Inspired by the Atheism Thread

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I think we can all agree that, in general, people don't believe things without due evidence. Theists, however, make an exception for their religion. They rationalize this exception, of course, but under scrutiny, they really have no reason to believe in their religion other than that they want to. I think it's this inconsistency of critical thinking that people often label as "illogical." I prefer to use the term "unreasonable," since "logic" has a specific meaning to me, as a mathematician...

I think that theists do believe things with due evidence. Their notion of what constitutes "due" with respect to evidence is different than yours. That's the point.

If nothing else, he's not an evolutionary psychologist, so that's a strawman. Now, it may very well be that you're just as disinterested in evolutionary biology but say that rather than to dismiss something no one has brought up.

For the record, Dawkins is very fair in his arguments and does not prey on misunderstandings. He's not like Hitchens, whose arguments are often as specious as his theist opponent's. The only reason Hitchens has a career is because he's so funny. He's a witty and vocal atheist writer but not a fair debater...

How did you develop your view of Richard Dawkins? Simply because he's smug?

Perhaps I misspoke. I just assumed he was working from an evolutionary psychologist perspective. Either way biology or psychology, neither is particularly interesting to me from an evolutionary standpoint.

I don't care for him based on different interviews I've read and the way he is represented by his acolytes. I'm open to the notion that he could actually be quite a peach.

As always, I have great trouble understanding what the hell roachboy is saying but I'm pretty sure that this is not an endorsement for religion. Now, I understand that filtherton is not looking to endorse religion but I don't understand what he's thanking roachboy for...

Well, you'll have to reread what roachboy wrote, because he put it better and more succinctly than I have been able to.

The claim wasn't that Dawkins' asshole behaviour makes him "more right." Whether Dawkins is correct is independent of his demeanor. I've never understood why people dismiss the arguments of people they dislike, personally. These people are cutting off a world of information based on personal whims. It's simply stupid...

I could come up with a version of "The Courtesan's Reply" here, but since that's bullshit, I'll refrain.

Of course his accuracy exists discretely from his demeanor. I don't dismiss his arguments, I don't even know what his arguments are, aside from the few articles I've read or how his arguments are distilled through his followers. Unless he's talking directly to me, I don't care what he thinks.

Let me repeat that. I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks, I didn't bring him up here, the AWOL Mr. Rotten did. When he did, I replied:

Originally Posted by filtherton

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.

Now, obviously I was mistaken in pegging Dawkins as an evolutionary psychologist. Aside from that, if you swap psychologist for biologist, I would sign off on it.

I don't care about Dawkins' perspective on atheism in the same way that I don't care about David Berlinski's perspective on evolution (though I did read his book on calculus and his book on notable historical mathematicians, they were both pretty good.)

Whatever disagreement you have with Dawkins, his views on what science is happens to coincide with scientists' views on science. Seriously, sceintists share a very particular view on what science is and, in this sense, Dawkins can be said to be right. With what are you disagreeing, in particular?

I don't know how many scientists you've interacted with. I haven't really interacted all that closely with too many of them, though I spend a good deal of time with them. As someone who has had a couple years of scientific training, I know how I view science, and I don't know that you or Mr. Dawkins are in any position to validate or invalidate my relationship with science or capacity as a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the actual doing of science, debate about the relative merits of atheism vs. theism are irrelevant.

I don't believe in god, and I used to believe that science would provide me with the truth. The more I know about science, the less that seems to be the case. I recognize science as a powerful tool, but I don't expect science to be able to satisfy my curiosity in any sort of lasting way, and I don't begrudge people who go one step further and fill in the blanks themselves, provided they aren't telling me what to do.

It has been my experience that there is a pretty wide range of theistic belief amongst scientists, from atheists all the way to evangelicals. Many of them seem perfectly capable of being good people and good scientists regardless of whether they subscribe to a belief in god.

Of the little that I know of Dawkins, the only thing I can think of where I disagree with him specifically (everything else could just be some shit some of his acolytes have told me) is that I disagree with the idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Science is only good for evaluating a subset of reality; it isn't the only means by which one can or should make sense of the world.

And if this has been kind of rambly, well, we're all adults here, deal with it.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that theists do believe things with due evidence. Their notion of what constitutes "due" with respect to evidence is different than yours. That's the point.

Okay, I know what you mean. They look at "creation" and know that there is a god while I find this unsatisfactory evidence.

