Home

Sir Harry’s talks however appeared to present little if anything that would convince me to change my mind

Unless his talks were aimed at “challenging religions points of view”, why would anyone expect them to present “anything that would convince me to change my mind”? It’s not reasonable to ask that someone talking about one topic to give you convincing material about an unrelated topic. It’d be like me expecting some Christian’s talk about say, environmental issues, to convince me about Christianity. Sure they might make the odd passing remark about their beliefs, but since their talk is not about Christianity, it’d be unreasonable to expect it convince anyone much about Christianity. What you are asking for doesn’t make sense and reads like a sloppy excuse to dismiss someone.

So why don’t you tell us what his talks were actually about? (I note that readers can infer that their main topics were not religion from your words: “and by numerous remarks during the sessions today”; obviously references to religion were only made in passing remarks.)

As for the double standard, let’s consider what atheists are teaching young people. Young person: you are part of a cosmic accident, a piece of highly evolved pond-scum. But don’t worry, you are good pond scum. And life is good and has much meaning. We don’t know what it is, but fear not for you can pretend life has meaning which should make you feel better and you will have less reason to follow 500 other New Zealanders each year by committing suicide. Yes, we know that the universe began with a big bang and ultimately will end in a whimpering heat death. But don’t worry, you will be long dead before that happens, and your ashes will be part of that (cough) meaningful utopic picture.

You are putting words others wouldn’t say into their mouths, a very, very poor way to argue, to say the least. Why would atheists say humans are “pond scum”? No-one goes around saying that. [Trademark passive-aggressive well-poisoning "psycho-analysis" removed —Bnonn] By definition humans are human, not pond scum. Humans have evolved from simpler forms of life. And so on for the rest of it.

Consider, if you live a life that is ultimately meaningless (born, live, reproduce, die, nothingness), then why would you choose an occupation that is hard and doesn’t pay well?

Straw man rubbish again. The first part you have pasted onto the latter, but the first part hasn’t anything to do with it: [Trademark passive-aggressive well-poisoning "psycho-analysis" removed —Bnonn]

And then you go on to bring up the tired old attempts to dismiss “evidence”, at which point I’m leaving because that’s a waste of time reading…

[Irrelevant ad hominem removed —Bnonn]

I did quite enjoy reading this, Rob. Just one comment (you seem to align the word epistemology with science, so I have assumed the same):

Christianity on the other hand begins in ontology with the existence of God and His revelation through the Bible which cuts through the veil and reveals a world created with order and meaning.

This statement is an epistemological claim, Rob. You are claiming that the Christian worldview fits better. How do you know this except through epistemology?

Hey Rob, I think you have things slightly backwards here:

I think a nice way to sum this up is to say that to gain certainty, we must begin in ontology as a grounding for epistemology. The law-giving legislator provides this starting point and provides a basis for science.

While I agree with your general conclusion, Christians don’t begin with ontology (more correctly: metaphysics; ontology is just the study of being as opposed to the study of reality). Epistemology always logically precedes general metaphysics. Taking the Bible as God’s word is an epistemological commitment. That’s where our metaphysic comes from. So Christians rightly begin with epistemology—but that epistemology is naturally tied to the supporting biblical metaphysic.

On the other hand, beginning with epistemology as Dawkins and Sir Harry appear to do leads ultimately to total uncertainty because nothing can really be known for sure about anything.

But Dawkins and Sir Harry don’t start with epistemology—that’s why their worldviews are such a sad mess. They start with metaphysics and don’t bother with epistemology at all. They just assume everything they need to prove as part of their metaphysics. How do we know nature is regular? It just is; it’s obvious. How do we know that the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? It just wasn’t; it’s obvious. They don’t have any real answers to epistemological questions. They just brush them off as “mind games” or irrelevant to science or whatever. You see this with Ken and his ilk too—they refuse to allow epistemology into their worldviews at all, because it’s “outside the purview of science”. It’s kind of sad really, to see how blind and stupid they have allowed themselves to become. But yeah, scientists in Dawkin’s stream definitely don’t start with epistemology—they don’t even end with it.

