Posted by Hemant Mehta in I gave a speech at the Rally for Reason the evening before the Creation Museum opened.
I wrote about the Rally when it happened, but I just recently received the video of my speech (courtesy of Michigan Atheists).
It’s posted below. Enjoy!
If you’d like to follow along, here’s a transcript of what I’m saying (or meant to say, anyway):
Who knew there would come a day when Intelligent Design would be seen as a step up from anything?
Unfortunately, here we are, at the opening of this Creation Museum. Apparently, this is a museum full of hard facts and evidence. In fact, listen to what Answers in Genesis co-founder Mark Looy said in Friday’s Columbus Dispatch when asked how the Tree of Life portion of the Garden of Eden exhibit came about, since there’s no fossilized evidence revealing what the Tree actually looked like.
“We just made it up,” Looy said.
Facts. Lots of facts.
I’m offended by this museum for a number of reasons.
As a high school teacher, I’m upset that students might consider this a worthy source for information since it’s a “museum” and it has the support of a handful of people with the letters Ph.D. after their name.
As the chair of the Secular Student Alliance, I’m shocked that a fringe religious group can claim that their world-view is a legitimate alternative to science and be taken seriously by the media that doesn’t know any better.
As a science advocate, I’m sad that there will be young kids lacking critical thinking skills who will be suckered into thinking any of these exhibits actually reflect current scientific thought.
As a person who appreciates honesty, I’m distressed that museum visitors are essentially being told that the scientists who talk about fossils that are millions of years old and biologists who write peer-reviewed papers in support of Darwinian evolution are lying to you.
As an Indian-American, I’m shocked to find out that, according to the museum, my people didn’t exist 6,000 years ago.
There is an up-side to all this, though. We can use this museum to our advantage. Educated science teachers and professors need to be willing to take their students on a field trip to this museum, walking them through the building and explaining everything that is wrong with the exhibits.
It may need to be an overnight trip.
We need someone to create a podcast of a walking tour through the museum. This way, people can download the mp3 for free before coming here, and they can listen to proper scientific responses to the garbage they’re seeing.
Let’s create a handout for students so that if they have to come here, they have a list of scientific facts in front of them, and a list of difficult questions to ask their tour guides.
As the headline from a Scientific American blog posting noted, the one piece of accurate information you do learn after a trip to this museum is that Creationists have lots of cash. But that’s where the justifiable information stops.
We know this is bad science, but it’s even worse religion. I hope that Christian pastors and leaders across the country will help us in denouncing this museum to their congregations. There are plenty of Christians out there who manage to reconcile faith with science. This museum is as much of a travesty to their beliefs as it is to ours. If they support the truth, they cannot simply stand back and watch the rest of us protest. This can’t be an atheist-only rally. It needs to be a multi-faith demonstration. Christians need to be on the front lines, too.
We’re all here because we support scientific truth and we know that young people would be in awe of science if only they had a proper understanding of it. As one blogger put it, “How many of these children might have become groundbreaking scientists were it not for the constant stream of anti-evolutionary propaganda overwhelming them since before they ever start school?“
This museum takes childlike curiosity about the world and rips it apart by telling children (and uneducated adults) lies about how the Earth and our bodies came to be. If we care at all about the future, we can’t let this museum get away with calling itself an educational institution.
Let’s get one thing straight. This is not a demonstration against the Bible. It’s not a rally against Christians’ right to literally believe what the Bible says. It’s a rally calling for people to educate themselves at a real museum. Run by real scientists. Who rely on all pieces of evidence, not just those that fit neatly, or can be forced, into the Biblical story.
Real scientists know that there is always more work to be done and so much more to be discovered. We don’t know everything, and we’ll admit that, but we have a damn good method to find the answers.
I dare you to show me one place in the Creation Museum where there’s an unanswered question. These people pride themselves on the idea that the book of Genesis tells them everything they ever needed to know about Creation. That’ll be their ultimate downfall… if we can shed light on it.
But unless we have scientists, bloggers, Christians, students, and teachers explaining exactly why this museum has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the whims of a few fundamentalist religious people, there’s no way we will overcome this mess.
Let this museum be a wake up call to educators everyone that we need to do a better job of teaching science.
If we are spurred to do that, maybe this museum won’t be a complete waste of money. And won’t it be an amazing day when we can tell students to check out the Creation Museum because their final exam will include an essay question where they have to discuss all the mistakes they found in the science?
[tags]atheist, atheism, Intelligent Design, Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis, Mark Looy, Columbus Dispatch, Tree of Life, Garden of Eden, Secular Student Alliance, evolution, Indian-American, Scientific American, Creationist, Christian, Bible[/tags]
*Mriana applauds* Great speech, Hemant!
Don’t tell me, all the Flintstones were white? If so, my children’s other 1/2 ancestors didn’t exist either 6000 years ago. 
So, here then are the questions that aren’t answered by the ignorant Creationists (mind you I’ve not been to the museum)… Where did all the Indians, Africans (my sons’ other ancestory), Native Americans (part of mine and my sons’ ancestory too), Asians, etc come from then if everyone was white? If we did not come out of Africa and our bodies adapt to other climates, then where was the Garden of Eden? If Jesus was from Israel, why isn’t he dark skinned, dark hair, and brown eyes, like say, oh an Arab or Egyptian?
great speech!
Interesting speech, I found it very interesting that you called upon christians to defeat this “unscientific” position. I have a question: considering your dislike for mixing philosphical positions with “science” how did you feel about Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion?” He provided very little scientific evidence for his position and yet he mixed his philosphical materialism with his evolutiary biology? Could it be that this propensity to mix philosophy with “science” isn’t simply a “fundamentalist christian” problem?
Mriana
You wrote:
“Where did all the Indians, Africans (my sons’ other ancestory), Native Americans (part of mine and my sons’ ancestory too), Asians, etc come from then if everyone was white?”
I don’t think creationists are saying that they came out of thin air. Isn’t that kind of a straw man argument where you ask a question based upon something you think they might say?
