Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist whose 2006 book The God Delusion has sold more than 3 million copies worldwide, has claimed that a “psycho” cyclist smashed his Tesla car with a D-lock on Oxford’s Cowley Road on Monday afternoon.
The alleged incident happened at around 1.30pm, with the 80 year old, who is professor emeritus at New College, Oxford, appealing for witnesses through a post on Twitter. It is not clear from his tweets whether he was the driver, though it does appear to be his car.
“Crazed cyclist launched unprovoked attack on blue Tesla 3 heading SE,” he wrote, adding a picture of the damage.
”Smashed back window with D-lock. Then pursued us, fell off his bike in his fury, then tried to smash driver’s side front window. Witnesses pls phone Oxford police.”
Here’s a photo of the damage done by the psycho smashing the window with repeated blows from his D-lock. pic.twitter.com/a6asqROjvT
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) November 29, 2021
Some Twitter users pointed out that since it was a Tesla, there should be video footage from the vehicle’s on-board cameras.
It’s a Tesla so you’ll have the camera footage and the preceding ten minutes, right? Pass them on to the police and they can see this event and any actions leading to it.
— Richard Warner (@rgwarner) November 29, 2021
But Dawkins said that there was no memory stick inserted in the vehicle, although he would contact Tesla to see whether any footage might have been captured in any event.
In current climate-change crisis, I’m bewildered by hostility to Tesla: EV pioneer.
Alas no memstick, so no camera record. I’ll plug it in henceforth.
I’ve asked Tesla if they can retrieve record.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) November 30, 2021
Nevertheless, some wondered whether the absence of video might be explained by something having happened beforehand that might have prompted the cyclist’s reaction.
Instead of posting photos show us the video. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…or just a video in this case. I find the idea a cyclist would just smash your car for no reason hard to believe. It’s much likelier that an old tesla driver did something.
— Rafal Pruszynski (@RafalPruszynsk2) November 30, 2021
Any person doing this is wrong, no question. However, while totally wrong that doesn’t mean it was unprovoked… forgive us cyclists (who mostly also drive) but we have heard this one before… lots! So, can we have the video and at least a few minutes before the 1st incident?
— Jonathan Stone (@JonnyStone) November 29, 2021
Others seemed happy just to sit back and watch the evolving exchange on the social network.
Richard Dawkings vs Cycling twitter, this should be good.
— richard etchell (@richetchell) November 29, 2021
And, given Dawkins’ aetheism, some just couldn’t resist …
God will make sure they get their comeuppance
— Pants (@PantsNeil) November 29, 2021
BBC News reports that Thames Valley Police have confirmed that they are investigating reports of damage to a car on Cowley Road on Monday, but could not release the name of the alleged victim, in line with force policy.
129 thoughts on “Richard Dawkins claims “psycho” cyclist smashed up his Tesla – while he was in it”
It’s worth noting there are
It’s worth noting there are random nut jobs riding bikes about. There was one on this site a few months back in London.
It remains to be seen what the entirety of the events were.
The god tweet worked for me though.
It also with noting there are
It also with noting there are some random nut jobs driving around in cars
Would that be the Pimlico
Would that be the Pimlico plumbers’ Rolls Royce? Did someone later identify the “cyclist” being an employee?
Nope it was the nutter on a
Nope it was the nutter on a bike who attacked another cyclist with a dlock..
https://road.cc/content/news/video-cyclist-attacks-another-rider-londons-cs3-286411
My point was that often the nuttiness is irrelevant to the choice of vehicle at that point in time. I don’t subscribe to the thought all cyclists are angels and all drivers are devils, so am inclined not to form an opinion in the Dawkins case until more is known.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I’m quite happy to jump to an early opinion on this just based on why some cyclists suddenly attack vehicles and I declare that Dawkins (with whom I’d usually agree with) most likely close-passed or cut up the cyclist and was oblivious to it. He is getting on in age and just because he’s successful in his field doesn’t necessarily make him a good driver.
Dawkins ate my hamster! Not
Dawkins ate my hamster! Not true but although he was smooth enough when I saw him at a public event once in print he certainly gives the opinion that he can spot fools infallably and is not inclined to tolerate them. I suppose “Old man gets irked” or even “Early self-driving car makes another dangerous balls-up” probably isn’t such a notable story as “D-lock wielding psycho on wheels!”
chrisonatrike wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI
That video suggests he
That video suggests he approves of cycling though?
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m not aware that he’s anti-cyclist, just anti-property-damage. He may not even have been driving the Tesla at the time and he does mention “us”, so he may well have been a passenger.
Here’s a pic from an old Horizon episode showing him cycling
Yep he’s not the tolerant
Yep he’s not the tolerant type, doesn’t suffer fools gladly or at all. And, I don’t think age will have blunted that part of his character – I am using Victor Meldrew as my point of reference here.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I get the impression (from some of his interviews, and dealings with the public), that he’s actually fairly compassionate and respectful of people, but certainly not of ideas that are clearly wrong. Sometimes folk seem to conflate his response to the idea with their projection of what they believe must be his view of teh person.
Captain Badger wrote:
Point taken – I probably need more empathy. Although it does look like “having a big head” and “having a big ego” can overlap I guess it depends whether you’re being made to feel clever (for understanding) or stupid because you can’t keep up. Witness jokes of the “The universal measure of arrogance is the pico-dijkstra” type.
This video of him reading his
This video of him reading his hate mail seems to show he’s got a pretty good sense of humour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhYT4vE1gvM
(NSFW by the way)
chrisonatrike wrote:
Don’t we all, if TFL are to be believed….
Secret_squirrel wrote:
There may well be, just as there are random nutjobs who will deliberately drive into a cyclist for a transgressions such as flipping them the bird. But even these nutjobs don’t go around attacking every car they see.
Now it could be something trivial like beeping at another road user who pulls out without looking, or obstructes the cycle lane to prevent bikes filtering.
Or it could be that the driver hits the cyclist and then attempts to drive off. But that’s all speculation.
Unless he was targetted by a religious extremist, and the bicycle was coincidental.
There’s a God and he rides a
There’s a God and he rides a bike, obviously Richard…
Hmm…..
Hmm…..
Very convenient that there was no memory stick in the car to record whatever the cameras pick up.
Might be nothing, but something doesn’t add up.
Mr Hawkins version of events
Mr Hawkins version of events seems very one-sided ??
From beyond the grave? Did I
From beyond the grave? Did I confuse my sciences?
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
I resemble that remark
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
This is also true of his so called science.
iandusud wrote:
Ooo, an evolution denier?
I’ll just go and put some popcorn on….
Captain Badger wrote:
I’m sure it’s just a reasonable quibble at the good standing of sciuriology.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Just-so-story! No, the truth
Just-so-story! No, the truth is that they are not rodents at all but descend separately from the squirrelosaurus and the ones we find attacking people have just reverted to that ancestral characteristic:
https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2011/11/04/prehistoric-patagonian-squirrel-like-mammal-with-sabre-teeth.html
chrisonatrike wrote:
Incidentally, I’ve been
Incidentally, I’ve been branching out into a new fashion line of squirrel teeth
hawkinspeter wrote:
Oooh HP, where do you get your hair done?
Captain Badger wrote:
The local hare-dresser’s
Captain Badger wrote:
No not at all. But his “anti-God science” is an embarasment to the scientific community.
iandusud wrote:
Given his impressive palmares of awards, honorary degrees and prestigious academic appointments, I’d say the scientific community isn’t that embarrassed by him.
Rendel Harris wrote:
JC Rendel, next you’ll be calling him things like “top tier scientist”…….
iandusud wrote:
Is it? are you a spokesman for the “scientific community”?
Not sure what you mean by “anti-god science”. It is very clear that there is no space for gods (or any superstitions) in the practice of scientific research if that’s what you mean. Although there are relatively few religious scientists (compared to the wider population at least) I would doubt that any serious ones would consciously leave a gap in their research for their god to inhabit.
If you mean that ToE is anti-gods, again no. It does however leave no space for the role of gods in any capacity to explain biodiversity, and the existence of modern humans. Especially the latter, as modern theistic religious arguments are frequently anthropocentric. But it is not anti-gods, it’s just that there is no place for gods, and they are not considered.
