Richard Dawkins on Religion


Scott Free
#1
Richard Dawkins on Religion (external - login to view)

Awesome video IMO
 
Scott Free
#2
The Enemies Of Reason Part 1 (external - login to view)

The Enemies Of Reason Part 2 (external - login to view)
 
Cliffy
#3
Scott Free,

I really like Richard Dawkins' stand on religion. It resonates with my own. But I began to see in the clip on enemies of reason a rigidness that is endemic in science. Science is a new religion. Its commonality is steeped in black or white. Neither seems capable of perceiving gray areas.


My perceptions of spirituality are based on the science of quantum physics and mechanics. I believe that we are spiritual beings because science cannot find material, just energy. That energy is intelligent; has a consciousness, is creative and is the basis of what we perceive as reality. But physical reality, as we see it, is nothing more than a belief system that has been refined over many millennium by our exclusive focus on material reality.

That is the problem I have with most scientists. They only focuses on the material and fail to consider the intelligent energy behind it: that props it up. A rock may seem solid, but it is made up of atomic structures that are almost entirely made up of empty space. The energy that holds together the neutrons and protons that make up that rock have a certain intelligence required to accomplish that task.

On the other hand, scientists "see" only the material structure because they focus entirely on observable evidence. They can't see the energy that holds it together and therefore ignore it, except when they get into the quantum aspects of particle colliders.
 
Scott Free
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Scott Free,

I really like Richard Dawkins' stand on religion. It resonates with my own. But I began to see in the clip on enemies of reason a rigidness that is endemic in science. Science is a new religion. Its commonality is steeped in black or white. Neither seems capable of perceiving gray areas.

I agree to a certain extent however science does have effective safety mechanisms built into it that make it very different than religion. The scientific community isn't ordered like a religion either; it is very much a collective of free thinking individuals. Another major difference too is that science is concerned with finding the truth whereas religion claims to have it already.

These are very significant differences that keep the two quite separate IMO.

I think your criticism is warranted and I have made the same one myself, however, I discovered that it is only a fair charge when levelled at individuals not science itself.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

My perceptions of spirituality are based on the science of quantum physics and mechanics. I believe that we are spiritual beings because science cannot find material, just energy. That energy is intelligent; has a consciousness, is creative and is the basis of what we perceive as reality. But physical reality, as we see it, is nothing more than a belief system that has been refined over many millennium by our exclusive focus on material reality.

Science tells us energy and matter are the same things; the famous E=MC^2, where E is energy and M is matter.

The world we see is the product of our evolution and has little to do with reality and I agree shapes our perception of the world. I think a lot of our current challenges are a direct result of this.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

That is the problem I have with most scientists. They only focuses on the material and fail to consider the intelligent energy behind it: that props it up.

That is probably because there isn't much evidence that energy is intelligent.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

A rock may seem solid, but it is made up of atomic structures that are almost entirely made up of empty space.

That's what they say.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

The energy that holds together the neutrons and protons that make up that rock have a certain intelligence required to accomplish that task.

I don't see how that means energy is intelligent?

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

On the other hand, scientists "see" only the material structure because they focus entirely on observable evidence. They can't see the energy that holds it together and therefore ignore it, except when they get into the quantum aspects of particle colliders.

I don't think they ignore it. It seems to me there are a lot of fancy theories that posit all kinds of invisible forces like "dimensions" and what not.

But I do agree they seem to miss some obvious things but when looking at the history of science and the genealogy of current theories, particularly the reason for them, it becomes, I think, evident why science misses certain things.
 
Cliffy
#5
Scott Free,
I guess what I am getting at is that if you or I were not conscious beings, we would be nothing but masses of protoplasm. It takes "intelligence" or consciousness to be human. I am suggesting that it also takes some form of intelligence to be a tree or a rock. Something holds it together. Some call it god, I call it intelligence. You might call it something else. I think the problem is semantics.

I don't know if you have ever experienced seeing the energy of a living thing like a tree. There are various ways to attain such vision (meditation, yoga, certain drugs) but it not an uncommon occurrence. In that frame of mind, one can experience a state of oneness with the object. In that state, the "intelligence" is perceived, felt, experienced... add your own definition. Rocks can be experienced in the same way.