Mind you I’m not “defending” them as much as questioning your use of logic? (ie unless one believes native americans came over here 30k years ago one doesn’t believe Jesus was “dark skinned” or “arab”… Not following the connection)
They come up with strawmen all the time, so I don’t see any reason why I can’t have them answer that question. If they want to come up with strawmen, then they need to be accountable for all of them, IMHO.
Oh and besides that, there is a very good possibility they are saying JUST that. My grandfather believed “The Mark of Cain” was being turned into a Black person. So, no, it’s no more of a strawman than what they normally come up with on a regular bases and again, they need to be accountable for them ALL! Including the stupid idea of “The Mark of Cain” when it was just a freakin’ story, not a means to legitamize racism.
I’d stand up and cheer but I’m in the library so…yeah (that’s also why I had to read the speech, I’ll have to run the audio once I’m home).
Good job!
mike brown, do you have an example from the god delusion where Dawkins supports science with philosophy?
mike brown, I think what Hemant was referring to was that Spanish/Native American/Indian people were in the USA 6000 years ago contrary to what the museum says. Mriana has some ancestory that is not white and also puzzled at how the museum could honestly say her ancestors didn’t exist. I am pretty sure the creationists are saying that Adam and Eve came out of thin air(dust/ribs) 6000 years ago when god sparked them into existence.
Nice job, Hemant! You’re an excellent speaker.
One question: You issued a stirring and rather inspirational invitation to Christians, specifically, to join us in speaking out against the disinformation in that museum. What response - if any - has there been from the Christian, or even the religious, community?
Once again, I’m not defending the museum I’m simply questioning the logic involved in stating that the museum is saying they came out of thin air.
“Mriana has some ancestory that is not white and also puzzled at how the museum could honestly say her ancestors didn’t exist.”
Well once again I’m not saying they are saying this…. because I honestly don’t know… but instead of thinking they are saying they came out of thin air perhaps they are saying they were here… but not as long ago as “science” says.
As to Richard Dawkins heres a pretty good quote. It’s in chapter one of Dawkins God Delusion.
“An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles.”
Now while he’s not “per-say” supporting science with his philosophy he IS attributing his “scientific” view to his philosophical naturalism. I would like you to notice as well his words. He says: “a philo. nat. is somebody who BELIEVES…”
This is the proper use of the word belief. He has little or no proof he simply holds onto the philosophical position. I for one applaud his honesty. However, is it possible that his “philosophical naturalism” affects the way he views the “evidence?” Once again I’m not saying it does… I’m asking is it possible?
If you read the first chapter of Dawkins book he cites a religous man who said that faith and reason were in disconnect. While I can disagree or agree with him… Dawkins down speaks down to the man by calling him an intellectual and moral coward. The implication being that he “richard Dawkins” is not an intellectual nor moral coward by being a philosphical naturalist. Now where is his evidence that the man is a coward even using a common definition? Where is his evidence that the natural world is ALL that there is? It is certainly all that science can prove but all that shows is that our method is good for only physical things… even then I question. I have to go I’ll be back later
Wonderful! I enjoyed that immensely!
You’re quoting from the first chapter of God Delusion online. Have you read the entire book? Because the quote given, out of context, doesn’t provide enough support for your assesment of it.
The quote you give doesn’t connect the dots. He’s not saying “I choose to believe there’s nothing but a naturalistic universe, and my scientific worldview springs from that.”
The passage you quote is not from part of the book where he’s constructing a logical case. He has reason to come to philosophical naturalism. You have perhaps ommitted or ignored those reasons to argue with the end result. Dawkins has good reasons (he asserts) to go with philosophical naturalism. Why not address those reasons rather than assert that he has merely chosen to believe in philosophical naturalism as his starting-point?
The cited passage is here. I assume you’re talking about the man who wrote to Einstein saying:
Dawkins takes the unnamed writer to task not for saying that faith and reason were in disconnect… but for writing Einstein and telling him to SHUT UP about it, lest he destroy someone’s faith
Context, Mike Brown.
Siamang:
First you ask me to provide you a quote that demonstrates his commitment to philosophical naturalism. I provide such a quote and then you claim I am taking it out of context. Are you saying Richard Dawkins is NOT a philosophical naturalist (personally I think he is best described as a materialist but that’s quibbling over simantics) and that his naturalism has NO impact upon his work?
If you noticed my question I asked the following:
“Could it be that this propensity to mix philosophy with “science” isn’t simply a “fundamentalist christian” problem?”
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that Dawkins has mixed his philosphical naturalism with his biological evolution?
“Dawkins takes the unnamed writer to task not for saying that faith and reason were in disconnect… but for writing Einstein and telling him to SHUT UP about it, lest he destroy someone’s faith.”
I can only assume you agree with Dawkins statement. I disagee with your assessement of what Dawkins is saying, but thats unimportant. So I ask: Does the unknown author display “intellectual cowardice” by telling Einstein to “shut up” or “moral cowardice” and what are you understanding that to mean?
Mike Brown, they are saying THEIR people came out of thin air via God. They need to be accountable for how and why they say that and yes, it is a strawman- on THEIR part, not mine. And if they reply with the “Mark of Cain” like my grandfather did when I asked him how God made so many different coloured people, why is Jesus white when he lived in Israel, are you sure Adam and Eve were white, how do you know?… As a child, I decided my answer was better- “God likes colours, therefore that is why everything is all different colours.” That was my child answer, so even then I thought my grandfather was full of sh*t and the Mark of Cain was racists, but as I child I didn’t think those exact words, it was more like, “Grandpa’s stupid.”
Thus the Creationists need to be accountable for all their strawmen and I bet you that is where they are coming from too. The question is, will they be stupid enough to admit like my grandfather was?
I bet Pastor Mike can give us a better answer to what the “Mark of Cain” really was than that lame stuff. Not that we will think it logical or reasonable, but from what I gather of his thinking, I doubt he would say something dumb like that. I know, Bishop Spong would not say anything like that either, but rather, he would probably pass it off as a story to explain this or that and it would have nothing to do with what people look like or what people are, which is the most logical and reasonable answer.
