On 17/1/2004, Paul Williams posted:

"Dawkins drops bombs on religion"
By Julia C. Keller.

Extract:
"I am not expressing confidence that humanity will succeed in answering the deep questions of existence. But in the possibly unlikely event that we do succeed, I am very confident that it is more likely to be through scientific than religious ways of thinking," said Dawkins. "However unlikely it may be that science will one day understand everything about the cosmos and the nature of life, it is even less likely that religion will."
- Richard Dawkins.
http://www.stnews.org/live/feat_dawkins_0104.html

Comments (a rant if you like):

This reflects a pragmatic negativity which many find distasteful - a bitter pill to suck on before spitting it out.

Is there any wonder that people who are suffering a life filled with death and horror *need* to seek solace?

The philosophy of the educated and the vague promises of the wealthy do not fill bellies nor gently place salve on the wounds of those who have lost almost all.

Mind you, I agree with Dawkins and would further suggest that all attempts at fundamental understanding of even the most simple things are doomed to failure.

We are all self-serving and deluded in our egocentricity and that is it.
Although, George Carlin said:  "If we're here to help other people, what are those other people here for?"

(I must also say that science does indeed fill bellies and can, to some extent, salve the wounds of those injured)

Paul
[Whose 'mind' is literally all over the place - like a mad woman's breakfast] :-)

"If religion is not true, at least it should be comforting."
    --- Kurt Vonnegut



Ray commented:

One man's opinion Paul.
To be taken with a grain of salt as much as literal interpretation of any of the world's religious doctrines.

Hearing voices and writing them down is generally a symptom of psychosis or schizophrenia.  :)

In the bigger picture, it matters very little what people believe, or don't. As a transient entity, both individually and as a species, our opinions are relevant only to ourselves, what we can do with them, and ultimately, as significant as any opinion once held by Tyrannosaurus rex.

and:

There is no need to remind atheists, that whatever their personal ambition, the final outcome is merely one of tinea progressing to consume their CNS (and everything else).   Bitter pill to swallow, especially when the
progression of a few billion years will turn every post mortem achievement into dust and artefacts (fossils), which may or may not be comprehensible to anything which perceives afterward.

Not even the Great Pyramids will survive.

Not sure which 'truth' is easiest to live with.


I have much respect for Dawkins and agree with many of his views but I have to admit to being a little sceptical as to whether his comments on religion are the right way to go...  The comfort it gives many people at times of
need seems relevant even though on the other hand there is the damage it does with giving people false hopes and justifying of killing.  The evolutionary side to the subject of religion is very interesting and something Dawkins seems to avoid other than in relation to war.

On the Science show last week Dawkins made the following insightful remark - " I think there is a greater fun in keeping a firm grasp on reality and really the reason for that is that reality is so immensely exciting in itself. The real world as science uncovers it is so mind boggling fascinating that to dilute it with fun, with cheap tricks, is demeaning and is ultimately not fun at all"

Yet, I believe he went too far with comments to follow in regard to shows like the X Files -
" Well I think the problem with fun is as I said with respect to the X-Files it can actually be ultimately pernicious because over and over again people will get the feeling of having been shown programs just for fun, they will
get the feeling that there really are ghosts, that spoon bending really is something supernatural instead of just a conjuring trick"
  The term  killjoy comes to mind:-)
The transcript is available for anyone that missed the show.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1010794.htm

and replying to Paul:

In the article Dawkins states that Einstein was atheist -
" Though Einstein is often quoted as being a religious person - "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - he was in fact a profound atheist, said Dawkins. "Einstein must have been quite annoyed at the way religious apologists continually misused his name in their support," he said"

Is it common knowledge that Einstein was atheist? Is there proof of this?  I recall hearing somewhere (not sure where maybe on a RN radio show ) a statement Einstein made that clearly sounded like a Buddhist way of
thinking.  I cannot find reference to it at the moment  but would be interested  to know what others have to say in regard to this.


Chris Forbes-Ewan replied:

One possibly relevant quote (whose source I have forgotten) is:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
- Albert Einstein (on being asked "Do you believe in God?")


