I am finding that I am becoming less and less interested in any of the continuing Atheist barrages of fallacy cum arrogance. There is nothing new in any of the Atheist thinking, it is as shallow, superficial and error laden as always, and with the same errors. It becomes something of a burden to write the same logical analyses of the same logic error-riddled arguments, over and over.
There is one more general subject area which I will address, (at least one) before I place this blog on hiatus status, or quit it altogether other than to answer questions or propositions. (Actually that is my favorite part of this endeavor, at least until the commenter adheres dogmatically to demonstrable logic fallacies.)
This coincides with Richard Dawkins coming to the Atheist “Reason Rally” (I think it is called), and he has made his standard erroneous comments in advance, attempting to claim reason and science for Atheism and that alone. But there is a true philosopher of science whose words I will quote below as a demonstration of actual reason, and the place of science within it.
Karl Popper:
“The old scientific ideal of episteme – of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith can we be ‘absolutely certain’. (note 5)
With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigor and integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth that makes a man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
[emphasis in the original].
Note 5 [in Popper’s note sequence, ed.]: … The last remark is of course a psychological remark rather than an epistemological one…
Popper, Karl; “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (1935), Routledge, 1980; pp. 280, 281.
Compare this to Dawkins
preparatory speech for the Atheist rally. And especially consider the honesty of Popper’s ‘note 5’ in comparison with the comments of Dr Dawkins.
Dawkins:
“Reason, as played out in the grand cooperative enterprise called science, makes me proud of Homo sapiens. Sapiens literally means ‘wise,’ but we have deserved the accolade only since we crawled from the swamp of primitive superstition and supernatural gullibility and embraced reason, logic, science and evidence-based truth.”
According to this Atheist evangelist, reason of which to be proud is attached only to science, and wisdom is defined as embacing reason, logic, science and evidence-based truth. If you have paid any attention to the actual function and limits of science, you know that this statement is false: evidence (material, of course) never produces truth; reason is not restricted to empirical findings; for Atheists and Materialists, logic is nothing more than a worshipful word, useful for a logo, but a hindrance to the ideology. And wisdom is never, ever attached to empirical, experimental data.
Dawkins:
“We now know the age of our universe (13-14 billion years), the age of the Earth (4-5 billion years), what we and all other objects are made of (atoms), where we come from (evolved from other species), why all species are so well adapted to their environments (natural selection of their DNA). We know why we have night and day (Earth spins like a top), why we have winter and summer (Earth is tilted), what is the maximum speed at which anything can travel (two thirds of a billion mph). We know what the sun is (one star among billions in the Milky Way galaxy), we know what the Milky Way is (one galaxy among billions in our universe). We understand what causes smallpox (a virus, which we have eradicated), polio (a virus, which we have nearly eradicated), malaria (a protozoan, still here but we’re working on it), syphilis, tuberculosis, gangrene, cholera (bacteria and we know how to kill them). We have built planes that can cross the Atlantic in hours, rockets that safely land men on the moon and robot vehicles on Mars, and might one day save our planet by diverting a meteor of the kind that - we now understand - killed the dinosaurs. Thanks to evidence-based reason we are blessedly liberated from ancient fears of ghosts and devils, evil spirits and djinns, magic spells and witches’ curses.”
Extolling the many virtues of science should have no effect on the rational observer; in fact, the entire purpose of this lengthy list is found in the last sentence:
“evidence-based reason” has liberated us. Yes, in that one, single, sense, it has. But watch for the straw man being constructed. And consider what “liberation” means in that context, and the context coming up.
Dawkins:
” Who then would rally against reason? The following statements will sound all too familiar.
He is now in full straw man mode: if you aren’t one of us, then you are one of the following, a list to be found deplorable and disgusting.
1. “I don’t trust educated intellectuals, élitists who know more than I do. I’d prefer to vote for somebody like me, rather than somebody who is actually qualified to be president.”
Could there be a more prejudiced, biased and false statement? Let’s ask for evidence to support the claim that this opinion actually exists, and if it does, the extent of the population which holds it. It is a cartoon straw man, under construction.
Let’s consider an alternative:
1. I don’t trust self-anointed intellectuals who are still in school, never having left, never having tasted industry, commerce, nor having to face the economic or social consequences of their ideologies. Many of these self-anointed elites, if not most of them, actually believe that they know more about more than people who lead lives in actual reality - roughly half of whom have I.Q’s higher than the self-anointed “intellects”, those who think that wisdom derives from experimental data, those who strive to prove (without data) that there is no conscious mind, no free will, no agency, and who think that electron position determines human actions. [Take a breath here]. Those whose pompous declarations claim an “evidence-base”, yet whose proclamations are generally evidence free, and unsupportable due to non-falsifiability (they are moral in nature). Fortunately, there is no requirement that I vote for someone based on his personal self-image of intellectual (and thus moral) superiority: those people are dangerous.
Dawkins:
2. “Rather than have them learn modern science, I’d prefer my children to study a book written in 800 BC by unidentifed authors whose knowledge and qualifications were of their time. If I can’t trust the school to shield them from science, I’ll home-school them instead.”
Dawkins thinks that science = evolution and nothing more. In fact, evolution is not and cannot ever be, on a par with real science: evolution is not a necessary or sufficient principle upon which to base deductive hypotheses for developing biological advances, despite what Atheists believe about it. While it might not be false, it has not been proven valid with the same conclusiveness available to other sciences, and those are contingent and tentative (remember Popper?).
More importantly, Dawkins et. al. want evolution (and science in general) to be taught as the one source of knowledge, the one source of wisdom, and the one source of intellectual integrity; evolution explains everything, with no further thinking required; the subject is settled science. This is blatantly false.
The purpose of home schooling is slandered by Dawkins, in combination with slandering the bible. Home schooling has been shown in
scientific testing to
produce superior students in every –
every – subject, including science. This places Dawkins in the contradictory position of having to deny the actual science concerning home schooling in order to maintain his denigration of home schooling.
Public schools, on the other hand, consistently produce high drop-out rates (especially amongst minorities) and high degrees of illiteracy which must be compensated for in university make-up classes. They must place effort on the weakest at the sacrifice of the strongest students. Ever since John Dewey got ahold of the education community, the focus has been on training workers and abandoning education for creating literate, reasoning community members.
Dawkins’ professed “evidence base” is lacking in his claim, and in actuality, is false – demonstrably false as shown with evidence to back it up.
Dawkins:
” 3. “When I am faced with a mystery, with something I don’t understand, I don’t interrogate science for a solution, but jump to the conclusion that it must be supernatural and has no solution.”
The straw man thus becomes completely absurd; Dawkins has gone over the edge in trying to create a populace to despise and deprecate. Has he any evidence to support his claim that such people exist, in the extremes he says? Or is he drawing cartoons again? He goes on:
Dawkins:
” That is the fourth time in this essay I have said something like: “the Reason Rally is not for you.” But let me end on a more positive note. Even if you are unaccustomed to living by reason, if you are one of those, perhaps, who actively distrust reason, why not give it a try? Cast aside the prejudices of upbringing and habit, and come along anyway. If you come with open ears and open curiosity you will learn something, will probably be entertained and may even change your mind. And that, you will find, is a liberating and refreshing experience.”
It appears that Dawkins means to substitute his own idol for the perceived evils he designates per his own opinion. The Reason Rally thus becomes an idol worshipper's religious retreat, where the idol is science and evidence is the absent ruler.
If you would understand and exercise reason, then compare Dawkins’ propositions to those of Popper. And consider which one is offering the "idol" for worship.
