Richard Dawkins

Thats fair enough Bart.

But I would like to make the following point.
I know who you are, and presumably you know me, through my previous posts and also because I have filled in my profile. Unlike some.

Either you are addressing that to me or you are indulging in ad hoiminem. which is it? My arguments stand independent of who makes them! If Hitler stated "The Mona is a good painting because...2 that would not mean it isnt because of who stated it would it? Guilt by association is only ad homionem in another form. Please stick with the issue.

I would hate to see these boards hijacked by unknowns who would not fill in their profiles and use these boards for fundamentalism.

How would you know? Did you go looking? Thats is partly WHY I didnt fill it in! I didnt want people judging what I state based on who i am! the comment should (like any scientific statement) stand on evidence provided and not on WHO states it!

The internet is a big pond and all the fish that swim therein are not all benign. I smell something fishy here and so will drop out of this dicussion.

After casting a lot of unsupported aspersions on my charachter you may refuse to support your own claimns if you wish. It still won't make them true.

As for my part . I am as sceptical of scientism as I am of kook cults and pseudo science.

People don't need religion to tell them what's right or wrong.

so it IS an appeal to secular natural law! If it isn't them care to show me how to scientifically derive this woman's behaviour.

No, it is not an appeal to a secular natural law. It is a a simple observation of reality. There are plenty of people who do not believe in religion but who can still tell right from wrong.

So waht is the definition of "right2 and "wrong"? According to what principles? For example was what the NAZIs did to jews slavs and gypsies wrong? according to what principle was it wrong?

What you are making It IS an appeal to natural law.

Im just trying to point out two things.

1. the nature of scientism and the related assumption of the "certainty" of science.
2. christianity in particular (but mainstream religion in genersl) is NOT like kook cults juju or other such groups.

You strike me as an inteligent person. So you must know that there is no such thing as a clearly definable right and wrong. If there was this planet wouldn't be such a mess.

I'm not appealing to any natural law. I am stating the FACT, borne out by EVIDENCE, that religious people do not have a monopoly on moral compasses. Whether or not you believe in one or more Gods does not determine whether or not you have morals.

No one can prove WHY we have morals but there are some insights I'd like to share. Firstly, I think empathy is key. Humans can feel the pain of others. They can put themselves into other people's shoes. That makes it much harder to be a git than if there was no empathy.

Secondly, elementary game theory shows that cooperation is more productive in the long run than non-cooperation. That means that evolutionarily speaking those who are prepared to cooperate have an advantage. That kind of cooperation requires a moral compass to work.

So, there is an argument to be made that moral compasses could be engineered into us by evolution.

I'm not saying that is all there is to it. I'm not ruling out a God, but I am saying that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. What ever arguments you can make one way or another, you cannot say that we need a God to be good people.

Now, it's very clear you have FAR more time on your hands than I do. If you'd like me to continue this debate I'd appreciate it if you could treat everyone here with the respect with which you'd like to be treated.

Bart.

As for my part . I am as sceptical of scientism as I am of kook cults and pseudo science.

Just as a matter of interest, who in here is supporting scientism? You seem dead keen to argue against it but I don't see anyone arguing for it!

I've made direct points which seem to go un-noticed. Perhaps this discussion would be more productive if everyone took part in the conversation we are actually having through the content of the posts in this thread rather than posting responses to some imaginary argument that no one here has actually made.

Bart.

You strike me as an inteligent person. So you must know that there is no such thing as a clearly definable right and wrong. If there was this planet wouldn't be such a mess.

that is not necessarily true! for example (and I could provide the secular argument but I will resort to the religious one here) suppose god exists and is the definition of "morally good". Then lots of evil could still happen because god gives us free will. "good" could be defined as "what god wants" but the planet might still be in a mess.

A similar argument is that science tells us they we are destroying the planet. But even though all the scientific evidence is there foor all to see it does not stop us doing that does it?

I'm not appealing to any natural law.

So then was the WWII holocaust wrong or was it not? If it was wrong according to what standard was it wrong?

