randman

Hmm....and they smoke crack too?
LOL

Peter Soderqvist

TO STONE TOOLS

Soderqvist1: Your quote is out of context, as usual when a creationist has made them!

RIVER OUT OF EDEN, CHAPTER GOD'S UTILITY FUNCTION, PAGE 155
Theologians worry away at the "problem of evil" and a related "problem of suffering." On the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus full of children from a Roman Catholic School that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper (The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way; "How can you believe in a loving all-powerful God who allows such a tragedy?"
The article went on to quote one priest's replay: "The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just electrons, there would be no problems of evil or suffering"

On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons, and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has Precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. As A. E. House man put it: For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

Soderqvist1: There is no reason for me to rein here, because I can differentiate between Dawkins popular writings, for instance this River out of Eden, and his professional writings, papers etc! But it appears to me that you don't have this ability to differentiate! Of course, if you can point out that he has alleged on some professional lecturing, at the University of Oxford, that evolution proves atheism, I will rein too!

WILLIAM OF OCCAM'S RAZOR
One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modeling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies. This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be Correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity. <a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html" target="_blank">http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html</a>

Soderqvist1: Dawkins don't need to reject intelligent design, because Science of biology is not theology, and for the same reason, biology alone can give us a good account about it, according to the principle of parsimony, about how complex apparent design, has come about in nature!

God has not made man in his image, but we have made god in our imagination!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

DMB

Peter Soderqvist: an excellent summing up of Dawkins's position.

Parents who draw the conclusion that because Dawkins is an atheist therefore evolution should not be taught to their children are guilty of a non sequitur and should remove their heads from their arses. It is interesting that Sir Peter Vardy, who founded this Emmanuel College in Gateshead and can't accept evolution, has made a lot of money but has a single O-level as his only academic qualification. He clearly knows nothing about science.

The majority of parents in the UK are not xian anyway, and most of those who are see no problems with the teaching of evolution. Even though we have an established church, we do not normally bring religion or atheism into science lessons. That is why therre is a row going on about the science teaching at Emmanuel, where cretinism is being dragged in to science classes.

GunnerJ

Just a note, but I wonder if stonetools has looked for any reasons for this? "Militant atheism," a term which seems to refer to Nazism and Communism, which are as much religions as Xianity, rose in a time of cheap, powerful firearms, railroads, planes, mass communication, and internal combustion engines. I'd hate to see what the Medieval Crusaders could have done with machine guns, tanks, bombers and television.

Oolon Colluphid

Then try reading all but the first chapter of Climbing Mount Improbable. God doesn't get a mention, only explaining how apparently designed things could come about by natural processes does. Or come to that, the middle chapters of Blind Watchmaker, and all but that page of River Out of Eden. In fact, rather than going by what gets into the papers, have you actually read any Dawkins??

The only people who should be offended by Dawkins's books are believers in some sort of creation or intelligent design, because he shows so clearly why they're deluded. He doesn't go after god in general, only designer-gods and those who sneak one into explanations.

Oolon

Vorkosigan

I think it would great if christian scientists would step forward and fiercely crush YECs, but few do. Until we get those voices, we have Dawkins, Gould et al. And let's face it, few scientists have been as effective at publicizing science as Gould, and he is not an in-your-face atheist like Dawkins is.

The basic problem is that almost all the leading US scientists are atheists. It is difficult to find a scientist of sufficient stature to act as a spokesman, who, at the same time, is a christian.

As for the Militant atheism of Communism, there is no difference between Communism and Christianity, both are authority systems, which is why they fight each other, and kill indiscriminately. You probably are not aware of this, but atheists who are not Communists have been executed just for being who they are in both China and Vietnam, especially in the early days. And there are many flavors of Christian Marxists.

The issue is two different authoritarian systems clashing, not religion versus atheism. There is nothing in atheism to kill for -- it is just a lack of belief in god -- and no atheist has ever indulged in mass killings for the sake of atheism. The Communists killed for the sake of Communism. The Christians killed for the sake of Christianity. The higher body count of Communism is the result of better technology and larger populations, not greater enthusiasm for killing.

Michael

Vorkosigan

But I am of the general opinion that the ID movement's primary inspiration is Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. Certainly if you did a citation study I bet that would be the case -- Dawkins will get cited in chapter 1 of approximately every ID book, and repeatedly thereafter.