For instance, I recognize the Bible asserting its own truth as circular logic and, thus, uncompelling. However, those unfamiliar with formal logic won't recognize this as a flaw of reasoning and may very well accept the Bible's own testimony of its events as evidence...

The solution seems simple. Educate people on the rules of logic (and other forms of reasoning that they already adhere to) and get them to apply it to their own religion. This education is quite easy if, instead of applying it to their religion, you apply it to some other religion. However, the instant you try to turn these mental tools to their religion, that's when their critical thinking skills suddenly shut off and the ignorant rationalizations start up again.

Logic is great for mathematics, reason is great for science and both are great tools for debunking other people's religion. However, no one seems to think that these tools should be applied to their own religion and that's the exception of which I speak...

Well, you'll have to reread what roachboy wrote, because he put it better and more succinctly than I have been able to.

Okay, after much work, I think I am now able to see what he's trying to say but I swear that his sentences are badly malformed...

I could come up with a version of "The Courtesan's Reply" here, but since that's bullshit, I'll refrain.

I've never heard of this. Is it interesting?

Of course his accuracy exists discretely from his demeanor. I don't dismiss his arguments, I don't even know what his arguments are, aside from the few articles I've read or how his arguments are distilled through his followers. Unless he's talking directly to me, I don't care what he thinks.

Let me repeat that. I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks, I didn't bring him up here, the AWOL Mr. Rotten did. When he did, I replied:

While Johnny Rotten likely brought him up 'cause he didn't want to defend his views, himself, he clearly feels that Richard Dawkins can express his views better than he can. In the same way you felt that roachboy stated your view better than you did (although I still find his writing unreadable!), he feels the same way about Dawkins.

In short, I think what Johnny Rotten was saying is that if you care what he thinks (and I'm not saying that you do!) then you should read Dawkins' book...

I don't know how many scientists you've interacted with. I haven't really interacted all that closely with too many of them, though I spend a good deal of time with them. As someone who has had a couple years of scientific training, I know how I view science, and I don't know that you or Mr. Dawkins are in any position to validate or invalidate my relationship with science or capacity as a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the actual doing of science, debate about the relative merits of atheism vs. theism are irrelevant.

I agree, one's theism or lack, thereof, has little bearing on how one does science, unless one chooses to make it so. There are plenty of excellent, theistic scientists...

I'm not sure why you're saying this. I was saying that Dawkins knows what science is. What's all this about atheism vs. theism?

I don't believe in god, and I used to believe that science would provide me with the truth. The more I know about science, the less that seems to be the case. I recognize science as a powerful tool, but I don't expect science to be able to satisfy my curiosity in any sort of lasting way, and I don't begrudge people who go one step further and fill in the blanks themselves, provided they aren't telling me what to do.

If you don't mind my saying, I think you had a rather naive view of science. What satisfies your curiosity now, if anything?

It has been my experience that there is a pretty wide range of theistic belief amongst scientists, from atheists all the way to evangelicals. Many of them seem perfectly capable of being good people and good scientists regardless of whether they subscribe to a belief in god.

I agree. One of my favourite scientists working today is... Roman Catholic!

Having said that, most scientists are atheists. The vast majority of the top scientists in the western world (such as members of The National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society) are athiests. Of course, this is correlation and not causation...

Of the little that I know of Dawkins, the only thing I can think of where I disagree with him specifically (everything else could just be some shit some of his acolytes have told me) is that I disagree with the idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Science is only good for evaluating a subset of reality; it isn't the only means by which one can or should make sense of the world.

Many of the claims you make here are contingent on our use of terms...

Claims of vague deism are not falsifiable and, thus, not scientific hypotheses. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this statement. However, some religions, like Fundamental Christianity, are falsifiable. Basically, any religion that makes factual claims is a scientific hypothesis like any other. The Earth is older than 10,000 years. If your religion relies on that then your religion is simply wrong!

I think science is good for evaluating the whole of reality but I work with a rather stringent definition of the term. For instance, whether Iron Man is a good movie or not is not an aspect of reality and, thus, is not somethig that can be evaluated scientifically.

And if this has been kind of rambly, well, we're all adults here, deal with it.

Hey, where else may one ramble if not here? I think of web forums as modern day soap boxes...

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I find the points of your arguments less than compelling, because they don't really seem like points. As far as I can tell, your "points" consist of not much more than expressions of incredulity.

