Richard Dawkins

...good" could be defined as "what god wants" but the planet might still be in a mess.

Sure. But "what God wants" is NOT clearly definable.

If God exists (and does for the purposes of this argument) than what God
wants IS FACT. What we might think God wants is another matter altogether. I am referring to morality as "what God wants" . Faulty interpretation of that is a wholly different matter!

OK, so you can define it in the sense of "here's a statement that defines what's good". However, what's the point in a definition that is not actually usable in the real world? Sure, it's TECHNICALLY a definition but it's just as useless practically as none at all!

The fact that so many people are so convinced they know what God wants is the cause of a lot of bloodshed and has been throughout history.

I just dealt with this point as going off the topic of the FACT of a moral authority or natural law (whether secular or faith based) but i'll add that I already mentioned MUCH MORE people were killed by athiestic regimes than by religious ones!

I was really hopping to avoid this pointless tangent. You can't prove that any more than Dawkins can prove the opposite. It's a great argument for getting people all hot under the collar and achieving nothing. It's really a very childish argument that boils down to "no you're badder than we are".

There have been lots of wars. Some that have been REALLY about religion, some that have been pretened about religion but really about money. Some that are about egos. Some that are persecuting people because they believe in A God rather than none, some persecuting people because they believe in the wrong God or because they express their belief for the right God in the wrong way. And on and on and on.

There are lots of wars started by lots of people, some atheist, some not. There's not much point in even trying to quantify the numbers on either side. Both sides won't even agree on what wars were and were not about religion.

It's that undeniable fact that leads Dawkins to his conclusion that religion is the greatest source of evil.

well he is quite clearly logically WRONG then since MORE people died because of athiestic regimes! LESS = NOT greatest!

Unproven.

Before we go down that tangent I just want to say that I don't agree. There are plenty of non-religious evil SOBs and plenty of very good religious people.

But the tangent being "religion is bad for society". Now I was trying to stay with "science is sufficient" which is why I asked you for example from where the idea of the holocaust being wrong flows?

Well since I have explicitly stated that I do not believe science is sufficient there's really not much point in sticking to that!

I have given my answer on the holocost. I'm not going to waste electrons repeating myself.

Does science have absolute standards or is it all made up depending on the mood at the time?

Yes, science does have absolute standards, but it does not deal with morality. Were you just quoting me out of context there? Did you just try to take my statement about morals and apply it to science? I really hope not.

That's my whole point. We all have our own internal standards. By my standards, and those of the majority of people, certainly in the western world, it was wrong.

So your own internal standard is what is right. what is "good for you" is "good"? But isnt that the very basis of Facism which brought Hitler to power? Telling people what is good for them as opposed to democratic elections?

No. ENFORCING your standards on everyone, that is fascism. Also, my moral compass is not "what ever is good for me goes". To be honest I take extreme offence at that implication.

Again you build up a straw man. You put a quote in my mouth and then argue against that rather than what I actually said. Please stop that.

And why are you referring to a "majority of people"? Where did this come from? Are you now saying "good" is what the majority of peoplw decide? If it isnt then how do you judge the holocaust? By what standard?

What part of "there is not absolute standard" so you not understand? You keep trying to twist what I say into defining an absolute standard when I quite clearly told you I do not believe there is one.

Our internal senses of right and wrong line up very similarly.

how does this "sense" work? what units does it measure? If it is scientifically explainable then please tell me the principles it follows and what they are based on?

You know perfectly well what a sense is. You are just being obtuse now. I don't claim science is the answer to everything so stop trying to argue with me as if I claim it is. I DO NOT.

But not the same. If they did then we would all agree on matters moral. We don't. Just look at the world around us!

But this is an argument FOR religion! Actually fairly much all the religions of the world agree on a similar set of moral standards. Much much more so then even the legal systems of different countries!

A SIMILAR set. Not the same set! How do Catholics feel about the death penalty? Rather different to many branches of Islam where it is required to deal with the "sin" of homosexuality.

That's pretty divergent! I could go on.

I made no argument in favour of organised religion. I have real issues with many organised religions. They are often abused to spread hate and fear and many set themselves directly against a "live and let live" philosophy preferring to enforce their way on everyone. Would you say that's a facist outlook?

Fair enough, you insist in calling it natural law. I don't believe it exists as anything more than an average of all our internal moral compasses.

Which is a valid definition as "what most practitioners subscribe to". which is also a valid definition of a mainstream religion with dogma. and indeed a science.

Dogma is a science now? That's at the very least highly debateable.

