Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[1veedo]

Yes there are people who call themselves witches but a witch as described in the bible is something of an evil-doer, like a minion of satan or something. Witches can cause bad things to happen to you with their satanic powers.

[John Cuthber]

In my unashamedly biased opinion based on no study whatsoever, I believe that witches' spells are every bit as effective as Christian's prayers.

[JohnB]

You know, unlike God, it actually is possible to prove or disprove the existence of memes

Then present your proof.

[iNow]

Then present your proof.

 

If you look again, I think you'll find rather easily that I never stated I personally had proof. My suggestion was that finding evidence which confirms or denies the meme proposal is at least possible.

 

 

It always makes me laugh when bible thumpers ask for proof. Double-standards, much?

[bascule]

Then present your proof.

 

That would require a formal definition of meme. As a science memetics was split between externalism and internalism, namely:

 

Externalism: A meme is a self-replicating environmental artifact

Internalism: A meme is a self-replicating idea

 

Dawkins formulation was decidedly internalist (he described what the externalists described as a meme as a "meme vehicle")

 

Unfortunately internalist memetics is presently possible to place into a scientific model (how do you scientifically define an "idea"? What does an "idea" look like? How do you observe them?)

 

Externalist memetics at least stands a chance of being placed on scientific grounds, but the approach is much more haphazard as it's difficult to trace direct connections between artifacts which inspired each other.

 

In the specific case of Internet memes, there's a list of them available here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena

 

From an externalist perspective, that's a list of observed memes.

[JohnB]

If you look again, I think you'll find rather easily that I never stated I personally had proof. My suggestion was that finding evidence which confirms or denies the meme proposal is at least possible.

You're the one who stated it was possible to prove their existence, I asked you to do so, you did not. So you have no proof, nor do you know of anybody who has proof, yet you believe in them? Hmmm.

It always makes me laugh when bible thumpers ask for proof. Double-standards, much?

Who mentioned the Bible? Not me. I was merely pointing out that to deride the opinions of others for being without proof is hypocritical when one also believes in things that can't be proven. I was pointing to the double standard of those ardent followers of Dawkins who mock theists for having no proof to back their beliefs while at the same time have no proof to back their own most cherished idea, the "meme".

 

Bascule.

As a science memetics was split between externalism and internalism

(Emphasis mine)

A Science? Internalist memetics can't be placed in a scientific model and externalist memetics might possibly be? Yet you still call it a "Science"? Since when is something that can't be placed in a scientific framework a science?

In the specific case of Internet memes, there's a list of them available here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_phenomena

 

From an externalist perspective, that's a list of observed memes.

A list of things that some people consider memes, that's nice, but it in no way constitutes proof of existence.

 

Unless you are willing to allow;

In the specific case of demons, there's a list of them available here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demons

 

From a theological perspective, that's a list of observed demons.

 

Don't get me wrong here. I have no problem with the concept of memes as an analogy. The idea that ideas may spread in a method analogous to virii is fine, but the fact is that "memes" as an entity have not been shown to exist.

 

Until that proof is forthcoming, then you have to accept that belief in memes is as illogical as a belief in a supreme diety. The logical corrollary of this is that all the unpleasant names that theists have been called also apply to those who believe in memes.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[bascule]

A Science? Internalist memetics can't be placed in a scientific model and externalist memetics might possibly be? Yet you still call it a "Science"? Since when is something that can't be placed in a scientific framework a science?

 

Okay, nitpicks aside, memetics was pursued as a science for a decade. There was a peer reviewed journal (the Journal of Memetics), and people pursued namely externalism before eventually deciding it was unteneable. The journal published a series of "obituaries" for memetics and subsequently shut down.

 

It's interesting reading, and might elevate your opinion of how those who scientifically pursued memetics actually thought about it and what problems they encountered trying to do so

[JohnB]

Okay, nitpicks aside

Nitpicks? Using the definition you supplied we should allow scientology as a science.

memetics was pursued as a science for a decade.

