The most famous atheist in the world, Richard Dawkins, says that he can’t be sure God does not exist. But in fact Richard Dawkins is sure of a great many religious and metaphysical claims. He is sure there are no miracles, he is sure the recurrent laryngeal nerve would not have been designed, and he is sure our photocells are bad designs. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins are quite certain about all kinds of religious and metaphysical claims which drive their so-called science. Whether or not an evolutionist such as Dawkins is an atheist is irrelevant. They believe all kinds of things about God, regardless of whether they believe in God. As Ernst Mayr once said:
People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief. [Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design, p. 335]
Indeed, evolutionists are intensely religious. It is the foundation of their theory.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
It's amazing how people like Dawkins will believe a God of their own creation could exist, but claim the Biblical God was created by men and couldn't possibly exist.
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Dawkins doesn't believe in a god at all.
DeleteThis blog has become extremely boring. Cornelius spouts his usual nonsense about evolution being a religion, but he hardly ever interacts anymore with the commentators that disagree. The commentators that agree with Cornelius are without exception deranged creationists that have never bothered to crack open a textbook on evolutionary biology.
ReplyDeleteI'm out of here.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
DeleteKudos for the Adams reference.
DeleteI have to concur troy. I think perhaps if we starve these blogs of their oxygen maybe they will just fade away. I've completely stopped reading Uncommon Descent for the same reason (especially now that the Barry Arrington thought-police are now in control). CH is just punching air and there really is no substance to anything he's saying. I suppose if he keeps repeating (clicking his heels) "Religion drives science" somebody at some point might be taken in by it. But in truth, despite numerous people patiently explaining why, the argument is erroneous (actually it's just pure rubbish).
DeleteI'm outta here too...let's leave CH to teach his fundie students at his fundie Bible college and get on with our lives.
At this point, reading and commenting on this blog is just a bad habit of mine. I've learned a lot from this forum, mostly about rhetoric, but about science too. Lately though it has been boring, and keeping up with the comments is such a big time drain. I still don't like this threaded system either. It fragments the conversation and makes commenting more tedious.
DeleteWhat Richard Dawkins believes is his concern just as what Cornelius Hunter believes is his concern. Neither set of beliefs is evidence for anything more than that people hold such beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe question is how do we decide which of those beliefs - if any - is closer to the reality we are all trying to make sense of.
Science offers a method for finding out. Religion used to embrace that method and some believers still do. Others say that The Bible is the ultimate authority regardless of what science might discover and would have that view enforced in the schools if they had the power.
Where the Bible says one thing and science says another, the literalists choose the Bible and say science must be wrong. Does Cornelius Hunter choose science or does he choose the Bible and lend support to my claim?
Religion drives science from the classroom, and it matters.
Ian:
DeleteScience offers a method for finding out. Religion used to embrace that method and some believers still do.
Don't you find it odd that you're accusing Christianity of abandoning science when, in fact, science had its origins in the Christian West?
If there is a movement away from reason, and towards fundamentalism, it's to be found in scientific materialism. Troubled by the theological implications of an actual "Big Bang", physicists want to use quantum mechanics to 'skip over' that first instance. Troubled by the theological implications of a "fine-tuned" universe, they espouse 'multiverses'.
IMO, 'skipping over' nothing to find something on the other side is the height of irrationality; and proposing an almost infinite (if not, infinite) number of multiverses, none of which, by definition, we'll ever be able to have contact with, as a bona fide scientific conjecture----well, this is beyond the pale. And it is the secular left---not the religious right---who's serving up this nonsense.
So, if you're concerned about the health of science, I'd look at what the atheists are doing. Let's face it, we're living through the downfall of science. And just like it was Catholicism that saved Western culture during the Middle Ages, it will be the Christian West that will have to save science (and scientists) from their own undoing. Here and here.
Indeed, evolutionists are intensely religious. It is the foundation of their theory.
ReplyDeleteNo they aren't. What absolutely guff. ToE is absolutely not based on what any sort of god would or would not do.
Cornelius Hunter: "They believe all kinds of things about God, regardless of whether they believe in God."
ReplyDeleteCornelius, do you believe that Zeus is not the originator of all lightning bolts?
Derick:
DeleteCornelius, do you believe that Zeus is not the originator of all lightning bolts?
Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteDerick: Cornelius, do you believe that Zeus is not the originator of all lightning bolts?
Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.
So things that are terribly jagged and disjointed can't be designed? One look at your OPs disproves that idea.
CH: Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning.
DeleteIs this poe?
