Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?

[Implications]

In "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins writes

Quote

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

 

Later Richard Dawkins wrote "Unweaving the Rainbow"

 

Quote

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

This belief is common among athiests, and I am going to argue that Richard is wrong.

It is a matter of fact that every single one of us is going to suffer, and this is ample evidence that Richard Dawkins is wrong.

I argue that believing that we are lucky to be alive when you accept the reality of suffering, is bit like believing in God when you believe that life on Earth was all formed by evolutionary and physical processes. This does not represent a true acceptance of the facts.

The title "Unweaving the rainbow", refers to John Keats criticism of science, that it had "destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism." Richard Dawkins claims this is wrong. I claim that Richard is not drawing quite the right conclusion. What science shows is that the rainbow is not inherently beautiful, beauty is a mere aesthethetic. There is nothing poetic about a rainbow.

I argue, that science shows there is no spiritual, transcendent or philisophical quality to the universe and that  the existence of life  or rainbows does not have value.

What science shows is that there is an objective universe and as such I beleive that Richard's claim, that we are are lucky to be alive, can be false.

I propose that the correct response to this unspecial nature of the universe, is something resembling stoicism or philisophical Buddhism. We must accept that suffering exists and respond compassionately to others and ourselves. We must be careful to not panic in the face of suffering, or else we will make it worse.

We must destroy the myth that things other than welfare have value.

PS:

One thing some of you may find confusing is the idea that emotions are in some way objective and that someone can make an objective statement about wether life is nice or not.

What I claim to be true, is:

Emotions are the only measure of welfare, welfare is the only measure of morality, and it is an objective fact that all affective beings will suffer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Implications
alterations

[John Cuthber]

11 minutes ago, Implications said:

Many people said

https://xkcd.com/285/

15 minutes ago, Implications said:

What explaining the rainbow does do , is prove that the Rainbow is not inherently beautiful,

Ad yet, at least in most people's opinion, it still is beautiful.
So your assertion is nonsense.

[Implications]

Alright I can change the uncited claim if you want but there is an actual point being made...

Edited June 23, 2021 by Implications

[Phi for All]

So many misunderstandings and bad assumptions. You've based an entire philosophy on subjective mistakes, yet claim your emotional objectivity is trustworthy. You make many claims without evidence. Do you respect evidence, does it tend to persuade you more than your emotions? If so, I'd be happy to show support in my replies, but I don't want to waste my time if you're going to ignore it.

[Prometheus]

12 minutes ago, Implications said:

It is a matter of fact that every single one of us is going to suffer, and this is ample evidence that Richard Dawkins is wrong.

Dawkins is arguing that we are lucky to be alive, hence we should be grateful. How does the fact of suffering make this false? And why are you talking about evidence, it's a value judgement. He could have said we are unlucky to be alive so let's just end it now. All the evidence in the world doesn't make someone's attitude true or false (maybe good or bad, but that's a different discussion).

 

17 minutes ago, Implications said:

What explaining the rainbow does do , is prove that the Rainbow is not inherently beautiful, and is merely instrumental. What it proves is that beauty is merely an aesthetic.

I've come across many people with similar views, but can't agree.

First, understanding a thing adds beauty, not detracts. A friend of mine once said that learning to write fiction took the magic out of reading for him, because he found himself dissecting everything he read. I do the same now, but the magic of stories has simply moved from reading to writing.

Second, there is so much complexity in the world that we have no idea how close we are to understanding it all. If ideas like Wolfram's computational irreducibility hold, then we'll never know it all.

 

26 minutes ago, Implications said:

The nature of life is much like this. I argue, that science shows there is no spiritual, transcendent or philisophical quality to the universeand thet existence of life does not have value. What science shows is that there is an objective universe. Choosing to make life "what you make it" is idealistic and unrealistic, becuase you cannot make something true just by believing it.

I propose that the correct response to this unspecial nature of the universe, is something resembling stoicism or philisophical Buddhism. We must accept that suffering exists and respond compassionately to others and ourselves. We must be careful to not panic in the face of suffering, or else we will make it worse.

We must destroy the myth that things other than welfare have value.

