// Remember, I never explicitly refused to acknowledge Dawkins as a scientist.//
No, you are prudent in that you quote others to make your point.
Have the courage of your opinion.
By the way, you don't know me — just sayin'...
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
braincleaned
-
adamah
adamah said: “Well, there's part of the problem: you're reading a book intended for lay-people and expecting it to be a published journal study.”
Etude said: OK, then. Please advise me on which particular work of Dawkins I should read in order to determine if “memes” is a viable hypothesis. I’m not being sarcastic here. I just think that if the criticism I’ve read of that postulate means anything, I would have to reconsider a scientist who is making the same mistake you’re suggesting I’m making: taking a proposal from a lay-book rather than a scientific paper. I already mention Wilson’s Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion as a reference. I’m not sure, but I venture to guess that someone of Wilsons caliber would base his criticism on more than a popular book.
The term 'meme' has become a commonly-accepted "meme" in itself, and use of the term has "gone viral" (another meme inspired by Dawkins' meme). It's not a scientific hypothesis, but a linguistic metaphor: prhaps it's a useful concept for linguists to describe a phenomena or trend, but it's NOT a hypothesis for evolutionary biology. It's possibly of interest to dictionary editors, and social psychologists? I suspect you're vastly overestimating the importance of the concept to the World of psychology or biology, if you think the topic was a matter of intense interest amongst other than the lay press.
Note that Wilson has made a minor career out of being a critic of Dawkins, and ALSO is selling a book countering Dawkins' assertion on the topic. A cynic would point out that BOTH are selling books, but Wilson is making $$ off of a career of opposing the writings of Dawkins, and the lay public eats up someone selling books that tell off Dawkins, who wants to see the "arrogant and smug Brit" Dawkins being taken down a notch.
Etude said: I took two courses in college on Biology and one included Evolution. We converd Phenotypes and Genotypes; Molecular Evolution; Inheritance and other topics. Even then I had some interesting questions for my professor. But, I don’t think you’re really that interested since you’re assuming I’m still carrying the “sticking thinking” (?) of the JWs. OK, whatever.
That sounds like a general biology course designed for non-science majors (that's why I asked specifically about an upper-division course (300/400 level) in evolution designed for biology majors). I'm not out to bust your chops or embarrass you, but just pointing out that a gen. ed. course in biology for non-majors doesn't cover anything but a general overview of the topic of evolution, and to be perfectly honest, even a quarter-long course in the topic with many years of pre-requisites (in which the topic of evolution is discussed, too, as it arises) is also just scratching the surface, and many majors will go deeper into the specific details of evolution in their concentration studies of sub-discipline (eg genetic evolutionary biologists who look at DNA, or a developmental biologist who studies embryology, etc). In other words, that 300/400 level course in evolution for bio majors is more of an "intro to evolution" course for many, since they focus on the specifics of evolution applicable to their concentration(s).
“Adam said- Sure, but I think the greatest abuse of the English language is how believers are not called on the carpet for creating a false equivalency by using a single word ('faith') to support beliefs in theology AND science.”
Etude said: I’m with you there. No argument from me. It has been my mission for a while to expose what is false and misleading. I’ve done plenty of that. However (drum roll please)… you are incorrect in saying that the question of belief is binary. You’re likely thinking about a mathematical numbering system that only has ones and zeros. Well, that would exclude other logic models that are tri-state or even multi-state. Don’t close yourself to other possibilities. Beyond that comparison, I have never conceived of what we can or cannot logically deduce as a state of belief. Yes, in logic you can have a positive answer or a negative answer. But you can also have an inconclusive answer, one where there isn’t enough information to be certain either way.
And a skeptic would withhold making a decision until AFTER there was sufficient evidence, since the default position on ALL beliefs SHOULD be "no belief in fairies or UFOs, etc, until AFTER evidence is presented" (as explained above).
