For Ahnimus:
Bu2
Posts: 1,693
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-horton/fixing-intelligence_b_63072.html
"There are times when religious moderates, as well as praying for me, will try to argue their case for religion on what they think are logical and rational grounds. They understand that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and I are opposed to religion on a scientific basis, and they understand that the evangelicals don't argue but simply shout more loudly (rather as an English speaker in a foreign country will shout more and more loudly, thinking that the French shopkeeper will finally understand if they can just reach the right volume), but they think that they can argue the case for moderate religious belief on a scientific basis. And that if they speak more and more softly and reasonably, unlike the evangelicals, that Richard and I will finally fall to our knees, the scales lifted from our eyes, and shout "Hallelujah, evolution proves the existence of god".
But the "moderate religious" have as big a mote in their eye as the evangelicals - because they believe in a god as a fundamental proposition, all "proofs" are simply tautologies. They will say, for example, that because all known societies through history believe in a god (or gods, one of the facts ignored in this kind of pseudo-anthropology, as is the lack of a god in many hunter-gatherer societies such as Australian Aborigines) then god (or gods) must be real. It proves, of course, nothing of the kind, just as other beliefs, held by many societies over long periods about, say, witchcraft, or the movement of the sun around the Earth, or the value of the sacrifice of bulls or virgins, were unreal. There are powerful social forces which retain irrational beliefs in society (the role of Iraq in 9/11 for example), which have nothing to do with the truth of those beliefs.
Similarly the proposition that because religious beliefs and beliefs in god are so common they must have an evolutionary advantage, and therefore it is wrong to criticize or try to get rid of religion from modern society, is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. For one thing it confuses religion and god. We don't know when beliefs in god(s) entered some human societies, although the frequent lack of a belief in god, especially among hunter gatherers, suggests that it was very late, quite probably not until the development of agricultural societies. Far too late to have any evolutionary meaning. And while "religious" practices (ceremonial burial of dead, fertility ceremonies, rituals for success in hunting, rituals to get rid of ghosts) are probably quite old, all they tell you is that people have always tried to cope with the unknown as best they can. In 2007 there is so little unknown, scientifically, that there really is no excuse for continuing to behave like Neanderthal man.
And the final cruncher, very similar in form to the previous two, but pretending to be even more scientific, is the proposition that because human beings have "spirituality" this proves the existence of the supernatural, and therefore, god, in some form or other (not necessarily with a white beard, the more enlightened ones would argue). And readers who have followed the argument so far will quickly spot that this is another tautology. Not only is there no evidence for the supernatural (and there has been no lack of research), but there is no evidence for anything which you could label as spirituality.
All that is actually being said is - I believe in spirituality; because I believe in spirituality it is real; because it is real so is god; god causes my spirituality. See, the chain of logic breaks down with the second step. Whatever you think "spirituality" consists of (presumably a belief that there "must" be some brain activity that doesn't relate to brain function), is no different to your belief that there "must" be something beyond the natural world.
A belief in something is not a proof of something, and the moderates might as well go back to shouting loudly about "faith" (faith is just belief shouted loudly). The problem is that because there actually is no god (or gods) all attempts at proof that there is one must end in tautology.
A bit like fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy.
Logan Smith said "Those who set out to serve God and Mammon soon discover there is no God". If he was writing now he would appear on The Watermelon Blog."
"There are times when religious moderates, as well as praying for me, will try to argue their case for religion on what they think are logical and rational grounds. They understand that Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens and I are opposed to religion on a scientific basis, and they understand that the evangelicals don't argue but simply shout more loudly (rather as an English speaker in a foreign country will shout more and more loudly, thinking that the French shopkeeper will finally understand if they can just reach the right volume), but they think that they can argue the case for moderate religious belief on a scientific basis. And that if they speak more and more softly and reasonably, unlike the evangelicals, that Richard and I will finally fall to our knees, the scales lifted from our eyes, and shout "Hallelujah, evolution proves the existence of god".
