Happy Birthday Richard Dawkins

[markfiend]

I alway believe a wee bit, it's playing the odds, if you believe in a God and you die, well, you're Quids in , if you don't believe and you die and there is a God..................you're fucked, if there's not a God.........doesn't really matter either way.

What happens if you believe in the wrong god though? Maybe Zeus, Apollo and that lot are the ones really running the show...

[markfiend]

I'm not going to launch into a long defence of Dawkins' philosophy, partly because I don't agree with him on all points (as sultan2075 points out, there are problems with his take on positivism).

However, I'm rather a fan of "his shockingly rude rhetorical scorched-earth strategy". I do think it's about time that atheism has a serious voice, someone who isn't afraid to say that it's all nonsense, and in some cases dangerous nonsense.

He's not after converts. He isn't about evangelising or "saving souls". He's about saying "No, we won't sit down, we won't shut up. We're here and its time for our voice to be heard."

[sultan2075]

I'm not going to launch into a long defence of Dawkins' philosophy, partly because I don't agree with him on all points (as sultan2075 points out, there are problems with his take on positivism).

However, I'm rather a fan of "his shockingly rude rhetorical scorched-earth strategy". I do think it's about time that atheism has a serious voice, someone who isn't afraid to say that it's all nonsense, and in some cases dangerous nonsense.

He's not after converts. He isn't about evangelising or "saving souls". He's about saying "No, we won't sit down, we won't shut up. We're here and its time for our voice to be heard."

I suspect this reply will not win me many friends, Mark.

I think atheism has lots of serious voices (Alfarabi, anyone? OK, that's probably obscure, but certainly David Hume and, oh I don't know...Nietzsche?), I just don't think he's one of them. And if I recall correctly, didn't he say that his most recent book was deliberately meant to try and "convert" various sorts of theist to atheism? He won't be doing it with his tactics. He might make those who agree with him feel better about themselves, but he also makes them look very bad to those who don't agree with him.

There's also a question of whether or not it's politically responsible. As Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" The fact is that most men are not philosophers, and most men will not put forth the requisite effort to figure out--rationally--a basis for their morality. What will they have left without God? What does Nietzsche's Zarathustra say to the Christian hermit he meets on the way down the mountain? He says that he brings a gift to man (the news that God is dead), but he will not give it to the hermit, lest he take something too valuable from him in doing so.

The point is that the atheism Dawkins offers is crude and unrefined (compare his public behavior to that of his {arguably} fellow atheist Benjamin Franklin); he has not given thought to what it implies about the whole of reality, and he has not given thought to what it may do to other people.

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies. I question the value of destroying those myths and replacing them with nothing (there are exceptions to this, depending on the content of the myths). In Aristophanes' The Clouds we see the effect that public atheism without a moderating influence can have on certain men. I would ultimately suggest that Dawkins is irresponsible in his atheism--regardless of whether or not he is correct in it--because he tears down rather than builds up. It isn't simply a matter of being true or false, it's a question of what fills that God-shaped void in the life of man: in certain parts of 20th century Europe, to borrow a phrase, the Myth of God was replaced by the Myth of the State. I might suggest that this did not work out all that well. The point is that--as Nietzsche and Benjamin Franklin both make clear--not all men can handle the implications of atheism. What do you do with those who see that there is no god, and thus conclude that there is no transcendent and knowable nature (another conclusion of Dawkins)? What happens when "Nature and Nature's God," as Jefferson put it, is done away with? In other words: what basis is there for so-called human rights, so-called natural rights, and the institutions built on them if their metaphysical presuppositions are pulled away? The answer seems to be none whatsoever, if we are going to follow thinkers as diverse as the atheist Nietzsche and the Russian Orthodox Dostoevsky--or even the American founder Ben Franklin. If there is no transcendent basis for a moral order--either in natural metaphysics or "Nature and Nature's God,"--then, as Nietzsche rightly sees, all that is left is the will to power as a basis for action.

[markfiend]

Hm. Food for thought.

In reply to "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" I'll point out that in the USA a lower proportion of the prison population are atheists compared to the general population.

It's not necessarily a case of destroying other people's myths; I'm perfectly happy for people to live by any myths they choose; it's about, as A C Grayling writes here, the increasing reluctance of secular people to be silent in the face of religiosity. And that is what I admire in Dawkins.

No theist is going to be deconverted by any rational debate or argument.

