adamah:
“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.”
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. 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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
