tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post8931386378674806159..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: BOOK CLUB: The God Delusion, chpt 5.Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55643359937399686952011-12-06T19:47:57.199+00:002011-12-06T19:47:57.199+00:00Conjecture - please provide evidence that atheism ...Conjecture - please provide evidence that atheism is a trait of the "fittest."<br /><br />"Bullshit beliefs" - the lack of professionalism makes it very difficult to take this poster seriously.Wesman Todd Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04683447463178515052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15597801343049886052008-10-10T06:12:00.000+00:002008-10-10T06:12:00.000+00:00Yes, that's probably true. Death is the great tabo...Yes, that's probably true. Death is the great taboo of our modern "civilisation" [a question-begging term!]. We all need a philosophy of dying as well as a philosophy of living. <BR/><BR/>At 81, I know I shall die quite soon and I have been living with a couple of more specific terminal illnesses for the past four years. I am not bothered about being dead, and will deal with any "afterwards" - if there IS an afterwards - as best I can when I get there. <BR/><BR/>I am, though, very concerned about the manner of my dying, and have done my best to ensure that it will be in a well cared for atmosphere. I visit a Marie Curie Hospice regularly, where I get wonderful support from the staff and meet other patients. None of them are keen about dying, but their attitudes to it vary. I have seen some stoical - even serene - run-ups to death, and known others who were very frightened, while being as brave as they could in the face of it. I do my best to use my counselling skills, and such philosophy as I can muster, to help my fellow-patients to keep as cheerful as we can, and you might be surprised at the amount of laughter there is during our weekly social get-togethers.<BR/><BR/>Reverting to the issue of "Why?" my own view is that it is an over-used question which is sometimes useful, but is often trotted out and pondered over fruitlessly when it would be far more to the point to ask "What?", "Where?", "How?", "Who?" etc. <BR/><BR/>For instance, in the current financial meltdown it is far more urgent to ask oneself "what is happening?" and perhaps "What should I do with my money?" - a question I've been asked increasingly frequently in recent weeks - than "Why is it happening?" <BR/>[The answer to that is fairly obvious: namely, that for far too long bankers and financial institutions have recklessly encouraged millions of people to borrow money they couldn't afford to].anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21948898985741339002008-10-09T14:30:00.000+00:002008-10-09T14:30:00.000+00:00Anticant, why do we need to know the WHY of anythi...Anticant, <BR/><BR/>why do we need to know the WHY of anything? What exactly strikes you nonsensical? <BR/><BR/>I would imagine the heart of the reason for belief in the supernatural is the response to a keenly felt need. This is undoubtedly partially the need to explain the unexplained. If this were the sum of it though we would likely have a lot more scientists and lot fewer religious believers. I suspect mortality and our unique ability to understand its inevitability is the real driving force behind religion. We don't want to die and we don't want our loved ones to die. We do and they do. We need to feel better about this.....I know...GOD...heaven etc. etc. etc. So you could say that religion is not born of the desire to explain what don’t understand, it is instead born of the desire to explain away that which we understand all to well. Would it be going to far to suggest that religion is nothing more than embellished existential cowardice?The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48986886251752250962008-10-09T11:24:00.000+00:002008-10-09T11:24:00.000+00:00Hi Kyle SWe are definitely going to have to do thi...Hi Kyle S<BR/><BR/>We are definitely going to have to do this Plantinga stuff at some point!<BR/><BR/>vv sorry about delays with posts. I am having a total nightmare with work....Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-32723911763404576462008-10-09T11:12:00.000+00:002008-10-09T11:12:00.000+00:00Why think that these processes that generate irrat...Why think that these processes that generate irrational beliefs found in religion only apply to religious believers.<BR/><BR/>How are we supposed to disgtinguish between beliefs generated by rational thought, and beliefs generated by this faulty mechanism that has been conferred upon us by evolution.<BR/><BR/>However, if we all have this tendency to form irrational beliefs then doesn't what Dawkins is saying undermine his own beliefs just as much as they do the theists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83783267069129638662008-10-09T08:35:00.000+00:002008-10-09T08:35:00.000+00:00AnticantI don't assume or even think it that likel...Anticant<BR/><BR/>I don't assume or even think it that likely that merely explaining things is going to be the whole solution. I am simply of the opinion that armed with better knowledge of the causes and processes which contribute to this formation and maintenance of this family of irrational beliefs we will be better able to intervene in effective and humane ways. I am not calling for inaction simply being aware that acting in ignorance is at best less effective and at worst counter productive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21822366777645708692008-10-08T17:35:00.000+00:002008-10-08T17:35:00.000+00:00I don't think it's "of course" at all. You seem to...I don't think it's "of course" at all. You seem to assume that if we, the "rational" people, explain to the "nonsensical" people why they are being nonsensical, they will stop.<BR/><BR/>This is a total non sequitur.