Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote:
Nowadays people try to make him out to be stupid, try to slate his work, say he is a "bad Scientist" but would anybody say that about him in say.. 2001? Wouldnt he be pretty well regarded as a great Biologist?

I've always thought that he was bad for essentially the same reasons I accost people here: insufficient information.

So thats your opinion, and it may be correct, i mean, I am no Scientist, but your still a student right(i don't mean that disrespectfully, but in the sense that you have not won a nobel prize or anything!) Would you say that would be a common thing among his peers?

I read a collection of essays called "How a scientist changed the way we think" and It had some guys in it that are surely well thought of in Scientific circles themselves singing his praises (Steven Pinker and David Haig from Harvard for example) and also some space was also given to writers were not in full agreement with the bloke. Other guys who i admire that arent involved with science, like.. Phillip Pullman for example. and many others. And mainly they all said good things about him.

So say you asked a hundred guys who were elected to the National Academy of Sciences, if they thought he was a "good" biologist, do you think they would say he sucked/made no significant contribution?

mattyrm wrote:So thats your opinion, and it may be correct, i mean, I am no Scientist, but your still a student right(i don't mean that disrespectfully, but in the sense that you have not won a nobel prize or anything!) Would you say that would be a common thing among his peers?

Yeah, its nominally a love v. hate sort of thing.

mattyrm wrote:
I read a collection of essays called "How a scientist changed the way we think" and It had some guys in it that are surely well thought of in Scientific circles themselves singing his praises (Steven Pinker and David Haig from Harvard for example) and also some space was also given to writers were not in full agreement with the bloke.

They love him for his popular advocacy. Thing is, when you translate nuance to masses, the nuance is lost.

mattyrm wrote:
So say you asked a hundred guys who were elected to the National Academy of Sciences, if they thought he was a "good" biologist, do you think they would say he sucked/made no significant contribution?

They would probably say he was a good biologist in the same sense that I would say Ken Waltz is a good political scientist; which is to say I wouldn't say that without a wink and a grin.

It does not really matter than Dawkins was or is a biologist, he also puts his hand at being a theologian.

His theology is clearly an emotive subject rather than a purely intellectual one because of the emotion he charges it with. That in itself would not be problematic, were the emotion not negative.

There is a deep seated anger running in Dawkins work.

Aye there is, i remember reading an old book (I think it was cClimbing Mount Improbable) and he finished a chapter after talking about evolution denialists with "im off to dig the garden"

But do you not think its fair to be angry? He equates it in his new book with a History teacher having to take time out from his teaching to argue with people that say the Romans never existed.

Wouldnt it make YOU angry?

It seems kinda fair to be pissed about it if you ask me, and im not a Biologist, but i think i would be angry as well if people who arent Scientists were interfering with my Science.

Its like someone who has never been to Afghanistan telling me how easy a tour out there is!

Your analogy isn't quite fair.

This is not an issue of knowledge vs ignorance, no matter what Dawkins and some atheists would imply. There are solid reasons to back up a faith choice, some expressed by great minds.

Were this not so, were the choices not blurred this whole issue would have ceased to exist centuries ago. There have been many cults and creeds that do not hold any logical sense, they fall. the major remaining relgions have all passed some sort of logic test. People have been pondering the holy texts of the various faiths for centuries or millenia, many who did so were wise and educated men capable of great thoughts and works.

I dont see it as fair to write off all this, only prideful arrogance. The idea that Dawkins is the great intellectual and others are idiots that do not require answering is quite onoxious really. I do not doubt that Dawkins is a first rate biologist, he would not occupy his seat were he not, however here are theologians as well as biologists at Oxford too, mental giants alike to C.S. Lewis can still be found today.

Its like someone who has never been to Afghanistan telling me how easy a tour out there is!

You are falling into the trap of thinking your creed alone has knowlede and experience to back it up its claims.
a fairer comparison would be for someone who has been to Afghanistan to say that things are not as bad as you make out.

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.

The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".

So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.

GG

Yes GG but that argument aside, isn't our choice more like just an opinion? Ie. "I don't think there is a god, or at least there is no good evidence for it" and yours is "I am 100% sure"

One uses faith when one does not believe?

Funny, I figured that my lack of belief in Santa was not the same as a possible belief in the lack of Santa.

Its almost as if you don't know anything about logic.

Good call, Ahtman.

generalgrog wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, i think i have argued with Orlanth and GG about this on about 6 seperate occasions. You can't get them to accept the point, because if everyone is Religious, then it makes their position look better. I would'nt bother going on about it anymore and merely agree to disagree.

The problem here is that athiests bristle when you tell them they have faith. I believe they are in denial, because in their world view, athiesm is superior to deism because[u] deists use faith. I.E. they are insulted by the notion that they use faith, because they see it as an equalization of world views and they "just can't have that".

So they will squirm and twist and fight to try and argue that they do not use faith. Classic denial syndrome. You should see dawkins' nostrils flare up when he is "accused" of having faith.