Sorry, I just take issue with Evangelical Fundamentalists’ thinking, in part because I have heard some of the stupidest things they can say long before I was grown and even then I passed it off as stupidity and came up with my own ideas that seemed, at the time, a whole lot more logical. And if I did believe in that god today, believing that He loves colours would be preferable, regardless if it is Biblical or not. Oh, I had my own answers concerning god, as a child, when the adults made no sense- which was more often than not and if I was told I was wrong or “that’s not Christian”, I kept my thoughts to myself. I was no dummy and soon realized, but the time I was a teenager, my god was not their God. Don’t ask me how it happened that I developed my own opinions and thoughts, maybe because when I was little we rarely went to church unless we were with my mother’s family. I don’t know, but I managed it.
That wasn’t me, it was TXatheist. And he didn’t ask you to provide a quote that demonstrates Dawkins’ commitment to philosophical naturalism, he asked you to provide a quote where “Dawkins supports science with philosophy”. This is after you asserted that he mixed the two. You seem to be moving the goalposts around quite a bit.
That question is immaterial to your unsupported assertion that the quote you use shows Dawkins attributing his scientific view to his philosophical naturalism. In fact, in this passage, Dawkins does not attribute philosophical naturalism (his or anyone elses) to anything, as he’s not using this passage to construct an argument for or against PN. Furthermore, he says nothing in this passage about his scientific view whatever, nor whether or not it rests upon his PN.
You have shown nothing. I’ll ask again: have you read the entire book, and if so, can you address the arguments Dawkins uses in support of his philosophical views rather than assert that he believes them with little or no proof?
Can you show where in the book (or other writings of his) where he supports science with philosophy? Otherwise, I get the distinct impression that you do not have anywhere near an accurate understanding of what Dawkins does and does not assert.
Wow… I guess if you can’t support your argument with a positive assertion, you challenge me to support the negative? No thanks, I won’t take the bait. You haven’t proven your case, we’ll leave it at that.
I do not understand that question. What does biological evolution have to do with philosophical naturalism? You might as well have asked if Dawkins has mixed up his philosophical naturalism with his differential calculus.
You assume wrong. I’m not in the business of supporting other people’s arguments for them. If you have questions about what Dawkins means, you can ask him.
I recommend reading his whole book first, however. After all, he may have made it quite clear in the following chapters.
He may well do all the things you accuse him of. But you have yet to show it.
Hey Hemant, you wrote:
Has this happened at all? Surely with the vast majority of Americans being Christians, Christians who accept and are passionate about science should outnumber atheists 10 to 1, right? Right?
Has this happened? Here’s another question, if one of these exists, was it created by a Christian?
Where is the Christian People’s Front for Science anyway?
“That’s him over there.”
“SPLITTER!”
I didn’t know there was any scientific position for Dawkins to defend. His point is that since God would interfere with a natural world governed by scientific laws, it is up to the religious to show that God does precisely that.
There were a handful of Christians at the Rally, which was nice. But I haven’t heard too many of them (especially the Christians who have a large audience) speaking out against the museum. Too bad.
I do know some atheists who are working on this. I don’t know of any Christians doing the same.
You are a good speaker, have you ever given any thought to politics?
Thanks
But I’m an atheist, so for now, that dream is farfetched.
I’d vote for you, Hemant, as I’m sure others here would too.
“I didn’t know there was any scientific position for Dawkins to defend. His point is that since God would interfere with a natural world governed by scientific laws, it is up to the religious to show that God does precisely that.”
The more “obvious” something seems the more it relies upon a basic assumption. In other words the more something seems “undeniable” the closer and more basic an assumption it is. It seems “obvious” that our universe is governed by universal laws. But where are these laws? They are not physical. There is nothing you can point to that IS a universal law. What we mean when we say that is that there are regularitory “forces” in the universe that are undeniable. But this view is a mechanistic view of the universe in short it stems from a philosophy that has it’s roots in the 17th and 18 centuries. This mechanistic view provides the framework to develop such “laws of gravity” In other words the belief that the universe “makes sense” and operates according “rational discoverable” laws come PRIOR to the discovery of such laws.
Why do you think the Aztec’s didn’t develop the “law of gravity”? They were extremely bright and mathmatically intellingent people why no “Laws of nature”?
It’s because they didn’t have a mechanistic view of the universe.
Now how does this relate to proving God? I’m not trying to “defend” God I’m questioning your statement that the onus is on the Christians to prove his existance. In other words you have assumed “laws of Nature” are real and are by definition “law’s” which are inviolable. Now I’m sure you going to question me about gravity and whether we’ll fly off the earth. I would question how you know the “Law’s of nature” are actually true verses not incompatiable with the “Truth” There is a difference you know between being true and not being incompatiable.
“I do not understand that question. What does biological evolution have to do with philosophical naturalism?”
This question assumes that there is no connection between fields. According to many “scientists” evolution is a law of nature as inviolable as the law of gravity. As such it is based upon a philosophical model of a mechanistic universe.
Hey, mike brown,
Care to support or withdraw your previous assertions?
You’re going on about universal laws and mechanistic universes…
Have we moved on to new topics now? What happen, you get bored with trying to prove your assertions so you’re going to make some new ones?
I’m actually interested… can you cite Dawkins doing what you said he did?
Actually what I did was question whether Christian fundamentalist are the only ones guilty of mixing philosophy with “science”. That was my origional question. Now if you want to not discuss this and rather pick apart what I said we may. I will however admit… a couple of things to allow this conversation to “move along”
A. I would like to read Dawkins books. I have not. You have caught me. I appologize for making the erronous assertion concering the God Delusion.
B. I really don’t have to read too much of it however, because unless Dawkins has changed his fundamental position he is still an philosophical materialist / naturalist. And that I can prove with other quotes.
