Enemies of Reason P1

N

Naturalist

Well-Known Member
Messages
234
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Location
Tennessee
I recalled watching this years ago, but thought others might be interested, particularly if you're not from the U.K.

I was reminded of it in another thread:


 
Sorry, I can't watch 47 minutes of Dawkins, I have heard his rants before.

The creation of the universe is history, and you can't change history. Either, God created the universe and life. or there is no god. This is first and foremost, how I apply logic and reason. Life is too complex, I just can't see how life could happen without God.
 
The problem is Dawkins really goes for the 'low hanging fruit' – with all that the phrase implies – and finds himself now counted among 'the enemies of reason' by many of his peers.

I would suggest reading: There's more to atheism than the dim-witted Dawkins brigade

The atheist philosopher John Gray has declared the 'New Atheists' a "media phenomenon” who play out a “tedious re-run of a Victorian squabble between science and religion” and offer no meaningful contribution to contemporary atheist thought.

Better to look at John Gray, The Seven Types of Atheism, to get a view of where atheism comes from.

And personally, having read two, I'd recommend any book by Gray without hesitation.
 
EricPH said:
Sorry, I can't watch 47 minutes of Dawkins, I have heard his rants before.

The creation of the universe is history, and you can't change history. Either, God created the universe and life. or there is no god. This is first and foremost, how I apply logic and reason. Life is too complex, I just can't see how life could happen without God.
Click to expand...
1. False dichotomy. There could be many gods, we could be computer simulation, we could be a hologram, there could be a cause we're too ignorant to have knowledge of, etc.

2. Fallacy of god of the gaps. Since you don't know the answer, insert your favorite default.

3. Fallacy of infinite regress. If life's complexity requires a creator, then the creator's complexity requires a creator, and so on and so on.
 
Thomas said:
The problem is Dawkins really goes for the 'low hanging fruit' – with all that the phrase implies – and finds himself now counted among 'the enemies of reason' by many of his peers.

I would suggest reading: There's more to atheism than the dim-witted Dawkins brigade

The atheist philosopher John Gray has declared the 'New Atheists' a "media phenomenon” who play out a “tedious re-run of a Victorian squabble between science and religion” and offer no meaningful contribution to contemporary atheist thought.

Better to look at John Gray, The Seven Types of Atheism, to get a view of where atheism comes from.

And personally, having read two, I'd recommend any book by Gray without hesitation.
Click to expand...
I read the article and Gray is doing exactly what you accuse Dawkins of...going for the low hanging fruit.

In the show Dawkins talks to actual people, religious leaders and not. He can't interview everyone. It is whack-a-mole (or maybe the no true Scotsman fallacy) to only choose a certain sort of person to represent religious belief. Who determines whose view of religious belief is correct? And what criteria is used?
 
Naturalist said:
It is whack-a-mole (or maybe the no true Scotsman fallacy) to only choose a certain sort of person to represent religious belief
Click to expand...
Say it again, please
 
Naturalist said:
1. False dichotomy. There could be many gods, we could be computer simulation, we could be a hologram,
Click to expand...
Sounds like science fiction to me, minus the logic.
Naturalist said:
2. Fallacy of god of the gaps. Since you don't know the answer, insert your favorite default.
Click to expand...
Arguments mean there is no evidence. There is no evidence for the creation of the universe and life by natural causes.
Naturalist said:
3. Fallacy of infinite regress. If life's complexity requires a creator, then the creator's complexity requires a creator, and so on and so on.
Click to expand...
Something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. Now apply this logic to a natural cause.
 
EricPH said:
Sounds like science fiction to me, minus the logic.

Arguments mean there is no evidence. There is no evidence for the creation of the universe and life by natural causes.

Something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. Now apply this logic to a natural cause.
Click to expand...
1. Ok, if those are science fiction so is G@d.

2. We don't know what created the Universe. That's where we are. If we don't know, you don't get to declare by fiat your concocted answer. There certainly is evidence for life's beginnings, take a biology course.