Appeal to authority. Argument invalid. All that "proves" is that some "scientists" are just as gullible as the adverage joe.

There was a peer reviewed journal (the Journal of Memetics), and people pursued namely externalism before eventually deciding it was unteneable.

So the internalist idea is unprovable and the externalist is untenable, yet you still maintain memes exist? I am familiar with the Journal in question and have skimmed a number of the "papers" there. I always wanted to read scientific papers written by chess players. As for "peer reviewed", what a joke. Would you accept a "Theologian's Journal" on the grounds that it is "peer reviewed" by theologians? I doubt it greatly.

It's interesting reading, and might elevate your opinion of how those who scientifically pursued memetics actually thought about it and what problems they encountered trying to do so

Once you realise that they totally and utterly fail to accurately define what they are supposed to be studying and are incapable of even proving it's existence, then yes, one can see why they might have had problems.

 

If I may quote from the final edition of the "Journal of Memetics"

the underlying reason memetics has failed is that it has not provided any extra explanatory or predictive power beyond that available without the gene-meme analogy. Thus whilst the idea of memes has retained its attractiveness for some in terms of a framework for thinking about phenomena, it has not provided any "added value" it terms of providing new understanding of phenomena. The fact that some who wear the theoretical spectacles (Kuhn 1969) of memetics insist of redescribing a host of phenomena in these terms despite the lack of substantive results merely confirms other academics' opinion of the approach. The ability to think of some phenomena in a particular way (or describe it using a certain framework), does not mean that the phenomena has those properties in any significant sense.

 

The only real decision to make is whether memes and memetics are merely pop psychology of the worst kind or simply pseudo-science.

 

Perhaps we should let Richard Dawkins have some comments;

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

Faith in the meme perhaps?

[Alternative medicine is defined as] that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests.

Oh Dear, he could be describing Memetics, couldn't he?

 

From the OP

Dawkins has a new television program out, called "The Enemies of Reason". He attacks new agers, charlatans, and other purveyors of pseudoscience:

Until he includes Memeticists I can only conclude he is selective, illogical and inconsistant in what he calls "pseudoscience".

[iNow]

So the internalist idea is unprovable and the externalist is untenable, yet you still maintain memes exist?

 

The only real decision to make is whether memes and memetics are merely pop psychology of the worst kind or simply pseudo-science.

 

Perhaps we should let Richard Dawkins have some comments;

 

Faith in the meme perhaps?

 

Oh Dear, he could be describing Memetics, couldn't he?

 

Is there anybody here is claiming without shadow of a doubt that memes exist, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong? Come on, mate. Please. Be more respectful than that.

 

Also, when was Dawkin's last work on memes? Give me a citation for his last published paper on the topic. I'd imagine that he started focussing on the problem of irrational faith for a reason.

 

That's the beauty of science, and most scientists who understand it's core... Ideas are not truths, and can be rejected in the face of contradictory evidence. Religion, on the other hand, claims that the stories they share ARE truth.

 

This thread isn't about memes. You're entire approach thus far has been ad hominem. To paraphrase you, "Dawkin's clearly has double-standards when he says religion and irrational faith are detrimental to society since he spent a few years studying memes, and memes don't have any proof. So, therefore he's obviously wrong when speaking about faith."

 

I contend that, despite any work on memes (and thank you, btw, for helping me realize the weak footing on which this concept of memes actually stands) which Dawkin's has done, his point about belief and faith in the face of contrary (or NO) evidence being detrimental to us as a people is, remarkably, valid.

[Royston]

his point about belief and faith in the face of contrary (or NO) evidence being detrimental to us as a people is, remarkably, valid.

 

Why is it valid, perhaps you could run through how a society would function if it was stripped of any belief that has no evidence for that belief...I guarantee you can't, and any attempt would be pure speculation.

