I feel it necessary to repeat that: Dawkins = Fraud
Before Richard Dawkins hurts anyone else, it is time to call him by his characteristics. He is a fraud. He is a confidence man. He is not competent as either scientist or philosopher much less logician. He is a danger to those who aren’t trained to spot fraudulent thought processes. It is time to call him out.
Dawkins has certainly published a lot of stuff. Some of it was called science, but was actually just fatuous speculation. The popularity that he enjoys comes not from any brilliant scientific experimental discovery, but from his willingness to step far outside the realms of experimental empiricism (or even forensics) and to make truth statements based on no evidence whatsoever. (That is the definition of Philosophical Materialism, after all). Beyond that he is absolutely willing to condemn those who think outside the bounds of his particular flavor of Philosophical Materialism. It is his excoriations and intolerance of the non-Brights, (the non-Dawkinsian Elites) that have made him the prince of Atheism… certainly not his science, much less his logic. His false veneer of “science” provides the excuse that is needed by the Atheist community which has no other justification for existing.
Dawkins’ influence amongst the ill-educated is far beyond his personal self-image as a deathless philosopher. His function is more of an agitator, an obfuscateur, a rational deviant waylaying sophomores.
I invite any seeker who has any questions about Dawkins and his panoply of fallacy to query me here. We will investigate any or all of the “God Delusion” or any of the Dawkins “science”, using known logical and rational methods, which will be outlined in full – something that Dawkins dares not ever do.
Ask and let’s analyze.
32 comments:
Dawkins is fun, until you realise he is serious.
J.P. Holding wrote an article about his intellectual honesty (he is way more dishonest then the article demonstrates btw):
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6161
Please notice that I am not a not a creationist, Holding had a link on his site that his article was published there.
Thanks very much for the link. J.P makes a good point. It is just the tip of the iceberg with respect to Dawkins' foolishness. Another good source is "The Irrational Atheist" by Vox Day, a book available on-line which is rationally based rather than a religious encyclical. There are more, and I need to compile a list.
The pretense of rationality by these irrationalistas is truly odious.
Stan: You just don't get it.
I was going to try and understand your thinking, but then I decided you are to far gone to be able to accept the concept. So have at it with your silly blog site. I won't be back.
Adios Aspentroll. If thinking linearly is too far outside your personal paradigm, you are better off elsewhere.
I love it when the Materialists claim that others just don't get it. There is nothing to get. If it can't be touched, it doesn't exist to a Materialist. Not a lot there to understand. And no real possibility of original thought there, either, which is why Dawkins and such have to rename existing things - like an "idea" - now called a "meme", or completely misrepresent their own computer programs as being representative of natural processes.
It's just empty. Nothing there to "get" other than the emptiness of the whole Materialist thought process.
I always wanted to know how to effectively know who to answer Dawkins objection of 'oh i'm just an atheist to your God like your an atheist to Buddha/Krishna or Zeus'. Also his silly tea pot argument. How do you deconstruct these arguments logically?
Thanks for these questions!
One Less God:
This Atheist argument is known as the “one less god” argument, and it is called a Category Error Fallacy. A Category Error Fallacy is the ascription of incorrect characteristics to one of the objects of discussion (sort of like comparing apples and oranges). In this case it is ascribing “atheism” to a Christian’s non-belief in say, Zeus.
Atheism is most correctly described as being based in Philosophical Materialism, which is the denial of non-tangible, non-material realities. (While some Atheists deny this, none are able to refute it.) So the real comparison being made is between a Philosophical Materialist, and a Non-Philosophical Materialist. These are antithetical, they are opposites, and are not the same at all.
The Christian is in no way comparable to a Philosophical Materialist, who believes that nothing exists in any reality except that which is physically tangible. The Christian is most definitely a theist who believes in a rational creator for the rational universe - which creator is not Zeus.
The statement that Christians are “merely atheistic of all the same gods as atheists, except for one” is both incorrect and absurd. If it is confusing it is because of its basis in the Category Error Fallacy (also known in some quarters as the Mereological fallacy).