I cannot agree with this. ID dates back to William Paley and before. Even in science it remained an influential force, re-appearing in various ways in the idealism of Agassiz, and the late 19th century American neo-larmarckians. ID is an old argument....

Michael

Vorkosigan

Stone, evolution has been seen as atheistic since its inception, and I mean back in the days when it was called "transmutationism." How much influence do you think Dawkins actually has? Most of the people who've heard of him are either committed YECs reading propaganda, or educated people interested in evolution. Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker book was a bestseller in the UK, but if you stopped 50 adults on the street in any large US city, I doubt more than 5 would even know who he is, much less be able to identify his religious position. The failure of Creationism in the UK --which is one of its homes, after all -- is do in part to the sterling work of Dawkins.

In the US many people have heard of Gould, but Lewontin? Not many outside of the educated classes. And how many who've heard of Gould can readily identify his religious position, or his position on science and religion, outlined in a recent book? People just aren't as exercised by these "major" figures as you are.

Michael

bluefugue

Kenneth Miller is the one who comes to mind. However, he's a Catholic, which in some people's eyes barely qualifies as "Christian"...

scigirl

No-one at II? I suggest you actually re-read this thread. I noticed people here that were more sympathetic to the agnostic Sagan than the atheist Dawkins.

In addition, there is a difference between a person who bashes religion and a person who "tells it like it is."

After September 11, several renouned Christians spoke out in the national media blaming lesbians and atheists for the attacks. Dawkins simply pointed out that, um, well, no, actually religious fundamentalists were responsible for the attacks, and religious fundamentalism can be dangerous, as over 5000 people unfortunately got firsthand knowledge of. In addition, I doubt Dawkins is so naive to place the blame of 9/11 solely on one thing (like the damn 700 club did), since as a scientist, he recognizes human behavior is a complex mixture of biology and sociology.

I was so grateful to Dawkins that week, because he was saying what none of the Christian leaders would admit to: religious faith, coupled with blind adherence to authority and placing more importance on an afterlife than this life, can be, and obviously is, deadly. In a sea of "God Blesserize America," there was a tiny little voice of reason that the atheists of the USA could cling to, and be comforted by.

But I do agree with stone tools on a couple matters: violence is rarely the best solution to any conflict. In addition, I agree that religious issues have no place in a high school science classroom - both YEC and atheism. But in college, people are adults, and if they can't handle challenges to their beliefs, they should go back home to mommy and daddy. I had biology teachers who were atheists, and who were christians. Occasionally philosophical questions would come up, and we would discuss them like rational adults. So fucking what? Are christian beliefs so tenuous that they can't handle the mere mention of the world "atheist"? Give me a break. I didn't become a christian just from hearing that the Histology teacher was one.

But in public school (high school), I say - stick to the facts, stick to the scientific method. Like Indiana Jones said in his archaology class, "Science is the search for facts, not truths. If truth is what you are looking for, try {name??}'s philosophy class down the hall."
Well, as atheists ourselves, we think they are right. Many of us here became atheists after studying both science and religion. One of them made sense with the universe, one of them did not. I am personally glad that there are people who are not afraid of christian retaliation, and who speak their mind on these issues. Furthermore, just because these people are scientists, that means they aren't allowed to have any opinions on other manners? A priest gets to speak his mind on anything and everything he wants--his religion, other religions, science, technology, politics. But his formal traning was just in his particular religion. Why is it OK for a priest to talk about stem cell research in the media, but it's not OK for a scientist to talk about religion? Where's the "equal time?"

Hey it would be nice if atheists could get respect and understanding by being all nicey-nice to religion and publically stating, "yes we think all religious people are good and wonderful and great, and [/b]all[/b] religious beliefs are just dandy, and religion never ever harms us, but well, we just don't beleive in your gods, can you please accept us anyway?" But well, we just can't lie, now can we?

It would also be nice if atheists could at least be acknowledged by the president of this country. He'll mention the Jews (which make up a smaller percentage than atheists and agnostics) before he will ever utter the awful "a" word. Do you think he would consider the American Atheists or the ACLU in his "faith-based initiative?" I have my doubts.

Some of you may think that people like Dawkins say too much, I think he doesn't say enough.

Well Dr Scigirl is here. Koy needs to have weekly purging of this bile buildup, otherwise known as "frustration with fundies." The consequences of holding that much bile in can be very serious!

scigirl