 

Dawkins concentrates on negative aspects of religion, but the problem isn't religion, if that was the case then all denominations of Christianity, say, would be acting like the southern states Christian fundamentalists.

 

Although it may seem like a tired cliche', your example 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', the term rings true. Irrational belief can work, and can do good...person X believes in an invisible elephant that tells them to look after senior citizens, where as person Y believes the elephant tells them that senior citizens are a waste of resources, and are a liability.

 

What harm is person X doing exactly ? Person Y however, is using their subjective interpretation of the elephants wishes to cause harm, and bolster their own subjective views, which has nothing to do with the elephant, but to do with their need for control, and satisfying their ideals.

[John Cuthber]

If you have a society that looks for evidence then it will discount the elephant believer's views and come to a rational point of view about old people. It will do this whatever muddled ideas are dreamed up by mystics. Surely it's better to look after the elderly because it's the right thing to do rather than because someone says that a fairy told him to tell you to do it?

[pioneer]

Meme

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

 

If you think about it, there are two types of memes, the first requires the passer push the information forward, such as an advertizer who keeps reinforcing their product, until it takes. This type of meme takes some type of outward charismatic force, repetititon or even peer pressure to get meme-1 to begin propagation. The second or meme-2 is information that is readily absorbed requiring little in the way of push or marketing.

 

The first is sort of like a viral invasion. The cell resists at first but through push it is able to enter the cell. As the infection grows (more people) it begins to overwelm other cells, for faster transfer. The second is more like a cell using its own natural transport mechanism for food. Dawkin's beliefs or memes are sort of the first kind. He use his position to penetrate the membrane and infect cells for replication.

 

If you look at small children, especially ages 1-4, their brains have the highest learning rate, as their neurons quickly grow. If one takes a small child and gives them a choice between reading them fairy tales or the newspaper, they will prefer the fairy tells. The fairly tales, or stories of witches, spirits, animals that talk, etc. are absorbed through osmosis and would be meme-2 for them. The newspaper would require repetition, extra manipulsion, (more selling), etc., or is meme-1 to a small child.

 

Adults are bigger and stronger, but children 4 and under are more natural, with far more natural learning potential. Once they enter school and are forced, manipulated, conned or sold to become young cultural children, then their meme-2 osmosis will often change. Their osmosis is no longer natural but becomes conditioned by their culture. In other words, the natural mind of a small child likes fairy tales. While the meme-1 conditioning of natural child alters osmosis and it begins to diversify.

 

The universal osmosis consensus of small childern is very similar, during those young years, when they are the most natural. After that culture inputs and conditions the with meme-1 to infest them, so their future osmosis becomes directed down the needs of cultural lines. This osmosis is no longer natural consensus but quite arbitrary. Religion is an extension of fairy tales, or symbolic things that are readily absorbed by the natural mind of a child. It is a counterbalance to cultural viral meme-1 infestions that will evwentually alters natural osmosis into something arbitrary.

 

Here is the bottom line, all knowledge we have today will change. Each step is like a fad that is treated like it is the final say on things. But the natural osmosis of the small child is eternal and has always been. Religion keeps the natural child alive, as the meme-1 viri of cultures changes clothes season after season, with each season convincing itself, this is the final style. The induced cultural osmosis helps this fantasy along. We sort of go from one fairy tale into another one that is more temporal.

 

I thought I would help Dawkins advance his meme theory before he falls into the trap of meme-1 infestation leading to altered meme-2 osmosis.

[Blade]

gotta love video google.

 

This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that ... alle » not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited.

 

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=dawkins+duration%3Along&total=146&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

[Royston]

Surely it's better to look after the elderly because it's the right thing to do rather than because someone says that a fairy told him to tell you to do it?