Orbiting Teapot:
As for the famous Bertrand Russell orbiting teapot, we have a classical example of the Red Herring Fallacy. Here’s the gambit: “I can’t prove there is no god; I also can’t prove that there is no orbiting teapot. I have no need to believe that there is an orbiting teapot; therefore I have no need to believe there is a god.”
The fallacy is in comparing the obviously absurd (completely improbable) imaginary orbiting teapot to the necessity of having a cause for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is NOT a figment of anyone’s imagination. Moreover, the Big Bang is an effect requiring a cause that is outside of our ability to define or understand it empirically. And the creation of rational laws governing the behavior of the universe suggest (strongly) a rational cause for them, as well as for the universe itself. As opposed to the orbiting teapot, these have a high probability.
The orbiting teapot is a dodge created specifically to divert the discussion away from the logical probability for these characteristics of a creator for the universe, by comparing with a completely improbable imaginary ruse. As a dodge, an avoidance mechanism, it is a fallacy which is known as the Red Herring Fallacy. In a sense it is related to the Category Error Fallacy, also.
Great questions. If my answers aren’t clear let me know, I will try again
I've heard the Christ myth from some atheists, and always wondered where it comes from. It might be a psychological need to renounce one's former religion completely, and it helps that the historical Jesus' effect on history was more localized than, say, Muhammad (I doubt any ex-Muslim atheist would claim he did not historically exist). It might also be an intellectual exercise, a mock-counterpart to certain claims made by the Gospels about Jesus.
Given that even ex-Christian denominations such as the Unitarians accept that Jesus exists, and that he was mentioned in historical accounts (e.g. by Josephus), and more importantly, *Jewish* religious leaders accept the existence of Jesus (just not his Messianic status), the myth-making people are doing something rather distasteful, if not worse.
I've not heard much about J.P. Holding, but interestingly, if this opinion piece is to be trusted, he is an anti-Dawkins of sort: people who disagree with him find him insultingly arrogant.
Calling Christ a myth is just an oblique attack by atheists. It is little more than just a harrassment that Atheists use as mud in their mud-slinging. When you get covered with mud, it takes time and energy to clean it off, and meantime the Atheists can move on to the next attack. These attacks don't work on the educated, but are unfortunately confusing to the college sophomores who have received no instruction in critical thinking and analysis. So they are dangerous for the vulnerable.
While the name Jesus was fairly common, as even the bible points out, other historians of the day record not just the existence of the Jesus of the New Testament, but also the persecution and murder of his followers. As you say, all this is amply recorded and is not questioned by reputable historians (those without agendas).
There is a variation that likely holds a modicum of truth, and that is that the holy days were scheduled to coincide with, and usurp, pagan holy days. This in no way reflects on the existence of Jesus, or the validity of the records.
I wish I could reach more youth and help them with the tools for thinking through the tsunami of fallacy that originates from the Atheist community.
Thanks for your reply, i like your approach. Another question not one dawkins says but I'll ask. You say that Philosophical materialism is such an illogical view point but looking around your site i haven't found a definitive explanation of why. There are bits and pieces but no centralised good explanation. I may be wrong in which case can you lead me to it, but can you give a semi detailed reason plz (soz if this is asking to much)
It is definitely not asking too much, I appreciate the opportunity to answer.
Materialism has two aspects. The first is the functional materialism that is identified with empiricism. Functional Materialism states that measurement and testing can be performed only on physical entities. Since empiricism defines itself as requiring physical testing, and repeat testing, then only physical, material phenomena can be addressed. Empiricism has nothing to say about non-physical phenomena, since it can neither confirm nor deny such phenomena by its methodology of physical testing.
Methodological Materialism is not a philosophy, it is a tool, a condition for performing empiricism.
The second form of Materialism is Philosophical Materialism, which is a philosophical position that states that there definitely exists no reality that cannot be detected with sensory inputs such as tactile, visual inputs and the extended measurement of such material inputs; i.e. ALL reality is Material, there is no other reality.