C. I am familar with Dawkins arguments in this work however: Essentially everything boils down to a physiological condition that is explained by biological “factors” The universe is explained by amazingly enough “laws” that regulate everything. Now I wish I had the time to read everything put out by everybody… I can not. However, there is very little new in this argument that I havn’t heard. Essentially Dawkins is a determinist. Free will is an illusion, choice is an illusion. The most creative thing that I have heard coming out of his work is (and this is what makes me want to read it) that the mind (our ability to frame thought into a coherent pattern) is biologically determined.
I felt pretty safe to claim that Dawkins is a philosophical naturalist. Thank you for catching my carelessness. Rest assured I will not make the same mistake with you Siamang. Now that I have answered YOUR question would be be so kind as to answer mine: Are christian fundamentalist the only ones guilty of mixing philosphy and “science” together?
MikeB:
Well, thanks for being truthful. In future, you’ll do much better if you refrain from criticizing something until you actually familiarize yourself with it.
This goes for books, movies, TV shows, etc. I can’t even count how many times I’ve seen people (usually motivated by religion) vociferously criticizing something, trying to get it banned, or pulled or boycotted - who upon later scrutiny admit that they haven’t actually read it, heard it or watched it!
The typical response is, “Oh, I don’t have to read/watch it, I already know what it says. My pastor/favorite Christian author told me it was wrong, so I don’t want my children to read it either.” This is sloppy, sheep-headed ignorance and it won’t fly for a minute with a group of freethinkers. (Not referencing you personally here, MikeB, just to make that clear. I know you are not talking about book banning or boycotting, etc.)
Hi mike, thanks for getting back to this.
You write:
I don’t think he makes this assertion. Again, I think you could do well by reading what he writes rather than assuming that you know the reasoning by which he arrives at his philosophy. As far as I recall, he doesn’t suppose laws explaining the universe… he comes at it from the opposite direction, looking at the universe and being parsimonious about his tentative conclusions based on available evidence.
I don’t think he makes this argument. If he did, I missed it in my reading of his book, and he didn’t go over it in the lecture I attended.
That’s hardly earth-shattering. Why is that creative at all? The brain is the part of the body that thinks. The stomach is the part of the body that digests food. We can see the brain thinking, and we can observe it when it’s damaged and see the resultant diminishment of its abilities. To suggest that there’s some invisible thing other than the brain REALLY doing the thinking is unparsimonious, and a claim that would require some evidence. In the absense of this evidence, it is prudent to set that claim aside as it is currently superfluous. Unless someone is able to show that the assumption of a super-mind makes predictable, falsifiable impact on the Theory of Mind, and makes predictions that are borne out by experiment, then it is should be without regard.
Believers in such things are free to present their evidence. But until the day that the world of brain-surgery is turned upside-down by the earth-shattering notion that the brain isn’t doing the thinking after all, it’s best to be conservative about such notions.
Nope. Islamic fundamentalists do it too!
(Kidding!)
People mix stuff all the time.
I have criticisms of Dawkins doing just that… but, I’ve read the book and met the man and heard him speak. The criticisms I have are similar to the criticisms I have of your assertions… Dawkins may very well be right, but he hasn’t made his case, so I remain unconvinced on certain assertions of his.
But you don’t seem to have a clear enough grasp of the arguments that Dawkins does make, and you’re tilting at arguments he doesn’t make.
Qualifying this with: I havn’t read the God Delusion I can say pretty surely that Dawkins is a determinist. I found this quote by him:
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
This is as clear a case for “philosophical materialism” as I can find. We shouldn’t “punish” people for things they can’t control…? Like criminal behavior is like diabetes. If that isn’t determinism can you point me to a better quote?
This is where it gets back to the idea that Dawkins is guiltly of doing that which you so gerviously condem the “creationist” of perpertrating. Now one MIGHT make the case, mind you I’m not here. One might make the case that it is such “philosophical voodo” is what the creationist “percieve” as threatening.
Examine Carl Sagon, Dawkins, ect. some of the greatest “minds” in science don’t feel content to remain in astrophysics or biology but to wax elequently about metaphysics.
Here’s another quote by Dawkins
“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
What does this mean? Well I for one would like to know which is more important to Mr. Dawkins? Is being an “intellectually fulfilled athiest” more important than than finding the “Truth”?
This MIGHT be what creationists point towards when they claim evidentional bias or philosophical posioning. I’m not saying Dawkins IS that I am saying that statements like the above sure make a great case that the “outcome” has been predetermined.
Saimang: Are you familar with Thomas Kuhn and his historical study of Science?
The truth is, there is no Zeus playing god and intervene with anything in the universe. No invisible hand comes down and does anything to the universe. Natural law, which even our fore-fathers understood, does everything on it own and humans help to mess it all up when it is said and done. Now if you don’t believe me, go spend some time out in nature or on a farm. While you are there, enjoying the quiet and beauty of nature take a science book to read and read it during the most quiet times. Now THAT is biology at it finest.
It’s certainly a determinist viewpoint. I’m not, however, certain that he himself subscribes to the view. He is happy to raise the question for a panel where he has been asked to raise uncomfortable questions. By the way, I don’t think he supports the view very well here. I’ve read 4 or more of Professor Dawkins’ books, and when he’s making a case for something serious, he generally is a great deal more thorough about it.
I could raise the question “What if God exists after all?” and I could argue it quite well. That doesn’t make me a theist.
Can I assume that you are a metaphysian by trade yourself? Or are you waxing eloquently outside of your field as well? If we are not allowed to do this, I must beg out of this conversation now, as I am not by any means a professional theologian.
HA! AGAIN with the quotes out of context! Dawkins has said and always advocates the finding of truth above all else. He’s said over and over again that he’d embrace God belief in a heartbeat if the evidence was there.
Here’s a BBC interview where he talks about “truth” and open-mindedness.
So it sounds like he’s the opposite of what you’re describing, Mike. He’d follow the evidence wherever it led him, even if it led him to theism.
In the quote you quoted from him, he’s not even talking about weighing the truth-value of a prospect against intellectual fulfillment. He’s merely talking about having an intellectually fulfilling (and quite satisfactory) answer for the question of “okay if there is no God, where did people come from?”
