Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.

The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.

a priest whose a scientist, fancy that

Ryan also otm about the problem of setting religion/science up as oppositional, competing paradigms, which really isn't necessary (as numerous theologians and scientists have pointed out over the centuries)

when and only when religion stops making demonstrably false claims about the natural world, and false and harmful claims about how people should live their lives, will i accept this kind of accomodationism.

if you can show me a form of science that doesn't require an interested/compromised observer, history mayne, i'll believe you.

― ryan, Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:40 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

yes, here is a form of science with a transcendental observer... i suppose you're talking about forms of proof. one way science is not a self-referential system in the way you guys are insinuating is, it does allow new ones [via paradigm shifts]. i guess only a compromised observer values that, though, so it's all really on the same level as religion.

SMC, how would you like to quantify American attitudes towards atheists, if polls are just lolsome to you?

oh of course most Americans find atheism an anathema, it's the "MOST HATED MINORITY" language that is lolsome. last time I looked there were no atheist slaves or atheist hangings or hate crimes against atheists or mass arrests of atheists or atheist profiling by law enforcement. gtfo with your "I read a poll once" malarkey

id like to make some equation between the hermeneutic circle and the uncertainty principle but that's probably reductive. but i think the larger point is that both of these social systems have found remarkably sophisticated ways to incorporate the "observer" into their means for generating knowledge. and i think that's the key over all.

while im attacking Dawkins, i dont want to give the impression im even on the side of the religious, im not. i just see the means that Dawkins and others are using as causing more harm that good in the long run, not the mention repeating, yet AGAIN, a form of metaphysics that we should be long past done with.

maybe he is part salmon!!

sorry wrong thread

well i agree with you that paradigm shifts happen, history mayne, and yes that's a kind of quasi-transcendental. but doesnt that happen in religious belief too? people dont believe what they did 1000 years ago.

Well I guess that's a better point than an anonymous poll but really most Americans aren't atheists! Like it's not too far from being a representative proportion of the population at 0, I am guessing.

― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:50 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark

nope. 2% of Americans are atheist and 4% are agnostic according to a 2005 poll. By comparison, 1.7% of Americans are Jewish, and they've had a VP nominee and many many congressmen.

when and only when religion stops making demonstrably false claims about the natural world

not all religions do this

and false and harmful claims about how people should live their lives

not all religions do this either

will i accept this kind of accomodationism.

have fun with yr jihad

id like to make some equation between the hermeneutic circle and the uncertainty principle but that's probably reductive bullshit

Abbott you the best :)

maybe he is part salmon!!

― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:52 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sorry wrong thread

you sure?

not all religions do this either

yes i was using 'religion' as a shorthand for 'many many religious people including the leaders of the world's largest religions'. you cannot claim that religion and science need not compete when they do, every single day.

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

i think this is a misunderstanding of how science works based on a wonky version of it popular among humanities students and faculty, but it's late

― if white indie hipsters could fly this place would be top gun (history mayne), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i disagree. science is a self-validating system and a good one (coupled with logic and mathematics, other abstract mechanisms that seek to model reality or "truth"). this is in no way to fault science. i point this out simply to make clear the vast gap between scientific and religious approaches to knowledge and truth. science's relationship with the material world it observes means that it's not only self-validating, but crucially, self-correcting, self-modifying. i'm really not criticizing science in any way.

much of the contemporary criticism of religion, however, is grounded in a wholly and rigidly materialist/scientific conception of reality, and basically boils down to the complaint that religious myth is not scientifically supportable. this is almost certainly true in many cases, but misses the fundamental differences between scientific and spiritual understandings (gnosis, etc).

the essence of most religious faith is not so strongly dependent on a verifiable claim to material truth. it therefore exists, at least in part, outside the world with which science concerns itself. this is the only context in which i would mention the hermetic nature of science's purview.

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

― ryan, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:58 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah, the new atheism seems way too enamored of meme-war

the point is that they dont HAVE to, despite what the "new atheism" thinks.

yes but they DO. i have no beef against a personal religion that would not seek to oppress others or dictate how they should live, and yes I'm sure that is a kind of religion that many people already hold today. But it's not the one that gets all the headlines.