Jim Edwards wrote:

It is in the nature of bomb-dropping that bombs often miss their targets, and I think this time Dawkins has lobbed his device very wide of the mark, viz.:

'"The metaphorical god of the physicist is light-years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the theists and of ordinary language," he said.'

The "God" he is talking about here is the product, not the source, of thousands of years of religion.  The source of the idea of God or gods is buried in the infinitely complex neural network of our brains.  It is available to anyone without intervention by any religion or ideology but when it is discovered by someone the discovery occurs almost invariably within the context of a pre-existing culture and is therefore explicated to others in the terminology of that culture.

I am talking about what is sometimes called the 'transcendental experience' and sometimes 'cosmic consciousness' but is almost invariably attributed to whichever god the experiencer has been brought up to believe in, whether JHVH, Allah, Shiva, Krishna, etc.  To anyone who has experienced it words are usually a totally inadequate way to convey to others what the experience has meant and the change it has wrought to one's perspective on life.  Hence the need to fall back on the widely accepted (if not really understood) jargon of the religions.  When it happens to an atheist it is necessary to resort to the language of philosophy, as Ludwig Wittgenstein did, but the result is still mostly incomprehensible verbiage to anyone who has not had the experience themselves.

One of the effects this experience has upon some people is that having "been God", so to speak, one feels the enormous weight of responsibility for the state of the world, particularly humanity, that being God entails.  Hence
the need to DO something: to save the world, to relieve suffering, to teach others the right path, to fight evil, etc.  Thus it can inspire a Moses, a Jesus, a Mahomet, a Gautama, a Martin Luther, a Joan of Arc, a Mary Baker Eddy, a Karl Marx, a Ghandi or a Mother Teresa.  It can also inspire an ordinary person to try to do just a little to improve the world by supporting Amnesty International, A Just Australia, the WWF or Greenpeace.

The fact that this experience happens to some religious people and is seen  by them in terms of their religion in no way validates any of the tenets of  their religion, simply because it occurs to members of entirely different
religions and to members of no religion at all.  If Science is to demonstrate to the world that it has answers to the world's problems superior to those provided by Religion then it had better start taking this "transcendental experience" seriously.  It must determine how it can be accessed without any religious mumbo-jumbo, how it can be quantified, how it can be explained in terms of neurophysiology and how it can be directed to solving the great problems of greed, poverty, starvation, war, racialism, intolerance, pollution, prejudice, crime, famine, etc.


Paul Williams commented:

From two letters Einstein wrote regarding this question: Combining key elements from the first and second response from Einstein there is little doubt as to his position':
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." '

http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html


and:


This is the article in question:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1465

A comprehensive critique of this article by competent scientists will be  available in the next week or so - it's being drafted at the moment.  As soon as it becomes available, I'll post a link.

This is the original study which sparked the above:

BMJ 2001;323:1450-1451 ( 22-29 December )
"Beyond science?
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial "
- Leonard Leibovici
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1450

Leibovici was demonstrating something to his readers which appears to have slipped by most of them.
Comments on Leibovici's study (including a comment by the Author):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/323/7327/1450#20476



Margaret Ruwoldt responded:

Yes, and if you don't like the Gods, Saints etc provided for you, then you can invent your own Guru or whatever. Much harder to do with the Scientist model ;-)


Peter Macinnis commented:


But note my earlier comment about Christmas editions tradition of BMJ -- AND the Pharmaceutical Journal AND New Scientist, inter alia . . .


Paul Williams wrote:

This is my favourite letter:
"Unfortunately, it seems our management staff have got hold of this article. As a result, all elective work in surgery has been cancelled for the next week, as has all annual leave. Why? Because of a waiting list initiative. Management have decided that if retroactive prayer can improve outcomes in blood infections it may work in other circumstances too.

