Richard Dawkins

[Mr. Tea]

How do you test that exactly? You're making a philosophical/metaphysical claim. A fairy absurd one I think, but it's kinda nice that Mr Science is all self-actualised and shit.

How is it absurd? Tell me, when you're ill, do you get medicine from a doctor or prayers from a holy man?

Now you're just regressing into exactly the mode of smug condescension I've come to associate with the po-mo anti-science set.

 

[comelately]

Well talking about the meaning of (say) DNA, or quantum probability, which falls within the remit of science, is different from talking about the meaning of the word "meaning", which doesn't.

It's not like I have too much problem with that as far as it goes, but I don't accept this thing you call 'science' can do any of that on its lonesome and am pretty sure you can't show me how it could. But you have named two examples, so maybe you can show how science generates the meaning of 'DNA' or 'quantum probability'.

No, and that's not a problem because science doesn't have the same reflexivity that philosophy does.

A.J. Ayer argued that a weighing machine cannot weight itself, but it doesn't really solve the problem of how to weigh the weighing machine or work out if its really giving you the right weights. Logical positivism isn't generally taken seriously today, even Ayer realised it was false in the end, and that's pretty much exactly the position you're retreating to.

The kind of meaning we're talking about now is non-scientific, yes. What do you expect me to do - produce a graph showing that I'm right and you're wrong?

That's kind of a YP situation. Besides, you've just stated that linguistics and science are separate concerns, so a graph wouldn't really work would it?

 

[baboon2004]

It doesn't bother me, I just find it puzzling. Sure, I'd rather be friends with moderate, unbigoted Christians, Muslims etc. than hate-filled, prejudiced atheists, that goes without saying. It's just that to me, as someone who isn't a believer and never has been, I have trouble with squaring the supposedly ineffable word of God as revealed through his Son/Prophet/gurus etc. with an attitude that allows one to cherry-pick the 'nice' bits of a creed and sweep the less nice bits under the carpet. That's a pragmatic attitude and, as far as I understand faith, it's rather inimicable to pragmatism.

my mum is a Christian physicist, so I have lots of experience in squaring such things!

people are sweeping the less nice things about everything and everybody under the carpet daily (including, most pertinently, themselves). i don't see that religion is in any way remarkable for this.

 

[comelately]

How is it absurd? Tell me, when you're ill, do you get medicine from a doctor or prayers from a holy man?

I like the doctor myself, but that's one simplistic example and still does not get you what you need

Now you're just regressing into exactly the mode of smug condescension I've come to associate with the po-mo anti-science set.

*Shrug* I will admit to a certain exasperation with your arguments at this point. As myself and vimothy have pointed out, Dawkins is trying to argue about metaphysics from the false authority of science. If science is about describing the natural world, then presumably Dawkins has made a mistake in devoting so much of his time to metaphysical issues? I'm not anti-science, yes I'm broadly speaking for a pragmatic demarcation of intellectual territory and a vaguely respectful sharing of common ground. On the subject of environmentalism, Zizek has stated that he thinks much of the romanticisation of nature actually gets in the way of the scientific progress that would lead to solutions to the environmental problems - so I don't accept that continental philosophy is anti-science.

 

[Mr. Tea]

It's not like I have too much problem with that as far as it goes, but I don't accept this thing you call 'science' can do any of that on its lonesome and am pretty sure you can't show me how it could. But you have named two examples, so maybe you can show how science generates the meaning of 'DNA' or 'quantum probability'.

Well DNA is just a string of base pairs that, by themselves, have no meaning at all. But what they imply, via an incredibly complex sequence of processes, is RNA, amino acids, proteins, different kinds of cells and ultimately an entire organism. Quantum probability is a number that can be derived from certain fairly sterile-looking equations but once you understand that it does in fact stand for a probability, it shows how those equations give rise to the behaviour of electrons, nuclei, atoms, molecules, crystals, light - everything that makes up the material universe.

It's a matter of debate whether science "generates" these meanings, or if they're latent within the systems being studied and science merely uncovers them. But again, this ambiguity is a problem for philosophers of science, not (for the most part) for scientists themselves.

A.J. Ayer argued that a weighing machine cannot weight itself, but it doesn't really solve the problem of how to weigh the weighing machine or work out if its really giving you the right weights. Logical positivism isn't generally taken seriously today, even Ayer realised it was false in the end, and that's pretty much exactly the position you're retreating to.

Science is about approximations. Yes, to measure something you have to make assumptions about the accuracy of your instruments. Which is why measured results are always quoted with some uncertainty range. Whether the position I'm taking conforms to some philosophical school that modern philosophers consider old hat doesn't particularly bother me because I'm not a philosopher.

Besides, you've just stated that linguistics and science are separate concerns, so a graph wouldn't really work would it?

Well yeah, that was kind of my point.

 

[comelately]

Well DNA is just a string of base pairs that, by themselves, have no meaning at all. But what they imply, via an incredibly complex sequence of processes, is RNA, amino acids, proteins, different kinds of cells and ultimately an entire organism. Quantum probability is a number that can be derived from certain fairly sterile-looking equations but once you understand that it does in fact stand for a probability, it shows how those equations give rise to the behaviour of electrons, nuclei, atoms, molecules, crystals, light - everything that makes up the material universe.

