Religion's static dogma contradicts science's logical and dynamic nature. — finarfin

That's just a claim that their methods to find "truths" conflict, which needs to be distinguished from the idea that the truths themselves conflict.

Except for the quote that addresses my complaint. — praxis

Okay, fair enough. I apologize for overlooking that quote.

Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well? — praxis

But what assertion are you talking about? You seem to have taken a fairly simple assertion and applied a great deal of pedantry in order to make a mountain out of a molehill. Here is what Wayfarer actually said:

There's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'. — Wayfarer

Now you apparently read the phrase, “that ’science disproves God’ or some such,” in a very strange way, especially given the context. You want to read it as if Wayfarer were talking about strict proof of God’s non-existence, and as if the new atheists were in violation of a tautology, but obviously that’s not what Wayfarer was saying. That your interpretation is strained could have been known by the immediate context, “...or some such.” It could also have been known by considering the concluding attribution of “secular fundamentalist.” No one was talking about strict or formal proof, and neither was there any equivocation on this point.*

Then cited a source to the effect that Dawkins possesses a certainty of 6.9/7 that God does not exist. Dawkins makes this point precisely in order to block the inference that a lack of proof implies a significant possibility of God’s existence. Dawkins thinks the people who harp on this point about “proof” and “complete certainty” are misguided (people such as yourself). He thinks there is excessive scientific justification for rejecting “the God hypothesis,” and that a lack of strict proof is neither here nor there.

So it seems to me that your quibble here amounts to, “No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you.” Both the quibbling and the interpretation of Wayfarer’s statement are silly.

* Note too that when one wishes to concisely convey the ancillary point that a group of people believe science provides excessive justification for rejecting God and religion, this phrase is perfectly adequate: “that ’science disproves God’ or some such.” That is a much smoother and easier way to convey the simple idea than anything else that comes readily to mind. It is not Wayfarer’s fault if someone manages to parse the words in a strained and implausible fashion. (An entire thread could be devoted to the general problem of uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning.)

It’s a valid paraphrase of what Dawkins and Dennett are on about. Not my problem if you can’t see it. — Wayfarer

If a paraphrase is deliberately biased or used to misrepresent the original content to serve a specific agenda, it is considered unethical and misleading. Valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

Claiming that "science disproves God" is clearly indicative of belief in scientism. None of them say that however, so you are forced to exaggerate what they say to make it appear that they believe in scientism. Your "paraphrasing" shows bias and is misrepresentative. That makes it invalid.

It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear.

uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning — Leontiskos

:lol: Speaking of...

your quibble here amounts to, “No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you.” — Leontiskos

But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by 1.43%. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda?

Again, valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism. — praxis

We're attempting to use "religious fundamentalism" generically here, but there would be variations among the different groups. If we look at fundamentalist Protestant Christians, the basis for their emergence was in reaction to modernization and challenges brought forth by science to the religious belief. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3389#:~:text=The%20most%20prominent%20of%20the,that%20contradicted%20their%20religious%20beliefs.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism

From this emerged fundamentalist literalism, which holds that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God and that it is understandable by the common man, as each word clearly means what it says.

I do not believe this literalism and backlash to science resulted in stricter worship forms. The typical religious Protestant attends service one day a week at a church that offers serveral services each Sunday (sometimes divided by traditional and modern, where they plug in the electric guitars). The services varies in terms of what prayers are said, hymns sung, and sermons given.

That contrasts with the Catholic tradition, which is not particuraly growing in the US, but which does rely upon stricter worship services. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a modern creation, dating back largely to the early 1900s, so the argument seems to support a move toward modernity in some regards (worship service and church hierarchical structures), but toward a rigidity in Scripture interpretation, removing the role of the clergy as having a special ability to interpret and understand the text.

My reference to the "weakness" of the fundamentalist position relates to its logical, historical, and empirical defensibility. That someone might find more life fulfillment in believing the Ark truly housed every known animal than one who doesn't only means that person has figured out a way at blissful self-deception, but it doesn't offer me any likelihood to adopt that position because the insconsistency of such a belief with what else I hold as true makes that position impossible to adopt.

But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by .1. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda? — praxis

No, Wayfarer was not saying that Dawkins has a 7/7 certainty. That was your strained misinterpretation. You missed the point, just as you consistently missed Hanover's points. Do you have a desire to understand?

"Science disproves God"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". If you want to understand why your posts are sophistic, then consider the fact that they have consistently obscured this fact with rhetoric and hair-splitting. A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism. — praxis

The way I understand the qualifier "weakness" here is that it refers to what can also be called "minimal or minimalist theism". Such minimal/ist theism requires only "a belief in God or gods". This, however, is so minimal that no actual theistic religion veritably fits it, because it is such a gross oversimplification.

Holding "a belief in God or gods" doesn't make one an actual theist, such as a Catholic or a Muslim or a Vaishnavite or a Mahayani.

