RW,
I finished something early, so I will steal a few minutes to respond to you.
1) Previously in this thread you acknowledged the importance of respecting precise definitions of words where science is concerned, yet here you exempt Dawkins from just such precision when it comes to theology. In fact, you over-generalize and create a strawman (for Dawkins) by claiming that "the believer will disagree and say, 'Oh, no, faith is much more complex than that,' and then run around saying, 'They found the ark, they found the ark!'" Yes, a precise definition of faith IS more complex than you and others portray, as Barlow indicates when he says: quote:
Reformed Christians realize that this [Dawkins'] definition of faith is a caricature. Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic.
If Dawkins were giving a theological lecture, he would be held to a high standard. If he were trying to prove religion wrong, he would be held to a high standard. But when he talks about faith in a general speech, he is obviously not talking from an expert perspective, and no one expects that of him.
When people in this forum try to discredit science by misuing terms that scientists use in precise ways, they should be held to a high standard. If they are just talking about science in general speech, no one expects them to be scientists, or to talk about science from an expert's perspective.
Barlow had every right to point out flaws in Dawkins' definitions, if Barlow thinks they are incorrect. However, I do think Dawkins is right in this case. Faith really does amount to belief without proof. After all, if faith could be proved, it would no longer be faith, but proof. Now, that is a simple way of expressing it, but it does come down to that in the end, in my opinion.
Believers disagree and present all sorts of things they view as evidence. Inevitably, their evidence boils down to emotion, coincidence, wishes, and hope. When Aunt Tillie has her prayer answered by taking the correct turn at the U-turn, that's proof to her, but not to me. When someone says they have virtually spoken with God, that's proof to him, but not to me. And so on. Dawkins is used to evidence in the scientific sense, and it's much more vigorous than they way you or I use the word. Religious persons can provide zero evidence of that nature in support of their faith, and thus Dawkins sees what he sees.
Barlow says, 'Oh no, faith is merely a precondition for knowledge,' which begs the question of what faith itself actually is. Faith is irrational and unscientific -- from the strict perspective of the scientist. Dawkins spoke from his perspective, Barlow from his, and none of this has anything to do with evolution veracity or failure. It's merely two men talking about a word from different perspectives.
You do not address this at all, giving the impression of holding Dawkins to a lower standard than you hold those who question aspects of evolutionary theory.
Not a lower standard. Barlow has every right to object to Dawkins' use of the word. That's the same standard. I may not agree with Barlow, but that doesn't negate his right.
2) Barlow's argument clearly is NOTaimed at science, but, rather, at Dawkins' philosophy of metaphysical naturalism--the view that the physical universe, the "cosmos," is all there is (and thus that there can be no God) ... his scienTISM. Barlow takes Dawkins to task not for any issue of science, but for his unquestioning "faith": "faith in logic, of whose foundations he can give no account, faith in induction, upon which he builds science, and faith in the evolving human brain and the evolving human society to more often produce Martin Luther Kings than John Wayne Gacys."
Dawkins doesn't have "faith" in logic. And yes, Barlow is aiming at science, trying to discredit a very famous evolutionist. This is the dishonest part I was referring to. If you can discredit Dawkins in other areas, you begin to feel that you can discredit anything he says. It's a favorite trick of the believers (and the WTS, come to think of it). There is a reason Barlow chose to respond to a speech by Dawkins, and it has to do with Dawkins standing as an evolutionist. He's enemy #1 (or #2 or whatever) to believers who want to fight against evolution. So I viewed this essay as an attempt to discredit the thinking of Dawkins when he happend to be talking about something other than evolution. By doing so, I'm fairly certain Barlow wanted his readers to say to themselves, "Huh, this Dawkins guy doesn't even know the first thing about something
I know well, faith, so clearly he can't be trusted in anything."
Why do I think this of Barlow? Seen it many times before, and against Dawkins himself. It's an old tactic.
3) Barlow's argument is also aimed at Dawkins' arguments in the area of religion. If a Christian physicist makes an argument for directed evolution, many would no doubt take issue, saying that he is not qualified to speak about biology; likewise, if a Christian biologist makes an argument for a created universe, many will say he is not qualified to speak about cosmology. So can you see why Barlow is correct in taking issue with Dawkins when he makes strident claims about ethical, metaphysical or religious issues, even using theological references imprecisely ("faith") or inaccurately ("doubting Thomas")?
Absolutely, this is Barlow's area of expertise, and he can object as much as he wants. That is his right. And yes, when Dawkins speaks on the subject of religion, he is not an expert the way he is in evolution or science. It's like asking a biologist to explain the weather. He may do a bang-up job anyway, but it's not his area. The WTS likes to do this all the time, quoting a lawyer who says something bad about evolution, as if that's relevant.
