What do you think of Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins,.etc?

Miscellaneous General
41

See, that harkens to my big objection in my first reply.

Back them into a logical corner, and they’re agnostic. They will be forced to admit they are only guessing.

Why don’t they just say “well, I don’t really know. I’m agnostic beause the specifics of the religions I’ve seen so far seem unlikely, and I don’t know of anything else, so I just am a not-believer, rather than really an anti-believer”?

Instead, they pretend to be certain. Their presentation is one of aggressive, absolute faith in atheism, not actual skepticism. That they’re only guessing and assuming doesn’t come up until a more rational agnostic starts kicking their asses over the difference.

Although I’m agnostic, I have much more respect for Vox Day than Richard Dawkins, It’s interesting that Day actually refers to agnosticism as an entirely rational position, right up front and voluntarily, while Dawkins has to be gotten down to the nitty gritty before he mentions that.

Day also has pretty much summarized the apparent reason for the absolutist claims of faux-hard-atheists…they take an irrationally atheist position because they’ve got some kind of personality disorder, manifesting as chip on their shoulder, and therefore go out of their way to be confrontational and offend.

I found it really fun that a writer at the Rational Response Squad, trying to rebut this, calling his piece “There is no god, because I’m an asshole”, but unfortunately he really does little more than live up to the title. Instead of specifically explaning the supposed fallacies, he is almost purely petty and vague in his presentation, employing the sort of rhetoric a pseudointellectual uses when he’s really got nothing else left to fall back on.

42

Or maybe he was just always like that.

Let’s test that:

A: “Do you believe that there are little unicorns under your bed prepared to grant you wishes if you try to talk to them in your own head?”

B: “Well, I don’t really know. I’m agnostic because that seems unlikely, and I don’t know of anything else, so I just am a not-believer, rather than an anti-believer.”

I mean, if that’s how you would respond, then I guess that we should just chalk it up to the fact that you and Dawkins have much different styles of rhetoric.

Can you cite me an example of him pretending to be certain?

Who cares what their motives are?

And, anyway, making the argument that he must have a personality disorder (whatever that means) isn’t even close to arguing in good faith.

How about we actually look into the point that he’s trying to make with his style of rhetoric?

He sees the religions as a bunch of crank scientific hypotheses, so naturally he sees the atmosphere of “have respect for their beliefs” which surrounds the whole thing as one of its well designed smokescreens to stamp out dissent. It’s a crucial part of the mind-virus qualities of religion, and he’s trying to fight against it. As he said, plenty of people employ the same rhetoric against the other crank theories, and often they’re considered pretty civil for being so nice about it. I mean, if there were that ridiculous of a hypothesis floating around in evolutionary biology, how do you think Dawkins would fare in the eyes of his audience if he used the same level of rhetoric against it that he uses against the religions? Well, either way, I’m sure that nobody would come out and argue that he must have a personality disorder. So what would he say? He would claim that you’re just another host for one of the most important defenses for the mind-virus that we call “religion”: The “please respect my beliefs” one. Or would you call that an exaggeration?

In fact, he might be exaggerating his rhetoric just to make a point: Why should we treat such a ridiculous hypothesis with such respect? Maybe he’s throwing it around so harshly to make a point: It’s just another crank scientific hypothesis. So let’s treat it like one.

What exactly does that mean?

43

I’d be interested to understand why ‘atheism’ causes anxiety within agnostics.

Many of the agnostics seem to argue for 100s of pages and with all their being the very slight differences between agnosticism and atheism. Making them seem like Catholics or Muslims or Hindus or anything other than people who also don’t care for religion.

Agnosticism seems to agree with the hypothesis, put forward by Dawkins and et al, that religion is false. Because if you can’t be certain, you can’t be certain about religion. Therefore the principle it stands on is false. And yet I see agnostics make a career out of saying that it is wrong or arrogant for atheists to oppose religion.

It seems that agnostics have to have the same opinions as the atheists w/r/t religion and making a positive claim about the existence of God. They are just afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings. Or don’t want a backlash by the religious.

For instance, agnostics and atheists both believe that a scientific theory based on an assumption involving God – or any other thing we can’t be certain of – is false. Since this is their problem with atheism. That they think it is a theory making an assumption. Isn’t this correct? Therefore agnostics are not agnostic about the conclusions brought forth by so-called religious-based scientists. But necessarily must refute them with certainty. Their statement about atheism is about logical validity (not empiricism), so their views about religion should also be. From here, it is just a matter of wanting to or not wanting to. The not wanting to I call “agnosticism”, and the wanting to I call “atheism”.