The god that many vocal atheists deny or are skeptical about is believed in in none of the major theistic religions. As such, the arguments of those atheists don't address the God that believers in the major theistic religions actually believe in. Those atheists aren't arguing against a strawman, they are arguing against what is a non-typical representative.

Just as religions must conflict if each claims to be the only correct ideology, science and religion must conflict when their domains overlap if either wants to be seen as legitimate. — finarfin

It seems that in the minds of most people, religion and science are not equals to begin with, by default, one is given more legitimacy than the other.

On the other hand, many old-world religions constantly encroach on science's legitimate territory, promoting preposterous and destructive claims.

For one, religion was there before science, so it can claim primacy.

When this occurs, science has a responsibility to disprove religion and put it in its place. That is the only way for the two to coexist.

Such disproving would be possible only if science and religion were equals. But they're not.

And if they cannot, science will inevitably win, because it is adaptive and produces tangible results that benefit all of society.

There is more to "tangible results that benefit all of society" than just technological advancement through science. Offering answers to the meaning of life question is one such other tangible result.

You missed the point — Leontiskos

His point was that Richard Dawkins and others believe in scientism. An accusation that is often used to discredit atheists and falaciously invalidate their arguments.

Dawkins himself has clarified his position by stating that he does not consider himself a proponent of scientism. He has expressed the view that while science is an incredibly powerful and reliable method for understanding the natural world, there are also limits to what science can address. He acknowledges that there are philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical questions that may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

"Science disproves God"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". — Leontiskos

What does B mean? That science mostly disproves the existence of God? That is nonsensical.

If it means that science can undermine religious beliefs such as creation stories, that doesn't seem very indicative of belief in scientism.

Let's try this:

"Richard Dawkins believes in scientism"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own. — Leontiskos

I just reviewed my posts and I've practically said nothing about him, other than what he's said himself. I haven't "paraphrased" anything he's said or misrepresented him.

It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear. — praxis

Scientism is, according to Wikipedia, 'the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.' Dawkins and Dennett both disavow it, because they realise it casts them in a negative light, but it is indisputable that this is what they both propogate. Daniel Dennett is a veritable Professor of Scientism but because of his own massive cognitive blind spot in this matter - the same blind spot that prevents him from recognising that humans are beings as distinct from moist robots - he's completely unable to see it. His first book, Consciousness Explained, was parodied by several of his peers as Consciousness Ignored. Galen Strawson said he should be sued under Trade Practices for false advertising (i.e. claiming to have explained something he hadn't.)

What I originally said was 'science disproves God or some such', it was a colloquial expression of his attitude. Picking a bunch of random material from the bona fide quotations on Wikiquote, we get:

Just because science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet, that doesn't mean that religion can. It's a simple and logical fallacy to say, 'If science can't do something, therefore religion can'.....Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence......Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.... A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.....Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense.....evidence is the only good reason to believe anything..... — Richard Dawkins

Examples could be multiplied indefinitely

As for your fit of pique, get over it. I haven't said anything the least 'intellectually dishonest' in any of the above, and that is the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

I guess by this my own position is close to the dreaded scientism in as much as -

Scientism is, according to Wikipedia, 'the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.' — Wayfarer

I do think science is the most reliable way (but not the only way) to acquire tentative knowledge about the world. I would not use the word truth.

The Dawkins quote above I would agree with for the most part, but I would not state my position with the same level of militancy.

I would think that Dawkins would say that science renders God superfluous. Disproving theism is a different, more technical exercise which I don't think can be done.

it is indisputable that this is what they both propogate — Wayfarer

Another lie. Of course it's disputable. For example, Dawkins doesn't refuse to consider other forms of knowledge, such as philosophical, ethical, or experiential, as valid or meaningful, and he doesn't ignore or downplay the qualitative, subjective, or personal aspects of human experience, which cannot always be easily studied using the scientific method. This is evident in the quote that you post where he says:

science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet — Richard Dawkins

As for your fit of pique, get over it. — Wayfarer

I'm insulted by your misrepresenting Dawkins and others???

it was a colloquial expression — Wayfarer

Just locker room talk, aye? Where have I heard that before? :roll:

I would think that Dawkins would say that science renders God superfluous. — Tom Storm

That's what I should have said at the outset. Happy now, @praxis?

As an aside - I don't know if I've mentioned that the article that lead me to forums was Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion - Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching. That lead me to the Richard Dawkins forum, which was the first I joined, I think in 2008 or 9. (Eagleton is a leftie university lecturer, no religious apologist, although he oddly adopted a pose rather like that in the late noughties.)

(Dawkins) doesn't ignore or downplay the qualitative, subjective, or personal aspects of human experience, which cannot always be easily studied using the scientific method. — praxis

He rarely says anything about it. Mostly he just bangs the drum about the Wonders of Science.

He rarely says anything about it. — Wayfarer

Laughably, he did in the quote that you picked.

