Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

kelly1

Interesting article in the Spectator.

Methinks cracks are starting to appear in his thesis.

The article contains a link to the debate below. Very long but enjoyable.

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Spectator.

Methinks cracks are starting to appear in his thesis.

The article contains a link to the debate below. Very long but enjoyable.

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

Depends on what you think his "thesis" is

A lot of people seem to think that since Dawkins is a scientist he therefore cannot believe anything unless it is supported by a scientific theory. When he says he doesn't believe God exists people then turn on him for having an "unscientific" position because they say science cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist.

Which is true, but it is like saying a "scientist" shouldn't believe things fall downward because science cannot demonstrate they aren't going to fall up the next time ...

philologos

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

Ever heard of a library?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago.

did you ever?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I stopped giving the "new atheists" or the Dawkinites as I like to call them credence a long time ago. When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed. I must get Hitchens' God is not Great, but I hate having to spend money on such anti-theist causes.

Try Dennett's Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

did you ever?

I at least gave the God Delusion a chance in terms of challenging my viewpoint.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Try Dennett's Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

Dennett's another who falls into the Dawkinite camp, along with Harris and Hitchens.

So which one is better, God is not Great, or Breaking the Spell?

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

....Dennett's another who falls into the Dawkinite camp, along with Harris and Hitchens.

Don't you think thats a littel bit prejudiced? Your running with the popular 4 horsemen theme?

Jakkass wrote: »

So which one is better, God is not Great, or Breaking the Spell?

I haven't read anything of Hitchens it would be a waste of time preaching to the choir kind of thing. But Breaking the Spell helped me understand the reasoning behind religion from a natural pov.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't you think thats a littel bit prejudiced? Your running with the popular 4 horsemen theme?

Not really. If they continually blurb each others books, and sit in a room for two hours agreeing with eachother (which is the 4 Horsemen thing you are discussing, it's on Youtube also) surely they have given themselves that title.

I haven't read anything of Hitchens it would be a waste of time preaching to the choir kind of thing. But Breaking the Spell helped me understand the reasoning behind religion from a natural pov.

I'll consider it anyway.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Not really. If they continually blurb each others books, and sit in a room for two hours agreeing with eachother (which is the 4 Horsemen thing you are discussing, it's on Youtube also) surely they have given themselves that title.

I watched it, I thought it was quite interesting how Dennett interacted with Hitchens and Dawkins.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll consider it anyway.

Its a good read.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

When I opened the God Delusion, and started reading, I couldn't help but say to myself, "Is this it?". Sorely disappointed.

If you disagree with the book's fundamental assumption, then it's little wonder you found it disappointing.

Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.

If you're interested in reading up any more, then here's my guide:

Sam Harris, The End of Faith - passionate and well-written description of what religion does, what it has achieved, and the philosophical basis for religious belief.

Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - magnificently disorganized discussion of what religion is versus what religious people think religion is. Explains at length why religion, contrary to what most religious people think, is open to rational inquiry.

Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained - an academic-toned discussion which explains why so many societies, and so many people, exhibit religious behavior.

Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great - one man's broadside against religion. By turns, splendidly rude, hilarious and occasionally thought-provoking, it has no pretensions to explaining anything. It's just a rant.

Which one (or more) you choose, if any, and what you will get from reading, is entirely up to you.

If you're genuinely interested in advancing your understanding of religion in general, then I'd recommend the Boyer.

JoeB-

I didn't watch the full interview, may watch it later...

What points has Dawkins had to concede? Surely Dawkins doesn't now agree with the fantastical claim that God popped into existence from nowhere and that this can be proved scientifically?

For me, the huge amount of false religions around is enough to convince me that believers willl believe anything, regardless of it's probable truth value....

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting article in the Spectator.

A nasty case of attack the messenger, methinks.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I at least gave the God Delusion a chance in terms of challenging my viewpoint.

If you say so

Fanny Cradock

People may read a little too much into the admission that 'a serious case could be made for a deistic God'. I believe that there is a serious case that O.J. didn't kill his wife and her lover - he got off, didn't he! - but that's not to say I believe he is innocent. While I was a little taken aback after hearing his admission, it's probably a case of wishful thinking on our part. Still, it is interesting nevertheless.

By way of clarification - the link in the article Kelly provided is actually for a debate between Lennox and Dawkins that occurred sometime in 2007. The debate the article is speaking of took place around Oct 2008 - again against Lennox.

