open Democracy News Analysis - [b]Faith and Reason[/b], - Comments

Brendan 2 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Brendan 2 — Sun, 27 May 2007 00:32:25 +0000

William, As a Polanyi scholar, can we assume you are a proponent of Intelligent design before responding to such weak and frivolous argumentation? Dawkins's zeal causes him "framework blindness." Not only is his intellectual capacity to make clear distinctions diminished by his ardor, but more pathetically, his capacity for human empathy is overridden. He cannot understand that other people may not find his brand of natural science a satisfying source of meaning. I would question the relevance of your idea of "frameworks" to begin with. For Dawkins, it is likely more important to dismiss all individual "frameworks" to arrive at a common experience we can rely on as being true; we are on a rock we call earth circling the sun in a small solar system that forms a miniscule part of an unfolding universe. Everything else that people wish to believe for reason's of preference or psycological security is simply a human construct. To claim that natural science is simply another "framework" is frivolous and simply not true. The world exists as we discover it through science, other interpretations are not relevant to science, but strangely other "frameworks" wish to influence science (or deny it) and empathy with that is not appropriate. I believe Dawkins shows empathy with the religiously afflicted, as I would expect a doctor requires empathy to analyse any particular disorder. His assertion that scientists are by their methods are required to be agnostic about the existence of god--or fairies--is sufficient to then embark on whatever philisophic discussion he chooses. As this Danial Dennent quote explaining the relationship between science and philosophy suggests, we must be free to try ideas out and test their merits, for which "framework blindness", fundamentally, is a necessity. I say, along with many predecessors, that philosophy is what you are doing when you don't yet know what the right questions are. Once you ask the right questions (and know why these are the right questions), your attempt to answer them is not philosophy but . . . whatever it is - science, history, economics, . . . So philosophy is inescapably informal, more like art than science, a matter of imaginatively poking around and trying things out--with plenty of rigorous criticism of those attempts, but still, it's the bold strokes of imagination that do the heavy lifting. At its best (when it is well informed in the discipline whose questions it is trying to refine and improve), it makes significant contributions. But it's chief risk are flights of fantasy that may only divert the fantasists (while diverting the attention of more reality-based researchers from the questions they could more fruitfully pursue). http://frameworksaresilly.notlong.com/ As the world of science unfolds, corrects it's assumptions, and moves on to investigate other things, we evidently will not see he "faithful" learning from important new discoveries in your world, rather will they regress from science into their frozen "frameworks" for all time? Message was edited by: Brendan 2