Did you know:

Atheism existed before Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it?
Many people don't need a book to tell them why atheism is right for them?
The reasons that Richard Dawkins is an atheist do not comprise the entire set of reasons that people are atheists?

It seems to me like you're treating "The God Delusion" like some sort of bible, which is dumb. That's the thing that's nice about not believing in god, you don't need a bible.

Yes, its popularity began with Sartre around the turn of the century, before which it was fringey philosophy.

As for the rest of your comments, I can't really address them since they don't apply to this book. If you refuse to so much to skim the jacket copy, I refuse to discuss its content or character any further, except to say that you miss the mark, and your attempts to imply emotional connection to it are clumsy and unnecessary.

You know, I asked you to point out my strawmen, so until you can, perhaps you should refrain from mentioning them.

They're obvious enough for me. I don't feel the need to prove them to you. It's enough for me that they enlighten my understanding of your manner of discussion. Besides, if I pointed them out, the discussion would spiral into what constitutes a straw man. I'd rather focus on other things.

Sounds like a cop out. Dawkins influential? All the atheists I know were atheists before Dawkins cashed in on the apparently large number of atheists who require some sort of intellectual handholding to justify their atheism. If Dawkins convinced you to be an atheist, that's fine, but you're being just a tad foolish if you think that Dawkins is the reason that most atheists are atheists. He is probably the reason that most people think atheists are assholes, though.

Once again, you're attempting to attach things to my argument that I'm not saying, while also flatly denying probable claims. Again, I recommend you read some of the material, because there's really no need to make these dismissive speculations. You can simply read the material and decide for yourself.

What appears to be bothering you is that you don't know where I stand on the issue, so you don't know how to respond effectively. For you, a person's take on the subject seems to be incredibly relevant to the accuracy of their statements. I choose to separate the argument from my viewpoint.

My viewpoint is that faith is incompatible with reason. This viewpoint is informed by people like Dawkins. You are unfamiliar with his work, and apparently proudly so. That sounds like an impasse to me.

[roachboy]

knifemissle:

Okay, after much work, I think I am now able to see what he's trying to say but I swear that his sentences are badly malformed...

my sentences are rarely malformed.

if you want to say something about an argument that i made just do it.

johnny

this

Yes, its popularity began with Sartre around the turn of the century, before which it was fringey philosophy.

is hopelessly mangled. i don't think it's central to your argument so i'll just leave it at that.

[sapiens]

On topic, but not necessarily following the current argument, I enjoyed J. L. Mackie's description of the historical arguments for and against theism in his book, The Miracle of Theism. It has been awhile, but if I recall correctly, he doesn't spend much time maligning one side or the other. He just attempts to characterize the arguments.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Okay, I know what you mean. They look at "creation" and know that there is a god while I find this unsatisfactory evidence.

For instance, I recognize the Bible asserting its own truth as circular logic and, thus, uncompelling. However, those unfamiliar with formal logic won't recognize this as a flaw of reasoning and may very well accept the Bible's own testimony of its events as evidence...

I think that anyone familiar with formal logic will find any logical system is doomed to incompleteness or inconsistency. One need not be religious to put too much faith in logic.

This isn't to say that logic isn't useful, just that it is what it is.

The solution seems simple. Educate people on the rules of logic (and other forms of reasoning that they already adhere to) and get them to apply it to their own religion. This education is quite easy if, instead of applying it to their religion, you apply it to some other religion. However, the instant you try to turn these mental tools to their religion, that's when their critical thinking skills suddenly shut off and the ignorant rationalizations start up again.

Logic is great for mathematics, reason is great for science and both are great tools for debunking other people's religion. However, no one seems to think that these tools should be applied to their own religion and that's the exception of which I speak...

Well, yes, but I would include the belief in logic in there as one of those religions, provided of course that one has deified logic.

Okay, after much work, I think I am now able to see what he's trying to say but I swear that his sentences are badly malformed...

His style does take some getting used to, but once you do it can be pretty rewarding.

I've never heard of this. Is it interesting?

It's an interesting way of claiming that one need not understand the intricacies of that which one criticizes if one rejects its general conclusions. It's a way of rationalizing the apparently underwhelming scope of Dawkins' understandings of religious belief.

While Johnny Rotten likely brought him up 'cause he didn't want to defend his views, himself, he clearly feels that Richard Dawkins can express his views better than he can. In the same way you felt that roachboy stated your view better than you did (although I still find his writing unreadable!), he feels the same way about Dawkins.

