There are multiple types of logic: syllogistic, predicate, modal, deduction and reasoning, mathematical, philosophical, computation, argumentation, etc. When it comes to metaphysical logic, Richard Dawkins subscribes wholly and completely to evidence-based logic. In other words, he believes it is irrational to beleive in something, if evidence does not exist for its existence (despite the fact that he finds aliens to be an intriguing theory, despite no evidence that aliens exist, but I digress).
So if I could ask Dawkins one question, this is what it would be:
Where is the evidence that either truth or logic is evidence-based?
Evidence-based thinking: Where's the evidence?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Reflectionist
- Student
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Missouri
Re: Evidence-based thinking: Where's the evidence?
Post #2Oh, Richard Dawkins... Could I refer you to a 2 part video as a letter to Richard that one of my friends made?4gold wrote:There are multiple types of logic: syllogistic, predicate, modal, deduction and reasoning, mathematical, philosophical, computation, argumentation, etc. When it comes to metaphysical logic, Richard Dawkins subscribes wholly and completely to evidence-based logic. In other words, he believes it is irrational to beleive in something, if evidence does not exist for its existence (despite the fact that he finds aliens to be an intriguing theory, despite no evidence that aliens exist, but I digress).
So if I could ask Dawkins one question, this is what it would be:
Where is the evidence that either truth or logic is evidence-based?
An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins:
P.S. to Richard Dawkins
Re: Evidence-based thinking: Where's the evidence?
Post #3Cock-blocking?! lol! Forgive me, but I stopped watching after that.Reflectionist wrote:Oh, Richard Dawkins... Could I refer you to a 2 part video as a letter to Richard that one of my friends made?
An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins:
P.S. to Richard Dawkins
-
Reflectionist
- Student
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Missouri
Re: Evidence-based thinking: Where's the evidence?
Post #4I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that's very shallow, but anyway, you missed a lot of points. Basically is stating that Richard is promoting an ideology of anti-theism under the moniker of science, and he brings up several points in evidence of this. If you would like me to transcript it, well, I guess I could, but it's really just easier if you'd just buck up and watch the video.4gold wrote:Cock-blocking?! lol! Forgive me, but I stopped watching after that.Reflectionist wrote:Oh, Richard Dawkins... Could I refer you to a 2 part video as a letter to Richard that one of my friends made?
An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins:
P.S. to Richard Dawkins
-
Reflectionist
- Student
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:22 pm
- Location: Missouri
Post #5
(sorry for the double post, I couldn't edit the previous one.)
Okay, well, I caved and transcripted the first video anyway.
I don't think I need to transcript the second one, because it's not necessary. I only transcripted the first because it is interspersed with other clips of Azrienoch intentionally making sarcastic ad hominems like "Oh, Snap," to mock Richard, and I know that it would trivialize the post if you saw only those. I'm not ignoring them; no. I'm only saying that they weren't the focus of the letter, and I'm trying to take extra precaution in hoping that you don't latch on to those primarily.
---------------------------------------
Some other pages I found on this are some dude's blog about Richard, you can take it or leave it. This guy's an atheist too, by the way. He brings up the same point that Azrienoch made in his last sentence, and also implies Richard's intense anti-theist ideology vs. scientific atheism. There are a lot of links dispersed throughout the blog entry as well, which you may, or may not feel compelled to ignore. This blog also brings up Darwinism, and admits that while evolution is most likely right on the mark, it is still only a theory and cannot be proven the same way as other things such as heliocentricism, gravity, or the round earth, can be. I find this interesting, because he says that this is the reason why it's a faith, and less of an exact science.
-------------------------------------
I digress, though. As far as your question: I unfortunately know very little about specific logic, because I haven't taken a class on it, or really studied it; I want to, though. The best I can tell you is that the point of logic is not to say what is or is not true. The point of logic is to tell you what is or is not consistent enough to be considered a valid point. There are perfectly logical arguments for the existence of God, and in that sense, they are valid. But, the variables of that logic, the premises, are not empirical, not scientific, not tangible, not testable, or otherwise not skewed to the notion of what we can KNOW for a fact is truth. These concepts like, faith, and omnipotence prevent the argument, and subsequently the logic, from being taken seriously at all. No matter how well the logic works.