We, the surgical staff, have each been allocated a particular disease, and informed we must pray for all sufferers of said disease admitted to the hospital between 1990 and 2001. Though no specific training has been given, clinical governance demands we each stick to our specialities, and my firm has thus been given strangulated piles, perianal sepsis and retained rectal foreign bodies as the focus of our heavenward pleadings.

Management hopes that by the power of prayer we will shorten in-patient stays of years gone by to such an extent that previous bed crises will have become (a thing of the past?) no more than a figment of our imaginations. If sufficient resources are mobilised, on our return to work we will find that so many bed-days have been saved by early discharge that we have no waiting lists, no trolleys in corridors and in fact fewer people in our clinics because some patients never came to hospital at all because they were cured at home.......or because they had heard we'd all gone crackers."

-- Adrian Fawcett


Paul Williams wrote:

I think that is important to understand where Dawkins is 'coming from'.  
Dawkins is concerned with certain religious groups attempting to, and in some cases succeeding in infiltrating the school system. This is a particular problem in the U.S. where the most recent manifestation of attempted indoctrination of our young (through stealth) is the 'Intelligent Design' movement, which clouds it's religious aims in psuedo-science.

Even in England there has been some recent concern over bequests of monies to some schools and the subsequent appointment of staff who are themselves indoctrinated in certain religious beliefs.  Indoctrination of religious falsehoods may appear benign on the surface - but history has shown that belief often turns horrifically
malignant.

Religious cults, sects and churches and their individual dogma are easily accessible.
Early (and good) science training makes science more easily accessible to those who choose to think.
Without this training - and worse, instead being force fed religious dogma at school, cripples the development of our young.
Without the filter of reason a veritable cachophony of shouted diatribes coming from vested interests will deafen them.
The siren song of the easy, comforting (and false) answers peddled by the purveyors of religious dogma will more likely lead them on to be victims rather than masters/mistresses of their own fate.



Gould attempted to separate science and religion into realms he termed 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria' (NOMA)
He espoused this for some time before dropping it as being unworkable. Biology, Geology, Cosmology are the main branches of science which creation 'science' believers, for example, attempt to meddle in.

Most scientists have no great argument with any religion per se.  What many find distasteful is the desire (often backed by monied vested interests) to control thought.  Blind belief is encouraged by many religions - this is anathema to science - to reason.


I agree that much needs to be done in regards to making science appear more desirable to pursue as a career and more desirable to follow from an interest point of view.
Julius Sumner Miller sparked my early interest in physics.
David Attenborough in natural history.
Both Gould and Dawkins sharpened my understanding of evolutionary biology - and much more besides.
Hawking led me to a deeper understanding of difficult concepts.
Jane Goodall is a wonder and delight.
Carl Sagan did some good work in the popularisation of science.

If we continue to strive to encourage our young's natural interest, many more will come forward in the future.
In Japan and India in particular, scientists are looked up to.  We don't want demi-gods though,  just communicators who can help to show the great delights to be had from thinking rationally.


Dawkins agrees that the bible should be taught at school as literature.  The reason for this is that much Western writing aludes to the bilble.

There are no easy answers to, what many perceive to be, fundamental questions.

To teach our children not to think is a crime against them and a crime against humanity.


Jim Edwards replied:

Ray,  "life wasn't meant to be easy" seems an appropriate response.  If the experience was an easy thing to achieve, or easy to recognise for what it  was when it did occur, I am sure this world would already be a much better  place.  It is not, but the fact that that the memory of pain heightens one's appreciation of its absence is no justification for allowing unnecessary pain to continue.

If the achievement of a particular state of consciousness can contribute to the solution of some of the world's more intractible problems, it would seem to be very remiss of scientists to refrain from researching it for fear of
being labelled "theists" or "religious".  In fact, if this experience could be explained and utilised in a purely scientific context, it could make all the religions with their baggage of fictitious historical events totally unnecessary.


Susan Wright responded:

I'm more of a Marvinist myself - but nobody cares .... I mean, why would they. Brain the size of a planet ......................<grin>


Gary-Peter Dalrymple wrote:

This string has drifted into explanations and interpretations of comments, so I feel it is acceptable to add my two cents worth.

