Staunch Atheist Christopher Dawkins: "Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."

[smac97]

Quote

On your claim that Richard Dawkins (or Christopher Hitchens?) makes cheap shots that Christians are motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment,CFR.

It's in the OP.  Here it is:

Quote

Hawkes: “I suppose the flip-side of that is that if there’s no God or law-giver, why does it matter what I do? Why is rape wrong? Why is paedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong if there’s no law-giver?”

Dawkins: “You’ve just said a very revealing thing. Are you telling me that the only reason you don’t steal and rape and murder is that you’re frightened of God?

Upon further reflection, it appears that I have perhaps overstated Mr. Dawkins position on this issue.  If so, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Science doesn't involve itself with morals. Whether it is better scientifically better to have lots of children from lots of different women with the same husband/lover or better to have fewer children from one woman with one husband science can't answer. Even religions have difficulty with various forms of polygamy. Science can't tell you if it is better to feed one hungry child or let it die so more food is available to others with plenty of food. .The list of ideas that science can't address is as a long  one.

[volgadon]

Sam Harris, not to mince words, is full of crap. The Moral Landscape
 utterly failed to demonstrate that Harris’ totem – which he terms science –
is able to establish objectively his subjective ethico-philosophical views.
 That was the novelty of his book, but he has not bridged is/ought divide
 that MFB mentioned in another thread. That is, he can’t show how the fact
 of something being scientifically observable tells us what things ought to
 be. We still need an interpretative system for data. Aside from his
 philosophical naivete, Harris is also poor at historiography. He is
 basically someone that yokel thinkers who have embraced scientism hold up
 as a shining light.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's in the OP.  Here it is:

Upon further reflection, it appears that I have perhaps overstated Mr. Dawkins position on this issue.  If so, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for providing the quote. Your claim clearly went beyond merely overstating Dr. Dawkins position.  In no way did he "make a cheap shot that Christians are motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment."  All he did was ask a specific Christian a valid question about his own personal beliefs.  It was a challenging question, but no more so than the challenging questions he asks of his own moral framework, as you have shown in other quotes.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Analytics

[volgadon]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Thank you for providing the quote. Your claim clearly went beyond merely overstating Dr. Dawkins position.  In no way did he "make a cheap shot that Christians are motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment."  All he did was ask a specific Christian a valid question about his own personal beliefs.  It was a challenging question, but no more so than the challenging questions he asks of his own moral framework, as you have shown in other quotes.

 

 

It was a cheap shot, and it has been used far beyond a personal challenge to a specific Christian's belief.

[smac97]

Quote

Thank you for providing the quote. Your claim clearly went beyond merely overstating Dr. Dawkins position.  In no way did he "make a cheap shot that Christians are motivated in their conduct solely by a desire to avoid punishment."  All he did was ask a specific Christian a valid question about his own personal beliefs.  It was a challenging question, but no more so than the challenging questions he asks of his own moral framework, as you have shown in other quotes.

Dawkins has published no shortage of gratuitous cheap shots, distortions, and ridiculous characterizations of Christian belief.  However, in this instance his statement was fairly legit (I'm not sure it's a far characterization of the statement preceding it, but it was a point to make in the heat of the moment during a debate).  I apologize for the mischaracterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2016 by smac97

[Analytics]

 

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science doesn't involve itself with morals. Whether it is better scientifically better to have lots of children from lots of different women with the same husband/lover or better to have fewer children from one woman with one husband science can't answer. Even religions have difficulty with various forms of polygamy. Science can't tell you if it is better to feed one hungry child or let it die so more food is available to others with plenty of food. .The list of ideas that science can't address is as a long  one.

I disagree.  Have you read The Moral Framework by Sam Harris?  If not, I highly recommend you do.  At the very least, please consider listening to his TED talk, "Science Can Answer Moral Questions."

