Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[ponderingturtle]

My postulate has been bothering me a lot lately. Sign I'm getting old I guess.

Sounds like you might need a postulate exam.

 

[Moochie]

The only other alternative is that the Universe has been around forever.

You'll note I specifically said materialistic atheism to contrast the metaphysic from, say, Buddhist atheism or from agnosticism.

Materialistic atheism isn't agnosticism - it's the active belief that physics is all that's required to explain the objective Universe.

Where do you draw all these distinctions from, unless you have some proof of a "deity" that the rest of us aren't privy to? I use quotation marks to highlight the source of such ideas -- the human imagination. Whilst a salve to the intellectually impoverished, such imaginary friends are just that: a wish.

How can there be anything but "materialistic atheism" without evidence of anything else?

Your distinctions appear to be based on a belief in woo, and you might as well admit it.

M.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Dawkins is so soft-spoken and polite, I think it works against him. Then again, there are plenty of people that keep asserting that he's a loudmouth bigot.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.

'

You are either mistaken or simply telling an outright lie. Materialists simply look for evidence. It takes no faith to look at something and wonder why or how it exists and then maybe look for the reason for it's existence. It takes faith to say "god did it."

 

[Moochie]

Dawkins doesn't appear to be a very good off-the-cuff speaker. It appears he went in completely unprepared for a debate with O'Reilly, also he lacks something in the charisma department to debate O'Reilly.

I'd love to see O'Reilly try and debate the likes of Kenneth Miller or E. O. Wilson.

Hello? I saw the title of the book, "The God Delusion" prominently displayed.

That was the point of Dawkins's appearance on O'Reilly -- the only point.

Given the low collective IQ of O'Reilly's audience, that was all that was really needed.

M.

 

[EGarrett]

That is agnositicsm - not materialistic atheism. I have no disagreement with agnostics since they're just throwing their hands up in the air saying "Dunno! And maybe we never will!".

Materialistic atheism, however, is the active belief that physical laws alone allow for the self-generation of the Universe/s or Multiverse/s - no God/s required.

That's fine as far as it goes... until materialistic atheists confuse their faith based metaphysic with fact.

You're very close, but not quite right. Only the layman to the subject get's to say "I don't know either way" or "I don't know enough about the subject".

The scientific study of a subject is always, always, supposed to culminate in thesis defence. That means to advance the arguement you believe in. (This simply involves comparing and contrasting two (or more) ideas, defining the one you're critical of (and explaining why) and defining the one you believe in (and explaining why).)

The bottom line - if someone is unwilling to advance the argument, from either side then they either haven't read enough about the subject to form a scientific opinion or they're a coward.

Only laymen get to sit still. To do science you must be advancing the argument somehow - even by thought experiments or via pure theory; ergo thesis defence. Science is about progress and the advancement of knowledge and you just can't do that by sitting still. You have to say "Let's look in this direction, it looks good!".

You seem to have missed the phrase "not yet" in the scientists' statement.

They're actively learning about the problem, just like science is actively trying to answer every other question we don't yet understand.

Your entire post is based on the strawman assumption that science makes no effort to investigate things like this. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[EGarrett]

There wasn't any need for the warning -- Stewart was only showing a clip from the Fox news network, on which this moron (Ingraham) appears frequently, along with the inimitable Ann Coulter.

IMO, it ought to be called the Fox Moron Network.

M.

As ridiculous as the comment is, there's no context for it. So the warning just seems fair.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In addition to my other response to this claim, I'd also note that Dawkins described Nadia Eweida (the BA employee who refused to take off her cross): by saying "she had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen.".

You are being sloppy, she did not refuse to take off her cross, she refused to tuck her cross under her shirt. She was not requested to remove it, just not display it.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I'm not even sure what matter is, so I have no clue what "materialism" even means.

Nobody really knows what matter/energy (m/e) is but you can find out what "materialism" means here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

And there is a difference between they type of faith being discussed in materialistic atheism and theism. Materialist atheists can point to falsifiable information around them to support their claims. Theists cannot falsify God. There is no falsification of God.

So, the difference looks like this -- the materialist atheist says, "I trust reality" (that is his/her "faith") and the theist may or may not say "I trust reality" (though most do) and then add "I believe there is a reality beyond what I can see or otherwise experience and I have no direct falsifiable evidence to support it." Those are not equivalent statements.

They're not equivalent statements because you are confusing levels. The issue is not about contrasting the belief in objective reality (and it's mechanics) against the subjective belief in a super-natural dimension (or the subjective experience of such), it is about comparing views of how objective reality got there in the first place.

Materialists love to argue against God of the gaps arguments - particularly evolution versus creationism (or Intelligent Design) whenever theists themselves make the mistake of assuming that the mechanics of objective reality is what the debate is about. It isn't.

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability). There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.

