What grounds is Dawkins basing this on?
Offline The universe we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing by blind pitiless indifference~ Richard Dawkins
I have no idea where he's getting this.
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:
No, I did not. You joined this website and under your avatar it says "theist".
That label was assigned to me. And is a scarlet letter around here.
Quote:That statement says you believe in some sort of god. It is up to YOU to prove the claims you make, not me.
I don't have to prove jack shit because I am not trying to change anybody's belief. I am here because it challenges my thinking.
Quote:You want to avoid that because you have no evidence for the "whatever" you want to call your "god" or "cosmic brian" or cosmic conciousness, whatever your brand of hocus pocus is.
I have no evidence that passes scientific muster. That is a standard of evidence YOU insist upon. Did you read the thread where I told the hitch hiker story? Go there if you want to talk evidence.
Quote:You constantly dodge your own personal beliefs and attack us insted to dodge the inaqiquicies of your own claims.
I don't dodge anything. You just don't like my answers. So who is eating the sour grapes?
Quote:Me, "DUH, but what does that have to do with YOU proving the claims YOU make about the "whatever|" YOU wavefreak, think is out there"
Again. I don't have to prove jack shit. I'm not making publice policy. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm not trying to make others believe what I believe. I'm just som dude on a internet forum. When I write a book as popular as Dawkins (don't hold your breath) then you can shoot be with your "burden of proof" cannon.
Quote:I never claimed any sort of theism, you did. Just as you'd rightfully demand proof of Allah, or Thor, I am doing absolutly no different to you than I would do to anyone else.
You cop out to, "Since you dont know everything, I must be right|" Same crap argument I have heard from Muslims and Jews and Christians.
"I never said anything about god"
STFW? You have "theist" under your title that means you have an idea of "what or who". So stop dodging, state what it is and defend it.
What you fail to realize is that I am not All Theist All the Time. It is actually possible to have thoughts that aren't directly connected to theism. It seem no matter WHAT I post you automagically invoke that tag under my name. Seems to me you are a bit obsessed.
Quote:I can tell you what I am not going to do. I am not going to buy something without evidence. You say you are a theist, at least that is what your title claims. So stop being a pussy, state what your "thing" "entity" fantacy or whatever is, and provide evidence for it.
I am sure what you have to offer is standard practice in science and taught in biology and peer reviewed, just like Scientology and Kaballah.
Let me count the number of times I have suggested that you buy something without evidence. Let's see ... ZERO. You need to deal with the fact that I don't think as you do and I am fine with that even if you are not.
Quote:Quote:I only commented on what I believe are fundamental limits on the capacity of the human brain to understand the totality of that which exists.DUH, once again, so what. What does that have to do with your "theism".
Nothing.
Quote:Still has nothing to do with you proving the theism you advertise under your avatar.
I did not place that label under my avatar and I have no way of removing it. Sucks to be me.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
I think what he's saying is that the universe is indifferent to things.
Should this read "precisely" and not "preciously"?
This is where I lose it a bit. The science behind evolution etc, is compelling. But the leap to what IMHO is a broad philisophical statement is more than I can accept.
One of the things that continually astounds me is how small we are. I laugh at times at the idea that we have any definitive description of reality. I read about advances in technology and am amazed for a short while. Then I think about ahow frickin big the universe is. How the hell is a 3 pound mass of cells and neurotransmitters supposed to have any real grasp of all that? We make toys.
My Artwork
Fix'd
Where did you get this quote? Now assuming you quoted accurately and assuming the text you posted, the following would be my assesment of the words you posted in that quote.
You jumped in on the word "if" and confused it with some sort of questioning on Dawkins part of his own atheism.
He assumes you already know his position and in this statement he is saying "This is what we would expect "if" ". He is confident as am I, that pantheism, Christianity, Scientology and Santa fit in the same catigory.
It is a simple "If x is true= then".
In writing an "if" statement adresses a postulated cenerio. Not nessesarrly his cenerio, but a cenerio put forth that he has looked at and is responding to.
So without knowing further detail I cant say fully what the context is. The only thing I can say is that he is adressing a "What if".