 

Your missing the point, what reason would I have for attacking something that causes no harm ? And who gives a sh*t why something beneficial to nature, stems from an irrational belief ? How would society function, if you took away irrational belief...A. I can only speculate B. it doesn't retract from the human condition e.g greed, control et.c

 

Also, reducing problems down to an irrational belief in something, means your attacking any human endeavour that was built on 'belief'. That doesn't make sense, because there's been a huge amount of progress built on so-called belief...'but that progress is stupid, because it stems from an irrational belief in something ?!?' How does that statement make sense ?

[Blade]

Your missing the point, what reason would I have for attacking something that causes no harm ? And who gives a sh*t why something beneficial to nature, stems from an irrational belief ? How would society function, if you took away irrational belief...A. I can only speculate B. it doesn't retract from the human condition e.g greed, control et.c

 

Also, reducing problems down to an irrational belief in something, means your attacking any human endeavour that was built on 'belief'. That doesn't make sense, because there's been a huge amount of progress built on so-called belief...'but that progress is stupid, because it stems from an irrational belief in something ?!?' How does that statement make sense ?

 

In short: The diffrence between truth and lies.

[Glider]

Although it may seem like a tired cliche', your example 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', the term rings true. Irrational belief can work, and can do good...person X believes in an invisible elephant that tells them to look after senior citizens, where as person Y believes the elephant tells them that senior citizens are a waste of resources, and are a liability.

 

What harm is person X doing exactly ? Person Y however, is using their subjective interpretation of the elephants wishes to cause harm, and bolster their own subjective views, which has nothing to do with the elephant, but to do with their need for control, and satisfying their ideals.

 

Person X is not doing any harm, but s/he is basing their behaviour and actions in life on the whims of an invisible elephant. Therefore I think the harm lies not in the actions of person X, but in the effect of the idea (concept/meme/whatever you wish to call it) of an invisible elephant upon person X.

 

The actions of person X may be laudable, but the process that led him or her to that line of action is patently ridiculous. Person X did not decide to help senior citizens through any reasonable belief (e.g. 'they worked hard throughout their lives, they need/deserve care now', or 'one day, I'll be a senior citizen and I hope someone will look after me then'), but because an invisible elephant said they should.

 

So, whilst their behaviour deserves merit, their reasoning is absent and any rational person would have to question their judgement. If they are going to make decisions based on the whims of an invisible elephant, what makes them fit for the post of carer to senior citizens? Would you want such a person caring for your gran or granddad?

 

Essentially, what is the difference between person X and person Y? They're both acting on the instructions of an invisible elephant and in the absence of any critical evaluation of their own motive, reasoning and rationale. It's simply blind faith. The difference in their courses of action might just as well be based on the toss of a coin as in both cases, the reason for their action is not supported by any rational line of argument.

 

I think this is what Dawkins is talking about. Not that those who have faith are necessarily harmful to anyone else, but that faith itself can be harmful to those who hold it because of the "active process of non-thought" (Dawkins words) that faith requires.

 

PS. Sorry for butting in.

[Severian]

2 points:

 

Firstly, the religious person helping the old people would not be doing it solely because his god told him to. He would be doing it because he thought it was right and that is reinforced by his religious beliefs.

 

Secondly, the person helping the old people because they think it is the right thing to do are also operating on belief. They believe that the world will be a better place if they help. While I agree with that, it is an aesthetic argument that cannot be proven and as such is a belief.

 

Criticizing someone for acting on belief and then advocating it for your own actions smacks of hypocrisy.

[John Cuthber]

I might look after the elderly because I want society to be in the habit of doing so when I am elderly. A sort of ongoing social contract.

Straightforward self-interest makes it a rational plan.

Now, why does anyone need a God or an elephant to tell them to do something that is in their best interest anyway?

What's hypocritical about it?

[Royston]

Person X is not doing any harm, but s/he is basing their behaviour and actions in life on the whims of an invisible elephant. Therefore I think the harm lies not in the actions of person X, but in the effect of the idea (concept/meme/whatever you wish to call it) of an invisible elephant upon person X.

