politicartoons | god is a genesis of stupidity

Dawkins admits he could be wrong on the god question? I've never seen that; unless of course it's insincere and be using to point out just how ridiculous the religious are "see, I believe in science, I'm open to having my mind changed!" No he's not. He is absolutely and totally invested in his brand of Atheism. If a supernatural being came down and smote him he would be explaining it away as a meteorological phenomenon or the like.

I don't think I'm claiming that atheists have to be able to claim "I cannot be wrong on this"; my issue with atheism is that it puts the lack of existence of god as a statement of fact, which is ridiculous, you can't prove a negative, therefore it's outside the realm of possible knowledge, therefore a ridiculous question. Feel free to say "on the weight of evidence I believe there is no god", but that's a statement of belief, not knowledge. When atheists claim to have knowledge of the lack of existence of a god then they are devaluing the concept of knowledge.

I really have to stress that I am making a point of epistemology, not ontology or metaphysics. What is important here *isn't* whether or not god exists, but "what is knowledge?"

Dawkins has described himself as thus:

"Imagine a 7 point scale. 1 is totally certain that God exists and 7 is totally certain that God does not exist. I would rate myself a 6.9"

I think you'll find that Christopher Hitchens is similarly not offering what you expect him to offer, as an atheist.

If Hitchens and Dawkins are not athesits, I dare say you are making the category of atheists a null set. But I don't think that's right at all/

That's exactly my point; a 6.9 is saying "I'm definitely right, but I'm not going to leave myself open to the arguments against the religious folk". 6.9 is saying that you're sure, but you know enough history to know that there can't be certainty in anything. I argue that they don't have the requisite evidence to support their hypothesis. In fact, they have no evidence other than the lack of evidence, which isn't evidence.

I'm saying they are atheists; I'm not sure why you think I'm saying otherwise. In fact, I've said that they have decided to define atheists as the 6.9s of the world and woe on you if you don't agree with them. Dawkins brand atheism not only requires you to believe in not-god, but also to be anti-religious. He leaves no room to acknowledge the positive aspects of religion in society. In fact, this is why I hate Dawkins; he so often goes off the reservation when talking about god and starts talking about religion as if the question of whether or not there is a god is equivalent to the question of the good or not of religion. That, and the fact that if a religious person, somewhere, some time, did something bad, then that can be applies to all religious people ever. The guy is the model of fundamentalism.

Well, I am a 6.9 as well. Maybe a 6.8.

And so I assumed you were saying they were not atheists because, more or less, I agree with them on the likelihood of a God, as well as our human fallibility when considering it. I am in as much disagreement with the existence of God as Dawkins or Hitchens is--and yet you called me an agnostic, because I (like Dawkins and Hitchens, when you delve into them) acknowledge the metaphysical impossibility of being "sure" of virtually anything (again, aside from self-referential comments)

Dawkins (and Hitchens) have in videos I've watched quite explicitly said that the question of if religion is useful is absolutely NOT the conversation they are interested in having.

Something false can be very useful. Dawkins/Hitchens are intent on arguing about the truth (or falsehood) of the concept that God exists. Sam Harris is slightly more open to the pragmatic side of the religious experience--but Hitchens/Dawkins are frankly not very interested in that. They are happy to bring up counter-examples of the evils religion does, although that often hurts their case cause it becomes a "which pile is bigger? the pile of good or pile of evil?" debate. But Hitchens quickly points out when his religious opponent changes the argument from: "I know God exists, and here is why" to "I know God exists, look at all the good religious people do!"

Cause the former is interesting, the later is not. (IMO)

OK. A 6.8 or a 6.9 is to me saying "I'm sure, but I'm aware that certainty is a silly thing". I think you have a level of certainty that can't be maintained without positive proof. You're not 100% because of human fallibility, not because of any of the evidence on the topic at hand. Is there anything you are 100% certain of?

Dawkins likes to pretend he's not being anti-religious when he's called on it, but if he's not interested in having the conversation, why did he make a documentary called "The Root Of All Evil" in which the premise is that humanity would be better off without religion; that's not a counter example, that's making a direct point. That right there is why I don't like the bloke (amongst many other reasons). He says one thing to one crowd, and another to another. What Dawkins you get depends on who he's speaking to. For a man who criticises religion he has a massive amount of internal cognitive dissonance.

Dawkins says he wants to have the conversation "I know God exists, and here is why", but then he's unwilling to accept any evidence that is put forward. However, when asked to put evidence forward himself he says that he doesn't have to. Well, sorry, if you're going to tell someone they are *wrong*, then you need some evidence of that. So it's not so much that he has to prove god doesn't exist, but he has to prove that people who believe god does exist are wrong. And that can not be done.

Dawkins is intolerant of other beliefs. He absolutely believes he is right (allowing for the small possibility that *everyone* is wrong). He is happy to cherry pick data, move goal posts and behave in character assassination of his opponents. He is a fundamentalist.