In short, I think what Johnny Rotten was saying is that if you care what he thinks (and I'm not saying that you do!) then you should read Dawkins' book...

I see what you're saying, but roachboy's post is actually here, in the thread. Also, I think you'd find that if you pressured me a bit more I might be inclined to explain my interpretation of roachboy's post, whereas Johnny Rotten won't explain his interpretations of Dawkins at all.

I'm not sure why you're saying this. I was saying that Dawkins knows what science is. What's all this about atheism vs. theism?

Perhaps my response is more attributable to the fact that I infer much of my information about Dawkins from the things the people who are into him say. In retrospect, it isn't necessarily a very good way to get an accurate idea of the claims he's actually made.

If you don't mind my saying, I think you had a rather naive view of science. What satisfies your curiosity now, if anything?

It was pretty naive, and seemingly all too common. Science still satisfies my curiosity to a limited extent; it's just satisfaction that is immediately followed by apathy or more curiosity depending on whether I'm interested in getting further into whatever I happen to be studying. When I got into it, I wasn't expecting a neverending chain of whys. It required a slight mental adjustment.

Many of the claims you make here are contingent on our use of terms...

Claims of vague deism are not falsifiable and, thus, not scientific hypotheses. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this statement. However, some religions, like Fundamental Christianity, are falsifiable. Basically, any religion that makes factual claims is a scientific hypothesis like any other. The Earth is older than 10,000 years. If your religion relies on that then your religion is simply wrong!

I think science is good for evaluating the whole of reality but I work with a rather stringent definition of the term. For instance, whether Iron Man is a good movie or not is not an aspect of reality and, thus, is not somethig that can be evaluated scientifically.

I know what you're saying; it's difficult to reconcile young earth creationism with the fossil record without turning your god into a trickster. That being said, if one is inclined to go that route, to claim that god planted fossils to trick us is not falsifiable, despite how far-fetched.

I think the logic of religion is interesting in that its axioms are frequently created and modified based on the conclusions one hopes to draw from them. It's a very cart before the horse kind of thing. It isn't always a bad way of doing things, though. It seems like there is a fair amount of philosophical musing that uses logic in the very same way. It isn't generally a good way to carry out science, but then again, I think it is only a confused and insecure theist who would claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

Yes, its popularity began with Sartre around the turn of the century, before which it was fringey philosophy.

As for the rest of your comments, I can't really address them since they don't apply to this book. If you refuse to so much to skim the jacket copy, I refuse to discuss its content or character any further, except to say that you miss the mark, and your attempts to imply emotional connection to it are clumsy and unnecessary.

I read the wikipedia page on it. I'm sorry you brought it up. Clearly you think atheism can't be discussed without using it as a reference, and though millions of tfp philosophy board threads might be proof otherwise you seem unconvinced.

That being said, I can't quite make out why we're still talking here, you and I. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to read the book, for reason which I have stated over and over again.

They're obvious enough for me. I don't feel the need to prove them to you. It's enough for me that they enlighten my understanding of your manner of discussion. Besides, if I pointed them out, the discussion would spiral into what constitutes a straw man. I'd rather focus on other things.

Let's focus on the straw man of why having read The God Delusion is now a prerequisite for talking about atheism. Now, I don't want the discussion to get bogged down in discussions about whether this actually is a straw man or not, because that's not the point. The point is, apparently, that one cannot discuss atheism without having first read The God Delusion.

Once again, you're attempting to attach things to my argument that I'm not saying, while also flatly denying probable claims. Again, I recommend you read some of the material, because there's really no need to make these dismissive speculations. You can simply read the material and decide for yourself.

What appears to be bothering you is that you don't know where I stand on the issue, so you don't know how to respond effectively. For you, a person's take on the subject seems to be incredibly relevant to the accuracy of their statements. I choose to separate the argument from my viewpoint.

Okay, well here's what I originally responded to:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

Well, atheism is not a leap of faith. It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon. It is the opposite of faith.

I said that there were, in my experience, plenty of people for whom your definition of atheism clearly didn't apply. I also said something about logic not necessarily being all that it was cracked up to be.

To which you essentially seemed to claim the it didn't matter why people were atheists, because atheism is essentially a conclusion of logic based on etc... Nevermind that you seemed to claim that atheism is defined independently from how it exists in reality.

