What's wrong with Dawkins?

[Bluegoat]

I feel I need to comment on the idea that science gives us anything more than a hypothesis, while philosophy cannot prove anything because it does not have physical facts to observe.

This betrays a woeful ignorance of how science works and what it claims to do. In fact, it’s simply backwards.

Science, because it relys on observations of physical phenomena, can never prove anything, and can only make hypothesis or theories. That is not really to say anything against science, all scientists (perhaps not Dawkins, given the way he speaks) know this. There are very good reasons to accept strong scientific theories. But they cannot be proved.

It is possible, however, to prove immaterial things. We can prove things sometimes in logic or mathematics, for example. When we talk about more complex issues, it becomes more difficult - it is hard to really get at them through pure provable logical statements. But theoretically it is possible, unlike science.

What seems to be missed, is that whatever validity scientific theories have comes from the ability to prove immaterial things. That is, if immaterial logic and reasoning are simply invalid, it also invalidates science. A scientific theory is NOT just a collection of observations - that would be a list of numbers that would reveal nothing. The theory, which tells us something useful, which draws information and relates those numbers, is immaterial. Science is essentially a form of philosophy which deals with observable phenomena.

So saying that science is provable while it is impossible to argue about something we can’t see is ignorant. It might be best to do a bit of reading about the scientific method.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I feel I need to comment on the idea that science gives us anything more than a hypothesis, while philosophy cannot prove anything because it does not have physical facts to observe.

This betrays a woeful ignorance of how science works and what it claims to do. In fact, it’s simply backwards.

Science, because it relys on observations of physical phenomena, can never prove anything, and can only make hypothesis or theories. That is not really to say anything against science, all scientists (perhaps not Dawkins, given the way he speaks) know this. There are very good reasons to accept strong scientific theories. But they cannot be proved.

It is possible, however, to prove immaterial things. We can prove things sometimes in logic or mathematics, for example. When we talk about more complex issues, it becomes more difficult - it is hard to really get at them through pure provable logical statements. But theoretically it is possible, unlike science.

What seems to be missed, is that whatever validity scientific theories have comes from the ability to prove immaterial things. That is, if immaterial logic and reasoning are simply invalid, it also invalidates science. A scientific theory is NOT just a collection of observations - that would be a list of numbers that would reveal nothing. The theory, which tells us something useful, which draws information and relates those numbers, is immaterial. Science is essentially a form of philosophy which deals with observable phenomena.

So saying that science is provable while it is impossible to argue about something we can’t see is ignorant. It might be best to do a bit of reading about the scientific method.

Very thoughtful answer!

 

[itinerant1]

I feel I need to comment on the idea that science gives us anything more than a hypothesis, while philosophy cannot prove anything because it does not have physical facts to observe.

I somewhat disagree with this statement. Philosophy can prove many things, but after the manner appropriate to the methods of the particular philosophical discipline in question. Philosophy does observe physical things. That is, the subject matter or *material object *of philosophy is universal, everything that exists. The particular sciences study things from their particular aspects. For example, biology studies physical beings as possessing life; physics studies matter in motion, etc. The sciences consider those causes nearest to the phenomena, i.e. proximate causes. Philosophy studies things from their highest causes, causes that are more remote from the phenomenal aspects of being. Ultimate or highest causes, then, are the formal object of philosophy.

Reasoning from the observations of contingent being philosophy can prove, for example, the existence of a non-contingent Being.

Science, because it relys on observations of physical phenomena, can never prove anything, and can only make hypothesis or theories. That is not really to say anything against science, all scientists (perhaps not Dawkins, given the way he speaks) know this. There are very good reasons to accept strong scientific theories. But they cannot be proved.

I would add a qualification to this statement. The strength of proof of a theory depends in part on how general or encompassing a theory is. Any very general or broad theory, for example, evolutionary theory, cannot be proven true finally and absolutely. Simple scientific statements, on the other hand, such as that our solar system is heliocentric, can be asserted as certainly true.

What seems to be missed, is that whatever validity scientific theories have comes from the ability to prove immaterial things. That is, if immaterial logic and reasoning are simply invalid, it also invalidates science. A scientific theory is NOT just a collection of observations - that would be a list of numbers that would reveal nothing. The theory, which tells us something useful, which draws information and relates those numbers, is immaterial. Science is essentially a form of philosophy which deals with observable phenomena.