 

The actions are all anyone should care about...if I trace the source of my actions, and as much as I believe my actions are based on rational decisions, I can only pin point these decisions as faith in myself, to work out between right and wrong, I may as well have faith in an invisible elephant, because what is faith in myself exactly ?

 

If somebody starts a charity to tackle AIDS victims, because an invisible elephant says that'll be good, and I study for ten years and then decide to tackle the problem (based on my knowledge) who cares whether the charity is built on shaky ground, that person has been helping AIDS victims for ten years, and I've only just started.

 

I'm not advocating that someone should base their decisions on something patently ridiculous, but if that belief causes no harm, and is actually beneficial, who cares ?

 

So, whilst their behaviour deserves merit, their reasoning is absent and any rational person would have to question their judgement. If they are going to make decisions based on the whims of an invisible elephant, what makes them fit for the post of carer to senior citizens? Would you want such a person caring for your gran or granddad?

 

If their doing a good job, and you have evidence that they have a history of doing a good job, why on earth would you care that this has stemmed from belief in an invisible elephant ?

 

Essentially, what is the difference between person X and person Y? They're both acting on the instructions of an invisible elephant and in the absence of any critical evaluation of their own motive, reasoning and rationale. It's simply blind faith. The difference in their courses of action might just as well be based on the toss of a coin as in both cases, the reason for their action is not supported by any rational line of argument.

 

Like I said, I have blind faith in myself...I have evidence that I'm pretty good at maths/physics et.c but to reach the dizzy heights of a phd, I have to convince myself that I can do it, there is no evidence I'll reach my goal, but if I didn't have faith in myself, I wouldn't even bother.

 

I think this is what Dawkins is talking about. Not that those who have faith are necessarily harmful to anyone else, but that faith itself can be harmful to those who hold it because of the "active process of non-thought" (Dawkins words) that faith requires.

 

PS. Sorry for butting in.

 

Butt away Dawkins conveniently overlooks that faith has actually been the catalyst for progress, if you take that away, however ridiculous the grounds of that faith is, it can be positive (as well as negative)...think of the architecture (just one example) that has stemmed from an irrational belief in something.

 

Like I've already said, belief has positives and negatives...I can't fathom, and I don't think anybody else can, how we can function if 'blind faith' is taken away.

 

Firstly, the religious person helping the old people would not be doing it solely because his god told him to. He would be doing it because he thought it was right and that is reinforced by his religious beliefs

 

Which I should of mentioned, the same principle applies to both X and Y.

[Skye]

The thing about Dawkins is that he is good at analogy, perhaps the best popular science writer at analogy. He is not particualarly original, Huxley and Popper had many of his ideas before he did. I still like his books though.

[iNow]

While this discussion is not about the actions of person X due to an elephant, an important note is just how easily person X could do harmful and violent things because the invisible elephant told them so. The active process of non-thought (thanks Glider) allows this, whereas the active process of critical reasoning helps mitigate this potentiality.

[John Cuthber]

"Dawkins conveniently overlooks that faith has actually been the catalyst for progress, if you take that away, however ridiculous the grounds of that faith is, it can be positive (as well as negative)...think of the architecture (just one example) that has stemmed from an irrational belief in something. "

Er, actually he doesn't overlook it, he just points out that the rich and powerful are in a position to patronise art (in all its forms) so a lot of art used to be "inspired by the church". An interesting question might be (though perhaps for another thread) "How come the church has got that much money; has poverty been eliminated?"

 

The interesting thing about people who believe that God or an elephant tells them what to think is that they sometimes get some strange ideas about what God wants. Peter sutcliff would be a case in point

"After two days of intensive questioning, he suddenly, on the afternoon of 4 January 1981 declared he was the Ripper and, over the next day, calmly described his many attacks, only weeks later claiming to have been told by God to murder the women. He was charged on 6 January and went to trial in May. The basis of his defence was his claim that he was the tool of God's will."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe

 

If you don't believe in a God you can't think that He expects you to do hideous things; it forces you to think for yourself. It's quite possible that he would still have killed those women for money but I doubt it.