As I really enjoyed the 2007 debate (Lennox was fantastic, and I would heartily recommend reading God's Undertaker) it's a shame that the most recent hasn't yet surfaced on the internet.

kelly1

Another analysis here

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you think his "thesis" is

A lot of people seem to think that since Dawkins is a scientist he therefore cannot believe anything unless it is supported by a scientific theory. When he says he doesn't believe God exists people then turn on him for having an "unscientific" position because they say science cannot demonstrate God doesn't exist.

Which is true, but it is like saying a "scientist" shouldn't believe things fall downward because science cannot demonstrate they aren't going to fall up the next time ...

I think Dawkins is quite closed-minded. He doesn't seem to be able to think philosophically.

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes. He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce. To quote "There is a God" by Anthony Flew:

"The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translations whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally the amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two fundamentally different structures of information management and chemical activity are co-ordinated by the universal genetic code."

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

According to Paul Davies,

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

He also wrote:

"The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge"

From http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/OriginsOfLife_II.pdf

kelly1

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I didn't watch the full interview, may watch it later...

I should have clarified that the link I posted for to their first debate in 2007 (as pointed out by FC and the Spectator article).

JoeBallantine wrote: »

For me, the huge amount of false religions around is enough to convince me that believers willl believe anything, regardless of it's probable truth value....

The point is that a majority of us believe in a Creator.

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote: »

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes. He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

Just on this point, I think his stance is that 'I don't know' doesn't mean 'I don't know, so god must have done it.'

philologos

robindch wrote: »

If you disagree with the book's fundamental assumption, then it's little wonder you found it disappointing.

Socially, what's interesting is that there are so few people involved in what you refer to as the "new atheist" group, and how much consternation and chatter they've caused in the vast religious community which has yet to produce a best-seller in response.

If you're interested in reading up any more, then here's my guide:

Sam Harris, The End of Faith - passionate and well-written description of what religion does, what it has achieved, and the philosophical basis for religious belief.

Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - magnificently disorganized discussion of what religion is versus what religious people think religion is. Explains at length why religion, contrary to what most religious people think, is open to rational inquiry.

Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained - an academic-toned discussion which explains why so many societies, and so many people, exhibit religious behavior.

Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great - one man's broadside against religion. By turns, splendidly rude, hilarious and occasionally thought-provoking, it has no pretensions to explaining anything. It's just a rant.

Which one (or more) you choose, if any, and what you will get from reading, is entirely up to you.

If you're genuinely interested in advancing your understanding of religion in general, then I'd recommend the Boyer.

Now that you have provided someone who isn't one of the "4 Horsemen", I may find Pascal Boyers book. As for the best sellers from the religious camp, I believe Allister McGrath has had quite a few himself.

By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality. Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely? Not all chatter is positive chatter.

If I disagree with the books assumption surely Richard Dawkins if he is to prove religion a delusion should convince me with very very good arguments, however, he failed, it turned into a rant based on nothing more than straw clinging in most sections.

A Primal Nut

You say Dawkins is not open-minded, yet he talks about how a good case could be made for god or that aliens were the origin of life. Sounds very open-minded to me. The reason he says its more likely is because there are a billion billion planets in the galaxy so there is a good chance there is intelligent life somewhere. Its highly unlikely they started life on earth (as Dawkins believes) but more likely than God, as there is at least a statistical probability they exist in comparison to God which is impossible.

He says a case could be made for God to exist, but he means this in the sense that a case could also be made the world is flat are that something than can travel faster than the speed of light. People can give certain evidence but as long as it breaks all the laws of science, Dawkins ain't gonna believe it. Its rediculous to suggest that he is backtracking!! There is nothing remarkable about his comment.

As for matter being created out of nothing, most Scientists believe that, but as Dawkins is a biologist he isn't the guy to ask anyway.

But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent.

There are many theories of how this can happen; none of them are unlikely when you consider the number of planets and the length of time each has been around for.

If you consider life to have a sense of purpose then matter does too - for example, the idea that atoms form molecules in order to have a stable number of electrons in their outer shells. The sense of purpose the article talks about is really just a quest for stability and is no different in matter than in genes or organisms, where it is simply more complicated and advanced, hence evolution.

And yes the theory of how the universe works and where life came from is evolving...more and more away from a creator since Newton and then Darwin and then Einstein and now Hawking and Dawkins.

As for who built the museum, how the hell is that relevant?