It doesnt adress the person's personal beliefs. It's structure is saying, in a given arument, if one were to claim X, then this would follow.
FOLLOWING YOUR EDIT CPT....
THAT MAKES A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE.
He is saying in laymens terms, "What you see is what you get".
The universe is not capable of "judgment" because it is not a being. It's atributes are not human and are exactly what one would expect from an object, like a rock, or volcano.
Humans make judgments, the universe moves. Humans have pitty, the universe is pitiless because it is neither a monster or a hero. It is an object.
Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I got out of it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I found it here
What are you talking about? I see no indications that he was asking 'what if?'
Assuming that quote is genuine, and doesn't require further context: is there a basis to suggest the converse is a better assumption? That the universe does have awareness? Note that the language deals with reality as observed, not the (stupid, meaningless) philosophical question of purpose. The universe appears to follow laws rather than make decisions.
Oh, sorry, the universe wants to experience itself.
Fap fap fap. Ugh. Squirt.
And on the seventh minute, the universe rested.
A sense of "awe" should lead you to break the ceiling of knowlege, not cap it off with superstitions or "warm fuzzies".
What scientists know about the universe is that it is quite violent. Our life here compartively speeking with all it's hurricains, volcanos, wild fires, sunamis and even war and crime, pale in comparassion to the power of an exploding star or black hole.
The universe's violence is not "judgmental". It is much like whena bolling pin gets knocked down by a bolling ball. Neither the pin or the ball care, because they dont have brains. But the energy released in the contact causes objects to move.
On a universal scale you are right, it is "awe" inspiring. But hardly worth atributing to magic or finger crossing or some bearded man in sandles. I think that is an insult to human intelect when we put caps on knowlege.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'm just wondering because according to the site it came from one of his books
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
I've never read it and was wondering if anyone has.
Compared to what? People, theists especially, seem almost apologetic for being human. Like there's something inherently tainted about the human condition. If they're making the assumption of some fall from "grace," I'd wonder what that meant and whether they have any reason to believe it exists. Evidence tells us we're top dog on the planet as far as creative potential and intelligence. We're constantly building on a massive body of collected knowledge. If we don't kill ourselves or get otherwise wiped out, things are pretty sweet for the species. It's just weird for me to hear the smartest and most creative species on the planet moan about how small and insignificant it is.
I haven't even heard of that book. I wonder what he's addressing specifically.
I knew somebody would jump on that. You will note that I said nothing about what any sense of awe might imply other than we really don't know diddley. While some say that sense of awe is evidence of god, I don't consider it any more than a signal to keep asking questions.
My Artwork
Thank you, couldnt have said it better myself.
I do have a bugaboo with human language and it's usage because we athropromorphize objects.
Even in your correct assesment, "It obeys laws, not make decisions". Seems a bit athropropmorphic.
Humans can "follow laws" which still implys cognition.
Objects "react" and dont think.
So it is important to distinguish the differance between scientific language, which is a discription of an event, and emotional language humans use wich is antropromophic "Asigning human charictaristics to objects"
Bottem line to boil it all down, humans are human and the universe is an object and is completly dissimilar in every aspect. The two are not even closely comparable.
Humanitiy's problem is that it cannot deal with mortality. So call something "God" or "awe" and the overwhelming feeling causes people to put a cap on their thinking.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I completely agree with the quote.
If the earth gets hit by a massive asteroid in the near future the universe is just doing its stuff.
The only word I can see a problem with is design.
As one could argue that that means structure but I think he is saying that the universe is not built for a particular use or invented.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
The key is that when questions are answered one faces the truth without fear. It is ok to use the garbage can for debunked crap. You did it with Thor and Santa and it would be just as wise to do it with pantheism and Jesus.
This is not a claim to know the future, but an aceptance of knowing that bad claims can be left behind.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Any scientist worth their weight would admit that we are now only scratching the serface. But that does not mean we dont know didly. And it ceratinly doesnt mean that the "trash can" of bad, debunked claims, should never be used.
It was good that humans trashed the idea that Posiden magically controled the water. It would be nice if people wouldnt "consult their horiscopes". It is good that we now know that the brain, not the heart does the thinking.
