it has the potential to) that regardless of our origins our very existence is utterly improbable and therefore miraculous in itself. As such we need to appreciate one another and help one another as we can.

As an aside, some "evolutionist" (it might even have been Dawkins?) wrote extensively on the concepts of altruism and selfishness. Some species show behaviors that are highly altruistic, with certain behaviors detrimental to the individual but good for the species. Defending one's young is a great example. Homo sapiens sapiens shows tremendous potential for both behaviors, exponentially multiplied by the complexity of our various cultures and technologies.

As such, I'll echo Tez's point about dropping a few monetary units of your choice with the Red Cross in the next few days. It's constructive, and a very cheap form of altruism at that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science.

Correct. Evolution is proven and real. It exists.

At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.

I am saying that *some* people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, and that is indistinguishable from the faith people who believe in religion have.

Faith is utterly removed from the truth or untruth of the belief espoused. God may be real, or not. Evolution is indisputably real. But faith in either is not based on a scientific proof of either, it is based on personal choice.

So I continue to maintain that while evolution is real, belief in it without personal understanding is in fact faith.

One has only to watch some of the vociferous debates pro-and-con about evolution versus religion to see that both sides have zealots who are emotionally invested in their belief system to the exclusion of fact, logic, or principle. These are in fact religious wars, and those who point out that the people on the 'evolution' side look and behave exactly like those on the 'religion' side are correct. It's all faith at that level, regardless of the reality of God or evolution.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

belief in Santa is not so much faith in this regard, as the existance of Santa can be proved or disproved ...

Actually, that's not exactly right. The existence of Santa is unfalsifiable, which should come as a relief to boys and girls everywhere. Santa's existence can be proven, but cannot be unproven. It would be proven if Santa were to appear and demonstrate his ability to fly around the world and distribute toys to good girls and boys. There is nothing which can disprove his existence.

The only reason I mention this is because people who claim science as their basis for rational thought often confuse what appears to be true with what is provable.

This is important - science lays claim only to what is falsifiable (can be proven false) according to Karl Popper. If something cannot be falsified, it is not science. Religion cannot be falsified - it is not science.

A person who does not possess the ability or knowledge to falsify evolution (or string theory or what-have-you) is operating without science (proof) - they are exercising personal belief. Personal belief without proof is faith. Q.E.D.

Actually, that's not quite right.
And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.

Again, you confuse faith with what is or is not real. Faith is personal belief. It requires neither objective truth nor falsehood, only that the person who espouses makes a personal choice which to believe.

As to string theory, I have a belief that it is, if not actually a very good model for a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, it at least points in a very good direction for one... but that is based on my reading, studying, and understanding of it...

That's faith. It may be based on evidence, it may be true (and it may be false), but if you believe in it and cannot personally prove it, that's faith. Science does not believe in String Theory, science only points at evidence and makes suggestions and suppositions about it. If the evidence changes, science will change. Science possesses no faith, but people do.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.

I have no issue with anyone's position on the matter. What bothers me is when dogma attempts to force itself. This [as many athiests seem wholly unaware] is what Dawkins is contemptibly guilty of [in common, granted, with a huge swathe of theists as dictated by their own religion's very mission statement].

Only the professing agnostic can claim any impartiality.

Should Dawkins et al accept their own position as being rigidly dogmatic; verging upon indoctrinated, then I should have no issue whatsoever.

There's no hope for rational discussion with people that deal in absolutes. They're absolutely sure they are always right! LOL

Dawkins, a premier scientist in his field explains to this woman countless times the evidence for evolution, every time she dismisses him with a condescending laugh, then she has the hubris to actually try and explain to him how science works...and he is the one being patronizing and an a-hole?

Maybe you and her should go on a date, you seem both seem to exist in the same alternate reality.

I can relate to Dawkins in this manner. With some people it doesn't matter how much proof you throw at them there is no convincing them that there is even a chance they could be wrong.

I guess some people that have "faith" require no evidence and/or ignore any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. LOL

Again, you are not reading what I am saying. I am not saying evolution does not exist or is not real. It does exist, it is real.

You don't have to convince me of that. I know it's real, but some people won't accept it no matter how much proof is presented. Instead, they adhere to a belief that is not founded on fact; just faith.