Also I’m not sure what you mean by “his” …science. I doubt very much that RD would claim it was his science.
ToE is not new, or controversial (except with science deniers of various stripes), and you are not a denier as you stated above. So, not sure what your problem is with RD, on a scientific level at least.
Quote:
Oh, I don’t know about that. I’ve observed no small degree of incantations, invocations and ritualistic behaviour – particularly towards the end of an experiment. By the time you get as far as biology it’s virtually a religion. Not sure about the psychologists. They might be hiding it because of the physicists, chemists and biologists sniggering at them. Engineers?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Oh, I don’t know about that. I’ve observed no small degree of incantations, invocations and ritualistic behaviour – particularly towards the end of an experiment. By the time you get as far as biology it’s virtually a religion. Not sure about the psychologists. They might be hiding it because of the physicists, chemists and biologists sniggering at them.
Well if you’re talking about the black candles on the points of the pentagram carefully aligned with the ley lines drawn in white chalk that we physicists always employ, I would have thought it was bleeding obvious that the rituals, ahem, er…. experiments just don’t work without them.
Great slithering Quetzalcoatl, next you’ll be saying that white coats are unscientific…..
Captain Badger wrote:
They’re fine as long as you wear the appropriate ritual belt:
chrisonatrike wrote:
Hmmmm. Does it come with a hood?
Captain Badger wrote:
They’re fine as long as you wear the appropriate ritual belt:
— Captain Badger Hmmmm. Does it come with a hood?— chrisonatrike
A fume hood? Oh – I don’t know, I only saw that at night, by
burning crosstorch-light. I think that look might have started in Spain though.Captain Badger wrote:
Quetzalcoatl eh? Always thought that was more one for the aerodynamics lot? Or the genetic engineers. Thought the physicists were Tlāloc fanciers? Mind you the ones I knew were specifically dealing with nuclear and hydropower…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Not sure about physicists (I imagine theoretical physicists might have a thing for Yog-Sothoth).
I was under the impression that many biologists follow the cult of Shub-Nuggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young (I hear that their parties are amazing…).
brooksby wrote:
Splitters!
brooksby wrote:
Well, they’re ok, but do get a bit out of hand. Now I can cope with a bit of nudity as well as the next badger, but I can tell you that I wasn’t the only one to get their coat when someone suggested we play the game with the mayonnaise…
chrisonatrike wrote:
His is a broad church, and all comers are welcome. Except for quantity surveyors. Some are beyond salvation…..
Captain Badger wrote:
As you say I’m not at all at odds with the ToE. And neither is Christianity. One of things that I dislike about R D is that he goes around saying what Christians believe, such as that the world was created in 6 days which is not the view of the vast majority of Christians and neither is the historical point of view of the Church or of the OT Bible. The creation story as described in Genesis 1 is clearly allegorical and this sort of story telling is an Ancient Near Eastern tradition (Jesus himself taught almost exclusively in paraboles). There are those who prefer to interpret Gen 1 at litteral, at odds with history and traditional scholars, but they are a small minority, and R D is being totally disingenuous when he implies the contrary. It’s like car drivers who say “cyclists hate car drivers”, when in fact most cyclists are themselves car drivers. Chrisitianity (and Judaism before it) has also always held the view that the universe had a begining point, whereas post enlightenment science held the position that the universe had always existed until the Big Bang Theory was postulated and they caught up with the biblical narative.
The reason I take issue with Dawkin’s (and not with other atheists, be they scientists or not) is because he states that religion and science are in conflict, a position that many scientists, atheist or not, do not adhere to. As I have already said he tells people what christians believe by picking out extreme minority views and presenting them as mainstream beliefs. He also presents scientific theory as facts, and this is why he is poor scientist. His science is pop-science and not serious and would never hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny.
I have no problem with atheists (they are as entitled their beliefs as any of us) and neither do I have any problem with science. On the contrary I consider that if one finds that there is a conflict between science and christianity there is either a problem with your science or a problem with your theology (the latter is more generally the case).
As an aside I have know many christians who are scientists. Two of them are leading figures in UK their respective fields. One of them, who holds the most senior post in the UK, is regularly invited to speak on Radio 4 to talk on his subject. The third is now retired but he again held the most senior post in the UK in his field before retirement. The idea that science and faith are incompatible is a myth.
You may personally be
You may personally be (relatively) liberal in your Christianity, and know many others who are, but in that case I think you’d be surprised at quite how many modern Christians do take a simplistic and literal interpretation of biblical theology. And they are the most visible ones, the most vocal ones, and the ones growing in number.
To many, if not most, modern Christians, I’m afraid that science in general (and evolution in particular) are considered to be in no way compatible with their faith.
brooksby wrote:
Agreed – but I think there’s an even bigger question here. To what extent do both believers and non-believers (throw in scientists wherever) actually believe in what they profess, or think they do? Essentially are you that you consider yourself to be – do you even think (operate) the way you think (introspect) you do?
Is not a more fundamental deception the one in which we think we adhere to certain beliefs / rules (or “make rational choices based on reasoning from evidence”) – but we’re actually chimpanzees? Remarkable chimpanzees, true – and there is something “new under the sun” in humans since we have vastly expanded our capacities for self-modification when we acquired language (or vice-versa but that’s for another forum). It’s like self-referential self-modifying “software”. Which we can now install via visual / voice transfer from others and more recently print / screen…
…But when you consider what can happen to the “competent and careful driver” with training / skills (clean licence for 40 years), beliefs in the value of life and rationality when confronted with a cyclist at the wrong moment…
brooksby wrote:
Hi, sorry for the late reply. I would consider myself to be more conservative in my Christianity, although by no means extreme (extremism is not a good thing). I’m not at all surprised at how many modern Christians take a simplistic and literal interpretation of biblical theology – it is sadly true, but they don’t represent by any means the majority (certainly not in the UK, although in other countries, notably where Calvinism has greatly influenced theological thinking they will be more numerous). They do not represent contempory, or even for that matter and maybe more importantly 1st, 2nd and 3rd century theology. It is however unreasonable to expect ordinary Christians to have a good hold on theology and science just as it is unreasonable to expect ordinary non-Christians to have a good hold on science and theology. It is for this reason that I hold prominant scientists and prominant Christians to account when they pass off opinion as fact. They do everyone a disservice because you then get people saying “science and religion are incompatible” just because they heard an eminent scientist say it and therefore believe to be fact. Likewise you get Christians who say “science has got it wrong and the world was formed in 6 days”.
I must take issue with your last statement. I have been regularly mixing in Christian circles of all flavours for five decades and I would say that those who consider science to be incompatible with their faith to be a tiny minority. As for evolution likewise only a fool would deny it – the evidence is there to see and it is wonderful. But it is in no way incompaltible with the Christian faith unless you are one of the tiny minority who believe in a 6 day creation. Please don’t think that Christian don’t have brain 😉
Hi Ian, thanks for the long thought out response. I’d say that your view of RD is closer to the caricature presented by some sections of the press than the reality . I think this is understandable as this caricature is much better to hang outraged opinion pieces on, rather than someone who gives a firm but mannered “no” in response to the meddling in science that most organised religions (particularly, but not exclusively, of the Abrahamic flavour) seem to enjoy.
I’ll try and respond to some of your points
I’m genuinely glad to hear it
Although this sadly is not actually the case. Remember that you do not speak for all Christians, and many denominations clearly do have a doctrinal problem. Even those that claim otherwise (eg catholicism) can’t seem to accept that gods had no role in evolution, particularly that of modern humans
Which church? there are thousands of denominations. Neither does he state that all Christians believe that. It cannot be denied though that some do, and some of them are in positions of immense power. These are the ones that end up in spats over ToE
Is it? do you know who wrote it, and their motivation?
In any case, that is virtually irrelevant, when powerful lobby groups state otherwise and public policy is influenced by stories that you can interpret anyway you like. Pointing out that they are utterly factually incorrect is one line of defence.
implies or states? Maybe he’s being allegorical….
Oh come off it Ian. Science hasn’t “caught up” – religious stories, fun though they are, aren’t even in the running
Note that the BB only refers to our observable universe. It isn’t necessarily “all”.