I don't agree science shows there is no such thing as spirituality. Just because as we dissect the universe we find no fragment that is 'spiritual', does not mean it does not exist. Rather it's an emergent property of human (and perhaps other) societies. It would be like arguing economics doesn't exist because we have observed no economic atoms. Otherwise agree.

[Implications]

I am argueing that value judgements absolutely can be true or false, becuase what is a true or false value is what is good or bad for conscious beings, and I am arguing that existence is generally bad for conscious beings though those effected by privilege and survivor bias may disagree, but we have no choice to keep living if we accept that our personal suffering doesn't matter that much and we have aduty to prevent the suffering of others.

Basically: Life can be good for Richard, while being generally bad.

I am interested and sympathetic to the idea that spirituality or transcendance is emergent. I already accept that emotions and morality are emergeant (in other words, emotions aren't just a bunch of electric and chemical impulses but are actually important) I could possibly accept something else is emergeant.

I think. It may be reasonable, to imply that life is neutral (as there isn't really a nonexistence to compare life to, nonexistence is not a thing, tohugh that's an argument I have a slgihlty hard time getting my head around.)

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Do you respect evidence, does it tend to persuade you more than your emotions?

I certainly hope so. I wish to be scientific. But I must admit I may also be guilty of simular problems I accuse Richard of; humans tend to be irrational.

Edited June 23, 2021 by Implications
alteration

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Implications said:

I am argueing that value judgements absolutely can be true or false, becuase what is a true or false value is what is good or bad for conscious beings,

In this statement, you're equating true/false with good/bad, and I think that's a mistake. There are instances when something "false" can also be "good". It may seem bad or false for a child to lie, but lying also shows the child is thinking ahead, predicting a better future by changing their present strategy. It's a positive cognitive sign, but we tend to think of it negatively.

2 hours ago, Implications said:

and I am arguing that existence is generally bad for conscious beings though those effected by privilege and survivor bias may disagree, but we have no choice to keep living if we accept that our personal suffering doesn't matter that much and we have aduty to prevent the suffering of others.

There is much suffering, true, but "generally bad for conscious beings" is not how most people define existence. Yours seems to be an extreme POV, and not representative "generally"

2 hours ago, Implications said:

Basically: Life can be good for Richard, while being generally bad.

I think you have this backwards. Adversity happens, but life is generally considered a good thing, and even with the occasional bout of suffering there is much to celebrate. There are certainly individuals with different experiences, and whole countries where conditions are far from ideal. In general though, people thrive, and are hopeful of thriving further, and most agree that life is better than the alternative. People struggle to live when death would be simpler.

3 hours ago, Implications said:

I am interested and sympathetic to the idea that spirituality or transcendance is emergent.

Many aspects of humanity stem from our incredible intelligence, and we give them names like consciousness, spirituality, morality, ambition, justice, etc. 

3 hours ago, Implications said:

I already accept that emotions and morality are emergeant (in other words, emotions aren't just a bunch of electric and chemical impulses but are actually important) I could possibly accept something else is emergeant.

Personally, I think emotions are best used to lend weight and urgency to our reasoning skills. Without good reasoning, emotions are a waste of effort, and often lead us astray.

An emergent property happens because of many parts combining to allow it, like the electrochemical impulses of the brain combined with other bodily systems, but that doesn't mean emotions aren't important. Never underestimate the power of "just a bunch of electric and chemical impulses".

3 hours ago, Implications said:

I think. It may be reasonable, to imply that life is neutral (as there isn't really a nonexistence to compare life to, nonexistence is not a thing, tohugh that's an argument I have a slgihlty hard time getting my head around.)

There is organic material like plants and animals (life), and there is inorganic material (elements, rocks). Living matter is better at absorbing and dissipating heat from the sun than inorganic matter is. In this context, positive, negative, and neutral are part of the makeup of the matter itself.

You're correct, existence/nonexistence is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. I can't borrow a cup of nonexistence from the dragon in my garage. But that doesn't imply that life is a neutral state. Between existence and non-existence, a neutral state might be more like the potential of a zygote in its mother's womb. 

[John Cuthber]

On 6/23/2021 at 6:07 PM, Implications said:

Alright I can change the uncited claim if you want but there is an actual point being made...

That's good.

