Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 1. They display a tremendous emotional
> attachment to their belief-system; and,
>
> 2. They are extremely hostile to, and
> intolerant of, anyone who criticizes or fails
> fully to share their belief-system.



Aye, this is valid criticism of Dawkins, but I don't think it follows that he is wrong nor that this is the same as religious fundamentalism. Religious fundamentalism is defined by more than just these observations and so is Dawkins and I don't see that they both necessarily overlap. For a start, I hold that Dawkins' has came to his decisions via a very different route than religious fundamentalists. But more importantly, aren't you using the same rhetoric as Dawkins to support your world-view. Okay your world view might be more nebulous, even if it seems that you are defining your world view by what you stand against (Dawkins). I could be wrong, but your posts don't appear to entirely lack emotion nor hostility. Nothing wrong in this, it shows passion. But I'd argue that that is all Dawkins is really guilty of.

> In addition, and as I have also mentioned before,
> it should be obvious that scientific evidence and
> empiricism do not reach us "pure". The senses and
> the cerebral surface impose considerable
> limitations. So do the instruments that scientists
> use to measure phenomena. In addition, much prior
> social, cultural, and intellectual conditioning
> prepares us for the reception of the scientific
> method and its concepts as the sole media of
> "truth".

That's fine. Science isn't everything. Like everything humans say and do it's just chewing-gum for the brain/thought experiments really. Stuff to do before we die. Like art, religion, philosophy, politics, etc... Our brain is nothing but a virtual reality-generating device, so what the actual universe is 'really' like and what we perceive are totally different, sure. This, I may add, is something that scientists frequently say themselves. However there is a shared/consensual reality, which we call objective reality. Obviously this shared reality is driven by the similarities of our brains and shared cultural perspectives. No doubt Dawkins would have been considered insane if he went back a few hundred years (or less) in time. Regardless of the debate about the validity of the scientific method, Dawkins' subjective reality is more in harmony with the greater shared reality of both the physical observations of our virtual reality unit/brain and our culture.

> For these reasons, I respectfully disagree that
> most scientists display the sort of
> open-mindedness that, say, CAS had. Today, we are
> thoroughly brainwashed from elementary school
> forward that "Science = Truth". I do not like
> Creationists any better than you do, but
> Creationists have a long way to go before they can
> exert the sort of propagandizing influence on
> young minds that scientific materialism currently
> has in the school curriculum. Of course, once upon
> a time, the religionists held sway in the
> classroom, so perhaps today's over-reaction is
> merely repayment, in kind.

You've probably summed it up all quite well, although very rhetorically. I think there could/should be more room for questioning/debating things in school. But let's face it that's not how mass education works. We are taught simple facts to memories and repeat verbatim. Maybe elitist private education is different, I don't know. However (and I don't think you are saying this, but I do think that Dawkins argument is built on this fear, from which he's drawn a line in the sand that he feels he has to defend at all costs), I don't believe that Creationism should or deserves to be taught along side Evolution (other than to show a historical context) in a science class. That doesn't mean that we have to live our lives out by following the scientific method, but that does mean that what we teach as science should. The Creationist scientific case is flawed. Is there room in the wider school curriculum to teach other world views? Yes, I believe so. I'm not sure where Dawkins stands on this. Out of interest in the first year of my environmental science degree the head of year who taught many of the core modules provided links to online Creationist material to provide an alternative perspective. He did not teach it as scientific fact, he did not believe in it, but he didn't deny its existence. How wide spread this approach is, I don't know, but this is hardly the approach of systematic 'brain washing' in my opinion.

> One thing, however, is certain: McLuhan's
> observation that, if a fish were asked to name the
> features of its environment, the last thing it
> would identify as such would be water. In the same
> way, scientific materialism so pervades this
> culture that it has become an invisible "given",
> something so "self-evident" that it is beyond
> questioning.

I agree, it's lazy. But we're all human and occasionally prone to generalizing or making assumptions at times. It shouldn't be taken personally.

> And when one does question this
> belief-system, one meets with reactions ranging
> from incredulity, to sarcasm, to outright anger.
> (Do you need evidence? Then look at the replies on
> the topic in this very forum!) What do such
> reactions remind you of? To me, they recall the
> emotional reactions of an offended religious
> believer.

I think you are being unfair to this topic. The only reason I got involved with it was that it seemed quite well balanced and unheated. Of course all our posts are written quickly and at times maybe we're not all as respectful as we might be, but it is after all just a forum. I hope my posts aren't just 'incredulity, to sarcasm, to outright anger.' I'll apologies before hand for this post, because I'm writing it in a hurry as I've got some where I have to go. Apologies for the sloppy spelling, grammar too, which is a worse offence!

> In any case, I repeat that the way of conventional
> religion versus the way of scientific materialism
> is a false dichotomy, and I choose neither.

That's totally fair enough to say that it is false in regard that they aren't the only mind set available, however I think it is fair to say that these two extremes are where the debate is t right now. However I'd say that it is worth remembering who's standing at each side of this dichotomy and it's worth thinking about who you might like to hold power over the debate: a secular society driven by liberal ideals and scientific rationalism (at the risk of being occasionally patronised) or one built on superstition and dogma (at the risk of...).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Oct 09 | 06:52AM by The English Assassin.

Science is not a belief system. Science is not a substitue for religion any more than sawdust is a substitue for instant coffee. The Scientific Method is not dogma, it's a rigorous method for taking evidence and using it to construct hypotheis, which may then lead to theories, which may then lead to laws.

Logic doesn't change, only the conclusions that result from its use.

If you don't like the way Dawkins presents science, it may be that he has to come across so forcefully to overcome the fact that people are told <whiny voice>science is hard</whiny voice>. Science isn't hard, not at the level taught in grade schools, but because it's given such little respect in the school system (at least in the US) grade schools are churning out students who think biologists believe in evolution because "that's what they've been told", that there is a vast conspiracy between the completely separate branches of geology, astronomy, and biology to discredit the idea of a young Earth (an idea which does not deserve the term theory), and that Big Bang theory says the universe came from "nothing" (I'd hardly call a superdense ball that contains all the mass and energy in the universe "nothing") and that somehow the Big Bang is part of evolution.

Fer crissakes, these people don't even know the difference between astronomy and biology.

So, yes, Dawkins has his work cut out for him in trying to counter the people who lie to advance their own agenda - ironically, the same people who claim "don't lle" as one of their Big Ten Rules.

I think he comes across overly strong as well, but sometimes toe only way to get through the thick skulls of some who will never be able to objectively analyze evidence on their own is to be "the pit bull of atheism".

I personally agree with Madog.

I have no issue with the discussion of religion or anything else with in the context of the sites general theme (Clark Aston Smith, his contemporaries, esoteric fiction et al.).

However this tread has moved from the context of the site to a general science vs religion debate. There are a near infinite number of other forums you can have this debate, if you wish.

So, I'm closing this thread. I'm sure it will come again, so please keep any future debates with in the site context.