Next, you said:quote:
Morality is better based on Christianity? Nonsense. The author's view of how morality developed leaves out the key development. It isn't just a case of matter developing over time, but of observed and enforced behavior. It absolutely is possible to tell right from wrong without resorting to God's checklist, and humanity figured it out long before there ever was a religion. The author ignores this, and pretends that morality is irrelevant to an evolutionist. That's truly dishonest.
Barlow did not say that "morality is irrelevant to an evolutionist." This is the second instance where you have obviously misrepresented him.
I misstated the point. What Barlow said was, "In Dawkins' world-view, people are just animals battling it out in history -- it is no more ethical to let our children decide for themselves about religious issues than it is to grind them up and use them to fertilize the family garden." and from that I read into it an offensive idea that he was assigning to evolutionists. I'm so used to believers slandering evolutionists about their lack of morals that I read what Barlow said as morality being no more relevent than it is to an animal.
He argues against Dawkins' concept of "rational moral philosophy." You have not offered any counterpoints in this connection, but have merely warned us away with your opinion. "Observed and enforced behavior"? Observed and enforced by whom? Parents? Schoolteachers? Employers? Governments? Societies? Cultures? Eras? These may all have different views and standards. How do you arrive at the conclusion "it absolutely is possible to tell right from wrong" with all these possibly conflicting standards? "Humanity figured it out long before there ever was a religion"? When was this? Is this ages-old standard still followed by modern-day society? If this is true, can you respond to Barlow's argument: "At least Christianity provides the ethical tools needed to critique the behavior of its own. Christians can condemn the actions of the Spanish Inquisition. Scientists like Dawkins [note, LIKE DAWKINS, i.e., not ALL scientists], however, cannot even give a coherent reason for why the biological experiments of the Nazis were unethical."
They were unethical because they caused harm. Yes, morality can vary depending on the circumstance and era and society, but taking life is always considered wrong, even if it can be necessary in time of war. Why? Why do we view taking life as wrong? Because of observed behavior. It's easy to see the harm that comes from murder, and it must have been so the first time it happened in humanity's past, millions of years ago. Long before humans had the higher capacity to invent religious ideas, they could kill each other, and notice the pain that such killing caused to others. That's what I meant.
You said:quote:
Finally, he thinks he finds a contradiction in Dawkins' view of the awe of science, without thinking it through enough to realize that both statements are true: there is awe in the world and despair. No contradiction at all.
Here, again, you have apparently misunderstood what Barlow said. He says nothing about any contradiction. Note his actual words (I'm highlighting to help): "I'm not so sure that Dawkins has made his case that science replaces religion's sense of wonder and awe." Barlow did not say that science doesn't afford a sense of awe. Of course it does. Barlow was taking issue with Dawkins' claim: "The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise."
Let me quote some other of his words, the words I had in mind when I said contradiction:
"Dawkins writes...[about awe]. Later, however, he writes...[about despair.] So is science a good source of encouragement and awe, or for despair and nihilism?"
See the contradiction he's trying to introduce? I don't think I misunderstood the linguistic trickery Barlow tried to pull here.
Barlow is trying to discredit Dawkins at every turn, when Dawkins gave a speech on an area that is not his area of expertise. Why do this? Because Dawkins is good at teaching evolution, so good that it's better to find ways to discredit him elsewhere and hope the reader gets the hint and ignores what Dawkins says on evolution as well.
I don't deny Barlow's right to take on Dawkins. Good for him! But I also don't agree with what he said, and found he wasn't being very honest underneath it all. People often try to turn discussions about evolution away from science and into emotion. 'Yes, but what if this were true, we'd have anarchy!' But this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains how we developed as a species. These forays into 'social evolution' are designed to discredit the science of evolution by introducing ideas that evolution does not, and should not, comment upon. That we descended from other creatures is written clearly in the evidence of this world. That this should somehow come to bear on the issue of morality is something for the philosophers to discuss, not science.
But believers, who cannot answer Dawkins on the subject of evolution, will take comfort on this criticism of his comments on morality and feel thereby that he must not know what he is talking about in science as well. That's the dishonesty.
Seeker, I've tried to word this post so as not to be offensive or sarcastic. I dread seeing emotion creep into forum threads. I'm sure you'll agree that if we are truly "seeking" truth, then these ought not be emotional, but simply rational and respectful discussions.
I had no problem with your post. It was quite respectful, even though you clearly disagreed with me. I thank you for that.