Now have a go at fixing the other problem which I highlighted:

On 6/23/2021 at 5:50 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

On 6/23/2021 at 5:36 PM, Implications said:

What explaining the rainbow does do , is prove that the Rainbow is not inherently beautiful,

And yet, at least in most people's opinion, it still is beautiful.
So your assertion is nonsense.

I know what a rainbow is, and how it works.

But if someone tells me there's a rainbow outside, I'm very likely to go to the window and admire it, because it's pretty.
Since rainbows are beautiful, it is clear that nothing has proved that they aren't.

So, explaining rainbows doesn't prove what you said it does.

So you are wrong.

 

Is there any reason why I should read anything else you say?

 

[Holmes]

On 6/23/2021 at 9:36 AM, Implications said:

In "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins writes

 

Later Richard Dawkins wrote "Unweaving the Rainbow"

 

This belief is common among athiests, and I am going to argue that Richard is wrong.

It is a matter of fact that every single one of us is going to suffer, and this is ample evidence that Richard Dawkins is wrong.

I argue that believing that we are lucky to be alive when you accept the reality of suffering, is bit like believing in God when you believe that life on Earth was all formed by evolutionary and physical processes. This does not represent a true acceptance of the facts.

The title "Unweaving the rainbow", refers to John Keats criticism of science, that it had "destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to a prism." Richard Dawkins claims this is wrong. I claim that Richard is not drawing quite the right conclusion. What science shows is that the rainbow is not inherently beautiful, beauty is a mere aesthethetic. There is nothing poetic about a rainbow.

I argue, that science shows there is no spiritual, transcendent or philisophical quality to the universe and that  the existence of life  or rainbows does not have value.

What science shows is that there is an objective universe and as such I beleive that Richard's claim, that we are are lucky to be alive, can be false.

I propose that the correct response to this unspecial nature of the universe, is something resembling stoicism or philisophical Buddhism. We must accept that suffering exists and respond compassionately to others and ourselves. We must be careful to not panic in the face of suffering, or else we will make it worse.

We must destroy the myth that things other than welfare have value.

PS:

One thing some of you may find confusing is the idea that emotions are in some way objective and that someone can make an objective statement about wether life is nice or not.

What I claim to be true, is:

Emotions are the only measure of welfare, welfare is the only measure of morality, and it is an objective fact that all affective beings will suffer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Dawkins has a poor understanding of science to be honest, his celebrity is often mistaken for competence. In this though he has a lot in common with many - not all - atheists, a weak grasp of philosophy and the foundations of science.

When I read claptrap like "Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born" I know he's reached the limits of his understanding, how one can say "most" about things that don't exist escapes.

Most things will never cease to exist because they are never going to exist - see?

Dawkins often represents much of what is intellectually poor in atheism and sadly far too many take him seriously.

 

 

 

 

[joigus]

13 minutes ago, Holmes said:

how one can say "most" about things that don't exist escapes.

[sic]

Here's how:

On 6/23/2021 at 6:36 PM, Implications said:

We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people.

Apparently you missed it the first time.

[Holmes]

The statement "most people don't exist" is not a scientific statement.

It is not testable experimentally, it is IMHO meaningless.

Consider: most members of the set X are not members of the set X.

Like much of Dawkins' writing it is fancy, word play, speculative.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Holmes

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

The statement "most people don't exist" is not a scientific statement.

It is not testable experimentally, it is IMHO meaningless.

Again, in the context of "set of possible people allowed by our DNA" vs "set of actual people", you're wrong. 

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Consider: most members of the set X are not members of the set X.

Like much of Dawkins' writing it is fancy, word play, speculative.

Again, that's not analogous to the situation in context. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Holmes said:

Richard Dawkins has a poor understanding of science to be honest,

 I know he's reached the limits of his understanding, 

Dawkins often represents much of what is intellectually poor in atheism and sadly far too many take him seriously.

Like much of Dawkins' writing it is fancy, word play, speculative.

You don't like Richard Dawkins I take it?

While I prefer scientists [which Dawkins is] and scientific principles,  to philosophers, and philosophical claptrap, does not stop me accepting that philosophy is still at the foundation of science. But I do prefer Sagan over Dawkins, and actually see him as the greatest educator of our time.

With relation to the thread title though "Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?" it is obviously arse about face. It is far more scientifically logical for believers to prove that their deity of choice does indeed exist. That as yet has never happened.