Stupid article...instead of talking about why Dawkins might be wrong, it simply suggests that Dawkins might admit that he is wrong. Classic case of shoot the messenger. Whether or not Dawkins chooses to believe in something or not is irrelevant; its whether what he believes in is true that matters, i.e. i am more interested in whether evolution is true than whether Dawkins personally believes in Evolution or not. This article is more interested in what Dawkins chooses to believe than whether what he says is actually true.

You could choose to believe Dawkins is a money-grabbing liar, idiot, poor author or poor debator or is attempting to use Evolution and Religion for his own ends. It still doesn't change the fact that Evolution is true and God isn't.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

From what I can tell, his theories or knowledge of abiogeneis also contain gaping holes.

Everyone's knowledge of abiogenesis contains gaping holes. We don't know how it happened. We have dozens of plausible hypothesis, but not enough information to choose an optimum candidate for refinement and the construction of theory. Dawkins does not hide this. No biologist does.

kelly1 wrote: »

He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same.

Firstly, he makes no assertion that life is goal-directed. Quite the opposite. Such a position would be a gross misunderstanding of both our abiogenesis hypotheses and the theory of evolution. Secondly, he has at various times provided not one but several plausible means by which life might have emerged from non-life. There is one in the opening chapters of The Selfish Gene and I understand there's another in The Ancestor's Tale.

Both of these models, and others he has mentioned, are not of his devising at all but are hypotheses made by chemists and biologists. The models are all quite plausible and none require any form of supernatural intervention.

kelly1 wrote: »

He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

No. He has assumed that position because our understanding of biology does not require an alternative explanation. The emergence of life from non-life is a simple explanation. The creation of life by God is complex and contains non-testable elements. At this time, the general abiogenesis hypothesis is holding, we see no need to invoke any other influences. Going by Occam's Razor, abiogenesis is the logical model to assume first. We can test it. If it fails, we can then consider alternative models.

Dawkins is acting in accordance with the scientific method.

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce. To quote "There is a God" by Anthony Flew:

"The genetic message in DNA is duplicated in replication and then copied from DNA to RNA in transcription. Following this there is translations whereby the message from RNA is conveyed to the amino acids, and finally the amino acids are assembled into proteins. The cell's two fundamentally different structures of information management and chemical activity are co-ordinated by the universal genetic code."

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

The quote you provided does not support your assertion. It is merely a description of how life currently functions on a cellular level. We can assume that the first life or self-replicating structures did not use such a complex system. If you'd like to discuss abiogenesis further, you can take it to the BC&P thread where I'll happily debate the matter with you. Otherwise, I suspect this point could drag us off-topic significantly.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to Paul Davies,

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

Explicable within the context of normal abiogenesis. There's nothing radical here.

kelly1 wrote: »

He also wrote:

"The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge"

From http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/OriginsOfLife_II.pdf

Paul Davies makes arguments from incredulity and lack of imagination here. It may be a conceptual challenge, but that does not allow us to insert God. Davies is quite popular amongst some religious types, but his work does not impress chemists or biologists.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the best sellers from the religious camp, I believe Allister McGrath has had quite a few himself. By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality.

Agreed. I've not read any of McGrath's books, but I've heard him speak and read a few of his articles and for me, listening to his endless flurries of non-sequiturs is rather like listening to somebody play Chopin on an untuned piano with sausage fingers.

Jakkass wrote: »

Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely?

Yes, in places it is. But I don't believe that it's a great book either and I think that some A+A posters could put together something better. It looked to me like it was cobbled together in a hurry. From the number of misunderstandings that I've seen derive from it, I don't really think that he added to the debate very much, other than to reduce the stigma of public atheism (which I suppose is a good enough thing).

But as above, it may help if you're more clear about what kind of a book you're looking for. You may be looking for something philosophical like David Hume's excellent Dialogs on Natural Religion instead of about the nature of belief and knowledge in preference to Boyer's very recent evolutionary-psychological approach.

philologos

I've read some of David Hume already. I'm studying the Philosophy of Religion this semester so I've seen his critiques of various arguments for God's existence. I've also seen his arguments on other philosophical topics, and I must admit they are very good, however he doesn't quite refute the possibility of God's existence entirely in any of the pieces of his work I have read.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

By the way best seller doesn't mean best quality. Dawkins book in sections is nothing more than a rant, you must agree with that surely? Not all chatter is positive chatter.

Usually the opposite, I find.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I think Dawkins is quite closed-minded. He doesn't seem to be able to think philosophically.

Well probably not, but then "thinking philosophically" seems to mean being open to anything that the human mind can imagine, irrespective of the actual evidence that such things are true.