[6FeetOver]

No theist is going to be deconverted by any rational debate or argument.

Exactly. And I truly don't care what'd happen to the psyches of the common masses if their precious g*d-myths were destroyed, anyway. I'm not interested in, nor do I have time for, stupid or ignorant people (though, that said, at least ignorant people *might* be educated). I don't give a rat's arse what they "think" (as IF they think at all, ffs) or what happens to them, frankly. Moral order's a man-made concept; I'm an atheist, and I don't care about "society's" standards and mores; I have my own code of ethics that I live by that's got nothing to do with what Shrub believes, or what my dad holds dear, etc. Most of humanity and what it thinks, feels, and believes is of little use or value to me.

[Arch Deviant]

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies.

How do you know if they don't admit it. I don't live by any myths. Obviously you do or you wouldn't want to think that everyone else does. Presumptuous?

[6FeetOver]

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies.

How do you know if they don't admit it. I don't live by any myths. Obviously you do or you wouldn't want to think that everyone else does. Presumptuous?

Only just a little bit...

[Arch Deviant]

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies.

How do you know if they don't admit it. I don't live by any myths. Obviously you do or you wouldn't want to think that everyone else does. Presumptuous?

Only just a little bit...

Men !! Pffttt!

[Dr. Moody]

sorry fer all the readin but I think some of this is worth a look ...

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail


http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/con ... ticle=1826

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty ... heism.html


Dr. Moody is an atheist

[nick the stripper]

No theist is going to be deconverted by any rational debate or argument.

*coughs*

[sultan2075]

Hm. Food for thought.

In reply to "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" I'll point out that in the USA a lower proportion of the prison population are atheists compared to the general population.

Thanks.
I'd be curious to know how much of the religious committment is developed in prison?

It's not necessarily a case of destroying other people's myths; I'm perfectly happy for people to live by any myths they choose; it's about, as A C Grayling writes here, the increasing reluctance of secular people to be silent in the face of religiosity. And that is what I admire in Dawkins.

I've no problem with secular people ceasing to be silent in the face of religiosity, I do, however, have a problem with the sort of rudeness that Dawkins practices, just as I have a problem with the sort of rudeness that Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps engage in. And I can't believe how young Grayling looks! I thought he was much older.

No theist is going to be deconverted by any rational debate or argument.

What happened to Nietzsche then? He was a pious preacher's son in his youth. More to the point, though, if your claim is true, than we have to say either that a) religion cuts people off from the claims of reason, which I am unwilling to say across the board (although I would concede that some religious traditions cut one off from reason) or b) that atheism is just as irrational a leap of faith as theism is, in which case, the whole discussion is moot, as they're both arbitrarily chosen positions.

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies.

How do you know if they don't admit it. I don't live by any myths. Obviously you do or you wouldn't want to think that everyone else does. Presumptuous?

Unless you're like Socrates (and people like Socrates are exceedingly rare), you live by some opinions, usually derived from society, that you take as authoritative for your life. It's called being human. Myth doesn't have to mean stories about the supernatural. The presumption, in this case, is yours, in thinking yourself to be of such a rare type that you are not subject to the human condition.

[canon docre]

It's not necessarily a case of destroying other people's myths; I'm perfectly happy for people to live by any myths they choose; it's about, as A C Grayling writes here, the increasing reluctance of secular people to be silent in the face of religiosity. And that is what I admire in Dawkins.

thank you for that interesting link.

@Dr. Moody. Mmmmh, I'm shocked that it is obviously necessary to make evident statements like these in order to defend atheism.
It just proves that the USA is further on it's way to become a religious state just as their opponents from the Middle-East. Political secularism is one of the most important features of modern democracies.

[Dr. Moody]

Yep depressing isn't it, far too many people would have us all sat around mumbling from 2000 year old books and drinking goats milk.
Whatever Dawkins says its always going to be an uphill struggle against those that would tell everybody else what to believe and consequently do.
Still dont let the bastards grind you down.

[6FeetOver]

Unless you're like Socrates (and people like Socrates are exceedingly rare), you live by some opinions, usually derived from society, that you take as authoritative for your life. It's called being human. Myth doesn't have to mean stories about the supernatural. The presumption, in this case, is yours, in thinking yourself to be of such a rare type that you are not subject to the human condition.

