Atheism in Christian societies - DPChallenge Forums

12/20/2007 06:09:52 PM · #726

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I still contend Dawkins completely misses the boat by trying to disparage religion through the eyes of science. He simply cannot step out of his scientific realm and that, I think, is his great weakness with regard to philosophy.

Dawkins' contention is that there IS no other realm but science.

And in this he is isolated and alone. To deny there are questions which cannot be answered by science is completely ridiculous. To deny that these questions do not occupy us and are important is also ridiculous.

I don't think this is ridiculous at all. I think you have misplaced Dawkins insistence on reason and rationalism for an insistence on "science." By "questions which cannot be answered by science," I assume mean questions of philosophy. But philosophy can certainly be based on rational discourse, it need not be based on religious dogmatism.

This is the core of Dawkins writings, and insistence on rationalism and reliance upon evidence and a rejection of the irrationalisms of belief that are grounded in dogmatic proclamation.

To be clear, rationalism is not science. It is philosophy. Science is based on rationalism and not vice versa. To say that Dawkins both a) believes there is nothing other than science and b) say he is a rationalist is contradictory.

The whole argument about Dawkins has morphed into implying I'm saying something I didn't. Shannon originally asked "What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis?" and I pointed out that Lewis is a trained philosopher while Dawkins is not. It doesn't make Dawkins less able to offer philosophical point of view, but it does make him less qualified. I do not agree that just because Dawkins is highly educated in Scientific endeavor (and really only a narrow part of that, ie. evolution) he is highly qualified to offer other views. I probably have just as much philosophical training as he does, but I don't have the impudence to write a book about it.

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 18:17:11.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/20/2007 06:40:17 PM · #727

Originally posted by Gordon:

I just had a thought. With all the furor about creationism and the like. Do students at US schools study religion ? That would seem to be the perfect place to discuss things like ID. But I'm guessing they don't given all the fuss.

anybody ?

David Ey

Nikon D80

12/20/2007 06:56:51 PM · #728

No Gordon, they are mostly taught atheism and strict evolution.

Oh, and how to put a condom on a cucumber.

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 18:57:55.

12/20/2007 07:03:18 PM · #729

Originally posted by David Ey:

No Gordon, they are mostly taught atheism and strict evolution.

Oh, and how to put a condom on a cucumber.

LOL. That made me laugh. No, I do not recall getting any public education on a survey of religion and the such. Likely a separation of church and state thing (which is silly to consider them out of bounds for education).

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 19:03:29.

12/20/2007 07:07:31 PM · #730

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by David Ey:
No Gordon, they are mostly taught atheism and strict evolution.

Oh, and how to put a condom on a cucumber.

LOL. That made me laugh. No, I do not recall getting any public education on a survey of religion and the such. Likely a separation of church and state thing (which is silly to consider them out of bounds for education).

I find that pretty surprising. I always thought it was freedom of religion, not from religion. I could see it being perhaps an issue if the school was preaching a particular religion, but that shouldn't preclude them teaching religion(s).

That maybe explains a lot of the ID thing that never quite made sense before. I had several years of religious education in the UK - covering a fairly wide variety of belief systems and philosophies. I just sort of assumed something similar would be taught here too.

E.g., this is not a million miles from the sort of syllabus I took at about 14 or 15

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 19:11:08.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

12/20/2007 07:09:55 PM · #731

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To be clear, rationalism is not science. It is philosophy.... Shannon originally asked "What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis?" and I pointed out that Lewis is a trained philosopher while Dawkins is not. It doesn't make Dawkins less able to offer philosophical point of view, but it does make him less qualified.

Wow, you have to be properly trained before you're qualified to rationalize something? I had no idea. Socrates must have missed that memo, too... his background was stonemasonry. :-/

David Ey

Nikon D80

12/20/2007 07:12:30 PM · #732

Some schools used to have a Bible club, like the science or math or English clubs etc. but I don't know if they are allowed now.

12/20/2007 07:14:51 PM · #733

Originally posted by scalvert:

Socrates must have missed that memo, too... his background was stonemasonry. :-/

Should have stuck to it too, then all those temples wouldn't be falling down now.

12/20/2007 07:15:15 PM · #734

Originally posted by Gordon:

Do students at US schools study religion ?

Sure, they learn world religions as part of social studies, and religious schools include it as part of their curriculum. A specific religion can't be taught in public schools because anyone who doesn't agree with that particular flavor would file suit to protect "their" beliefs.