No, he takes exception that science is often under attack by some religious groups that see their relevance fading. In that sense, some (powerful) religious are in conflict with science. And it is a real problem, particulalry in say the US (where most of his spats occur).
I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what a scientific Theory is. It’s not a hunch, or a hypothesis. It’s a description and explanation of observable facts that is detailed enough to make verifiable predictions, and has been accepted via peer review.
Theory of relativity, Quantum theory, ToE et al. They are essentially true. Might they be abandoned or amended? yes, in the face of new evidence that falsifies them. It’s worth noting that’s what happened when ToR replaced Newtonian physics. Even then, NP was still accurate enough to provide sufficient knowledge to get man t the moon, and is used to this day for dynamics – it is a perfectly good approximation in the case of non-relativistic speeds. It is still in a very real sense the foundation of Rocket Science.
As far as ToE is concerned it’s one of the best supported theories – you’d have to look at the Thermodynamic theories to find better support. It’s as close to explaining the facts as we’re ever likely to get
ToE is indeed popular, and he is one of the scientific writers that has made it so. And yes, ToE DOES stand up to peer review. In fact, biology really makes no sense at all without it.
Again thank you. Sadly not all the religious share your open view, as I have experienced directly myself, and is very well recorded in history and indeed current affairs.
I would only disagree very slightly with that statement
Science is an activity aimed at getting to the facts and explaining them. Religion is very poorly defined, and can cover a spectrum of anything from culture to tribalism, from life philosophy to blind belief and superstition. So they clearly can occupy the same belief space, although when they overlap the cognitive dissonance can be pretty unbearable.
However science and faith are, by definition at least, incompatible. Faith can be defined in a number of ways, belief without evidence, complete unquestioning trust, Strong doctrinal belief, belief in dogma. All of these (if applied to a particular topic) can only get in the way of getting to the facts. I’d say your friends are great scientists in spite of their religion, rather than because or alongside it, although not having met them I accept that that is merely a hypothesis.
Hi Captain,
Hi Captain,
I’ll try and repsond to some of your points. You are assuming that the ToE cannot have room for God, but I’m not suggesting that God has no role in evolution. This is position that most Christians hold and it in no way dismisses the ToE. However not everyone, including scientists, understand the ToE in the same way. For example I think most people would consider humans to be the most evolved species but the ToE tells us that species evolve by surival of the fittest and we see this demonstrated with other animals where the weak and sick are shunned in order for the species to evolve to be stronger and fitter. However humans care for the weak and disabled which would appear to be incompatible with the survival of the fittest model.
I certainly don’t claim to speak for all Christians and as you say there are those who flatly deny the ToE, but they are a small minority. The problem is, as with the anti-cycling mob, is that they tend to be the ones who shout the loudest and are the most confrontational.
You make a lot references to religion and I’m not speaking for my part about anything other than christianity.
You ask me how I know that Gen 1 is allergorical. Anyone (not just biblical scholars) who studies ANE history will confirm this. There are different styles of OT biblical narative, allergory, historical, appocalyptic… I can assure that this isn’t disputed by scholars (although it may well be by less scholarly fundamentalist christians). It is also worth noting that the Gen 1 account describes an evolutionary process.
I’m not sure why you mock biblical narative, which has been substanciated by scientific study, as fun religious stories. You may dismiss them as such but please be aware that ancient writings of all sorts are important historical records that give insight into ancient cultures that have shaped our present ones. They are taken very seriously and studied by historians and athroplogists among others.
I totally understand what scientific theory is and it therefore unscientific to present it as indisputable fact. I think in this respect RD needs to show a bit more humility.
I’m not suggesting that ToE doesn’t stand up to peer review, it’s RD’s characatures of people of faith that don’t.
I’m sorry that you’ve had bad experiences of “religious” who don’t agree with you. However, to use the above analogy, I’m sure you’ve had bad experiences with car drivers who don’t agree with you. Sadly there are biggoted people in all walks of life but please don’t tar us all with the same brush.
Science and faith are not at all imcompatable. In fact I would go so far as to say that science is based upon faith. For example when you sit down on your chair to eat your supper you don’t for one moment fear that it will collapse under you. This is faith in the chair’s capacity to support your weight based upon experience. Christian faith is based upon experience as is science. A scientist will theorise and experiment. If the results of his experiement lead him to believe that he is correct and he continues to see the same positive results he will have faith in his theory. I can assure that the christian experience is no different (you might like to put it to the test 😉 )
Many in the scientific community find atheism irrational from a scientific point of view. This was certainly true of Einstein. Agnosticism is a much more rational point of view for scientist, who by nature should have an open mind.
Wow! [Dawkins’] science is
Wow! [Dawkins’] science is pop-science and not serious and would never hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny? …. whereas your hand-me-down musings from Middle-Eastern Bronze Age goat-herds do? Any of them? Give us a break. This is a cycling website.
iandusud wrote:
While it’s certainly true that Einstein was a deist rather than an atheist (i.e. he saw the working of some form of the divine in the natural order), it’s disingenuous to recruit him for your arguments without acknowledging his view of formal religion and the Abrahamic God, summed up in a letter as: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
Please read what I said in context :-). It wasn’t disingenuous. I was talking about agnosticism vs atheism.
iandusud wrote:
With respect, it is somewhat disingenuous to state that Einstein didn’t subscribe to atheism without mentioning that he was equally dubious about theism.
Hello again Ian – I’ll say
Hello again Ian – I’ll say now that I’m immensely enjoying this conversation
Not really. I’m just not assuming that gods would be involved. To do so would require a verifiable explanations of gods. This just isn’t available, and in any case evolution needs no such addition
That would spring from a misunderstanding of ToE. To say more would require it to be measured – how would that be quantified? Time? we have been evolving for the same length of time as earthworms, and have a common ancestor.
What most people mean is that humans are more complex intellectually at least to most (we cannot say all) other species at least, however we are physically inferior to many, our eyes arent as good as even some spiders, our backs are really poorly “designed”, we don’t live as long as others. So we really have to be careful and avoid viewing ourselves as some kind of pinnacle.
That would also be a misunderstanding. “Survival of the fittest” doesn’t refer to the strongest/fastest – how would that apply to bacteria say? It means survival of those best fit to their environment. That way weak and slow tortoises are still with us.
The picking off weaker animals though is relevant in very specific environments. the cheatah v the antelope would be a good case, and it results in a highly costly arms race, for no discernable benefit to either species. This is the horror and brutality of evolution, which may be explained by the pitiless laws of statistical probability.
Yes that would be incompatible, if that model were reflective of ToE. The caring for the sick and disabled is by no means limited to humans. Neither is the murder of sick and disabled exclusively non-human, again as we know very well.
Some mammals (and species from other classes) have evolved to live in groups. Group relationships, friendships and love are evolutionary explained behaviours (the feelings are very real, as we know, and experienced by other non-human sentient beings). Close-knit groups cooperate, and so have an advantage in terms of survival. Therefore individuals that are prone to cooperate are more likely to pass on their genes.
Individuals who are disabled still are useful to the group – imagine a lioness with a dickie hip. She can’t help in the hunt, but can keep an eye on the cubs whilst the others are. This may constitute an evolutionary payback for love and compassion
So no, whereas evolution is certainly brutal, the outcomes might not be
And the most dangerous indeed
For me there is little difference between them. The only reason that I would be more able to hold more of a conversation about Christianity is that it is the most familiar to me.
That would be a revisionist review of teh contents of teh good book. For much of history it has been regarded as the word of god.
Different styles of writing will clearly become apparent – there were different writers after all over hundreds or even thousands of years, translations, drift, etc
I would find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that we could say anything specific about a writer’s intentions. Without contemporary evidence, it would be opinion, heavily flavoured by what we want to believe.
That is not to say that modern interpretation isn’t as you say – of course it is. But even then there is far from universal agreement as to what means what – hence the staggering number of denominations, and even hostility between those denominations.
I do not mock stories, far from it. They are of huge cultural importance, and are massively important to anthropologists as part of the study of who we are. However they remain stories. Historical documents yes, historical records not so much.