What experimentation and observation is Dogma based on? Can you give an example of how a piece of Dogma can be tested against reality? How many experiments in Dogma have their been?

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

Personally, I am guided by a principal of live and let live. I disagree with biggotry, racism and other forms discrimination of discrimination.

But that is a PERSONAL belief! What is the evidence that this principle of tolerance is good for humanity?

When did I claim it was? It's not something I have evidence for but since I never tried to claim my personal morals were good for humanity that's hardly surprising.

You asked how I am guided, I told you. I expressly said it was personal. I went to great efforts to point that out so there's really no need to repeat that fact in all caps and with an exclamation mark. I KNOW it's personal, I TOLD YOU IT WAS!

Direct observation. We observe empathy. I feel it. I don't see how you can deny the existence of empathy.

So "feelings" are valid evidence for existence are they? What if I feel god exists?

Empathy is am emotional thing so yes, feelings are indeed valid evidence of the existence of feelings. When I feel happy it is evidence that happiness exists. I feel empathy, that's sufficient to prove to me that the phenomenon is real. If you've never felt empathy then you are free not to believe me. I'm in no doubt however. You could also ask around. I'm pretty confident you'll find lots of others who have also felt empathy. Again, further proof that the feeling of empathy exists.

Basing arguments on pretending real observed effects don't exist is rather pointless. It's not an avenue I have the time to go down.

But one can argue that one persons observations of empathy are anothers proof of divine inspiration.

I'm not sure you can. I'm not in any way claiming I know WHY we feel empathy. I'm making no claim apart from the fact that the phenomenon exists. If you want to interpret it as divine inspiration you are free to do so. However, you have no proof.

OI! Don't put words in my mouth. I did NOT say anything about economics.

Game theory! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in the context of economics

Exactly. You CAN use game theory in economics. That does NOT make it a branch of economics. Economics is one APPLICATION of game theory. Your attempt to fob off my argument by calling it economics was yet another example of your love of setting up strawmen. Simply put, it's bad debating and downright bad manners.

That's what's called a straw-man falacy. Pretend I'm arguing something I amn't and then attacking that imagined argument.

that whats called a definition of "game theory" ! Whatever were you referring to when you referred to "game theory"?

I was referring to the branch of mathematics called game theory. As in, I said exactly what I meant but you twisted it into something else. Something easier to dismiss. But something I didn't say. Poor show.

I said game theory. It's a branch of computer science and mathematics. It most certainly is science.

Mathematics is not science! It is formal logic! And computer "science" one can construe to be engineering. But leve that aside and care to tell me how game theory shows anything mitigating in favour of co operation?

Theoretical computer science is a branch of mathematics that was around LONG before computers were. You are mixing up the engineering of computational machines with actual computer science. Read up on people like Turing, Church and Godel.

As for mathematics not being science. It's the basis for science. It's a part of science. In many ways it cannot be extracted from science. Science is a form of logical thinking. How can you remove logic from science?

That's a pretty weak argument.

I'd suggest you have a read of the truely excellent book "Complexity - the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos" (or something like that, I can dig up the full reference if you like). Despite being a book mainly about computer science it has a lot to say about maths, biology and even economics since you seem to show an interest in it.

Yes. But we are not discussing what I should be reading, but about YOU supporting YOUR claims about game theory. I fail to see how it proves co operation is better. where does it?

I've already given you my answer to this. Please re-read my earlier posts. I'm not going to repeat myself any more.

Indeed there IS! Where in that work does it prove that evolution mitigates in favour of co-operation?

I never said it PROVED anything. I said that the book lays out in great detail the experiments which have been done which show that it is possible for evolution to produce cooperation.

Just because experiments show evolution COULD have engineered in evolution does not mean it DID. And I never said it did.

The experiments are described in detail in the book. I found it very interesting and illuminating. If you want to know more, go read.

Like I have already said, my point was not to try to prove that any of these things are true but to point you towards areas of scientific investigation that are relevant. These are on-going studies, there are not definite answers yet. The exploration is ongoing ... that's what makes science exciting and fun.

My point was not to convince you that this is correct, but to point you towards some related fields of scientific study you may find interesting.

So you therefore withdraw you claim as unsupported do you?

One can't withdraw what one never put forward as a claim. Again we have you arguing with what you wished I'd said rather than with what I've actually said. Stop that please!

Simple put, you asked if science has anything to say about this stuff, I pointed you at the relevant areas that I'm familiar with.

If you are familiar with it and claim something themn where is your supporting evidence?

*head -> desk* in the book! That's the POINT of giving a reference. You know, you don't just repeat eveything you point people at where it's already been laid out.