12/20/2007 07:16:09 PM · #735

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be clear, rationalism is not science. It is philosophy.... Shannon originally asked "What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis?" and I pointed out that Lewis is a trained philosopher while Dawkins is not. It doesn't make Dawkins less able to offer philosophical point of view, but it does make him less qualified.

Wow, you have to be properly trained before you're qualified to rationalize something? I had no idea. Socrates must have missed that memo, too... his background was stonemasonry. :-/

Screw it Shannon. You are just being difficult now. Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy, which was your original challenge. Do you deny this is the case?

12/20/2007 07:26:31 PM · #736

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Screw it Shannon. You are just being difficult now. Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy, which was your original challenge. Do you deny this is the case?

Right know he certainly is better placed to know the answers. I just wish he'd get the book out...

12/20/2007 07:37:07 PM · #737

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy, which was your original challenge. Do you deny this is the case?

Absolutely. By your logic, Lewis was more qualified to write about philosophy than Socrates. IMO, the only qualifications for rationalization are general knowledge and the intelligence to make inferences from that knowledge.

12/20/2007 07:38:16 PM · #738

Originally posted by Gordon:

Right know he certainly is better placed to know the answers. I just wish he'd get the book out...

Maybe he already did, but it's invisible or only known to a tribe in New Guinea?

12/20/2007 07:44:18 PM · #739

Originally posted by scalvert:

Absolutely. By your logic, Lewis was more qualified to write about philosophy than Socrates.

Is now a bad moment to point out that Socrates never wrote about philosophy ? Maybe he agreed.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

12/20/2007 07:45:36 PM · #740

Originally posted by Gordon:

Is now a bad moment to point out that Socrates never wrote about philosophy ?

Shhhhh! He "clearly" wasn't qualified.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

12/20/2007 08:43:40 PM · #741

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Whoah... I never claimed Dawkins was a "Rationalist" (big R), but rather said that his argument is based upon application of rational (small r), evidence-based argument and proof rather than irrational (simply meaning "faith based" or "non-evidence-based" and not unintelligent, meaningful, or otherwise). Dawkins "rationalism" is based in his scientific training, but seeing as how the philosophical tradition is what gave rise to the sciences - whenever a partition of "philosophy" became sufficiently objectively rationalized and testable, it gets sheared off and no longer is considered philosophy, but rather science - I simply can't accept your hypothesis that Dawkins academic background somehow makes him less qualified to engage in philosophical discussions. He may be less qualified to discuss philosophical traditions, but that certainly doesn't have any bearing on whether his philosophical arguments, standing by themselves, have more or less merit.

Approaching "philosophy" from a scientific (I'll stop using the word "rationalistic" as it apparently has some dogmatic meaning that I, and I'm sure Dawkins, would rather avoid) means that hypotheses must be testable and refutable. For some reason, many people seem to think this is a radical proposal. The problem is that religious people, for the most part, really don't want to engage in philosophical argument. They want to assert conclusions and refuse dissent. "Because it's true" or "Because book x says so" or "Because God said so." That isn't philosophy, that's dogma. If hypotheses aren't subject to testing, then they can't actually provide us with any new knowledge and are, in the end, pointless, no matter how pretty or comforting they might be to those who hold them.

As an atheist, and here is where I part company somewhat with Dawkins, I don't care if you believe without evidence in creed X. The modern problem is not that individuals have faith. The problem is that faith (belief without evidence) is being used to justify certain political and social outcomes, irrespective of whether those outcomes (on the basis of testable evidence) provide a net benefit to the society as a whole.

The role of the atheist in society is to challenge this approach and demand evidence.

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 20:55:22.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/20/2007 09:55:55 PM · #742

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be clear, rationalism is not science. It is philosophy.... Shannon originally asked "What makes Dawkins any less qualified to offer a philosophical point of view than C.S. Lewis?" and I pointed out that Lewis is a trained philosopher while Dawkins is not. It doesn't make Dawkins less able to offer philosophical point of view, but it does make him less qualified.

Wow, you have to be properly trained before you're qualified to rationalize something? I had no idea. Socrates must have missed that memo, too... his background was stonemasonry. :-/

Screw it Shannon. You are just being difficult now. Clearly Lewis is more qualified than Dawkins to write about philosophy, which was your original challenge. Do you deny this is the case?