I’m not sure that you do. The theory explains the facts. Evolution is the fact, ToE explains it.
The simple thing to get RD to swallow his words would be to falsify ToE and publish findings. I’m sure he, and I for that matter, would be fascinated to see the evidence of the new Theory of Biodiversity.
In the meantime, humility is best served by accepting that, at the present time, ToE is the best explanation we have for BD, and happens to be a fascinating and very elegant one.
Neither does caricatures of atheists or RD. I think we can leave it at that
I don’t – I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation, and some of my best friends…..
No, it’s based on evidence
No, cos I checked and tightened the bolts. However when sitting on a new chair I might well check before sitting down
I’m sorry but that isn’t teh case. Most people are Christian due to family or friends. the fact that the predominant religion in the West is Christianity, or Islam in the ME, is not a coincidence
Again, no. A scientist will start with a hunch, then hypothesise. Will then attempt to falsify. It only becomes a theory when it is widely accepted after peer review. It isn’t a trivial process, is not based on faith – it requires evidence.
More than happy to. But first you must produce your hypothesis for scientific peer review. To do that you would have to do all kinds of things like quantify gods, make verifiable predictions that aren’t explained by existing theories (or at least explain them better). I think there is a reason that hasn’t been done so far.
Of course, I’m being tongue in cheek, but science deals with facts and explaining them objectively, and can change when new evidence comes to light. All religion can do is retreat.
No doubt, but possibly from a misunderstanding (and fear, prejudice or distaste) of atheism. For me it is simply the null hypothesis.
As for the rationality of agnosticism, would that not suggest it is more logical than religion?
In reality agnosticism is not exclusive to either. I might be considered agnostic too. Most atheists are, although there are fewer believers who take that philosophical stand point, most opting for a gnostic view I understand.
Whether Einstein was a believer is moot – I can quote-mine for “evidence”, and so can you. However I believe it to be irrelevant. It is notable that there is nowhere in space-time that gods can hide, they aren’t even mentioned if memory serves.
A stocking filler
A stocking filler recommendation if interested in these things – Pascal Boyer’s boldly titled “Religion Explained”. A trawl though history, philosopy, psychology, anthropology and the “cognitive sciences”. It looks at where some features of humans’ “mental architecture” on several levels may come from and then relates this to “beliefs” both small and larger. Has some interesting recent-ish (around 2000) studies on people’s religious behaviors and what they actually seem to believe.
If nothing else it’s good for a reminder that “religion” or “belief” is actually composed of many smaller parts, and across the world is mostly about things other than the “major faiths”. The anthropology / psychology tales are fascinating as they usually are and there is some very funny writing.
Of course some passages are not crystal clear – that’s probably a given in this neck of the woods. And the last part of the book looking at how we come to have “religions” in the bigger sense (e.g. regional / national / international “faiths”) is by its nature a more difficult / speculative tale.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Thanks, added to the list
Every species that exists on
Every species that exists on this planet is as evolved as any other. There are very few evolutionary biologists who would ever consider that humans are more evolved than anything else.
Your simplistic concept of evolution that it is “survival of the fittest” and that an entire branch of biology can be condensed into a three word phrase would be the same as me squeezing religion’s just so stories as “god did it”.
Dawkins has postulated that we are all atheists, or do you still believe in the Norse gods?
ktache wrote:
I don’t believe in Norse gods (or not at least in the sense that the Norse would have) but how does that make me an atheist if I do believe in a creator god or any other god for that matter?
But you do believe in the
But you do believe in the specific abrahamic god, and reject all others?
It’s that rejection that makes you athiest to those equally perfectly legitimate faiths.
I just don’t believe in one more god than you. So you are just slightly more athiest than me.
And that would be a western christianity, rather than an Eastern orthodox or the form that originated in the middle East and actually stayed there?
And of course which of the western christian versions or are they all correct?
ktache wrote:
The OED definition of atheism is “The theory or belief that God does not exist”. In which case I’m not an atheist.
Merriam-Webster defines it as “a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”, so that doesn’t apply to me either.
When you talk about different western versions of christianity I presume that you are refering to different demoninations. You also suggest that my christianity is western rather than eastern. You make huge assumptions here. Different denominations reflect all sorts of cultural and historical influences, as do societies across the globe. There’s nothing unusual about that. Also christianity has evolved and been greatly influenced by all sorts of things, many of which have been to its detriment. I think particularly of Constantine and begining of a state church. Eastern theology is generally much closer to the NT church than a lot of western theology which has been greatly influenced by Greek thinking trying to interpret an eastern mindset. This is why we end up with people interpreting Gen 1 literally when anyone with an eastern mindset would see it for what it is.
Christians, and more importantly from the point of view of our discussion, theologians like scientists don’t agree on all things and do generally agree on many but are searching to understand their subject.
But by the OED definition you
But by the OED definition you are an atheist when it comes to Thor?
ktache wrote:
Ah yes. The problem of competing options. I’ve never been sure which god / jinn / deva / psychopomp is responsible for ensuring that people get the right near-death experience visions. But it does seem to be that somehow Christians don’t tend to visualise Yama, and Sikhs don’t see apsaras. So that proves there must be one.
One of my fave jokes (Marcus Brigstocke I think but can’t find a video / link) concerned someone dying and then appearing in some kind of limbo. He sees Jesus smiling at him and starts to walk towards him – but then notices there are other figures there – he recognises Muhammed, there are others which could be the Buddha etc. Turning back in confusion, he sees Jesus still smiling and beckoning him on. As he gets closer Jesus holds up a small sign saying “bluff” and points at Muhammed.
ktache wrote:
I don’t agree with that as atheism is the absence of belief (in gods) so believing in at least one, makes you a theist.
hawkinspeter]
This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.
iandusud wrote:
This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.— ktache
Dawkins’ opinions only reflect on himself and it’d be a mistake to assume that a majority of scientists would agree (and there’s plenty of top flight scientists that are religious). It’s like blaming all cyclists for RLJs.
The scientific method is rooted in the fallibility of scientists, so just because someone is an expert, it doesn’t mean that they’re always right about everything.
In regards to my testing all chairs, I’ve weighed all the probabilities based on years of extensive chair sitting and have come to the conclusion that ordinary chairs very rarely collapse. Of course, If I saw a bizarre, unwieldy looking chair, I’d probably be more wary.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This is an example of the sort of statement that R D comes out with that is a discredit to good scientists.
— iandusud Dawkins’ opinions only reflect on himself and it’d be a mistake to assume that a majority of scientists would agree. — ktache
That’s the point I was making. The problem is that people do assume that because a prominent scientist says something is represents scientists. In the same way I get just as annoyed with christians who come out with ridiculous statements such as the world being created in 6 days.
[/quote] In regards to my testing all chairs, I’ve weighed all the probabilities based on years of extensive chair sitting and have come to the conclusion that ordinary chairs very rarely collapse. Of course, If I saw a bizarre, unwieldy looking chair, I’d probably be more wary.[/quote]
Exactly. You have faith (by my definition, which may not be the same as yours) in ordinary looking chairs based upon experience. You don’t call it faith, and that’s fine but that is what my christian faith is based upon. Just like you I sometimes get surprises, i.e. things don’t go as I expected them to, in which case you need to figure out why.
I’ve really enjoyed this discussion but I’m not sure if this is the place for it. I also have a lot of other things to do that I’m getting distracted from. It’s a shame we don’t have PMs on this forum otherwise I’d be very happy to continue on a “when I’ve got a moment basis”.
iandusud wrote:
I think the definition of “faith” that fits my view is probably:
You could argue that I’m using faith to determine if a chair is sturdy, but I’d argue that I’m using my own judgement. If a friend says “that chair’s sturdy”, then I might be using faith if I was to sit on it without looking at it, but if I were to look at it and see a standard chair, then I’d be using my own judgement to confirm my friend’s assessment.
As the term “faith” necessarily is a bit vauge and can become all-encompassing (similar to a web of trust), I’d declare that “faith” is for when there exists no feasible experiment or test. If there exists experiments/tests then you can either ignore them and rely on faith or as is more common, you rely on general expectations that the tests/experiments have been performed many times and that the results can be applied in general.