Consequently, materialistic atheism is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

P.S. Earlier this evening God herself appeared to me in a puff of green smoke! (And she's a bit of a looker if you like 70's fashion.) Anyway, I digress. She said that nobody was to ever say "falsifiable" again when they really mean "testable for falsifiability".

(She left in a taxi.)

It's true.

 

[joobz]

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability). There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.

but there is a rather striking difference. the materialistic position is amendable to new observable information. You are holding to the position that we won't ever know or can't know if the universe is "self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe", which I disagree with. We can at least search for that answer in the objective reality. As such, in the materialist view, such questions are left open until such time as we learn more.

this is distinctly difference from making a story up and saying that reality must fit the story and not the other way around.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
Materialists think physics alone can probably explain objective reality and consciousness and that is their choice and faith based metaphysic.

You are either mistaken or simply telling an outright lie. Materialists simply look for evidence. It takes no faith to look at something and wonder why or how it exists and then maybe look for the reason for it's existence. It takes faith to say "god did it."

I am neither mistaken or lying - and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism:

"In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.

The problem here, of course, is that matter cannot be created or destroyed - only conversion is possible (and even that might be nothing more than the way we measure/observe matter/energy).

Again, the issue is not about comparing objective reality against subjective belief in a super-natural dimension to life. The issue is about asking how objective reality got there in the first place?

Yes, it takes faith to say "God did it" - but it also takes faith to say that the universe self generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe.

It's an untestable belief either way.

Doing real science is hard - thesis defence is a very challenging and difficult task that requires a lot of strength of character - you will be criticised. But that very fact is what makes doing science more noble than just being a layman.

Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

Thesis defence is the complete opposite of arguing the antithesis. I could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence that, say, the universe spontaneously self-generated; just as the materialistic atheist could argue the antithesis all day long that there is no evidence God/s did it.

And materialistic atheists do that, appearing completely bewildered that people still believe in God, acting as if people should then automatically become materialistic atheists and think physic must ultimately explain the mystery of existence. They think it's all easy and logical when it isn't.

No proof of God doesn't mean you should become a materialistic atheist any more than no proof of spontaneous self-generation means you should become a theist....

Either option is a faith-based metaphysic - and only the layman gets away with not having to advance the argument for either possibility.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

They're not equivalent statements because you are confusing levels. The issue is not about contrasting the belief in objective reality (and it's mechanics) against the subjective belief in a super-natural dimension (or the subjective experience of such), it is about comparing views of how objective reality got there in the first place.

No, no confusion of levels. I did not claim that materialist atheism does not rest on an underlying belief. What I claimed is that there are two beliefs going on with most views of theism. It depends a bit on what we mean by theism, so it might help to define it better.

If by theism we mean, merely, that there is a divine reality that may be coequal with what we otherwise experience as reality -- an Eastern idea -- and part and parcel of the weirdness of Reality, then we start with an assumption -- we can trust reality. And we have defined that reality to include the idea of divinity.

A materialist atheist makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and there is nothing else behind it.

A traditional western theist, the traditional way of using the word here, makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and that there is a world behind this world, another reality that cannot be accessed so easily. It may be that we recieve messages from that world. It may be that I forgot my Thorazine today.

They are not equal assumptions from the outset, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are all based on the same level of faith. Most of the people around here who identify themselves as materialist atheists assume the view that they can trust reality and they will not accept any other baggage that cannot be examined through evidence.

From the viewpoint that everyone must start somewhere, so we must all start with assumptions -- well, I agreed to that from the beginning. But the assumptions are not equal.

Materialism is not testable for falsifiability (just as God-ism or any other non-materialistic metaphysic is not testable for falsifiability).

Not as an absolute, but most materialist atheists don't buy into most absolutes. They are primarily pragmatists. I don't think you'll find many folks who fully buy into the "we know that all there is is material reality" schtick.

There is no way to test the idea that objective reality self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe or whatever.

I don't recall ever saying that there was a way to test it. In fact, I said that most materialist atheists would say "I don't know".

 

[HypnoPsi]

You seem to have missed the phrase "not yet" in the scientists' statement.

They're actively learning about the problem, just like science is actively trying to answer every other question we don't yet understand.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that very idea of "not yet" and actively investigationg physics is "faith" that the answer lies there....

Do you think that religion isn't also dynamic? Yes, they have their holy books, traditions, rituals and wot-not but religion is supposed to be about growing spiritually and subsequently attaining Enlightenment or some kind of mystical union.

To the Buddhist, for example, this is the Eightfold Noble Path

Wisdom
1. Right view
2. Right intention

Ethical conduct
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood

Mental discipline
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

Again, the "faith" that the ultimate answer to the origin (and purpose?) of objective reality lies in illumination.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

but there is a rather striking difference. the materialistic position is amendable to new observable information.

And the religious seek illumination from the divine...

Religion is also a search - and the very activity of searching entails not having the answers now.

You are holding to the position that we won't ever know or can't know if the universe is "self-generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe", which I disagree with.

