What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[Skeptic Ginger]

My argument is: empirical science does not deliver truth in the sense that no scientific theory can ever be proved true. Hence, suggesting science would reveal "truths" is a misunderstanding of the concept of science. ....

Well now there's a backward interpretation of science if I ever heard one.

Science does deliver truths. You are confused about the concept of a theory which in science is (From Wiki):

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not in German.


A person who suffers from a delusion is insane. There's nothing to confound.

Goodness your brain works in strange ways. So your understanding of a translation of a word from English to German is different than the actual meaning of the word in English. So instead of recognizing that you simply don't have the correct translation, you are trying to tell us your mistranslation is the actual correct meaning of an English word?

 

[westprog]

I'm not a bigot,

That's what we all say. I tried to pretend to be likeable, honest and unbigoted, but what did that get me?

at least not towards what you think, and am a weak atheist and agnostic.

Somehow this makes me a theist apologist. Well I'm not, at least in the pejorative sense of "apologist", I'm a criticizer of illogical or generalized arguments from either side, and tend to argue with the side that's vastly outmanned in a given argument (unless the argument is faulty--if the theist is citing scripture or bad philosophy I'll ignore it, because there are plenty of others who'll poke holes in that nonsense). My goal is for the debate to be objective, and try to be objective myself. Maybe I should give that up and just argue pro-atheism/anti-theism positions regardless of whether those positions are compelling?

Sometimes this forum is like a football stadium. You wear the right colours, you sit in the right seats, and it doesn't matter what you chant just so long as it's loud.

Also in that specific argument I think it was based on Dawkins' description or extension of Hitchen's quote, and Dawkins himself said he wasn't interested in arguments by mass-of-misdeeds. As in comparing the overall harm done by religion to that of atheism or secularism (which is pretty well-documented as correct--much more evil has been done in the name of religion).

It's worth pointing out that through most of human history, atheism has been professed by a tiny minority only. (Whether or not everybody professing a particular religion really believed in it isn't possible to know). Hence its capacity for harm pre-Twentieth Century was considerably limited, except possibly in revolutionary France.

And atheism itself is not a belief system, just a particular belief. (Or lack of belief). Nobody ever hanged anyone because they believed or didn't believe that a God existed. There was always a bit more attached.

That's leaving aside such belief systems as nationalism, which are religion-neutral.

I took that as meaning the argument would only be about the inherency of faith leading to evil, which I again found faulty. Does atheism lead to evil? Of course not. It's completely neutral. Does theism? No, while not as neutral it can change itself according to social mores, and this has led to subreligions and offshoots. Or entire new religions because an old theist wanted a different morality but not give up his irrational faith. If theism led to evil I wouldn't expect it would be able to change as society changes, or as a single person's prejudices change to tolerance (or tolerance to prejudice in some cases).

I've noticed that the question "is religious belief inherently untrue?" tends to be confused with the question "is religious belief inherently harmful?". I tried to start a thread about it but it didn't work out.

Well, I think that's the story of how I became not a real atheist, a theist apologist, a lying theist, deluded, and a bigot. Funny, I don't feel any different.

I do get a certain pleasure watching the heretical, weak-faithed atheists being persecuted for their lack of zeal.

 

[Herzblut]

Why is it not a fixed false belief? That seems exactly what it is, and I would be surprised if Dawkins would say otherwise as well. In fact who would claim it's not exactly that? Except the so deluded of course.

Hey, dude. Glad we're back on the old disagreement track. You saw me speachless'n shocked when you agreed to me all of a sudden!

OK then, here in this case I think the predicates are inappropriate. "Fixed" somehow doesn't fit, because believers do convert to atheism, don't they? "False" mismatches because, as Dawkins explicitely says, such falsehood cannot be prooved, it is just very likely. I'd very much agree to him on this, even.

As for the clinical definition I could see that applies as well given his ideas about mind-virii.

We agree on something again! I must be doing something wrong...

 

[Herzblut]

Well now there's a backward interpretation of science if I ever heard one.

Science does deliver truths. You are confused about the concept of a theory which in science is (From Wiki):

Science does not deliver any truths and I am not confused. Let me cite your own Wiki source:

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

Let me know if you are still confused about scientific theories as such.

 

[Lonewulf]

Goodness your brain works in strange ways. So your understanding of a translation of a word from English to German is different than the actual meaning of the word in English. So instead of recognizing that you simply don't have the correct translation, you are trying to tell us your mistranslation is the actual correct meaning of an English word?