44

But that’s one of the big Atheist fallacies I’m criticizing, here:

You are using the disproof of a specific myth as if it somehow supports the claim of atheism.

It is reasonable to say “I do not believe in this exact thing”.

It is unreasonable to say “I am certain that NOTHING, outside of what I observe and can test, exists”, especially based on the disproving of that one specific myth.

Were Dawkins to say “I have no idea whether there’s a god, and no way to even weigh it, but I’m pretty sure the actual, historical Joshua ben Joseph didn’t rise from the dead after three days, then get lifted to heaven weeks later on a cloud”, that would be entirely reasonable.

I routinely debate the specifics with Christians. I’m actually better armed for that than most evangelical atheists. But I don’t claim that it proves EVERYTHING, just the likelyhood of the thing I’m talking about.

If you thought that the ability to verify the nonexistence of unicorns, specifically, proved that ALL claims not verifiable by testing and observation are false, then you’d be pretty far gone. Bill Clinton is a proven liar, ergo all politicians are liars. A basic fallacy.

45

No, I’m not doing that at all.

Instead, I’m just trying to draw an analogy to get you to understand his rhetoric.

Can you cite me an example where he goes any further than that?

Can you cite me an example where he does that?

And, by the way, how are you using the words “exist” and “observe” in this context?

46

No, agnostics deny that they know.

Because you can’t be certain, you can’t be certain about atheism. Therefore the principle it stands on is false.

THAT works way better than your version.

I disagree with the claims of some religious leaders that they can be certain.

That doesn’t prove that there’s no god, only that those men are wrong in their claim of certainty.

I point that out to them, routinely. There is no experience they could have, that could not be duplicated by a false religion…no experience they have that is not ALREADY duplicated by a mutually exclusive religion. The feeling of God coming upon them, et cetera, occurs among the polytheistic Hare Krishna, for example. In fact, that’s a good example of pretty much 100% of Christian proofs being duplicated in a mutually exclusive way.

But that doesn’t prove that no god, or gods, exist(s). It doesn’t even address the question.

Yes, for drawing a false conclusion, as noted above.

The difference is that the agnostic is open about his leaving him simply lacking belief, while the evangelical atheist claims active disbelief.

Atheist: “There is no god”

Agnostic: “I don’t know whether there’s a god”

Theist: “There is a god”

Christian: “You’re supposed to capitalize God!”

Wrong.

Any actual scientist knows that a claim you cannot prove is not false, but simply unproven.

When we could not prove continental drift, that didn’t make it false. When we could not prove relativity, that did not make it false.

In fact, Einstein was a scientific realist and a fallibilist: He specifically believed that anything that is neither verified nor falsified is simply unknown.

It’s not a theory. In science, a theory is something that you can subject to a specific test for falsification.

Atheism is a hypothesis. It is definitively impossible to ever falsify.

47

To the first quoted statement: I agree, but I’m not sure it relates to Dawkins. I’ve watched quite a few presentations by Dawkins (and eagerly hope to buy The God Delusion sometime soon), but I’ve never heard Dawkins make a claim such as “I’m certain nothing outside of what I can observe and test exists.” Dawkins, however, would make the claim “I don’t believe in anything outside of what I can observe and test.” Not believing in something outside of the realm of observation and test and claiming nothing outside the realm of observation and testing can exist are quite different.

To the second quoted statement: Dawkins does say such things about such Biblical stories, however he is not an “I-don’t-know” agnostic. He is an atheist insofar as he says “there is no evidence for god or certain scriptural stories, and thus I don’t believe in them.” I don’t, from recent memory, recall Dawkins claiming with absolute certainly that there is, in fact, no god.

The problem here is a difference in the definition of the term “atheist.” Personally, I am an atheist, but I don’t operate under the definition of “there is no god,” for there is no way to be certain of that. Myself, Dawkins, and even Hitchens operate under the “no evidence” definition.

48

Does he never say “there is no god”?

That is the core difference between atheism and agnosticism, you know. “There is no god” versus “I don’t know whether there’s a god”.

It is entirely plausible that something could exist that cannot, from our place in the physical universe, be observed and verified in any sense our science would consider verifiable. If you can’t parse “exist” from that context, you need to explain what the difficulty is that you’re having.