It’s basically induction – as you test more chairs and continue to find sturdy chairs, you can form a hypothesis that all chairs are sturdy. That hypothesis gathers more experimental data until one day, you sit on a deck-chair that collapses which disproves your hypothesis. A new hypothesis could then be “non deck-chairs are sturdy” and “deck-chairs collapse” and eventually you might discern an underlying rule of chair-sturdiness and the method of their construction.
However, using faith to determine whether chairs are sturdy is unlikely to lead you to any deeper understanding of chair design and practicality as you’d either be relying on someone else’s declaration of sturdiness or a more vague “some chairs are sturdy”.
Faith may lead to a quicker conclusion about chairs, but the deeper understanding of chair construction may elude you without being able to form and test hypotheses.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I find that definition a little strange as if one’s “confidence in the authority and veracity of another” is not based “upon one’s own knowledge, reason, or judgment” what is it based upon? Can you elucidate please 🙂
iandusud wrote:
That’d be most relevant in the context of a subject that you don’t know much or anything about. I might have faith in a film critic’s opinion of a film or an Amazon rating of some product though you could argue that the faith is based on your own judgement of them being worthy of faith (though I think that argument leads to absolutely everything being based on faith which I don’t consider to be a useful conclusion).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well that is a very narrow definition of faith and, as you admit, does depend on your own judgement, which contradicts the definition that you gave.
The point that I am trying to make is that faith in God (for most practising Christians, as opposed to those who call themselves christian based on their culture) is based upon experience in just the same way as I or anyone else trusts that the chair they sit on is not going to collapse under them, or that the food that they are served isn’t going to poisen them. I fear that for many people who don’t have a christian faith they think that it is some sort of mystical mumbo-jumbo and as such they think that Christians don’t have the capacity to think rationally.
iandusud wrote:
Firstly, I have no issue with Christians being rational and everyone has some mix of rationality and irrationality.
I think the knowledge of chair-sturdiness is different to knowledge of god as there can be independent tests of how much weight a chair can support and there are many different quantitive questions you can ask of a chair (How many legs does it have? What angle can you tip it before it falls over? Maximum weight it can support?). I’m not sure that there’s similar quantitive questions you can ask of deities that can be determined directly (presumably you can answer the number of legs from scripture). Instead properties of deities seem to be just assigned rather than determined i.e. you don’t actually count the number of legs.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I can’t recall which experiments lead to finding the number of angels on the head of the pin? People have certainly tried with some of these questions though…
Ian’s point about “experience” is interesting. Where do you get your “knowledge” from? (e.g. All my awareness of bike trends and the terrible dangers of not wearing helmets / cycling two abreast / incorrect tyre pressure comes from road.cc).
As Bill Bailey says we’re mostly relaxed empiricists. We take certain sources’ word for it because there’s more to know than we have time to test. We have reasonable but imperfect heuristics for knowledge. Leaving aside the range of biases we have not to change our opinions – and there are many – if something “works” (like with the chair) we don’t recheck subsequent examples – unless we’ve had contrary experiences (the deckchair).
In my experience, people often cite as “experience” “things that happened to others well-known to me”. We might also introspect certain things – that’s more certain, right? However it’s becoming increasingly clear from various lines of evidence that we have much less “direct access” to our internal processes than we think. So – at least for philosphy – “experience” is something to argue about with care. When we report “experience” we are reporting a memory and what we’re memorising is as much “judgement” as “fact” / data. (And can be modified in the recalling too). The same even applies where “experience” was direct.
It’s not exactly the same as the religious case but lack of thorough evidence-checking also occurs in science too – because scientists are humans. Unlike maths we don’t need to prove – logically or exhaustively – every single instance. There also needs to be some motivation for doing the investigation. Some experiments took a long time to do simply because everyone “knew” the result (thought they did). Even core parts of the scientific system like replicating other work or publishing null results tends not to happen as often as it “should”.
Outside of pure mathematics,
Outside of pure mathematics, there is always some element of relying on prior experiences. With mathematics, internal consistency is the only thing that matters apart from possibly whether or not the maths is interesting.
That’s largely my main issue with religions is that they’re either inconsistent or so vague as to not even reaching the level where you could determine inconsistency.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Agreed – but even pure mathematicians have to take some things on trust – and undoubtedly did so before even though they shouldn’t. There are also certain conjectures which are widely “believed” to the extent of “speculative maths” e.g. “Given the Riemann hypothesis holds true, then…” I don’t know whether that’s done cheerfully or with a certain foreboding though.
I think both vagueness and inconsistency are features. Vagueness saves you creating yet more myth which you may need to maintain. Also it may help when the religion is competing for different populations. If you’ve flexibility to fit some of their existing theories in then the process is easier.
As for inconsistencies there is a theory (think I found it in Pascal Boyer’s book) which suggests that these and indeed the impossible / frankly bizarre can actually be useful features in maintaining a creed. First because we preferrentially remember the odd and unusual. Second if you something doesn’t make sense it may force you to pass it on verbatim rather than summarising / reinterpreting. Such mnemonic tricks and anti-corruption mechanisms are important. Religious information has to be maintained in human memories at some point in time and is usually passed between humans at least in part. Where there isn’t literacy, that’s in whole.
I vaguely remember reading a
I vaguely remember reading a sci-fi story where a particular planet was given a “holy” book from some other advanced alien race and it contained amongst the religion, some verifiable scientific knowledge that was clearly beyond what the target planet had achieved. That is what I’d like to see come from a supreme being – cold hard facts. Imagine if a bible contained atomic weights or some basic quantum theory – things that made definite predictions that could be falsified with sufficient tech.
IIRC it didn’t work out well for the target planet as their “religion” became completely fanatical as their religion was quite clearly “true”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
How you understand “cold hard facts” and how someone else would might be very different. You clearly have a world view that is dependent facts that can be observed or measured according to certain set of “scientific” criteria. And that is a very common post enlightenment world view in western culture. It isn’t however the only world view. There are many who look at, and experience, nature and would see that as “cold hard facts” that point to a creator. This is particularly true of many indigenous peoples who, many would argue in the light of what damage the results of the enlightenment have brought upon the planet, have had a better understanding and relationship to the earth (creation, as they would see it) than we in the enlightened west. You may not hold their world view but it would be very unreasonable, IMO, to dismiss it.
The enlightenment has clearly had huge beneficial effects on society but I fear that we have thrown out the baby with the bath water.
iandusud wrote:
I put more value in different world views than you might think. I’m not sure that organised religions have been a hugely beneficial influence on environmental matters though, so maybe taking on some of the beliefs of indigenous people might be a good idea nowadays. It’s a shame that a lot of indigenous beliefs were subsumed into other religions though, so we’ve lost a lot of the knowledge that living in close contact with habitats brings.
Found this little examination of Christian, Muslim and secular communities’ attitudes towards global warming where they find that lack of belief in an afterlife or divine intervention led secular participants to focus on human responsibility and the need for action: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000177
I’m a bit of a fan of https://www.thelongtimeproject.org/ as a way of thinking long term and I think it’s short-term thinking that’s responsible for the pickle we’re in.
I’d better include a graph for a bit of fun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/):
Jehovah’s Witnesses are an interesting outlier
hawkinspeter wrote:
Charts?? And religion? Can’t you at least give me more notice, where am I going to find popcorn at this time on the lord’s day?
“I put more value in
“I put more value in different world views than you might think”
I’m pleased to hear it but my point was in relation to your understanding of “cold hard facts”.
I’m not sure why you keep raising opinions on organised religions other than Christianity. I don’t try and speak for them and am not qualified to do so. As for Christianity the two largest denominations in the world, Roman Catholic and Anglican, have been very vociferous on the subject of global warning and care for creation. I quote from the first article that you gave a link to:
“Nonetheless, Western Christianity, especially outside America, has demonstrated pro-environmental trends [15]. Harmony values and a stewardship ethic are visible within the modern Western church. The Anglican Church, for example, includes a declaration in The Five Marks of Mission concerning the safeguarding of ecological integrity and the sustenance and renewal of the earth”
The exact wording of the Anglican mission statement is “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. This mission statement was adopted in 1984! My wife is the Environment Officer at the Angilcan church we attend and I can assure you that huge efforts are made to tackle climate change, not only from the point of view of being good stewards of the planet but also, and critically IMO, because it is a justice issue. My wife and I are very active environmentalists, as are very many Christians, for the reasons I just gave.