Regards,
Bnonn

Dawkins and Kroto probably DO start with epistemology; an epistemology called empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Empiricism).

Empiricists are tied to the ‘metaphysic’; the observation, that empiricism has been supremely successful.

Well, I can’t speak for Kroto specifically because I don’t know enough about him, but from what I’ve seen of Dawkins he manifestly does not start with any epistemology. He might be interpreted as holding to an empiricist epistemology, but that is different from self-consciously starting with one and recognizing its existence and believing that it’s justified.

And of course, empiricism (at least in the form Dawkins could be interpreted to hold) is really dead in terms of modern philosophy. It’s been dead a long time. It’s dead because it is a failure as an epistemology—a manifest failure.

[...] New Demonstration added an interesting post today on Sir Harry Kroto, Science and Faith : Thinking Matters TalkHere’s a small readingIt’d be like me expecting some BChristian/B’s talk about say, environmental issues, to convince me about Christianity. [...]

I know not of the fashions of philosophy. Yes I said fashions. But at the end of the day empiricism is no less that the posterchild of human endeavour.

I just don’t understand your inability to empathise(understand) with a Dawkins-esque worldview. It’s not rocket science. You think it’s obvious that the bible is the word of god, metaphysical naturalists think it’s obvious that nature is all their is. It isn’t hard.

How do we know that nature is regular? By looking at it.
How do we know that the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago with the appearance of age? We don’t, and even by your own standards it would be unverifiable. So why talk about it? Why do you not go around worrying whether the bible was planted on earth by an extra-terrestrial pentruped named Sam? Same reason.

Good questions Simon. Here are a few thoughts:

I know not of the fashions of philosophy. Yes I said fashions. But at the end of the day empiricism is no less that the posterchild of human endeavour.

Well, empiricism is certainly a useful tool for doing certain things in science. But it seems to be a very limited tookset as so much of science is no longer empirical and so much of what we call knowledge is not obtained via empirical means. Rather, much science is based in mathematical models. So I think empiricism has only limited utility.

I just don’t understand your inability to empathise(understand) with a Dawkins-esque worldview. It’s not rocket science. You think it’s obvious that the bible is the word of god, metaphysical naturalists think it’s obvious that nature is all their is. It isn’t hard.

You are right — Dawkin’s worldview is easy to understand. But when we critique anothers’ position, we don’t base the truthfulness of it upon the simplicity of it.

Islam may be easier to understand in part than Christianity — does that make it true? Of course not.

Newtonian physics may be simpler than Einsteinian physics — does that make it a better model of reality? Of course not.

How do we know that nature is regular? By looking at it.

Couple of points Simon. First, you are of course question begging. Or perhaps just being pragmatic. “It works, so get on with it.” But of course your worldview and experience is imposing upon you your answer. Another may see it quite differently. How do you then test it? Perhaps life is all illusory as per Eastern religions. Then why should we try to eliminate suffering if it is all illusion?

Second, it is intellectually lazy to just say “because it is”. I’m sure you don’t play by this rule in other parts of your life.

Third, Dawkins and his mates need to address this if they are to convince people such as myself. I would see my worldview as better than his — e.g. it has better explanatory power — and will continue to do so while his worldview continues to be so inadequate.

Why do you not go around worrying whether the bible was planted on earth by an extra-terrestrial pentruped named Sam?

As I pointed out in my post above, ultimately we all take everything by faith — including Richard Dawkins. As I understand it, ultimate reality begins with the Biblical God (ontology). This is the bedrock upon which all else is built. God creates the world and us and reveals this story thru the Scriptures which we take via a step of faith. This step of faith provides us with an epistemic basis for understanding the nature of the world. (Of course, if the Bible did not correspond with reality, then it would be a poor epistemic basis.)

Dawkins and co of course make a similar step of faith, but it is much shallower and has much poorer ability to explain reality as you show above.

There is a very interesting set of MP3 lectures (3 I think, possibly on epistemology) at www.bethinking.org by a chap from Labri (think: Francis Schaeffer) who takes a similar line to mine above but ties it in to the philosophies of Plato versus Aristotle. It is quite hard going but very very thought provoking (and I think sensible). Essentially, Plato starts with faith and gains certainly while Aristotle begins (like Descartes) with reason and ends up losng all certainty!