The Philosophical Materialist position is frequently called the "science-based" position, when it clearly is not. It is important not to confuse the two. It is also important to recognize when others do confuse the two.
Now here is the rational test: Is it possible, using only material testing techniques, to determine the ABSOLUTE ABSENCE of NON-material entities?
Clearly not.
The requirement of detecting non-material evidence using only material testing is a mutually exclusive proposition. The set of non-material entities (non-material reality) is completely outside the set of material entities (material reality).
So it is not logical to expect the Philosophical Materialist to be able to support his claim that there is no non-material reality, since that claim is outside of his very own philosophy.
In fact the claim itself is non-material, since it has no inherent mass, no innate energy, no physical characteristics such as length, height, depth nor does it have reflectivity to allow it to be seen, etc.
The same goes for the philosophy itself; philosophy has none of the characteristics that are required to define a material entity. So it is non-material.
A non-material entity (philosophy) that denies non-material existences is a self-referencing, self-contradiction: a paradox. It is a violation of logic and rational thought.
Another way to look at this is using set theory like thus:
Let M = Material reality
Then !M = Non-Material reality
Philosophical Materialism says that by thoroughly searching M it is conclusively determined that !M does not exist.
This is clearly irrational and false.
Hope this helps...
Thanks for that. Very helpful.
It's my pleasure... ask anything, anytime.
I read this, "The inferece to the best explanation that Paley tries to pass with his analogy of a watch with organisms fails completely because since then various theories have been advanced to explain how organisms came into existence. Its value as the best possible abuctive argument has been dismissed mainly by evolution theories, but also due to the theories about how the world came to existence and the fact that pure casuality might have been the cause of life.
So yeah, the watchmaker's analogy is weak, REALLY weak."
Many atheists talk against the Paley/design argument how would you respond are they right ect!
Analogies are not proofs. An analogy is a logical demonstration of a rational procedure.
The evolution "theories" are really not theories in the technical sense, they are hypotheses created not out of known fact but out of assumed possibility. Evolution hypotheses for the main part cannot be proven due to a lack of direct empirical contact. Evolution is supported by the abductive reasoning which is merely an extrapolation based on existing information, but is projected well beyond that data. It is therefore the creation of assumed information which is not only not existant, the information cannot conclusively be shown empirically. So it is known as "Just So Story Telling", after the famous book by Kipling.
The Watchmaker's Analogy is not abductive, it is purely an analogy. It is not made up to serve as a possible scenario or set of prefabricated data proposed to answer an otherwise unanswerable question. Analogies are demonstrations, not solutions.
So I think that fighting the Watchmker's battle is futile and unnecessary. It is an inconsequential skirmish that can't have an impact on the main issue. Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism are in the same category, and are futile arguments in an empirical atmosphere.
Perhaps if we ask, "is there a God to be found in material existence", we can say "No". But that is not the real question. The question is, "is there an existence beyond the material, and if so how does that relate to the material existence?" Because within that question is embedded the larger, Godellian issues of hierarchical comprehension, hierarchical existence, hierarchical truth, and the meanings of all these.
Does it fllow then that EVolution is a futile argument in an empirical atmosphere because Evolution in it's original science meaning involves study into the past where no real empirical study can be done?
I actually see evolution as a "might be"... yet utterly nonverifiable. As a possibility, it is interesting; as a truth statement it is false.
Evolution cannot legitimately be translated into a "truth statement" for those reasons. Neither can abiogenesis.
It is not wrong to hypothesize. It is actually necessary. But it is wrong to claim that a nonverifiable hypothesis is "true", that the science is settled, and then to force that philosophy into a worldview that will be taught in government schools.
I like you stanny Boy! Don't listen to the haters you've been very useful and i like your approach too! More questions in the future.
Ben.
Ben, Thanks!
Stan
I'm having trouble getting round my head what someone said about Mendel and his experiment. I said evolution isn't true science because it's not observational and you can't test it but he mentioned Mendel never observed DNA or the transmittion of genetic traits through observation but he new it was happening so from abduction he thought something was happening.