Theocracy (or any monopoly on civic power)is not an ideal culture for the process of free enquiry to flourish within.

There is as I see it one singular advantage in monotheism, a view that there is An order to the Universe that can be searched for.

I get the feeling that the Greek founders of scientific reasoning tended towards the more 'athiestic' philisophers in the Greek city states polytheistic cultures and I am open to the suggestion that the rise of Islam (Baghad's 'pre-university' house of scholars) and Confucianism did much to advance discoveries for a period of time.

I have often paused to think 'What if' the Persians (Nearly monotheistic followers of Zoroastrianism) had taken all of the Greek world and been able to combine the Greek philosophy with the status of the 'Magi'?

A pre-BCE renaissance?

Any comment from those who know a bit more about these cultures?    such as in science


Ivan Sayer wrote:

For anybody who's interested in the opinions of a person who manages to maintain both an enthusiasm for scientific argument and also some personal religious beliefs, here they are.

Dropping bombs is fun, and helps to hone your forensic skills, but it may not do much more than that.  Whatever widespread belief-system you choose to oppose will have a few representatives whose mouths are bigger than
their brains.  You are therefore guaranteed a rich fund of refutable utterance.

However, (personal opinion only), I'd be more interested if the bomb droppers would stick to their lasts.  I'd be more interested in Dawkins if he attempted to explain the evolutionary significance (or insignificance) of religion.  I'd be more interested in the creationists if they could come up with an explanation of why their God should create a species so many of whom have trouble believing in the right God or any God at all.

It is well worth remembering that whatever belief seems obvious to you that your route to it was probably a long process, and the number of lives onto which that process can be successfully grafted is probably small.


Suasn Wright answered:


Ideas based on my own loose thoughts:
In terms of evolutionary significance I think people's ability to observe and relate to problems in terms of what they know and seeking reasons for events/occurrences so they can better control them etc played a role in advancing answers in terms of gods/spirits/etc.

That is, people theorise about the world every day - it seems to be something that the brain does - make patterns, fit observations into patterns and make new patterns or extend old patterns when new info doesn't fit into old patterns. It appears to be a fundamental part of learning and 'survival'. So in early days, if the pattern of observation went something like "when I'm angry I can make bad things happen (like break people's legs etc) - how angry and big would a person have to be to make a volcano erupt/a flood etc etc. ..... they'd need to be really, really big, or really, really powerful" and so on and so on.

It's also difficult to run with ideas and actions that are 'counterintuitive' - try bungee jumping and see what happens in terms of self talk e.g. are you mad, you'll die, step back from the edge now, that cord looks like a piece of cotton to me.

Within the above, of genuine interest to me is why people externalise power and control in this way (gods and stuff) - and also the tiny levels to which people choose to externalise power as well. I used to work running community conferences; bringing victims and victims of crime together to work out the issues and restitution etc. I was constantly aware of the behaviours of people admitting to crimes - in that they would accept responsibility, but hated the accompanying shame and guilt that went with it. A quick way out of guilt was anger - getting angry with the person who's making you feel bad, makes you feel better and appears to be a way to gain the upper ground, or feel superior, again. Make the person go away and the bad feelings go too or at least can be ignored again. Restitution also offered a way to stop the bad feelings.

Religions also offer a way out of guilt and shame via prayer, the confessional, meditation, flagellation, punishment etc etc.

So for me part of the answer to the significance of religion, in chemical or biological terms, would also contain some explanation as to why people don't like feeling bad.


Susan Wright answered:

Sorry Ailsa - I genuinely don't understand the question you asked? But I'll have a try and answer what I think you're asking. So here goes ....

I don't refute religion at all as there's ample evidence that religion exists.

I don't think there's one reason why people believe in gods, angels, spirits, demons, devils and saints or some absolute being.

I do think religions offer all sorts of things that appeal to people - such as absolution (no matter what the sin or crime), nirvana/heaven/peace, life everlasting, charity, comfort, a place, meaning, an alternative etc etc. Given the popularity of religions I'd say some of these things must appeal to huge numbers of people (and not all those people believe in god/s etc).