Philosophy tends to value the human imagination at a higher level than I think Dawkins is comfortable with, given the vast amount of times the human imagination gets things completely wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

He wants us to believe that self-replicating, goal-directed life emerged from non-life without providing a coherent argument or evidence for same. He has faith that life emerged from non-life.

"Goal directed life" ... er, not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I assure you Dawkins has never put forward that biological evolution has a "goal"

And there are plenty of coherent arguments as to how life could have "emerged" from non-life ("life" is simple a human classification, what we call life is simply a complex process of chemical reactions, the universe really doesn't view life as being separate to any other chemical reaction).

The problem isn't imagining how it could happen in a materialistic fashion, the problem is figuring out which way it actually did happen.

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce.

No, actually it isn't.

A good while ago we discovered RNA, which is simpler to DNA but can also carry information and produce proteins, and about 15 years ago we discovered PNA, which is an even simpler molecule, and far more stable, that can carry information and produce protein like molecules (it is thought that PNA pre-dates the evolution of proteins)

Life on Earth has evolved to use DNA exclusively, but life does not require DNA and it is very doubtful that early life had it.

kelly1 wrote: »

"Life is more than just complex chemical reactions. The cell is also an information storing, processing and replicating system. We need to explain the origin of this information, and the way in which the information processing machinery came to exist."

Davis is setting up a straw man there, because "information storing" doesn't mean life is more than complex chemical reactions. Complex chemical reactions can store information.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I've read some of David Hume already [...] however he doesn't quite refute the possibility of God's existence entirely in any of the pieces of his work I have read.

Hume doesn't refute the possibility of the christian deity's existence, since it's elegantly impossible to do so -- the same reason that Dawkins and the rest don't either.

Though even if it were possible to disprove the existence of the christian deity, it's debatable whether or not Hume would actually have done it. Heresy was still a crime in Hume's day and the state had shown itself willing and able to execute people to protect religious ideas from criticism. As it was, Hume was prosecuted for heresy once (he got off, I believe on a technicality), had trouble gaining a secure academic position, his Dialogs on Natural Religion were not published during his lifetime and when they did finally appear, they were published anonymously.

ChocolateSauce

kelly1 wrote: »

DNA is required for something to grow and to re-produce.

Without this code life could not grow or replicate so anything not containing DNA would be very short-lived.

Clearly DNA isn't the only means. After all, long ago, when the first substances started to replicate, DNA wasn't around. DNA evolved from simpler molecules which had some of DNA's replication properties.

AtomicHorror

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Clearly DNA isn't the only means. After all, long ago, when the first substances started to replicate, DNA wasn't around. DNA evolved from simpler molecules which had some of DNA's replication properties.

Well it might well have been around- I'd be surprised if it weren't. But it wouldn't be a good candidate for our ancestor replicator. DNA needs a lot of extra bits to help it replicate efficiently (I'd say it can do it alone but at a very low rate). So while I'm sure it was around, it was probably being well out-competed by other nucleic acids such as RNA, which can function as both enzyme and genetic information.

Morbert

Anyone who says Dawkins is close minded doesn't understand his stance very well. In fact, they probably don't understand atheism very well.

Atheism is a remarkably simple idea: It is the idea that God is not evident, and that it is therefore unwise to believe he exists until evidence can be presented. It is a subset of agnosticism, and does not hinge on some sacred axiom stating that He does not exist, or that science answers everything. It seems a lot of people don't understand this, and are therefore "shocked" when Dawkins makes "admissions" about the possibility of the existence of God, or the limitations of science.

Dawkins primary thesis is that the beauty and complexity of life and the universe should not be interpreted as evidence of God. He argues this extremely well, and his arguments in this regard have not been answered to this day.

Dawkins also debates issues regarding the role and influence of religion in society. Plenty of valid objections to these arguments have been made, but this is not what Dawkins is about. Believing that religion = bad influence is not a necessary part of Atheism.

Christian apologists tend to be content to either conflate religion with morality, and tender such non-sequiturs as counter-arguments, or ignore Atheist arguments altogether and claim that complexity = evidence for God.

kelly1

Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

- The source of consciousness
- Origins of life.
- Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

- Who created the Creator?
- He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
- That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
- That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

His attacks on religion, which contain so much exaggeration, sarcasm and flippancy, undermine his credibility.

This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd.

