Posted on 10/28/2006 7:47:16 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I will agree that Dawkins lost the argument (he conceded important points too easily). He didn't seem to understand that what was "obvious" to him, might need to be defended.
I would have had a hard time defending Dawkins position, because I don't agree with it. That doesn't make Quinn correct though, fundamentalist, literal interpreters of the scriptures have their problems too :)
Neither Science, nor Religion has all the answers and I think that is a good thing. If they did, there would be no point in faith, hope and charity. The search for truth is fun :)
Hi edsheppa!
WRT the above italics: The belief in God by some people is what Dawkins considers “delusional?” I don’t think that stands up. I think Dawkins is very clear that anyone who believes in a personal God is delusional. For Dawkins describes God as “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” One would have to be delusional to believe in a God like that.
He claims to give a pass to the Deists, who do not believe in a personal God – a God who takes a personal interest in humans -- but simply in a creator who designs and executes the universe and then “splits.”
But the Deist conception of the creator God of the universe is absolutely inconsistent with Dawkins’ account of the universe, which involves the idea of an inception in, and evolution by sheer chance, of accidents that somehow serendipitously lead to the ordered, lawful universe in which we live.
He gives a handwave to Albert Einstein; but Al’s okay, you see, because we can excuse him for believing in God just so long as he does not have a personal relationship with God. Dawkins thinks Einstein did not believe in such a God. That’s his conclusion to draw; but I question its justice. Einstein wrote:
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.Sounds pretty “personal” to me; though not in the conventional religious sense. What does come across is the idea of a divine Logos (whom Christians associate with the Name of the Son of God) beyond the universe, who created it and supernaturally laid down all the natural laws. Einstein’s science is motivated by the passionate desire to “find God” in the world.
You wrote: “… Dawkins disagrees with Deists. But he doesn’t think that Deist beliefs are delusional. Your claim is refuted.”
Dawkins doesn’t just disagree with Deists (that’s putting it mildly!); the Deist position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology. It’s kind of Dawkins not to think them delusional – again, because they do not believe God takes a personal interest in his creatures, and can enter into a personal relation with them – even though a true Deist would likely find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical.
According to Dawkins, I am delusional. I not only believe in God, in the Logos, as some kind of abstraction; but I have experienced Him moving in my life. The history of the human race is filled with people who have had these kinds of experiences (i.e., this is a cross-cultural, universal phenomenon); and what is even more remarkable is that such experiences have a particular form and content, independent of the people who experience them. It’s not as if individual minds were “cooking them up,” as a “delusional” person might do; e.g., as in the case of an imaginary friend….
But rather than consider the evidence, as an honest thinker is supposed to do, Dawkins simply says “this is delusional!” and has done with it. Then he joins forces with William Dennett over on this side of The Pond in a project to slander all religious believers as stupid morons. Whatta guy!
Well enuf of that, for now. What I’d like to ask next is how atheism deals with issues of morality. Any thoughts about that, edsheppa?
Thanks so much for writing!
Some people are delusional in believing in God..
i.e. Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, Animists and many others..
Jesus the Christ(Messiah) came to make ALL RELIGION Obsolete, AND DID...
Thank God..
Just a few thoughts about your article. You seem to have expressed an amicable appreciation of the benefit of putting belief systems into a Darwinian context, but it was a bit of a shame when you ask atheists to explain themselves in such terms.
Religion has been around for many thousands of years in many conflicting forms in vast numbers of cultures in the world. Mainstream atheism is infantile in comparison and, to me quite obviously, any genes attributable to it have not existed on a time scale adequate for evolution to act. I would rather express the problem in terms of meme-evolution (occurring generally must faster), for which religion HAS existed for long enough to undergo a process of natural selection. Atheist memes have proved surprisingly un-contagious since their slow beginnings, offering (to some people's points of view) a bleak outlook on life. I would say it stands to the credit of atheist memes that they survive in spite of their unfortunate humbling effects and bleakness - which would, given time, act against them (as you elegantly alluded to). To me, atheist sentiments represent a transcendence of meme-evolution whereby survival value in memes is dominated more by their inherent rationality and logic, not by their ability to tap into misfiring evolutionary mechanisms - as Dawkins describes. I would say that the drive forwards in atheism in western Europe characterises a moving of the meme's "goalposts", whereby their survival value is more weighted towards rationality - reflecting the changing economic/educational climate. America I would say is a special case where a nation is disproportionately rich for its level of cultural advancement. It is hundreds of years behind Europe and Asia in terms of religious culture, and the aforementioned changing economic/educational climate has not moved the meme "goalposts" anywhere near the extent required to promote proliferation of atheist memes. (More brutally, I would add the notion that there is an resonance in America with religion inherent to its population's vanity, but I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate this!)
