I continue to wait patiently for a point beyond “assassinate the prophet’s integrity and thereby cause his pronouncements in toto to evaporate” as I described above.
Really?
I’ve gone back and read the thread about Turing again, and I can’t find the “whole lot of justification” you’re talking about. In fact, most posts in that thread are completely off topic. I saw only two arguments somewhat related to the original question I posed in the thread.
One, Voyager suggested that the Anglican church supported legalizing homosexuality because their preachers are atheists, a claim that proved to be false. He refused to believe that the Catholic Church supported legalizing homosexuality, even after I named a book where he could see the Catholic Church’s position. And he ignored all the other churches that supported legalizing homosexuality. I do not consider that to be a justification.
Two, it was suggested that even though all the churches supported legalizing homosexuality, other Christians were responsible for keeping homosexuality illegal. But we checked the facts and found that it was medical and scientific organizations who were really responsible. No evidence was offered that Christians were to blame.
So, Lobohan, please tell me what “justification” was provided for the claim that Christians were responsible for Turing’s death.
Did I claim that “he believes all would agree with the ones he has brought up”? No, I did not. I claimed that “He says that everybody would pick a new ten commandments similar to his own.” And once you acknowledge that I used the word “similar”, you’ll be obliged to agree that my summary of Dawkins’ position was correct.
Most people in the world choose to follow one of the religions that suspects the real ten commandments. Now as for whether a majority of people would drop commandments, I’d be interested in seeing a poll on the topic. All I can say for sure is that I’ve seen thousands of people with the ten commandments posted on their house or yard. I’ve never seen anyone with any list of a new ten commandments on their house or yard, or a modified list. So if “everyone” is ready to junk the original in favor of some new version, why don’t I see any evidence of it?
The point for this thread, however, is not whether the claim is correct. If you want to continue debating that, please start another thread. The point for this thread is that Dawkins makes statements and does not offer justifications for his statements. Hence, I’m being asked to believe things based only on his say so.
That’s fascinating, but it doesn’t change the fact that Dawkins provides zero justification for either claim.
I don’t see why you’re waiting patiently, since I’ve already stated my two points for the thread. But never mind, I’ll repeat them, and then your wait will be over.
Point number one is that Dawkins is spreading ignorance. I am fighting that ignorance per the purpose of this message board. Dawkins makes false claims about what Martin Luther King said and believed, and further misleads his readers by omitting key information. Thanks to me, readers of this thread have now read the truth from King’s own words.
Point number two is that we’re establishing Dawkins’ credibility. He’s the best-known atheist author curently going, and many people offer his book as the best argument against Christianity. As his book tells me not to follow Christianity but fails to provide any reasons why I should, I’m basically being asked to become an atheist because Richard Dawkins says so. If so, does it not make sense that I should first ask whether Richard Dawkins has credibility? Would it be sensible to make the most important decision of my life based on what a pathological liar tells me to do?
He was already speaking and writing about fighting segregation with nonviolent resistance tactics during his years at Morehouse College. That was before he went to Crozier Theological Seminary and encountered the works of Gandhi.
Well then there’s the factual answer to the OP question. Dawkins was likely wrong, and would possibly be willing to correct the error if informed.
I said a point beyond “assassinate the prophet’s integrity and thereby cause his pronouncements in toto to evaporate.” Color me shocked.
Nonetheless, it is true that the laws sodomy laws, like the drug laws and many other victimless crimes are based on religious doctrine. Maybe by 1950, C of E had come to the contrary view but theirs would have been the original motivation.
For a much more seriously argued book on atheism that Dawkins’s see Sam Harris, The End of Faith. Among other things he points out that regardless of whether or not Hitler based the extermination of 6 million Jews (six mega-Jews?) on religion, it was two millenia of vilification of the Jews by Christian churches that made this acceptable to the German people as a whole.
I am one that doubts King spent any time studying Ghandi. Just doesn’t seem the type to wander from his Bible and Christian literature. On the other hand I believe Dawkins can make mistakes and has made a lot of them.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml
More than just slightly. Richard Dawkins is a great science writer, but a piss-poor philosopher.