<BR/><BR/>What we have to do is to combat the nonsense, and curb its ill consequences as best we can. If we wait to do this until we know "why" people believe it, we won't get anywhere.<BR/><BR/>I don't care "why" Islamic fundamentalists believe that Allah is telling them to fight infidels: I simply wish to stop them damaging me and us.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20254756918772536042008-10-08T13:43:00.000+00:002008-10-08T13:43:00.000+00:00Why do we need to know...?So we can try to stop th...Why do we need to know...?<BR/><BR/>So we can try to stop them doing it of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85303600814211066012008-10-08T13:22:00.000+00:002008-10-08T13:22:00.000+00:00Why do we need to know WHY people believe nonsense...Why do we need to know WHY people believe nonsense? This strikes me as nonsense.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11723832041537813092008-10-08T09:25:00.000+00:002008-10-08T09:25:00.000+00:00anticant -The research to date has, I think, been ...anticant -<BR/><BR/>The research to date has, I think, been largely observational rather than experimental. plenty of records of cults developing, anthropological studies etc. but not too much of the experimental stuff until fairly recently. For sure we have years of hard science investigating the truth of the believers claims about the real world but not a great deal in practical terms on how they actually come to believe nonsense. We have plenty of theories but I don't see anything which enables me to examine a believer and say with much confidence "the person holds this irrational belief because of x, and we can prove this by administering this test" and more usefully to follow up with a prescription for a course of treatment which will make it go away.<BR/><BR/>We don't even really know if it is entirely preventable, if not curable.<BR/><BR/>The parallel here is with smoking surely. We have known it's bad for most people for a good while. We suspected for much longer but deluded ourselves, sometimes helped by many of the same arguments in favour of religion ("millions of others do it". "my doctor does it", "it feels good"). I think the expression "smokers cough" had been around well before laboratory tests started in earnest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82102231621682535432008-10-07T17:46:00.000+00:002008-10-07T17:46:00.000+00:00Surely there's already an abundance of research an...Surely there's already an abundance of research and reflection upon this, going back to Frazer's "Golden Bough" and beyond.<BR/><BR/>Is not one potent factor humanity's need to make sense of the mysterious? In prehistoric times, divinities of various kinds were dreamed up to explain otherwise unaccountable events and phenomena. <BR/><BR/>During the past 400 years, more scientific thinking has progressively shrunk the realm of the mysterious, but the ultimate mystery of how we came to exist and - in some people's opinion - the need to find reasons for our existence, remain unexplained.<BR/><BR/>This still leaves plenty of scope for irrational thinking, as is abundantly demonstrated on Stephen's blog.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23342209010915229482008-10-07T13:53:00.000+00:002008-10-07T13:53:00.000+00:00CC - I take it you mean trying to isolate which pa...CC - I take it you mean trying to isolate which particular mechanism is responsible? Recognizing, of course, that it may in fact be none of the ones suggested by RD. <BR/><BR/>I strongly suspect it may be some combination of most of them or possibly different ones at different times. Probably different subsets apply to different sorts of religion and different types of believer (strong belief or "belief in belief").<BR/><BR/>Plenty of research to be done if you can get a grant and some decent test subjects...and get it past an ethics committee as well of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37109582429195153482008-10-07T09:18:00.000+00:002008-10-07T09:18:00.000+00:00Discussing the mechanisms by which religious belie...Discussing the mechanisms by which religious beliefs (or potentially any other kind of unfounded beliefs) arise is not even close to the same thing an explaination for religious belief itself. Specifically religious belief that is.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-29076429557860137532008-10-06T17:20:00.000+00:002008-10-06T17:20:00.000+00:00Quite, but it is rarely possible to reason cocksur...Quite, but it is rarely possible to reason cocksure credulous believers out of their faith. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins vs. Palin on prime time TV - now THERE'S a thought!anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43552203150067392622008-10-06T15:03:00.000+00:002008-10-06T15:03:00.000+00:00CC I think RD stopped short on the basis that he (...CC<BR/><BR/> I think RD stopped short on the basis that he (and everyone else) doesn't know. But then he doesn't need to know the detail in order to make the main point of the chapter, that current theory is sufficient to explain theistic belief and its development in our species, without the requirement that there actually be a God behind it all.<BR/> <BR/> RD quite often refers to 'truth' and 'facts' in a way that many theist critics latch on to, to make claims that he and similar atheists are being dogmatic, or that 'science' is a religion - as if, if that were the case, that then RD would be in no position to criticise equally dogmatic theists. They seem to miss the irony that if indeed both positions were equally dogmatic there would simply be two equally poorly argued and evidenced positions.