Lastly, I resent your notion that atheist's only moral drive is to sneer at people claiming to have a purpose. I would consider myself almost morally indistinguishable from most religious people, despite not desiring divine reward for it. I also derive a great sense of purpose from my atheist outlook on like, and see it as a driving force to do something spectacular with my life, rather that descending into religious mediocrity - merely following a very simple set of orders and expecting huge eternal reward for it. Maybe my memes indeed have positive survival value, but of course my point still stands.
Please reply and share your thoughts - finding sane people on these blogs is generally quite hard!
He claims to give a pass to the Deists
No, he doesn't *claim* to give them a pass, he *does* explicitly exclude them in the interview from the delusional category. Now, unless you've got a quote from him elsewhere saying that he thinks Deists are delusional, I insist that you retract that statement.
I think Dawkins is very clear that anyone who believes in a personal God is delusional.
I urge you to reread the interview objectively. Here is what he said in relevant part.
Then there are deists who believe in a kind of God, a kind of personal God ... I don’t think that I would use a word like delusions ... for a deist either ... I would reserve the word delusion for real theists who actually think they talk to God and think God talks to them.Contrary to your assertion, he not only *explicitly* says that Deists believe in a personal God but aren't delusional but also he *reserves* the term for people who "think they talk to God and think God talks to them." So please retract this statement also.
BTW, I don't know what he had in mind by the phrase "real theist" since, according to the dictionary meaning of the term, Deists are theists.
Dawkins thinks Einstein did not believe in such a God. ... but I question its justice. ... What does come across is the idea of a divine Logos ... beyond the universe, who created it and supernaturally laid down all the natural laws.
I think Dawkins's characterization of Einstein's use of the term "God" and religious language is fairer than your own. For example, there's nothing in your quote that implies a being who created the universe. Rather he's trying to communicate his feelings when contemplating the universe by relating it to feelings of awe and mystery among the "conventionally religious," to use your term.
Dawkins doesn’t just disagree with Deists (that’s putting it mildly!)
Yep, you're right, I put it mildly. Are you implying that, for the syllogism to be valid, I must indicate the *degree* of the disagreement. Sorry, no, that's not the way it works. My refutation of your claim stands. Please have the decency to admit it.
Deist position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology ... a true Deist would likely find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical
Hmmm, "true" Deists? Are you saying the Deists who post to these threads and who not only *don't* feel that their "position refutes Dawkins’ entire worldview and scientific methodology" but also *don't* "find Dawkins’ presuppositions and approach to biological evolution nonsensical" aren't "true" Deists?
According to Dawkins, I am delusional.
Maybe. Do you think you talk to God or that God talks to you? (Dawkins says "and" but I expect he really means "or.") Dawkins *reserves* the delusional designation for such people.
It’s not as if individual minds were “cooking them up,” as a “delusional” person might do
Delusions need not be "cooked up" by the individual, they can be learned. For example, Scientology was created by a single science fiction writer but is believed by many. They didn't each individually "cook it up," but it's a delusional belief nonetheless.
Then he joins forces with William Dennett ... to slander all religious believers as stupid morons.
I know you're taking it all personally, but really, there's no reason to misrepresent him. Here's what he *actually* says in his own words.
Tubridy: ... do you think that the people who believe in God and religion are a little bit dim?There it is, unequivocal - Dawkins doesn't think that "all religious believers [are] stupid morons" but rather that many of them are quite smart.Dawkins: No, because many of them clearly are highly educated and score highly on IQ tests and things so…
I insist you retract this false claim too about Dawkins. (I can't speak about Dennet, maybe he's said that somewhere, can you back up that claim?) And I would appreciate it if you'd stick to what Dawkins *actually* says.
I do mean to reply, but the reply may be delayed because certain friends are dragging me in a different direction, right now. But I'll be sure to ping you to that conversation, as it unfolds.
No, I'm a computer programmer.