One must be able to break free of the restrictions of status quo thinking in order to see beyond the "normal" to what is hidden from view by restrictive belief systems.
 
Scott Free
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Scott Free,
I guess what I am getting at is that if you or I were not conscious beings, we would be nothing but masses of protoplasm. It takes "intelligence" or consciousness to be human. I am suggesting that it also takes some form of intelligence to be a tree or a rock. Something holds it together. Some call it god, I call it intelligence. You might call it something else. I think the problem is semantics.

I get what your saying. The only part I don't get is the "intelligence" part. I am not a materialist; I am a realist but I don't understand why a binding agent (like a spirit) that creates a rock needs to be intelligent. I see no evidence that it is nor that it needs to be.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I don't know if you have ever experienced seeing the energy of a living thing like a tree. There are various ways to attain such vision (meditation, yoga, certain drugs) but it not an uncommon occurrence. In that frame of mind, one can experience a state of oneness with the object. In that state, the "intelligence" is perceived, felt, experienced... add your own definition. Rocks can be experienced in the same way.

I have had a great many such experiences but I do not suppose that they are real anymore than I support that the colour green as being real.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

One must be able to break free of the restrictions of status quo thinking in order to see beyond the "normal" to what is hidden from view by restrictive belief systems.

We are in total agreement on this.
 
Vanni Fucci
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I am suggesting that it also takes some form of intelligence to be a tree or a rock. Something holds it together. Some call it god, I call it intelligence. You might call it something else. I think the problem is semantics.

I call it the strong and weak interactions together with electromagnetism and gravitation.
 
Scott Free
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

I call it the strong and weak interactions together with electromagnetism and gravitation.

Therein lies the problem. If your going to say its gravity then why not just say it's god? Since you don't know what gravity is then you cannot say it isn't. You want proof of God - then look to gravity! There is God and there is your proof!

Don't get me wrong I don't think there is a "god," I'm just saying we have been lucky on this forum that the religionists are not better at argument but that does not mean we can rely on the same superstition.
 
Vanni Fucci
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Therein lies the problem. If your going to say its gravity then why not just say it's god? Since you don't know what gravity is then you cannot say it isn't. You want proof of God - then look to gravity! There is God and there is your proof!

Don't get me wrong I don't think there is a god, I'm just saying we have been lucky on this forum that the religionists are not better at argument but that does not mean we can rely on the same superstition.

I disagree...gravity can be demonstrated in a controlled test environment, god cannot...

We know gravity exists, and how and why it works...

Just because we can't see it all around us with the naked eye does not mean that we must use faith to determine it's validity...
 
Scott Free
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

I disagree...gravity can be demonstrated in a controlled test environment, god cannot...

But you just said you did demonstrate it?

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

We know gravity exists, and how and why it works...

No we don't! We know that it exists and that it works. The why and how is not known.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Just because we can't see it all around us with the naked eye does not mean that we must use faith to determine it's validity...

No, I agree, but neither does it mean we can assume it to be anything other than what it is - an invisible force unlike any other; that is what we know.

This is where I very much agree with Cliffy and see similarity to religion and science in that both make presumptions. I know science would argue its presumptions are better but I would argue that they aren't really aware of all the presumptions they have made so science doesn't really know if theirs are better or not.

"...scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a purely speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy"
- Karl Popper
Last edited by Scott Free; Nov 20th, 2008 at 05:29 AM..
 
Vanni Fucci
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

But you just said you did demonstrate it?

What?
Where?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

No we don't! We know that it exists and that it works. The why and how is not known.

So we don't know that gravity is the force that exists between two bodies of different mass, and that the effect is greater when the differnce of mass is greater?

I thought Newton figured that one out 400 years ago...

Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

While there are some tricky questions about gravity that have yet to be answered fully, it's the best model we have for explaining the nature of bodies of mass in our universe...

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

This is where I very much agree with Cliffy and see similarity to religion and science in that both make presumptions. I know science would argue its presumptions are better but I would argue that they aren't really aware of all the presumptions they have made so science doesn't really know if theirs are better or not.

This follows creationism into the hollow pit of pseudoscience, and neither serve to increase our understanding of the universe...

You are trying to answer questions on the basis of possibility rather than probability...
 