I rather doubt that. His book, The God Delusion, was well received by laymen but poorly received by philosophers, historians, and other scholars (example), yet I’ve never seen any indication of Dawkins saying “Oops. I overstated my case” or “I got the facts wrong.” The reality is that people are often reluctant to correct such errors, especially when they appear in their most popular works. (I don’t know if Dawkins’ statement regarding MLK appeared in The God Delusion or not, but it’s certainly of the same general flavor.)
Exactly. He offers the possibility, but no evidence. Quit the contrary, the best he does is say
-
We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics. [Referring to cosmic fine-tuning]
-
We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Far from offering evidence, he dogmatically asserts that we must keep hoping for an explanation to someday be found. That’s wishful thinking, not evidence.
That we can hallucinate, or otherwise interpret reality falsely, is an extremely good reason for not trusting personal experience alone. It is reasonable to say that if there exist in the world people who halluncinate, or people who misunderstand their senses, or people who make assumptions, and do not recognise that they do this, then we ourselves should be wary of our own experiences.
But no, that’s not what Dawkins is saying. After all, this problem of hallucinations applies to all people - not just thre religious - and yet to take your flawed logic to its fullest point, that would “logically” mean that he’s saying that nothing exists. No, he’s saying that personal experiences may well be true, that religious experiences may well be true, but we must use something other than just our own opinion and it itself to judge that. He’s saying that personal experiences can be hallucinations, that we should be wary in case they are, not that they are.
Indeed they may trust them. But guess what - they might not trust them based solely on that experience. As Dawkins is pointing out, personal experience alone is not good enough evidence, but you can bring other things to bear to judge. Hence why we are able to trust anything we see. We are, however, asked to take his word that “anyone knowledgable in psychology” would agree with him on this one.
I don’t know, to be honest. I can only conclude that Dawkins doesn’t actually mind enough that we agree with him on Bush to provide a cite, or he thinks it well enough accepted that he doesn’t need to. Just as you haven’t provided a cite for your claim of “the rest of the section (and the entire book)”.
All well and good, except you’ve managed to miss out a couple of paragraphs. Whoops.
Directly before mentioned Martin Rees, he puts forth an idea - starting with “Hard-nosed physicists say that the six knobs were never free to vary in the first place”. The paragraph directly after that is where he first mentions Rees, suggesting that both he and himself find that explanation unsatisfying, and it is the paragraph directly after that one where the multiverse theory is brought up - as an answer to the “universe can only exist this way” theory. The paragraphs are right there, seriously. Me having a British version of the book, i’m afraid I can’t go by page numbers, but it’s presumably directly above the part you quoted right there.
But here you’re asking me to accept your own testimony, your own word, that Rees says what he says he does. You’re saying that Dawkins asking us to trust him on what Rees says is not good enough - and your reasoning is that you say so, and moreso that you are correct though you haven’t even read the thing. Is one person’s testimony about what Rees says good enough or not? Please, make up your mind. And, as I pointed out before, he gives a cite of in the form of Susskind.
No, I won’t, because you’re still wrong. They aren’t Dawkin’s ten commandments because he makes additions to them. He considers them lacking. He considers them to not fully agree with him. What he says is that many people would pick ones similar to the original ten that he then adds to, and given that he adds four whole new rules to make it entirely acceptable to him, I rather suspect his definition of “similar” differs to your own. Your summary of Dawkins position was incorrect.
I suspect you mean “respects the ten commandments” here, and i’m afraid to say you’re incorrect. Most people in the world do not choose to follow one fo the religions that respects it. The majority of the world do not follow the ten commandments. This is incorrect.
As for why you have seen no evidence of it - why would you? I’m an atheist. I don’t believe that in any conversation with your or indeed on these boards i’ve set out a list of “commandments” I think are worth following. There is no evidence that I have any. Yet, this does not mean that I am a faithful follower of the Christian ten. I myself over here in the UK have never seen anyone with the ten commandments posted on their house or garden - does this therefore mean that there are no Christians in the U.S.? No, it doesn’t. Because for one thing, the personal experience of two people tends not to be an accurate representation of the world - thousands is rather a small number when compared to billions. And secondly, you cannot tell a persons’s moral views by seeing whether or not they have a sign up proclaiming them, shockingly enough. For one thing, we’d run out of sign paint.
Actually, the point for this thread was whether Dawkins’s view on Martin Luther King jr. was correct. You seem to have drifted rather off from the source yourself.
