|
U-Know! Forum » Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 30, 2009, 16:18
|
||
|
Statistics isn't really your strongest suit, is it? Ummmmm... no. And I'm happy to hear how it is more complicated than that. (I got the quote from a physicist but forget who) What are the chances I am wearing a hat?
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Jun 30, 2009, 22:06
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: What are the chances I am wearing a hat? if it had been 70 years ago, and if it were perhaps 4.30 in the evening, and you were living in England, I'd say the statistical likelyhood that you were wearing a hat would be considerably more than 50%. In the britain of 2009, when very few people habitually wear hats, I'd say it's very unlikely. Certainly less than 50%. See, Dawkins doesn't say there's no God. He says that the likelyhood, based upon observation and logic, of there being a God is miniscule. Your argument seems to be that you can reduce anything to a yes or no state, and that both of those states is equally likely. Huh? There's a 50/50 chance that itsnowed in the Sahara today, because it either did or it didn't?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 09:17
|
||
|
"Huh? There's a 50/50 chance that itsnowed in the Sahara today, because it either did or it didn't?" No but no but.... fifty fifty looks silly in that case because we are drawing upon our knowledge of the climate of the Sahara. The same with my hat, you are bringing in knowledge of hat wearing habits. But if you have zero knowledge to draw upon - is a non-fashion conscious eccentric wearing a hat, will it rain today in an unnamed town, is there a God.... what then? Anyhow, I'm still waiting to hear more about what I don't know about statistics rather than having been left with a bit of a put-down and nothing else.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 11:29
|
||
|
I picked Bill Hicks, Kurt Vonnegut and Nelson Mandela off the top of my head. There are thousands upon thousands of others it could apply to, but in order to keep this envisionable I'll stick with naming them. handofdave wrote: I don't like preachy dogmatic types who use emotional exploitation in the service of self gain, is all. That would certainly include Hicks and Cope, I think it'd take a strong and wriggly argument to exclude Vonnegut (fiction is *designed* to manipulate the emotions of the reader), and if we scrape away the canonised veneer it can readily apply to Mandela. What do you mean by self-gain? You imply that it's anything that beings money and fame. So, again, I point to Hicks, Mandela and Vonnegut, as well as thousands of others. Let's add Cope to the list while we're here. handofdave wrote: in acting under the banner of science, he's betraying a sacred trust Even if we agree that to be the case, it does not in any way prove he does it to gain wealth and status. handofdave wrote: It may just be that this whole business is too emotionally volatile to discuss without it getting heated. Perhaps if you didn't characterise one of the most prominent atheists as a hoodwinking charlatan liar without offering any evidence it might make people less irate and more reasoned. handofdave wrote: Vonnegut was an Xtian, for example No he wasn't, you're simply wrong there. He made it very very clear over and over. He was deeply moved by the words attributed to Jesus, especially the sermon on the mount, but he specifically rejected the idea of Jesus as divine. He was long-time president of the American Humanist Association, and repeatedly said that we invent religions as a way to get ourselves an artificial extended family.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:22
|
||
|
Hmmm. Don't understand why it can't just be a fun camp thing without all the "God/No God" attachments. I mean, if you were 10 and larking about in mud and swinging on trees do you really wanna be considering the probability or otherwise of a Universal Creator and consider its role in the development or otherwise of the human psyche? Or would you rather piss about going "Wheeeeeeeee!"? And that bit about winning a prize for 'disproving' the extistence of Unicorns is just joyless and mean spirited. Anyway, I saw a real one in a Harry Potter film so Dawkin's can kiss me horn on that one.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:27
|
||
|
But that isn't the point, and it's not what HOD is on about I don't think, albeit it's easy to read his posts that way. Arguing against religion with science (its discoveries or its method) is like arguing against a brick wall with a pillow. It is not the tool for the job. It is horrifyingly dumb, and not a little bit reactionary. It really isn't doing science any favours at all, its actually quite destructive. If you want a tool that can actually debate this properly then choose philosophy, or metaphysics more accurately. Dawkins doesn't get religion, he's not the man to challenge its' worse mores, which are quite often fuck all to do with the faiths and more to do with politics and interpretation. There are plenty of religions that have quite terrible ideas and attitudes in their dogma, and quite often these are no longer enforced or argued for in the modern sphere. However, there are also just as many religious asshats with terrible ideas and attitudes that stem from themselves and are actually contrary to the dogma they claim to subscribe. A lot of scientific ideas, and philosophy as we have it now (arguably the parent of both science and religion) come from those top medieval christians. The two are not forms that are mutually exclusive, and religion is not threatening civilisation any more than it ever did. The world is not populated by rational actors, and nor will it ever be Mr Dawkins et al. Plenty of scientists become irrational when they step outside of their field of expertise.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:36
|
||
You might even argue that a tendency to the irrational even in science might be beneficial in a visionary "haha they all said I was mad..!" kinda way.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:39
|
||
|
Well, I should know better than to go up against your impeccable debating skills, but I'll stick with what I feel, which is that the guy's approach is very much the same as many religious evangelists... essentially, that there is only one right way to be, and the other ways are damned. It's a message of exclusion, not inclusion. And I'm not convinced for a second that religion is the root of all evil anyway. 'Us vs. Them' doesn't require deism at all... it might appropriate it, but it's not based on it. And any movement that seeks to amplify this towards the end of demonizing 'them' while smugly celebrating 'us' rubs me the wrong way, although it's very hard to avoid sometimes (politics comes to mind). Religious thought is far too broad to be pigeonholed. Do I think that the clichéd interpretations of God are ridiculous? Yes! But look beyond the surface and there's a rich world of intellectual debate and questioning going on in the more scholarly realms of the world's less militant religious orders. Doubts, even challenges to doctrine are entertained. On a personal level, I've known and liked people who are deeply faithful... and they've respected my agnosticism. So I suppose I feel I owe it to them to defend them against the harsher judgements that I've heard expressed against religious folk. Atheism is little different from a religion itself, when it is framed as a movement, right? It has a doctrine that preaches absolutes, it seeks to tear down opposing belief systems, etc. So as far as being a bulwark against religion, I guess you could see it that way, but to me it's just another form of faith, with the vital difference being that it claims to be scientific. And up to a point, science serves it well, but past that point you end up in the very same place as religion- declaring truths based on the will to believe alone.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:44
|
||
|
Moon Cat wrote: You might even argue that a tendency to the irrational even in science might be beneficial in a visionary "haha they all said I was mad..!" kinda way. Some scientific revelations cross over into very unscientific territory... scientists arriving at understanding of thorny problems facing them in dreams, for example. Didn't Watson or Crick flash onto the structure of DNA in a dream?
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Jul 01, 2009, 12:47
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Moon Cat wrote: You might even argue that a tendency to the irrational even in science might be beneficial in a visionary "haha they all said I was mad..!" kinda way. Some scientific revelations cross over into very unscientific territory... scientists arriving at understanding of thorny problems facing them in dreams, for example. Didn't Watson or Crick flash onto the structure of DNA in a dream? Francis Crick was supposedly on acid when he envisaged the double helix structure. Nice research Frank!
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
