Dawkins vs. O'Reilly. Video + Analysis

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
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.

I genuinely cannot believe that the majority of the religious worldwide or even in the West do not view their religion as a search and struggle against "temptation", etc.,.

Granted, the most passionately dogmatic are likely to be found in great numbers on the internet - which may be what many are more familiar with since it's their very passion that drives them to places like Usenet (the wild-west of debates).

I'm not saying there aren't large numbers of fundamentalists in society, but that is largely explainable by group cohesion due to the emergence of atheism and the whole evolution debate.

this behavior is almost NEVER exhibited by someone of faith.

I see materialists the same way when confronted with published positive results for psi.

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.

Religion is not a thing itself - it's people; and the spectrum varies from the culturaly religious (but non-practising) to the heavily dogmatic fundamentalists. Anyone who thinks that illumination comes from beliefs alone is silly.

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
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.

Any attempt to test the subjective by objective standards is set up to fail from the beginning. How can anyone measure illumination?

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

Nothing in lab-based psi research has ever suggested anything other than a small effect so setting a big standard is rasing the hurdle unnecessarily.

Real prayer research by properly trained medical doctors, psychologists and statisticians is in its infancy and doesn't even have a fraction of the funding that neuroscientists recieve for building neural-networks - yet there's not a single shred of evidence that consciousness really is just information processing or electormagnetism. We should thoroughly test the alternative.

Yes, the results of these studies have been contradictory and nothing that's very convincing has been published yet, but that could change as the field develops. (And remember that there is a very large group of very wealthy - and very pissed off - Christians out there right how who are willing to invest heavily in this research.)


All ideas will be tested, no doubt. While one researcher might ask everyone to visualise the positive outcome desired others might insist they just "pray to Jesus" for the outcome.

It will be interesting to see the situation in 20 years. Surveying it now tells us very little.

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.

Thank you, and likewise.

I don't think that spirituality is even about accurately predicting/describing the world around us so setting that standard seems wrong. (Many of the religious might disagree, but I have little in common with them and won't argue their case.)

If you insist upon objective measurements, then psychometric tests of, say, practicing Buddhists versus atheists would almost certainly demonstrate the beneficial effects of meditation - but never that Enlightenment exists, or that, if it does exist, it's just neurochemistry. The same goes with NDE's - excepting that in that case their might be experimental protocols that could demonstrate the OOBE aspect of that phenomena.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi
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...

That "physics" exists is not the same as proof that some wondrous magical substance exists that is spontaneously self-generating or infinate/eternal. We have good reason for believing that m/e can only ever be converted but not destroyed (and even that conversion may be down to the way we observe/measure m/e).

Materialism is a faith-based metaphysic.

"Religion" exists also, yet that, as you note, is not proof that a Supreme Being exists.

The issue centres around consciousness and the possibility of a Supreme Being/Consciousness or some kind of group-field consciousness.

Now, ultimately, no matter how unintuitive it might sound, the only real way to prove consciousness really exists is through psi experiments. Otherwise, you have no real way of knowing that the rest of us aren't p-zombies and you are the only one with this funky awareness thing (that might just be what it feels like to be an information processor or to have an electromagnetic field around your neo-cortex anyway).

Consciousness as indistinct from matter opens up many possibilities. Even something as simple as mate-selection instantly blows a purely materialistic view of animal evolution out of the water.

The really instersting thing, however, is the conscious stimulation of motion (and motion, of course, requires kinetic energy; measured in kilojules). If I am a machine, and consciousness is nothing more than IP and/or EM then my muscles and brain both use oxygen and glucose, etc., in a stimulus response manner as I raise my arm. But if consciousness is a phenomenon disctinct from M/E then the initial stimulating energy - no matter how small an amount - is coming from God alone knows where (pun intended).

It didn't exist in the universe before, but now it's here - meaning it has somehow been created. And that's why I pick consciousness over matter in terms of the origin of objective reality. M/E cannot be created or destroyed through physical means - but the rules change when consciousness is viewed as a distinct phenomenon.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[fuelair]

Wait, I'm having trouble processing something that happened.

At one point, O'Reilly criticises science because it doesn't have all the answers, whereas, he asserts, his religion does. Dawkins then says that the amount of knowledge added to science each century is "stupendous" and that even though we have to humble about what we don't know - At this point O'Reilly interpupts him, waves a finger in the air and says, "Humility is a Christian virtue."

Did O'Reilly actually suggest that he is humble?