I’m afraid, alas, your point is now in vain. If we check the ten commandments the Dawkins provides, we see an interesting pair;
It rather seems as though he wouldn’t want you to take him on his word, from that. That he would prefer you to do some research yourself on the subject, rather than take his word for it alone. That he’d prefer questioning and not blind obedience. So no, you’re not asked to believe thing solely on his say so.
But he doesn’t claim it as proof. He claims it as a theory. He claims it, as you have put it, as a possibility. His words are “suggestion”, and “theory”. He doesn’t say “Hey, we don’t have any evidence, but you should believe this now because we’ll find it later”. He asserts nothing, except that there are potential possibilities, and that alone.
He claims a great deal more than that. In fact, the text that I quoted was immediately followed by the following statement: “Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.”
Get that? He goes from imploring people to keep hoping for an evolution-like explanation of cosmic fine-tuning (e.g. multiple universes) and from this, concludes that “God almost certainly does not exist.” It might not be proof, but it also goes far beyond mere theory… and he offers no evidence to back it up. No evidence whatsoever.
Interestingly, the version quoted on that site is not the same as the version I have in the book in front of me - it quotes mostly correctly the first sentences of each point, but doesn’t include the rest (perhaps they have an older/newer version of the book?). For example, my book’s part 5 and 6 are;
Furthermore, his assertion that God does not exist is not based on the idea that we have fantastic alternate ideas, with excellent evidence to support it, but rather on what he sees as the lack of support for pro-God existence ideas, which are beaten out by (as he himself says) relatively weak explanations that do not involve God.
No, he does not. He admits that there is a lack of evolution-like explanations of cosmis fine-tuning, but believes that the God-based explanations are lacking enough that even the poor ideas we have otherwise are superior enough that they may be said to be more likely true. And he does offer evidence for this, in the chapter of the book rather than at the summation at the end.
Maybe. Whatever the case, the additional text doesn’t affect the gist of the failing in question – namely, that Dawkins implores people to keep hoping for an evolution-like explanation of cosmic fine-tuning. As I said, that “argument” is wishful thinking, not evidence.
Not true. I think you’re missing the point of his argument, as Dawkins himself summarized.
Dawkins acknowledges the appearance of cosmic fine-tuning. In order to assert that this does not constitute evidence of cosmic design, one must postulate some physics-based explanation that dispenses with the design argument, just as evolution supposedly dispenses with the biological design argument. (I don’t agree that it does, but that’s beside the point.)
Dawkins therefore requires a fantastic alternate idea, which is precisely why he urges the readers to keep hoping for such an explanation to be found (e.g. multiple universes). His “multiple universe” hypothesis is by no means incidental to his argument; quite the contrary, it is essential in his attempts to dismiss the evidence for a creator.
And from his impassioned plea to keep hoping for an explanation to arrive, he concludes that God “almost certainly does not exist.” In no way does his conclusion logically proceed from this premise or any of the previous ones.
No, he says that the anthropic principle is already better than relying on god.
No, he goes quite a bit beyond that. The anthropic principle, by itself, merely states that life-permitting conditions must exist in any universe where living observers exist. It doesn’t explain WHY those conditions exist in the first place.
This is precisely why physicists who attempt to dismiss the appearance of cosmic fine-tuning attempt to couple the anthropic principle with the multiple universe theory (aka the “many worlds” theory)… and why Dawkins brought up that scenario. The multiple universe theory is integral to attempts to dismiss the appearance of cosmic fine-tuning of life-permitting conditions.
To the contrary, it is inessential, at least as a specific theory to the otherwise.
Dawkins however does not require a fantastic alternate idea, at least in his view of things. His point in the chapter (and in the earlier points) is that the various theories postulating a God can either be entirely dismissed, or that the chances of their happening are significantly lower than even the chances of the poor theories he mentions. He does not require a fantastic alternate idea, just a better, relative to God-based theories, answer, and he believes he has that. The answers he suggests are not fantastic, as he himself admits, but given that the “alternate” explanations are terrible, he doesn’t need a fantastic one, merely one (or ones) that are superior to it.
His conclusion logically proceeds from his chapter and points, which in summary basically are to disagree entirely with the theories that posit a God, and to agree in small part with some that do not. It logically proceeds from his argument as a whole, akin to Sherlock Holmes’ famous argument; if you eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth.