Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[McBell]

I thought I saw a white flag in your near future.

yes, run along home now and claim your "victory".

 

[McBell]

I however challenge you to prove it is actually wrong without God.

This challenge has already been accepted and beaten.

 

[McBell]

Simply running around claiming things has no power to make them so even with "good for the goose" justifications.

Damn, there goes ANOTHER irony meter...
you sure are the king of the double standard...

 

[1robin]

This challenge has already been accepted and beaten.

No it hasn't. It has not even been attempted. Instead something else was brought up as a diversion which I will deal with soon. I do not think a single word has been typed by anyone even attempting to prove murder is actually wrong without God. That is because it can't be.

 

[1robin]

Damn, there goes ANOTHER irony meter...
you sure are the king of the double standard...

If the concept of an irony meter had never reached your ears half of your posts would not exist. Color commentary and personal comments, an argument do not make.

 

[1robin]

I had a revelation from your God last night, Robin. He wants us to rape virgins.

Ok, as promised here is a response to the only post I have seen so far besides (work in progresses posts) that merited a challenge to any degree. I think you are somehow claiming that our faith in the Biblical God is equivalent to the certainty that we would have of this God you say visited you. First the one that visited you did not leave behind 800,000 words in the most scrutinized and cherished book in human history. The one who visited you left behind nothing what so ever that would justify the adoption of what ever he said for anyone outside of you. The book that the greatest experts on evidence in human history says meets every modern standard of evidence presentation, reliable testimony, and the historical method does offer a sufficiently justified basis by which to declare the morals it contains sufficient for the needs of society. Your unique experience does not and so is not something society could be expected to agree on. Not to mention that the God you said visited you, claimed something completely contradictory to anything available in the way of verification.

That statement cannot be disproved by you.

You said that like this is meaningful. Every conceivable concept that is claimed by anyone is not automatically adopted on the basis that it can't be proved wrong. Faith in what the Bible says is not adopted on the basis that it can't be proven wrong. It is adopted on the basis that it is very reliable. We Christians also receive absolute confirmation that it is right, when you experience God actions concerning our born again experience. I threw that last sentence in there for information. I realize that you as a non believer can't base what you except on an experience I had, but you should still understand we firmly believe we have experienced God. You are talking to someone who has had proof that the Gospels at least are true and Jesus exists.

The point is that the Bible may be adopted based on it's reliable testimony, historical corroborations, philosophic consistency, explanatory scope and power, it's unparalleled by many times over textual accuracy, and it's perfect internal consistency. I realise that still adds up to less than an objectively verifiable fact, yet whatever problems it has are more numerous with guesses at evolutionary principles. I could argue that even if the Bible was not true it's moral standard if made universal would still be worth adopting. G.K Chesterton said that Christianity has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried. Please avoid the diversionary attempt to list moral requirements given for the Hebrews alone 3000 years ago that have no application outside of that people or anyone for the last 2000 years. Just think if there was no adultery, murder (including contraceptive abortion), theft, violence, oppression, and slavery. I am not suggesting that is a reality that can be expected, but even if modern law was followed to the letter much of the wrong actions could still be committed legally. Unlimited abortion is an example.

So much for the alleged objectivity of revelation based morality.

I never used the word objective so you defeated no claim I made. If I ever do mention objective, it is to say God's law is in effect objective. I do not know if it can be said to be absolutely objective and it makes absolutely no difference either way.

Also please remember to segregate issues concerning universal application with ones concerning individual adoption. I am making a hypothetical case. The Bible was written for individual adoption. It is for a spiritual kingdom not an Earthly one unlike Islam, at least. The NT is not written for adoption by a government. God designed morality for his people. It was not meant to straighten up this world, it was meant to make his people unique and to give them a route out of the mess and a smoother road until that happens. That however has no effect on it's vast superiority over a preference based foundation of morals.

 

[1robin]

According to God, that's perfectly fine.

There is no verse in the Bible that can be used to prove this.

 

[1robin]

yes, run along home now and claim your "victory".

Your the one that surrendered and gave an inaccurate reason for doing so.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

There is no verse in the Bible that can be used to prove this.

I take it you ignored the verse immediately following.

 

[1robin]

I take it you ignored the verse immediately following.

What in the world?