I don’t think you’re good at quoting Dawkins…. read the book… there’s valid criticisms to be made… As I said, I have my own criticisms of his case. But base your criticisms on the CASE he makes, not a quote where he’s talking about something else and you try and catch him… he actually may support the idea quite well in the rest of the book.
“Or are you waxing eloquently outside of your field as well? If we are not allowed to do this, I must beg out of this conversation now, as I am not by any means a professional theologian.”
If you noticed my point was that the “creationist” are accused of mixing philosophy with “science” and that was the “athiest” criticism of the creation museum. Please take MY quotes in context as well.
Now as to Dawkins: You seem to be quite adept at saying what Dawkins is NOT. He’s not a philosphical materialist, he’s not not advocating determinism.
Just what is Dawkins standing for or is he only standing against?
“HA! AGAIN with the quotes out of context! Dawkins has said and always advocates the finding of truth above all else.”
First off.. what are we junior high HA, you caught me… what does that mean?
Yes I’m quite sure Dawkins believe that “truth” comes first. However, he did make that quote. In context or out of context. His statement is that Darwinism allowed athiests to be “intellectual fulfilled” My question is still legitement. And my point was NOT that he’s doesn’t say he searches for the “truth”. My point was that in his mind Darwinism is a critical link for atheism. Just as it is a critical link for philosophical materialism. He freely admits this. My question is what happens when the two come in conflict. How does that imply something illogical or ilrational?
Secondly, what do we do with those who have examined the evidence and belive there is enough for God? Are they wrong? Who’s supposed to judge what’s rational?
“He’d follow the evidence wherever it led him, even if it led him to theism.”
What I think is amazing here is that while anything I say about Dawkins is suspect but you seem to be able to speak for him pretty freely… Why is this the case?
Secondly, This quote displays a whole lot about your mindset and perhapse his as well… While I certainly believe Richard Dawkins would say he would follow the evidence to theism. I highly doubt that would happen. I asked you earlier if you had read any works by Thomas Kuhn. How familar are you with post modernism, Michael Foucault, Derrida, Nietzche and some other philosophers?
I think it’s perfectly fine to mix your science into your philosophy. I think it’s utterly wrong to mix your philosophy into your science. Can you show where the latter has occurred in Dawkins’ science writing?
Read his books and find out.
But your attack isn’t. He’s not discussing the truth value of the proposition of atheism in your quoted passage, so it’s pointless to knock him for valueing “intellectual fulfillment” over “Truth.” If you want to knock him on his disregard of the “Truth”, you’d best attack passages of his writing that actually show that. Where in his arguments can you show a disregard for “Truth”? I can show places where he disregards arguments that I think he should address. I can show places where he doesn’t fully support ideas he proposes. I can show places where he’s positively boneheaded about communicating his ideas. I have yet to find somewhere where he disregards truth in the quest for intellectually fulfilled atheism.
But that doesn’t mean that it goes the other way and distorts the science. If it does, you have yet to show it.
Good question. What happens when religious belief comes in conflict with science. We know that answer: usually the religious people deny the science.
Now, if you have some scientific discovery that is evidence for the supernatural, I’d be mighty pleased to see that, as, I’m sure, would the Nobel Committee, the Templeton Foundation, the Discovery Institute and various other groups with deep pockets. Until you DO, however, atheism and science are not in any conflict that I’m aware of.
I can only speak for myself when I say that when I ask these people to show me their evidence I have as yet found it far from compelling. Perhaps you’ve got a miracle to show me. Perhaps you can walk on water or part the red sea or turn a person into a pillar of salt. But so far I have only gotten “PHENOMENAL COSMIC CLAIMS…. ittybitty evidence.”
I’ve read his books and met the man. I have a pretty good grasp, I believe, of his arguments. You aren’t really addressing his arguments. Rather you’re lumping views of his together in a way that I don’t see him doing. You see him as being an evolutionary biologist and a materialist and an atheist… all of those are true. But you seem to think that by necessity his atheist views interfere with his understanding of biology… and you haven’t shown that to be the case (I actually think some of his pet ideas seperate from atheism interfere with his understanding of biology…)
But again, you’re not addressing his arguments… you seem to be unaware of them and merely asserting that his atheism is muddled up in his science.
Further, I AM an atheist, so I’m a little familiar with the reasoning behind atheism. You seem to be attacking a view of atheism that is very different from what I or any atheists I know believe.
Pardon if I don’t respect your ability to predict Richard Dawkins’ internal struggles with belief.
But closer to home, I also would follow the evidence to theism if such evidence was brought to my attention. Many other people here have said the same. Do you doubt it for us as well? Can you see into my mind? Before you predict, read my story.
I’m unfamiliar with them. I’m of the opinion that post-modernism is a bunch of navel-gazing pseudointellectual claptrap… a fad that thought it was a lot more serious than it turned out to be… It seems to have found a home in religion, where no idea, no matter how useless, ever gets discarded.
Sorry, I’m being unduely nasty tonight. I’m not normally so negative. Apologies.
Mike B, you asked Siamang “Are you familar with Thomas Kuhn and his historical study of Science?”
Why don’t you go ahead & lay out what you were thinking w/ that reference, so as not to keep us in suspense? Were you referring to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? (Since that’s Kuhn’s best known work, and the reason that each of us is familiar with the idea of paradigm shifts, which he followed through the history of science. Perhaps you were going to bring the idea of different paradigms into this conversation?)
“I think it’s perfectly fine to mix your science into your philosophy. I think it’s utterly wrong to mix your philosophy into your science.”
Can you show me the difference between the two? for example: to study lets say the biology of cells don’t you have to assume a few things: Like first, our universe acts according to “rational laws” that the human mind can understand? How about assuming that everything I see with my eyes is absolutely true. Don’t we have to have these “mental set” in place prior to conducting “science”. Doesn’t our belief in “natural laws” drive us towards finding them? In other words if we belived that the universe was governed by the god’s on mount olympus wouldn’t we “seek to know the god’s will” instead of trying to find “natural laws”?