And as such, bad claims, like a woman being made from a rib, or that the universe is itself a giant brain, should be left behind like the Weekly World News.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yikes.
Normal matter (us) 4%
Dark matter 22%
Dark Energy 74%
Ingredients of the universe!
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Don't know diddly compared to what?
Compared to ourselves a thousand years ago we know what some would call a 'shitload.' Is there some other benchmark? It's theism that promotes the ass-backward thought that we're 'falling from grace' even as the average person becomes more humane, more tolerant, more compassionate; that our knowledge is practically 'nothing' compared to that of an entity that has so far proven itself to be actual nothing.
When you can show me that logic and empiricism are sufficient to the describing of all that exists then maybe we can get to my abandoning of a theistic viwpoint. Clearly, much of god thought is foo foo. But you would have me stop asking an entire class of questions. Not gonna happen.
My Artwork
Huh?
Why do you see things that aren't there? Where did I say anything about humans being fallen or tainted? I ONLY claim that compared to the rest of the universe we are a tiny smudge on the painting that is reality. We are this thin smear of chemicals on a tiny planet in a GIANT universe. I find it amusing when others think its possible that the three pound mass of jello called a brain will EVER do more than scratch the surface of reality. Scientists are too enamored with their success. And to offer balance, theists who insist the have absolute understanding of god are even worse.
My Artwork
All of current "god" talk IS foo foo and deserves the garbage can and as such I am an atheist untill evidence proves itself otherwise.
If you want to speculate about the future dont cling to an antiquated word.
What ever we seek to know should be updated consistantly and using old language like the word "god" is stupid.
Whatever "is" we seek to find should be done with solid tools and solid language. "god" is a playdough word and does nothing to dicribe scientific discovery.
You're just afraid of using your trash can. You are not going to close doors on possibile answers we have yet to find by giving up on bad language.
Whatever it is YOU claim, call it something else if you think it is valid. But dont use a meaningless playdough word and like "god" and expect me to buy it. I wont do that for a muslim, deist or pantheist and I am not going to do it for you either.
"god" has been defind in countless ways, from traditional to new age to pantheism which makes it a meaningless term. "Evidence" is what gives something meaning.
So my question still stands to you as it would any other claim comming down the pike. Call your thing "god" or "puppy" or"frank" or "chair" or "globbly" what would matter to me is what you prove, not what you call it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
It is your "certainty" that I take issue with. I don't well when somebody TELLS me this is the it IS. Nobody knows it all.
What word would you have me use?
Mathematics is a VERY old language. But since you clearly won't be discarding that based on its antiquity. You can't use the age of a term as the criteria for discarding it. Try something else.
Which brings us back to my point. You assume scientific discovery is sufficient to describing all of reality. That is a big assumption for which there is no proof.
I fear nothing of the sort. I don't close doors either. Were I interested in holding blindly to my beliefes I CERTAINLY wouldn't hang out around here.
What term would you like me to use? There is a domain of discourse that your distaste cannot eliminate. THat domain of discourse has its accepted terminology. How does discarding terms help the discourse within that domain?
Evidence is not absolute. The requirement for evidence in scientific process is decidely different than much of what we deal with in our day to day lives.
Prove to me that logic and science are sufficient to describe all that exists and I'll come up with a proof for god.
My Artwork
This is something that really frustrates me about people's usage of quotes.
Quotes are NOT meant to be substitutions for the source they are taken from. They can be legitimately used to quickly represent someone's views, but more often than not, unless they stand on their own and imply the same thing they do in context, they can be more confusing than illuminating.
But your problem here is worse than that. You quote a single conclusionary sentence taken from a book, and then ask how he could have "gotten" that conclusion.
Don't you see how silly that is? If you are really interested in why he's saying that, why don't you READ THE BOOK?? If you haven't done so yet, then what the heck is the point of presenting the quote and then challenging its basis? The answer to your question lies in a short trip to a library or bookstore!
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, & Silly
If you want to speculate about the future dont cling to an antiquated word.
I defy you to show me in anyone of my posts where I said, " know it all".