If the meaning of panacea is - cure-all, solution, answer, remedy - I don't believe religion to be a mass or universal panacea at all :-) And if history is to be believed, while many religious people beaver away trying to bring relief from poverty and disease, religions also appear to have contributed to significant conflict and hostility between peoples.

Could I ask you what you mean by 'panacea to the masses' style of refuting religion - as I may be able to give a better answer than the stuff above.


Susan Wright  replied:

Ailsa wrote:


Ahhh I see - no that's not what I intended. I was trying to respond to the bit of Ivan's email that went:

I agreed with this comment and just wished to pursue it a little further - obviously, not very well.


I don't disagree with this and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. If I did, apologies. I think people making patterns out of masses of information is an amazingly complex process.


Sorry :-) I'm not sure what argument you're referring to - your own - or mine. If mine ... I didn't talk of religion or the 'religious' in terms of simplicity of thought or avoidance of complexity of thought. I think I blogged about how people made patterns and guilt and shame.

 
I agree - I'm an aetheist and have faith in humans to identify problems and negotiate solutions - misplaced though this faith may seem at times
:-)


I agree - I think that's what Ivan was also suggesting. Hence my response.


Apologies again, but I truly am lost - I'm not sure what 'premises' you're referring to. Something that I actually wrote - or your assumptions about what I meant in responding to Ivan.


Ailsa Raynor wrote:

My response to your email was purely a stance regarding the thread, however if I appear to be refuting your email I apologise...  I wish to see the subject given the treatment other subjects on this board are given so that I may become elucidated however I feel we may lack a depth in the religious side to refute and debate the issue.  I appreciate your patience and tenacity, hopefully this clarifies my point, almost as clear as mud now.

and

I agree blind faith is a ridiculous stance, however I don't believe the word misuse discounts atrocities in the name of religion.  I fully acknowledge that this is an abomination.  Surely science matters may also be, as Dawkin's has opened the debate, the ideal place to discuss these issues... the simplicity I refer to is not necessarily in the content of the responses but rather in the 'tone' (dismissive).  At no point am I suggesting that these opinions are invalid, all carefully considered opinions are due analysis...  While I would love to be able
to carefully and with great consideration debate the issue myself, as I have previously stated I do not have the depth of knowledge, therefore ignorance (my own) will continue unless both the scientific and religious (faith - not blind) are given due consideration.

Cheers.

PS Maybe I will just have to educate myself, however was hoping to add to my learning here...


Ivan Sayer commented:


Why do people externalize power and control ?  I take the easy way with that one.  For the first couple of years our lives are run by somebody else, and I don't believe that we ever forget that experience, tho' it may get buried.  If I have read Freud and his exponents right, they read theistic religion as a projection of that experience on the Universe.  I think they're dead right, I just don't believe that because a belief is a projection it is necessarily false.



Argus wrote:

Hi Ailsa and others,
since I have some interest in the religion and science discussion (does it necessarily need to be a debate?) I thought I would offer some questions that confront me as I think about these topics.

1. Religion/faith tends to be more involved in emotions in comparison to science as such, and a religious belief can therefore involve both emotion and logic. However depending on the definition of athiesm is it not also a
form of faith? (Belief there is proof of no God vs. belief there is no proof for God, the latter really a form of agnosticism). After all, unless one knows a lot about everything, it is hard to know/prove the non-existence of
something. Any belief system tends to tap emotion when questioned/threatened making such discussions difficult, but possible when regarded objectively.

2. A common objection to religion is the "countless wars and killing" it "causes". If the shoe is placed on the other foot, and some of last centuries greatest atrocities (Stalin's, Hitler's and Pol Pot's) questioned:  these men to my knowledge were at least anti or a- religious, Stalin I presume athiestic, can blame be fairly laid at the feet of "science" (or ...)?

3. At what point is a basis for truth able to be reliable on the basis of someone else's authority/experience? Few who place confidence in scientific "truth" have done fundemental experiments on which to base this confidence,
so is it therefore misplaced? Could it be called blind faith?