The flaw you make above (with the multi-state, etc) is that the issue of EXISTENCE of anything IS binary, since the condition of existence IS binary: things either EXIST or they DON'T. It applies to Higgs bosons, rocks, AND Gods (especially a God that is said to have ALWAYS existed, per the Bible narrative). If you're thinking God may in fact exist but be imperceptible and undetectable, then that IS non-existence from the standpoint of science, since the evidence of existence needed by science MUST be perceptible/detectable. Science doesn't operate on faith.
Now, unless you're able to hold two contradictory beliefs in your head simultaneously AND have developed masterful control of powerful cognitive-dissonance suppression techniques, most people cannot hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, i.e. you cannot believe something exists while ALSO believing it doesn't exist (unless you just don't consciously THINK about it, which is another suppression technique of pushing it out of one's conscious thought). Yes, photons display properties of waves AND particles, and that requires acceptance SINCE there's experimental evidence to support BOTH claims. But you're likely making a mistake if you think you can apply the principles from the world of quantum physics to the question of God's existence.
Now, it's quite possible that you can vacillate, eg you decide in the morning you believe in God, and change your mind a minute later. However, that would be "wishy-washy", and that's not the hallmark of a "profound" or deep thinker, but more consistent with a wishy-washy personality who is indecisive and unable to make decisions (when a skeptical person would know they COULDN'T make a decision, and would have to remain a non-believer). I don't know you, of course, but I'm just throwing it out there, since you'd be surprised how many people perceive themselves as some type of deep thinker when their actions and spoken words would suggest otherwise.
Etude said: When most people flip a coin, they generally think that there are two possible outcomes: heads and tails. Would I be incorrect in assuming that it would never occur to you a coin could land on its edge? Do you consider that out of the realm of possibility? One of the easiest sources I find is this one on Wikipedia: “Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.” [1][2][3] But one repercussion, at least for me, is that the very lack of reasonable assertions or evidence leads me to conclude the question of a deity is a non-issue. It is that same criticality that helps me examine other subjects. By your line of thinking, it would be impossible for an electron to exist in two places at the same time. For you it either is or it isn’t and Schrodinger’s cat is either alive or dead and can’t possibly be both while still in the box. Well, not everything in life is that way.
Enough with the coin-flip and Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics metaphors: the dangers of misuse of metaphors is well-known (but unfortunately all-too-common in people who had been told since childhood that Jesus' use of parables was some kind of revolutionary breakthrough, when it's actually a weak teaching device, since people tend to over-apply metaphors well-beyond the stress points where such comparisons break down.)
When it comes to how beliefs seem to operate in the brain, we don't need to rely on metaphors, since the studies from neuroscience and psychology have suggested useful new models of how human decision-making actually works (see above), using terms with strict definitions accepted by those working in psychology/psychiatry.
Etude said: Again: “In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.” [3][4][5] Is that dogmatic enough for you? Can it change in definition? Sure. But then, we would have to revisit the whole issue. You can wait for the day “when the clouds part and God reveals Himself” so you can ask Him/Her/It questions. I have no such illusions and will not contemplate what will happen if that take place. Oh wait, were you being a bit facetious? That’s OK because we’re in agreement then and I’m not so much as you suggest, with my JW "sticking thinking" and all. All-righty, then.
I am using conventions (eg soft vs hard) which are commonly-accepted by atheist organizations, eg atheist-experience.com, and used by the likes of Tracie Harris, Jen Peoples, Matt Dilahunty, etc.
On that page:
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
This has been discussed ad nauseum for centuries now, but I say it's time to put the term 'agnostic' out to pasture, since unlike 'atheist', the term makes no logical sense to anyone who understands what the principles of gnosticism actually were, and current models of human thinking. The term was made up by TH Huxley in the middle-1800's to poke fun of believers who claimed to "know" certain truths, but the term is poorly-defined and meaningless; worse, it's based on old theological models of thought, and not the principles of psychology (in the World of theology, knowledge and belief were accepted as separate ideas, where Divine knowledge was said to exist and was considered superior to some human beliefs: absolute nonsense, and confusing when it comes to describing the beliefs held by the person).