Why does it seem to me that you feel almost threatened, or even angered, by the notion that some individuals could, indeed (ha!), make up their own minds about whether or not to believe - and, very possibly, independently of "society?" I'll use myself as an example, as I've only my own personal knowledge from which to draw.

I was baptized a Methodist as a child; my parents attended a number of Protestant churches when I was a kid, ranging from Methodist to Congregationalist. From what I recall, there was nothing particularly "fanatic" about anything preached on any Sunday that I sat up in the main church with my folks (over here, kids often have Sunday school elsewhere in the church building, in lieu of sitting with the congregation - dunno if that happens elsewhere - though it's not mandatory, and all children are welcome to sit with the congregation, as long as they're quiet, hehe). At about the age of 12 or so, having now "graduated", as it were, to sitting with my parents and the rest of the congregation every Sunday, I realized that I felt something akin to anger when listening to the sermons - regardless of the topic at hand. I grew more skeptical, and I've no idea why; it certainly didn't stem from anything my parents discussed in regards to religion. My dad's family in England had never been regular churchgoers, so his attendance was mainly in support of my mom and her beliefs. Nevertheless, he wasn't "against" organized religion at that time, from what I can remember.

At any rate, somewhere between the ages of 12-13, I told my folks that I was no longer interested in attending church services with them, because I thought everything that the minister(s) had to say was full of sh1t (naturally, at that age, I didn't word it *quite* like that, hahaha!). I can't explain this very well, because I really don't have a good grasp on why I felt this way at such a young age - and *utterly independently* of my family's attitudes, at that. Lest you cite friends' potential influences...well...I had no friends, so my "peer" group's views, whatever they may have been, had no bearing on mine whatsoever.

My folks didn't make a huge deal of it...after all, what could they have done? Drag me to church by my hair? Nah. I'd have fought that tooth and nail. So, it became a non-issue, and I simply stopped going along on Sundays. Extended family members (my mom's aunt and uncle) had often attended church with us; they initially seemed concerned about my refusal to go, but didn't make a stink about it, because they (wisely) realized that it was none of their business...

Several years later, having stayed overnight at a cousin's home (whose parents are of the Christian Fundamentalist lunatic fringe ilk of Dubya and his cronies), I was forced to attend "alternative" church services and a youth group meeting the following day - both of which I endured without protest, because at that time, I still respected my elders somewhat, hahahaha! (More importantly, I didn't want to cause problems for my mother, who'd have heard no end of it had I refused to go along with my cousin's family. My aunt is a fanatic and her church's ideologies are cultlike, but that's another story...)

I take NOTHING as "authoritative" from anything that any society on this planet dictates. I obey (most, heh) laws here in the U.S. simply because I don't feel like hanging out in courtrooms or rotting in prison. It's not called "being human" or the "human condition," sultan - it's called *herd mentality*, one that I've shunned for decades (and will continue to *fight* as long as I'm stuck on this little rock).

I'm free of society's influences, at least as they regard religion, politics, morals, beliefs, and values. I devised my personal code of ethics on my own, starting at a very young age. You could, too, if you really wanted to, you know...

[6FeetOver]

It just proves that the USA is further on it's way to become a religious state just as their opponents from the Middle-East.

...which is a major reason why I'm on my way to expatriation...

[sultan2075]

Why does it seem to me that you feel almost threatened, or even angered, by the notion that some individuals could, indeed (ha!), make up their own minds about whether or not to believe - and, very possibly, independently of "society?" I'll use myself as an example, as I've only my own personal knowledge from which to draw.

I was baptized a Methodist as a child; my parents attended a number of Protestant churches when I was a kid, ranging from Methodist to Congregationalist. From what I recall, there was nothing particularly "fanatic" about anything preached on any Sunday that I sat up in the main church with my folks (over here, kids often have Sunday school elsewhere in the church building, in lieu of sitting with the congregation - dunno if that happens elsewhere - though it's not mandatory, and all children are welcome to sit with the congregation, as long as they're quiet, hehe). At about the age of 12 or so, having now "graduated", as it were, to sitting with my parents and the rest of the congregation every Sunday, I realized that I felt something akin to anger when listening to the sermons - regardless of the topic at hand. I grew more skeptical, and I've no idea why; it certainly didn't stem from anything my parents discussed in regards to religion. My dad's family in England had never been regular churchgoers, so his attendance was mainly in support of my mom and her beliefs. Nevertheless, he wasn't "against" organized religion at that time, from what I can remember.