Not really. It's based on the lack of evidence combined with probability theory. It works like this:

There is zero evidence for or against anything existing outside our universe.
Therefore, any one thing being true is as probable (or improbable) as anything else.
There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true.
Therefore the probability of god existing are 1/infinity (or very, very small indeed for the non-mathematicians).

kelly1 wrote: »

Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

It's true that the scientific method is restricted to observable (or testable) phenomena. But that doesn't confer the right to make presumptions or claim specialist knowledge about what you call "the transcendent" onto philosophers and theologians. They make careers out of it, but let's not confuse that with the truth. Such people are engaging in the speculation business.

kelly1 wrote: »

He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:
- The source of consciousness
- Origins of life.
- Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

Firstly, he's a biologist. None of the areas you cite relate to his specialism. From time to time he speculates about these things, just as we all do, but he's honest enough to say he doesn't know and acknowledge his speculations as such.

Secondly, You seem to accept 'religion' as the default answer. That is intellectual dishonesty. Religion no more 'adequately deals with' such questions than anything else, it just provides a set of neat and tidy but entirely speculative and often demonstrably false answers to us humans who are notoriously bad at saying we don't know something.

kelly1 wrote: »

He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

- Who created the Creator?
- He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
- That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
- That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

Why aren't these valid questions? I'm slightly confused Noel, you seem to be saying that no question can be asked that doesn't already have an answer. What's the use of that?

kelly1 wrote: »

This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.

It's absolutely nothing like that. Planetary movement was testable and the 'obvious' truth was finally accepted (despite massive resistance on the part of religious types who couldn't stand the apparent threat to their faith posed by the Earth turning out not to be the centre of the universe) thanks to the overwhelming evidence.

As you've already pointed out yourself, there is no testable evidence for god. Dawkins is just saying that he chooses not to put faith in arbitrary speculations in the absence of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with that?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Dawkins claims

I don't want to come across very rude here Noel, but if this is what you've taken away from reading whatever you've read of Dawkins, then I can confidently say that you do not understand what he has written.

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

Not really. It's based on the lack of evidence combined with probability theory. It works like this:

There is zero evidence for or against anything existing outside our universe.
Therefore, any one thing being true is as probable (or improbable) as anything else.
There are an infinite number of things that could possibly be true.
Therefore the probability of god existing are 1/infinity (or very, very small indeed for the non-mathematicians).

That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?

rockbeer wrote: »

It's true that the scientific method is restricted to observable (or testable) phenomena. But that doesn't confer the right to make presumptions or claim specialist knowledge about what you call "the transcendent" onto philosophers and theologians. They make careers out of it, but let's not confuse that with the truth. Such people are engaging in the speculation business.

Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be. Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.

rockbeer wrote: »

Firstly, he's a biologist. None of the areas you cite relate to his specialism. From time to time he speculates about these things, just as we all do, but he's honest enough to say he doesn't know and acknowledge his speculations as such.

No, he's not that honest. He's clearly biased. In the God Delusion, he claims the origins of life and consciousness are "one-off events triggered by an initial stroke of luck". Why doesn't he say, "I don't know"?

rockbeer wrote: »

Why aren't these valid questions? I'm slightly confused Noel, you seem to be saying that no question can be asked that doesn't already have an answer. What's the use of that?

It's clear that he hasn't read the views of theologians on philosophers on these quesitons. He's fabricating a straw-man.

Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?

What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?

Why does he claim that God's existence can only be answered by science
when he should know full well that science can only deal with the physical and can say nothing about the immaterial. He's going back to the old (refuted) logical positivism days.

Why suggest that life could have come from other planets when you then have to explain how life arose on these planets.

Why suggest the existence of multiverses without any evidence for same?

rockbeer wrote: »

It's absolutely nothing like that. Planetary movement was testable and the 'obvious' truth was finally accepted (despite massive resistance on the part of religious types who couldn't stand the apparent threat to their faith posed by the Earth turning out not to be the centre of the universe) thanks to the overwhelming evidence.

My point is that his suggestion that life came from other planets or that the anthropic principle can be explained by a multiverse, is comparable to the invention of epicycles.

rockbeer wrote: »

As you've already pointed out yourself, there is no testable evidence for god. Dawkins is just saying that he chooses not to put faith in arbitrary speculations in the absence of evidence. Why do you have such a problem with that?

That would be fine if he left it at that, but he doesn't. He's on a crusade to rid the world of religion and he admitted that his intention is to convert people to atheism. He shows every sign of bias.

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be. Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.