GG

I don't think you truly understand the Atheist worldview, GG. I actually would argue that faith is not the reason most people are atheist, nor is a superior feeling why we choose that path. I am atheist because I genuinely neither believe in nor care about the existence of a God. Whether Deists believe or not is completely irrelevant to me. It is like that with most other people who are atheist, with only a few exceptions.

Lol. That's a funny picture.

Anyway I'm tired of having the "not having faith is actually faith" argument for the hundredth time, so I will let dogma crack on and I'm going to read "high fidelity" which seems a bit feminine but my missus recommended it.

Night!

High Fidelity is chick lit for boys. Someone gave it to me once, with a strong recommendation, but I couldn't get into it.

I recommend Kraken by China Mieville. It's rather nice.

dogma wrote:One uses faith when one does not believe?

Funny, I figured that my lack of belief in Santa was not the same as a possible belief in the lack of Santa.

Its almost as if you don't know anything about logic.

Come now dogma..I can read a semantic argument when I see one. Can we please move past the semantics.

GG

No, that's not a semantic argument, It doesn't even look like one.

Again, you don't appear to know anything about logic.

But hey, your nominal recourse is the retraction to false ignorance (willful failure to understand) so I should have expected your response.

OK.. so educate me then. What's the difference between "a lack of belief in santa" and a "possible belief in the lack of santa".

GG

Do you believe that 40k Space Orks are actually out there in the universe somewhere? No, you do not.

Is it an article of faith to you that "Space Orks are False!"? No, also, probably not.

Your LACK of belief in the existence of Space Orks does not mean that you are a member of a No Space Orks religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:This is not an issue of knowledge vs ignorance, no matter what Dawkins and some atheists would imply. There are solid reasons to back up a faith choice, some expressed by great minds.

Were this not so, were the choices not blurred this whole issue would have ceased to exist centuries ago. There have been many cults and creeds that do not hold any logical sense, they fall. the major remaining relgions have all passed some sort of logic test. People have been pondering the holy texts of the various faiths for centuries or millenia, many who did so were wise and educated men capable of great thoughts and works.

It is my opinion that there are certainly faiths out there which have been handed down and survived through centuries that do not "hold any logical sense." And conversely, that there have been other, equally or more functional and beautiful faiths and modes of religion that have gone extinct for various reasons having to do with the clash of cultures and societies.

Great minds exist in many faiths, but logic can be a means of going wrong with confidence if one builds one's logical edifice on false or mistaken grounds/assumptions. I remember the discussion in The Rainbow Cadenza comparing the belief systems of C. S. Lewis to those of Ayn Rand, and noting that each made logical sense based on the assumptions each held.

On a side note, I'm pleased to see that you guys have more polite, functional conversations in here than the last time I popped my head into a religion discussion. Well done, everyone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and on the original topic, I'm always saddened by the desecration of any ancient tree. They're all sacred, as far as I'm concerned.

Mannahnin wrote:Do you believe that 40k Space Orks are actually out there in the universe somewhere? No, you do not.

Is it an article of faith to you that "Space Orks are False!"? No, also, probably not.

Your LACK of belief in the existence of Space Orks does not mean that you are a member of a No Space Orks religion.

Sorry... but you are trying to equate not believing in space orks to not believing in God? kind of like the santa shtick dogma came up with?

GG

Actually its still a faith choice, just with an undisclosed percentage attached.

Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.

Lack of belief is defacto belief of lack because the question within is undeniable. One can have a lack of belief in many things, and ignore then entirely if one doesn't encounter them. God is different, the concept of God is all encompassing and ever present. All things are touched by the concept of God, at no point can you encounter a material or concept to which the question 'is God there?' is avoided.
Thus an attempted lack of belief must therefore be actively applied to all things, and inevitably becomes a faith in no-God.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Its almost as if you don't know anything about logic......

....Again, you don't appear to know anything about logic.

Dogma, you are up to your old tricks. Grog has made his point clearly, and you have made no actual attempt to rebuke them. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves add anything but grief.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

Orlanth wrote:Grog has made his point clearly. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves do anything to refute them.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.

Clarity doesn't have much to do with logic. You can make a point as plain as day and it can still be illogical. Pointing out something that is incorrect isn't trolling or an ad hominem attack.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I still find that a poor quality quote.

One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.
It also makes no sense to dismiss a God on the grounds that someone else dismisses all others. Most faiths are mutually exclusive, and thus to choose one is to reject the others, this choice can vary from person to person.
Mr Roberts appears to be assuming that any dismissal of other Gods is intolerance and thus to be met with intolerance. It is consistent, not intolerant. One dismisses other faiths not necessarily out of hatred or intolerance but in following the belief in the path one has chosen. One can only be on two roads while at a junction.
To choose to dismiss various gods purely on opposite reaction to others acceptance on them is not any stable belief at all, just flighty, contrary and unfounded. Thus is evidently not a source of wisdom to quote.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Grog has made his point clearly. Ad hominem attacks do not of themselves do anything to refute them.
Either stick to the issues or bow out. No more trolling please.

