On Ron

[strativarius]

Yeah.

The punch line is that Dawkins clearly (per his writings) hasn't got an idea about God.

He's a walking, talking, straw man fallacy.

His whole argument is to misrepresent the concept of God and argue against that.

He presupposes a paradigm and then claims any views that do not fit his paradigm as invalid.

His book is full of such obsessive irrationalism I find it hard to believe he is a scientist.

God is not an entity like Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster that lacks sufficient evidence.

And Dawkins posits that since we have insufficient evidence of God then we have something less certain known as faith.

Dawkins doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

For one thing God differs from Big foot or UFOs because God is not a even a possible object of cognition.

Religious faith is not in the first place a matter of subscribing to the proposition that a Supreme Being exists.

God does not "exist" as an entity in the world.

Faith is mostly performative, not propositional.

Christians certainly believe that there is a God, but this is not what the credal statement "I believe in God" means.

It means more like a "I have faith in you."

Abraham and Job, whether apocryphal agents or not, had faith in God, but I doubt either could have imagined there wasn't a God.

The old legend is that the devils said God is real, they just didn't believe in him.

Faith is traditionally regarded as a question of certainty, not plausibility, intelligent guesswork, or speculation. And it is not regarded as inferior to knowledge.

I think it was Paul that said faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.

And with that, Dawkins is as much a man of faith in science and Hitchins a man of faith in freedom of speech as any Christian is with faith in Jesus Christ.

Dawkins knows cells. He has certain knowledge of cells.

He studies cells empirically. All his evidence is empirical.

Dawkins also claims that his knowledge of cells and their behavior is certain and predictable.

But empirical data is always particular. Even if he examined every cell in the world and all the cells that ever existed he still could not have necessary and bindinig knowledge of future cells.

There is no way, no way on earth, that empirical data is necessary and binding on the future. No way.

He has faith in his ideas, not proof, faith "the conviction of things unseen."

Actually there is a way, but he doesn't know it.

It is from Kant's Transcendental Idealism---Kant dribbles, he shoots at the buzzer, swish!--Kant wins, Team Dawkins is eliminated.

I suggest you read something other than Dawkins or Hitchens if you want to discredit religion.

Their attempts are disingenuous and deceptive.

Sam Harris is at least honest in his approach.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Dear The Anabaptist Jacques.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question and for going to the length you have in doing so.

Argue with you? I don't think so!

Stratty

Edit: Forgive me if my reply seems glib. I've read your reply several times and I'll read it several times more yet I think.

 

[gbuck]

Is he the guy that wrote "The Science delusion"?

I saw his video on TED, or that is, I saw his video that TED removed.

If its the same guy he makes the roughly the same point that Paul Feyabend and Ludwik Fleck make about the inconsistency and collective structure of science.

The Anabaptist Jacques

It's same book with different UK or US titles.
I get uncomfortable with the idea of having 'Authorities' on subjects.
Tom Cruise's statement that 'we are the authorities on the mind' is both creepy and distopian.
I appreciate that people can have a lot of knowledge.
Where and when did the idea of 'authorities' come about?

 

[gbuck]

I double posted, now trying to erase the second post
ah well.. carry on regardless

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

It's same book with different UK or US titles.
I get uncomfortable with the idea of having 'Authorities' on subjects.
Tom Cruise's statement that 'we are the authorities on the mind' is both creepy and distopian.
I appreciate that people can have a lot of knowledge.
Where and when did the idea of 'authorities' come about?

That idea probably goes back to the beginning of accumulated knowledge.

But I look at an expert as different than an authority.

An expert is someone who has intimate knowledge of a subject.

But an authority is someone who claims that his knowledge is the right knowledge.

The really smart and expert people on things, like Einstein, don't claim to be an authority because they know their knowledge is contingent.

It is usually others who point to them and call them the authority.

And I suppose people assume that if someone is an authority then his information must be right, because they don't understand that all empirical and a posteriori knowledge is contingent.

(But don't tell Dawkins I said that)

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Dear The Anabaptist Jacques.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question and for going to the length you have in doing so.

Argue with you? I don't think so!

Stratty

Edit: Forgive me if my reply seems glib. I've read your reply several times and I'll read it several times more yet I think.

Thanks.

I would drop Dawkins and Hitchens if you want to pursue this idea.

Go with Sam Harris.

