Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Faith and Belief: Richard Dawkins evolves his arguments
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-richard-dawkins11-2009oct11,0,4602534.story
6 comments
It's a mistake to lump philosophy with theology. Philosophy requires no "givens", which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it. Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God, and I'm one of the many many people who think that's a ridiculous beginning to a field of study. It's like if Nietzsche began his books by telling you his concepts and thoughts were only worth consuming if you first assume that we're living on a gigantic turtle. Preposterous.
I like religion-as-sociology, however, and there's where the "evolution of God" concept is most fascinating. If you haven't read Douglas Adams's speech "Is There An Artificial God?", it's worth the read.
Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time.
And bullets bounce off of Superman because he's from Krypton.
I like religion-as-sociology, however, and there's where the "evolution of God" concept is most fascinating. If you haven't read Douglas Adams's speech "Is There An Artificial God?", it's worth the read.
Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time.
And bullets bounce off of Superman because he's from Krypton.
>Theology, meanwhile, requires you first to assume the existence of God
That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence of evil is compatible with the presence of an omnipotent and wholly good God. (And indeed, theologians spend a lot of time considering arguments _against_ God's existence based on the existence of evil, and these arguments clearly cannot presuppose his existence.)
By the way, have you ever read any theology?
That's just not true. There's plenty of theology which you can enter into without a prior assumption of the existence of god. The most obvious example would be arguments _for_ the existence of God! But in general, most of theology can be appreciated while taking God's existence as a hypothetical. E.g. you can consider whether or not the existence of evil is compatible with the presence of an omnipotent and wholly good God. (And indeed, theologians spend a lot of time considering arguments _against_ God's existence based on the existence of evil, and these arguments clearly cannot presuppose his existence.)
By the way, have you ever read any theology?
I have. I took a course on religion last semester. Generally, I agreed with and loved the various sociological theories—the things that tried to explain the psychological origins of religion, for instance, were fascinating. But past a certain point, I find that I lose interest. I can't entertain a debate over whether evil could exist under a good God, because I don't believe in God or in evil.
If you don't find it interesting then you don't find it interesting, but that's quite a retreat from what you were claiming in your initial comment.
>because I don't believe in God or in evil.
You don't believe that evil things happen?
>because I don't believe in God or in evil.
You don't believe that evil things happen?
I believe that calling something evil is gross oversimplifation. Terrible things happen. Evil has overtones that I disagree with, if that makes sense.
It makes a little bit of sense, but I don't see how it's relevant to the problem of evil. You can pose the problem with pretty much whatever notion of evil you like: "If there is a good, omnipotent God, why do terrible things happen?"
Well, yeah. That's why nonbelief hurts the debate also. My response is a simple "There isn't." Kind of a flat debate.
As I said, whether or not God exists, the question remains whether or not the existence of God is _compatible_ with the existence of evil. That's what theologians actually discuss. Stating God's non-existence just doesn't address the question at issue.
Well, it does in that before looking at the relationship of gods and evil, you first have to establish what, exactly, are the characteristics of gods, how many gods are there, etc.
Do theologians consider the case for all of concievable gods? Multiple gods? Only one god?
Do theologians consider the case for all of concievable gods? Multiple gods? Only one god?
> Do theologians consider the case for all of concievable gods? Multiple gods? Only one god?
Obviously, as has been explained, the problem arises in connection with all gods who are perfectly good and also omnipotent, so I don't quite see what you're getting at here.
Obviously, as has been explained, the problem arises in connection with all gods who are perfectly good and also omnipotent, so I don't quite see what you're getting at here.
"I don't quite see what you're getting at here."
Without first establishing the number of gods and their qualities, questions about how they deal with evil seems pointless.
Without first establishing the number of gods and their qualities, questions about how they deal with evil seems pointless.
If God doesn't exist, it's not worth arguing Him. It's like asking if God can make a boulder so heavy He Himself cannot lift it. It's a worthwhile debate if omnipotence exists, but it doesn't, so the argument is moot.
Hypothetical questions aren't necessarily moot. In both the actual case and hand and your boulder example, quite a lot has been learned (e.g. about the notions of necessity and possibility) through the study of these cases.
I agree with the thrust of what you write. But this is wrong:
"Philosophy requires no 'givens', which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it."