You then said that the universe does, in fact, behave logically, a point with which I never disagreed.

When I pointed out that there does exist evidence to support theistic ideas and acknowledged that it doesn't in any way conform to scientific standards of evidence, instead of responding with any sort of rebuttal you said something to the effect of "but I just said that that wasn't the case." Indeed you had just said that, and apparently when you say things they are final.

Then, you said that it was ridiculous to separate science and logic. What you must have meant was that you find it philosophically unacceptable to separate science and logic. That's your prerogative. I disagree.

Onward from there, things spiral further out of control. If we are being so inclusive about labeling straw men, it should be pointed out that there was no shortage of them coming from you.

My viewpoint is that faith is incompatible with reason. This viewpoint is informed by people like Dawkins. You are unfamiliar with his work, and apparently proudly so. That sounds like an impasse to me.

Let's start over then. Faith is incompatible with reason, why do you feel this way?

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that anyone familiar with formal logic will find any logical system is doomed to incompleteness or inconsistency. One need not be religious to put too much faith in logic.

This isn't to say that logic isn't useful, just that it is what it is.

It depends on what you mean by "too much faith." Are we placing too much faith into a hammer because we think we can use it to plant nails into wood?

You cannot use logic to construct answers to all your questions but you can certainly use it to weed out fallacious thinking. Can you clarify your point, here?

Well, yes, but I would include the belief in logic in there as one of those religions, provided of course that one has deified logic.

Oh, are we going the "it's a religion, too!" route? Really?

It should be noted that very few people, religious or otherwise, believe that they are being illogical. If theists said "yes, I know what I believe makes no sense but I want to believe it, anyway" then I would have little problem with that. It's that they believe their position is, somehow, reasonable and is worthy of being enforced upon me that's the problem...

Logic simply works. Calling logic a religion is like calling physics a religion...

It's an interesting way of claiming that one need not understand the intricacies of that which one criticizes if one rejects its general conclusions. It's a way of rationalizing the apparently underwhelming scope of Dawkins' understandings of religious belief.

Context would be important, here. For instance, if your conclusion is outrageous and I can find a false premise in your argument, I think I can safely disregard your argument without understanding the rest of it...

Perhaps my response is more attributable to the fact that I infer much of my information about Dawkins from the things the people who are into him say. In retrospect, it isn't necessarily a very good way to get an accurate idea of the claims he's actually made.

In my experience, people have their own opinions and use famous, credible people who somewhat share their opinion to bolster their own, even if those opinions differ subtley...

It was pretty naive, and seemingly all too common. Science still satisfies my curiosity to a limited extent; it's just satisfaction that is immediately followed by apathy or more curiosity depending on whether I'm interested in getting further into whatever I happen to be studying. When I got into it, I wasn't expecting a neverending chain of whys. It required a slight mental adjustment.

It's easy to make false generalizations of things we don't understand. It's obvious how much science affects our lives despite how little people understand what science is. Combine this with the simple fact that most people don't really need to know, exactly, how science works and you'll create a common misconception...

I know what you're saying; it's difficult to reconcile young earth creationism with the fossil record without turning your god into a trickster. That being said, if one is inclined to go that route, to claim that god planted fossils to trick us is not falsifiable, despite how far-fetched.

If your hypotheses are not falsifiable then, arguably, they are not statements of reality. Again, we are back to our use of terms...

If you're going to state that your religion somehow reflects reality then, by my terms, it is subject to scientific inquiry.

Regardless, creationists do not claim to worship a trickster god planting evidence so their religion remains scientifically disprovable...

I think the logic of religion is interesting in that its axioms are frequently created and modified based on the conclusions one hopes to draw from them. It's a very cart before the horse kind of thing. It isn't always a bad way of doing things, though. It seems like there is a fair amount of philosophical musing that uses logic in the very same way. It isn't generally a good way to carry out science, but then again, I think it is only a confused and insecure theist who would claim otherwise.

In other words, religion is the rationalization of what one wants. I don't find this interesting...

Incidentally, by your criteria, there are a awful lot of confused and insecure theists out there...

Originally Posted by roachboy

my sentences are rarely malformed.

Oh, this is going to be difficult to explain but I suppose that you deserve an explanation.

Let me give you a trivial example...

if you want to say something about an argument that i made just do it.