But the "moderate religious" have as big a mote in their eye as the evangelicals - because they believe in a god as a fundamental proposition, all "proofs" are simply tautologies. They will say, for example, that because all known societies through history believe in a god (or gods, one of the facts ignored in this kind of pseudo-anthropology, as is the lack of a god in many hunter-gatherer societies such as Australian Aborigines) then god (or gods) must be real. It proves, of course, nothing of the kind, just as other beliefs, held by many societies over long periods about, say, witchcraft, or the movement of the sun around the Earth, or the value of the sacrifice of bulls or virgins, were unreal. There are powerful social forces which retain irrational beliefs in society (the role of Iraq in 9/11 for example), which have nothing to do with the truth of those beliefs.
Similarly the proposition that because religious beliefs and beliefs in god are so common they must have an evolutionary advantage, and therefore it is wrong to criticize or try to get rid of religion from modern society, is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. For one thing it confuses religion and god. We don't know when beliefs in god(s) entered some human societies, although the frequent lack of a belief in god, especially among hunter gatherers, suggests that it was very late, quite probably not until the development of agricultural societies. Far too late to have any evolutionary meaning. And while "religious" practices (ceremonial burial of dead, fertility ceremonies, rituals for success in hunting, rituals to get rid of ghosts) are probably quite old, all they tell you is that people have always tried to cope with the unknown as best they can. In 2007 there is so little unknown, scientifically, that there really is no excuse for continuing to behave like Neanderthal man.
And the final cruncher, very similar in form to the previous two, but pretending to be even more scientific, is the proposition that because human beings have "spirituality" this proves the existence of the supernatural, and therefore, god, in some form or other (not necessarily with a white beard, the more enlightened ones would argue). And readers who have followed the argument so far will quickly spot that this is another tautology. Not only is there no evidence for the supernatural (and there has been no lack of research), but there is no evidence for anything which you could label as spirituality.
All that is actually being said is - I believe in spirituality; because I believe in spirituality it is real; because it is real so is god; god causes my spirituality. See, the chain of logic breaks down with the second step. Whatever you think "spirituality" consists of (presumably a belief that there "must" be some brain activity that doesn't relate to brain function), is no different to your belief that there "must" be something beyond the natural world.
A belief in something is not a proof of something, and the moderates might as well go back to shouting loudly about "faith" (faith is just belief shouted loudly). The problem is that because there actually is no god (or gods) all attempts at proof that there is one must end in tautology.
A bit like fixing the intelligence and facts around the policy.
Logan Smith said "Those who set out to serve God and Mammon soon discover there is no God". If he was writing now he would appear on The Watermelon Blog."
Feels Good Inc.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
These guys (meaning the author and his fellows) act like it is proven conclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that is both arrogant, and a tad of belief on their own part. God is not proven, but neither is atheism. Nor can either ever be by using the current scientific paradigm. Using a certain philosophy, they can posit determinism (which must be posited as it would be impossible to observe, and no, perceived cause/effect is not determinism) and further from that positing materialism and a dash "what we can see is all there is", and then end up with their position. Which I am fine with, if it hadn't been that they see it is an objective scientific truth, while it is infact a philosophical position resting on premises that are not proven, nor can ever be.
Note, this is not a defence of religious or moderate religious people. They are even less on firm ground, as they rest even more on belief and tautologies. But the science guys shouldn't be too cocky about their own position, even if it objectively is a better position if you cut the arrogance.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
However their is an implicit law in scientific studies that states "if you see an equine shape, think horse not zebra" or something to that effect. And in that view, it makes sense to dismiss the existence of God in your studies. However it (God) should be just be ignored not be an actual subject of discussion (because that would be missing the whole point).
You are perfectly correct- one cannot say definitively that god does not exist whilst holding to the true ideals of science. But one can say that based on our current understanding of the universe, and considering all scientific evidence, there is no actual evidence to suggest that god does exist. Thus it becomes an issue of probability.
It does get a little tiresome always phrasing it as 'god may well exist but the evidence is strongly against his or her existence...', so a lot of atheists, even those who agree that it is impossible to disprove god, will say from time to time that 'god does not exist'.
I cannot speak for the author of this, but I know that Richard Dawkins for one has stated that it is an act of faith to say 'god definitely does not exist'.
Once again- it is an issue of probability. And the scientific viewpoint gives us answers that have the highest probability of holding true because nothing is assumed without a framework of evidence.