In 1748, David Hume explained why this isn't right. Hume was a philosopher himself. The most important assumption that you must make in the natural sciences and in every brand of philosophy with which I'm familiar is causality. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ for more.
"Philosophy requires no 'givens', which is to say it is a valid field without requiring you to make any assumptions to partake in it."
In 1748, David Hume explained why this isn't right. Hume was a philosopher himself. The most important assumption that you must make in the natural sciences and in every brand of philosophy with which I'm familiar is causality. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ for more.
Huh! I guess that shows me to be the philosophical amateur I am. I always assume causality without thinking about it. Whoops.
I suspect you knew this, but many religions suggest we actually are living on the back of a gigantic turtle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popula...
That's what I was alluding to. That and the Turtles All The Way Down story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
What exactly are the accomplishments of philosophy, aside from logic which is better studied by mathematicians and computer scientists?
Logic came originally from philosophy. Your question's like asking why we ever bothered with the Model T when Porsche is such a better vehicle.
Modern philosophy is important because it targets common assumptions and attempts to debate and verify them. The whole point of common assumption is that if you believe something that's wrong, you don't necessarily realize it without a lot of work. Philosophy attempts to shine light in those unknown recesses.
But "accomplishments"? I'd say the biggest casual accomplishment is that it serves as a great topic of discussion for people, gets people thinking together, and as a result brings them closer together. Might as well ask what accomplishments Shakespeare gave us, or Hitchcock. Not everything can be verified with an award and a metric.
Modern philosophy is important because it targets common assumptions and attempts to debate and verify them. The whole point of common assumption is that if you believe something that's wrong, you don't necessarily realize it without a lot of work. Philosophy attempts to shine light in those unknown recesses.
But "accomplishments"? I'd say the biggest casual accomplishment is that it serves as a great topic of discussion for people, gets people thinking together, and as a result brings them closer together. Might as well ask what accomplishments Shakespeare gave us, or Hitchcock. Not everything can be verified with an award and a metric.
Ok, before answering that question, I'd like to ask you the following question:
How much philosophy have you read?
If the answer is "none" or "very little", don't ask people here what the accomplishments of philosophy are, but go and actually _read some_ and find out for yourself.
How much philosophy have you read?
If the answer is "none" or "very little", don't ask people here what the accomplishments of philosophy are, but go and actually _read some_ and find out for yourself.
Philosophy has had many accomplishments, it's where the questions first get asked. In general it's where ideas get refined and understood enough to go out and be acted upon -- before it can be science it needs to through it's philosophical stages. Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s. http://www.amazon.com/What-Computers-Still-Cant-Artificial/d...
The study of philosophy for most undergraduates taking a few classes can be thought of as the history of human thought.
The study of philosophy for most undergraduates taking a few classes can be thought of as the history of human thought.
The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do.
What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?
What makes you think that philosophers are any better at asking questions than scientists?
>The assumption here is that asking questions divorced from scientific training is a reasonable thing to do.
Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?"
I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training.
It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining.
The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
Of course it is a reasonable thing to do, e.g. "Is there any milk left in the fridge?"
I suppose you're asking whether it's reasonable to ask "deep" questions without scientific training. I think that it is -- moral questions are an obvious example -- but in any case, bear in mind that most philosophers whose work touches on scientific issues _do_ have some scientific training.
It's really not possible to consider all this at such an abstract level. If you have something against philosophy or philosophers, you'd do well to point out some concrete examples of what you're talking about, instead of engaging in this sort of generic scientistic whining.
The biggest irony here is that your views are taken almost verbatim from a philosophical movement of the early 20th century (logical positivism). One benefit of reading some philosophy is coming to a realization of how unoriginal virtually all of your ideas are, and how much they owe to the intellectual culture you were brought up in.
What is scientific training? Logic & Mathematics? I was having a discussion in another thread about the demarcation of science and pseudoscience, and despite decades of trying the only definition is that works is consensus of other scientists. Most scientists believe physics is science while astrology is not.
I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.
I'd say that I don't hold philosophers or scientists or mathematicians as the ultimate questioner. I believe that they are each skilled in different areas, and are probably best at asking questions in those areas.