If he could get inside my mind, he'd be shocked to discover that I've known Jesus Christ personally now for nearly five decades. LOL! He'd be far more taken back by the sudden realization that Jesus Christ is alive, is a person, is God.
Truly, his sense of reality is artificially narrow. He doesn't evidently have "ears to hear" (or he has them plugged.)
Respectfully, this is utter rubbish. I'm an atheist and me and my kin have the same respect for human life any theist does, and are so DESPITE the rather bleak view described. This speaks volumes about our independence of opinion, that we can respect human life for what we see and measure, rather than relying on our parents and priests to tell us when to ascribe divine significance to something.
And who's more dignified, the one who arrogantly insists they are special from birth, or the one who humbly and gracefully accepts the insignificance of one's self.
This is simply wrong, and I find Dawkins is getting frustrated and bored of Quinn's ignorance here and isn't even trying, assuming that anyone with an ounce of intellect would see through it, but it seems he overestimated his audience: This quotation says EXPLICITLY that science can NEVER explain the original spark (or sparks) of life, therefore all scientists cannot comment on the matter without a lifetime of theological/philosophical study etc..
Science COULD explain the initial spark of life, just it can't now. C'mon guys! Before Darwin, people said science can NEVER authoritatively explain how something as intricate as the human body could come about without a designer. We sure showed them...
If you want to entrench yourselves at the final hurdle - the spark of life - then by all means do so, but don't expect any sympathy when the next great biochemistry paper comes out.
I'm sorry but just can't blame the inadequacies of the Russian health system on a religious view!
Just MAYBE those abortions reflect the terrible economic situation? Would you force them into further poverty?
I think "free will" is a subject that really hacks at the trunk of religion, in that it can potentially topple it but is very hard work to. Perhaps doing so is a bit ambitious for these blogs, but I would still like to make a point about it. Dawkins is not interested in free will because it is irrelevant from an atheist's point of view, and I will explain why by partitioning morality into two categories:
1) Morality for the sake of God
2) Secular morality
Most theists use both these, whereas atheists only the latter. Free will is necessary for the former category, since judgement and morality falls apart without it. However free will is irrelevant to secular morality, since this is a personal desire to be civilised and socially constructive - Why would we cease to do so on the day that we embrace determinism? Why should the accepting of our choices not being our own affect those choices?
Its just theists can't understand secular morality because they are so used to childishly associating morality to divine judgement.
(To me, morality PURELY for the sake of god is by definition a selfish act, since it acts only due to the will of god, and any personal desire to do good is, by definition, secular - since its not FOR god. )
Respectfully, most atheists do not have the same respect for life that most people of faith have, so right there, you and I have a difference of opinion, if in fact, that is the point you are trying to make. If you and yours do have a similar respect for life as a Christian does, then that's great, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that you and yours are a reflection of the majority of atheists, because you are not.
[This speaks volumes about our independence of opinion, that we can respect human life for what we see and measure, rather than relying on our parents and priests to tell us when to ascribe divine significance to something.]
Who said that Christians rely on parents or priests for their belief? Your logic is flawed, based upon your assupmption. I applaud you "and your kin" that you have the repsect for life that you claim, DESPITE the "rather bleak view described". The point is, do you buy into the "bleak view described"? You think that your view "speaks volumes" about your inedependence of thought, but really, do you think that your thoughts are really all that special? You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you value your views and independence of opinion, but on the other, insist on your own insignificance of self. Too funny.
Your quote: [And who's more dignified, the one who arrogantly insists they are special from birth, or the one who humbly and gracefully accepts the insignificance of one's self]
Again, some contradicion here, but whatever. Humility is one of the traditional virtues of the Christian faith. In Christianity, it is not an either or, but nuance of thought and duality, people are complicated, as is much of life. Everyone is special from birth, an individual unique unto God, but also, understand their own limited humanity and sinful nature. Actually, from your responses, I think you understand more than you think about duality and the pardoxical nature of life, lol.
Have you really??? Then why do I consider that you have not, in fact, done so? Does my simple and deeply rooted skepticism WRT your claim constitute evidence of stupidity, or show me up as a superstitious moron? Most of my objection rests on purely logical grounds.
Why is it "spark of life" questions are always "on the come" with you guys -- despite the fact that this question is not treated by Darwin at all, nor is it a component of his theory? Still you persist in saying, "we don't know yet, but we will know some day"....