I’m done talking about richard Dawkins I’ve appologized about using him with out reading him. You’ve beaten me into submission on that issue. However, asking a question is not “attacking” him. That’s a very grevious assumption on your part, unless you think Galieo was “attacking” the churches perception of the universe by questioning the earth centric view?
“I can only speak for myself when I say that when I ask these people to show me their evidence I have as yet found it far from compelling.”
I’m not proposing to provide evidence of any kind. all I have done is ask questions. Why do you assume 1: that I’m a christian and 2: that I am here to prove anything about God?
“But you seem to think that by necessity his atheist views interfere with his understanding of biology… and you haven’t shown that to be the case.”
Actually I’m more interested in your perception of how people view the truth. This statement is more revealing than you know.
Eliza, why do you think I have anything to propose? I am simply questioning. I’m not here to propose anything to you. I want to know what and how you think. I suppose you could say I’m questioning you.
Eliza, why don’t you, for the sake of saving an argument for me, discuss the concept of scientific paradigm shifts for our good friend Siamang? If I try to discuss it it will seem like I’m making an argument. (trust me this happens nearly everytime I bring up anything to athiests along this line. I am speaking, so I must be making a case FOR God. To agree with me on anything would be to betray the sacred athiest code.) So for me, Eliza, please lay out Kuhn’s argument.
I think you’re confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. MN is a tool that has provided us with good results in the past. If you can show better results another way, the floor is all yours.
I don’t think so. I’m merely assuming that methodology that has been fruitful in the past will continue to be fruitful in the future. If it ceases to be fruitful or if another approach proves more fruitful, we can chuck the previous methodology to the wastebucket. But it is up to you to show a method that works better than methodological naturalism. Land any rockets on the moon or wiped smallpox from the face of the planet using trance-channelling or solipsistic “Law of Attraction” wish-fulfillment? No? Well then, the status-quo is the best we’ve got so far. Not saying it’s perfect. By all means it’s not. But until you’ve got better, I’m sticking with my allopathic medicine and leaving the dead chickens and the energized water to the witchdoctors.
How do we know this? Because other people in the past have made contrary assumptions and have not shown results. What you seem to think is a philosophical starting point is actually an end point of thousands of years of fruitless pursuits like alchemy, astrology, dream-travel, trance-channelling, etc… Everyone is of course free to use any other method and please show us the results. Please, feel free to go do some cellular biology without making any particular assumptions about “natural laws” and give me a call when you cure Leukemia.
Fair enough.
I merely asked you if you had evidence to provide. If you have none, then how can you complain when I said that I find the supernatural claims of Christians less than compelling? If I assumed you were a Christian (you know, it’s a safe assumption around here), I don’t think I stated it. And if so, why would you care, is it insulting to you to be mistaken for a Christian? None of my arguments rely on your being a Christian anyway.
Care to let anyone in on your insight, or are you merely content to cluck your tongue and intone darkly that I have somehow unwittingly revealed myself?
Can we go back to a question I had a ways back where I wrote:
“I think you’re confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.”
Thats an interesting twist. So what your saying is that while methodolgically your acting according to the “rules” of naturalism your still not “philosophically” acting according to the “rules” of naturalism? Can you tell me the difference between acting methodologically according to naturalism and acting philosophically according to naturalism? This seems to me to be a splitting of hairs. For example: If I were to act according to “methodological alchemy”(trying to use the methods of alchemy to turn lead into gold) its ok as long as I don’t act “philosophically” upon alchemy I’m alright?.
“What you seem to think is a philosophical starting point is actually an end point of thousands of years of fruitless pursuits like alchemy, astrology, dream-travel, trance-channelling, etc.”
end point? What do you mean by the term “end point” are you implying that we have arrived at the “ultimate” methodology?
Where do you think alchemy, astrology, dream travel, trance-channelling came from? By the way it is a grevious error to think we have passed through each of these like their phases. Those “methods” arose out of a belief about the world around them. Astrology was much more prevelant in the Middle East which was further advanced than the “ignorant” west. Alchemy, was popular in the west but not dream channeling. These are all different cultures various methods through out time to “understand” and “manipulate” the world around them. They arose out of their world view so to speak. You speak of them like they were phases of “ignorance” that we passed through to “arrive” at the “end point” At least that is how I am understanding your use of that term.
You seem, I am assuming here, to have bought into Hegel’s dialectial approach to history. His view was that our “understanding” is growing more and more towards the “end” of history it’s self. In other words that “science” is superior to any other view that has come before (now I use the term superior to mean more true; NOT more effective).
“I’m merely assuming that methodology that has been fruitful in the past will continue to be fruitful in the future.”
So, in other words you dont’ know that it’s true you only know that it works. Is that what you are saying? Let’s try something. Go ask a Doctor how often CPR actually works on bringing a person back from the dead and continue to live. (I have family in the medial field they says it’s about 50%) So 50% of the time it works and 50% of the time the person ends up dying and it doens’t work. Now I’m not assuming that you shouldn’t do CPR on a person who’s had a heart attack. What I’m pointing out is that because of the way we think about the world, the first thing in our minds to do with a person suffering a heart attack is CPR. This is regardless of the success or failure rate. If (mind you I’m not saying I believe this I’m using logic here) we believed that chickens had a great power, or believed in the power in the blood and a person was suffering a heart attack we would think about throwing blood on the person or sacrificing a chicken first, this would be regardless of the success or failure rate. Now what if 30% of the time the person recovered would that reinforce the impression? Of course it would.
Success in something we expect a methodolgy to succeed in is both fulfilling expectations AND reinforcing the world view. Now throwing a chicken on a man suffering chest pain would certainly not be OUR first method of choice. But it might be for others.
Now you can say “Yes, but we KNOW science is true and blood from chickens is false and I’ll prove it with our methodology.” fine but we havn’t shown it to be true we have only shown it to be more “effective”. You said this your self:
“If it ceases to be fruitful or if another approach proves more fruitful, we can chuck the previous methodology to the wastebucket.”