Okay, well, I caved and transcripted the first video anyway.
Azrienoch posted a response to this video entitled, "P.S. To Richard Dawkins." This one is not intentionally rude, and nor do I think it's rude at all; it just clears up some points he made in the letter, and also provides new evidence (more concrete evidence, ie. reading from The Devil's Chaplain, for instance) on Richard promoting an ideology of anti-theism instead of a science of atheism.Hello Richard.
You may remember me from the convention that you spoke at recently in Minneapolis; you and I exchanged meaningful looks in the hotel lobby. Well, I'm not sure if this is because you recognized me from some video that I had made in the past, or because I was standing next to an attactive woman that you were planning on giving your room number too, and I was somehow cock-blocking you, but it doesn't matter. I've got a question for you:
As a scientist, someone who attempts to take an objective, unbiased view of the universe, how do you find it justiied to propogate science? To polarize and twist science into an ideology of slogans and campaigns of verbal abuse? Oh, yes; I understand that science is under attack. But your brand of defense isn't scientific at all. Science should be it's own defense. At least I would think so, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, and the advancement of science needs people like you, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers, Ellen Johnson, Sam Harris, and the Rational Response Squad to ridicule people into taking science seriously.
But I guess that would mean that people's opinions do matter. And you and I both know that people's opinions don't matter when it comes to science. So why? Why would you turn science into propaganda? We all get it: you don't like religion. You think it makes people do bad things. But ethics isn't science, and to imply that it is, let alone outright say it is, is to politicize science, creating propaganda for an ideology. An ideology that is not scientific, no matter how much it praises science.
You're doing science a disservice by approaching it through an ideology, because you limit the things that science can do to the unscientific approaches of that ideology. And it only serves to polarize people. Both sides become more dedicated to their convictions. And with every moment that this confrontation continues, a solution is less likely. But that's just fine with you, isn't it? It ensures that you'll have a market to sell your ideology in.
There's nothing wrong with making money, don't get me wrong. But it is, ever so slightly, deceitful to masquerade a love of money as a love of science. I started writing this letter a long time ago, when [The God Delusion] first came out, and back then, this letter was filled with complaints about how poor a philosopher you make. But I didn't care enough back then to speak out against your shameless propaganda. I've got a reason now.
As I said, Minneapolis recently hosted a convention you attended and spoke at. A friend of mine, a Christian, attended as well, hoping to learn something. And what he took home was this: "Religious beliefs are viruses of the mind." You said that! Now, I'm not sure if you meant this as hyperbole, a joke, or if you were actually serious, but quite frankly, what you intended doesn't matter. People look; they see the title of your book: 'The God Delusion.' They hear you speak of the sicknesses of humanity, and other references to religion as a mental disorder.
So tell us, Richard. You got a pill for this disease? Is there a scientific medical treatment for this virus? You're supposed to be a scientist; people take you seriously! There are actually people out there that believe that religion is the product of what they call 'theo-toxins' produced by the brain. You don't have a pill. You don't have a cure. You're not working on a solution in any way; you've got an ideology.
No; I'm not asking you to stop. I'm not asking you to repent. I'm just asking you to come out and admit that you're exactly the same as all of those people you hate. You're an evangelical guru, just with different words.
I don't think I need to transcript the second one, because it's not necessary. I only transcripted the first because it is interspersed with other clips of Azrienoch intentionally making sarcastic ad hominems like "Oh, Snap," to mock Richard, and I know that it would trivialize the post if you saw only those. I'm not ignoring them; no. I'm only saying that they weren't the focus of the letter, and I'm trying to take extra precaution in hoping that you don't latch on to those primarily.