Science is not exactly a form of philosophy which deals with phenomena. As pointed out above, philosophy also deals with phenomenal reality. Their subject matters overlap. Philosophy and science, rather, treat of physical things from different perspectives: remotes causes versus proximate causes.

There is though, a metaphysical foundation to science, and every scientific statement involves an assumed or implicit metaphysical vision.

You are right in saying that scientific theories are immaterial. In themselves, theories are metaphysical. It is not within the province of the natural sciences to explain the metaphysical nature of a scientific theory. That job is for the philosopher. What science strives to prove, and with ever greater accuracy, is the truth of a theory. This it does through increasing observation, investigation, testing, and so on.

 

[wanstronian]

These excerpts from the CCC make it clear to me that my faith is far from unreasonable:

50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."36
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

I said sound reasoning. What you’ve quoted is conjecture, dogma.

No one is hiding evidence from you.

I suppose not, it’s just that people are presenting conjecture and dogma as evidence and not seeing the fundamental problem with doing so.

 

[wanstronian]

You are simply obfuscating the issue because you cannot explain how free will can exist within a mechanistic system.

Not at all, I’ll explain it again one last time:

We live, as far as we can prove, in an entirely closed-loop, deterministic world. We are composed entirely of biological matter and the means by which we make decisions is the chemical interaction between our neurones. This chemical interaction is subject to influence from both within and without our corporeal bodies. From that perspective, there is no free will.

We each individually, however, feel that when we make a decision, we have made it with free will. We don’t feel the chemical reaction or influences (well not all of them, anyway), we just act on the result and it feels like we’ve made our own decision.

I hope this has explained what I mean by perspective.

Do you have free will or not?

Insofar as we know anything about our world, we don’t have free will. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the only reason we might do, is God.

“Given that our decisions are made within our brains, which are a highly complex mixture of neurones, synapses and chemicals with no incorporeal element, you can in theory boil everything that’s ever happened or will happen, down to physics and chemistry.”
Your hypothesis boils down to physics and chemistry. It is no more than physical process which is unaware of anything. How can it produce hypotheses?

It clearly is aware, because we both are. There’s no logical reason why chemical reactions etc. cannot produce sentient beings. Indeed, the overwhelming evidence is that it has, because here we are!

If it is true it is not cheap but valuable. If it is true you have no control over your thoughts.

Indeed. Although there is some work in the field of Quantum Mechanics that implies some indeterminacy, but nothing conclusive as yet, I believe.

It’s not a question of absolute knowledge but of knowledge pure and simple - which depends on control of your thoughts.

No, you’re twising my words. You originally said, “… you have no guarantee that your conclusions are true.” That would be absolute knowledge, and you’re right, I don’t have it. If I did I would be rich and famous.

Who said it did? How do you determine the limits of scientific theory? Or do you presume there are none?

Nobody - why don’t you re-read what you said prior to my comment, rather than taking it as an isolated comment?

How can you choose if you cannot reason?

You can’t

How can you have the power to choose if it has not been given to you by a loving Creator?

If it exists, it can have come into existence by other means. “God” is not the only answer to that which we don’t know.

How can you love if you cannot choose to love?

Some might argue that loving is not a choice at all. Think of someone you love. Now decide to stop loving them. This is a specious argument.

How can you reason if you cannot choose what to think?

Reasoning and thinking are two different words for ultimately the same activity, so this question is meaningless.

It is not conjecture but a conclusion based on the evidence of our own experience

I don’t deny that, but that evidence is not objective, independent or repeatable.

, on the fact that we can choose the best explanation and meaningful in the light of the power of reason. To assert that free will has emerged from forces which **lack **free will is sheer conjecture, with no basis in fact and a meaningless proposition like the propositions that reason has emerged from forces which **lack **reason and purpose has emerged from forces which **lack **purpose…

Think I’ve made my position clear on this.

You are clearly unable to differentiate a dog’s love from a person’s love…

Straw man argument. I never said they were the same, I simply pointed out that dogs are capable of love when you said that this was restricted to humans. The fact is we don’t know how they love - what they feel etc., but by observation of their actions the logical conclusion is that they feel love. Which refutes your assertion.

How can the interaction of particles be a source of decisions? How can there be self-control without a self?

Again, I think I’ve answered this.

This is all just my opinion, but it’s based on what we know about the universe. There’s plenty left to learn, but using “God” to fill the gaps in our knowledge makes no sense. Even if there is a supernatural element to the universe which gives us free will, there’s no good reason to assign it sentience and call it “God.”