This could be the MP3 lectures here:

http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/epistemology-what-is-it-to-know-part-1-of-3.htm

Andrew Fellows is the lecturer, and his full lecture set is here:

http://www.bethinking.org/search/author/Andrew%20Fellows

Rob,

I’m not sure what science you mean when you say that so much of science is not empirical. I’m surprised! please expand.
Mathematics is empirical, though, Rob. How do you think it came about? We invented it to describe our world, just as we do in science.

I think you misunderstand me on Bnonn’s lack of empathy of naturalism. Bnonn claims they don’t start with epistemology at all. They do. They claim that only natural explanations are sensible and he claims that the bible is the word of god. These are both epistemological claims. But Bnonn can’t see that the naturalsit claim is epistemological, just as he can’t see the exact same problems in his own. Indeed, he nicely mirrors the naivete of Dawkins in his statement that they just assume everything that they seek to prove. Dawkins would say the same of theism.

You are right to point out that I am question-begging as follows. Bnonn wants to think that there is a Platonic ideal called ‘regular’ floating somewhere out there and that we can compare the world to. There isn’t (indeed I think THIS is the philosophically naive view by today’s standards). The words ‘regular’ and ‘world’ are parasitic off one another. When we talk of the ‘world’ we mean the observable world that is ‘regular’. There has never been an ‘irregularity’ that we know is forever unknowable. In fact the real question is, how on earth do you test if the world is irregular?! How do we know which observable phenomena, if any, are unknowable as opposed to just being unknown presently?
Don’t get me wrong I understand why you find your worldview more satisfying but I just think that you can’t see the flaw:

For example take your statement “As I pointed out in my post above, ultimately we all take everything by faith — including Richard Dawkins.
………..
Dawkins and co of course make a similar step of faith, but it is much shallower and has much poorer ability to explain reality as you show above.”

This is completely contradictory. You rightly claim that, ultimately, we all take something as a given/by faith. But then you go on to COMPARE STEPS OF FAITH!! This is absurd. It is like saying…..well, it’s like saying exactly what you have just said! You have just claimed that “we all take steps of faith(as opposed to reason), but my step of faith is better because….[and you give a reason]“ !!!
Do you understand what I’m saying here? I do realise that you may want to play a “faith based on evidence”-esque card here. But, well, the naturalist can claim the same; that he has faith that naturalism explains everything, and he bases this faith on evidence.
This is the problem at the heart of your(pl) worldviews. You criticise naturalists for just taking things on faith; as given, and then think that it is somehow so much more erudite and wise to postulate unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities (to formulate an erudite and wise explanation) which you then have to take on faith anyway!
Cut out the middle man, dude! Lol. We’re both physicists. If a person claimed that there were invisible, undetectable monkeys flying round everywhere pushing all the atoms to make them do what they do you’d think they were insane. But what would you do if they claimed that the regular physics story was vacuous: “how do you know why the atoms move by the rules that they do, I have a much superior explanation as to why: monkeys!” The only thing to fall back on is verification, falsification. It is simply absurd to postulate undetectable monkeys to explain why the laws of physics are as they are. Besides, it only pushes the problem on: whence the monkeys? You would of course want to know why monkeys solve a problem at all; how they sensibly explain physics. But what disturbs me the most is that there is a real life situation thousands of times more challenging to you than these monkeys with a how story almost identical to your own. Other religions. Not only do they have a fully crystallised metaphysical explanation for things – as opposed to invisible monkeys – but their explanations look almost exactly like your own!

[...] case came to mind recently when reading a post by Rob at Thinking Matters (a local Christian Apologetics site). He describes how as a science [...]

Simon, I’m just commenting to let you know that I’ve been following your conversations and I love your clarity in an area where obfuscation typically seems to be an art. Do you have a blog of your own or any recommended sites or other reading?

Thanks Damian!

No I don’t have my own blog or anything, though I do participate spasmodically but in a determined fashon at http://www.freeratio.org/

I’m gonna check out your site, too!

cheers,
s