[1veedo]

"Dawkins conveniently overlooks that faith has actually been the catalyst for progress, if you take that away, however ridiculous the grounds of that faith is, it can be positive (as well as negative)...think of the architecture (just one example) that has stemmed from an irrational belief in something. "

 

This is an equivocation between "types" of faith. Science has done much more for humanity in the past 150 years than religion has ever done, and religion has been around for a very long time.

[Pangloss]

If you don't believe in a God you can't think that He expects you to do hideous things; it forces you to think for yourself. It's quite possible that he would still have killed those women for money but I doubt it.

 

I disagree with the statement that if you don't believe in god you're forced to think for yourself. I see people on this forum every day who will post in one thread about the wisdom of specific scientific investigations, and then five minutes later post in another thread that Bush was absolutely responsible for 9/11, or that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947, or that multinational corporations have destroyed the world (we just don't realize it yet).

 

I've also met plenty of perfectly sane, intelligent people who also happen to have utter and irrevocable faith in god.

 

The point being that avoidance of religion is no guarantee of either intelligence or insight.

[Glider]

2 points:

 

Firstly, the religious person helping the old people would not be doing it solely because his god told him to. He would be doing it because he thought it was right and that is reinforced by his religious beliefs.

 

Possibly, but I think if s/he came to the conclusion for themselves that helping the elderly was the right thing to do, then this conclusion was based on a process of ethical reasoning, not faith, in which case it's just a coincidence that the same conclusion appears in whatever religious text s/he uses. In such a case, the text is incidental and the behaviour is therefore not faith-based.

 

It’s probable that many adaptive social behaviours are as valid today as they were in the bronze age (e.g. looking after the elderly), but it’s certain that many other behaviours are not (e.g. stoning rebellious children and non-virgins). Arguably then, deciding which is currently appropriate and which isn't requires a degree of ethical reasoning and so faith becomes redundant, as does the text.

 

Secondly, the person helping the old people because they think it is the right thing to do are also operating on belief. They believe that the world will be a better place if they help. While I agree with that, it is an aesthetic argument that cannot be proven and as such is a belief.

The belief in this case is supported by ethical reasoning (i.e. an active process of moral thinking) and so requires no support by its coincidental appearance in a bronze age text.

 

Criticizing someone for acting on belief and then advocating it for your own actions smacks of hypocrisy.

Not really. I think we’re confusing 'belief resulting from an active process of reasoning', with 'faith'. Acting on such a belief is different from acting on faith. Such a belief requires some grounds, faith does not.

 

The actions are all anyone should care about...if I trace the source of my actions, and as much as I believe my actions are based on rational decisions, I can only pin point these decisions as faith in myself, to work out between right and wrong, I may as well have faith in an invisible elephant, because what is faith in myself exactly?

Faith in one’s self is known as ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘faith’ is a poor term for it. Self-efficacy comes from the perceived balance of successes and failures at given tasks throughout life and so is evidence based.

 

Whilst I would agree that actions are very important, I do think that motive (and understanding of one’s motives) is as important.

 

If somebody starts a charity to tackle AIDS victims, because an invisible elephant says that'll be good, and I study for ten years and then decide to tackle the problem (based on my knowledge) who cares whether the charity is built on shaky ground, that person has been helping AIDS victims for ten years, and I've only just started.

You’re not really comparing like with like here on the one hand you have a charity (which is ok) but on the other? What did you study 10 years for?

 

Anyway, as I say, there is nothing wrong with the actions of the person motivated by the invisible elephant, but their lack of understanding of their own motives, being, as they are, limited to ‘the elephant says that’ll be good’ is to the detriment of that person. Suppose the elephant hadn’t said ‘that’ll be good’. Would that person still have started the charity?