This is the previous verse.
25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

This is what was originally posted:

29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.[c] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22 NLT -


And here is the following verse:
“A man must not marry his father’s former wife, for this would violate his father.
Deuteronomy 22 NLT -

I do not even believe this is the same subject but does not say rape is ok anyway.

What are you talking about?


So the first verse says in some instances he must die, the second says he is guilty and to be punished and the third says nothing. I guess even though it makes no sense you are saying that because the Guy only paid 50 pieces then God means it is ok. I have no idea why you think that but that is the only possible understanding. First paying a fine implies that it was not ok. You may think that it was low. Do you know how much that is in today's money? Even then you could buy a servant for life with 30 pieces. You may wonder why he was not thrown in jail. There were no multimillion dollar state prisons then, fines were a common penalty and this one was steep and some instances resulted in death. Not ok by any standard.

 

[jarofthoughts]

No it hasn't. It has not even been attempted. Instead something else was brought up as a diversion which I will deal with soon. I do not think a single word has been typed by anyone even attempting to prove murder is actually wrong without God. That is because it can't be.

*sigh*
Here, I'll show you;
There are some 'rules' that are universal in all working human societies, and have been for hundreds of thousands of years
(i.e. long before Christianity or any of the current religions showed up in other words), one of which is 'do not murder'
within the flock/group/tribe.
The reason this is so, is very very simple.
Imagine a society in which wanton murder was allowed or even encouraged.
How long do you think such a society would survive? (Hint: not very long.)
Hence, simple societal evolution dictates that 'do not murder' must be wrong for any society that is to survive for any
length of time.

Wow! That was easy.
Especially for something that couldn't be done...

 

[McBell]

No it hasn't. It has not even been attempted. Instead something else was brought up as a diversion which I will deal with soon. I do not think a single word has been typed by anyone even attempting to prove murder is actually wrong without God. That is because it can't be.

I completely buried your silly challenge.
Your denial of this fact does not in any way, shape, or form change the fact.

 

[McBell]

If the concept of an irony meter had never reached your ears half of your posts would not exist. Color commentary and personal comments, an argument do not make.

Actually, it boils down to your repeatedly using double standards.

 

[1robin]

*sigh*
Here, I'll show you;
There are some 'rules' that are universal in all working human societies, and have been for hundreds of thousands of years
(i.e. long before Christianity or any of the current religions showed up in other words), one of which is 'do not murder'
within the flock/group/tribe.
The reason this is so, is very very simple.
Imagine a society in which wanton murder was allowed or even encouraged.
How long do you think such a society would survive? (Hint: not very long.)
Hence, simple societal evolution dictates that 'do not murder' must be wrong for any society that is to survive for any
length of time.

Wow! That was easy.
Especially for something that couldn't be done...

I do not think you guys are getting it. You have above explained why murder is not convient for the flourishing of society. You have not shown murder is actually wrong, you did not even show why the flourishing of society is actually good. You simply declared it was. You need to think a little deeper. Try this, prove that without God the maximization of human civilization is actually right. Why shouldn't the noble gnat maximize it's survival by wiping us out. Without God their claims are just as valid and arbitrary as ours. Without God we have no more actual value than a cockroach. To maximize our societal growth we should kill the cockroaches yet they have just as much value as we do without God. The fact that absolute morals exist explains why you are assuming them without even realizing it. You are smuggling in and simply assuming concepts that are only valid with God yet you are arguing against him. You wish to keep the morals but deny the only sufficient foundation for them. You have simply shown that murder is not convienient for humans. That is a far cry from proving murder is actually wrong. Not as easy as you seemed to think. That is why most atheist professional debaters just concede morals have no foundation more certain than opinion. I do not agree of course but at least they are being honest and realize what their views limit them to and I can respectfully disagree and commend their honesty. Trying to do otherwise by non believers is just desperate. You might as well tell me that perpetual motion machines are possible. It is impossible in both cases. I will extend you an olive branch and say that just as the law of conservation of energy makes over unity engines impossible, so to does cause and effect and philosophic principles make moral absolutes impossible without God. If you will heed this you can avoid a lot of typing for nothing. Even the pros can't do it and just concede the issue, your choice.

 

[1robin]

I completely buried your silly challenge.
Your denial of this fact does not in any way, shape, or form change the fact.

Well where did this miracle that most proffesional atheist debaters do not even attempt happen? It certainly was not in this thread. I do not even remember anything you said in particular, that even resembled an attempt. Does your entire position consist of "I win you lose goodbye"?