So does this mean you think that philosphical naturalism is true or more effective? The two are not necessarly the same.
Not even close.
Lots of Christians can and do actual science experiments where they do not postulate miraculous occurances. THAT’s methodological naturalism. Who gives a shit what God they worship as long as they don’t require invoking magic to explain the results of their clinical trials?
I mean “end point” as in the end point of the fruitless pursuits of alchemy, astrology etc. Did you read the entire sentence, or the rest of the post for that matter? I think I strongly stated that the floor is open to superior methods if they can be demonstrated.
That depends on how you define “True”. Something gives me the feeling you’re pretty slippery about such notions.
If you’re going to ask me that question, you’d better define the word for me, and I’ll tell you if I know it or not.
This is a useless statistic unless you also tell me the success/failure rate of people who don’t get CPR performed on them. What if 50% of the people who get CPR die, but 100% of the people who don’t get it die? You better do the CPR then.
Which is why we have science, to check what the success or failure rate is regardless of what our impressions or beliefs in power are. We “believe” in science’s “power” because of its utility.. a utility that trance-channelling and palm-reading sorely and starkly lack. Now I know that the chicken-wavers of the world would LOVE to have the gravitas of science, but it isn’t going to happen. But envy on the part of the witchdoctors isn’t reason enough to redefine “Truth” to emcompass all possibilities. Such a definition defines the word “truth” away, and we’re left with a word that means “truthandfalsehoodsandwhateverthehellyouwanttobelieveistrueforyou”.
But if you look at it against the survival rates of … doing nothing, doing CPR, giving them a nitroglycerin pill, using a defibrilator on them, waving a chicken… and run that study across thousands of patients, then we have a scientific study.
Results rule. Propositions without results can either go back to the drawing board and come back when they land a man on the moon, or more likely be reincarnated as a religious belief and we can all oooh and aaahhh over it and decide it must be respected.
More effective means “probably true enough to go with for now, but don’t stop trying to improve it.”
I make no claim on the universal effectiveness or truth value of philosophical naturalism.
That depends on how you define the word “true”. I think it’s more effective, and as such, closer to what is likely to be an accurate understanding of the universe limited only to claims that can be tested by utility.
What have you got that’s better… testable by utility, of course. Unless you can make truth claims outside of utility, and as such, can you really call that “truth”?
And for the third time… just to keep it current, here’s that question again:
One more point:
This line of thinking… if it’s going where I think it is… needs a little bit of preventative Isaac Asimov:
“Lots of Christians can and do actual science experiments where they do not postulate miraculous occurances. THAT’s methodological naturalism.”
There is a difference between holding a metaphysical position concerning the existance of a God and not being “naturalistic”. For example a person can claim to believe in God but also believe in Law’s that govern the universe. (actually one could make the claim that it was a theistic principle of “God being reasonable” that provided the ground work for “natural laws”) The two are NOT mutually exclusive. However, to say that because a “theist” can conduct empirical investigations therefore NO philosphical bias has entered the method does not logically follow. A thiest could be a believer in God and follow empirical methods using “methodological naturalism” and STILL be influenced by his perspective. It’s NOT that he does or does NOT believe in God’s thats important it’s the fact that he brings his particular perspective (theistic naturalism) into the discussion. In this case “naturalism”
As to Asimov: the quote is not about “the earth is flat”. The young man makes an interesting point the problem is NOT that “empiricism” hasn’t been useful. The issue is that people take what they believe and turn it into what they KNOW. The problem isn’t that the earth is flat or round it’s that the ability of science to obtain the objective truth is under question.
What do I mean by “objective truth”. Objective is that which is non biased or completely neutral. By the truth I mean the highest reality one can attain. (If this seems like a concept it’s because it is)
The problem isn’t that the earth is flat or round it’s what is the “meaning” of it? What is the pure objective, meaning of the earth is round?
Now unless you think that is “stupid philosophy” “.
You yourself have made value judgements concerning the truthfulness or falseness of the claims. Why else would you cite “world is flat” vs “world is round” So information is never neutral it influences and pulls people. Finally, as far as the ancient’s could tell the earth WAS flat, everything in their expirence confirmed it. the “Truth” for them was that the earth WAS flat. Just like the truth for us is that it is “round”.
The lit specialist wasn’t questioning whether the earth is round or flat, he was questioning the WAY we use the concepts: KNOW, and TRUTH.
The world is as it is. Kant displayed, in the Critique of Pure Reason, that it is nearly impossible for us to get at objects as “they really are” verse “as we percieve them”.
Asimov’s flaw was that he apparently didn’t realize Kant’s critique applied to him as well as to everyone else.
You often quickly jump to announcing that the negative cannot be disproven. That doesn’t mean you’ve proven the positive.
Yes. But the scientific results are measured by a method that has shown quite a lot of utility in the past. It’s why we have double-blind testing, and why we have disinterested and often competing bodies attempting to repeat methods and see if the results are borne out. Science is (among other things) quite useful in winnowing out “observer bias.”
Do you understand the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, now?
Define “objective” then, please. How can I understand something that’s truely objective in your view, since once an idea enters my mind it becomes part of me and thereby partially subjective, right? What does “highest reality” mean? By what method do you determine what is a “higher reality” than another? Who decides? How do you know when you have found one? If something is the “highest reality one can attain” do you mean for that individual? For all time? Or is this some type of an unattainable idealized highest reality? Can a thing be a falsehood at the same time that it’s a truth? If so, do those words mean anything at all?
If you don’t know the meaning of the word “round”, I’m not sure I can help you. The scare-quotes around the word “meaning” are worrying me, though.
Or at least a load of solipsistic circularity.
Heck yes. That you DON’T is the freaky part.
If someone asks you what color the sky is, do you answer “That depends on your personal concepts of “sky” “color” and what your definition of is, is”?
Yes, I admit that when my brain gets the “information” that the baby is crying, I’m pulled to give her a bottle. Your point?