 

I'm not advocating that someone should base their decisions on something patently ridiculous, but if that belief causes no harm, and is actually beneficial, who cares?

Well, as I said, it’s Dawkins view that the harm done is not necessarily to others. The harm done to individuals ‘of faith’ (in Dawkins’ view) is that to support that faith, they have to stop thinking (the ‘active process of non-thought’ that faith requires). Thus, faith is always harmful. The difference between ‘faiths’ is simply the degree of harm and to whom it is done.

 

If their doing a good job, and you have evidence that they have a history of doing a good job, why on earth would you care that this has stemmed from belief in an invisible elephant?

If a surgeon performs surgery as a ritual, adhering only to the words of an invisible elephant; “First must thou incise the skin at the point of McBurney. Next must thou incise the adipose and muscle, laying open unto the very guts, but incising not them” and so-on, that surgeon might very well perform successful appendectomies time after time. Nevertheless, I would question whether that surgeon really understood what he or she was doing (or why). More to the point, faith is of absolutely no use if something goes wrong and the situation suddenly changes.

 

I would rather they worked to an understanding of anatomy and physiology so that under novel and unexpected circumstances their understanding of these underlying principles would allow them to adapt quickly to the new situation, in effect ad-libbing (as many surgeons do under such circumstances). Successful ad-libbing has to be based on knowledge and understanding. You cannot ad-lib when adhering to ancient texts written by invisible elephants.

 

Like I said, I have blind faith in myself...I have evidence that I'm pretty good at maths/physics et.c but to reach the dizzy heights of a phd, I have to convince myself that I can do it, there is no evidence I'll reach my goal, but if I didn't have faith in myself, I wouldn't even bother.

You do not have ‘blind faith’ in yourself. You have evidence that you’re “pretty good at maths/physics etc.” . Therefore you have evidence of an existing level of skill, and the knowledge that you can acquire new skills and so you have a degree of justified self-efficacy. Whilst the outcome of your PhD is not certain, the balance of evidence suggests that you have a good probability of achieving it. If there was no such evidence, that would be blind faith, but then, no supervisor would touch you.

 

Butt away

Thank you

 

Dawkins conveniently overlooks that faith has actually been the catalyst for progress, if you take that away, however ridiculous the grounds of that faith is, it can be positive (as well as negative)...think of the architecture (just one example) that has stemmed from an irrational belief in something.

Hmmm. Perhaps, if we concede that building churches and cathedrals is progress, given the cost in the face of the numbers in poverty and that hospitals and alms houses would have been more useful at that time.

 

On the other hand, the ‘faithful’ who commissioned them were not the people who built them. I would wonder whether the architects and, masons and carpenters of these churches were working to faith as much the people who commissioned them. Why design those amazing flying buttresses? Because faith won’t hold the walls up.

 

Like I've already said, belief has positives and negatives...I can't fathom, and I don't think anybody else can, how we can function if 'blind faith' is taken away.

Well, we could think and work on the balance of probabilities that comes from evaluating the evidence.

 

I disagree with the statement that if you don't believe in god you're forced to think for yourself. I see people on this forum every day who will post in one thread about the wisdom of specific scientific investigations, and then five minutes later post in another thread that Bush was absolutely responsible for 9/11, or that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947, or that multinational corporations have destroyed the world (we just don't realize it yet).

I agree, but I Dawkins isn't referring to faith in god in particular, but faith in general that requires the active suspension of critical faculties (i.e. ‘the active process of non-thought’), even faith in some conspiracy theory.

 

I've also met plenty of perfectly sane, intelligent people who also happen to have utter and irrevocable faith in god.

 

The point being that avoidance of religion is no guarantee of either intelligence or insight.

I agree completely, but I think Dawkins’ point is that faith requires the active suspension of both, at least in that particular area of a person’s life.

 

.