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en

27 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Sam Harris, not to mince words, is full of crap. The Moral Landscape
 utterly failed to demonstrate that Harris’ totem – which he terms science –
is able to establish objectively his subjective ethico-philosophical views.
 That was the novelty of his book, but he has not bridged is/ought divide
 that MFB mentioned in another thread. That is, he can’t show how the fact
 of something being scientifically observable tells us what things ought to
 be. We still need an interpretative system for data. Aside from his
 philosophical naivete, Harris is also poor at historiography. He is
 basically someone that yokel thinkers who have embraced scientism hold up
 as a shining light.

Tell me how you really feel, lol.

4 minutes ago, volgadon said:

It was a cheap shot, and it has been used far beyond a personal challenge to a specific Christian's belief.

I find it interesting that you don't hesitate to throw all sorts of insults at Sam Harris, but think a perfectly valid question posed to a Christian was a cheap shot.

You come across as being very insecure about the basis of your morality.

[volgadon]

Just now, Analytics said:

 

I disagree.  Have you read The Moral Framework by Sam Harris?  If not, I highly recommend you do.  At the very least, please consider listening to his TED talk, "Science Can Answer Moral Questions."

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en

Tell me how you really feel, lol.

I find it interesting that you don't hesitate to throw all sorts of insults at Sam Harris, but think a perfectly valid question posed to a Christian was a cheap shot.

You come across as being very insecure about the basis of your morality.

Oh, I included some cheap shots. As far as being insecure, you don't sound too hot yourself. Care to explain how Harris bridged Hume's divide?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

In principle, everything that interacts with observable reality is in the purview of science.  If science has nothing to say about the existence of God, souls, and life after death, it's for the same reason that it has nothing to say about unicorns--there is nothing to observe. 

As an obvious example, what is "God"?  The creator of the universe?  Or a product of the universe?  Something that exists but without form and substance?  Or a humanoid from a planet orbiting the star Kolob? 

Dawkins is speaking about the traditional, transcendent god of Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma.  His critique does not address the naturalistic and humanistic god of Mormonism.  Indeed, he speaks of the "godlike" nature of advanced civilizations in the universe, civilizations which are much more advanced than we humans, but finite and sentient nonetheless.  Science is certainly concerned with  such beings.

................................................................

Science can talk at great lengths about things as evanescent and counterintuitive as the quantum mechanical characteristics of a single photon of light, but it has nothing to say about the existence of unicorns.  That isn't a limitation of science--it's a limitation on what is there to be observed.

............................................................

 

[Ahab]

(In response to Analytic's point about the word God not being well defined)

 

Then just come up with the best definition of God. 

... while knowing everyone, collectively, will never agree.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Ahab

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Oh, I included some cheap shots. As far as being insecure, you don't sound too hot yourself. Care to explain how Harris bridged Hume's divide?

His argument is that it's self-evident that some lives are better than others.  To make the point, he paints the picture of a life abundant with friends, joy, health, learning, service, wealth, and giving.  He compares this life to a very short life that is full of starvation, torture, murder, ignorance, and disease.  He then asks the question, which life is better?  Do we need religion to know which life is better, or is this something that an objective atheist could figure out on his own?  If one grants that one of those lives is in fact objectively better than the other, then you can say we ought to do the things that promote better lives.

I find this approach to ethics compelling. 

The Hume's divide is the assertion that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought."  My personal response is that the only things that have any meaning are the things that in fact exist.  If what you "ought" to do is something that has no relationship to what actually is, then the whole concept of "ought" has no meaning.  Thus, the only type of "ought" that exists is the Sam Harris type of ought.  We ought to do the things that promote well-being in the real world.

This approach to ethics is practical, and I find it compelling.  Perhaps you think I'm just a yokel thinker.  That's okay.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

His argument is that it's self-evident that some lives are better than others.  To make the point, he paints the picture of a life abundant with friends, joy, health, learning, service, wealth, and giving.  He compares this life to a very short life that is full of starvation, torture, murder, ignorance, and disease.  He then asks the question, which life is better?  Do we need religion to know which life is better, or is this something that an objective atheist could figure out on his own?  If one grants that one of those lives is in fact objectively better than the other, then you can say we ought to do the things that promote better lives.

I find this approach to ethics compelling. 