 

[wanstronian]

I feel I need to comment on the idea that science gives us anything more than a hypothesis, while philosophy cannot prove anything because it does not have physical facts to observe.

This betrays a woeful ignorance of how science works and what it claims to do. In fact, it’s simply backwards.

Science, because it relys on observations of physical phenomena, can never prove anything, and can only make hypothesis or theories.

A hypothesis is not the same as a theory. From the Oxford English dictionary, a Hypothesis is, "a proposition put forward merely as a basis for reasoning or argument, without any assumption of its truth;…a groundless assumption."A theory is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for known facts.” God is a hypothesis; gravity is a theory.

That is not really to say anything against science, all scientists (perhaps not Dawkins, given the way he speaks) know this. There are very good reasons to accept strong scientific theories. But they cannot be proved.

No, theories can’t be proved universally, but they can be tested repeatedly by independent, objective means and be shown to hold true each time.

It is possible, however, to prove immaterial things. We can prove things sometimes in logic or mathematics, for example. When we talk about more complex issues, it becomes more difficult - it is hard to really get at them through pure provable logical statements. But theoretically it is possible, unlike science.

Hypothetically is is possible, but the hypothesis depends on the baseless assumption that such complex immaterial entities exist. Your call on logic is interesting, given that it is logically possible to prove that there is no basis for a belief in God. In fact, I’ll do it now, it’s quite simple.

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Ergo, there is no basis for a belief in God.

What seems to be missed, is that whatever validity scientific theories have comes from the ability to prove immaterial things. That is, if immaterial logic and reasoning are simply invalid, it also invalidates science. A scientific theory is NOT just a collection of observations - that would be a list of numbers that would reveal nothing. The theory, which tells us something useful, which draws information and relates those numbers, is immaterial. Science is essentially a form of philosophy which deals with observable phenomena.

But it’s worth pointing out here that the logical steps involved in testing a theory have been shown to hold true themselves through repeated testing. The theorist doesn’t just chuck in a baseless assertion to assist the theory; if he did he’d be roasted by his peers.

So saying that science is provable while it is impossible to argue about something we can’t see is ignorant. It might be best to do a bit of reading about the scientific method.

I think you’re missing the point. Science provides testable, repeatable theories with consistent results. You’re right that it’s impossible to argue about something we can’t ‘see’ (in the scientific sense) - that doesn’t mean we should make things up to fill in those gaps. Particularly not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sentient being. See Occam’s Razor.

 

[wanstronian]

… our solar system is heliocentric

WHAT??? When did that happen??? :bigyikes:

 

[bituufg]

They probably just have a light shined in his face for any recordings

 

[tonyrey]

We live, as far as we can prove, in an entirely closed-loop, deterministic world.

How far can you prove that?

We are composed entirely of biological matter and the means by which we make decisions is the chemical interaction between our neurones.

How can you prove that?

This chemical interaction is subject to influence from both within and without our corporeal bodies.From that perspective, there is no free will.

From that perspective there is no free will.

We each individually, however, feel that when we make a decision, we have made it with free will.

I pointed out several posts ago that a feeling is not a decision. So your argument proves nothing.

Insofar as we know anything about our world, we don’t have free will.

Insofar as we know anything about ourselves do we have free will?

There is certainly no evidence to suggest that the only reason we might do, is God.

In the absence of any other explanation free will is best explained by a Being with free will.

Your hypothesis boils down to physics and chemistry. It is no more than physical process which is unaware of anything. How can it produce hypotheses?
It clearly is aware, because we both are.

“It” refers to hypothesis. Do you believe a hypothesis is aware? If by “It” you mean our brains how do you explain their awareness of themselves?
You seem to be equating “we” with our brains?

Although there is some work in the field of Quantum Mechanics that implies some indeterminacy, but nothing conclusive as yet, I believe.

How is that related to control over your thoughts?

You originally said, “… you have no guarantee that your conclusions are true.”…
Nobody - why don’t you re-read what you said prior to my comment, rather than taking it as an isolated comment?

.It would be a great help if you placed my previous statement before your comment.
The question remains as to how you determine the limits of scientific theory…

How can you choose if you cannot reason?
You can’t.

Therefore the power of reason presupposes free will.

How can you have the power to choose if it has not been given to you by a loving Creator?
If it exists, it can have come into existence by other means.

What other means?

“God” is not the only answer to that which we don’t know.