At any rate, somewhere between the ages of 12-13, I told my folks that I was no longer interested in attending church services with them, because I thought everything that the minister(s) had to say was full of sh1t (naturally, at that age, I didn't word it *quite* like that, hahaha!). I can't explain this very well, because I really don't have a good grasp on why I felt this way at such a young age - and *utterly independently* of my family's attitudes, at that. Lest you cite friends' potential influences...well...I had no friends, so my "peer" group's views, whatever they may have been, had no bearing on mine whatsoever.

My folks didn't make a huge deal of it...after all, what could they have done? Drag me to church by my hair? Nah. I'd have fought that tooth and nail. So, it became a non-issue, and I simply stopped going along on Sundays. Extended family members (my mom's aunt and uncle) had often attended church with us; they initially seemed concerned about my refusal to go, but didn't make a stink about it, because they (wisely) realized that it was none of their business...

Several years later, having stayed overnight at a cousin's home (whose parents are of the Christian Fundamentalist lunatic fringe ilk of Dubya and his cronies), I was forced to attend "alternative" church services and a youth group meeting the following day - both of which I endured without protest, because at that time, I still respected my elders somewhat, hahahaha! (More importantly, I didn't want to cause problems for my mother, who'd have heard no end of it had I refused to go along with my cousin's family. My aunt is a fanatic and her church's ideologies are cultlike, but that's another story...)

I take NOTHING as "authoritative" from anything that any society on this planet dictates. I obey (most, heh) laws here in the U.S. simply because I don't feel like hanging out in courtrooms or rotting in prison. It's not called "being human" or the "human condition," sultan - it's called *herd mentality*, one that I've shunned for decades (and will continue to *fight* as long as I'm stuck on this little rock).

I'm free of society's influences, at least as they regard religion, politics, morals, beliefs, and values. I devised my personal code of ethics on my own, starting at a very young age. You could, too, if you really wanted to, you know...

Uhm....Congratulations on figuring it all out at the tender age of 12?
What exactly is the point you're trying to make? What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to say?

[6FeetOver]

Uhm....Congratulations on figuring it all out at the tender age of 12? What exactly is the point you're trying to make? What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to say?

I never said that I had things all figured out - not at 12, and certainly not now.

*You* said, "Unless you're like Socrates (and people like Socrates are exceedingly rare), you live by some opinions, usually derived from society, that you take as authoritative for your life. It's called being human. Myth doesn't have to mean stories about the supernatural. The presumption, in this case, is yours, in thinking yourself to be of such a rare type that you are not subject to the human condition."

I'm not presumptuous, and you're not correct.

Don't argue semantics with me, Sir, because you won't win. Really. And acting resentful (as it seems that you are) makes you look envious, smug, and childish. And I'm just not that interested.

[sultan2075]

Uhm....Congratulations on figuring it all out at the tender age of 12? What exactly is the point you're trying to make? What, exactly, do you think I'm trying to say?

I never said that I had things all figured out - not at 12, and certainly not now.

Just a joke; I certainly wasn't trying to offend.

*You* said, "Unless you're like Socrates (and people like Socrates are exceedingly rare), you live by some opinions, usually derived from society, that you take as authoritative for your life. It's called being human. Myth doesn't have to mean stories about the supernatural. The presumption, in this case, is yours, in thinking yourself to be of such a rare type that you are not subject to the human condition."

I'm not presumptuous, and you're not correct.

Don't argue semantics with me, Sir, because you won't win. Really. And acting resentful (as it seems that you are) makes you look envious, smug, and childish. And I'm just not that interested.

I'm not resentful, I just genuinely don't know what your point is; I still don't. Everyone accepts opinions uncritically. It's a fact. I believe in the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I'm not an astronomer, so I've not demonstrated it to myself, and thus do not know it, but I believe that the sun is at the center of the solar system nonetheless. It's an authoritative opinion that I accept, uncritically. It may be a true opinion, but for me it's still just an opinion. It's not a question of semantics, it's a basic distinction between opinion and knowledge that underlies philosophical inquiry. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, and I'm sorry if you thought I was being argumentative. I thought it was merely a civil discussion on an interesting subject.

[6FeetOver]

@ sultan - check your PMs...

[sultan2075]

@ sultan - check your PMs...

Just did

Er....that means check yours shortly.