I say that materialists don't know - and are searching based upon the faith that the answer lies in physics.

this is distinctly difference from making a story up and saying that reality must fit the story and not the other way around.

Materialists also have a narrative that they stick to and resist changing. Even now there is a thread in the Religion and Philosophy section of the forum titled "why god is impossible". Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

No, no confusion of levels.

<snip>

A materialist atheist makes the original assumption that s/he can trust reality and there is nothing else behind it.

<snip>

They are not equal assumptions from the outset, so I don't think it is fair to say that they are all based on the same level of faith. Most of the people around here who identify themselves as materialist atheists assume the view that they can trust reality and they will not accept any other baggage that cannot be examined through evidence.

If you're not confusing levels then you're deliberately constructing a straw man argument so as to argue that it is wrong for anyone to say that belief in objective reality has the same 'level of faith' as belief in a super-natural realm.

That has never been my point. I have only been arguing that any belief about the origin of objective reality (either physics or God) is a faith-based metaphysic.

I don't recall ever saying that there was a way to test it. In fact, I said that most materialist atheists would say "I don't know".

Hmm... yes, it is wise - expected even - for any scientist defending a thesis to add "...but ultimately, I don't know". But the very impulse to research and experiment on the physics of the origin of objective reality is still based upon the faith that the answer lies there (and doesn't require God/s).

_
HypnoPsi

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If you're not confusing levels then you're deliberately constructing a straw man argument so as to argue that it is wrong for anyone to say that belief in objective reality has the same 'level of faith' as belief in a super-natural realm.

That has never been my point. I have only been arguing that any belief about the origin of objective reality (either physics or God) is a faith-based metaphysic.

OK, my mistake. It is a very, very common approach for some theists to argue that everyone makes the exact same leap of faith in approaching the world as a whole not just the issue of origins.

If you are merely arguing the issue of origins, then, yes, of course, the leap is the same. We all must begin somewhere. There is no way to tell from the outset if the universe is a monad, is dualistic, etc. We must make assumptions from the very beginning, I think we all agree upon that. I think the problem that you will likely run into here is that many folks dislike the idea of the original assumption being called a faith. I don't have any issues with it, but many others do.

 

[joobz]

And the religious seek illumination from the divine...

Religion is also a search - and the very activity of searching entails not having the answers now.

If that was true, than the searchers would admit to not knowing and would be open to changing views when confronted with contrary evidence. this behavior is almost NEVER exhibited by someone of faith. So, I do not buy the notion that Religion is a search for truth. It is an end to itself. It seeks no further validation and resents any attempts at presenting truth that contridicts its tenets.

I say that materialists don't know - and are searching based upon the faith that the answer lies in physics.

If you consider reproducibility, an ability to predict events and responses, and to design and improve our environment based upon this knowledge as "not knowing", then you are correct. If other religions had equal success in this field, I'd give them a try as well.

However, I've yet to see a plane fly on prayer alone.

Materialists also have a narrative that they stick to and resist changing. Even now there is a thread in the Religion and Philosophy section of the forum titled "why god is impossible". Materialistic atheists are infamous throughout the internet for constantly ranting on about how illogical and impossible God is.

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.

I've been down this road. check the "atheism is a faith" thread. Granted, I approached the debate rather naively. I'm interested to see how you take it farther. As it stands, you'll need to show me how a "faith" has proven itself multiple times over is equal to other faiths that have had rather poor success in accurately predicting/describing the world arround us.

I look forward to reading more of your posts.

 

[pgwenthold]

And so they look for a physical answer... It's faith that the answer lies in physics just as it is faith that the answer lies in a Supreme Being.

Of course, we know that "physics" exists (it's a good field of study) and has already provided a good practical description of the workings of the universe, including providing predictive models, whereas you can't even show that this "supreme being" exists in the first place.

Yah, so similar they are...

 

[thaiboxerken]

I am neither mistaken or lying -

Yes, you are.

and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.

Perhaps, but you seem to label anyone who asks for evidence as materialists.

Yes it takes faith to say "God did it" - but it also takes faith to say that the universe self generated or has been around forever or is a baby universe.

But who says these things? The big bang theory is based on observed facts, but it doesn't say the universe was around forever or that it's a baby universe. There might be some hypothesis that say this, but you seem to be unable to understand the difference between a faith-statement and a hypothesis.

Materialists cannot seriously expect to get away with constantly saying "There's no evidence for God" without ever being called upon to defend a counter explanation for the origin of objective reality!

When a person says there is no evidence for a god, they're talking about none that we know of. If you have some scientific evidence for your god, feel free to prove us all wrong.

Until there is evidence of a god, it's just a faith-based statement to say that there is one.

 

[bignickel]

I am neither mistaken or lying - and neither is materialism synonymous with science however much or many materialists might think it is.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism:

"In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance.

Argument by Wikipedia.