I am stating the FACT, borne out by EVIDENCE, that religious people do not have a monopoly on moral compasses. Whether or not you believe in one or more Gods does not determine whether or not you have morals.

So what? I have ALREADY stated that "natural law" may be treated as either a secular or religious concept.

On what evidence or principles do you base the fact of the NAZI atrocities being wrong?

No one can prove WHY we have morals but there are some insights I'd like to share. Firstly, I think empathy is key. Humans can feel the pain of others. They can put themselves into other people's shoes. That makes it much harder to be a git than if there was no empathy.

According to what scientific fact evidence or principles do humans have empathy? And even if they do have it what is there to mitigate in favour of not hurting people? how is it more likely that people will strive not to cause damage? I am reminded of the african tale of the scorpion and the frog.

Secondly, elementary game theory shows that cooperation is more productive in the long run than non-cooperation.

A branch of economics? Is that science? If you just deal with it mathematically then it depends how one adjusts the payoff Matrix! So I sugest it DOES NOT show co operation is more productive! Where in elementary game theory does that happen? I submit it is only when human values adjust the payoff matrix that co operation is more productive!

That means that evolutionarily speaking those who are prepared to cooperate have an advantage.

It would mean that if the premise is true but you haven't established that game theory does establish such a Premise.

That kind of cooperation requires a moral compass to work.

This is circular reasoning! You set out to prove morals and now you are saying it is based on morals exiating in the first place.

So, there is an argument to be made that moral compasses could be engineered into us by evolution.

Not based on unestablished premises from economics and circular reasoning there isn't!

I do however accept that one could suggest that (this isn't a proof or even evidene but what we wanbt to prove ) that "evolution mitigates in favour of 'moral' behaviour"

But then we are back to what is 'moral'? How does one scientifically define it? I suggest we have to look outside science into philosophy law or God help us - pun intended even Theology

I'm not saying that is all there is to it. I'm not ruling out a God, but I am saying that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass.

and Im not ruling that out either. It is called "secular natural law".

What ever arguments you can make one way or another, you cannot say that we need a God to be good people.

I just showed you why this is defunct. hte point I am making is that science isn't sufficient for society. Scientism does not accept this!

Now, it's very clear you have FAR more time on your hands than I do. If you'd like me to continue this debate I'd appreciate it if you could treat everyone here with the respect with which you'd like to be treated.

Where is your evidence, ANY EVIDENCE that I treated ANYONE in a disrespectfull way? As I recall I passed NO personal comments to anyone save in pointing out personal attacks on myself!

Just as a matter of interest, who in here is supporting scientism? You seem dead keen to argue against it but I don't see anyone arguing for it!

Eh! This was about Dawkings remember?
Here are some of the comments

If you want ammo to dispute logically the reasons for "belief in GOD" then read it now.

Religion especially in this country has rained supreme and blocked progress in science for years. My question is this: (Can religion fill the gaps that are missing or can we do that with science)?

Now he is just a fundamentalist atheist. On a par with fundamentalists of other religions who try to force their views onto others.

Sounds a bit like 'my religion is better than your religion because...'

He strikes me as being an evangelical Atheist and atheism flies in the face of the scientific method. Atheists are sure there is no God, that's not a position science supports. The natural position of science is agnosticism.

Scientism?
QED

I've made direct points which seem to go un-noticed.

Really? Which ones?

Perhaps this discussion would be more productive if everyone took part in the conversation we are actually having through the content of the posts in this thread rather than posting responses to some imaginary argument that no one here has actually made.

Bart.

Perhaps it would. Would you like to show how the few above quotes (NONE form me all from other people) taken from a sample of only half the first page of replies in this discussion (and we are now well into page 4) can all be said NOT to have anything to do with scientism?

You strike me as an inteligent person.

Keep falttering me and I may stop striking you.

So you must know that...

First of all being intelligent does not necessarily mean that people will be wise or knowledgeable.

Second, remember my earlier comment about astrologers and tarot readers who make sweeping statements like "we all of course know that..."

Do we know? How do we know it?