For example, isn't it possible the designer want's to kill specific people for some very important reason which we simply cannot comprehend? However, this designer doesn't want to call attention to itself, or it's targets.
As such, the designer intentionally makes lighting appear random. And, due to the importance nature of the designers goal, even kills innocent people so the identify of it's targets are obscured.
Are you "sure" this isn't' the case?
Cornelius: "Of course I do, have you never observed lightning? If you really look at it, you'll see why. Not only does it kill people for no reason, but it's terribly jagged and disjointed. Clearly there is no creator of lightning."
DeleteWow. I wasn't expecting it to be that easy. I sense you're being sarcastic, but to what end? Is that not the actual accusation you're making? Do you really think that the rest of us don't believe that Zeus creates all lightning bolts simply because we have beliefs about Zeus that don't comport with how lightning behaves, rather than the fact that there simply is no positive evidence for lightning coming from Zeus and adding him into the explanation is simply unnecessary? (independent of whether we understood where lightning does come from or not?)
I feel it would be patronizing to point out that by your own criteria, you must 'believe' in Zeus the way atheists like Dawkins must 'believe' in a God.
Do you not see how silly your argument is? Why do you persist?
"Religion drives meteorology and it matters."
Cornelius, I've been puzzling over your response all afternoon. Had it not been your name and avatar attached to it, I would have been sure it was being posted sarcastically, poking fun at the silliness of your post. Even then, I wondered if someone had hacked your account. (I'm still leaving that open as a possibility) It's the most perfect own goal I've ever seen.
DeleteDo you really not see how silly your accusation is? Am I missing something? Please elaborate.
Derick: Do you not see how silly your argument is? Why do you persist?
DeleteBecause his argument regarding "Evolutionists" is parochial in nature.
parochial
adjective
of or relating to a church parish: the parochial church council.
• having a limited or narrow outlook or scope: this worldview seems incredibly naive and parochial.
Specifically…
- It assumes "Evolutionists" are all naive empiricists, justificationists and inductivists, which ignores other forms of epistemology, the problem of induction, etc.
- It assumes "facts" are justified purely by observations, rather than being the culmination of a long chain of explanatory frameworks, which are open to revision.
- It assume that "problems" for evolutionary theory would also not be "problems" for all other fields of science.
- The knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always existed, or was spontaneously generated, rather than being created by conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.
- It assumes there is no difference between taking someone else's argument seriously to criticize it and actually believing it's true.
For example, if *WE* create knowledge by conjecture and refutation, we create explanations via conjecture, then determine if they would have necessary empirical consequences for the current state of the system. This doesn't mean we must have believe they are true, in reality. Rather, we assume they were true, in reality, for the purpose of criticism and refutation.
However, Cornelius' argument hinges on the assumption there can be no difference between taking an explanation serious for the sake of criticizing it and actually believing that something is true, in reality.
As such, it's unclear how Cornelius thinks science works, or how criticism fits in to our ability to make progress, if at all.
So, not only is Cornelius' argument parochial in that it assumes there is no difference between taking someone else's argument seriously to criticize it and actually believing it's true, it's parochial because it apparently excludes the ability to criticize methods of finding errors in our explanations.
In other words, by presuming "Evolutionists" all fit into one group, it would seem that Cornelius either assumes our ability it make progress is "magic", in that it cannot be criticized, or that the biosphere was created in such a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible to criticize.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThat comment does nothing but provoke and offend. I'm embarrassed to have people like you on our 'side'. You're to the pro-science camp what Eocene and JoeG are to theirs, maybe worse.
DeleteThe only virtue of pure insult against Eocene and JoeG is the lack of lies. That's a low standard.
DeleteAllow me to take the wind out of the sails of this blog post:
ReplyDeleteThis headline isn't even new...I've been following Dawkins for years now and always knew he was not a dogmatic atheist (he talks about it in some of his literature).
Let me break it down so people don't get the wrong impression, and think that he is wavering or doubting his atheist position:
People generally fall into one of the four "labels" below.
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Atheist
The labels "gnostic" and "agnostic" refer to the degree to which one stands in their position. Gnostic means that the person is 100% sure of their position, whereas agnostic means the person admits that they cannot be 100% sure of their position.
By these definitions, Richard Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as most atheists actually are. This is because being a gnostic atheist would be as illogical as being a gnostic theist (believing something to be 100% true without actual evidence).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI wish comments could be up-voted. Well put.