It is the best available explanation for the existence of an orderly universe in which there are rational, purposeful beings with free will.

How can you love if you cannot choose to love?
Some might argue that loving is not a choice at all. Think of someone you love. Now decide to stop loving them.

compelled to love? That you have no choice in the matter?

Reasoning and thinking are two different words for ultimately the same activity, so this question is meaningless.

Not at all. How can you reason if you cannot choose the thoughts you will have?

It is not conjecture but a conclusion based on the evidence of our own experience.
I don’t deny that, but that evidence is not objective, independent or repeatable.

You mean we cannot repeatedly choose the best explanation and observe others doing so?

*To assert that free will has emerged from forces which lack free will is sheer conjecture, with no basis in fact and a meaningless proposition like the propositions that reason has emerged from forces which lack reason and purpose has emerged from forces which lack purpose…*Think I’ve made my position clear on this.

Your lack of explanation is as obscure as ever.

You are clearly unable to differentiate a dog’s love from a person’s love…
I never said they were the same, I simply pointed out that dogs are capable of love when you said that this was restricted to humans. The fact is we don’t know how they love - what they feel etc., but by observation of their actions the logical conclusion is that they feel love.

You have not even defined what you mean by love whereas I have pointed out that love presupposes free will.

*How can the interaction of particles be a source of decisions? How can there be self-control without a self? *Again, I think I’ve answered this.

Where have you answered this?

This is all just my opinion, but it’s based on what we know about the universe.

Again you are presupposing that the only reality is the physical universe. How do you know, or how can you prove that?

There’s plenty left to learn, but using “God” to fill the gaps in our knowledge makes no sense.

God does not fill the gaps in our knowledge. The Supreme Being is a comprehensive explanation of **everything **we consider to be most significant and valuable.

Even if there is a supernatural element to the universe which gives us free will, there’s no good reason to assign it sentience and call it “God.”

You can call it anything you like. “God” is just a word we use to refer to the supernatural element. If by sentience you mean consciousness how would you explain free will without consciousness?

 

[wanstronian]

How far can you prove that?

As far as can be shown by repeatable experiments within our ability. The rest is extrapolation, but at least it’s reasonable extrapolation based on evidence. And there’s no evidence of anything else.

How can you prove that?

Again, the only evidence we have shows it to be true. If you want chapter and verse, look it up.

From that perspective there is no free will.

I’m glad you finally understand.

I pointed out several posts ago that a feeling is not a decision. So your argument proves nothing.

It proves your inability to understand a simple sentence. I never said a feeling was a decision. I said one can feel that a decision has been made with free will.

Insofar as we know anything about ourselves do we have free will?

What sort of vacuous question is this? What are you hoping to show by it?

In the absence of any other explanation free will is best explained by a Being with free will.

Another meaningless statement, it demonstrates nothing.

“It” refers to hypothesis. Do you believe a hypothesis is aware? If by “It” you mean our brains how do you explain their awareness of themselves?

You seem to have misunderstood another simple sentence, inferring that I equated “hypothesis” directly with “physics”. I don’t know if you’re being intentionally obtuse or not.

You seem to be equating “we” with our brains?

If you like, for that is what I, at any rate, am using during this debate.

How is that related to control over your thoughts?.It would be a great help if you placed my previous statement before your comment.

That’s the way the forum works, presumably to prevent posts getting too long. Sometimes you have to put some effort in and go back to remind yourself of the thread.

The question remains as to how you determine the limits of scientific theory…

Theoretically limitless, as we make new discoveries. However you’ve twisted this particular aspect of the thread so it’s valueless. Why don’t you just start a new thread and we can discuss it there.

Therefore the power of reason presupposes free will.

Yes, if you believe in free will.

What other means?

I don’t know and it doesn’t matter, the burden of proof is not on me. But where I’ll admit I don’t know, you seem to insist that “it’s God.” In effect you’re saying, “I don’t know how that works, so it must be God.” Not only is it incredibly narrow-minded, flawed logic, it’s also been used throughout history to ‘explain’ phenomena that have then been properly explained by science. One would think you might have learned by now.

It is the best available explanation for the existence of an orderly universe in which there are rational, purposeful beings with free will.

Of course it’s not, what utter drivel.

So you believe you are compelled to love? That you have no choice in the matter?

As a matter of fact I do. I think Elvis said it best in 1961.

Not at all. How can you reason if you cannot choose the thoughts you will have?