 

[1robin]

Actually, it boils down to your repeatedly using double standards.

That is such a toothless claim that you have never even said what it is I have double standards concerning. I do not even know where to look to see if I agree or disagree. Why don't you put more than two sentences together in a post and actually point out where you claim I have double standards. Or maybe the vagueness is part of the plan to allow you to have something to say since you can't counter or answer my simple challenge.

 

[1robin]

Your comment that:" Without a common designer there is no rational basis for concluding we have any kind of semi universal code of morality." is undone by all of the evidence from sociologists and anthropologists who study widely divergent societies who have different gods and face different external pressures where they live, and yet share common values regarding some of the basic measures of what's right and what's wrong -- like murder and theft is universally considered wrong...you don't have to make a 10 Commandments monument and put it in the town square to know that!

I don't think that's exactly what I said. If it was it was not exactly what I believe. I think that commonality is BEST explained by a common designer. Other sources can by used to attempt to explain it but I think are less likely. What evolution produces is remarkable and radical diversity biologically speaking there is no reason to think that it would produce a fairly narrow band of morality.

And the root of our common values has been demonstrated by developmental psychologists studying the behaviour of children as early as 3 months of age (from the entire field of research you think has no value) can identify basic behavioural traits that have not come from learning or training of any sort. I just want to clear out of the way the notion that we are born into this world as "blank slates," and that there is chaos and anarchy without being taught the right set of doctrinal beliefs in early childhood.

Actually I use a similar argument as this as evidence for God. First let me restate something I think you have forgotten. I believe and the Bible teaches that all people are born with a God given conscience. This has radically suppressed by the fall but the core commonality we see is I believe a reflection of this. As the Bible states this conscience is repressed by a force of will as well to varying degrees. When we are saved that conscience is quickened so to speak. Among many other things when I was saved I could not bear to hear cursing for quite a while. I am a Navy vet and up until that point literally cursed like a sailor yet that one night radically changed that as well as many other things. Any way according to many geneticists I have heard they say that behavior like instincts is not genetically coded. If as you say that new born's are not a blank slate, behavior is not taught early on, and can't be genetically transferred then that makes God a very likely source for what you say above.

First off, I didn't realize until signing on today, that I wrote Pliocene instead of Pleistocene - the era just prior to the brief period we have lived through until now called the Holocene. That long era of the Pleistocene was when the modern human species arose, and when all of our basic behavioral traits would have been formed.

I have not concentrated on evolutionary dogma or vocabulary to an extent that I would have noticed that error. My familiarity concerning evolution is based more on my physics and mathematical background than anything else. I concentrate on governing dynamics and information theory and a few other things, mainly the conclusions of trusted and competent scholars. You seem to have just concluded something that is impossible to know for sure, I do not mind it claimed as an informed theory but I balk when claims to absolute knowledge are declared about events tens of thousands of years ago. We can't agree about many battles in the civil war when we have eyewitness professional battle reports.

But, any sort of universal morality is a problem for certain religions, like Christianity, which teaches that the human race is in a depraved state since the Fall of Man, and Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. If that's true, how could the heathens have any semblance of morality?

Please see my claims above concerning our God given conscience.

I think Aquinas was the first theologian to realize that his Church had a problem explaining why the heathen were often reported to have better morals than the Christians living in his land, so he had to craft an explanation claiming that his God was responsible for any moral sense that pagan's had. The first problem with this explanation is: If God considered it so important to provide his creatures some basic framework for morality, why didn't he also instill some deep memory of the creator within them, so that all people, everywhere in the world would have the same beliefs and concepts of God, and we wouldn't have to endure centuries of religious wars....not to mention that having the right set of beliefs is supposed to determine whether someone goes to heaven or hell. If the right beliefs were innate, the only ones condemned would be those who openly rebelled against God. Instead, the human race was abandoned by a hidden God, whom we are told by some, occasionally assigned someone the role of prophet, and used that person, and him alone, as the one to receive direct messages from God. And these prophets were also given the assignments of writing out books that were supposed to provide the evidence for judgment that would be applied to others, extending into the future...at least according the world's major religions, who scrupulously apply cutoff dates so that after a certain time, no new prophets are chosen to provide any direct teaching or explanations to clear up any confusion regarding how to deal with modern problems that would come along in the succeeding centuries.