You cherry-picked one sentence from 'Just because science can't in practice explain things like the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet, that doesn't mean that religion can. It's a simple and logical fallacy to say, 'If science can't do something, therefore religion can'. Plainly the polemical point has nothing to do with poetry or romanticism, but more of the Dawkins sledging of science v religion.

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet?

Religious discourse is a special type of discourse. It's meant to instruct the people in religious themes, praise the religious doctrine and the religious figures, proselytize to outsiders. It's not meant to encourage critical thinking as critical thinking is understood in secular academia.

And clearly, people apparently want and need this type of discourse, otherwise there wouldn't be such things as scientism. — baker

Want certainly. Need? I find that questionable.

In what sense do you mean "need"?

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet? — praxis

It depends on what is meant by religion. Plainly fundamentalist religion won't have anything useful to contribute other than trying to squeeze everyone into its procrustean bed. But the romantic poets - Wordsworth, Coleridge, William Blake and others - weren't anything like religious fundamentalists. I suppose they could be 'spiritual but not religious' although even that is probably not quite right. They have an intuitive sense of a kind of 'higher sensibility' (as they would have called it), awareness of which is often absent from "religion" as such, but also absent in the likes of Dawkins/Dennett.

As an aside - I don't know if I've mentioned that the article that lead me to forums was Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion — Wayfarer

Yes, I read that too. I've intermittently followed Eagleton's work in the area of literary theory and cultural criticism for some time.

I think it's easy be ambivalent or hostile towards Dawkins and like many atheists, he is often a polemicist. Many in the secular humanist community are now hostile to him owing to his perceived anti-trans comments.

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet? — praxis

Depends on the religion. Many apologists would argue that love emanates from God's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence of God in action in our lives.

Fundamentalists and both Dawkins and Dennett can't grasp romanticism? If you say so.

Many apologists would argue that love emanates from god's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence God in action in our lives. — Tom Storm

I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature.

I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature. — praxis

That would be the other guy...

That would be the other guy... — Tom Storm

And humans don't actually love or hate as a matter of their own nature? It's God, or the other guy that God created, putting on a puppet show?

I think I understand their thinking and for me it holds up ok as these things go. I'm an atheist in as much as I have no belief in gods and find the idea incoherent. To me, it's like hearing about the powers of superheroes, subject to a fantasy universe.

I think it's easy be ambivalent or hostile towards Dawkins and like many atheists, he is often a polemicist. — Tom Storm

Persona non grata, in the well-deserved sense. Even his scientific colleagues began speaking out against him and distancing themselves, wary that he was dragging the scientific community into ideological skirmishes. He is a kind of zealot who lost himself in battles with those he considered to be the foes of science. At each point the proper remonstrance from his colleagues could have been, “Richard, stop stooping down to their level! Your zeal for science is only harming it.”

And humans don't actually love or hate as a matter of their own nature? — wonderer1

They do, according to old Darwinian ideas.

It's God, or the other guy that God created, putting on a puppet show?

The theory of constructed emotion is a theory in affective science proposed by Lisa Feldman Barrett to explain the experience and perception of emotion. The theory posits that instances of emotion are constructed predictively by the brain in the moment as needed. It draws from social construction, psychological construction, and neuroconstruction.

God is not the one doing the constructing in this theory, but it's regarded as just a theory so hopefully no one will cry scientism! :snicker:

And clearly, people apparently want and need this type of discourse, otherwise there wouldn't be such things as scientism.
— baker

Want certainly. Need? I find that questionable.

In what sense do you mean "need"? — wonderer1

People have the uncanny ability to make a religion out of pretty much anything. Some people go about it systematically and explicitly, so there are the traditional religionists, and those who "created their own religion". Fans of celebrities, fashionistas, scientism, foodism, etc. etc. All these have in common a characteristic dogmatism that is of existential importance to the members, a community of devotees, a place of worship, the lives of those devotees revolving around certain persons, characters, objects, or ideas, and the willingness to defend them even by endangering their own existence.

Many people are not that systematic and explicit, but they still have that need for prevailing, for being right in what is of existential importance to a them and also having at least some other people on one's side, which is characteristic for religiosity.

IOW, what I mean here by "religious discourse" is a type of discourse that is characteristically dogmatic, of existential importance, and bound to a particular community. People generally do seem to exhibit this as a matter of a need (which, when unmet, manifests as narcissism/egotism).

At each point the proper remonstrance from his colleagues could have been, “Richard, stop stooping down to their level! Your zeal for science is only harming it.” — Leontiskos

But nomen est omen!

Science is rigor. You can study anything rigorously, but if it's based on fantasy, the results will be too.

The common core of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence and is always intellectually regressive.

Science is rigor. You can study anything rigorously... — Kaiser Basileus

Well, only somewhat rigorously. With what accuracy can you measure how long something is? What would be the basis of your claim to accuracy?

Also, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

The same input continues to match the output and poof, you have a yardstick, or whatever. The act of measurement is the act of validating causality. Reality/truth just keeps acting the same way every time we check it. It is that which we can be most certain of.