[markfiend]

The discussion has moved on a bit from yesterday, but...

Hey, I didn't notice from the previous page, Dr. Moody posting infidels.org links I post on the Infidels' message board from time to time.

No theist is going to be deconverted by any rational debate or argument.

I think I'll retract that claim.

Everyone accepts opinions uncritically. It's a fact. I believe in the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I'm not an astronomer, so I've not demonstrated it to myself, and thus do not know it, but I believe that the sun is at the center of the solar system nonetheless. It's an authoritative opinion that I accept, uncritically. It may be a true opinion, but for me it's still just an opinion.

Yes, but it's perfectly possible, at least in theory, for you to buy a telescope and make the observations yourself. In fact you can make an indirect observation yourself that confirms (or if you take a stricter view, fails to falsify) the heliocentric model: turn on your satellite TV. If the geocentric model were true, those satellites would not just "hang there" in their geosynchronous orbits. As an aside, the Ptolemaic system of a geocentric universe with the planets orbiting in their epicycles fits the data almost as well as the Copernican model. (Indeed one can even build a geocentric model that works with Einsteinian relativity, I'm told -- although the equations get fearsomely complicated) but the heliocentric model explains the data with fewer unnecessary entities -- Ockham's razor at work.

The body of scientific theory as a whole works to this principle. The data are there for anyone who cares to take a look. A lot of technology that does work would not do so if the theories were wrong*; the technology behind computers and the Internet relies on our knowledge of all sorts of quantum stuff that I, personally, am at a loss to explain.

So yes, my opinion that the solar system is heliocentric is just that, an opinion, it is an opinion that can be supported from evidence.

I'm just rambling here. I've forgotten what point I was trying to make.

* Wrong theories: technically, all scientific theories are "wrong" to some degree, in that they are incomplete. For instance, the unification of quantum theory (ultra-small-scale) with relativity and gravity (ultra-large-scale) has still not been accomplished.

[Arch Deviant]

All men have myths that they live by, even scientific men, whether they want to admit it or not. The same goes for societies.

How do you know if they don't admit it. I don't live by any myths. Obviously you do or you wouldn't want to think that everyone else does. Presumptuous?

Unless you're like Socrates (and people like Socrates are exceedingly rare), you live by some opinions, usually derived from society, that you take as authoritative for your life. It's called being human. Myth doesn't have to mean stories about the supernatural. The presumption, in this case, is yours, in thinking yourself to be of such a rare type that you are not subject to the human condition.

You really are full of your own arrogant presumptions.

[markfiend]

A defence of Dawkins' rudeness and lack of philosophical finesse, from P Z Meyers.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

[sultan2075]

A defence of Dawkins' rudeness and lack of philosophical finesse, from P Z Meyers.

lots o' words

That's not really satisfactory though, is it? The major error Dawkins makes, I think, is that he seems to think that the existence of God is the sort of thing that reason can prove or disprove, an error that stems from the fact that he has not sufficiently considered the limits of reason. The entire metaphor breaks down precisely because even Dawkins has metaphysical* presuppositions that he does not adequately account for or explain. He wants to make what are, by definition, metaphysical statements ("God does not exist") without engaging the considerations necessary to determine whether statements such as "God exists" or "God does not exist" can even be uttered in a meaningful way.

The other major criticism one might make is that he consistently engages in straw-man tactics, i.e., the theism he critiques is not the sort of theism that a philosophically aware believer would take as legitimate anyway--he tends to go after the "God is an old man in the sky" view (in various degrees of complexity), which makes for good copy and entertaining ripostes, but is hardly an accurate represenation of what the intellectually sophisticated believer accepts. If he wants to beat up on fundamentalist literalists and young-earth creationsists, or even intelligent design sorts, that's fine, but he shouldn't expect to be taken seriously--it's the equivalent of taking candy from a baby. If he wants to seriously prove that he is correct, he needs to do a lot of philosophical heavy lifting that he thus far has shown no inclination toward doing. Until he does, he's simply a gussied-up version of the angry high-school atheist out to shock the establishment.




*In the philosophical sense of being concerned with the nature of the whole in the broadest terms, not in the "power crystals and angels" sense of the Metaphysical Studies section of your local Waldenbooks, just in case anyone is wondering.

[weebleswobble]

f*ck me, I never read a post if it's over a paragraph long.

I have a very small attention sp