First of all, I don't have anything to say about your argument or I would simply have said so. I really only had something to say about how you state your arguments because I do want to know what the hell you're saying and you don't make it easy.

For instance, this paragraph would be more clearly written as "if you want to say something about an argument that i made then just do it." While I was able to discern your meaning with little difficulty, it is still malformed.

More seriously, take this sentence for example:

this doesn't mean that anything goes, that rigor doesn't matter in games that call for rigor--but it does mean that there are fundamental dimensions of being that you don't know about---but not knowing does not require that you therefore go running to a god to enable you to pretend that at some level or another the situation is otherwise any more than it should prompt you to make ludicrous claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

Ignoring your bizarre use of dashes, let me remove the qualifiers of the sentence after the last use of dashes to get to the central point.

Not knowing does not require that you go running to a god to enable you to pretend that the situation is any more than it should prompt you to make claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

The bold is what I think may be the source of confusion. I understand the part about claims of what logic can do. I understand that "not knowing" (ignorance) does not require God. What I fail to understand is how you're relating the two sentence fragments. Religion enables you to pretend that the situation is... what? That it is any more than... it should prompt you to do something? Does that make sense to you? What is "it" in "it should prompt you to?"

I cannot parse this sentence and I hope you can see why. This is a good example of how I view all your sentences. I simply don't understand what you're saying and this happens with astounding consistency...

I am complaining because, based on the few fragments I can discern, you actually understand some subtle points and I honestly wish I knew what the hell you're saying!

[roachboy]

knifemissle:

thanks for that.

first a little explanation: i started playing at tfp mostly as a device to get myself away from writing in an academic style, which i had more or less forgotten how to do--i don't know when exactly--all i know is that i remember reading something i wrote a few years ago and not recognizing anything about myself in it at all. this did not please me.

so when i started here, i adopted a couple style tics to force myself out of it.
for some reason, they've become characteristics of how i write on the board.
i write in a different mode in the journal--more precise (probably more hermetic, too)
another feature is that i write very fast because i'm generally wedging this in between other things.

and i don't post to philo that often because i find it frustrating.
it's difficult to say much.

one of the tics was the use of dashes to separate clauses or fragments. i use them to switch register alot within the same sentence. i figure that i can make sentences do more or less what i want that way. there's a conceptual game that interests me which centers on playing around with sentence structures. so even though i am not playing them here, i've trained myself to work through that game. it seems to have eaten its way into how i think.

that i don't use caps follows from the same basic idea--it was a device to push myself off writing in an academic mode initially, a way of marking this as another space, another type of writing. now it's just a habit specific to this place.

your parsing of my sentence is curious: i meant the whole thing as a continuous move and it doesn't really reduce in the way you posited. the original makes more sense to me if you read the whole thing as a continuity rather than break it up by seeing it as fragments.

but it does help me see why you (and maybe others) have trouble with the style. which seems clear to me.

i'm not sure about changing the approach, particularly not to this particular forum. i'm thinking about it for clarity's sake, but at the same time i suspect that if i push much away from this informal type of writing, i won't be inclined to post here. this is a very very constricting and constricted format to do much with beyond cite things and make little comments.
not much room for argument or variations, i find.
plus i don't particularly feel like loading in a frame of reference that has no particular standing in the community. so i don't.

thanks for the post, though.
i'm thinking about it.

[KnifeMissile]

I don't want to "harsh your mellow," roachboy. The forum is here for your entertainment as much as it is mine. I have no idea why you're so determined to break away from "academic writing" but, if that's your goal, let me assure you that you're achieving it!

[roachboy]

i am breaking away from it because i don't find it a particularly interesting way to run conceptual games or to explore philosophical problems.
it's far from useless...it's just not the most interesting way to do it.
the difference between doing philo and talking about it is mostly a register shift.
there's a long explanation for this, but i'll leave it at that.
and it doesn't apply to this space, which is a parlor game.

my zen-like state is rarely perturbed:

i just decided to say something about why things are as they are within my little boxes, make a box inside the box.

[Willravel]

I'll marsh your mallow.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

It depends on what you mean by "too much faith." Are we placing too much faith into a hammer because we think we can use it to plant nails into wood?

You cannot use logic to construct answers to all your questions but you can certainly use it to weed out fallacious thinking. Can you clarify your point, here?

I agree with what you said here, if that's any clarification. Maybe "too much faith" is the wrong way to put it. How would you describe someone who thinks that hammers only work on one kind of nail?