Well, that statement may be true, provided that your initial presuppositions/assumptions are correct (e.g., that life has an exclusively physico/chemical basis; or to put it another way, everything that exists is reducible to "matter" and "pure chance"). You're evidently not willing to look outside that framework. Questioning foundational assumptions seems to be the very last thing a doctrinaire neo-Darwinist wants to engage in. So I just think you guys "assume" too much.
You wrote: If you want to entrench yourselves at the final hurdle - the spark of life - then by all means do so, but don't expect any sympathy when the next great biochemistry paper comes out.
Truly, I can't wait to see it.
Thank you so much for writing, TrisB.
Thankyou both for your intelligent replies. A few things:
[please don't fool yourself into thinking that your .. [views on respect for life] are a reflection of the majority of atheists, because you are not.]
Ok maybe I'm being a touch arrogant insisting my views represents those of all atheists, but then again Christianity is not exactly unanimous of opinion on some crucial issues in this context (e.g. birth control, abortion, euthanasia, stem cells etc). I was merely pointing out that atheism does NOT prevent you, in principle, from respecting life to the same extent the theists do, and should not be shunned in the way described.
[do you buy into the "bleak view described"?]
Yes. Totally. I reject the notion of free will, and see myself as the "descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago". My view of the world is no darker or less splendid as a result.
[You think that your view "speaks volumes" about your inedependence of thought, but really, do you think that your thoughts are really all that special? You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you value your views and independence of opinion, but on the other, insist on your own insignificance of self.]
Not sure what you're getting at here - Why should my admission of such humility make me too humble to express an opinion? Surely I'd value all people's opinions equally less as my own. My point was that I can take this bleak opinion despite it sounding rather bitter, and that this stands to my credit - whereas the sugary theistic views have, in this way, diminished authority.
[Most of my objection [to the proofs for evolution] rests on purely logical grounds.]
I'm not asking you to accept the theory of evolution, merely to accept that science DOES have to power to credibly attempt to explain our existence, and that scientists ARE indeed qualified to address the issues of our origins, unlike Quinn's opinion.
[Questioning foundational assumptions seems to be the very last thing a doctrinaire neo-Darwinist wants to engage in]
I would argue that theists are infinitely more guilty of this - however stalwart doctrinaire neo-Darwinists come across, they will question such assumptions with more open-mindedness than most theists will - I assure you.
Oh my. Does that mean if I told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you'd do it? If not, why not?
Thanks for writing, TrisB!
And yes with reference to the first paragraph, "deciding whether an outcome is favourable or not" is something important I missed. It boils down to comparing outcomes to moral standards. These moral standards are either hereditary/socially-conditioned (both of which don't differ from computers with preprogrammed standards) or self-chosen morality - upon where the point hinges. I would put self-chosen moral standards down to fitting in with other standards upheld (merely a calculation), or driven by emotions - which are in essence further preprogramming (a controversial subject, given how damaging to the ego such an admission would be to many people who hold them dear) That's quite a crude compression of a long argument I admit!
Hi TrisB! You wrote: "To not have free will wouldn't stop you from making choices." Okay. But what kind of choices? You say computers can "learn." I accept that, with the qualification that they can only "learn" within the parameters established for them by their programmers: recursive loops, etc., etc., which perhaps provide for feedback that program logic can utilize in a "novel" way. Is this what you mean by "free will?"
But what a computer can never do is say, "I think I'll take a little break from executing this program, and go write a sonnet instead; or play baseball with my buddies; or maybe paint a watercolor, or compose a symphony, or build a tree house for my kids...." In that sense, computers are "determined," not free: They seemingly are "slaves" to their programs (and programmers) in a way a human being is not.
You wrote: I'm struggling in retrospect of my young days when I did believe in free will, and now trying desperately to understand what it could possibly be, and what would permit it to exist outside of order and chaos.
Well I certaintly agree with you that "order" tends very quickly to be boring, and that chaos produces "no occurrence [of] any significance."
When you boil it all down, human beings (and computers) are neither "orderly" nor "chaotic" (as a rule). The chief difference between them, it seems to me, is that humans can work outside of their "programs" -- which is why they have free will, and why computers do not. FWIW.
Being an atheist, you have ruled out a possible answer to the question of "what it could possibly be" in advance.
Thanks so much for writing, TrisB!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.