Scott Free
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

What?
Where?

"gravity can be demonstrated in a controlled test environment"

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

So we don't know that gravity is the force that exists between two bodies of different mass, and that the effect is greater when the differnce of mass is greater?

That isn't "what" it is.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

While there are some tricky questions about gravity that have yet to be answered fully, it's the best model we have for explaining the nature of bodies of mass in our universe...

That's right "a model," which is very different than saying what it is - which we don't know.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

This follows creationism into the hollow pit of pseudoscience, and neither serve to increase our understanding of the universe...

Pseudoscience you say? How so? Because I am speculating on a different model away from that which is established in wikipedia!!! OH THE HERESY!!! I blasphemed! Next I'll be saying Einstein and Plato were wrong! Just who do I think I am!!!!!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

You are trying to answer questions on the basis of possibility rather than probability...

I know exactly what I am doing. A person just has to find a few errors and come up with a better theory and possibility becomes probability.
 
Vanni Fucci
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

"gravity can be demonstrated in a controlled test environment"

Quote:


Equations for a falling body near the surface of the Earth

Ball falling freely under gravity. See text for description.
Main article: Equations for a falling body
Under an assumption of constant gravity, Newton’s law of gravitation simplifies to F = mg, where m is the mass of the body and g is a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s². The acceleration due to gravity is equal to this g. An initially-stationary object which is allowed to fall freely under gravity drops a distance which is proportional to the square of the elapsed time. The image on the right, spanning half a second, was...

Quote has been trimmed

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

That isn't "what" it is.

Oh? Are you suggesting Newton was wrong?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

That's right "a model," which is very different than saying what it is - which we don't know.

The gravitational model is well established, meaning that we do know what it is and how it works...we wouldn't have any idea of particle physics without knowing this.

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Pseudoscience you say? How so? Because I am speculating on a different model away from that which is established in wikipedia!!! OH THE HERESY!!! I blasphemed! Next I'll be saying Einstein and Plato were wrong! Just who do I think I am!!!!!!!

Is it time to up your meds Scott?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

I know exactly what I am doing. A person just has to find a few errors and come up with a better theory and possibility becomes probability.

If this is your goal, I suggest you read a bit more, and stop trying to find intelligence in inanimate objects...
 
Scott Free
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Oh? Are you suggesting Newton was wrong?

No, I'm saying you're wrong. Newton said gravity was a force like no other. You're saying you know that it exists which means therefore that you know what it is, and that is wrong - you don't know.


Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

The gravitational model is well established, meaning that we do know what it is and how it works...we wouldn't have any idea of particle physics without knowing this.

Your wrong. What can I say? Believe what you will.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Is it time to up your meds Scott?

ad hominem already? I have shaken your faith that easily?


Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

If this is your goal, I suggest you read a bit more, and stop trying to find intelligence in inanimate objects...

Maybe you should try reading what I posted. You'll see that I made no such claim.
 
Vanni Fucci
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

No, I'm saying you're wrong. Newton said gravity was a force like no other. You're saying you know that it exists which means therefore that you know what it is, and that is wrong - you don't know.

Here, a NASA site, since you're apparently offended by Wikipedia...I think it's geared to around grade 6 students, so you shouldn't have too much trouble following along...

NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us - General Physics - Gravity


Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

ad hominem already? I have shaken your faith that easily?

Hardly, you were just being a dick...

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Maybe you should try reading what I posted. You'll see that I made no such claim.

Fair enough...

So you're agreeing with Cliffy in principle, but not in practice...I get that...

Still doesn't excuse you from denying science that we already know...

There is no faith involved in gravity...just a lot of math, without which we never would have been able to calculate escape velocity for any of the NASA launches...
 
Scott Free
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post


Hardly, you were just being a dick...

Me? Hardly. I wasn't pushing my beliefs on anyone.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

So you're agreeing with Cliffy in principle, but not in practice...I get that...

I was trying to understand why he perceived intelligence in energy. You see he might be onto something. How would I know unless I listened to him? I am not going to presume because he is on some forum he isn't worthy of an opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

Still doesn't excuse you from denying science that we already know...

Excuse me!?! What? Have I sinned?

Science is flawed. That is the fun of it. If it weren't it would be a religion. Maybe that is what you're looking for?