Is it ok to not care that atheists aren't representing me in Congress? Like I would seriously rather every other societal imbalance be corrected before this one because it seriously is not having any effect on my life. Maybe I am a cynic but I don't think an agnostic Congressperson would act all that different than say my representative Gabby Giffords & her mixed faith background.

Also I always thought one of the awesomest things about atheism is: you don't have to give a fuck! It is awesome! You guys should try it, it's fun. Remember the "a-" prefix! Try to be more "without" fucks, if you want.

"people dont believe what they did 1000 years ago."

Perhaps not, but many, many millions of them stand up in churches every week and CLAIM that they do. Nicene Creed dates back to 325 AD.

NB: Autocorrect tried to make that into Niceness Creed which is megalolz.

oh of course most Americans find atheism an anathema, it's the "MOST HATED MINORITY" language that is lolsome. last time I looked there were no atheist slaves or atheist hangings or hate crimes against atheists or mass arrests of atheists or atheist profiling by law enforcement. gtfo with your "I read a poll once" malarkey

― metally ill (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:52 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

Atheists have the advantage of easily keeping their status a secret. Other minorities can't do this so easily, and thus are more often victims of hate crimes. It doesn't mean they are more or less despised.

ledge, i sympathize, i really do. but it's a matter of tactics too.

what's really at stake here seems to be: is there an all-encompassing framework for describing the universe as it is in itself?

i dont really see how this can be the case. nor do i see the value in arguing that there is.

Also Shakey if you could decide whether it's OK to make claims about "religion" generally and then TRUTHBOMB them, or whether each such statement should be met with "not all religions do this" it would probably help people take you more seriously. Instead of doing both within like 10 posts, that is.

i just dont see how, with an intellectual tradition that includes everyone from Nicholas of Cusa to Heisenberg to Derrida to Wheeler, or whoever, how we can still be arguing about first principles.

Is it ok to not care that atheists aren't representing me in Congress? Like I would seriously rather every other societal imbalance be corrected before this one because it seriously is not having any effect on my life.
― free inappropriate education (Abbbottt), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:02 AM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark

It's a symptom, not a cause.

Atheists have the advantage of easily keeping their status a secret.

I don't understand

I don't understand what you are saying, Matt.

i just dont see how, with an intellectual tradition that includes everyone from Nicholas of Cusa to Heisenberg to Derrida to Wheeler, or whoever, how we can still be arguing about first principles.

not sure what you mean but pretty sure those four would argue about first principles. whoever wheeler is, even.

It's a symptom, not a cause. <--- this is what I am not understanding fwiw

Atheists don't have to go to synagogue or other religious services, for example. They don't have racial characteristics that make them easy to target, like Black people do.

Basically, of all the despised minorities, Atheists have the easiest time keeping it a secret.

he's a physicist famous for the "participatory universe" idea.

but i think what those four have in common is that our engagement with the universe is what produces our experiences, and that the universe doesnt just exist off to the side waiting for us to observe it.

abb I'm saying that it's not really a PROBLEM that atheists aren't in congress, but it's a symptom of the general bias against them-- which I do consider a problem.

I think it is just "nagl" to act like a despised minority when no one treats me like one.

Or if they do it is because they're like "wow I can't believe women can ride motorcycles" or something dumb.

religion isn't necessarily opposed to science, but is often extremely hostile to scientific debunking of religious myth. [i said this]

^^^truthbomb [shakey said this]

Oh, baloney. It's nigh unto meaningless to say that "religion" in the aggregate is or isn't anything, so making a statement like this and calling it a truth bomb is like high fiving yourself for making a one-foot putt.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:47 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

i will defend myself here. i think it's perfectly reasonable to speak of religious hostility to scientific debunking. i threw in "often" as a caveat, but the struggle between myth (often religious) and science has raged for quite some time, and as an american, i'm in the thick of it. christianity does seem to be especially hostile to such debunking, and again as an american, my perception of this struggle is doubtless colored by the local culture. but christianity is hardly unique among religions in it's defensive hostility...

even if you do think it's incredibly important for atheism to get more support and respect from the same ppl who vote in polls that they 'strongly disapprove' of pornography, marijuana, etc., etc., it's difficult to see how dawkins' attitude of outright hostility toward deism is doing the cause much good. give me sagan and his emphasis on intelligent skepticism (not taking potshots at believers) any day.

but i think what those four have in common is that our engagement with the universe is what produces our experiences, and that the universe doesnt just exist off to the side waiting for us to observe it.