I don’t doubt that many
I don’t doubt that many Christians care very deeply about the enivronment, but as that chart shows, there is a big range of opinions from different churches and religions. It’s quite striking that there seems to be a correlation between believing in ToE and wanting environmental regulations (except for Jehovah’s Witnesses).
I still don’t know why you’re
I still don’t know why you’re addressing your concerns to me about what religions other than Christianity think or believe. I’m not qualified to comment on it and nor have I sort to.
You refer to “different churches” by which I presume you are referring to different denominations, of which there are many. You may have noticed that when referring to the church I do so in the singular. My understanding (and that of most denominations) of the church is based on the NT one – i.e. those that adhere to the divinity of Jesus and believe his in death and resurrection (among other things). This was always its meaning until “the church” got usurped by the state in the 4th century. So whilst I hold no particular allegiance to any particular denomination (although I attend and Anglican church) I would definitely look to the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches if I was looking for mainstream Christian thinking on the subject of care of the environment, as these two “churches” by far represent most people who identify as Christians. As soon as you look to other denominations you will probably find that they have a particular emphasis which they will favour above other concerns so it is not unusual that their interests lie elsewhere other than the environment for example.
Yes, I meant other
Yes, I meant other denominations – I’m mentioning them as I tend to think of religions as huge varied group and even within denominations there will be many different opinions held (“we’re all different”). I didn’t mean to imply that you were somehow spokesperson for all religions, but the discussion was about different belief systems and not just Christianity.
Where I live in Bristol, we’ve got the Bethel United Church (very lively singing and dancing from when I’ve gone past), the Bethesda Methodist Church further down the road, St Marina Coptic Church, St Patrick’s Catholic Church, Gurdwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha (Sikh), Gurdwara Nirman Sewak Jatha (Sikh) and The Hindu Temple all within 5 minutes walk, so I’m used to thinking in terms of other religions and not just Christianity. It’s quite fun when the Sikhs have a procession as they pretty much block the A420 (Church Rd) for an hour or so as they march barefoot along it and back again whilst playing drums etc.
Another picture to show some environmental concern from them:
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes we are quite a varied bunch, and the world is a better place for it. However when looking for an orthodox point of view I think it is better to look to the large establishments (even if one doesn’t agree with their orthodoxy – as is case for me on many points).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Environmental concern? They’re BLOCKING THE ROAD! That causes pollution! They’re not even going somewhere! How will the ambulances get through if we let these minorities with their highly visible clothing and special headgear dictate to ordinary motorists?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Next you’ll be complaining about their swords
hawkinspeter wrote:
*gabbles* did I say anything about swords I’ve no problems with swords I’ve always liked swordsmen…
iandusud wrote:
Definitely time to head to the cafe stop with this discussion, it’s grown legs (not wheels).
On the enlightenment the normal gag would be to reuse a quip like “I think it would be a good idea” or “it’s too early to tell“.
Actually although the enlightenment is certainly associated with increased critical discussion of religion such criticism was not new. Indeed the Greeks were at it (they normally were). Nor did religion disappear in the nineteenth century (sometimes given as an end date for the enlightenment period). And as far as indigenous peoples are concerned they had been on the receiving end of it for centuries if not millenia before. The poxes and conquistadors were already in the Americas decimating the population. The latter in the name of god and the king, naturally. That encounter certainly changed the world-view of the peoples there. (Catholicism in the Americas was changed by the local cultures to a degree also). It also didn’t do great things for the environment. Further back it seems our indigenous UK hunter-gatherers and likely their religions were largely replaced by neolithic farmers, who were themselves replaced in turn after a few thousand years by new groups from the continent (exactly what / how this happened is still nicely speculative though).
Looking at history religious organisations are intricately tied up with states and governments. Encounters with other cultures were driven by political, economic and religious factors – normally mixed. Cultural change – more or less profound – resulted. Can you pick apart the “religious” – as a “good” – from the other factors? Missionaries often arrived with not just the goods but the broader ideas of the sponsor culture. Who gets to pick out the beneficial changes in world view – the road.ccs from the worthless bikebiz and bikeradars or harmful dailymail onlines – of these cultural transfers? But maybe the missionaries’ more effective medicines more than compensated for the loss of jobs for the local religio-medio experts? Then what about the violence brought about by the power vacuum that followed…?
Have we lost the intimacy of connection with the natural world? Yes. That’s why we go bikepacking. Is this loss of connection a cause of some of our issues of pollution and overutilisation? Maybe. Could religion be an antidote to that? Religion as an organising force accompanied us up to and indeed into the modern age. As an such an organising force it might hope to contribute towards keeping people in check, or giving us empathetic understanding of our situation. Alternatively – we could note that as science and technology have magnified the effects humans can have on the earth they also give us a clearer reckoning of those effects. They could also give us a sense of perspective.
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’s evolution for you…..
chrisonatrike wrote:
There’s a whole can of worms about computer-assisted proofs and how to verify them, but they can be refuted if someone finds a counter-example. As far as speculative maths go, it’s perfectly fine to build on top of an assumption (that a particular theorem is true) and then see what results that would lead to and certainly any subsequent inconsistency would disprove that assumption. Of course, since Gödel we now know that any formal system that is complex enough will contain true statements that cannot be proven (or disproved) in that system, so there’s plenty of grey areas of knowledge. In some sense, all maths is speculative, but bizarrely a lot of it applies really well to the real world.
Edit: Just found a fun-fact here that if the home countries of the British Isles gain independence, then four colours won’t be sufficient to colour the maps.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If the home countries gain independence (or the Home Counties get expelled is how I like to think of it) then we’ll need more colours than show below. Not just for the flags (which I think could do with a makeover, a la South Africa or Seychelles) but also to accurately render the faces of a sizeable fraction of the political classes.
Quote:
Of course one of the problems is that all organisations making use of this term reserve the right to define it for themselves! It would seem to be a pretty fundamental feature of religious behaviour – the more so the larger the “religion”. Although at some point the focus may change from orthodoxy to orthopraxy anyone e.g. “professing the faith is most important – who can tell what they really believe?”. The importance of believe or faith probably originates in simpler underlying human traits (“You don’t believe me?” / “You don’t trust me?” -> “He doesn’t believe in me” etc.)
Under the influence of Daniel Dennett (who likes sailing – I’m not sure about bikes) I tend to go with a definition of faith in the religious context as a combination of a costly signal and an outsourcing of (moral) decision-making. The latter can be summarised by “I can’t know / it doesn’t seem possible but my religious specialists says it’s so, so I believe”. The former is a way of demonstrating – to those who may not know you intimately – your willingness to cooperate in tasks which may require everyone “cooperates” e.g. shares costs / displays altruistic behaviour towards others in the group.
Like many philosophers he’s full of them so you should beware, but another quip of his on the subject is that one task of those outside religion is of practicing moral first aid – what you do before the doctor of moral philosophy gets here.
iandusud wrote:
I disagree about the rational/logical comparison of agnosticism and atheism. It’s really a choice about what the individual thinks is plausible. My problem with agnosticism is that it’s too “open minded” in that it opens the door to saying that invisible pink unicorns may exist, but you’re unsure. Atheism is in some sense more logical in only admitting phenomena that have some minimal level of evidence, so as an atheist I can declare that invisible pink unicorns do not exist (c.f. Russells’ Teapot). This also relates to “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
I agree about science and religion not necessarily being at odds (apart from historic tussles about heliocentrism etc.) as they’re more orthogonal. Religions don’t make testable predictions and reported experiences aren’t repeatable, so science can’t really say anything about religion except that the scientific method doesn’t apply to it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree that just because there is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns it is not a reason to be “agnostic” on the matter. But I don’t believe that scientists who openly adopt an agnostic position do so on that basis. Generally it is because they genuinely believe that there is reasonable cause to not rule out the posibility.