The science you apparently know doesn't even exist except maybe on Star Trek

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

There is no faith involved in gravity...just a lot of math, without which we never would have been able to calculate escape velocity for any of the NASA launches...

So what? I don't see how that is even relevant.

If gravitons are proved by the Hadron collider then we will know the model is correct and what gravity is. If they are not then the topic will still be open for debate.
 
Vanni Fucci
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

If gravitons are proved by the Hadron collider then we will know the model is correct and what gravity is. If they are not then the topic will still be open for debate.

The absence of an identifiable gravitron does not negate what we know about gravity or how it works, just as the absence of an indentifiable Higgs boson does not negate what we already know about .wave-particle duality
 
Cliffy
#18
Do you guys ever sleep?

Science is a guessing game. They are breaking their own laws on a daily basis. It is always about speculation and trying to prove the speculation's accuracy. But it has been discovered that the mindset of the experimenter has a direct influence on the results. One of the conclusions of Einstein's theory was that reality is relative to the beholder. In the end it is what we believe it is.

Scientists end up proving their hypothesis because they believe it to be correct. A lot of the time, someone with a different belief will come along and prove them wrong. That is the beauty of science, it is not static like religion, but it is not a heck of a lot more accurate.

In some sciences, archaeology, for example, the beliefs of some of the establishment have held back some discoveries because they didn't fit into their preconceived ideas of how things evolved. There are hundreds of archaeological anomalies that cannot be explained by the official story, so they just ignore them. That is a problem with many scientists. They become famous for a theory or postulation then fight like hell to block an opposing view. It is pure ego on their part and in a lot of cases the truth is stifled for generations because of it. For example, how many people are aware that the Bering Straight Land Bridge theory has been debunked? How many people know that the Americas were occupied tens of thousands of years before the end of the last Ice Age or that Europeans visited here hundreds of years before Eric the Red?
 
scratch
#19
Interesting to say the least.
 
MHz
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

The Enemies Of Reason Part 1 (external - login to view)

The Enemies Of Reason Part 2 (external - login to view)

30 seconds into #1 and I have a question. When they mention what science has done they bring up 3 'useful things'. Science is also behind some things that have resulted in many deaths. Science is behind every weapon ever made since they stopped throwing rocks at each other. Eradicated small-pox, maybe after they were done using it for a 'weapon'. Once it made it around the world everybody left should have immune to it anyway, the very back of the 'unexplored' world was the last place it was taken. Oddly enough that is where the 'vaccine' was first used and declared to be the cure/prevention. Then the rest of the world was charged $10 each for a shot that was as effective against small-pox as distilled water is against anything.
60billion thoughts/sec on a computer but not everybody has a pair of shoes or a book to read. Has science always taken the right direction in terms of what it focuses on? Is that direction controlled, if so then science is a tool, nothing else and tools are there to do brute force work with no morality entering the decision making process.

Science will spend (and demand even more) 60 billion to go to Mars but they will not spend 1/10 of that on projects that are more important to the needs of people that are alive, let alone the whole 60. Take away the money that is given to science that goes to something that harms man (or just has no immediate benefit) and apply it to projects that take care of some woes then explore the cosmos.

Other than that it was a great start, oh, why do (I assume these are scientists sitting around) they chant?
 
MHz
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

For example, how many people are aware that the Bering Straight Land Bridge theory has been debunked?

Why would they call it a land bridge when it should have has a glacier covering it that was several miles deep and that ice should have covered part of the Pacific ocean that would have been to the south of that piece of land. Same with the Atlantic, Greenland and Iceland could have been completely under the ice. They would not have even needed boats, they could have walked on the ice close to the shore, fish for food and ice for fresh water could have met most of their needs. Warm clothing would also be needed but other than that nothing would be a necessity for life.
 
GreenFish66
#22
Well I guess someone had to take Darwins position..It can't be disproved but other theories stand up just as well!...Survival of the fitest only get's you so far in todays Universe!
 
Cliffy
#23
Why would they call it a land bridge

MHz,

The theory is that the glaciers took so much water out of the system that sea level dropped 400 feet exposing an actual land bridge. As you can imagine, there are more holes here than Swiss cheese but that is what has been fed to school kids for the past hundred years or so.