I would suggest that he pointed out that he is NOT a xtian.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bill O'Reilly would say that he's a humble Christian, and then tell you that is the reason he's better than you.

 

[Phil]

. . . . 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. . . .

This is part of the problem, or the reason for the disagreement, if you will. Too often on these boards it seems someone --- perhaps still a little miffed that they actually majored in philosophy --- attempts to tweek the language just a tad and assign the word "faith" equally to a religious worldview and a materialistic worldview. I can't even begin to guess at the motivation, unless it is to engage in the type of circular discussion to which they are accustom. As evidenced in this thread, such a ploy is ultimately going to take us nowhere.

Now, I'm not accusing HypnoPsi of doing this purposely, but the farther this thread, which by the way is way off the rails right now, progresses, the more I think he/she might be. I suspect that philosophy folks know better, but are somehow conditioned to do this by the nature of what they've studied for so long. But as I used to tell Lifegazer, most of us here are not going to be as impressed by "doublespeak" as the undergraduate coeds down at the coffee shop.

My suggestion, joobz, is that you see if the post of yours I quoted above is addressed properly. If so, continue with the discussion. If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.

 

[Moochie]

Bill O'Reilly would say that he's a humble Christian, and then tell you that is the reason he's better than you.

Some light relief regarding the Fox Moron Network can be found here:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319


M.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Quote:
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?

Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence.

Yes, it is right to always add "but, ultimately, I don't know" but that does not negate the duty of advancing the (counter) argument that you believe is most likely.

Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!

That would not pass any unbiased and fair thesis defence - because it is not a scientific position and the would-be scientist is not willing to advance the opposite argument.

Science is not just about being skeptical. It is about comparing and contrasting two (or more ideas) and pointing out why you support one every bit as much as it is about pointing out why you are critical of the other(s). You can't do it in half-measures.

Nobody can learn from a layman because they're standing still. Doing things scientifically means you have to to say what you are researching and why you believe it's the right path to follow and to open your argument to criticism from your peers.

Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.

Do you understand?

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.

I realise exactly what you're trying to say - I just don't accept the idea that there is such a big difference in meaning even if the language being used by each side is different. The very words "faith" and "belief" imply not absolutely knowing what is true every bit as much as the words "I theorise" or "my hypothesis" implys not absolutely knowing what is true.

Your argument seems to be an attempt to say that scientists only ever "tentatively believe" in the theories they advance. Anyone who's spent some time around scientists researching some project or other knows this is not the case.

How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?

To think the same does not apply to materialists and their passion for physics is, clearly, quite wrong.

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

Yes, and the religious are very open that their "belief" in God is "faith-based" - I'm not aware of any who claim that God is objectively demonstrable.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[joobz]

My suggestion, joobz, is that you see if the post of yours I quoted above is addressed properly. If so, continue with the discussion. If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.

Fair enough, I do not mean to derail the discussion. Perhaps Hypnopsi would enjoy to start a thread on this topic.


So...back to the discussion.....Bill O'Reilley is a doodyhead.

 

[Phil]

Fair enough, I do not mean to derail the discussion. Perhaps Hypnopsi would enjoy to start a thread on this topic.


So...back to the discussion.....Bill O'Reilley is a doodyhead.

I wasn't singling you out, joobz. We've all been engrossed in the side conversations. But in an official capacity as a moderator, I thought I'd just try to nudge it back on topic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Again, the scientific inquiry of a subject - such as the origin of the objective universe - culminates in thesis defence not sitting on the fence.

Wrong. It involves going where the evidence points us to, not defending thesis. In fact, scientists often try to disprove or falsify their own thesis in order to see if it stands up to scientific scrutiny. They also submit their papers to peer-review for the same reason. Science is about gaining knowledge, not dictating it.

Materialistic atheists are basically playing a game here trying to jocky over the burden of proof. When asked which thesis they believe in most strongly about the origin of objective reality, some unproven wondrous physical stuff or God, they're trying to answer "I don't know, but I don't believe in/it's God"!

Exactly, and that's not a bad thing or illogical thing. They might say "I don't know, but I don't believe pixies farted the universe into existence" as well. There is nothing illogical about admitting ignorance while at the same time acknowledging that their is no evidence to support god-belief.

Thesis defence is a test of character. Science means the search for truth and adding to human understanding. Pointing out how impossible the God idea seems to you does absolutely nothing to add to our understanding of how physics alone explains the existence of objective reality.