Philosophy is sometimes considered the parent of the sciences--just about every pursuit of knowledge used to be philosophy. Once they were systematized, testable, and useful enough to stand on their own, they became sciences.
That's like saying that the major accomplishment of religion is that it led to science.
I don't disagree with that by much. Religious institutions in the past have preserved or advanced scientific discovery at times. The difference is that Philosophy consists of seeking the truth, institutionalized religion usually consists of defending the truth. Religions may spawn some scientific inquiry, but they have a lot of trouble letting their children go off and live their own lives, so to speak.
Suppose you discover that you can get nasty illnesses from being exposed to other peoples germs which are spread in their bodily emissions, indeed some of those illnesses can kill.
You then have kids.
Do you defend that truth by instructing them to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough, avoid contact with faeces, etc., to stop germs spreading? Or, do you have to wait until that child is old enough to discover germs for themselves?
The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry as Christians believe that knowing more about the created enables us to know more about the creator.
You then have kids.
Do you defend that truth by instructing them to wash their hands, cover their mouths when they cough, avoid contact with faeces, etc., to stop germs spreading? Or, do you have to wait until that child is old enough to discover germs for themselves?
The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry as Christians believe that knowing more about the created enables us to know more about the creator.
>> The Church has always sponsored scientific enquiry
lol
Many universities (in Europe) grew out of monastic study and mediaeval universities were founded both by the wealth of princes and by papal bull. Individual scientists, Roger Bacon say, were provided a living by the church others, Copernicus springs to mind, were sponsored in their studies by particular bishops or similar Church luminaries.
The Catholic Church still operates at least one observatory which has been going since the 16 Century.
As highlighted in the Merton-Weber thesis scientific enquiry in the 17, 18 Century appears to have been pushed on by Protestant philosophy.
The Catholic Church still operates at least one observatory which has been going since the 16 Century.
As highlighted in the Merton-Weber thesis scientific enquiry in the 17, 18 Century appears to have been pushed on by Protestant philosophy.
E pur si muove.
Galileo was educated in part in a monastery and at the Uni of Pisa (founded by a pope). He was sponsored by the Church to do his studies; when he wished to publish his pamphlet the authorities urged caution and refused to state outright that heliocentrism were true wishing instead to gather more evidence. Galileo went ahead pissed off the papacy and was censured.
Indeed if we consider Einsteins relativity then we might argue that the anti's were right to hold reservations as without an ether it is no more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is to say the Earth is static. I doubt they had this in mind though.
Indeed if we consider Einsteins relativity then we might argue that the anti's were right to hold reservations as without an ether it is no more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is to say the Earth is static. I doubt they had this in mind though.
I would say Questions are the greatest accomplishments of philosophy. There are many questions out there, the meaning of life, where we came from, what happens when we die. These are philosophical questions in origin.
Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.
Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.
>Philosophy is the birth of inquiry. Science is the attempt to find the rational answer.
I think that's a little harsh on philosophy. Scientists don't have a monopoly on rationality. There are many areas of philosophy (e.g. moral philosophy) where scientific methods are far from sufficient (though useful), but where we still benefit from clear and rational thinking.
I think that's a little harsh on philosophy. Scientists don't have a monopoly on rationality. There are many areas of philosophy (e.g. moral philosophy) where scientific methods are far from sufficient (though useful), but where we still benefit from clear and rational thinking.
And when we show there is no rational answer that is discoverable ...
I know, right? Like when we know there was no rational answer for the weather so we said gods did it. Silly scientists not realizing we haven't learned anything in the last five thousand years. They refuse to admit that it's impossible to find new answers to questions.
I was thinking more about application of Godels Incompleteness Theorem or the Church-Turing Hypothesis or even to take a more basic consideration Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Based on the standard scientific and logical axioms the cause of the progression of weather is quite discoverable except that the chaotic nature makes it practically (at present at least) unpredictable.
Perhaps you believe the world is entirely Newtonian??
I await your answer with baited breath.
Based on the standard scientific and logical axioms the cause of the progression of weather is quite discoverable except that the chaotic nature makes it practically (at present at least) unpredictable.
Perhaps you believe the world is entirely Newtonian??
I await your answer with baited breath.
To which questions?
The reason he says this, is that evolution by natural selection is the only process that we know of that describes how complexity comes to be.