So evolution is similar to mendel? He is saying evolution uses abduction so is a valid scientific theory. I disagree but i don't know why! There is a difference but I don't know what.
Thanks Ben
I haven't studied Mendel except superficially. However, I think that it is incorrect to say that Mendel did not use observation, he most certainly did; his logic might have been abductive, I don't know. But that would have played into his hypothesis formation, whereas his note-taking and experimentation are the empirical foundation of his work.
It is Mendel's observations and empirical work that have been replicated zillions of times, just like empirical science is supposed to work, that make it science. The logic behind his hypothesis is actually irrelevant; empiricism is about experimentation and replication, and can be applied to any material concept worth testing regardless of the logic behind the concept.
Empiricism is actually independent of the logic behind the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not science; test, verify and replicate is science.
True evolution (macro) has not been demonstrated, much less replicated. It is an entirely different animal than Mendel's work with peas. Mendel's work demonstrates (to my knowledge) the variability that exists within an existing genome, and how that works generation to generation.
Evolution (macro) occurs (in theory) when a mutation occurs, making a new expansion to the existing genome - beyond the original genome - that allows for better accommodation to the environment. This is not proven.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is an example of deliberate confusion being injected into the conversation. Here's why. The resistant bacteria occur as a subpopulation of existing bacteria; these resistant bacteria are allowed to flourish when the antibiotic is quit too soon. Eventually the population of the resistant bacteria reaches a "critical level" wherein it can be the controlling population.
However, it has not left the genome; it has not evolved; there is no mutation nor any other shift associated with evolution. So some evolution apologists try to claim that evolution is a "shift within the distribution" of the genome. The big dogs of evolution still maintain that evolution (macro) requires both mutation and selection, in order to actually change the genome into something entirely new.
Evolution is in the process of being redefined. Next year is called "Darwin Year", and it will bring on some changes to the theory of evolution, primarily because they haven't any hard evidence to support what they currently are saying, and secondarily because the science of DNA is inadequate, forcing them to create a new "science", epi-genetics, which is still ill-defined at the moment.
Thanks for the question!
Stan
Thanks for the reply. How come this topic doesn't have any labels.
You're right, this should have a label. I've been avoiding a "Dawkins" label, but now I guess I'll make one. Look for it under Dawkins.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Dawkins = Fraud
Preach it brother!
Carl Packman said: "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion"
At least some people are not deceived. To hear him speak of believing in ID in the Movie "Expelled" was hilarious.
The One Less God comment is a valid argument only to a point when one considers the reality the "One God of Monotheism and Neoplatonics" simply took from a polytheistic system and smooshed them all into a Non-being.
If an Atheist also proclaims "I am the only God" in my life though it is an atheist principle they have in essence created a god out of themselves and therefore fundamentally just made a god in concept and therefore making the concept existing in themselves so fundamentally made a temporary mortal god. Funny when you consider that.
I am an atheist, myself. I don't understand how one can honestly make an assumption that there is this "immaterial" material that single handedly turns everything materialists know upside down. That's a stretch to me. I don't believe I will burn in any Hell just for asking myself "Do I believe in anything supernatural? No. Why not? Because I have never experienced it with any of my senses that I am aware of." Could you explain to me what is the proper method of discovering the "immaterial" if science is not it?
>>Could you explain to me what is the proper method of discovering the "immaterial" if science is not it?
You could always start here as a foundation.
(caution, atheist's language gets foul)
First of all, there is no proposition being made that "turns everything materialists know upside down". There is, however, one thing that materialists "know" which is false: that there is no existence which is not materially detectable.
In other words, or syllogistically, materialism states this:
IF [X cannot be detected using material sensing devices], THEN [It cannot exist].
This is clearly false. And it is the basis for Philosophical Materialism.
Now the conclusion that this is false in no way interferes with the pursuit of material experiments which try to understand material existence and the relationships between material objects: empirical science.
In fact, part of the pursuit of empirical science is understanding the limits of science, as defined by Popper: falsifiability is the demarcation between material, empirical science and those pursuits which are not addressable by science.