I can't off the top of my head remember what Heisenberg's metaphysical opinion of his uncertainty principle was, but the idea that it is somehow intrinsically bound up with consciousness is pretty old hat I think.

even if you do think it's incredibly important for atheism to get more support and respect from the same ppl who vote in polls that they 'strongly disapprove' of pornography, marijuana, etc., etc.,
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:11 AM (23 seconds ago) Bookmark

Half the country says they'd never vote for an atheist. We're not talking about a small portion of intolerant people here.

And all that stuff that tries to draw parallels between quantum physics and eastern mysticism - ugh that is the worst.

i wouldnt suggest it's bound up in consciousness either, it's about problems in the realm of scientific observation. Derrida's would be about textual observation, etc.

godel in math. on and on.

I get the feeling wk's main MO is not being the #1 get-along person like mine is tho.

lol, yeah maybe not. IRL I mostly keep it to myself though due to some bad past experiences.

especially since this most hated of minorities is gaining traction.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 11:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

what do you mean by gaining traction, other than a few successful atheist books?

increasing percentage of the population in addition to increased visibility yes?

Lots of polls since mid decade have shown how the number of self-described atheists has grown. Here's one. The success of Dawkins and Hitchens' books caused a concomitant rise in the number of stories reporting on the phenomenon.

contenderizer, my problem with your statement is twofold. First, as mentioned, is its treatment of "religion" as an aggregate thing that is "not generally hostile to science." This is a statement with little meaning until we get down into some nitty gritty - which religions? which denominations/sects? what kinds of science? what forms do hostility take where it exists? - and so it's less of a "truthbomb" than maybe a Green-E Stick'em Cap.

The other problem is the implication that this aggregate "religion" is happy to leave "science" alone unless "science" tries to debunk its metaphysical claims, which is … not the case.

Try to be more "without" fucks

^ central tenet of most religions

as to the oppression of atheists, yeah, i don't feel it. i would have called myself an atheist for most of my life. though i'm no longer so comfortable saying that, my core beliefs and values remain basically unchanged.

i've tended to be very open about my beliefs, and have never felt that they were holding me back socially or professionally. the most interesting and intelligent religious people i've met have been very open to me, have never given evident sign that they despise or distrust me. perhaps there's some great mass of religious true believers from whose good graces i will be forever excluded, but if so, our paths seldom seem to cross.

i dunno, maybe just in being an arty, philosophically-inclined city dweller, i place myself in an invisibly fenced atheist's ghetto.

Lots of polls since mid decade have shown how the number of self-described atheists has grown. Here's one. The success of Dawkins and Hitchens' books caused a concomitant rise in the number of stories reporting on the phenomenon.

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:20 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yeah I guess it is on the rise. The numbers for people under 30 seem pretty high.

First, as mentioned, is its treatment of "religion" as an aggregate thing that is "not generally hostile to science." This is a statement with little meaning until we get down into some nitty gritty - which religions? which denominations/sects? what kinds of science? what forms do hostility take where it exists? - and so it's less of a "truthbomb" than maybe a Green-E Stick'em Cap.

The other problem is the implication that this aggregate "religion" is happy to leave "science" alone unless "science" tries to debunk its metaphysical claims, which is … not the case.

― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 5:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

well, i tried to explain that a bit by placing myself in the american 20th/21st century. but yes, i'm speaking generally. if we can find lots of specific examples of powerful/dominant religious cultures happily accepting the scientific debunking of their foundational myths, i'll happily concede. can't think of many off the top of my head. will grant that no one likes to have their core beliefs challenged, so this isn't a terribly specific criticism of religion, per se.

carrying on a bit, i do think that religion is in no way intrinsically hostile to science. in fact, for most of history, religion and science have gone hand in hand, with problems arising only when science seems to challenge religious myth or principle. or so it seems to me...