Edited June 27, 2021 by beecee

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, beecee said:

With relation to the thread title though "Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?" it is obviously arse about face. It is far more scientifically logical for believers to prove that their deity of choice does indeed exist. That as yet has never happened.

It's a bit stupider than that:

"Can [ any group] prove their beliefs?"

No, -because if you could prove them they would be deductions or facts rather than "beliefs".
 

 

To open a thread with a logical error like that, and then go on to make other daft claims as the OP has, doesn't bode well.

 

[Holmes]

21 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Again, in the context of "set of possible people allowed by our DNA" vs "set of actual people", you're wrong. 

Again, that's not analogous to the situation in context. 

 

I think you're being a bit too generous to Dawkins here, this is what he wrote in English, the man has an excellent vocabulary, his knowledge of English is certainly very good, yet he wrote:

 

Quote

Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born

Things that are not born cannot be referred to as "people" it is not the kind of language I'd expect from a serious, competent scientist. Dawkins is mainly a pop-science writer though.

 

19 hours ago, beecee said:

You don't like Richard Dawkins I take it?

While I prefer scientists [which Dawkins is] and scientific principles,  to philosophers, and philosophical claptrap, does not stop me accepting that philosophy is still at the foundation of science. But I do prefer Sagan over Dawkins, and actually see him as the greatest educator of our time.

With relation to the thread title though "Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?" it is obviously arse about face. It is far more scientifically logical for believers to prove that their deity of choice does indeed exist. That as yet has never happened.

I don't regard Dawkins as a scientist in any traditional sense, he is primarily a writer of popular science books, his contributions to science are somewhat intangible.

Consider this from an article published in 2016 in the UK's The Independent (emphasis mine)

 

Quote

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.

I also don't see how you can expect anyone to prove their beliefs, even in the physical sciences we never prove anything as I'm sure you know.

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Things that are not born cannot be referred to as "people"

They can; he did.

And you will find the God Squad doing it a lot when they discuss abortion.

 

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.

So well over half don't think that.

And, beware of selection bias.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Holmes said:

I don't regard Dawkins as a scientist in any traditional sense, he is primarily a writer of popular science books, his contributions to science are somewhat intangible.

Obviously on that score you are wrong. He is indeed a scientist before any of his excellent science orientated books were published..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Education

[Holmes]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously on that score you are wrong. He is indeed a scientist before any of his excellent science orientated books were published..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Education

I'm quite sure there's a definition out there somewhere that one can use to claim Dawkins is a "real" scientist but I do not regard him as a scientist myself. For example he seems to have contributed nothing to our understanding of genetics, yes he writes about this and in the public mind because of his popularity but I don't think he has discovered anything or published much in the form of research papers.

He also seems to know little about mathematics, computing, physics, biochemistry or philosophy despite using these subjects as crutches for some of his pop-science books.

He may impress some here, perhaps you, but not me.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I'm quite sure there's a definition out there somewhere that one can use to claim Dawkins is a "real" scientist but I do not regard him as a scientist myself.

At least you’re consistent with your prolific use of logical fallacies. This time it’s the No True Scotsman fallacy, I see. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by iNow

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I'm quite sure there's a definition out there somewhere that one can use to claim Dawkins is a "real" scientist but I do not regard him as a scientist myself.

By any mainstream definition out there, and despite your Dawkins bashing, he is a scientist: end of story.

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/04/enough_richard_dawkins_bashing_let_us_praise_a_hero_of_science_and_atheism/

The religious and their apologists have no fury more ardent than that which they reserve for those who would expose the truth about their faith-generated delusions. Abrahamic scripture justifies, even sanctifies, such fury, ordaining hellfire and damnation for those who diss their make-believe divine master – aka Yahweh, God, Allah, the Lord, and so on. Thus it has ever been with that consummate bane, monotheism – the innately totalitarian (as the late Christopher Hitchens put it) ideology concentrating all power in the hands of one (jealous, wrathful, and entirely imaginary) “Big Brother in the Sky.”

It cannot be otherwise: one master, many slaves (or dupes, given that said master does not exist). Those who believe in this bogus despot far too frequently shall not suffer truth-tellers to live -- at least figuratively, but all too tragically literally as well, of course, as history and current events show.