Do you believe you can choose the thoughts you have? Right - don’t think of a pink giraffe.

You mean we cannot repeatedly choose the best explanation and observe others doing so?

Of course I don’t, and you know that’s not what I said. It’s a shame you’re not able to debate on an honest basis. As an example - objective, independent, repeatable evidence would be demonstrated if a group of 100 people all prayed for the same thing in a controlled environment and received the same non-zero result.

Your lack of explanation is as obscure as ever.

I think your lack of comprehension is the problem here, so I’ll take your comment as a compliment.

You have not even defined what you mean by love whereas I have pointed out that love presupposes free will.

Firstly, you haven’t defined love either, you’ve just related it to another concept. Secondly, I dispute that love is a matter of choice, and I feel sorry for your wife and family if you have them. Finally, the precise definition of non-romantic love is not really relevant, but you could define it as: Wanting to be with someone; wanting to have tactile contact with them; wanting to partake of activities with them; wanting to protect them from harm. All of which can be demonstrated by animals.

Where have you answered this?

Previously. Go look again.

Again you are presupposing that the only reality is the physical universe. How do you know, or how can you prove that?

I don’t know, and have never claimed to know. Hence my caveat, “based on what we know about the universe.” Sorry if you didn’t understand it. The known universe is, by definition, all we know. The rest is just conjecture, hypothesis, baseless assumption. That’s my very simple point, I’m surprised you still haven’t managed to grasp it. Perhaps you just prefer straw men.

God does not fill the gaps in our knowledge. The Supreme Being is a comprehensive explanation of everything we consider to be most significant and valuable.

Really? Explain free will. What’s that you say? “God says it’s okay?” Well QED then. Believe it if you like - I don’t care - but at least be aware of the flaws in your belief. Or, don’t. Again, I don’t really care - I’m not the one wasting my time.

You can call it anything you like. “God” is just a word we use to refer to the supernatural element. If by sentience you mean consciousness how would you explain free will without consciousness?

Here we go again. Your inability to maintain a thread is staggering - now you’re equating the consciousness of your hypothetical God with the free will of humans. Start a new thread if you want to ask unrelated questions.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’m only going to post briefly, and leave this behind.

A hypothesis is not the same as a theory. From the Oxford English dictionary, a Hypothesis is, "a proposition put forward merely as a basis for reasoning or argument, without any assumption of its truth;…a groundless assumption."A theory is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment and is accepted as accounting for known facts.” God is a hypothesis; gravity is a theory.
No, theories can’t be proved universally, but they can be tested repeatedly by independent, objective means and be shown to hold true each time.

Independent and objective are of course impossible ideals. However, if we assume the ideal, you are still not getting the point. The theory still depends on immaterial things, those are what constitutes the theory. And you cannot cannot cannot prove the theory, as was stated in an earlier post, which was directly contrasted with knowledge about God or other immaterial things which you said were unprovable.

Hypothetically is is possible, but the hypothesis depends on the baseless assumption that such complex immaterial entities exist. Your call on logic is interesting, given that it is logically possible to prove that there is no basis for a belief in God. In fact, I’ll do it now, it’s quite simple.

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Ergo, there is no basis for a belief in God.

If you had studied logic, you will see that there are rules. One is that your premises have to be true to get a true result. The other is that the structure you have created above is essentially meaningless.

But it’s worth pointing out here that the logical steps involved in testing a theory have been shown to hold true themselves through repeated testing. The theorist doesn’t just chuck in a baseless assertion to assist the theory; if he did he’d be roasted by his peers.

I don’t think that anyone has suggested this is the case, in fact I specifically said the opposite.

I think you’re missing the point. Science provides testable, repeatable theories with consistent results. You’re right that it’s impossible to argue about something we can’t ‘see’ (in the scientific sense) - that doesn’t mean we should make things up to fill in those gaps. Particularly not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, sentient being. See Occam’s Razor.

That is not what theories about god are doing. I’d suggest you try Aristotle’s Metaphysics, or Thomas might be a bit more readable, or even The Republic for that matter. You might want to read Occam too - he’s essentially anti-science, and I doubt you’d appreciate much of what he had to say.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m only going to post briefly, and leave this behind.

You may have left this behind, but I’m compelled to respond.

Independent and objective are of course impossible ideals.

You really think so? Why?