Quite the unsubstantiated list of flaws you've attributed to the old biologist.

The assertions he makes about evolution are well substantiated. Moreso than any ID and creationist proponent.

I don't think they're at all unsubstantiated, and I think his work on genetics and evolution is great. However, for a biologist, he makes a woeful philosopher. Here's a excellent critique (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/) of The God Delusion that every pro-Dawkins should read which I believe answers all of the claims you feel are unsubstantiated without me having to write you an essay.

Thanks. I'll check it out in between jobs today or tonight.

"Scientists’ interest in religion seems to come in waves"

Evolutionary biology is one of those fields that the religious proactively attack and undermine. The tone of the first sentence seems to ignore this.

That's true, but keep in mind the author of the article is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. That's why I turn to him as a responder to Dawkins.

I exist is about the only thing I am 100% certain of--that and the current moment how I feel. But the world could be six seconds old, and just really vivid memories are implanted.

I disagree with your assessment that I need positive proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When such evidence is lacking, it is completely justified to believe that such claims are bogus.

And no, Dawkins does *not* need to offer evidence as to why God does not exist. All he needs to do is sufficiently undermine any argument put forth that God does exist. The default for "does X exist?" is No. Until evidence is provided, it is perfectly reasonable to deny the existence of something.

I cannot imagine how you came to conclude: "Well, sorry, if you're going to tell someone they are *wrong*, then you need some evidence of that. "

That's nonsense of the worst variety. I thought you understood how the burden of proof worked. What happened?

I exist is about the only thing I am 100% certain of--that and the current moment how I feel. But the world could be six seconds old, and just really vivid memories are implanted

This implies you're absolutely certain of what consciousness is. Please elaborate as myself and 2500 years of philosophers have been wondering ;)

You're doing the same circle that Dawkins does; you're refusing to accept any proof as valid evidence of god (miracles, personal revelation, biblical texts and the like) and then saying you don't need evidence for your position. I understand perfectly how the burdon of proof works; if you want to make a knowledge claim you need to have some evidence of that. I'm quite happy for you to believe god doesn't exist (I agree with you), my problem is that you claim you know this.

You're making the classic problem of induction. There has been no evidence of god, so there is no god. All swans we have seen are white, therefore there are no non-white swans.

By saying "there is no god" you're making a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require justification and a lack of evidence is not evidence. I'm quite happy for you to say "it would seem likely there is no god" or "it is probable there is no god", but this whole "I'm 6.9/7" is, in my opinion, just weasel words to avoid being trapped in making absolute statements. However, I can live with that, even if I think you're being intellectually dishonest and anti-scientific.

What I don't accept, however, is telling someone who believes in god that they are wrong when you have zero evidence of that. There is a possibility that god isn't revealing itself to you because you lack faith. It's remote, sure, and there's plenty of intellectual arguments against it, but there is no *evidence* for such a claim.

you're refusing to accept any proof as valid evidence of god (miracles, personal revelation, biblical texts and the like)

Those things are not evidence, and certainly not proof.

They aren't to you, but for many epistemological systems they are both. If you're going to fall back on the scientific method for what counts as proof and evidence then you have to be willing to accept you have neither for your position. You're doing a Dawkins, not holding yourself up to the same standards you hold others to.

They aren't to you, but for many epistemological systems they are both.

Those systems can't produce a working pair of glasses. Being useful is important.

you have to be willing to accept you have neither for your position.

Which is fine, since I don't need any to say that there isn't a teapot. Again, that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you have none, then its just imagination.

You're doing a Dawkins, not holding yourself up to the same standards you hold others to.

Right. I'll just have to live with that! When someone shows me evidence of their deity, then I'll believe in it.

You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing that you should believe in a deity, there's no evidence for that so it would be stupid. You're making a knowledge claim about the lack of a deity, and I'm arguing that you have insufficient evidence to make that claim. One either has to say that they do not have knowledge, but a belief, or that the question is outside the realm of knowledge and therefore not a question.

If you claim you "know" there is not deity, then you have all the same problems as someone who claims they "know" there is. That is, that you are making knowledge claims without evidence.

You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing that you should believe in a deity, there's no evidence for that so it would be stupid.

I'll believe it when I see it.

If you claim you "know" there is not deity, then you have all the same problems as someone who claims they "know" there is. That is, that you are making knowledge claims without evidence.

I know that there is no objectively known deity. All claims to date lacked objective evidence. There is a theme.

I can dismiss without evidence that which was asserted without evidence. As soon as they get some evidence, this is no longer true. The subjective nature of our perceptions of reality demands no less. We would not be able to make a pair of glasses without accepting our vision is flawed.

"I can imagine quite a lot" - han solo

Edited 2014-07-22 07:47 (UTC)

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-23 04:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-23 04:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-23 04:59 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-23 06:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-24 06:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-24 07:45 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-25 03:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-25 06:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-26 07:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-26 20:25 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-29 05:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2014-07-29 09:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anfalicious.livejournal.com - 2014-07-30 07:52 (UTC) - Expand

To expect an atheist to have a *positive* belief about the non-existence of God is silly.