Not quite, science seeks to find the answers for the things it doesn't understand. While many religions seek no further understanding of their domains.
If theology is the exploration of divinity and religion it goes beyond simply reading the bible and assuming that is the some total of knowledge on the topic. In that regard the two are similar if performed correctly.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?

If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.

kelly1 wrote: »

What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?

I'd assume he's referring to the typical ideal of the personalised Christian god, how would you define a 'simple' god ?

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.

Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?

Rev Hellfire

JimiTime wrote: »

Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?

The big bang can be considered a change of state as well.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I don't want to come across very rude here Noel, but if this is what you've taken away from reading whatever you've read of Dawkins, then I can confidently say that you do not understand what he has written.

I haven't read any of his works but I have seen a good few of his debates and interviews. I know where he's coming from.

Can you tell me how I have misrepresented him?

Biro

JimiTime wrote: »

Was it not identified that the universe had a beginning though? i.e. the big bang?

Would that not be the universe as we know it though? The beginning of all the things we see and don't see in our known universe, as in energy, energy conversion from one state to another, speed of light, other constants and variables and laws etc, and also (probably or possibly) time itself as we know it.
How that energy "ball" got there or got triggered or what existed outside it or how long it was there etc I haven't seen an explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

JimiTime

Biro wrote: »

Would that not be the universe as we know it though? The beginning of all the things we see and don't see in our known universe, as in energy, energy conversion from one state to another, speed of light, other constants and variables and laws etc, and also (probably or possibly) time itself as we know it.
How that energy "ball" got there or got triggered or what existed outside it or how long it was there etc I haven't seen an explaination, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

What is outside that ball though is not our universe. Thats the way I understand it no? Anything outside this was not 'our' universe? Thus rather than our universe being eternal, it began.

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The big bang can be considered a change of state as well.

I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you tell me how I have misrepresented him?

Well, every one of the points you made above is based upon a misunderstanding of Dawkins' position. There are too many to respond to individually (and most of them have come up before), but to pick on at random:

kelly1 wrote: »

That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.

Dawkins does not say this and has specifically pointed out that if god does not influence the universe (ie, using your terminology, he's entirely transcendent), then science cannot comment upon whether he exists or not. And that it's entirely a matter of individual belief.

Dawkins also points out (as I did a few posts ago here), that from the logical (and therefore, scientific) point of view, the existence of the christian deity cannot be disproved.

He does, though, say that if god does influence the universe (say by answering prayers, or moving mountains or having neighbors meet at petrol pumps in the USA), then we should be able to detect that influence somehow. He doesn't say how we can detect it, nor under what conditions, nor what we should conclude if we do detect it, but I think you'll agree that something that has a physical effect is, in principle at least, open to detection.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

- The source of consciousness
- Origins of life.
- Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

Open questions in science are not an argument for God.

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

That is such a silly argument because we have no idea how many "things" lie ourside our universe. By that reasoning the probability that you exist approaches 0, wouldn't it?

Probably

But seriously... on one level it's a silly argument, but it serves very well to put religious belief into context i.e. an attachment to something which, looked at objectively, is highly unlikely to be true. Such an argument has no bearing on my existence becausde I exist within this universe and there is evidence for my existence.

kelly1 wrote: »

Science is build on the assumption that the universe operates according to fixed laws but yet it cannot explain how these laws came to be.

Not yet but it isn't out of the question.

kelly1 wrote: »

Therefore science operates on a faith-based assumption. Pot-kettle-black.

Could you please spell out precisely the "faith-based assumption" that you think lies behind science?

kelly1 wrote: »

No, he's not that honest. He's clearly biased. In the God Delusion, he claims the origins of life and consciousness are "one-off events triggered by an initial stroke of luck". Why doesn't he say, "I don't know"?

This is a reasonable assumption given that there are a number of plausible mechanisms by which such a one-off event might have occurred. I refer you to the Blind Watchmaker for a lengthy discussion of one of these. I believe there are various others. He is honest about the fact that none of these has reached the theory stage as yet.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that he hasn't read the views of theologians on philosophers on these quesitons. He's fabricating a straw-man.

Theologians and philosophers have nothing but unfounded speculation to offer on these questions, unless you're reading something the rest of us don't know about.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why suggest the Creator was created when the explanation that He is eternal and un-created would suffice?

But that is no explanation at all. Dawkins is pointing out the inherent absurdity of arguing that the universe couldn't have come into existence from nothing but god could have done.

kelly1 wrote: »

What reason does he have for believing that God is complex? Hasn't he considered the alternative ie. that God is simple?