But that is just one little example of information that is stifled to suit the egos of some scientists. Of course it is nothing compared to the truths that are buried in the black hole of religious beliefs.
 
Scott Free
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

30 seconds into #1 and I have a question. When they mention what science has done they bring up 3 'useful things'. Science is also behind some things that have resulted in many deaths. Science is behind every weapon ever made since they stopped throwing rocks at each other. Eradicated small-pox, maybe after they were done using it for a 'weapon'. Once it made it around the world everybody left should have immune to it anyway, the very back of the 'unexplored' world was the last place it was taken. Oddly enough that is where the 'vaccine' was first used and declared to be the cure/prevention. Then the rest of the world was charged $10 each for a shot that was as effective against small-pox as distilled water is against anything.
60billion thoughts/sec on a computer but not everybody has a pair of shoes or a book to read. Has science always taken the right direction in terms of what it focuses on? Is that direction controlled, if so then science is a tool, nothing else and tools are there to do brute force work with no morality entering the decision making process.
Science will spend (and demand even more) 60 billion to go to Mars but they will not spend 1/10 of that on projects that are more important to the needs of people that are alive, let alone the whole 60. Take away the money that is given to science that goes to something that harms man (or just has no immediate benefit) and apply it to projects that take care of some woes then explore the...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Science is man made and an improvement on religion. Where religion sought to offer explanations and improve lives so too does science. It has better checks and balances but anything we humans make is going to have errors. I'm sure whatever comes after science will be an even bigger improvement should our species survive long enough to invent it.
Last edited by Scott Free; Nov 20th, 2008 at 07:15 PM..
 
gerryh
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciView Post

The absence of an identifiable gravitron does not negate what we know about gravity or how it works, just as the absence of an indentifiable Higgs boson does not negate what we already know about .wave-particle duality


ROFLFMAO....... ya.... just have faith.....ROFLFMAO
 
gerryh
#26
and cliffy.... the land bridge is stil the excepted theory...... There are other theory's, but they are still being worked on and there has been nothing conclusive to "debunk" the land bridge theory.
 
MHz
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

But that is just one little example of information that is stifled to suit the egos of some scientists. Of course it is nothing compared to the truths that are buried in the black hole of religious beliefs.

Two suppositions=2 links please.
 
Vanni Fucci
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

ROFLFMAO....... ya.... just have faith.....ROFLFMAO

where:

F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
G is the gravitational constant (external - login to view),
m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
m2 is the mass of the second point mass,
r is the distance between the two point masses.

You figure it out gerry...
 
Vanni Fucci
#29
And another thing...

It seems the ignorance of the religious indeed knows no bounds.

Quote:


Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[5]

Quote has been trimmed
But universal gravitation is not a scientific theory, it is a scientific law, which makes it even less assailable...

Quote:

The laws of science are various established scientific laws (external - login to view), or physical laws (external - login to view) as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses (external - login to view), theories (external - login to view), postulates (external - login to view), principles (external - login to view), etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

 
Cliffy
#30
the land bridge is stil the excepted theory......

gerryh,

I just finished writing a book about the Arrow Lakes Indians and their 10 thousand year history in BC. I spent a year researching many different sources, including talking to archaeologists. When I presented my conclusions, he agreed. A handful may have made that trek, but the majority arrived here by boat or by foot along the coast (both east and west) that was exposed by the drastic drop in water volume. A recent find off the coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands at a depth of 160 feet below sea level shows the remains of cooked pygmy horse (extinct for 10 thousand years) along side stone tools.

There is evidence all over the Americas that people from just about every corner of the world visited here at one time or another. It is now thought that a previous migration originating from Polynesia and possibly Australia arrived here long before the previous Ice Age. They were called Paleo-American.
Last edited by Cliffy; Nov 20th, 2008 at 10:22 PM..
 

Similar Threads

6
Umm, Who the hell is Richard Warman
by thomaska | Feb 17th, 2013
0
Posterity and Richard Bennett
by NorthrnMystique | Feb 20th, 2008
2
Did anyone know Richard Jeni died???
by Cosmo | Aug 24th, 2007
6
Richard Pryor Dies
by Cosmo | Dec 14th, 2005
no new posts