Philosophical Materialism (your position) cannot be proven, ever, by empirical science. It cannot be falsified, and it is thus a philosophical statement and not an empirical fact.
That leaves mental constructs such as those found in logic, which are validated by both the First Principles of Rational Thought, and by the disciplined process of deduction including validation by Reductio Ad Absurdum.
For example it can be deduced that the material universe, which did not exist until after the Big Bang, was created outside of material existence. How it was done is only speculation, but some of the characteristics of the cause for the Big Bang can be properly deduced using disciplined logic procedures.
A further example of the failure of empirical materialism is the discipline of logic, a discipline that precedes and supercedes science, because it is a requirement that logic exist, if science is to exist; without logic science cannot exist. But science cannot prove the validity of deduction as a procedure.
And further still, science is base on the Inductive fallacy, and produces only contingent factoids; it never produces incorrigible Truth. In fact, science depends on the pre-existence of certain incorrigible truths for its own existence.
Some of the deduction of non-material existence has been done in the right hand column of this blog, and need not be repeated here.
D.A.N.,
Thanks for the link; interesting conversation - not so much a debate as it is a rout. I think I'll do an analysis of both sides in the next week.
I've noticed what I see as questionable arguments and copied some of them for ready reference. Here we go.
"Atheism is most correctly described as being based in Philosophical Materialism, which is the denial of non-tangible, non-material realities. (While some Atheists deny this, none are able to refute it.)"
The vast majority of atheists I know do not deny the existence of what you call realities. We choose not to believe in them. There is a difference.
"So it is not logical to expect the Philosophical Materialist to be able to support his claim that there is no non-material reality, since that claim is outside of his very own philosophy."
As you have not shown that atheism is based on Philosophical Materialist, your comment is irrelevant.
"The big dogs of evolution still maintain that evolution (macro) requires both mutation and selection, in order to actually change the genome into something entirely new."
The Theory of Evolution does not claim that genomes are changed by mutation and natural selection into something entirely new.
When the evolution of a new species occurs over many generations, nearly all of the DNA remains the same. However, enough changes are made that cross breeding is no longer possible. You give the impression that you have studied evolution and I accept that you have. That acceptance forces me to conclude that your are being deliberately deceptive.
"IF [X cannot be detected using material sensing devices], THEN [It cannot exist]."
Another false association of materialism with atheism.
"For example it can be deduced that the material universe, which did not exist until after the Big Bang, was created outside of material existence."
The Big Bang theory posits that the Universe is the result of the expansion from a singularity. A rudimentary knowledge of the subject should have taught you that. Because all the matter and energy in the Universe was contained in the singularity, it can hardly be said to be outside of material existence.
I have to chuckle at this:
”The vast majority of atheists I know do not deny the existence of what you call realities. We choose not to believe in them. There is a difference.”
That is patently absurd. If you “choose” not to believe in them, then you are denying their existence. And you are doing so without any evidence for support. Your choice is not based on positive evidence, it is based on denialism, pure and simple.
As you have not shown that atheism is based on Philosophical Materialist, your comment is irrelevant.
Your objection is without merit, and is based on your misconstrual of what Atheism actually is. It is up to you to prove that Atheism is not, in fact also Philosophical Materialist. You have not done so. But feel free to explain why it is not, by default materially based.
(More below)
”The Theory of Evolution does not claim that genomes are changed by mutation and natural selection into something entirely new.”
The Modern Synthesis put forward in the middle of the 20th Century, and believed until recently when the Extended Synthesis was proposed by the Altenberg 16, most certainly stated that the original Darwinian variation/selection must be augmented by mutation, in order to have created all the new species (phyla) which appeared in the Cambrian period. The new Extended Synthesis was deemed necessary because it was recognized that variation/mutation/selection was totally inadequate to produce speciation (new, non-breeding species), and especially quickly and with all new features which appeared in the Cambrian. Until very recently, mutation was claimed to be the cause for such rapid change from sponge to all phyla. In fact, Gould created an unprovable theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, to account for rapid mutation into all new creatures.