Sure it does. It explains that we need to look at evidence in order to reach conclusions and not draw off of absurd notions of pixies, fairies and gods. It explains that mythology isn't a source of scientific knowledge. It explains quite a bit.

I realise exactly what you're trying to say - I just don't accept the idea that there is such a big difference in meaning even if the language being used by each side is different. The very words "faith" and "belief" imply not absolutely knowing what is true every bit as much as the words "I theorise" or "my hypothesis" implys not absolutely knowing what is true.

Actually, the religious often equivocate faith and belief to knowledge. I've often had religious people say that all the evidence they need to KNOW their god exists is FAITH. I think this is a common view among the religious.

Your argument seems to be an attempt to say that scientists only ever "tentatively believe" in the theories they advance. Anyone who's spent some time around scientists researching some project or other knows this is not the case.

I've spent time around scientists. I know this is the case. Also, scientists are perfectly willing to be proven wrong if there is evidence to support it.

How many materialists would let a non-materialist get away with just saying they don't believe physics is enough to explain the existence of the objective universe without pointing out this automatically means they are only left with some supernatural cause - and their church-going behaviour suggests this is what they believe?

WTF are you talking about? I'm sure there are materialists that would let a non-materialists give evidence of non-materialism, of the supernatural, if there were any. There isn't. I don't know that materialists say that physics is enough to explain existence.

To think the same does not apply to materialists and their passion for physics is, clearly, quite wrong.

The "passion" for physics by materialists is like the passion for language by people who speak. It's not something to be passionate over, it's a tool that is used and has proven effective time and again. It requires no belief that it'll work, it just does.

Yes, and the religious are very open that their "belief" in God is "faith-based" - I'm not aware of any who claim that God is objectively demonstrable.

Clearly, you haven't asked the question to enough believers. They've tried to use philosophical "proof" that their god exists plenty of times. Then there are those wackos who say their god's face is on Mars... etc.

 

[Foster Zygote]

But as I used to tell Lifegazer...

Oy! If only Lifegazer had studied philosophy in any legitimate capacity.

If not, perhaps we should return this discussion to Dawkins and BOR.

Yes, I concur. B.O'Re is a doodyhead.

BTW (just to further nudge the thread back on track), one person who did succeed in dancing rings around O'Reilly was Stephen Colbert.

 

[hgc]

If you insist upon objective measurements, then psychometric tests of, say, practicing Buddhists versus atheists would almost certainly demonstrate the beneficial effects of meditation - but never that Enlightenment exists, or that, if it does exist, it's just neurochemistry. The same goes with NDE's - excepting that in that case their might be experimental protocols that could demonstrate the OOBE aspect of that phenomena.

Hi HypnoPsi,

I like objective measurements. I don't trust other kinds of measurements as much to be revelatory of reality. So then, what are these psychometric tests to which you allude? What would they measure? Why are you so certain they'll show an effect? If meditation did show some salutory effect, why would it even be evidence of any spirituality? From what I know, meditation is a physical activity. I can see how it might be a good thing, and I have my own anecdotal experience to lend to that opinion. But that doesn't mean anything about spirituality.

But more to the point: show the effect! That would be terrific. What would it prove? That sitting quietly and breathing in a certain way will move some needles on some instrument? What else?

As for the comment on funding: those with the money for science tend to put it where it may bear fruit. Deepak Chopra is richer than Croesus. Perhaps he'd chip in for a study.

 

[HypnoPsi]

This is part of the problem, or the reason for the disagreement, if you will. Too often on these boards it seems someone --- perhaps still a little miffed that they actually majored in philosophy --- attempts to tweek the language just a tad and assign the word "faith" equally to a religious worldview and a materialistic worldview.

<snip>

Now, I'm not accusing HypnoPsi of doing this purposely, but the farther this thread, which by the way is way off the rails right now, progresses, the more I think he/she might be.

As I have stated over and over again in this thread - I am not talking about the mechanics of the world as it exists. I am talking about the origin of the objective universe.

Whether you believe that is down to God or that some wondrous magical substance exists that has the ability to either self-generate or be eternal in nature, either view is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As I have stated over and over again in this thread - I am not talking about the mechanics of the world as it exists. I am talking about the origin of the objective universe.

Whether you believe that is down to God or that some wondrous magical substance exists that has the ability to either self-generate or be eternal in nature, either view is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

Whatever the explanation for the universe is, we should expect it to be parsimonious. God is not parsimonious.