---------------------------------------
Some other pages I found on this are some dude's blog about Richard, you can take it or leave it. This guy's an atheist too, by the way. He brings up the same point that Azrienoch made in his last sentence, and also implies Richard's intense anti-theist ideology vs. scientific atheism. There are a lot of links dispersed throughout the blog entry as well, which you may, or may not feel compelled to ignore. This blog also brings up Darwinism, and admits that while evolution is most likely right on the mark, it is still only a theory and cannot be proven the same way as other things such as heliocentricism, gravity, or the round earth, can be. I find this interesting, because he says that this is the reason why it's a faith, and less of an exact science.
-------------------------------------
I digress, though. As far as your question: I unfortunately know very little about specific logic, because I haven't taken a class on it, or really studied it; I want to, though. The best I can tell you is that the point of logic is not to say what is or is not true. The point of logic is to tell you what is or is not consistent enough to be considered a valid point. There are perfectly logical arguments for the existence of God, and in that sense, they are valid. But, the variables of that logic, the premises, are not empirical, not scientific, not tangible, not testable, or otherwise not skewed to the notion of what we can KNOW for a fact is truth. These concepts like, faith, and omnipotence prevent the argument, and subsequently the logic, from being taken seriously at all. No matter how well the logic works.
Post #6
To understand this question we would have to examine logic and ultimately "truth" without evidence. What would this mean?
Belief without evidence only appears when we discuss metaphysics. Even those who would promote such a unsupportable idea only accept it when a "god" question is proposed. This seemingly falls into the idea proposed by Dawkins that some people feel they must "believe in belief". This question is an element of that emotion, and it is only an emotion.
In what areas beside metaphysics would someone accept this "truth" without evidence notion? In the case of legality this seem ripe for abuse. I certainly wouldn't want to live under a system where continued freedom was arbitrary and evidence was not respected.
Science and technology are other areas where evidence forms the specific basis for any claim. The strength of this evidence is of great importance because we have seen what happens in the pharmaceutical industry when the desire for profit overrides the depth of evidence. Automobiles are another area when strength of evidence in reliability and especially safety are of primary importance.
So again I ask, what is this "truth" without evidence? It doesn't seem to have a very strong basis of support. Moreover, "logic" without evidence is a nonsensical statement. Logic by definition is the examination of evidence. To propose anything different is merely a metaphysical kludge. Supernatural as a concept is a fantasy.
Let's not forget that the Christian "God" is just as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Harry Potter. The "truth" of the latter two is that they are logically accepted as a fantasy. The first example is sold as reality, but the evidence is lacking.
So rather than accept that this god may be as mythical as Zeus, is the solution really to make a nonsensical attack on the concept of evidence itself?
Belief without evidence only appears when we discuss metaphysics. Even those who would promote such a unsupportable idea only accept it when a "god" question is proposed. This seemingly falls into the idea proposed by Dawkins that some people feel they must "believe in belief". This question is an element of that emotion, and it is only an emotion.
In what areas beside metaphysics would someone accept this "truth" without evidence notion? In the case of legality this seem ripe for abuse. I certainly wouldn't want to live under a system where continued freedom was arbitrary and evidence was not respected.
Science and technology are other areas where evidence forms the specific basis for any claim. The strength of this evidence is of great importance because we have seen what happens in the pharmaceutical industry when the desire for profit overrides the depth of evidence. Automobiles are another area when strength of evidence in reliability and especially safety are of primary importance.
So again I ask, what is this "truth" without evidence? It doesn't seem to have a very strong basis of support. Moreover, "logic" without evidence is a nonsensical statement. Logic by definition is the examination of evidence. To propose anything different is merely a metaphysical kludge. Supernatural as a concept is a fantasy.
Let's not forget that the Christian "God" is just as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Harry Potter. The "truth" of the latter two is that they are logically accepted as a fantasy. The first example is sold as reality, but the evidence is lacking.
So rather than accept that this god may be as mythical as Zeus, is the solution really to make a nonsensical attack on the concept of evidence itself?