wjkellpro on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

wjkellpro — Sat, 26 May 2007 22:17:28 +0000

Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2006. 406 pages. ISBN 13: 978-0-618-68000-9. Hard cover edition. In this review I will discuss what I take to be four of the most prominent fallacies in this new book. While, in my opinion, Dawkins performs a needed service for atheism by calling attention to the oppressive and discriminatory milieu in which American atheists now live (esp. pp. 43-45 f.), as one of atheisms current elites, his intellectual contribution offers little for atheists to be proud of. The first fallacy is that of the need for science to completely displace religion. He cannot see how the natural and the supernatural can ever co-exist. Dawkins regards all supernatural points of view as viruses of the mind (186 f.), which must be eradicated for the betterment of humanity. Unbeknownst to Dawkins, Michael Polanyi wrote, Theological accounts of God must, of course, appear meaningless and often blatantly self-contradictory if taken to claim validity within the universe of observable experience. Such a result is inevitable, wherever a language that is apposite to one subject matter is used with reference to another altogether different matter. (Cf. Personal Knowledge 282) Dawkins was made aware of these basic points by other writers. Dawkins quotes Steven Jay Goulds sage advice: To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of Gods possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply cant comment on it as scientists. (55) (This and the following quotes are from The God Delusion.) These two magisterial do not overlap, writes Gould, like the magisterial of art and the meaning of beauty. (55) Of course, the key word here is meaning. Dawkinss theologian friends told him that there are other sources of meaning besides the scientific, and that he was brutally foisting a scientific epistemology upon an unwilling theology. (153) But Dawkins simply refuses to acknowledge that frameworks other than natural science can be legitimate sources of meaning for those who are committed to them. He doubts that theology can truly be said to have a province. (56) He sees no good reason to suppose that theology (as opposed to biblical history, literature, etc.) is a subject at all. (57) Others besides Gould have cautioned him against his crusade of intolerance. For example, Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees gave the same advice in a book Dawkins quotes. Another astronomer at Oxford made the point to him directly. But, in plain denial, Dawkins writes, I suspect that neither the Cambridge nor the Oxford astronomer really believed [what they had said to him, or written]. (57) Furthermore, I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of [the advice] he wrote. (57) Secondly, the position of Gould and the others also implies that science cannot even make probability judgments on the question. Dawkins, of course, disagrees with all those who have thus advised him. (Cf. page 58) Dawkins notes that T.H. Huxley wrote that the existence of God is a matter of faith, and not of proof. Contrary to Huxley, Dawkins writes, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. (50) He then attempts to disprove the hypothesis by his own fallacious brand of statistical probability. Dawkins does not consider that probability estimates generally require some recurring experience from which the estimates can be fashioned. One example is the predictions of rainfall made in the Farmers Almanac. Instead, he asserts that since God either does or does not exist, both hypotheses have an exactly equal probability of being right. (48) After a long discussion of his statistical science, he concludes that Gods existence is equal to the possibility of a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and producing a perfect Boeing 747. Therefore, he announces triumphantly, the god hypothesis is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. (158) The logical confusion here is like judging the beauty of a painting by taking a bite to taste it. Unlike himself, those who disagree with his science are among the many people [who] have not had their consciousness raised. (143, 146) The third fallacy is his topsy-turvy notion of child abuse. Dawkins reveals that he was the victim of abuse while a child in one of Englands boarding schools. But then he adds, as a mere parenthetic aside, that it was (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience). (316) Instead, what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. (308) In reference to some sensational stories about Catholic priests in Ireland, he comments horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. (317) Dawkins expresses his outrage that society allows such abuse all in the name of maintaining cultural diversity. (329) What would Dawkins do about this pernicious practice of teaching children faith? Dawkins engages in a bad cop, good cop routine on this point. He quotes his colleague the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, who said that children have a human right not to have their minds crippled by [the] dogma and superstition [of their parents] faith and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. (326) However, Dawkins does not advocate making this novel notion of child abuse a crime. Instead, he writes, Please, please raise your consciousness about this, and raise the roof whenever you hear it happening. (339) Thus, Dawkins gives us a chance to redeem ourselves before the likes of Humphrey have their way. For his fourth fallacy, Dawkins declares I shall end this book by arguing that one can lead a happy and fulfilled life without supernatural religion. (353) He prescribes a good dose of science. (361) For him, our life is as meaningful, as full and wonderful as we choose to make it. (360) All the knowledge made available by natural science can not only give consolation, but just thinking of the new knowledge awaiting discovery can give inspiration. (360, 374) Thus, he concludes, society has no need for the god delusion. Dawkinss zeal causes him framework blindness. Not only is his intellectual capacity to make clear distinctions diminished by his ardor, but more pathetically, his capacity for human empathy is overridden. He cannot understand that other people may not find his brand of natural science a satisfying source of meaning. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. is a Polanyi scholar, and the author of Progressive Logic: Framing A Unified Theory of Values For Progressives. http://www.empathicscience.org/proglog.html