I said using bad langauge and basing science on it is a bad Idea. "God" or "god" is meaningless because it ambigous and means something different to everyone.
If you have evidence for your personal claim the sequince of letters you use to define the claim should be meaningfull, like "miosis" or H2O. That is something we can sink our teath into. It is folly to utter "god" because the word never started in a meaningfull way. It was created to fill in the gaps. A "bad guess".
Do you think I am that stupid to mix apples and oranges. Mathmatics are a viable PROVABLE tool and constantly get updated. "god" is not a tool, it is a claim.
"math" and "god" are words in our language. But "math" is a testable tool and is a valid tool used to mesure things. "god" is fiction we make up to mentaly compinsate for what we dont know.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
But you still avoid my key assertion. I am stating that logic and science are insufficient for explaining all of reality. What is it about testability that implies completeness? Nothing. Science and empiricism are IN PRINCIPLE restricted domains of discourse. The restrictions are to allow the reducibility of problems to managable pieces. You are requiring that I hold to a description of reality that by its very nature is restricted. Sounds confining to me.
My Artwork
I am not restricting you to a damned thing. And once again I defy you to quote me where I said I know it all.
I am advising you to not let your immagination run wild simpy when someone else says, "I dont know".
Confining is looking at what we dont know and saying, "god". If find that ignorantly confining.
I think human intelect deserves better than that.
You want to fill those gaps of knowlege you dont stick meaningless words into them. You say, "I dont know", and work from
there."We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Do you have any evidence?
If something can not be tested either directly or indirectly I see no reason to bother with it.
Try telling that to the quantum!
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Dont pull that tit for tat "I'll show mine if you show me yours" garbage.
You are crying sour grapes because you dont want to face the fact that science and logic ARE the best tools we have to date. If you have a better tool, it is up to you to prove it.
You are not going to pull that BS with me anymore than a Muslim or Jew or Hindu would be able to pull that with me.
"god" "deity" "super natural" "giant cosmic brain" are CLAIMS, not tools and do not have equal footing and are not even in the same catigory.
1 is a claim the other is a tool. To make a claim valid it depends on good tools to build it and back it up. The best tool we have to date is scientific method and proper use of logic.
You are trying to make god and science a 50/50 proposition which is patatantly false and absurd.
You have a trash can, you wont use it and that is what is causing that intelectuall cealing in your head.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What is really astonishing here is that I did not bring god into this conversation. YOU did. I only commented on what I believe are fundamental limits on the capacity of the human brain to understand the totality of that which exists. Then YOU injected the whole thiesm thing. So since YOU brought it up, the burden of proof is your's to bear. So whatever it is you are trying to prove, have at it.
My Artwork
wavefreak, I was making what may be a relevant comparison, not suggesting that you literally called man "fallen." I meant that there's a consistency in the Christian mentality of unflattering comparisons between flawed man and 'perfect deity,' and reducing the best brains on the planet to '3 pounds of Jello,' when considering the scale of the universe.
How about this conversation?
Then I have a richer experience of life than you. Which is of course false, the point being that you also indulge in the non-scientific and feel no guilt in doing so.
Not sure what you mean here.
My Artwork
It may well be confining: what is your alternative though? Science is indeed of limited scope. But those limits may very well be fundamentally limits on what we can really say we "know" period. So claiming that there are portions of reality outside of what science can explore is based on... what exactly? What method of inquiry, what epistemology are you offering that can operate outside of where science can and reveal all the things that you think are additionally out there?
What people require is that you hold a view of reality that can be justified. Imagine a person living before scientific study had the ability to see other galaxies. Would such a person be justified in simply imagining other galaxies and claiming they were true, with no evidence? No, they would not: not even because they happened to be right. They had no _warrant_ to assert what they did, and as such, the truth of their assertion was accidental, not due to their insight.
In the future, we will discover things that we today cannot imagine. But the point is not to jump ahead and start asserting all sorts of particular things are true that we will one day discover. We don't know which are true and which are false and which we couldn't have even concieved of. We just have to wait and actually discover them, for real.
Is that confining? Are you impatient? Well, tough. That's the human condition.