So being wrong is the same as “Truth”? What’s falsehood then? Does it just boil down to “whatever you think is true is true, whatever you think is false is false?” I’m smelling solipsism.
Yeah, because it’s much easier to redefine the word “truth” in a philosophy forum than it is to actually invent and discover things and make a judgement like: “hell yes, dentistry WITH novocaine IS better than banging rocks against our teeth.” All I’m saying is “okay, you think you’ve got a better idea, then be my guest and invent the internet your way… We’ll see if it’s better or not.” But I guess, “seeing” and “better” are just concepts… and up might mean down this week.
How do you know that Kant is right? Aren’t you making a judgement that his thoughts are of value here? How can you make that judgement?
While we’re at it, how do you make any judgement that any action you take is preferable to any other action you take?
And for the fourth time… the question I just keep asking is:
I also would follow the evidence to theism if such evidence was brought to my attention. Many other people here have said the same. Do you doubt it for us as well?
[...] know about the Creation Museum in [...]
“I also would follow the evidence to theism if such evidence was brought to my attention. Many other people here have said the same. Do you doubt it for us as well?”
since this is bothering you sooo much I will respond… sure… I’ll believe you. does that make you feel better?
Now as to your long questions. I have not proposed anything. I am not proposing to “KNOW” anything (I take that back, I did propose to believe I know what Kant meant in COPR). I am simply asking questions. I’m not on a christian site asking christians to defend what they believe. I’m not on a muslim site asking muslims to defend what they believe. I’m not on a world is flat site asking them to defend what they believe. I am on an ATHIEST site (a person who claims to KNOW that there is no God) asking an athiest what they believe. What “over arching “truth” have I proposed” I’m asking YOU what YOU believe. What does that have to do with what I believe?
This is a perfect example of “I don’t know so I’m going to attack you with questions of my own.” If you want to get on someone elses site and ask them all those questions… go right ahead. But I am here. On a site that proposes to know a whole lot about the world around us and what I get for answers is: “I smell solipisis”, “What’s your anwer for a better methodology?” and “duhh, we all know the world is round not flat.”
I have pretty good idea how “Christians” would respond to Kant. I have a pretty good idea how “Muslims” would respond to immanuel Kant. I have a pretty good idea of how the “average joe” would respond to Immanual Kant. I want to know how Athiests respond to the criticism of Immanual Kant in his Critique of Pure reason and some other developments in the field of philosophy.
Now if the best you have for rejecting some of these questions is: “I don’t like to think about that.” Well good. That puts you with “average joe” or “Christian” and I’ll move along to someone else. I just thought it would be easier to find a “thinking” person here than anywhere else.
Couple of problems right here, mike brown.
#1 - “atheist” is the correct spelling. It means without-god belief, i.e., a-theist.
#2 - ties in with #1. Most/all a-theists on this site do not hold a belief in god. We don’t claim to KNOW there is no god; we just don’t see enough evidence to hold any belief in him/them. Very few a-theists claim to have enough knowledge about the universe to make the positive claim that there is NO GOD. Even Richard Dawkins does not make that claim.
As for your desire to discuss the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and how it relates to atheism, in order to be successful with that I suggest that you first ask if anyone’s sufficiently well-acquainted with his philosophy to discuss or debate it in great detail; and then if anyone here is interested in such a discussion. The feeling I get around here is that most of us are not huge on philosophy - I took an introductory course in college and it nearly bored me to tears.
“Very few a-theists claim to have enough knowledge about the universe to make the positive claim that there is NO GOD.”
Interesting, so what do atheist’s stand FOR? I’ve been on this site long enough to see what you’re against. That’s pretty obvious. What do you stand for Siamang? You have kept pounding me with “show me a better system than science”. Yet you feel no onus to propose a system and then defend it. When I push you to defend what you believe you fall back onto “what better system is there?” Then you turn and want me to “answer” all your questions as if you have answered mine. From a site that claims to be “rational” and “free thinking” I thought there would be better rational.
I AM asking if there is a better system and the first step to that question is “is the current system answering our questions”? I think that is a fair and balanced question to ask. Don’t you? Is it fair that the bible and koran and other “holy books” get scrutinized under “historical criticism” and that “science” get a free pass because we happen to have the same “methodological naturalism”? Is that just? Is that fair? More importantly is that logical and rational?
So Kant is boring. So what? I think biology is boring does that mean I dismiss survival of the fittest? I too think a lot of philosophy is boring but I understand it’s importance and try to deal with it’s conclusions. Whether Kant, Kuhn, Foucault, Derrida are exciting or not is irrelevant. Are their criticism’s valid? You have no way of knowing since you have found it “boring” and hence ignored any developments in the field. However, the developments in that field have a direct impact. You sited Isaac Asimov and his retort to the literature specialist. So philosophy has affected you and you have “dismissed” the position based upon what? Did you do the research? Have you listened to anyone who has? What’s more do you really understand the lit specialist critique and how flippant Asimov’s response is to that argument?
(This is just a side not: this is why I struggle with Dawkins. I have yet to hear anyone in the science field like Dawkins admit there there are philosophical struggles with science and then address them seriously. Most scientists point and say: look at the cool gadgets we can make aren’t we better off than we were before? That’s not taking the arguments seriously, that’s saying my gun is bigger than your gun so you better back down. At least thats what it says to me.)
“I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”
– Bertrand Russell
We stand for reality.
Take a look into the peer review process for publishing science in any respectable journal. We’ve got about the furthest thing from a free pass that’s imaginable.
It’s flippant to demonstrate how pathetic the original argument was. There’s really nothing in the argument to understand. It’s just a case of using invalid inductive techniques coupled with a caricature of a false dilemma so grotesque that it’s embarrassing to to imagine that the lit specialist could believe it in the first place. To put it in perspective, theists often object to the argument “{List of previous religions from Greek mythology onward} are now thought to be false, so {religion of the theist} is probably wrong too.” The argument in this case is thousands of times worse, since at least in this case the words ‘right’ and ̵