spearo100 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

spearo100 — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:24:53 +0000

Education does have its plus points but all in all it seems the weakest link in the chain of progress to me. We do need people that are capable of learning from the great leaps of great scientists yes, they play an important role but not enough of them can think beyond the towering walls of inhibition that man has built for itself. Had whoever it was that worked out the world was round not dared to step into the unknown then progress would have slowed. Had the spiritual big shots of the era shown some courage and welcomed the challenge of science then the earths shape might have been discovered much sooner. Education on the whole seems to produce a vast population pompous enough to declare with all certainty that x, y and z are right, wrong and improbable. Listen up big shots, just because they taught you that in school (University is a fancy name for school) doesn't mean it was right. Let computers and filing cabinets record the information and set your minds free to think outside the box. Albert Einstein dared to look at time travel, dare yourselves to recognise that we know precious little about anything and set about a big leap. Who, back in the 60's I think, reckoned formula milk was better than breast milk? Who was it that said the smallest a particle can get is an atom? Scientists apparently. Leave the doors open science and stop being so damn arrogant.

Billy_Coconut on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Billy_Coconut — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:43:31 +0000

...

L.W. on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

L.W. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:58:21 +0000

Billy_Coconut on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Billy_Coconut — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:27:42 +0000

...

L.W. on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

L.W. — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 04:35:01 +0000

Billy_Coconut on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Billy_Coconut — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:19:36 +0000

...

Robert_15 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Robert_15 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 16:02:58 +0000

spearo, I don't know what to make of you, but definitely you are very pessimistic. It is not my intention to make a list of all the achievements reached in the 20th and 21st Centuries in Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics since they are not in my field of expertise, although you would have to be blind not to be aware of them. But look at what has been achieved in Medicine in the last 100 years: The great killers of the past--Plague, Smallpox, Malaria, TB--have almost entirely disappeared, at least in developed Countries; Organ transplants are saving more and more people's lives; Cancer mortality rates have decreased enormously, except for lung and pancreas; Life expectancy has almost doubled; the Genome has been unraveled, which will allow for the detection and prevention of genetically transmitted diseases; Cloning and 'in vitro' reproduction is now possible and, if it wasn't unethical, could be done with human material. Medicine cannot cure the common cold, you say. Wrong: There are now available antiviral nasal sprays and pills which can do the job. Mistakes are made? Sure. Cholesterol doesn't seem to be the real boogaboo any more, but rather Homocysteine. But that's progress and the hallmark of Science which, contrary to Religion, advances by trial and error and doesn't need God.

spearo100 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

spearo100 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 14:20:19 +0000

Labelling 21st century primitive is I agree, a bold statement but one that I become more convinced of as time goes by. The universe is very old. No sense putting a figure on such a huge number. Mankind, at least on earth is very young. Every new technology, science and innovation seems so space age when it first appears, but little of it amounts to much. The big, humanity driving arrivals are few and far between. Electricity was a massive breakthrough leading to many other spinoffs. Transportation from cars through to rockets are significant. Nanotechnology has potential but what else in recent centuries? Computers are still largely toys or glorified calculators. Medicine has made the odd mankind saving breathrough but still can't cure a cold. Science makes many errors too. We always seem to be learning that what we once believed is no longer true. The great mathematicians and physicists like Newton (who was a devout believer btw) and Einstein are rarely glimpsed but when they arrive the world changes in significant ways. Similarly, religion has made breakthroughs but largely it has achieved little. Jesus, Mohammed and Bhudda are among the great spiritual brains but who has there been in recent times? None have emerged to push back the boundaries. Great minds invariably have a flare for an aspect of human existence but few if any can break new ground. History surely teachs us that co-operation reaps rewards in human societies and it strikes me that unselfish co-operation between spiritual and scientific minds would move mankind forward in leaps and bounds. Choosing between science and religion is a dead end in my opinion.