Here's the difference: Hitchins and Dawkins use disparaging comments when framing the other person's viewpoint.

They also use perjurious comments of those they oppose through-out their discussion.

Hitchens is smoother and more clever at this than Dawkins.

But they do this to frame in the readers or listeners minds a negative context of the subject they are speaking against.

This is a rhetorical skill to prejudice the listener.

Sam Harris doesn't do that.

He is about content and context, not contempt.

The other point is that you should read both sides of the argument.

If you don't you'll just know one side and you won't understand fully for yourself the pros and cons of both sides.

From John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty":

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[strativarius]

Thanks.

I would drop Dawkins and Hitchens if you want to pursue this idea.

Go with Sam Harris.

Here's the difference: Hitchins and Dawkins use disparaging comments when framing the other person's viewpoint.

They also use perjurious comments of those they oppose through-out their discussion.

Hitchens is smoother and more clever at this than Dawkins.

But they do this to frame in the readers or listeners minds a negative context of the subject they are speaking against.

This is a rhetorical skill to prejudice the listener.

Sam Harris doesn't do that.

He is about content and context, not contempt.

The other point is that you should read both sides of the argument.

If you don't you'll just know one side and you won't understand fully for yourself the pros and cons of both sides.

From John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty":

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The Anabaptist Jacques

There's an instinctive feeling that somebody is in general terms echoing my sentiments vis-a-vis god and organised religion, and there's an intellectual rigour one can apply to these subjects that is well above my pay-grade so to speak. Dawkins and Hitchens seem to fulfil the former as far as I'm concerned, and as for the latter, well, I leave that to others.

I look forward to reading what the neuroscientist Sam Harris has to say.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There's an instinctive feeling that somebody is in general terms echoing my sentiments vis-a-vis god and organised religion, and there's an intellectual rigour one can apply these subjects that is well above my pay-grade so to speak. Dawkins and Hitchens seem to fulfil the former as far as I'm concerned, and as for the latter, well, I leave that to others.

I look forward to reading what the neuroscientist Sam Harris has to say.

What I am trying to convey is that there is a consistent intelligent approach to the subject.

There can never be any proof of God.

But lack of proof is not proof.

Some people believe so they understand; I need to understand in order to believe.

So now I understand.

But if I didn't examine both sides then I would be doing myself a disservice by taking the easy way out by only listening to what I want to hear.

It is a matter of searching for truth rather than self-satisfaction.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[gbuck]

What I am trying to convey is that there is a consistent intelligent approach to the subject.

There can never be any proof of God.

But lack of proof is not proof.

Some people believe so they understand; I need to understand in order to believe.

So now I understand.

But if I didn't examine both sides then I would be doing myself a disservice by taking the easy way out by only listening to what I want to hear.

It is a matter of searching for truth rather than self-satisfaction.

The Anabaptist Jacques

From what I've seen arguments exist in a games arena, and have agendas other than discovering truth.

Opposing ideas become more and more entrenched. Arguments have to be won or lost.

What is the actual value of winning an argument?
Yeah, some people get a buzz from being a winner, perhaps even believing that they have achieved some kind of status upgrade!

As has been said by someone a lot brighter than me, The question is not 'what to believe' but to ask yourself 'why you need to believe'.
In my experience that question opens up a genuine enquiry.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

From what I've seen arguments exist in a games arena, and have agendas other than discovering truth.

Opposing ideas become more and more entrenched. Arguments have to be won or lost.

What is the actual value of winning an argument?
Yeah, some people get a buzz from being a winner, perhaps even believing that they have achieved some kind of status upgrade!

As has been said by someone a lot brighter than me, The question is not 'what to believe' but to ask yourself 'why you need to believe'.
In my experience that question opens up a genuine enquiry.

Well here is what I think.

When you ask "Why you need to believe" the question presupposes that there is some inadequacy in the person and therefore they need to believe in something.

It is a "do you still beat your wife" type question because of what it presupposes.

I look at it as wishing to understand life and the cosmos.

Yes, people can set up some game with debates; but others can maintain a dialogue which seeks understanding and truth.

And I hope that is what I am doing.

I didn't get the views I now have by believing something and going with that.

that's what I did in Scientology.

I was never satisfied (and I am still not) with a set answer.

So I had to look at all sides and try to understand them.

But I didn't find that all sides are equally reasonable.