There are many claims in that to address. I have read much of Aquinas and in my opinion he over complicates and over reaches at times. He not only made us with a memory of him he made us with direct access to him. Our sin separates us from both. Regardless it is a tricky minefield to think that God must act in accordance with our primitive grasp of philosophy. I do not chose things I believe on whether I like them or they meet an arbitrary standard I invented and demanded it must meet. I found that the Bible was true. The rest is derived from that. We has such an infinitesimally small amount of information to judge an infinite one that it is just about a hopeless effort beyond what God intended us to know. Our inherent sinfulness is so obvious that it's debate is unneeded. God's method of rectifying this are coming from a source so far out of our league that demanding his ways all line up with what we would find intuitive is unjustified. The Bible says his ways are far above our ways. I simply find it true, there is no need to impose or justification in arbitrarily imposing other requirements it must meet besides perhaps it's benevolence. If Allah is true I reject him based on his malevolence for example. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Okay, it didn't sound like you were making an argument for creative evolution! I don't bother to try to knock down beliefs that the process of evolution needs some sort of divine guidance, since the basic facts will look the same in either version, and creative evolutionists like Francis Collins, are adding an ingredient that can't be proven either way, and at least they aren't denying scientific evidence and trying to ignore it. But, for myself, I would say that Collins's idea of progressive evolution are totally lacking credibility, as an explanation that the evolutionary process itself has no plan or principles beyond survival. There are examples provided by the late Lyn Margulis, that cooperation plays an important role in the evolutionary process, and it's not all about competition like her male colleagues in biology had tried to contend. But, natural selection itself does not contain any moral values or principles, and there's no evidence that any animals, including us are advancing towards some greater goal. If circumstances suit the shrinking of our large brains, then future humans will have smaller brains and be less intelligent. The evolution of any species is geared towards survival, not any attempt to improve itself for reasons that do not meet those goals.

Here you state a truth, that evolution is geared towards brute survival yet when we see altruism you insist that evolution accounts for it. It is a heads you win, tales I lose argument. As for evolutions specific nature. I know little and unlike most grant hungry scientists admit it. I have read many times that for instance all major body types appear instantly during the Cambrian period with no lead in and no change at the core since that time. Also arguments like what previous system produced the very first system that could utilize energy to produce order. I can list hundreds of these that add up to that evolution by it's self is impossible.

I sort of covered this in the previous paragraphs -- our behavioral traits emanate from a brain that has cobbled together more complex and sophisticated processing sections over older, existing modules. The brain stem of a human is no different than the one that reptiles like alligators also share....we just kept making additions. And the cortex levels added on over the millennial have allowed for a level of sophistication and problem-solving that even related primates do not share. Our brain development and development as a social species occurred during that long Pleistocene Era, and even the pressures of the development of agriculture and modern technology, have not changed our basic makeup. We have tried to adapt to the specific pressures that living in fixed locations, large cities among strangers, and very recently - new technologies, but the basic wiring in our brains hasn't changed, so we shouldn't expect such universal values to change either. Our behaviors are just molded and shaped as we grow to adulthood.

What you have said here is a valid theory but the tone suggests it is a known fact. Please answer this as I have wanted to ask it of someone that I think could answer it competently. As in this case both God and this theory are possible but impossible to prove which one is the actuall foundation for what we see. Why is it that you would in a "could go either way case" always gamble on the most negative side of the argument. If you guess against God then you have chosen a hopeless dynamic. It renders morality unfounded on anything greater than preference, It renders the universe purposeless, meaningless, and future less. It renders man as having no actual rights, no destination, and no value. I do not value Pascal's wager but with this modification as long as the two possibilities are relatively equally possible why always chose the hopeless side? I have good theories why but would value your input.

Yes, and this is where I take issue with what a lot of atheists say about religion. Altruism likely has its roots in an expectation that if others in a small tribal group think highly of us that we will receive benefits somewhere down the line.

Actually true altruism assumes no payback. This is something else.

Over time, religions have tried to the condition of all people, everywhere in the world. There are some secularists who try to advance universal principles -- I could name utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer as one in particular, since he applies his own teachings on expanding moral concern by giving at least 20% of his annual earnings to charities in the most destitute regions of the world...where people are too far away and remote to thank him personally. The problem for Singer is how to turn his ideas into a movement. He has had some influence previously on animal rights, but he doesn't run an organization that has doctrines which must be taught to followers. Some religions take his concepts on universalism (at least for humans) seriously, and have a greater capacity to advance and make it grow, rather than die out as just another hippie fad.