3. The Universe may be infinite, we don't know. Or it could have come from something, like a black hole in a prior Universe. Lots of possibilities. But we can't get the evidence at this time. So we don't know.
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
The problem is Dawkins really goes for the 'low hanging fruit' – with all that the phrase implies – and finds himself now counted among 'the enemies of reason' by many of his peers.
Click to expand...
An issue with many atheists.

Folks like to get on their high horse....whatever their beliefs.
 
The assumption is that intelligence is an emergent quantity of brain activity. Therefore there is no possibility of disembodied intelligence independent of matter. Therefore there is no possibility of intelligent design. Because humans are the highest embodied intelligence in the universe we know of – unless we encounter intelligent aliens.

Alternative it all happened by random chance, with the exact series of almost infinitely unlikely multiple 'fine tuning' coincidences, exactly coinciding to allow consciousness.

The alternative? Oh, the Anthropic Principle: "The universe accommodates life and man because, if it were not so, man would not be around to perceive it."

Does that sound like science to you?

brain-cell-galaxy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Naturalist said:
I read the article and Gray is doing exactly what you accuse Dawkins of...going for the low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's a shame – that misses much of what's actually there. I rather see Gray as defending a philosophically-rigorous atheism against those who make it look trite.

I would ask maybe you would give Gray a second chance – I'm posting a link below.
 
RJM said:
But are confident to declare no possibility of intelligent design?
Click to expand...
We can't say there is no possibility of intelligent design, when the real answer is we don't know.

But we can say, it's high unlikely.

And calling the mechanism intelligent design as if that's a superior term to god, is just playing semantics.
 
Naturalist said:
We don't know what created the Universe. That's where we are. If we don't know, you don't get to declare by fiat your concocted answer.
Click to expand...
You've yet to actually reason that positing God is unreasonable.

Naturalist said:
There certainly is evidence for life's beginnings, take a biology course.
Click to expand...
Oh quite ... and life began quite a long time after the birth of the universe ... but that's really not the question, is it?

Naturalist said:
3. The Universe may be infinite, we don't know. Or it could have come from something, like a black hole in a prior Universe. Lots of possibilities. But we can't get the evidence at this time. So we don't know.
Click to expand...
Which is why we ask questions.

But if one is going to insist that answer must conform to certain a priori principles, to arrive at the answer you happen to favour, then that's intellectually dishonest.

Or put another way – I believe in God, I just don't believe in the God you think is unreasonable – I think the God you have in mind is quite a primitive concept.
 
EricPH said:
We have life today, so life started somehow. If you can prove abiogenesis, there is still $10 million up for grabs.

www.herox.com

Evolution 2.0 AI & Origin of Life Challenge, $10M Prize | HeroX

Where did life and the genetic code come from? Can the answer build superior AI? The #1 mystery in science now has a $10 million prize.
www.herox.com www.herox.com
Click to expand...
I can't prove it, be we have enough evidence surrounding it, that that is the most likely answer....it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, though not 100%.
 
Thomas said:
You've yet to actually reason that positing God is unreasonable.


Oh quite ... and life began quite a long time after the birth of the universe ... but that's really not the question, is it?


Which is why we ask questions.

But if one is going to insist that answer must conform to certain a priori principles, to arrive at the answer you happen to favour, then that's intellectually dishonest.

Or put another way – I believe in God, I just don't believe in the God you think is unreasonable – I think the God you have in mind is quite a primitive concept.
Click to expand...
It is unreasonable because no one can describe it, no one can provide a reasonable analogy, no one can describe how it accomplished whatever is claimed to have been accomplished.

Regarding life, I answered the question as I interpreted it. If the commenter wants to refine it, I'm good with that.

Regarding last comment and a priori .....I'm flabbergasted. My answer is "we don't know". Your answer is "God did it". You have arrived at an answer in your favor. NOT ME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top