So I followed the more reasonable path each time after hearing all sides.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Hmm. Maybe when someone, out of deep personal respect, writes something nice about Scientology or Ron you don't have to reply back with something sinister? It would be apparent to most of us that you do have that choice.

More like... when someone writes out of blatant ignorance of the facts of the man's life and in denial about his true criminal actions!

But... I DO wish you well as you learn more about the TRUTH of the situation...about his life and his actions which are far less than admirable by any standards of decency...and thanks for reading/writing here!

Glad you could join us!

 

[gbuck]

Well here is what I think.

When you ask "Why you need to believe" the question presupposes that there is some inadequacy in the person and therefore they need to believe in something.

It is a "do you still beat your wife" type question because of what it presupposes.

I look at it as wishing to understand life and the cosmos.

Yes, people can set up some game with debates; but others can maintain a dialogue which seeks understanding and truth.

And I hope that is what I am doing.

I didn't get the views I now have by believing something and going with that.

that's what I did in Scientology.

I was never satisfied (and I am still not) with a set answer.

So I had to look at all sides and try to understand them.

But I didn't find that all sides are equally reasonable.

So I followed the more reasonable path each time after hearing all sides.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I did much the same in Scientology, in that I accepted the philosophy, and then tried to see or understand life, the universe, etc. through those ideas.

I pretty much buried the nagging doubts that I had underlying all of that. This forum has helped me to clear out the cobwebs if you like.

I do not want to substitute one set of beliefs with another set of beliefs no matter how "workable" or I'll just be leaving one cage for another.

If, as I have done, I create a world view with deep-set beliefs and then see that those beliefs are basically crap, and then let them go, then it occurs to me, do I need to fill myself up with more beliefs?
'Need' in the sense of having a compulsion to, not in the sense of being 'needy' or inadequate.

I see that I don't 'need' to. It doesn't mean that I won't
I think it's a valid question, even if uncomfortable.

The actual philosophy of Scientology is,I think, seriously flawed and should be looked at openly, critically, and honestly, and I see you opened up that dialogue on another post.

I've never written much or posted on a forum before EXMB, and I'm discovering what tricky little buggers words can be.
Dialogue is definitely good, and I think that it does occur here some of the time.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I did much the same in Scientology, in that I accepted the philosophy, and then tried to see or understand life, the universe, etc. through those ideas.

I pretty much buried the nagging doubts that I had underlying all of that. This forum has helped me to clear out the cobwebs if you like.

I do not want to substitute one set of beliefs with another set of beliefs no matter how "workable" or I'll just be leaving one cage for another.

If, as I have done, I create a world view with deep-set beliefs and then see that those beliefs are basically crap, and then let them go, then it occurs to me, do I need to fill myself up with more beliefs?
'Need' in the sense of having a compulsion to, not in the sense of being 'needy' or inadequate.

I see that I don't 'need' to. It doesn't mean that I won't
I think it's a valid question, even if uncomfortable.

The actual philosophy of Scientology is,I think, seriously flawed and should be looked at openly, critically, and honestly, and I see you opened up that dialogue on another post.

I've never written much or posted on a forum before EXMB, and I'm discovering what tricky little buggers words can be.
Dialogue is definitely good, and I think that it does occur here some of the time.

Yeah. When you write for others it certainly helps you clarify your thoughts.

As far as need meaning a compulsion, it is still more of a psychological question and implies lacking.

If one simply asked why do you believe or not believe something that is more direct and doesn't come loaded with presuppositions.

I like you idea of trying an idea on and see how it fits.

I guess that is really the best way because then you get a better idea if it fits you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[gbuck]

Yeah. When you write for others it certainly helps you clarify your thoughts.

As far as need meaning a compulsion, it is still more of a psychological question and implies lacking.

If one simply asked why do you believe or not believe something that is more direct and doesn't come loaded with presuppositions.

I like you idea of trying an idea on and see how it fits.

I guess that is really the best way because then you get a better idea if it fits you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You're right 'need' is not needed in the question.
Neither is it a question I'd ask another.
It's a question I'll ask myself.
So the question is why do I believe?

Isn't there also a societal implication of inadequacy in not having a belief?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

You're right 'need' is not needed in the question.
Neither is it a question I'd ask another.
It's a question I'll ask myself.
So the question is why do I believe?

Isn't there also a societal implication of inadequacy in not having a belief?

I believe there isn't.

The Anabaptist Jacques