However, if we assume the ideal, you are still not getting the point. The theory still depends on immaterial things, those are what constitutes the theory. And you cannot cannot cannot prove the theory, as was stated in an earlier post, which was directly contrasted with knowledge about God or other immaterial things which you said were unprovable.

No, you cannot prove the theory absolutely, but you can test it repeatedly and gain more confidence in its truth through consistent results. You cannot do this with God.

If you had studied logic, you will see that there are rules. One is that your premises have to be true to get a true result. The other is that the structure you have created above is essentially meaningless.

Okay, it was a somewhat facetious response. For all that, it’s perfectly valid. My premise is accurate - there is no evidence for the existence of God. The conclusion I have drawn from this is equally valid. Without evidence for something existing, there’s no logic in believing in its existence.

I don’t think that anyone has suggested this is the case, in fact I specifically said the opposite.

No - this statement wasn’t intended to contradict, only to clarify

That is not what theories about god are doing.

Well strictly speaking, there are no theories about god, only hypotheses. But semantics aside, I would argue that several posters, on this thread and others, have quite literally filled in the gaps in our knowledge by saying, “It’s God.” I’m simply pointing out that this is not a logically valid conclusion.

You might want to read Occam too - he’s essentially anti-science, and I doubt you’d appreciate much of what he had to say.

Perhaps not, but the reductionist principle seems sensible, regardless of whatever else he may have said.

 

[Ghoti]

He’s weird? So what? Lots of people are weird.

The very fact that we exist is positive, irrefutable proof that the physical conditions for life are possible. (The same can’t be said for God) Given the trillions of planets in this universe, isn’t it just a tiny bit **arrogant **for you to assume that this one is the only one with life?

I don’t know if this point has been brought up, but here goes.

Maybe “life” is not a common thing – maybe “life” or “intelligent life” is just one big universal aberration or fluke. Maybe we are the freaks of the universe.

Maybe there are planets where technetium or plutonium occur naturally. Or noble gases regularly occur in compounds. Or the Maple Leafs win hockey games. And maybe there are planets – or maybe only one – where we have these huge agglomerations of complex organic chemical compounds that are self-moving, self-replicating, and watch reality TV.

So it’s not necessarily arrogance. It might be humility instead.

 

[Ghoti]

OTOH, if most traditional sci-fi is to be believed, if there is intelligent life on other planets, they are bipedal, humanoid, and wear their hair in pompadours.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

There could well be life on other planets. But there is no proof. That is science fiction rather than science. If you want to make it science fact, you’d have to argue the high likelihood, based on a mathematical model of probability, that there must be life elsewhere. But if you do that, then you have to make it a high likelihood that life is intelligently designed no matter where it appears, because the same logic of probability would deny chance as the explanation for life.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So for you, the problem is that he’s making money out of atheism?

I can see how this might seem to be a flaw. But only if you equate ‘behaviour’ to ‘free will’. If you interpret ‘behaviour’ to mean one’s reaction to some sort of stimulus, or the manner in which one bears oneself, this is not the same as deciding to go for a walk in the park or climb a tree.

Why is it not the same?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Interesting comments all.

Regarding free will, I can see the argument. I guess if I had to choose, I’d go with option (b).

How can you choose if you do not have any freedom? In fact where are “you” involved? If its not you thats thinking, then there is no you.
You seem to think that you are allowed to have awareness but lack freewill.

If we are going to have a logical debate in which we can freely agree and disagree, then we must assume that what is obvious to the senses is true, and that is that we perceive, think, and act. We cannot even begin to have a debate if we do not have freewill. Stop being in denial.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The topic is straying. Please relate your discussion to the ideas espoused by Dawkins, as his ideas are the topic of the thread. Thank you all.

 

[JeannetteCML]

It’s funny… I’ve never read The God Delusion, but I have read The Dawkins Delusion?

I tried reading some of The Blind Watchmaker, too. He lost me when he said that if a statue of Mary up and waved at him, he still wouldn’t believe in miracles…

 

[wanstronian]

How can you choose if you do not have any freedom? In fact where are “you” involved? If its not you thats thinking, then there is no you.
You seem to think that you are allowed to have awareness but lack freewill.

If we are going to have a logical debate in which we can freely agree and disagree, then we must assume that what is obvious to the senses is true, and that is that we perceive, think, and act. We cannot even begin to have a debate if we do not have freewill. Stop being in denial.

I’m not in denial!!!

Seriously, I’ve made my position clear on free will. And we’ve all been told off from straying off-topic. Maybe someone wants to start a new thread?