Because god does 'complex' things like talking (apparently), creating stuff, laying down elaborate moral codes, sending his son for ritual sacrifice and 'smiting' people for no good reason. The fact that you are happy with the contradiction that this implies probably means little to Dawkins.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why does he claim that God's existence can only be answered by science when he should know full well that science can only deal with the physical and can say nothing about the immaterial. He's going back to the old (refuted) logical positivism days.

I think you have misunderstood him. I don't recall him saying that god's existence can only be answered by science: rather that religious questions have actual true/false answers that are as subject to scientific analysis as any other, and that theologians are no better qualified than scientists to address such questions.

kelly1 wrote: »

Why suggest that life could have come from other planets when you then have to explain how life arose on these planets.

And of course if/when such planets are found then answers might be found for such questions. Are you encouraging him to speculate?

kelly1 wrote: »

Why suggest the existence of multiverses without any evidence for same?

For example: http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2006/11/multiple-universes.html

If you can demonstrate you fully understand the physics involved then I'll take your denial of the evidence at face value.

kelly1 wrote: »

My point is that his suggestion that life came from other planets or that the anthropic principle can be explained by a multiverse, is comparable to the invention of epicycles.

And my point is that it's not. People believed wholly in the centrality of the earth in the face of the evidence. Dawkins is suggesting tentative hypotheses for further investigation. Where's the comparability?

kelly1 wrote: »

That would be fine if he left it at that, but he doesn't. He's on a crusade to rid the world of religion and he admitted that his intention is to convert people to atheism. He shows every sign of bias.

And how precisely is that any worse as a goal than your mission to convert the world to christianity?

toiletduck

He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.

Well they can claim whatever they want, can't they?

Rev Hellfire

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't realise. So in this consideration, what existed outside of the ball of dust that went bang was also 'our' universe?

Well this is beyond my level of expertise, but I'm sure some of the regulars will be along to explain it. The point is though concepts such as time may not have been applicable preceding this point.

I'm sure if you're interested in getting the answers to this and other facts about the origins of the universe (if any) either the space or science forums would be the place to ask. Any time I've had queries they've either provided a laymans answer or given pointers to assist in getting the answer myself.

kelly1

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not quite, science seeks to find the answers for the things it doesn't understand.

Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If the creator can be etheral and 'un-created' then so can the universe. Again he is not avoiding the question merely opening it up.

You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'd assume he's referring to the typical ideal of the personalised Christian god, how would you define a 'simple' god ?

A being existing as a single substance and with no parts.

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

Now I'm not a scientist either, but even I can see that when science encounters an unexplained piece of data it takes it onboard and seeks to find an explanation. It may not get it right away but it will continue to chip away at it. Just because you can't see a logical explanation for something right now doesn't mean that this information will not become available at a later date. I'm not sure what your point is, that science can't explain everything right now therefore it's invalid ?

You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?

Why should it? Ultimately the outlook (as I understand it) isn't looking to good in the long term though

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes but on the assumption that the universe is governed by laws. Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

Your wrong .
The problem is you are dumbing down the process too much.
The way you are describing it is like a scientist walks up to cliff, stops, says "I'm going to assume that I wont fall if I continue to walk off the edge of this cliff" and so continues to walk and obvious falls to his death.
In reality its a case of a scientist comes to a cliff, stops, throws a stone off the cliff, watches it fall, throws as identical a stone it find of the cliff, watches it, repeats this many times, then gets different size stones, different colour stones, plant life, water, throws them over hand off the cliff, throws them backwards over his shoulder off the cliff, through his legs, at different times of the day, while saying different words...etc. Finally some time later, he will get others to duplicate his experiments as exactly as they can and then if he finds that all the data matches, he will present his unified theory of falling off a cliff, which states that, with a high deal of probability, if something goes over the cliff, it will fall. Now he is not able to say with absolutely 100% proof that it will fall, but based on all the evidence acquired, I sure you can agree that its a safe assumption.

The same goes for all the "laws of the universe" you mentioned. They werent made up by scientists but it made them feel important, years and years of evidence pointed them to these conclusions and science admits that the "laws" we have are merely are best fitting ideas for the data we have. Sure some of them have a lot of holes to be filled, but holes get filled all the time.

kelly1 wrote: »

You could be right. Not that it means much, but the notion of an infinite chains of causes and effects seem counter-intuitive. Why hasn't the whole universe ground to a halt by now?

Why should it?

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your wrong .
The problem is you are dumbing down the process too much.