4. Dawkins suggests that no-one, science or other will ever have "all the answers". Is it not appropriate to therefore avoid dogmatic conclusions which lie beyond the scope of a given discourse?



Ray responded:

G'day Angus, if my own kind of logos is some sort of peripheral or fringe
kind of science, I'll attempt to give answers [not arguments or points of
debate, because that, IMO, is where science separates from religion -debate
is not possible] to your 4 questions.

Opinions anyway.  :)


And here is a fundamental problem within the psychology or our species because its physiology has provided a biological, hi tech., cranial device...

and I don't think we've yet learned how best to use it and barely comprehend its unknown potential.

In short we're all too psychotic by balance of our reason and emotion to be seen in mixed company.

Personally, I believe that animals and plants (and matter) is far closer to God than we'd even dream of.


Another one is the morbid sense of guilt many historically inspire as a bargaining chip for payment of tithes.

Petty people create and support both petty leadership and petty gods.


There is the conundrum in every waking moment and our shallow amnesia of our sleeping unconscious moments.  Am I dreaming this?  Is something else?  Am I alive, really?   Where do dreams separate from reality in the quantum fields of thought, consciousness and awareness?

Does the life of a butterfly seem to the butterfly as long as ours?  Does a blind person's world really lack colour?

IMO, the only thing that really matters about a question is how utilitarian is its answer.

"If information has no use, then it is useless information."  (I'm sure someone must have said that)


Why would anyone ever want to?
If "all the answers" were ever known, somehow I feel that conscious being would lose too much from the experience which is learning something new.


Definitely.
-but its still fun to rave, and probably good exercise for a mind to keep personal passion away from social exaggeration and still hold a plot.

If SM served the single purpose of providing cerebral exercise, supporting the "use it or lose it" tradition of wear and rust, it would be a good thing, religion or no religion.

David Maddern wrote:


Yes religion is highly and deeply emotionally held a beleif is not a statement of fact - a beleif that there is no god does not require absolute proof

Atheism is also a Christain concept.  It does not mean that a person is not religious or not spiritual.
for instance Buddhists do not have a god.
As for a rational estimate of the existance of a God then the invocation of the Principle of Parsimony would affest the probability figure arrived at

2. A common objection to religion is the "countless wars and killing" it
> "causes". If the shoe is placed on the other foot, and some of last
> centuries greatest atrocities (Stalin's, Hitler's and Pol Pot's) questioned:
> these men to my knowledge were at least anti or a- religious, Stalin I
> presume athiestic, can blame be fairly laid at the feet of "science" (or ...)?

In my experience and estimate of Christianity it divides communities There are innumerable sects in Christianity
It is difference and seperation that creates an us and them attitude At a community level Catholics and Protestants were against each other and lived seperate lives in my fathers youth in Adelaide Christianity was well suited to the Imperial Period of Britain, with attitudes of better than others and racial supremity Sure, war is a human fioble, but emotionally held attitudes that go with religion are easily recruited by quoting literally passages of symbolic text from the Bible or the Koran


We live our lives on assumptions.  We would not survive without assumptions.
We build up a paradym that is our reality.  It is essential. Then we accept the body of Science that gives us a tool to think further. That is how our species has got to do things like send emails However each of those individual ideas is up for grabs, that is if someone can modify or negate a precept then that is a step forward as it opens new possibilities.

For instance, we have a working hypothesis that water doesnt mix with oil  Recently it has appparently been found that water free of dissolved gas can dissolve oil  This opens up, amongst other things, delivery of oily cancer drugs without additionally ruinous detergents  Usually the deeper the assumption the higher probability that it will hold up, usually.


"all the answers" is an infinite I reckon cos then you could ask "why aren't there more questions"
Once again we work on a paradym of assumptions and provisional proofs That is why Scientists are not much good in a court room or in the media.. traditionally failing to state things absolutely  You'd think that would produce a discussion mentality, and the kicking around of new ideas eh