DeleteVenture Free:
DeleteIf a person were to say that the sky can't be blue because of flatulent unicorns, so it must be leprechauns sneezing, it might be a closer analogy to the point CH is making.
And if he where to respond, "how do you now that a unicorns intestinal gas is malodorous, anyway?" and you where to respond "well, I t just makes sense to me since humans flatus smells." that would also be a make accurate analogy.
If a person were to say that the sky can't be blue because of flatulent unicorns, so it must be leprechauns sneezing, it might be a closer analogy to the point CH is making.
DeleteThat may be true, but it is where Cornelius is exactly wrong.
He thinks ToE is based on the assumption that divine creation is impossible. In actual fact it is based on no such presumption.
The analogy would be complete if we posed the scientist proposing an intricate and extremely well-evidenced theory which explains why the sky appears blue, all to do with light dispersal and atmospheres, and Cornelius claiming such a theory is based upon the presumption that the magic uncorn COULDN'T have done it (and was therefore a religious theory).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteQuestion for CH: If I re-post the original dialog using a less juvenile example, would you allow that? Or is it the dialog itself that you object to?
DeleteI think it's worth re-posting a modified version VF, as that was an apt analogy.
DeleteSeriously?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I love about this entire "agnostic atheist" episode is that it really highlights how few of the people that "disagree" with Richard Dawkins have ever actually familiarized themselves with his arguments. People are reacting as though he was forced to admit that he was an agnostic atheist, when in fact it's something that he has explicitly stated on his own over and over again in the past. Only someone whose knowledge of Dawkins consisted entirely of what they read on their favorite christian blogs would think that it's some kind of guilty admission.
ReplyDeleteSeriously. Over the last week or two there have been some truly pathetic attempts to smear Dawkins. I take heart at these since it demonstrates so ably that they cannot attack his actual arguments.
Deletehttp://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/shocking-newsflash-infamous-atheist-wears-mismatched-socks
Troy
ReplyDelete"I'm out of here."
You better be back or else!
Corn-holeous Hunter, Jesus nutter extraordinaire.
ReplyDeleteHere's a design from Corno's mighty god that deserves a blog post.
http://jezebel.com/women-with-two-vaginas/
It's very quiet around here.
ReplyDeleteLino D'Ischia Feb 29, 2012 06:31 PM
ReplyDelete[...]
Don't you find it odd that you're accusing Christianity of abandoning science when, in fact, science had its origins in the Christian West?
I am not denying that Christianity played a role in fostering science in Europe, just as it flourished under a more benevolent Islam for a period. But there is a good case to be made that science in its broadest sense was being done in other parts of the world long before the Christian era.
What is "odd" is watching some Christians, on the one hand, claiming that their faith gave birth to modern science while, one the other, hastily distancing themselves from any scientific findings which they regard as inimical to their most cherished beliefs.
If there is a movement away from reason, and towards fundamentalism, it's to be found in scientific materialism.
I am reminded of the tragic story of the girl who dies on her living-room floor from the complications of untreated diabetes while her devout family stood around praying fervently for her survival. Prayer failed where the treatments developed by materialistic science could have saved her as they have millions of others.
Remind me again which is better, scientific materialism or unscientific immaterialism?
Troubled by the theological implications of an actual "Big Bang", physicists want to use quantum mechanics to 'skip over' that first instance. Troubled by the theological implications of a "fine-tuned" universe, they espouse 'multiverses'.
You really think physicists come up with things like the multiverse theory to escape the theological implications of so-called "fine-tuning" and the Big Bang? Sorry, but I really doubt the the field takes your faith that seriously.
IMO, 'skipping over' nothing to find something on the other side is the height of irrationality; and proposing an almost infinite (if not, infinite) number of multiverses, none of which, by definition, we'll ever be able to have contact with, as a bona fide scientific conjecture----well, this is beyond the pale. And it is the secular left---not the religious right---who's serving up this nonsense.
I doubt that political considerations were taken into account any more than religious ones when developing the concept of a multiverse, although I can see how it might make you feel better if they had been.
Besides, there's nothing wrong in science with playing around with all sorts of outlandish speculations just so long as they are not claimed to be something more solid without good evidence. Remember that Popper encouraged scientists to be bold in their conjectures? It's still good advice.
So, if you're concerned about the health of science, I'd look at what the atheists are doing. Let's face it, we're living through the downfall of science.
Science will do just fine as long as religion stops trying to bend it to the service of any particular theology. Atheism is one line of defense against that sort of subversion. As for the downfall of science, a friendly word of sdvice: don't hold your breath.