I do, for a third dissent and for the reasons already cited.

12/21/2007 12:37:42 AM · #743

Well, then I'd assume Lewis is just as qualified to write about evolution. If you disagree it merely reveals that you don't have a high regard for the philosophical discipline. I contend that it requires learning and reading and study to avoid pitfalls and false logic which have occured in the last 3,000 years philosophy has been around.

Otherwise I'll just drop it and disagree.

12/21/2007 12:45:11 AM · #744

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion).

By your own argument then, C.S. Lewis had no business writing about religion - after all he didn't study that at Oxford.

Or is it maybe that you can actually form valid opinions on topics such as this, without studying them at university ? Or is religion easier to pick up than philosophy ?

I think the reality is that what a decent university education teaches you is how to learn, at least that's what the decade I spent doing degrees taught me - nothing I do in my current job has anything much to do with what I studied over those years, yet the ability to learn, think and research is a constant.

Message edited by author 2007-12-21 00:49:10.

12/21/2007 12:47:46 AM · #745

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion).

By your own argument then, C.S. Lewis had no business writing about religion - after all he didn't study that at Oxford.

Or is it maybe that you can actually form valid opinions on topics such as this, without studying them at university ?

OK, I'll give it to you if you can show me some biographical information where Dawkins is shown to have put in at least a number of years in self-study of religion and philosophy. I'll call uncle if you can do that.

If philosophy is such an self-evident field, then why do learned institutions like Oxford decide to have them as a major? Seems sorta stupid to me.

12/21/2007 12:50:47 AM · #746

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If philosophy is such an self-evident field, then why do learned institutions like Oxford decide to have them as a major? Seems sorta stupid to me.

I don't think anyone said philosophy is 'self-evident'. But you are making an appeal to authority, when the authority in question has similarly lacking credentials. I think the reality is that what a decent university education teaches you is how to learn, at least that's what the decade I spent doing degrees taught me - nothing I do in my current job has anything much to do with what I studied over those years, yet the ability to learn, think and research is a constant. Mind you I think the standards at Oxford have dropped over the years - they let me give a lecture a few years ago there.

Message edited by author 2007-12-21 00:53:38.

12/21/2007 12:53:33 AM · #747

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If philosophy is such an self-evident field, then why do learned institutions like Oxford decide to have them as a major? Seems sorta stupid to me.

I don't think anyone said philosophy is 'self-evident'. But you are making an appeal to authority, when the authority in question has similarly lacking credentials. I think the reality is that what a decent university education teaches you is how to learn, at least that's what the decade I spent doing degrees taught me - nothing I do in my current job has anything much to do with what I studied over those years, yet the ability to learn, think and research is a constant.

I can agree with that, but then tell me how the expertise Lewis has in philosophy is different than the expertise Dawkins has in zoology?

12/21/2007 12:55:26 AM · #748

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If philosophy is such an self-evident field, then why do learned institutions like Oxford decide to have them as a major? Seems sorta stupid to me.

I don't think anyone said philosophy is 'self-evident'. But you are making an appeal to authority, when the authority in question has similarly lacking credentials. I think the reality is that what a decent university education teaches you is how to learn, at least that's what the decade I spent doing degrees taught me - nothing I do in my current job has anything much to do with what I studied over those years, yet the ability to learn, think and research is a constant.

I can agree with that, but then tell me how the expertise Lewis has in philosophy is different than the expertise Dawkins has in zoology?

It doesn't differ - though you posted a long Lewis extract on religion, then commented that Dawkins has no business talking about religion.

'Dawkins is brusque, but his worst fault is straying from his expertise (science) and opining on something he is not an expert in (philosophy or religion). Actually that's not the problem. The problem comes when readers transfer his clear expertise in evolutionary theory onto his body of knowledge about religion. '

I think they are equally valid in that respect, both in fields that are not their 'core' areas.

Message edited by author 2007-12-21 00:56:26.

12/21/2007 01:01:44 AM · #749

Originally posted by Gordon:

I think they are equally valid in that respect, both in fields that are not their 'core' areas.

But don't you think that if someone like Lewis would write and publish a book on evolution he'd be laughed out of the building?

EDIT: Tell you what Shannon, whoever just opened up a new 300mm f/4L wins the argument...

ding ding ding...We have a winner! ;)

Message edited by author 2007-12-21 01:06:15.