I am saying that belief in evolution without understanding it is faith.

Faith that science is correct perhaps. I don't have to understand the science behind the combustion engine to know the basics of how it works and I can definately see the proof of it every day on my drive to work. LOL

You, sir, do not understand evolution. Everything in your statements above is wrong, incorrect, a flawed understanding of the process.

You're right. My college Biology Professor was an idiot for passing me and I in no way deserved the "B" I recieved for that course.

I have faith that you know more about it than I do as evidenced by your well thought out and absolutely correct posts within this thread. :lol:

I'll refrain from posting any more links to substantiate my position as I know from previous experience with you that you will not bother to follow them and/or read the information provided by them. :idunno:

Evolution remains real, but you do not understand it. Yet you believe in it. That, sir, is faith.

Faith [noun]: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.

I believe I have logical proof that evolution is real and have actually cited examples; therefore your assertion is wrong... not that you'd ever admit that even with the actual definition staring you in the face. LOL :toilclaw:

Religion may or may not be based in reality - there is no proof either way. It is therefore necessarily based on faith.

What?

The difference between science and religion is that religion is always based on faith. Science is based on faith only by people who do not understand it.

There's a lot more to differentiate the two than that. For example: Religion's role in explaining man's world (like why a drought occured) has largely been replaced by Science.

Understanding is not a requirment for belief and therfore equating it with faith is an incorrect assumption. As in the example above, I don't have to understand the intricacies of how the combustion engine works to know that it does. There is plenty of logical proof that is readily available to back it up.

I believe in God - that is faith. I believe in evolution - in my case, it is not faith, because I understand what it is and how it works (based on the latest evidence and scientific proof). What you have is faith in evolution.

Obviously...:shrug:

Faith is not about fact or fiction, faith is about belief without understanding.

You almost have it right. It's fiction you accept as fact without logical proof. Understanding has nothing to do with faith.

Correct. Evolution is proven and real. It exists.

Now that we've established that...

Faith is real as well. So?

I am saying that *some* people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, and that is indistinguishable from the faith people who believe in religion have.

How so? It doesn't matter. One has logical, irrefutable proof and the other does not. That's the real difference.

Faith is utterly removed from the truth or untruth of the belief espoused. God may be real, or not. Evolution is indisputably real. But faith in either is not based on a scientific proof of either, it is based on personal choice.

...um...how can faith be removed from the belief; regardless of factual evidence. Is not faith by it's defintion a belief without proof? :erg:

So I continue to maintain that while evolution is real, belief in it without personal understanding is in fact faith.

And you would continue to be wrong.

Evolution exists regardless of whether you understand it or not. Those that do not understand it may be putting their "faith" in the science that proves it exists, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

You can put your "faith" in your priest, reverend, monk...whatever... and what they tell you as "truth", but that doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support what they tell you is true.

So, the difference is one is supported by evidence and the other is not. Understanding is irrelevant.

One has only to watch some of the vociferous debates pro-and-con about evolution versus religion to see that both sides have zealots who are emotionally invested in their belief system to the exclusion of fact, logic, or principle. These are in fact religious wars, and those who point out that the people on the 'evolution' side look and behave exactly like those on the 'religion' side are correct. It's all faith at that level, regardless of the reality of God or evolution.

I think you're confusing belief with faith.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, the difference is one is supported by evidence and the other is not. Understanding is irrelevant.

We're going to have to continue to disagree, then. Faith has nothing to do with the truth, it has to do with personal belief. One can have faith in something that is true and one can have faith in something that is false. Faith is not coupled with the verity of the belief itself.

You say you believe in evolution. I do, too. But you have demonstrated that your understanding of evolution is flawed. Thus, you believe in something you call 'evolution' that is not correct. Although evolution is true, your evolution is not. Yet you believe in it - and obstinately too, I might add. In the face of facts, as you have charged religionists with doing.

How is this different from faith? I maintain that it is not different from faith. In fact, it is faith and nothing more.

I am not trying to hold your beliefs up to ridicule. I am using your statements as an example - many people are just like you. They claim a set of beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not be true. The fact that they claim them without being able to personally understand them doesn't change whether they are true or false, since facts are independent of belief, but they do change whether the belief the person holds is faith-based or not.