Time and again this has proven true with Richard Dawkins, at least in the figurative sense. The groundbreaking British evolutionary biologist and New Atheist icon has long suffered the slings and arrows of the faith-deranged and those sad-sack apologists eager to assassinate his character, all often servants of political correctness, working in cahoots with them. Dawkins has made (delicious) light of the former, selecting NSFW excerpts from their mail to him and reading them aloud for Internet videos that attract millions of viewers (see here and here, but religion is involved, so make sure no minors are around). The perception persists, as The Guardian put it in a lengthy piece, that “his controversial positions” – on, e.g., sexism and abortion of fetuses with disabilities, as expressed on Twitter – “have started to undermine both his reputation as a scientist and his own anti-religious crusade.”

 

more at link...........

Edited June 28, 2021 by beecee

[Holmes]

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

By any mainstream definition out there, and despite your Dawkins bashing, he is a scientist: end of story.

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/04/enough_richard_dawkins_bashing_let_us_praise_a_hero_of_science_and_atheism/

The religious and their apologists have no fury more ardent than that which they reserve for those who would expose the truth about their faith-generated delusions. Abrahamic scripture justifies, even sanctifies, such fury, ordaining hellfire and damnation for those who diss their make-believe divine master – aka Yahweh, God, Allah, the Lord, and so on. Thus it has ever been with that consummate bane, monotheism – the innately totalitarian (as the late Christopher Hitchens put it) ideology concentrating all power in the hands of one (jealous, wrathful, and entirely imaginary) “Big Brother in the Sky.”

It cannot be otherwise: one master, many slaves (or dupes, given that said master does not exist). Those who believe in this bogus despot far too frequently shall not suffer truth-tellers to live -- at least figuratively, but all too tragically literally as well, of course, as history and current events show.

Time and again this has proven true with Richard Dawkins, at least in the figurative sense. The groundbreaking British evolutionary biologist and New Atheist icon has long suffered the slings and arrows of the faith-deranged and those sad-sack apologists eager to assassinate his character, all often servants of political correctness, working in cahoots with them. Dawkins has made (delicious) light of the former, selecting NSFW excerpts from their mail to him and reading them aloud for Internet videos that attract millions of viewers (see here and here, but religion is involved, so make sure no minors are around). The perception persists, as The Guardian put it in a lengthy piece, that “his controversial positions” – on, e.g., sexism and abortion of fetuses with disabilities, as expressed on Twitter – “have started to undermine both his reputation as a scientist and his own anti-religious crusade.”

 

more at link...........

Hey if he floats for your boat then good for you, I've said - several times now - that I do not regard him as a scientist and I just gave my reasons for that. I'm simply posting my personal opinion and its based on reading his books and watching his debates and contrasting him with many many other scientists I read or know about.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

 I've said - several times now - that I do not regard him as a scientist and I just gave my reasons for that. I'm simply posting my personal opinion and its based on reading his books and watching his debates and contrasting him with many many other scientists I read or know about.

My own personal opinion is that you appear to be Dawkins bashing. I'm simply putting it factually the way it is...that is, he is a scientist:end of story.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Holmes said:

I'm simply posting my personal opinion and its based on reading his books and watching his debates

So, you’re making a judgement about whether or not he’s a scientist based solely on the nonscientific aspects of his career? Lol. Time to adding sampling error and confirmation bias to your list of fallacies. 😂 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Teaching

[zapatos]

11 hours ago, Holmes said:

Things that are not born cannot be referred to as "people" it is not the kind of language I'd expect from a serious, competent scientist. Dawkins is mainly a pop-science writer though.

Who put you in charge of what can and cannot be done?

My daughter-in-law had a miscarriage. You will never convince her, or me, that we didn't lose a person. What magical transformation happens while passing through the birth canal?

On 6/27/2021 at 12:05 PM, Holmes said:

When I read claptrap like "Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born" I know he's reached the limits of his understanding, how one can say "most" about things that don't exist escapes.

You need to expand your thinking a bit. It is not unreasonable to include all eggs as the upper limit of people who could be born. In which case, it is true that most people will never be born. Don't get bogged down by the words and miss the meaning.

[John Cuthber]

Anyone planning to build a school is designing it for people who are not born.

What we have here is an example of religion crowding common sense out of someone's head.