 

[Phil]

As I have stated over and over again in this thread - I am not talking about the mechanics of the world as it exists. I am talking about the origin of the objective universe.

Whether you believe that is down to God or that some wondrous magical substance exists that has the ability to either self-generate or be eternal in nature, either view is a faith based metaphysic.

_
HypnoPsi

Yes. So you have said.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it so important to you that "materialistic atheists" realize that that their metaphysic is as faith based as "non-materialistic (idealistic?) theists", HypnoPsi?

From what I have read of other people writing about Dawkins, it does seems that theists of all stripes feel alienated by his strident attacks on religion and/or spirituality as "delusional". To be fair I have yet to read anything that was actually written by Dawkins, so it may be that the responses I have read may have willfully misinterpreted his arguments in order to set up straw men. However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

 

[Lonewulf]

From what I have read of other people writing about Dawkins, it does seems that theists of all stripes feel alienated by his strident attacks on religion and/or spirituality as "delusional". To be fair I have yet to read anything that was actually written by Dawkins, so it may be that the responses I have read may have willfully misinterpreted his arguments in order to set up straw men. However, given that he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion" and is affectionately called "Darwin's pit bull", I think some examination of his approach to "persuading" people is warranted. In my opinion, condescension and vitriol are never a good way to convince people that they should agree with you.

The bolded is the problem.

Dawkins once had a video conference (an audience in front of a screen where Dawkins would discuss with the audience), and they were all able to give criticism as to his documentary, "The Root of all Evil". Every rational point that was brought up was dealt with eloquence by Dawkins. The one that Dawkins got along the least with (and was the type to lambaste him based on what you just described) was a conservative Right Wing fundamentalist.

The fundamentalist was also shot down by almost everyone else in the audience.

I've actually read The God Delusion. He makes a lot of good points, and I don't get why people are so hung up on the title. From his perspective it is a delusion; perhaps he should have called it The God Tale? The God Story? The God Fiction? All of them would piss off fundamentalists. The book was a book entirely about advocating atheism and mainly questioning the idea of the Abrahamic God's existance.

The problem isn't that people are making "straw men" (though they are), the problem is that people are taking snippets of his overall statement, trying to make it into one-liner statements, and then commenting based on that... while ignoring the overall argument, and context. Though I guess the two are the same, in the end.

I find it intriguing that I see a lot of commentary on The God Delusion, but all of the other books by Dawkins may as well be non-existant. If you want to read a good one, read "The Blind Watchmaker". Very good stuff, even if it was made in the '80s.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Maybe I am being unfair to Dawkins, but I think that if he were truly interested in having a meanigful debate about atheism and relgion or the supernatural, he would have done better to to pick a different title than The God Delusion. I myself am not especially offended by the title or any of the material that I have read in various synopses, but I think that Dawkins' approach (at least in title) does not lend itself to fostering any sort of debate. It reminds me a lot more of political commentators such as Ann Coulter and Al Franken accusing their opponents of treason, slander, lying, godlessness rather than addressing the issues. Now, I realize that he may have some cogent arguments inside the book, but I nonetheless question his motive in picking sucha provocative title.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there any way to have a meaningful debate with believers about the existence of their god?

 

[qayak]

Is there any way to have a meaningful debate with believers about the existence of their god?

Only if you find meaning in pissing them off!

Actually, I had a great discussion with a former girlfriend's brother-in-law who is a Mennonite minister. When my girlfriend's mother jumped in and told me I was going straight to hell, he told her that was unfair to say in a discussion. When my girlfriend's ex-husband jumped in and told my opponent he was crazy, I told him to stay out of it if he had nothing to add. We talked for about 2 hours at a family get together while people drank wine and listened. It was a strange dynamic because the grandparents were staunch believers, the people my age were split pretty even and then the younger ones were pretty much non-believers.

At the end of the discussion he shook my hand and said, "I think you are right. I don't think there is a god."

His in-laws almost had heart attacks. His wife and daughter just shrugged and said, "He has been thinking about this for awhile." they had both been glued to the conversation the whole time. Of course he reassured his niece that he would still be performing her wedding at the end of the month.

I didn't convince him of anything he hadn't already decided but he said it allowed him to have a discussion that he couldn't have with anyone he knew.

Other than that, I haven't had much in the way of meaningful discussions with believers. I tend to be pretty thorough when shooting down their arguments and most think I am arrogant because of it. I try to tell them I am arrogant because I am an ass, not because I am an atheist!