The Hume's divide is the assertion that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought."  My personal response is that the only things that have any meaning are the things that in fact exist.  If what you "ought" to do is something that has no relationship to what actually is, then the whole concept of "ought" has no meaning.  Thus, the only type of "ought" that exists is the Sam Harris type of ought.  We ought to do the things that promote well-being in the real world.

This approach to ethics is practical, and I find it compelling.  Perhaps you think I'm just a yokel thinker.  That's okay.

Depends on how much you know or can learn to live the best life possible,  though.

Sacrifice may not seem to promote the best form of well-being in the real world, sometimes. Knowing what to give and how much to give to promote well-being can be kinda tricky. 

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dawkins is speaking about the traditional, transcendent god of Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma.  His critique does not address the naturalistic and humanistic god of Mormonism.  Indeed, he speaks of the "godlike" nature of advanced civilizations in the universe, civilizations which are much more advanced than we humans, but finite and sentient nonetheless.  Science is certainly concerned with  such beings.

Dawkins will sometimes talk about various conceptions of "God" on the terms of the people that believe in that particular conception, but he doesn't try to address all conceptions of what God is or could be.  Rather, he says that there is no objective evidence to believe that "God" exists.  Because of that lack of evidence, there is a commensurate lack of belief.  That lack of belief is called atheism.  But in principle, to the extent "God" is real, then God is within the purview of science.

With regards to the God of Mormonism, Dawkins would find it very unlikely.  There is overwhelming evidence that we are earthlings and are directly related to all other life on this planet.  If there is intelligent life out there, they couldn't be humanoids--they would necessarily resemble the life forms from which they evolved--not us. 

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Depends on how much you know or can learn to live the best life possible,  though.

Sacrifice may not seem to promote the best form of well-being in the real world, sometimes. Knowing what to give and how much to give to promote well-being can be kinda tricky. 

Sam Harris would totally agree.  He'd say that in principle, we could figure it out and at a minimum, use educated guesses about the best course of action.

[volgadon]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

His argument is that it's self-evident that some lives are better than others.  To make the point, he paints the picture of a life abundant with friends, joy, health, learning, service, wealth, and giving.  He compares this life to a very short life that is full of starvation, torture, murder, ignorance, and disease.  He then asks the question, which life is better?  Do we need religion to know which life is better, or is this something that an objective atheist could figure out on his own?  If one grants that one of those lives is in fact objectively better than the other, then you can say we ought to do the things that promote better lives.

I find this approach to ethics compelling. 

The Hume's divide is the assertion that you can't get from an "is" to an "ought."  My personal response is that the only things that have any meaning are the things that in fact exist.  If what you "ought" to do is something that has no relationship to what actually is, then the whole concept of "ought" has no meaning.  Thus, the only type of "ought" that exists is the Sam Harris type of ought.  We ought to do the things that promote well-being in the real world.

This approach to ethics is practical, and I find it compelling.  Perhaps you think I'm just a yokel thinker.  That's okay.

You need the scientific method for something as simplistic as that? Assuming that there is more to this than banal platitudes, how do you objectively and scientifically define wellbeing? Can you do the same for every concept in the contrasting descriptions of life that Harris provides? The key here is objectively and scientifically. Now, are you really suggesting that the only meanings that exist are positive meanings?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

..............................................But in principle, to the extent "God" is real, then God is within the purview of science.

With regards to the God of Mormonism, Dawkins would find it very unlikely.  There is overwhelming evidence that we are earthlings and are directly related to all other life on this planet.  If there is intelligent life out there, they couldn't be humanoids--they would necessarily resemble the life forms from which they evolved--not us. 

You should let Dawkins speak for himself on that score.  So far as I know, Dawkins is completely unaware of the humanistic and naturalistic Mormon god.  Since he has already spoken explicitly of the "godlike" advanced beings which most astrophysicists agree exist on exoplanets elsewhere in the universe, it is no stretch to imagine him accepting (in principle) the Mormon anthropology of God as finite and the equivalent of such an advanced being (LDS theology posits that we are of the genus and species of God).  It is largely irrelevant what form such beings may take, but the great humanist Isaac Asimov once wrote a very insightful science piece on why beings on other planets would likely be humanoid.  Asimov was a tenured professor of biochemistry at the Boston Univ School of Medicine.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sam Harris would totally agree.  He'd say that in principle, we could figure it out and at a minimum, use educated guesses about the best course of action.