The Bad Idea Blog - Science, Skepticism, & Silly
I have no idea how you can say that science and logic are insufficient...I do not see people giving up and stating the universe is just illogical!
Maybe your problem is a case of accuracy over precision?
The models we have of the universe are accurate in that they describe what can/will happen from a certain circumstance, but our knowledge is not precise - if you point at a star in the sky our knowledge of that stars solar system is very limited...but we know how it would work.
I answered your question. Testability implies completeness because if something can not be tested directly or indirectly then there is no reason to infer that it exists! There may be things not examined and effects not seen but if they have action they can be tested.
The fundamentals of stuff/reality are by their very nature restricted. Quantum refers to the smallest possible amount of energy. The only restriction that science puts on reality is that it is observable in some way. For something to be observable it has to act or cause effect. For an example dark matter does not appear to react with electromagnetism but can be inferred through the gravitational field it creates.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
3 pounds of jello is a little tongue-in-cheek. It's pretty frickin cool jello. I simply think that no matter how tasty the jello is, it is still not steak.
My Artwork
No, I did not. You joined this website and under your avatar it says "theist". That statement says you believe in some sort of god. It is up to YOU to prove the claims you make, not me. I never claimed myself that their was a god. I said, and have always said that that there is no evidene for one.
You want to avoid that because you have no evidence for the "whatever" you want to call your "god" or "cosmic brian" or cosmic conciousness, whatever your brand of hocus pocus is.
You constantly dodge your own personal beliefs and attack us insted to dodge the inaqiquicies of your own claims.
You, " We dont know everything"
Me, "Duh, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china"
You, "You dont know everything"
Me, "DUH, but what does that have to do with YOU proving the claims YOU make about the "whatever|" YOU wavefreak, think is out there"
I never claimed any sort of theism, you did. Just as you'd rightfully demand proof of Allah, or Thor, I am doing absolutly no different to you than I would do to anyone else.
You cop out to, "Since you dont know everything, I must be right|" Same crap argument I have heard from Muslims and Jews and Christians.
"I never said anything about god"
STFW? You have "theist" under your title that means you have an idea of "what or who". So stop dodging, state what it is and defend it.
I can tell you what I am not going to do. I am not going to buy something without evidence. You say you are a theist, at least that is what your title claims. So stop being a pussy, state what your "thing" "entity" fantacy or whatever is, and provide evidence for it.
I am sure what you have to offer is standard practice in science and taught in biology and peer reviewed, just like Scientology and Kaballah.
DUH, once again, so what. What does that have to do with your "theism".
I know what doesnt exist. Good arguments without evidence. And so far I have not seen one good argment that even remotely suggests any thing human about non-human objects such as the universe call it "god" "deity" "cosmic brain" "cosmic concious".
So stop droing on about the obvious. You dont know everything, I dont know everything. DUH, thanks for the newsflash genious. Still has nothing to do with you proving the theism you advertise under your avatar.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What's the steak supposed to represent?
That label was assigned to me. And is a scarlet letter around here.
I don't have to prove jack shit because I am not trying to change anybody's belief. I am here because it challenges my thinking.
I have no evidence that passes scientific muster. That is a standard of evidence YOU insist upon. Did you read the thread where I told the hitch hiker story? Go there if you want to talk evidence.
I don't dodge anything. You just don't like my answers. So who is eating the sour grapes?
Again. I don't have to prove jack shit. I'm not making publice policy. I'm not trying to change the world. I'm not trying to make others believe what I believe. I'm just som dude on a internet forum. When I write a book as popular as Dawkins (don't hold your breath) then you can shoot be with your "burden of proof" cannon.
What you fail to realize is that I am not All Theist All the Time. It is actually possible to have thoughts that aren't directly connected to theism. It seem no matter WHAT I post you automagically invoke that tag under my name. Seems to me you are a bit obsessed.
Let me count the number of times I have suggested that you buy something without evidence. Let's see ... ZERO. You need to deal with the fact that I don't think as you do and I am fine with that even if you are not.
Nothing.
I did not place that label under my avatar and I have no way of removing it. Sucks to be me.
My Artwork