Adam
-
Etude
“No, you are prudent in that you quote others to make your point.
Have the courage of your opinion.
By the way, you don't know me — just sayin'...”Nor do you know me. So, keep on sayin’. Yes, I explicitly refused to acknowledge Dawkins as a scientist because I had the crazy idea that my opinion would not count as much for some people. But apparently, neither does the opinion of someone else who has credentials up to the arm pits. It’s obvious that nothing will change your mind on that. So, I’m assuming that you reject Wilson’s criticism of Dawkins (for whatever reasons) and that you would probably not recognize any other source of dissent. Well then, I guess our conversation is over.
-
Etude
“The term 'meme' has become a commonly-accepted "meme" in itself”
I appreciate your explanation of the subtleties in the definition and I tend to agree. However, when I replied to Anony Mous and gave the meme example, I was not confusing it with the popular vernacular meaning that today has made it a cliché. I was discussing the concept that Dawkins himself put forth in his book.
“…it's NOT a theory for evolutionary biology”
Correct. And I don’t think I insinuated that or insinuated that Dawkins thinks that. In fact, I mentioned that memes is his attempt at an explanation for traits that cannot be explained via inheritance (hence Evolutionary Biology). Are we good on that? But the significance of memes is their role as vehicles for Natural Selection to pass on behavior and rituals, some of which may seem beneficial, some that don’t appear beneficial and none of which can be explained in terms of the selfish gene. His whole point is: why would Natural Selection give rise to an illogical behavior such as religion when it’s not beneficial? Memes is one of his means to explain that, along with Group Selection and Extended Phenotypes. It just doesn’t succeed for the reasons I already mentioned.
“Note that Wilson ALSO is selling a book countering Dawkins' assertion. A cynic would point out that BOTH are selling books, but Wilson is making a $ off of a career challenging and opposing the writings of Dawkins, and the lay public eats up someone selling books that tell off Dawkins.”
Yeah but, is he wrong? If you were really diligent and honest about it, you would find out that Wilson is something like 80 years old and has had an illustrious career in science. The Dawkins development is quite recent. Are you saying I should discount anything Wilson has to say about Dawkins because he’s making money? Do you see a nefarious motivation on the part of Wilson for addressing Dawkins’ issues and not because the science doesn’t hold up? If you know of any, please let me know. I hope you’re also aware that Wilson is only one of many. I already mentioned Sober and Coon.
Sure, I had the basics in college. And no, I was not pursuing a biology major. I was going for a Math major. What’s significant for me is that I never stopped learning. Therefore, I don’t find lack of more advanced courses a detriment for understanding aspect of Evolution and Natural Selection just as you suggested Dawkins not being a physicist or cosmologist is not a detriment in understanding science.
You said: “And a skeptic would withhold making a decision until AFTER there was sufficient evidence”, regarding my agreement about how religion is not called to the carpet. But, please don’t confuse the issues. If religion is not “called to the carpet” as you said, that has nothing to do with whether I should withhold my opinion of whether God exists or not. Which I don't. I believe religion exists and I believe it’s an anathema. That doesn’t provide any credence from me about God or UFOs or teacups flying around the solar system. I think you’re misplacing the word “belief”.
I really disagree with you on the binary state of things. The reason is because, even in real life there are things that cannot be known at any one time. For example, if I know of someone who was alive and traveled to the Philippines before the typhoon, I know the following: 1) that he or she was alive and may still be alive, 2) that he or she may be dead and 3) that he or she is in a state where I cannot know yet whether he or she is alive or dead. What I had mentioned in my prior post was an attempt to illustrate an intangible concept and not an effort to provide evidence.
This is where your train took another route. The idea of an unknown state applies to many things. You don’t seem to want to accept that for all practical purposes, I don’t believe there’s a God. But as matter of precision, there simply is no way for anyone to logically of factually prove it either way. The third state of things is making that conclusion: admitting that we can’t prove it. Instead, you’re making it out as if I’m debating in my head whether or not there’s a big magic guy in the sky. You’re missing the whole point.