So… you are wrong. But you are also behind the curve.
Both of the hypotheses in vogue for the first 150 years are now relegated to virtual non-utility for causing evolution, including the original Darwinian hypothesis and the subsequent Modern Synthesis hypothesis. The new Extended Synthesis opens up the door to lots of hypothetical but non-causal meta-hypotheses such as landscapes, epigenetics and emergence, but none of them forms a cause/effect, testable, falsifiable, experimental basis for predicting the outcome of any evolutionary deduction. All of the new proposals are merely meta-hypotheses. Further, none address the existence of the countless communication groups in a living entity which create and transfer meaningful information in the form of a useful digital code, through dedicated channels from a cogent transmitting agent to a cogent receiving agent, both of which understand the coded information being transferred, and use it to perform actions which sustain the systems of life in the living entity. The existence of such communication codes, agents and channels is not deducible from mineral deterministic characteristics.
Further still, the existence of consciousness, intellect, qualia, self, creative non-entropic products is also not deducible from material deterministic characteristics.
The creation of a coded chain containing 3.5 billion letters and 7 billion bits of meaning-filled information, i.e., semantic information, not syntactic information, is non-compressible since it is non-repetitive; it is thus non-algorithmic and is not “crystalline” as Dawkins would have us believe.
The mere existence of this information module (much less its application via living communication groups) cannot be deduced from mineral deterministic characteristics.
There is more, of course, but these serve to show that evolution is neither deterministic nor is it random; it is predetermined by pre-existing complexity containing specified instructions for the creation and maintenance of living things. Plus, since DNA is not alive itself, the utility of DNA required the pre-existence of some essence, called life. Life is not a measurable quantity in terms of mass/energy space/time, and is not a physical “thing”.
Evolution, therefore has no basis in deterministic, experimental physical science nor in random processes.
(more below)
”When the evolution of a new species occurs over many generations, nearly all of the DNA remains the same. However, enough changes are made that cross breeding is no longer possible.”
I did not say otherwise; the genome for a new species must, by definition, be a new genome. I did not mean for you to infer that every piece of DNA cross-linking was “all new”; that would not fit the definition of mutation (unless you just wanted something to argue about).
”You give the impression that you have studied evolution and I accept that you have. That acceptance forces me to conclude that your are being deliberately deceptive.”
And I am forced to conclude that you are merely slightly aware of evolution, and not really looking for anything but a smug, troll-type of comment.
”The Big Bang theory posits that the Universe is the result of the expansion from a singularity. A rudimentary knowledge of the subject should have taught you that. Because all the matter and energy in the Universe was contained in the singularity, it can hardly be said to be outside of material existence.”
According to Hawking several years back, mass/energy and space/time did not exist in the “singularity”. The singularity is the hypothesis that an infinitely small point (i.e. dimensionless due to lack of space coordinates) contained what would become, but wasn’t then, the universe of mass/energy and space/time. It requires the logical non-coherence which is found in this Wiki page:
”The Big Bang singularity is a point of zero volume, but very high mass, which makes the density infinite. This singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. The initial moment of the cyclopean explosion very well remains a mystery — however, astronomers and physicists believe that after the tiniest fraction of a second, the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force separated, which probably caused the Universe to begin inflating. The Big Bang itself created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.
Here it is claimed that (a) the singularity had no volume but contained all matter and energy; (b) the Big Bang created… all of the matter and energy that we have today.
These claims, by a physics student, are mutually exclusive and are non-coherent, therefore without meaning.
Recently there has been a turn by Hawking which claims that the singularities such as black holes do not exist. This could mean that the original singularity did not exist either, and the posited “expansionary” zone did not exist. So the “science” is not settled, except to say that the universe, as mass/energy and space/time did not exist before time was created.
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
So your claim to know that mass/energy existed in the zero dimension “singularity” is behind the times, and is not even a rational view of the claim regarding the singularity theory.
Your criticism is not accepted.
Post a Comment