But that's all language? It's not 'science', as you have conceded. All those words have meanings composed of words, which have meanings, which have meanings ad infinitum. Science does not generate or uncover these meanings with any objectivity outside of its own framework - as you concede. You have to accept 'science' into your heart. That may be a small jump, a pragmatic jump, a human jump but it is a jump and science cannot show it to be better than any other jump. You may be presenting 'scientific facts', but that speaks to the area of interest the fact to pertains to rather than the philosophical nature of the fact.

Whether the position I'm taking conforms to some philosophical school that modern philosophers consider old hat doesn't particularly bother me because I'm not a philosopher.

The fact that you are taking a philosophical position suggests that the claim not to be a philosopher is dubious but if it is true, then get orf my land!

 

[comelately]

Ah, I see what you're saying. As an argument "it's a fact that there are facts" is question begging of course, I'm just saying that it's not a nonsensical statement in a world where we already accept that we have facts.

I missed this. The issue is that we also accept other things, the clearest example being a belief in human autonomy which means the non-acceptance of some facts that would be accepted in the absence of this belief. Non-sociopaths tend to believe in altruism/justice. I don't think this 'acceptance of facts' as a permanent state of affairs is a particularly accurate reduction of the human experience. The (apparently dim) student who stated that 'there are no facts' clearly didn't accept the proposition in that moment and presumably lived to tell the tale. You may need to believe, implicitly, on some level, in the existence of a chair to sit down on it, but you don't need to retain the belief to continue sitting on it.

 

[IdleRich]

"I missed this. The issue is that we also accept other things, the clearest example being a belief in human autonomy which means the non-acceptance of some facts that would be accepted in the absence of this belief. Non-sociopaths tend to believe in altruism/justice. I don't think this 'acceptance of facts' as a permanent state of affairs is a particularly accurate reduction of the human experience."

You're missing the point of what I was saying. I was just showing that it's not a nonsensical statement ie one that contains no sense. In a world without facts it may be untrue - doubly untrue in fact (no pun intended) - but you can still understand the sense of what it's attempting to say. It's not self-defeating in the same way as "I I A F T T A N F" statement is.

"The (apparently dim) student who stated that 'there are no facts' clearly didn't accept the proposition in that moment and presumably lived to tell the tale."

Although he failed the Bphil I believe.

 

[comelately]

You're missing the point of what I was saying. I was just showing that it's not a nonsensical statement ie one that contains no sense. In a world without facts it may be untrue - doubly untrue in fact (no pun intended) - but you can still understand the sense of what it's attempting to say.

I don't think I have missed the point. I don't accept either statement is "nonsensical". I think that you can understand the sense of what both statements are trying to say. I have accepted that this frame of reference is persuasive to humans who have a natural tendency towards the empirical viewpoint, and tried to explain why I do not think this is sufficient to provide the underpinning for an empiricist philosophy.

In the end, what I think you're trying to suggest is that it is "better" for an argument to beg the question than for it to appear to contradict itself. I don't really see how that could work but I invite you to prove it (though I fear another infinite regress). I don't think a statement can be meaningful if its opposite is meaningless.

 

[comelately]

Although he failed the Bphil I believe.

Well to state 'there are no facts' is to argue against the basic assumption of empiricism, he more or less killed a sacred cow. A lot of philosophy departments are fairly monocultural and dismissive of the continental tradition, so it isn't hard to imagine that he might have rubbed people the wrong way and had his non-conformist views judged to a higher standard. He might also have been a bit thick and this was highlighted as a particular example of his thickness for ideological reasons. I think I was quite lucky in the respect that Sussex had a broad range of thinkers.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But that's all language? It's not 'science', as you have conceded. All those words have meanings composed of words, which have meanings, which have meanings ad infinitum.

Yes, we're communicating in words, well done. We could try communicating through equations instead if you think that would make things easier.

Science does not generate or uncover these meanings with any objectivity outside of its own framework - as you concede. You have to accept 'science' into your heart. That may be a small jump, a pragmatic jump, a human jump but it is a jump and science cannot show it to be better than any other jump. You may be presenting 'scientific facts', but that speaks to the area of interest the fact to pertains to rather than the philosophical nature of the fact.

'Better' in what way? No, science cannot provide 'meaning' if by that you mean 'giving meaning' to your life, showing you the 'right way to live', differentiating right from wrong, or whatever. Again, that's not its remit. Religion plays that role for some people. Other people manage to find this kind of meaning without religion.

Not sure what you're getting at with "Science does not generate or uncover these meanings with any objectivity outside of its own framework". What meaning does DNA or quantum probability have outside a scientific framework? None whatsoever.