Oh, are we going the "it's a religion, too!" route? Really?

It should be noted that very few people, religious or otherwise, believe that they are being illogical. If theists said "yes, I know what I believe makes no sense but I want to believe it, anyway" then I would have little problem with that. It's that they believe their position is, somehow, reasonable and is worthy of being enforced upon me that's the problem...

Logic simply works. Calling logic a religion is like calling physics a religion...

I'm working from the premise that anything, when pursued religiously, can become a religion. If you'd prefer a different term, let me know.

Do you see anything problematic with making the claim "very few people believe that they are being illogical' and then following it up by lamenting the people whose logic doesn't line up with yours? What makes you so sure that you aren't one of the folks who isn't erroneously presuming to be behaving logically?

That's my point. I agree with you that logic does simply work, and there is nothing religious in how it does its thing. The religious aspect comes in when certain folks co-opt the word "logic" as a means of attempting to justify purely philosophical preferences. To paraphrase atheism as the pinnacle of logic: "Oooh la la, look at me, it's not that I prefer my perspective to be based on scientifically verifiable information, it's that I'm, like, so logical about everything."

The claim is often made in these discussions that atheists are right because they are logical and that religious folk are wrong because they aren't logical. It is also true that ensuing discussions of what logic actually is show a rather wide divide between the people who think its relevant and the people who don't. In any case, if one defines the word "logical" as being "any position which agrees with mine" (which seems to be an implicit belief in the "theism is wrong because it is illogical" perspective) then one is using logic in a religious sense.

And whether you feel oppressed by religious folk is irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. Some folk might call it a straw man.

Context would be important, here. For instance, if your conclusion is outrageous and I can find a false premise in your argument, I think I can safely disregard your argument without understanding the rest of it...

From my understanding, Dawkins quotes religious ideas to discredit them, but in doing so fails to show an adequate understanding of their significance. Whether his general criticisms of theism are correct or not, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by overstating the case.

I think it extends from a common mistake in criticisms of theism, in that it attempts to discredit theism in general by discrediting how it is practiced by certain groups. If one's goal is to discredit theism in general, it seems like it should be of little practical value to discredit a subset of people who practice it.

In my experience, people have their own opinions and use famous, credible people who somewhat share their opinion to bolster their own, even if those opinions differ subtley...

Makes me glad I'm not a famous intellectual, though if you read the works of Carl Friedrich Gauss, Richard Feynman, or Euler you kind of get a good idea where I'm coming from.

It's easy to make false generalizations of things we don't understand. It's obvious how much science affects our lives despite how little people understand what science is. Combine this with the simple fact that most people don't really need to know, exactly, how science works and you'll create a common misconception...

I know. Anyone who gets their science from the Discovery Channel doesn't know the half.

If your hypotheses are not falsifiable then, arguably, they are not statements of reality. Again, we are back to our use of terms...

If you're going to state that your religion somehow reflects reality then, by my terms, it is subject to scientific inquiry.

Regardless, creationists do not claim to worship a trickster god planting evidence so their religion remains scientifically disprovable...

Certainly there are some religious claims which can be verified through scientific means. Science can readily verify that god isn't a visible three foot tall hobgoblin that perches on George Bush's head during press conferences.

There are limitations to what science can say, however, and theism thrives just beyond these limitations. So while it may be right to claim that by making certain claims, some religious statements naturally avail themselves to scientific inquiry, the idea that all religious statements about reality can be subjugated by scientific inquiry isn't itself all that well reflected in reality.

It is difficult to devise an experiment to reveal the nature of an omnipotent being who doesn't necessarily want its nature revealed. As far as debunking the central ideas of theism directly, science is useless because as far as the scientific process is concerned, theism doesn't play fair.

And I'm pretty sure that there are some creationists who do believe that their god planted evidence.

In other words, religion is the rationalization of what one wants. I don't find this interesting...

I'm fairly certain that everyone's reality is in some respects a rationalization of what one wants. That being said, your particular interest in the nature of religion is immaterial here; not to be flip, but it isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about.

Incidentally, by your criteria, there are a awful lot of confused and insecure theists out there...

I won't argue with this, though I would extend recognition to humanity in general. Make the claim that religion is rational and you get a pretty good idea about the number of confused and insecure logicians...

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I agree with what you said here, if that's any clarification. Maybe "too much faith" is the wrong way to put it. How would you describe someone who thinks that hammers only work on one kind of nail?