Here’s an example, though:

A century from now, everyone owns a personal computer that is septillions of times more powerful than ours. Regular people can run a cute little game based on an antiquated physics simulator invented in 2090. It emulates the entire universe, down to a subatomic level…or maybe the computer is only trillions of times more powerful, and it can only simulate a whole planet and the energy input from a rest of the universe that doesn’t really get simulated in detail.

So, a century from now, it is a normal passtime to run simulations of whole worlds full of sentient beings, as “real” to themselves as we are.

The simulated sentients have their own science, physics theories, debates about theology, et cetera.

The atheists among them claim that there is definitely nothing outside of their physical universe. Certainly, they cannot in any way ever test or observe the REAL universe of the owner of the PC that amuses himself watching their lives pass by. And yet, of course, he is their Creator. Maybe he’s injected a religion that is what pleases him, and copies its most faithful adherents into a different simulation at the time of their death, as a reward. So there’s even a religion in the sim that is “correct” about the Creator.

How do you know we are not in someone’s PC, in a simulated universe, today?

49

I doubt it, but you could go look if you want.

Then of course in your terminology Dawkins is an agnostic.

We don’t.

50

“Any actual scientist knows that a claim you cannot prove is not false, but simply unproven.”

But continental drift is something you can prove. And that’s why it was proved. And thus correct. God is not something you can prove, which is why it will never be proved. A square circle is not something you can draw on a black board or even concieve in your mind. All theories involving it will be nonsense. Just as any theory involving God will be nonsense. Neither can exist even as a concept. They are false and invalid concepts. And thus theories based on them will be false.

Continental drift theories have no reason to be invalid or false, even without all testing. Which is why they went from curiosity to better knowledge. And so can be solid theories. Not so with theism.

Agnosticism is not falsiable. There is nothing in any way which could confirm the existence of God to overturn their fake skepticism. Just as a geometer does not say wait for someone to draw him a square circle. It will never happen. But where as a geometer does not play the skeptic (because the demand for square circles, like religion, would necessarily be arbitrary and one of an infinite number of demands for him to produce), the agnostic does because there is a political purpose to remaining neutral. They can skip church while also hounding the atheists.

In fact, I think people are overrating ‘falsifibility’. Because before you can put into words what you want falsified, it must be based on either existing objects or valid concepts. If the object is non-existent (for instance, if no one can guess or ‘know’ its even approximate mass or location) or the concept is nonsensical (for instance, a square circle), then there is no need for this ‘theory’ to go forward and even be discussed. It doesn’t wait to be falsified. It is thrown out.

blah = bla

is unscientific because it is nonsensical. Not because someone has demonstrated it is false using the scientific method. Why isn’t anyone looking for a ‘bla’ or a ‘blah’ outside the universe? OR maybe something else that could arbitrarily confirm it outside the universe?

Agnostics make the mistake of taking such a theory seriously, ignoring the language and logical requirements necessary to even produce a theory. And claim that the primary requirement is testability. But how do you test what is not even put into language so that it can be conceieved in reality and objectively so? Which God is not.

51

So that is a seriously plausible example of something outside of our realm of observation and testing…and is even plausibly the source for a religion and afterlife.

Presented as The Simulation Argument, a case can even be made that we are PROBABLY in such a simulation, making “there is some supernatural truth” the most likely scenario.

52

Can you elaborate?

53

Kaz, I believe you are mistaken on what Dawkins has said in the past. He has stated on Bill Maher that (I believe) on a scale of 7 with 7 being the most certain that there is no God, he is a 6. He has supported bus campaigns that state “There Probably Is No God, So Don’t Worry and Enjoy Your Life.” He has commented on the unfalsifiability of the what he refers to as the God Hypothesis. He has spoken about the importance of testable evidence and the mantra of the New Atheists is that the burden of proof is on the believer and that the atheist is on good grounds to reject this positive claim.

Then again, agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism deals with belief. This is a common mistake. You can be an agnostic atheist; Dawkins is one of those.

54

No, continental drift is something you can prove…NOW.

When it was presented, it was unprovable. It was dismissed by the same sort of faux-skeptic, pseudoscientific thinking…that if it’s unprovable, it’s false.

What are yout talking about?

Atheism is something you cannot prove, which is why it will never be proven.

“God” could, for all we know, be something you can prove, we just haven’t figure out how, yet. Like continental drift.

This “God” could pop by at any moment and verify its existence.