 

[IdleRich]

"I don't think I have missed the point. I don't accept either statement is "nonsensical". I think that you can understand the sense of what both statements are trying to say. I have accepted that this frame of reference is persuasive to humans who have a natural tendency towards the empirical viewpoint, and tried to explain why I do not think this is sufficient to provide the underpinning for an empiricist philosophy.
In the end, what I think you're trying to suggest is that it is "better" for an argument to beg the question than for it to appear to contradict itself. I don't really see how that could work but I invite you to prove it (though I fear another infinite regress). I don't think a statement can be meaningful if its opposite is meaningless."

Look, neither is an argument is it? They're both just statements - one is a statement that is either self-contradictory (although you don't accept this) or simply wrong. The other is a statement that is either trivially true or just wrong. Neither are nonsensical in the sense that you can't extract meaning from then. One is nonsensical in a lazier usage of the word in that it is always (to me) gonna fail to do what it wants to do. That's all. I'm not gonna explain it again because this is even a side-show to the side-show of whatever the real debate was.

"Well to state 'there are no facts' is to argue against the basic assumption of empiricism, he more or less killed a sacred cow."

More like lunged clumsily at it with a rusty pair of scissors but I take your point.

"A lot of philosophy departments are fairly monocultural and dismissive of the continental tradition, so it isn't hard to imagine that he might have rubbed people the wrong way and had his non-conformist views judged to a higher standard. He might also have been a bit thick and this was highlighted as a particular example of his thickness for ideological reasons. I think I was quite lucky in the respect that Sussex had a broad range of thinkers."

Yes. This is true and probably worth a thread in its own right. The fact (oops there I go again) that half of what's called philosophers still think that the other half are total charlatans. Personally, from the small bits of continental philosophy that I have read I do feel that there is often the deployment of less rigorous argument and the use of obfuscatory language to hide this... however often isn't always and I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss the whole kit and caboodle as I may have done when younger and more angry.

 

[comelately]

Yes, we're communicating in words, well done.

Just about.

Not sure what you're getting at with "Science does not generate or uncover these meanings with any objectivity outside of its own framework". What meaning does DNA or quantum probability have outside a scientific framework? None whatsoever.

Well, I'm not even pretending to understand quantums but people have certainly tried to use them to solve the problem of free will - I don't think that really works but it is done. And although a 'philosophically libertarian' world might still have no objective ethics, I think it would change the debate narrative considerably. Nonetheless, as far as I can see you're agreeing with the vimothy opinion that Dawkins is arguing from false authority - an opinion that I broadly agree with also.

 

[baboon2004]

'Better' in what way? No, science cannot provide 'meaning' if by that you mean 'giving meaning' to your life, showing you the 'right way to live', differentiating right from wrong, or whatever. Again, that's not its remit. Religion plays that role for some people. Other people manage to find this kind of meaning without religion.

I guess philosophy fills in those gaps, or tries to, as well.

Maybe if religion were to come to mean whatever one uses to fill the role described above, the debate would be easier? Cos in that sense everyone has religion, some organised, some less so (but, I would argue, often still heavily influenced by institutions). I guess 'spirituality' has come to mean that, but that word has been so abused....

 

[comelately]

it is always (to me) gonna fail to do what it wants to do.

I'm not sure "IT" really want to do anything but at that point we're deeply embroiled in some shit I don't think either of us fancy much right now.

 

[IdleRich]

I think we can agree on that. To be honest if you had posted something more on that subject I would have just said "you're right, you win, I don't care". I wonder how many proper philosophical arguments are "resolved" in that way...

 

[Mr. Tea]

Newsflash: my girlfriend just watched a live debate between Dawkins and the AB of C and says the holy eyebrow'd one kicked Dawkins's arse so hard she "wants his babies"...

 

[DannyL]

Newsflash: my girlfriend just watched a live debate between Dawkins and the AB of C and says the holy eyebrow'd one kicked Dawkins's arse so hard she "wants his babies"...

Can this be found online anywhere? Sorry to lower the philosophical tone but it's curious to me how people just don't like Dawkins - even those who're in agreement with him in this thread seem to concede he's basically pretty unlikable. Possibly there's a gap in the market - Ollie, you could become the cuddly, pun-tastic face of atheism?

 

[Mr. Tea]

'Cuddly'? I weigh about 75kg, you cheeky fuck!

The debate might be on youtube already, I'll have a look. I think you're right; while I do ultimately think Dawkins's thesis is broadly correct (there is no God, and widespread belief to the contrary causes more harm than good - he wouldn't accept that it causes any good, of course) I don't think he's the best poster child for atheism because he just gets so fucking unpleasant about the whole business. I gather he's much better when writing about his actual field of expertise.

Also, his obsession with religion as the unique cause of all the world's ills is very short-sighted - just like a Marxist who blames every social ill on capitalism and class or a radical feminist who thinks patriarchy's the root of all evil. People can be shitty to each other for all sorts of reasons, and often for a complex interrelated web of reasons, no single one of which can be identified as the unique ur-evil.

Edit: can't find the debate online, I'll ask my girlfriend if she knows if it's hosted somewhere.

 

[comelately]

I think another problem with the thesis is that human society is not like a lot of atoms bouncing around a petri dish. Even if you could prove that religion has had a deleterious effect on things throughout human history, that isn't enough to actually demonstrate that it would be the case in the future.