“Enough with the coin-flip and Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics metaphors”
Seriously? You’re not anti-science, are you? You don’t think that certain disciplines overlap and that often Philosophy is the meta-language for science? Maybe it’s you who needs more college courses or at least have some more education on why thought experiments and metaphors are essential in science. I imagine that you have a problem with mathematical beauty and cosmological elegance. Yes, scientists actually speak that way. Look it up.
But even you will hem and haw about definitions: “I am using conventions (eg soft vs hard) which are commonly-accepted by atheist organizations, eg atheist-experience.com, and used by the likes of Tracie Harris, Jen Peoples, Matt Dilahunty, etc.” Soft vs hard? C’mon it either is or it isn’t. Right? You either get a boner or you don't. Oh, wait! Can it be a little flacid. Yeah, I guess you can call that a third state of arousal. If we can’t agree on definitions or on the idea that some references make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, then there’s no point continuing this conversation. For that reason, I doubt you’ll get your way and have agnosticism put out to pasture, certainly not any more than Dawkins is going to get his way (unfortunately for the world) and do away with religions. As a non-believer, I feel it’s a shame religion just doesn’t go away.
-
bohm
etude:
Your marbles are falling out of your head.
lol
I never ranted about “him” without recognizing his good qualities. Does that not count for something?
Yet it seems like i am not the only persion who got that impression for some reason. As braincleaned noted, the goalpost keep getting moved.
Hey, sorry if you can’t handle a Thesaurus.
hey, sorry you think using one make you seem smart.
That’s why you think I spoke about testicles, which I didn’t
No wonder you need that thesaurus if you cant remember what you wrote one page back:
even if she’s able to stimulate your gonads
movement of goalpost incoming in 3...2...
-
adamah
Adam said- "Note that Wilson ALSO is selling a book countering Dawkins' assertion. A cynic would point out that BOTH are selling books, but Wilson is making a $ off of a career challenging and opposing the writings of Dawkins, and the lay public eats up someone selling books that tell off Dawkins.”
Etude said- Yeah but, is he wrong? If you were really diligent and honest about it, you would find out that Wilson is something like 80 years old and has had an illustrious career in science. The Dawkins development is quite recent. Are you saying I should discount anything Wilson has to say about Dawkins because he’s making money? Do you see a nefarious motivation on the part of Wilson for addressing Dawkins’ issues and not because the science doesn’t hold up? If you know of any, please let me know. I hope you’re also aware that Wilson is only one of many. I already mentioned Sober and Coon.
No, but frankly, I don't care, since this discussion is going way-OT (although it's interesting to note that Wilson admits to being an atheist, as does Dawkins).
Etude said- You said: “And a skeptic would withhold making a decision until AFTER there was sufficient evidence”, regarding my agreement about how religion is not called to the carpet. But, please don’t confuse the issues. If religion is not “called to the carpet” as you said, that has nothing to do with whether I should withhold my opinion of whether God exists or not. Which I don't. I believe religion exists and I believe it’s an anathema. That doesn’t provide any credence from me about God or UFOs or teacups flying around the solar system. I think you’re misplacing the word “belief”.
I use this definition of 'belief': ideas a person personally accepts as true, and upon which they subsequently make decisions (and whether they actually are true or not is another matter, i.e. we often speak of 'delusional beliefs', where although the person may be totally convinced that something is true, it doesn't change the fact that they are incorrect, eg a person's conviction that the gun wasn't loaded before cleaning it could be as strong as anything, but it wouldn't change the fact they ended up killing themselves when they pulled the trigger on an "unloaded" gun).
Existence, whether we're speaking of God(s), fairies, the Batman character, or Richard Dawkins, is a binary condition: something either exists or it doesn't. 3/4 of those examples exist ONLY as fictional or mythological characters (ideas), whereas Dawkins actually exists as a physical entity, a collection of cells. If you need to resort to states of existence from the World of quantum physics, you are reeaalllyy stretching, since the conditions that exist on the level of the sub-atomic particle are far removed from ordinary daily human perceptions that occur on the macroscopic level.