I don’t like when atheists use “god” as the thing they’re talking about, though, because it’s pretty obvious that things beyond nature could be non-gods, but still real and unverifiable.

What a mind-blowingly false comparison.

A square circle is defined as false, like A != A.

A god, or other extra-natural thing or phenomenon, is not inherently false. There is no reason to find our observable reality as even likely to be the only environment or condition existing, at all.

The problem is more that a god, or whatever, is nebulous and not in any way clearly defined right now, the opposite of the clearly defined, self-contradicting “square circle”.

Not so with continental drift. It was dismissed by the entire scientific establishment as pure hogwash. It was thought invalid by what was already known of science…whcih, by the way, theism is not. The same is true of interplanetary flight, or even heavier than air, manned, powered flight via airfoil, just 140 years ago or so. It was thought that the power required to achieve these things would always require adding more weight, therefore requiring more power, therefore requiring more weight, so that it was impossible.

That’s not fake skepticism: You just defined what skepticism is.

Before fake skeptics like atheists hijacked the word, it was a philosophy in which one, for perfectly rational reasons, accepted that nothing is ever completely provable.

And that, by the way, is a fundamental, scientific rule. It’s called fallibilism, and you can’t have real, hard science without it. Surely you know about the fathers of hard science, Karl Popper and Charles Pierce, and their agreement on this methodological point with Einstein, Schroedinger, and Ludwig von Mises…

Such a closed-minded, anti-knowledge attitude as that has dogged real science forever, but fortunately has never won out…because it would have prevented most of the great leaps in human knowledge.

If you cannot prove something NOW, that does not mean you could not progress to the point of being able to prove it.

There were people who, based on your anti-knowledge approach, wanted to literally ban efforts at heavier than air, manned flight. It could NEVER happen, the math proved that. Therefore it shouldn’t even be considered.

55

@Kaz, this Simulation Argument is inherently unknowable though. We don’t have any other universes to compare it to. It could be simulated, but then again it could not be. Making arguments that it is a simulation could be exactly what you’d expect in a natural universe that comes about by natural processes, so the question is how does one tell the difference?

What the practioniers of “scientism” in this instance are saying is that until we have any kind of verifiable evidence helping tilt the scales between competing theories, we should reserve judgment. In this case, whoever is being actively religious is doing so without good reason. It could be true, but we have no way of knowing. The same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

56

Well yeah, since Atheism doesn’t really state anything. It’s a description used to note a lack of a belief in a supreme being.

William Lane Craig, in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, tried to use the argument that you cannot prove Atheism is true. The entire time I was wondering what one could possibly prove when it comes to Atheism, unless people are operating under the “there is, for certain, no god” definition, which I don’t think many atheists even operate under (mainly because its unscientific).

57

@Blueline, Kaz is not even acknowledging what Dawkins has said in the past and the difference between belief and knowledge.

58

A guy named Nick Bostrom gave this idea a formal name:

It’s possible for humanity to, one day, have the ability to reasonably build computers that can simulate our entire world, and all of the life in it.

It’s reasonably likely that humanity will, eventually, run at least TWO such simulations.

Then that means more people will exist in simulations than in “real life”.

In fact, it seems likely that we’ll eventually all own computers powerful enough to run such a simulation. Maybe even within our lifetime.

Actually, just look back at my previous post on the topic.

Anyway, at that point the mathematical likelyhood of a given sapient being being real, versus being one of the sims, will be vanishingly small.

Therefore we are probably in a simulation.

Here’s Bostrom’s version:

"*A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:* 1. *The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;* 1. *The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;* 1. *The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.*
*If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).*
*Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.*"
59

I can see that. Although I’m no Dawkins expert, it is clear that Dawkins, despite being vehemently against religion, is not so unscientific to claim that there is, in fact, no creator. Even Hitchens doesn’t say that! So I’m not sure where Kaz is coming up with such claims.

60

That we haven’t thought of a way to tell doesn’t mean one cannot exist.

Perhaps this explains why our universe seems comprise of quantum data, not “real” things.

Maybe data compression and fudging explains the uncertainty principle.

Perhaps the real universe, for example the owner of our simulating PC, will eventually intercede directly and demonstrate its presence in a verifiable way, for fun or otherwise.

Actually, that’s what agnostics say.

Yes, they are making the same mistake as those who think there is not a god/whatever.

A term popular because of the truth of the “There is no god because I’m an asshole” thesis.