I also agree that you can’t apply scientific method (or at least not scientific method by itself) to the question of the existance of a creator god. But I would suggest that scientific method is not the only reasonable world view. Many cultures across the world see it through a completely different lens and I don’t believe their point of view invalid and it would be exremely patronising to suggest it is.
BTW I find it hard to believe that you check the construction of every chair that you sit on for the first time 😉
iandusud wrote:
I suspect that for many “agnosticism” is less about “open-mindedness” and more of a political choice not to engage in someone else’s fraught debate. It’s setting aside a question (questions) which doesn’t appear immediately relevant to the task(s) in hand for you. Or simply not adopting certain bases / axioms (or their converse) as a given for reasoning from.
Such “angosticism” – if it is that – is opting not to pick one of the many sides in a fight which is sometimes lethal. Although in practice that seldom spares the agnostic that fate. Not that this should necessarily be a goal, death being a given anyway, but given the variety in – or rather the hair-splitting within – “major world religions” e.g. those big enough to have acquired state support and / or armed force I have no confidence that picking any side would avoid the millitant end of a “faith”.
I think it’s possible to form an intellectually principled and indeed moral view which doesn’t directly address certain questions. Offhand I think that Albert Camus would be an example. Apologies, I don’t have a picture of him on a bike. Of course to the theist he would be an atheist but I believe he didn’t push towards a resolution of that question (so less like e.g. Sarte). He certainly engaged in moral questions and indeed did so with some Christian communities – apparently worthwhile to both sides.
I appreciate it is important – again sometimes lethally so – to the apologists both pro and anti to resolve certain questions. This is the fundamentally political aspect of religions we have heard of – the organisation of large groups of people. After all, “whoever is not for us is against us” or variants is common in many “faiths” and plenty of “atheist” ideologies all over the political rainbow-multisphere. However although there’s no escaping from the way the world actually is (“God, save me from your followers”) I’d note that – like a survey – those questions are normally framed by others. The themes addressed may have commonality across cultures but they are not entirely free-floating…
iandusud wrote:
How so?
There’s plenty of religious and atheist scientists, but the whole point of the scientific method is to reduce and eliminate personal biases from the experimental results (hence double-blind trials) as people are incredibly good at fooling themselves.
I was about to write something about the clash between the Catholic church and heliocentrism, but just fell down a rabbit-hole when I found out that the idea dates back as far as the Indian philosopher Yajnavalkya (9th Century BCE).
iandusud wrote:
Kindly define “anti-God science” for the class, please.
brooksby wrote:
It’s a cutting edge branch of theoretical atheism. It’s quite high risk stuff actually, the initiation ritual alone involves standing on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting ‘All gods are bastards!”
Typically its adherents (those that survive) spend a lot of time glaring suspiciously at the acolytes of “pro-gods science”
(posted with one very reverent nod to Terry P)
Captain Badger wrote:
Captain Badger’s charming quote of Pratchett aside, “anti-God science” is the current scientific consensus among memeticists after centuries of “pro-God science” and hermeneutics lead to logical contradictions and an unmanageable canon of scriptures. Current active areas of study include questions such as “did man make god in his own image or was it aliens?” and “if man made god in his own image why does god always look so funny?”
iandusud wrote:
This is also true of his so called science.— Daveyraveygravey
No, you’re thinking of the late physicist Stephen Hawking and his wacky evaporating black holes
““Crazed cyclist launched
““Crazed cyclist launched unprovoked attack…..”
Ho, ho, ho; pull the other one santa.
Or “I nearly ran this cyclist off the road and he took vengeance on my car. Luckily, I had the presence of mind to destroy the evidence, and then to plead for evidence.”
Richard Dawkins presents The
Richard Dawkins presents The Unprovoked Delusion
Definitely needs more context
Definitely needs more context.
If the Tesla was moving at the time of the incident then, “nutjob” or otherwise, it was being driven way too close to the cyclist if they were able to hit that part of the rear window with a D lock.
Also .. “crazed human being riding a bike”.
Christ on a bike…
Christ on a bike…
…or was it…?
Presume car was stopped due
Presume car was stopped due to congestion and not to discuss the niceties of driver specific variations on Highway Code with the cyclist who in his fury had fallen off (?!) must be plenty of witnesses as if wasn’t stuck in traffic driving away would have been an option
I’m curious if he said, “Oh
I’m curious if he said, “Oh my god,” while this incident was happening.
It’s interesting that his super smart car didn’t record footage. What happened to the memory stick I wonder?
There are idiots in cars. There are idiots on bikes. When one idiot is in conflict with another, a greater level of idiocy is reached.
“Crazed cyclist launched
“Crazed cyclist launched unprovoked attack…..”
So cars not drivers hit cyclists, shouldn’t it be a crazed bike?
alansmurphy wrote:
It was a crazed D-lock apparently.
jh2727 wrote:
The D-lock crazed the window (well the parts that didn’t shatter)…
Could I just thank you,
Could I just thank you, mostly iandusud, Capt Badger, chrisonatrike and HP for all of this – interesting, well thought out and courteously done. Particularly iandusud as he’s riding without domestiques.
All the Christians I know have genuine (to them) reasons – times when prayers have been answered, usually. Coming from a long line of Christians myself (including Victorian missionaries), I’ve met quite a few. Many of those I know with a Christian upbringing who are now atheists have exactly the opposite reason: God has never returned their calls. There are pretty much no agnostics. My feeling is that the Christians are cherry picking their data and trying to find order in random events, both very human traits.
I must say, though, that while I find RD’s books interesting and informative, in live action he comes across as very over-aggressive. Perhaps he’s not trying to change minds, win friends or influence people. He seems like a junior debater, trying to show only how clever he is, and what a contrast there is with the other side, who are clearly deluded. Scientists don’t want to be wrong any more than anyone else, but the method depends on it, and RD seems really, really frightened of being wrong about anything. Perhaps it’s that part of his character that believes a cyclist damaged his rear window for no reason at all.
Regarding the ToE, one of my school biology teachers put it thus: he believed 100% in God, to the extent that he believed that God has invented evolution. Genetic mutation is key to the theory, so he also believed that God reserved the right to nudge the mutations. Neat. I still thought he was wrong, and he also believed in heaven and the devil and a lot more.
HP quoted: “Imagine if a bible contained atomic weights or some basic quantum theory – things that made definite predictions that could be falsified with sufficient tech.” This made me wonder: if the Bible contained relativity or quantum mechanics, would we have been totally sure that it was a lot of nonsense until 1900 years after it was put together?
In summary: I’m an atheist and likely always will be. I don’t think all religious people are deluded. It’s just that from the evidence I can see, I’m very sure they’re wrong.
Thinking now on what level of
Thinking now on what level of tech is necessary to confirm QM or relativity predictions and I think you’d just need some ability to craft optical equipment such as lenses or polarised glass/minerals. With a rudimentary telescope, Mercury can be spotted and its precession explained. The two slit experiment can show QM effects and that’d be easy to do. Of course we’d most likely end up with steam punk killer robots if human knowledge was jump started like that.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If only we had some kind of informed recreation of what might happen if somehow the technology and knowledge of the present was available to people from earlier times…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catweazle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cgIHS7am9g
TheBillder wrote:
Courtesy’s all the rage round here! Well put though, an exchange of views doesn’t always need to be a barracking. I think the effort to understand / make a charitable reading often brings more over the long term than snark.
Mind you the interwebs often serves as a general steam discharge area. Or people see it as a pool of marks on which to deploy their sales pitches. Did I mention cycling infra?
I think you’re just choosing not to address the question of their existence.
chrisonatrike wrote:
No, they and I are quite sure they don’t exist.
TheBillder wrote:
I think you’re just choosing to ignore their existence, or not…
— TheBillder No, they and I are quite sure they don’t exist.— chrisonatrike
I think you’ll find that they’re open to the possibility, but they don’t let it effect their day to day….
I’m glad I’m not the only one
I’m glad I’m not the only one who finds RD irksome. I hope I have demonstrated here that I have no problems with atheists, or with anyone who holds views with which I disagree (which might well be some car drivers and their opinions about cyclists) as long as they can put their arguments in a rational and polite manner, and have the humility to listen to counter arguments in the same manner (as I’m pleased to say has been demonstated here).