Yeah, that's what we've been doing and will continue to do, with some being more valiant and charitable than others. 

[Walden]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

The supreme being is us, or at least the best there is of us.

Wow, you should look into Humanism, as it embraces these ideals you speak of, without the need for myth.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

Who was it that said "Don't knock religion.  It's the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

I thought that was bread and circuses or, in our day, lots of channels on satellite tv.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

We see what is happening in Europe to see this to be the case.  The Europeans have pretty much given up on religious things for worldly things and they have become soft and gullible.  They are letting hordes of people from the Middle East in and they think that these people will be so impressed with their liberalism that the migrants will change.  But they will not change and if the Europeans do not get their act together, they will be slowly replaced by the foreigners.  Atheism simply does not have the ability to inspire large groups of people to be better or gather around a common goal.  There is no cause to fight and die for in atheism.  Death is to be avoided at all costs as once one dies, their existence has ended.  If all I am is some evolved, higher animal, why should I care about the world?  No other animal really cares and if mankind goes extinct, what is the big deal?  Its all just a part of nature and the history of the world.  Our fossils be be dug up by some evolved animal 100 million years from now and they will make claims about us as we make about the dinosaurs and put our bones on display.  Religion unites people together far better than non-religion does for good or for bad but there is nothing in atheism to unite over.

Yes, if they would just accept Christianity and bar refugees from enemy states like Christ taught Inge would be much better. Everyone knows the beginning of the end of the Nephites was letting in Lamanites refugees that pestilent illegal immigrant Ammon brought across the border after his own illegal border crossing.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am so glad to have a thread on the utility of religion.

A few years ago, this would have been a confused discussion trying to define the "truth" of religion.  Some will want to go there, but still, progress has been made.

I agree with Dawkins on one point. Truth is better then fiction even when it is less useful. I sometimes think I would find more utility in atheism but I do not believe it.

[volgadon]

Also, if all that Harris is doing is using data from the sciences in order to craft and support his argument, then Hume's divide is not really an obstacle. Thus is pretty much what any reasoning on morals does. However, if he is claiming that you can derive morality objectively from the scientific process, then he runs up against Hume.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, if they would just accept Christianity and bar refugees from enemy states like Christ taught Inge would be much better. Everyone knows the beginning of the end of the Nephites was letting in Lamanites refugees that pestilent illegal immigrant Ammon brought across the border after his own illegal border crossing.

You mean that Ammon Bundy guy who is squatting on Federal land?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Dawkins is speaking about the traditional, transcendent god of Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma.  His critique does not address the naturalistic and humanistic god of Mormonism.  Indeed, he speaks of the "godlike" nature of advanced civilizations in the universe, civilizations which are much more advanced than we humans, but finite and sentient nonetheless.  Science is certainly concerned with  such beings.

Agree completely

If we would present the Mormon God to Dawkins as a "myth" of a super-human from another planet who is the Father of the human race, and that this belief has the power to give direction to humanity and serve as an Ideal Archetype upon whom we should model our lives, he might want to listen to more.

This is precisely the way I saw Mormonism while moving from atheism to belief.  Then I got hit by the Holy Spirit big time.  I had no choice but to believe it was all "real".  I knew it was true and I knew God knew that I knew.

It was a deal I could not refuse.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Depends on how much you know or can learn to live the best life possible,  though.

Sacrifice may not seem to promote the best form of well-being in the real world, sometimes. Knowing what to give and how much to give to promote well-being can be kinda tricky. 

As a priniple, sacrifice is the key to a happy life.  Sacrifice is giving up something for something better.  Christ gave his mortal life that we could have eternal life.  You go to college and study to get a better job.  You work hard in a field and plant something, and then you get food.  That is the pragmatic view of sacrifice