Clarity doesn't have much to do with logic. You can make a point as plain as day and it can still be illogical. Pointing out something that is incorrect isn't trolling or an ad hominem attack.

Dogma pointed out the illogic twice, IIRC, before giving up before Grog's intransigence.

A lack of belief in any given thing is categorically different from a positive faith statement of a thing's definite nonexistence.

Orlanth wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I still find that a poor quality quote.

One cannot believe in both one and no-God simultaneously. So I contend we are not both atheists.

I find this shocking. That fact that you seem to miss the point of the quote is also equally shocking. It has more to do with understanding how atheists think than denying god. I would be willing to be you don't believe in Kali, Shiva, Krishna, ect ect. Take how honestly you believe that it is wrong and you'll see how atheists feel about your religion.

There are faiths that aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that you learned that from yours.

Agreed, Ahtman. As a religious person, I've never had any difficulty comprehending that quote's rhetorical point. But then, my faith doesn't claim exclusive access to truth.

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.

Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.

Orlanth wrote:Lack of belief is defacto belief of lack because the question within is undeniable. One can have a lack of belief in many things, and ignore then entirely if one doesn't encounter them. God is different, the concept of God is all encompassing and ever present. All things are touched by the concept of God, at no point can you encounter a material or concept to which the question 'is God there?' is avoided.

Thus an attempted lack of belief must therefore be actively applied to all things, and inevitably becomes a faith in no-God.

Many (most? Impossible to say for sure) people never personally encounter any deity. It is entirely possible to live a life without addressing the concept of deity, although unlikely given the interconnectedness of our cultures, and their having conveyed the major religions to the ends of the Earth.

Mannahnin wrote:Dogma pointed out the illogic twice, IIRC, before giving up before Grog's intransigence.

A lack of belief in any given thing is categorically different from a positive faith statement of a thing's definite nonexistence.

Well..that is why I asked dogma to "help me" understand him.

I'm not being intransigent..I truly have a hard time differentiating the two concepts.

Heck.. give me some technical terminology and I'll look it up myself.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Agreed, Ahtman. As a religious person, I've never had any difficulty comprehending that quote's rhetorical point. But then, my faith doesn't claim exclusive access to truth.

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.

Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.

Not wanting to speak for Orlanth but I think you missed his point.

GG

Ok Grog, sorry.

Can you see the difference between my space ork examples?

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice. Being part of the religion is not relevant. Faith and membership are not guaranteed even though they logically follow on from each other.

Agreed. And this is part of the point I'm trying to make to Grog.

Not wanting to speak for Orlanth but I think you missed his point.

GG

No, he was right that I got a bit imprecise. Being part of a religion which holds There Are No Space Orks as an article of dogma is not the same thing as personally believing There Are No Space Orks.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Mannahnin, I can believe in a specific God and not be part of that religion out of choice

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests. And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument. In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences. An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God, whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods. (waits patiently for the zues reference)

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Do you believe that 40k Space Orks are actually out there in the universe somewhere? No, you do not.

Is it an article of faith to you that "Space Orks are False!"? No, also, probably not.

Your LACK of belief in the existence of Space Orks does not mean that you are a member of a No Space Orks religion.

Sorry... but you are trying to equate not believing in space orks to not believing in God? kind of like the santa shtick dogma came up with?

Dogma didn't come up with the santa comparison. It's probably been around longer than he's been alive.

I chose space orks as a convenient (and relevant to this website) thing I could be reasonably confident that you don't believe in, but also don't hold the nonexistence of as an article of faith. Does that not make sense?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts

I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests. And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument. In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences. An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God, whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods. (waits patiently for the zues reference)

GG

Are you claiming that every Christian has a direct personal experience of your god? I do not believe this to be true.

You don't believe in my gods, and go so far as to label them "false", but I believe most human beings are capable of not believing in either my gods or your god, without having to actively declare any of them "false".

generalgrog wrote:I would be willing to bet that Stephen Roberts isn't the first guy to use that line, because I have heard it parroted by a few other famous athiests.

Becuase other people quoted him doesn't mean he isn't the originator.

generalgrog wrote:And I agree with Orlanth that it is a poor argument.

I can't begin to tell you how suprised I am at that revelation.

generalgrog wrote:In fact the reason for the dismissal are coming from two totally different world views and experiences.

Oh, so you would consider yourself Jewish or Muslim than? Or perhaps Catholic? They aren't from radically different worldviews or experiences.

generalgrog wrote:An Athiest hasn't yet experienced God

The number of converts to athiests or other religions says that is a bunch of baloney.

generalgrog wrote:whereas a true Christian has, and therefore has no need to believe in any other false gods

And a true Scottsman knows that is a load of dogmatic hooey. Just in case though I talked to a Hindu priest and he agrees, you shouldn't follow false gods like the Christian one. Come over to Brahman. A true Hindu has experienced the oneness with the ultimate supreme and knows the truth. He just wants to help you.