That may well be true on both counts!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now he is not able to say with absolutely 100% proof that it will fall, but based on all the evidence acquired, I sure you can agree that its a safe assumption.

Yes it's an assumption we have to make or there would be no progress made. But it's still an assumption and unprovable.

The big question is who does the known universe obey laws at all and why are we able to describe these laws in mathematical terms.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why should it?

Don't take that too seriously, it's just based on intuition (and possibly on entrophy).

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

Dawkins claims that there is a very high probability that God doesn't exist based solely on the lack of scientific evidence. That's absurd. Any honest thinker will realize that scientific investigation is stricly limited to the material world and therefore has no ability to inquire into the transcendent. That's the domain of philosophy and theology.

Not based solely on the lack of scientific evidence; on the lack of plain old evidence: scientific, historical, personal, anecdotal or otherwise.

He seems to inadequately deal with questions such as:

- The source of consciousness
- Origins of life.
- Why the universe is subject to remarkably consistent laws and why are we
capable of accurately predicting physical behaviour using mathematics. e.g
why was Maxwell able to predict EM radiation through pure mathematics?

You're missing the point entirely. Dawkins is *not* claiming that science has answered everything. Consciousness, Abiogenesis, and the consistency of natural law are all fascinating areas of investigation with plenty of unanswered questions. Dawkins is simply saying that, instead of answering these mysteries with "God", we should investigate them, research them, and try to understand them.

Science once "inadequately dealt" with questions of mental illnesses, the origin of the sun, and the evolution of life on earth etc. These questions were not answered with "God" and, because of that, our knowledge has grown. The moral of the story: It is completely naive to say great scientific mysteries are evidence for God.

He shows a lack of understanding when he asks questions or makes statements such as:

- Who created the Creator?
- He seems to claim that if God exists, He would have to be the most complex
being in existence. Theologians on the other hand, claim that God is simple in substance.
- That God's existence is an equivocally scientific question.
- That multiverses, each with different laws of physics, could exist. (What laws does the entire multiverse operate under?).

"Who created the Creator" is a rhetorical question designed to highlight just how vapid the response "God did it" is. Claiming God created the universe is as intellectually satisfying as saying angels push planets around the sun. It is a wild assertion with no evidence to back it up.

As for the "simple substance" of God; that is horribly vague. Scientists look for simple, rigorous, unifying characteristics to understand complex phenomena. The supernatural creation of the universe doesn't have any.

And I think you're misunderstanding the use of the word "law" in science. Laws are not things which govern the universe. Instead, they are aspects of the universe, and describe its behaviour. The laws of the multiverse don't need to "come from" anywhere in the same way God doesn't need to come from anywhere. Of course, there is no evidence for a multiverse (its motivation stems from quantum mechanics and cosmology), but it serves its purpose as an example of how God is not necessary to explain the universe.

Also: Those "fine tuning" arguments are horrible anyway. Changing the value of one constant, while keeping the others fixed would have disastrous results for the universe (from our perspective), but changing several of them gives much more leeway. Heck, we can't even say they are constants to be fine tuned at all.

In fact, if we are going to postulate that God is causeless, why not just cut out the middle man and interpret natural law as causeless. (note the distinction between natural law, and the finite time-evolution of the universe; don't say something naive like the big bang proves nature is finite).

His attacks on religion, which contain so much exaggeration, sarcasm and flippancy, undermine his credibility.

Well it doesn't contain "so much". Compared to religious fanatics, Dawkins is a shining example of restraint. But I'll agree that his approach can sometimes be unhelpful.

This man has got his head firmly stuck in a bucket of sand marked 'Naturalism'. It's a bit like the situation before Copernicus came along where astronomers invented epicycles to explain the irregular movements of planets when the simplest explantion, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, was in fact true.

This is just rhetoric. I could just as easily say you have your head stuck in a bucket of sand marked "Christianity". It doesn't get us anywhere.

Yes but Science cannot explain the working of these laws e.g. gravity or the constancy of the speed of light but nevertheless, for any progress to be made, assumptions must be made about these laws. Nobody can prove that the weak or strong nuclear forces work consistently. We have to assume they do. If we make no assumptions, the whole of science crumbles. Tell me if I'm wrong (as I'm not a scientist).

Science certainly makes assumptions (such as uniformitarianism). But they are pragmatic assumptions; scientists don't claim they *know* the universe is subject to unchanging laws. They just know that, if they work under that assumption, they get great results.

Of course, Christians have yet to say why a universe can only be consistent if God exists, so we're putting the cart before the horse a little.