I find it much better to just gloss over Herzblut's posts. Much better all around.

 

[skeptic of oz]

Yeah I like a lot of the names listed but I am a big admirer of Dawkins. I think he uses argument well and refuses to be intimidated by those who don't use argument and instead get personal. He speaks his mind and to use his words doesn't "don kid gloves" when talking about religion.

He's probably my favourite out of the names mentioned along with Michael Shermer and of course James Randi.

 

[Herzblut]

Goodness your brain works in strange ways.

Your magical crystal sphere tells you interesting things, indeed.

So your understanding of a translation of a word from English to German is different than the actual meaning of the word in English. So instead of recognizing that you simply don't have the correct translation, you are trying to tell us your mistranslation is the actual correct meaning of an English word?

No. The actual German title "Der Gottes Wahn" corresponds to the actual English one by also highlighting the pathological aspect of god faith. I am saying, hence, that your stories, trying to tell us that "delusion" is used here for a neutral description (false belief) instead of a disrespectful attack, are immense misinterpretations.

 

[Luzz]

I'm with you 110% on the idea that it is always wrong to defer to religion, and we should not give any credence or respect to religious ideas in any form.

Does this mean that people who dont agree with your opinions, metaphysical beliefs or ideas should not give u any respect in any form too?

What makes you superior to other people?
It is precisely this arrogant attitude that I dislike and diminishes any credibility you may ever have.

 

[JoeEllison]

Does this mean that people who dont agree with your opinions, metaphysical beliefs or ideas should not give u any respect in any form too?

What makes you superior to other people?
It is precisely this arrogant attitude that I dislike and diminishes any credibility you may ever have.

LOL, yes, but it is hard to be humble when you know you're right!

More importantly, you're a blatantly dishonest person who re-interpreted what I posted in order to create a strawman of my actual position... so since you're a blatant liar, you have destroyed any credibility you might have had.

 

[articulett]

Luzz-- when have people like yourself ever respected or deferred to other beliefs or non-belief the way you expect and demand to have your self important opinion and beliefs respected? Does anyone outside the voices in your head find you as intelligent or diplomatic as you find yourself?

I think you are an example of where the delusion Dawkins talks about can lead, frankly.

 

[Luzz]

I do believe, Luzz, it is the believers who have trouble defining god. Once you define god, then you have the issue of evidence against a god defined that way.

Let´s say my sister believes in a deist god, one who set the motions of the universe and does not intervene at all. How could Dawkins attack that argument? He can´t. I don´t think believers have any problem with God definitions or even contradictions in its definition because it is just a matter of faith. Like I have faith that there will be world peace, can you refute it or deny that claim?

No, it isn't Dawkins that can't define god, it is Dawkins asking believers to define god so the god belief can be discussed. But the believers cannot define god.

Then how can he possibly attack something he doesn´t even know what it is? He is supposed to be a scientist, I would have started by defining my object of investigation to begin with. He picked the easiest one, the jewish or roman catholic god.

You are saying that religion and science are compatible. They may tolerate each other, but I challenge your claim they are compatible.

I dont remember saying they are compatible, I would say they are two ways to interpret reality, one based on hard evidence and another based on faith.
The example of Isaac Newton shows that you can still be an intelligent human being while you believe in non scientific stuff. I do not see any wrong with that, UNLESS you have to kill someone for their opposite beliefs or call them stupid.
Dawkins cannot stand this situation, he goes crazy and becomes hostile when he founds that some people choose to believe in god despite lack of hard evidence. I do not see a problem. Who is he, who am I or who are you to decide what other people SHOULD or SHOULD not believe?

It is up to them. You can provide evidence, you can talk about your point of view but you can never force them to adhere to your world view by belittle them. This is what I learnt when I became a hard atheist and started attacking believers and calling deluded, it didnt make me happy to see them humiliated and abused. At the end, I was not making any progress. They held to their beliefs even stronger.

 

[articulett]

If you didn't make "progress" perhaps it was your personality, dishonesty, and arrogance.

No atheist "forces non belief" on others... it's just that believers imagine that when people have the audacity not to defer to the "faith is good" meme or to pretend that magical thinking is harmless.

 

[Luzz]

Anyway, sorry if you are an atheist. I don't like to call people liars. But you post an awful lot in defense of god beliefs. Do you not recognize woo is woo regardless of the lipstick? Or is it just that you want the I'm OK you're OK approach? If it is the latter, don't you think you should be more tolerant of Dawkins?