That first part is another example of assuming the assertion makes a claim a fact. The rest I attempt to summarize by saying evolutionists may attempt to account for a foundation for morality. Religion does the same. Without being able to prove which is true then in the hypothetical exercise it is easy to see that religion has a vastly superior foundation for morality. What we are left without God is so arbitrary that it is almost meaningless. For example prove murder is actually wrong with out God.

What I am saying is that everything, and I mean absolutely everything that we think and feel, and see and hear, and believe, is the product of a faulty physical system of brain processing. Our vision is subject to illusion because we don't really see the world around us! Instead, our eyes take in a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from outside, which a collection of visual cortex regions collaborate to turn into sensory maps that are used to describe the world outside.

I am not sure what the significance is.

When we move past the pitfalls of of our neural maps describing sensory data coming in, we also have to deal with the fact that our beliefs are imprinted with some conviction of certainty....and as I said before, this feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling! Not a completely reliable process of weighing evidence. There are methods to improve the process of considering evidence, but there is no 100% foolproof guarantee that what we see, hear, touch, or believe, is actually real, or based on real evidence. We can test the concept of God, but we will never have everyone arrive at the same conclusion.

I agree that emotional pre-commitments make cognitive dissonance a real problem. However I was about as committed an atheist or militant agnostic as possible even after being raised in a church. I literally hated God for a long time. Yet God cut through all this in a way that even to this day seems hyperbolic and I actually spiritually experienced him in such a profound nature that any doubt at least at that time was quite absurd. I am not sure what the premise of the last two paragraphs conclusion was so I will not comment further. If there is any way that you can shorten what you say without compromising your intentions I would appreciate it. I can only add a line or two to each point and it is too large for one post.

 

[McBell]

Well where did this miracle that most proffesional atheist debaters do not even attempt happen? It certainly was not in this thread. I do not even remember anything you said in particular, that even resembled an attempt.

That is because of the double standards you employ, then deny.

Does your entire position consist of "I win you lose goodbye"?

Funny how you would accuse me of that which you have already done...


Since I am willing to bet the farm that there will never ever ever be anything that you will accept as beating your Hovind style challenge...

let us take your challenge and remove all the fluff and window dressing:

1. morals exist
2. god exists
3. I cannot fathom how morals can exist with out god
therefore
4. you have to have god in order to have morals.
​

And here is the one I presented:

1. morals exist
2. god does not exist
therefore
3. god is not required for morals

​

Please be so kind as to note that the only real difference between yours and mine is that number 2 are the exact opposite unprovable positions.

 

[1robin]

That is because of the double standards you employ, then deny.


Funny how you would accuse me of that which you have already done...

This is just getting weird. Let's see what we got here. We have the old trusty accusation without justification. As well as I think the fourth time this mere assertion was given without a single indication of what it is exactly that I have double standards concerning. That even after I asked specifically for it.

Since I am willing to bet the farm that there will never ever ever be anything that you will accept as beating your Hovind style challenge...

let us take your challenge and remove all the fluff and window dressing:

1. morals exist
2. god exists
3. I cannot fathom how morals can exist with out god
therefore
4. you have to have god in order to have morals.
​

Then we have the tried and true, I can't defeat your position or make even a comment on it that has any meaningfull bearing as written so instead you will rewrite it in an arbitrary manner that allows you to attempt a rebuttal. My position is not reflected by your statements above and so it needs no response beyond that. I also reject your appeal to the absurd as I have no idea what a Hovind style argument is.

And here is the one I presented:

1. morals exist
2. god does not exist
therefore
3. god is not required for morals
​

And finally the sure fire attempt equating an absurdity to the argument that you invented and credited to me for the sole purpose of allowing this attempt at a comparison of invalid equalities. This is not logical on top of having no application as its previously invented mirror argument does not reflect my original contention.

Please be so kind as to note that the only real difference between yours and mine is that number 2 are the exact opposite unprovable positions.

Irrelevant conclusion based on an invalid concept. Maybe you should back up and read what I actually claimed again. If God exists murder is actually wrong. Prove without God that it is. It is a simple trouble shooting, if then senario. It isn't complicated.