I clearly asked you from wher the source of morals flows. You went into hgame theory as an example of science proving co operation was a better option (which you havent supported) which is making a case that science can explain morality.

I said that there is scientific research going on which is uncovering a POTENTIAL biological explanation for morality. POTENTIAL and ON GOING. I most certainly did support it. I offered a reference. I told you where you could go to find out more.

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

Which is just what you stated you were not tryiong to do!
There may be such an argument but you have as yet to make it or support it!

I have stuck in some bold into my quoted text so that you won't miss the key points yet again.

Please explain how you support your claim abnout "game theory" . I'll bet you will bring up an example from economics. If not let us see where it takes you in proving co operation.

Read the bloody book already! And don't assume. It just results in pointless arguments. It has nothing what so ever to do with economics.

The experiments related to "virtual life". You set up a simple model of a biological system and let it evolve in the computer and see what happens. You do this millions of time and literally play God with the virtual universes you create. You tweak the laws that govern your virtual universe and you try to derive global laws which apply in all worlds in which there is an evolutionary mechanism. Sort of like climate modeling. It does not tell you what happened or what will definitely happen but it tells you what could have happened and may even be able to put numerical bounds on the probablilities of things happening.

If you want to get the full details of these experiments you should read the book. Trust me, it is a fascinating read. The book itself does contain economics, but the relevant bit is no based on economics. Like I said, the book is about complexity theory which has many applications including in the areas of biology, computer science, mathematics and economics.

No one in here is saying that science has all the answers.

I believe I have given sufficient quotes showinf at least SOMe have. But the main point is Dawkings (whom I also quoted) DOES!

Yes, Dawkins does. That's why, like you, I don;t agree with him. I got the impression from how you chose to quote me an your replied to my quotes that you were arguing under the assumption that I support scientism. If I was wrong please say so and we can move on.

Bart.

But not morally superiour. Nor is it acceptable to dismiss religious spiritual or artistic knowledge as "juju" or "superstition".

Agreed.

I do not agree that science has all the answers.

there is only one. It apparently is "42"

LMAO, love it! ... Douglas Adams rocks!

Where you and I seem to diverge is on the following points:

1) The need for the existence of God to explain the world around us
2) The role of faith in science.

Well now we are getting somewhere.

for 1 read
The existance of an overarching moral authoriry whether that necissitate a God or not.

and in 2 you are already aware of the Nemsis theory. Let me ask you. does Muller believe in Nemsis? Even though there is NO evidence? Is it science none the less? His faith in Nemesis?

HE has faith in Nemesis. But science does not. He says it himself. No one should believe him until there is evidence. That's why I chose to quote the part of that article that I did in that other thread.

Scientists are people. They are not purely scientific beings, they are regular humans and have many dimensions to them. Individual scientists are driven by beliefs, but they are driven to prove their beliefs in a scientifically accurate way. A scientist will not expect you to take anything on faith. If he can't produce the evidence then he knows you shouldn't believe him till he does.

The point is I don't know what the story is with God or Gods. I can't and won't make categorical statements on the matter.

You just did!

Huh?

However, I also don't believe science has all the answers. It doesn't, what it is is our current best-guess at how the physical universe works. That best guess is however 100% rooted in reality, not faith.

good points . Names aside, we have much in common. I am reminded of Plato's Cave.

Thanks!

Bart.

i had a very long reply which took in each of you points and when i wnet to post had to log back in and lost it!


All i ahve left is:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#shifting

I'm not even going to bother commenting on every point, I'll make my own instead:

1. There is not now and has never been a need to explain everything. Some humans have a desire to do so, which can be a symptom of fear caused by all the bad thing that happen around them, some don't. Those who fear the world around them tend to seek the reassurance of certain types of religion, politics or scientism. Those who don't have that fear yet want to explain the world around them tend to be scientists.

2. Science can never be a belief or a dogma. Those are features of religion and politics either of which can become the antithesis of science if taken to extremes, or of scientism, which is the antithesis of science. Science is a search for knowledge at the core of which is an acceptable that many theories may require modification, or may in fact be entirely wrong. The moment scientific opinion becomes a belief or a dogma it ceases to be science.

In my opinion Mr Dawkins appears to be a believer in scientism, which I place in the same category as religious and political beliefs that depend on the negative, the destructive and the fearful for their existence. Out with all of them I say.

Lads
You really have to much free time on your hands,
This thread must win the award for the longest (and some might say confusing ) posts in these board :lol: :lol:

This thread must win the award for the longest (and some might say confusing ) posts in these board :lol: :lol:

You read my mind!