Maybe it sounds like I am in defense of god beliefs because this is a RD thread after all. In general, my point is that I dont give a rat´s ass if people believe in God, in the virgin mary, in materialism, in idealism, in democracy, in comunism, in ufos, etc. I think we all have the right to believe whatever we want to believe if that does not cause harm to other people.
At the end of the day, we have to deal with people´s actions, that is all it matters, how well you treat other people, if your husband believes in the spaguetty monster but he treats you and others well, so what?

If your husband is an atheist but he is an offensive jerk to his own family and others, then that is a problem. I wouldnt blame atheism for it I would blame his actions, he could also be a catholic. So my point is let´s start useless antagonism when the problem IS NOT there.

 

[articulett]

Luzz,

The problems you see with Dawkins are not there.

And if you really want people to think you are not a kid, you should learn how to spell spaghetti.

People are inspired to action by what they believe. And yet faith has no means of showing us anything true or useful. It claims to be the path to higher truths-- but there is no evidence that there ARE higher truths. Lack of belief doesn't lead to action. Dawkins is inspired by the truth-- by the way this inane "belief in belief" makes people into arrogant idiots.

It makes them imagine evil in those who lack belief in something that cannot be proven to exist in the first place--something for which there is no valid reason to "believe in"-- while ignoring the great harms done by someone's blind obedience to what they think of as a message from the invisible guy who determines how they'll spend eternity!!

The latter is dangerous. The former is the "non issue". Dawkins' "lack of belief" is the same as your "lack of belief" in Scientology. The fact that you see so much more makes it clear to me that you are unlikely to actually be an atheist... and far more likely to be a garden variety liar-for-jesus. Moreover, your inability to get this simple point is evidence of a mind brainwashed by the faith meme as far as I can tell.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Science does not deliver any truths and I am not confused. Let me cite your own Wiki source:

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".

This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

Let me know if you are still confused about scientific theories as such.

You confuse "proof" with "truth". The fact one doesn't prove a truth doesn't make it false. I cannot help it if you don't understand the difference between those two words.

As far as the cited paragraphs, those are only part of the description. A more representative paragraph to cherry pick would have been this one:

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory which makes no predictions which can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:

* is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
* is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

A useful theory would be a true one. A false theory would eventually 'prove' to be less useful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your magical crystal sphere tells you interesting things, indeed.


No. The actual German title "Der Gottes Wahn" corresponds to the actual English one by also highlighting the pathological aspect of god faith. I am saying, hence, that your stories, trying to tell us that "delusion" is used here for a neutral description (false belief) instead of a disrespectful attack, are immense misinterpretations.

Hertzy, why don't you look up the definition of a word instead of making the absurd claim that the translation as you understand it is the definition. That is just silly on so many levels. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/delusion

de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
1.- a. The act or process of deluding.
- b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

See those little numbers: 1, 2, 3? Do you know what they mean? They mean there are at least 3 different uses or meanings of the word. See #3. One use of the word, delusion, is in psychiatry. See #2. Another different use of the word is simply a false belief. You are deluded in believing the word delusion is only used as a psychiatric term.

You should know, speaking two languages, that exact translations do not exist for many words.

 

[Lonewulf]

He's not saying that the word "delusion" is only used as a psychiatric term. He's saying that the title "The God Delusion", when translated into German, was translated into "Der Gottes Wahn", and Wahn has a very specific meaning, so the meaning particularly meant for The God Delusion is the one that was translated -- and we know that translations are always without error, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does this mean that people who dont agree with your opinions, metaphysical beliefs or ideas should not give u any respect in any form too?

What makes you superior to other people?
....

Evidence and testable predictions. In short, science is successful in a way that god beliefs never have been.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's not saying that the word "delusion" is only used as a psychiatric term. He's saying that the title "The God Delusion", when translated into German, was translated into "Der Gottes Wahn", and Wahn has a very specific meaning, so the meaning particularly meant for The God Delusion is the one that was translated -- and we know that translations are always without error, right?

You are confusing me here. You say that wasn't what Hertzy said then you say it is what he said.

Regardless of the connotation of the translated book title, delusion is the proper English word in this case because the nature of the false belief is more than just a mistaken belief. The false god belief is accepted without question and beyond being challenged by clear evidence of its falsehood. Most mistaken beliefs would be correctable if challenged with overwhelming evidence. God belief delusions are learned even if they are embedded.

A delusion in a mentally ill person is the result of brain dysfunction and not the result of learning.