Etude said- I really disagree with you on the binary state of things. The reason is because, even in real life there are things that cannot be known at any one time. For example, if I know of someone who was alive and traveled to the Philippines before the typhoon, I know the following: 1) that he or she was alive and may still be alive, 2) that he or she may be dead and 3) that he or she is in a state where I cannot know yet whether he or she is alive or dead. What I had mentioned in my prior post was an attempt to illustrate an intangible concept and not an effort to provide evidence.
And that sort of waffling is more evidence that you tend to get sidetracked by issues or are unable to handle such uncertainties, as you're confused that the question of God's existence is based on existence in the HERE AND NOW, NOT on whether God existed in the past, or MIGHT exist in the future. The question is ONLY relevant for the HERE AND NOW, and not for tomorrow, since no one knows the future, eg I may wake up tomorrow and become a theist IF God decides to reveal himself in such a way as to satisfy the demands I'd need (and that He'd know, being omniscient) to convince me. So what? I'm speculating, and it's pointless to spend one's life playing such silly "what if?" games, esp since doing so is not healthy, since you're missing out on the HERE and NOW, what actually IS. We've all had a gutful of that kind of "what if?" thinking, and a willingness to endulge in it partly explains WHY someone may have wasted their time knocking on doors, believing in the "What If?" fantasy of eternal panda-petting and lion-hugging.
Etude said- This is where your train took another route. The idea of an unknown state applies to many things. You don’t seem to want to accept that for all practical purposes, I don’t believe there’s a God.
Great: so you're an atheist then, and NOT an agnostic.
You just said it publicly, though, so you're now a 'hard atheist': you now bear the burden of proof to back up that positive assertion, since as the one who makes the claim, you now bear the responsibility for presenting a compelling evidence to back up that claim.
That's why most 'hard atheists' prefer not to STATE their belief out loud, since it places them in the more-strenuous position of having to do all the talking....
Etude said- But as matter of precision, there simply is no way for anyone to logically of factually prove it either way. The third state of things is making that conclusion: admitting that we can’t prove it. Instead, you’re making it out as if I’m debating in my head whether or not there’s a big magic guy in the sky. You’re missing the whole point.
Sorry, but I could not disagree more strongly.
The old "there's no way to prove it either way" is absurd: anyone who's studied evolution, sociology, history of religion, literary criticism, etc possesses more-than-sufficient EVIDENCE to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Abrahamic God, the God spoken of in the Bible, doesn't exist and NEVER EXISTED. You don't even have to leave Genesis, or understand diddly-squat about evolution, in order to do that! In fact, anyone who's willing to admit that slavery is immoral (hence why it was abolished a few hundred years ago) is able to see that even IF God exists, He's not worthy of worship, much less existance (and should be put to death, if he did exist).
It's trivially-, even embarrassingly-easy to do so, but only IF the person they're trying to convince isn't biased by their own DESIRES and WISHES for such a horrible character to exist.
Adam said- “Enough with the coin-flip and Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics metaphors”
Etude said- Seriously? You’re not anti-science, are you? You don’t think that certain disciplines overlap and that often Philosophy is the meta-language for science? Maybe it’s you who needs more college courses or at least have some more education on why thought experiments and metaphors are essential in science. I imagine that you have a problem with mathematical beauty and cosmological elegance. Yes, scientists actually speak that way. Look it up.
You're abusing concepts from science. That's not anti-science, but more like anti-abuse OF science. And as if intent on constantly proving your ability to abuse and misunderstand science, you then said this:
Etude said- But even you will hem and haw about definitions: “I am using conventions (eg soft vs hard) which are commonly-accepted by atheist organizations, eg atheist-experience.com, and used by the likes of Tracie Harris, Jen Peoples, Matt Dilahunty, etc.” Soft vs hard? C’mon it either is or it isn’t. Right? You either get a boner or you don't. Oh, wait! Can it be a little flacid. Yeah, I guess you can call that a third state of arousal.