Robert_15 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Robert_15 — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:17:16 +0000

"With so much still to learn how can we possibly decide one way or another about whether there is a god?...... The truth is what we each believe and reality will remain a mystery for a very long time".(spearo) My impression is that you are both an agnostic and a neo-luddite(no offence is meant). I share with you the belief that it is impossible to prove either the existence or the non-existence of God: It's just a question of belief. On the other hand, how can you label primitive 21st Century Science? Are you prepared to deny the progress made in all fields since, lets say, the 19th Century? Of course Science has not yet solved the problem of the existence of God, and probably never will, although it still has lots to discover. And that's the difference between Science and Religion: Although they are both man-made, the former evolves and conquers new frontiers in its efforts to better man's living conditions, the latter is immutable, mummified by centuries of dogmas. As for choosing between Darwinism and Creationism it's up to you, but you should at least recognize that one is based on Reason and scientific proofs, the other on Faith.

spearo100 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

spearo100 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:54:02 +0000

With so much still to learn how can we possibly decide one way or another about whether there is a god? A personal experience, a deep belief, those are fine but not grounds for proof. If you accept as I do that if all there is to know could be fitted into a football pitch then mankind's knowledge amounts to a single blade of grass. Science is in my opinion, still primitive and is a long way from solving the biggest debate on earth. Religious texts too, show all the hallmarks of fallible men. So many millions interpret words and phrases is so many different ways. A perfect existence could never be so fallible as to compose such imperfect communication. We all believe our own theories passionately whatever they happen to be at the time but we can't seem to avoid forcing those beliefs on others. Just to further the debate for future generations will eventually lead mankind to some answers. Science and religion are equally primitive in my opinion and the idea that any individual is enough to draw conclusions for us all is ridiculous. The truth is what we each believe and reality will remain a mystery for a very long time.

Robert_15 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Robert_15 — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:03:26 +0000

Browsing the 02/01/2007 issue of [url=http://tinyurl.com/2gsx5l] 'Le Nouvel Observateur'[/url], a left leaning but generally honest French magazine, I came upon an interesting debate titled 'Conspiracy against Darwin' written by Jacques Arnould, a Dominican Friar, agronomist, Doctor in Science History and Theology who has written several books on the relationship between Science and Religion such as 'The Creationists', and lately 'God versus Darwin. Will Creationists triumph over Science?' According to Dr.Arnould, what the Creationists want is the establishment of a Theocracy in the US, and for this they have the support of the Christian Right, the Republicans, and the Discovery Institute of Seattle among many others. But Creationists are also found amongst Muslims--particularly in Turkey-- and Jews. In France, teaching Darwinism in schools is done minimally, so as not to offend Muslim students, and the Universite' Interdisciplinaire de Paris is privately funded to 'further the progress of Religion in the Sciences'. The conclusion of Dr.Arnould, which of course I share wholeheartedly, is to render to God what is due to Him and to Darwin what is due to Darwin.

Robert_15 on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Robert_15 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:57:33 +0000

Science standards evolve again(http://tinyurl.com/2lm3z6) "Topeka. New, evolution-friendly science standards for Kansas' public schools were adopted Tuesday by the State Board of Education, replacing ones that questioned the theory and generated international ridicule. The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of 'intelligent design,' who had helped write the older standards being jettisoned". "There were debates or legal battles in California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Nevada and South Carolina over evolution and 'intelligent design.' But none has inspired comedians' jokes or parodies like Kansas' ongoing battle has, such as the four-part 'Evolution Schmevolution' series in 2005 on Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show.'" Hopefully, in a few more years, all Creationists will evolve into Darwinians, although, given the primitive state of their brains, it might take eons.

Billy_Coconut on "[b]Faith and Reason[/b]"

Billy_Coconut — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:41:20 +0000

...

[b]Faith and Reason[/b],

Robert_15 — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:02:14 +0000

It is my humble impression that we have pretty much exhausted the Topic 'Terrorism and/or Religion'. Indeed, we almost all agree that while Terrorism--in whatever form--practiced by Christians belongs essentially to the past and the Middle Ages, after which we have had the Enlightenment which still permeates us, on the contrary, after a period of Enlightenment lasting several centuries, Islamists now suffer from a particularly violent and intolerant period of Obscurantism. We can only hope that, helped or overwhelmed by 'moderate Muslism' and Westerners, they soon recuperate their long lost Enlightenment. I would like to propose instead the Topic 'Faith and Religion' since it is very "in" and quite controversial. Message was edited by: Robert_15