<BR/> <BR/> But of course this isn't RD's position. He often states, as he does in his TGD book, and more recently on his TV programme on Darwin, that his position is 'all but 100%' certain - the evidence for God and arguments for God are so weak, and evidence and arguments for alternative explanations for reqligious belief and religious experiences are sufficiently strong, that there is no good reason to believe in God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11039815765507965606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83867574084191379362008-10-06T14:54:00.000+00:002008-10-06T14:54:00.000+00:00celtic chimp - How vs Why.Isn't that whats the Dar...celtic chimp - How vs Why.<BR/><BR/>Isn't that whats the Darwinian approach is all about. There isn't a "why". Just lots of competing "how"s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78349468883943545942008-10-06T11:53:00.000+00:002008-10-06T11:53:00.000+00:00I kind of thought Dawkins dodged the question a li...I kind of thought Dawkins dodged the question a little on this one. I think he makes a lot of sense describing the possible mechanisms by which religious belief might arise and propogate but I don't see much explanation about <I>why</I> religious beliefs and belief of that nature i.e. supernatural/dieistic in particular should arise.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-42876692142114894142008-10-05T02:33:00.000+00:002008-10-05T02:33:00.000+00:00What is the scientific poo-poo you claim Dawkins i...What is the scientific poo-poo you claim Dawkins is peddling?anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70434853808344783182008-10-04T10:45:00.000+00:002008-10-04T10:45:00.000+00:00...and there are irrational scientists. Bad theist......and there are irrational scientists. Bad theists are a problem for religion, but irrational scientists are a similar problem for science, especially when there is irrational agreement amongst them. It means that while science is in general a good thing, some of what actual science says is poo-poo. (Examples that are current are controversial.) The philosophical question is to determine how much scientific poo-poo there is. Unfortunately, Dawkins is clearly intent upon adding to it instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75425947856750865362008-10-03T14:07:00.000+00:002008-10-03T14:07:00.000+00:00You are right Wombat. Consciousness makes the ques...You are right Wombat. <BR/><BR/>Consciousness makes the question meaningful, which is why I framed it that way. A universe without consciousness doesn't make sense to anyone.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22236694759063304032008-10-03T10:38:00.000+00:002008-10-03T10:38:00.000+00:00...the point is, even under theism we are also pol......the point is, even under theism we are also political animals. Few theists believe that all Popes were perfect. We can have bad theists as well as bad atheists. Maybe we believe there are fewer of them on average or something like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77246859597310389562008-10-03T10:35:00.000+00:002008-10-03T10:35:00.000+00:00To tell the truth, it was the same Stephen (the La...To tell the truth, it was the same Stephen (the Law man) but in the wrong place (since there it made sense of the following quote of him); but if, in virtue (or vice) of being in the wrong place, it implied that I was Stephen then that would, if not simply a false ascription, be a more fictional Stephen, one invented for the purpose of continuity (without falsity) with that quote. (Simple really.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-35767080496857049122008-10-03T10:32:00.000+00:002008-10-03T10:32:00.000+00:00...that was a different, more fictional Stephen :)......that was a different, more fictional Stephen :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22803598409877962872008-10-03T10:30:00.000+00:002008-10-03T10:30:00.000+00:00assuming that these explanations do have much to t...<I>assuming that these explanations do have much to them, to what extent is this really a threat to the reasonableness of religious belief? To what extent does this kind of causal explanation of religious belief threaten its claims to truth?</I><BR/><BR/>And then I said... Obviously a lot. Similarly, if we regard the world as flat because that is how our brains evolved, on a roundish planet, then the world is not so much flat as roundish. That is, the explanations that we are being asked to presume presuppose the falsity of much religious belief.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, similar explanations could account for much of the political aspects of religions, and leave the more metaphysical aspects untouched. Indeed, they could explain much of the falsity of religious beliefs in a theistic way (although Dawkins would not like to do so). Similarly, we need not stop believing that there is a world, and that it is largely as we think it is (that flat-looking ocean really is wet and full of fish).<BR/><BR/>There are nice parallels with science too. Our brains have evolved (atheistically or theistically) so that we postulate on certain kinds of things, e.g. enduring particles with constant intrinsic properties. To what extent would a Naturalistic account of such postulating undermine belief in the scientific theories that are written in terms of such particles?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45849542432048072512008-10-03T09:15:00.000+00:002008-10-03T09:15:00.000+00:00Paul P. MealingI'm all in favour of looking for ot...Paul P. Mealing<BR/><BR/>I'm all in favour of looking for other life in the Universe. It's a worthwhile enterprise on many levels. <BR/><BR/>I think though that consciousness makes the question "What is the point?" meaningful, rather than being an answer to it. <BR/><BR/>You said "Imagine the universe with no consciousness at all, and then ask yourself: what’s the point?". Assuming I achieve the first part, how (by whom) is the question to be asked?<BR/><BR/>It seems like a sort of epistemic big bang with the "Whats the point?" bit taking the place of the "What happened before that?" in the conventional cosmic version.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com