As an atheist, I go as far as to say: "No worthy evidence has ever been produced. Because I have no evidence in favor of, I maintain that there is no such thing as God. I could be wrong--but I believe there is no God."

The only epistemologically truly knowable thing is self-referential knowledge. Otherwise it's always possible we are in a matrix.

Why do you define yourself as atheist rather than agnostic then?

Anyway, key to me is that you're willing to state it's a belief, not knowledge.

The only epistemologically truly knowable thing is self-referential knowledge.

No. I believe that has been the great win of science; the replicable experiment. Even self referential knowledge is unknowable if we're brains in vats. However, if we accept at a base, that this thing around us that we perceive is actually there, even if we are imperfect perceivers, then we can make tools that we can objectively calibrate and then measure things, over and over again, and if the answer comes up the same each time, we can be fairly confident that we can call this knowledge. The "that", not necessarily the "how"; I believe in gravity, because it can be measured. I can make predictions about how it will behave and they will come true. What I can't do is tell you "how" that works. Gravity, or at least the effects of, is objectively knowable. I can't do any of that for a deity and if I can't disprove it, if I can't predict how it will react, then in my epistemological system (and I acknowledge that we as humans have no agreement on that) it is not knowable.

The "that", not necessarily the "how"

I usually prefer to say it as "the what and the how, but not necessarily the why".

Yeah, same same :) Mine come from "know-that" and "know-how" being philosophical concepts that I've been using a lot lately :)

The only epistemologically truly knowable thing is self-referential knowledge.

Only if your philosophical premises are accepted as true.
Which is why I accept no philosophical premises as true. I only accept reproducible experiments and hard objective evidence as true - and everything else as a subjective dream.

Bootstrapping problem:

You just described a philosophical premise you accept as true.

You just described a philosophical premise you accept as true.

I repeat: I only accept reproducible experiments and hard objective evidence as true. That is not a philosophical premise.
And to further specify, "true" = "verifiable fact" in my lexicon. I don't believe in "truth".
Everything that cannot be reproduced in experiments or classified with hard objective evidence is either opinion, musings, dreams, or something else non-objective - and the opposite of objective is subjective.

Now, if you somehow measure Kant's Transcendental Arguments in a laboratory and perform experiments on it to show me how it's measured in Kantians or whatever scientific measurement would be used for that, I'll pay attention to it.

Well, if "I only accept reproducible experiments and hard objective evidence as ~~true~~ verifiable fact"

You aren't saying anything much of interest there. Verifiable facts = objective evidence and reproducible experiments

Well, OK. You're assuming some things in there, and the assumption might be good to look at, but nothing much being said that's useful.

And, you have underlying assumptions like: "experiments performed by different people or in different places or times, or altitudes, can still be said to be a reproduction of the other experiment, despite all of the differences"

End with a joke:

A layman, a student and a philosopher are in a boat, back before we knew there were black swans, and low and behold, they see a black swan, a good bit off, swimming along parallel with their boat.

The layman says: "ah, now we know there are black swans"
The student says: "ah, now we know there is *a* black swan"
The philosopher says: "ah, now we know there is one-half of one swan is black"

You aren't saying anything much of interest there.

I am sorry you do not find my dismissal of subjective things as irrelevant and my embrace of the real, objective world to be interesting.
Actually, I'm not sorry, but it's the polite thing to say.

And, you have underlying assumptions like: "experiments performed by different people or in different places or times, or altitudes, can still be said to be a reproduction of the other experiment, despite all of the differences"

If it is conducted in accordance with the rigors of the scientific method, then yes, it qualifies as a reproduction of the evidence. The differences only become relevant if it is proven that those differences would have an effect on the outcome - that's the whole point about introducing new variables. By default, a reproduced experiment will not include new variables.

But as a philosopher with a philosophy degree, this should have been covered in your science classes, and so you should already know this.

A layman, a student and a philosopher are in a boat, back before we knew there were black swans, and low and behold, they see a black swan, a good bit off, swimming along parallel with their boat.

The layman says: "ah, now we know there are black swans"
The student says: "ah, now we know there is *a* black swan"
The philosopher says: "ah, now we know there is one-half of one swan is black"

1) And then the scientist on the shore actually photographs, measures, captures, and dissects the black swan, creating scientific evidence of the phenomena and how it came to exist.

2) The response of the philosopher, in my experience, would actually be "In looking at the black swan, one is faced with a choice: either accept deconstructivist destructuralism or conclude that reality may be used to marginalize the proletariat. The swan is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes consciousness as a whole. However, Lacan promotes the use of patriarchial libertarianism on a Kantian scale to modify and analyze class. Thus, the black swan is contextualised again into a Batailleist `powerful communication’ that includes reality as a paradox, symbolizing a mythopoetical reality."