It surely can't explain the basic complexity of the laws of physics, or the complexity of mathematical structures like the integers. There are plenty of complex things which have no explanation in terms of natural selection.
Dawkins does not believe that theologists have any special insights to offer on the mysteries of life. In his view, anyone's opinion is just as good as that of a theologist.
> There is no master plan.
As much as I am an atheist, I still think no one can ever make that claim. He should have said, there is no evidence yet of a master plan, or there probably is no master plan. This same thing would apply to the existence of God. Unfortunately this logical fallacy (of prematurely concluding the nonexistence of something that theoretically can't be proved to not exist) beholds too many atheists.
As much as I am an atheist, I still think no one can ever make that claim. He should have said, there is no evidence yet of a master plan, or there probably is no master plan. This same thing would apply to the existence of God. Unfortunately this logical fallacy (of prematurely concluding the nonexistence of something that theoretically can't be proved to not exist) beholds too many atheists.
There is no master plan in the same sense that there is magic cookie monster.
Nothing we believe about the outside world is unassailably justified by logic alone. Even the surest statements (that the sun will come up tomorrow, for example) are based on a fallible interpretation of the evidence available at the time. That's no reason to stop making statements--it turns out a preponderance of evidence is enough, generally. It just means some of your beliefs sometimes turn out to be wrong.
What about statements like 1*1 = 1. I can be sure about that, but unsure about something like the existence of God.
I meant to be excluding things like that when I said "about the outside world". But regardless of how you think of statements like that, there are all sorts of others:
* The sun will come up tomorrow.
* Nobody is plotting to have me killed.
* The lamp next to my couch is on.
* Accelerating beyond light speed is impossible.
* People other than me exist.
that can't be proven logically, but that it's still perfectly reasonable to be sure of. In practice, logical proof isn't a workable standard to look for in your beliefs.
The sun will come up tomorrow. We are 99.99% certain of that, so therefore it's safe to assume it's correct. And it's statistically unlikely for the sun to not come up.
But when making the claim that God does not exist, that claim itself is 100% certain to be uncertain.
So it's safe to assume he does not exist if no evidence has shown he does exist, but we still must acknowledge the possibility of his existence just as you must still acknowledge the possibility, however minute, that the sun will not come up tomorrow.
But when making the claim that God does not exist, that claim itself is 100% certain to be uncertain.
So it's safe to assume he does not exist if no evidence has shown he does exist, but we still must acknowledge the possibility of his existence just as you must still acknowledge the possibility, however minute, that the sun will not come up tomorrow.
Your simple arithmetic is either a human definition or a part of a discovered system that we can't prove to be consistent and complete in itself.
1*1=1, the statement itself is a human definition. And so my point is if we define the universe as the world we reside in, and we define God as an entity mutually exclusive of the universe, then based on this definition God cannot be disproven. Assuming I exist because I am writing this right now, then the universe must exist because I must reside in something (and whatever that is is the universe). Now then God, what we have defined to be what is exclusive of this universe, cannot be disproven because we are in the universe. Therefore you cannot disprove God and this is infinitely impossible, whereas proving that the sun will come up tomorrow is not certain to be infinitely impossible yet.
[deleted]
Can we keep these types of article of HN?
Other sites (such as reddit) became pretty useless with people submitting these (and other) articles and turning the whole site into an unpleasant experience.
Why not follow the same rules that we do when at work? Don't discuss politics or religion.
Other sites (such as reddit) became pretty useless with people submitting these (and other) articles and turning the whole site into an unpleasant experience.
Why not follow the same rules that we do when at work? Don't discuss politics or religion.
This was a really interesting insight to Dawkins' character. Thanks for sharing.
Ha, he's going to have to rewrite that opening para for his kids book if he wants to base it on evidence. The evidence no more shows that Earth moves than it shows that it is static, unless you assume that humans and simplicity in our mathematical system is special.
All most all religions are based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
For example, as I suspect any answer will be centred on criticism of a Judaeo-Christian world view (just a hunch) could you also give an example from another religion. I can't think of any of the top of my head. It's a good thing to base share price manipulation on though.
Evolution is a biological process. It would have no bearing on a being who created space and time.
Biologists should not presume to trump philosophy and theology, any more than preachers should dictate which biological theories are acceptable.