Whoops, dere it is!
Proof that you seem to be confused on the difference between examples of states which are continuous (i.e. an innumerable number of possible points existing between two set points, or limits) and those that are discrete (eg like a binary light switch, which is EITHER on OR off at any given instantanous point in time). Existence is a BINARY condition: either something exists OR it doesn't (odd that you don't get that: most ex-believers are prone to the old dualist thinking from their Zoroasterian-inspired beliefs from Christianity, eg good/evil, Ahuru Mazda /Angra Mainyu, light/dark, black/white, up/down, etc)
Etude said- If we can’t agree on definitions or on the idea that some references make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, then there’s no point continuing this conversation.
Language works by using commonly-accepted standards, including meanings of words. If you don't find the arguments compelling, then fine, but most atheists who actually have the balls to declare themselves as atheists aren't persuaded by anything but a sound argument and reason, so good luck opposing it. Just don't think you're hurting my peelings, since it's not MY ego involved: I didn't come up with the terms.
Googling a definition gives many hits, eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Etude said- For that reason, I doubt you’ll get your way and have agnosticism put out to pasture, certainly not any more than Dawkins is going to get his way (unfortunately for the world) and do away with religions. As a non-believer, I feel it’s a shame religion just doesn’t go away.
Yes, true, but why are you only adding noise to the discussion of other people's efforts to learn the basics of evolution, which are true, regardless of who speaks of it, as long as they're sticking to commonly-accepted principles of evolution (as Dawkins does)? Unless it was buried under the avalanche of irrelevance, your rant has been largely over NOTHING actually found in the "Greatest Show on Earth".
Adam
-
Etude
bohm:
“Yet it seems like i am not the only persion who got that impression”
Yes. But some other people didn’t. And if you did, that’s on you and the others who thought the same.
“sorry you think using one make you seem smart.”
I don’t. You’re the one who brought it up in relation to a cow. I realize your attempt at being witty. It failed miserably.
“to stimulate your gonads” Yes, my words.
I guess you also have troubles with metaphors. That’s why it appeared to me your reference about masturbation was literal and did not refer to mental gyrations. So, if I say that I think your preposterous ideas means you have balls as big as church bells, you’re going to unzip and check, just to be sure? I grew up knowing that difference between testicles and cojones. While their meaning can refer to the same part of the anatomy, they really are two different concepts. Stick that in your pipe – but don’t assume I mean you ought to take up smoking.
-
adamah
“to stimulate your gonads
Etude said- ”Yes, my words. I guess you also have troubles with metaphors.
If you're striving for others actually understanding what you have to say, then YOU'D see that YOU have a problem by using metaphors.
In fact, the Bible itself is sunk by overuse of metaphors, which also doesn't exactly serve as evidence of an omniscient God's ability to communicate with humanity in a clear-cut non-ambiguous manner: you'd think God might just see a teensie-weensie problem with recording his Divine Will in ancient Hebrew, a language without vowels, or even punctuation marks?
Heck, couldn't God have left a technologically-sophisticated gold disc on it with sounds embedded into it, like we equipped the Voyager with?
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html
Heck, couldn't have even left one of these behind?
-
bohm
etude: I guess you also have troubles with metaphors.
and you got troubles with the truth; theres that goalpost being moved again...
Etude: You either get a boner or you don't. Oh, wait! Can it be a little flacid. Yeah
what th...
no pictures please!
-
Etude
bohm:
...and you are, uh, the metaphore police? Are you an authority on metaphores? Wait. You're with the National Accademy of Metaphores. Right? Listen: Say whatever gets your rocks off, metaphorically speaking. Although, maybe for you it's literal. You say I have trouble with the truth, but you have never factually contradicted anything I've pointed out. You just keep "stroking that subject". I'm getting a very disturbing picture of you ever since that masturbation comment. By the way, you do realize that I've moved from metaphores to euphemism, don't ya? I'm waiting for you to "bite". In case you want to twist that into something else, I meant something involving how a fish takes a lure.