Crikey! This one’s going on a
Crikey! This one’s going on a bit. Dawkins is a great scientist, writer and thinker and I have no doubt he is telling the truth about the nutter cyclist. Obviously, there is/ are no god(s) but we’re quite happy for all the different flavours of believer to carry on believing as long as they keep out of the way- like the Church of England, say.
wtjs wrote:
Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 – 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don’t think it’s obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it’s obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion. 🙂
But by your logic, as there
But by your logic, as there are more drivers on our roads than cyclists, they must be correct.
ktache wrote:
Not if the car drivers who make all the noise are a minority. But I take your point. Maybe a better analogy would be car drivers in London (where they are in a minority) who complain about LTNs.
Or how about, there are more
Or how about, there are more antivaccers than virologists, immunologists and vaccinologists but I who is right?
ktache wrote:
Wouldn’t a more reasonable comparasion be anti-vaxer vs pro-vaxers? By comparing a group that comprises anyone from the general population to a group made up of a relatively small group who are educated and trained in very specific areas of science is hardly a fair comparasion. I do suspect that you are being deliberately provocative though 🙂
iandusud wrote:
Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 – 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don’t think it’s obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it’s obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion. 🙂— wtjs
I can’t help but wonder if those numbers might be incorrect, given that in many countries it is a capital offence to admit atheism… (maybe not an official Govt/legal offence, but the locals might beat you to death…).
brooksby wrote:
You may well be right (I was surprised) but the trend is nonetheless very much towards deism and theism.
iandusud wrote:
Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 – 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don’t think it’s obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it’s obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion. 🙂— wtjs
On the contrary. The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them.
I think we can agree that the argumentum ad populum is fallacious – after all ToE 150 years ago was understood and accepted by a only a handful of people, against pretty staggering opposition, and has been steadfastly unscientifically opposed ever since, particularly by religious groups. You yourself in spite of saying you accept it have gone on to then dispute it as an accepted scientific theory on this very thread.
Does it matter? well yes and no – you might not believe in evolution, but it most definitely believes in you (to be clear this is a moment of levity – evolution does not think, or care, has no aim, no pity. It is essentially applied statistical probability), and anyway for your day to day it has little significance.
However, it has staggering importance in virology, genetics, cancer treatment, and yes its relevance even stretches as far as ethics and public policy. For example if you don’t understand ToE, you can’t understand genetics. I don’t believe that many people would say that this is not key to being able to formulate effective public policy in this extraordinarily important area.
RD’s caricature as an arrogant scientist I think largely stems from being able to clearly reject incorrect notions. Those that want to learn and understand find no offence. Those that are emotionally or intellectually invested might find it harder to swallow.
I’ve not heard RD ever say that you can’t dispute ideas. However if you do, make sure you have your ducks in a row, and don’t be surprised that they get picked off swiftly. Not cos it’s RD, but that any hypothesis has to go through the crucible, and in science this can be intellectually savage.
One of the difficulties that people have when disputing scientific facts from a religious standpoint is that the arguments are rarely new, and have been debunked before. I might get somewhat irrascible having to rake over teh same arguments again and again, particularly when they are fairly straightforward. As I have already said, I believe the RD is largely compassionate and respectful, even when saying “I think you are wrong, and here is why.”. How that is taken of course is subjective, and I can empathise with people who find their worldview shaken with contrary evidence – there is a distinct emotional investment in being religious and again as I have mentioned cognitive disonance can be pretty horrible to live with. That does not say that RD (or Krauss, or Hawking) is impolite or irrational. They might merely be guilty of being closer to the truth.
Captain Badger wrote:
You’re going back to the “everyone’s an atheist” argument. The statement I was questioning was:
“Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)”
Now that may well be the opinion of wtjs who posted it but it clearly isn’t the opinion of 99% of the world population. Whether or not they agree on what their god or gods are called is not what was being suggested nor something that I would dispute.
iandusud wrote:
No. I’ve never been there, so I can hardly return.
I would probably agree with you that it is not obvious there are no gods. However those that have been put forward are poorly defined, and don’t stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut.
Captain Badger wrote:
Sorry I wasn’t suggesting that you brought up the argument, only that it had been brought up and your assertion was basically that.
You said “The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them.”
Your argument: “The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut.”
Likewise in our post enlightenment era professing to believe in God if you are not someone who practises a religion is also not an easy position to hold (it not necessarily an easy position to hold for those who do practise a religion). Many people may well believe in God but wouldn’t be able to say why or defend their position and therefore keep their ideas to themselves. There are many people who will openly deride them for such and therefore they will hold fire.
In China where there is a strong history of religious persecution and where the state is officially atheist there is still a huge theist / deist population (officially over 50%), so the argument of scrutiny works both ways and those who claim to believe in god or gods in China are likely to more than the offical 700 million.
iandusud]
No, my assertion wasn’t that. I don’t hold with the argument that you are atheist – you clearly aren’t. However your feelings about the norse gods, Zeus, Bel Shamharoth et al would be very familiar to me I imagine. I just don’t make a distinction between these and the Abrahamic god.
This is true to an extent, and derision for a given viewpoint on the metaphysical is neither warranted nor helpful. This is something that many religious would do well to remember. That may be difficult when hatred and derision for the areligious is a common theme in the ACOP – I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the hatred and derision dripping out of Psalm 53:1, but I wish that more would remember the tale of the good samaritan, and actually apply it day to day – I have said stories are important, and the stories we take to heart are relevant for better or worse.
However when engaging in matters of science I’m afraid a religious viewpoint is likely to be plain rebutted, for the same reason any other unsupported viewpoints would be. Sometimes the response may not be to keep your mouth shut, but to ensure that your argument stacks up scientifically. Sometimes with reflection however it may actually it be the best policy. This is what all scientists have to do – arguments must stand on their objective merits, there is no special pleading.
The Chinese State may be officially atheist, however this is likely incidental rather than causative. In short in a totalitarian state there can be no superior power – the ruling party is God, and it is a jealous God.
In any case I fear that the likes of me would fare little better than the Uyghurs, the main advantage I might have might be being able to sink into the crowd (ignore for my argument racial characteristics if you please), whilst keeping my mouth firmly shut. This as we know can be a hard life to live. The scrutiny does not work both ways – the persecution and punishment of those scrutinising up is a near-universal theme to a greater or lesser extent.
iandusud wrote:
I would agree with you that some kind of belief is probably the norm. However I think the numbers on this are tricky. Partly for reasons mentioned by brooksby and partly because – as pointed out by hawkinspeter in slightly different context – what you’re measuring here is inherently slippery. It’s not just that reporting your “true” belief might have bad consquences. What is a true belief? (And indeed is that so important? Apparently not so much for some religions). Well, we better send out experts to examine people’s beliefs. But of course these will need to be suitably qualified experts in each religion for who else could judge? And it turns out that not all of those from a particular religion agree, and some say it’s not even up to humans to decide…?
So OK, we’re relying on self-reporting. There are other reasons this may be off. Does going to church for midnight mass a Christian make (for our survey purposes)? Or being “brought up a Parsi”? I might aspire to the benefits of being a Muslim – for social connections / improvement, say. I write that I’m a follower of Cthulu / Thor / a Jedi on the census but is that valid or just trolling?
We’re also all correcting for our Western perspective of a few “big religions” that are generally mutually exclusive. That’s certainly not the case even in “first world” countries (e.g. Japan – where Shinto / Buddhism mix to a great degree – and as an aside the majority don’t categorise themselves as following a “religion” at all!) or for “monotheistic faiths” (pretty much all co-exist somewhere – more or less – with one or more other beliefs – even Islam e.g. in Indonesia). Plenty of places where “religion” is much more situational / about practice rather than belief per se.
Finally to return to your nice car analogy. Say 95% of the world “believe in god”. OK – but isn’t that a bit like “95% of people use the road”? Yes – and they do so in very different ways (driving a bus, a car, playing on roller skates, crossing at a light, riding the Tour de France). The differences are both substantial and important. (To religious people also – would you be content if you knew that of these 95%, 94% were folk Daoists?). Why this is important is a second point but this is long enough already!