Are you sure that's what you're trying to say? I thought you were trying to describe someone who thinks that hammers can drill screws into wood...

My claim is that people don't think critically of their own beliefs. They asymetrically apply reason to other people's beliefs and not their own. It sounded like your rebuttal is that logic and reason can only do so much and we're forced to be stupid. Before I attack a strawman, let me ask you: what were you trying to say?

I'm working from the premise that anything, when pursued religiously, can become a religion. If you'd prefer a different term, let me know.

The word you're looking for is probably "dogma." Something that is followed blindly. Of course, logic isn't dogma...

Do you see anything problematic with making the claim "very few people believe that they are being illogical' and then following it up by lamenting the people whose logic doesn't line up with yours? What makes you so sure that you aren't one of the folks who isn't erroneously presuming to be behaving logically?

That's my point. I agree with you that logic does simply work, and there is nothing religious in how it does its thing. The religious aspect comes in when certain folks co-opt the word "logic" as a means of attempting to justify purely philosophical preferences. To paraphrase atheism as the pinnacle of logic: "Oooh la la, look at me, it's not that I prefer my perspective to be based on scientifically verifiable information, it's that I'm, like, so logical about everything."

The claim is often made in these discussions that atheists are right because they are logical and that religious folk are wrong because they aren't logical. It is also true that ensuing discussions of what logic actually is show a rather wide divide between the people who think its relevant and the people who don't. In any case, if one defines the word "logical" as being "any position which agrees with mine" (which seems to be an implicit belief in the "theism is wrong because it is illogical" perspective) then one is using logic in a religious sense.

Honestly, do you see me doing this?

I've already stated that people have used the word "logic" colloquially and that it has a literal meaning that I often refer to as "formal logic." I've already stated that I prefer to use the term "reason" because what people use to rebut religion is not logic in the strictest sense. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?

For the record, I haven't co-opted the word "logic." My complaint is that people are not applying due critical analysis. They are willing to use logic and reason on anything except what they want to believe. My atheism is not just a philosophical stance, it's also a practical one. It's not just a "preference," like whether you enjoy chocolate or not. It's a claim that can and should be debated just like any in politics and it's just as important, too...

And whether you feel oppressed by religious folk is irrelevant to anything I'm talking about. Some folk might call it a straw man.

Only the ones that don't understand what strawmen are. For it to be a "strawman," I must claim that what you're saying is that religion is oppressing me and then attack that oppression. Of course, I'm not doing that...

It's an expression of what I dislike about religion. Specifically, the state of religious affairs in the US right now. It's actually a bit of personal hyperbole since I'm not in the US right now but I feel for the American people who have to suffer through that nonesense! ...and I suppose I like to debate on webforums...

From my understanding, Dawkins quotes religious ideas to discredit them, but in doing so fails to show an adequate understanding of their significance. Whether his general criticisms of theism are correct or not, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by overstating the case.

If you're going to hold opinions or make claims about Richard Dawkins, you should probably have actually seen or read his material. Otherwise, you really are just attacking a strawman.

Here's a thread on one of his Q&As in Lynchburg, no less. My opinions have changed somewhat since I made that thread so don't take them too seriously...

I think it extends from a common mistake in criticisms of theism, in that it attempts to discredit theism in general by discrediting how it is practiced by certain groups. If one's goal is to discredit theism in general, it seems like it should be of little practical value to discredit a subset of people who practice it.

This is simply a conflation of issues and it's perfectly understandable. You can debate theism from strictly a philosophical standpoint or you can debate its practice and effects on our society. The latter is much more interesting, to me, than the former. Indeed, I think, for most people, this is the central issue. Of course, discrediting religion in general will help discredit it in the specific case so that's what often happens. I really do think that what people do because of religion is the important issue...

Certainly there are some religious claims which can be verified through scientific means. Science can readily verify that god isn't a visible three foot tall hobgoblin that perches on George Bush's head during press conferences.

There are limitations to what science can say, however, and theism thrives just beyond these limitations. So while it may be right to claim that by making certain claims, some religious statements naturally avail themselves to scientific inquiry, the idea that all religious statements about reality can be subjugated by scientific inquiry isn't itself all that well reflected in reality.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "reality." Remember my criteria? Is "Iron Man is a good movie!" a statement of reality?

It is difficult to devise an experiment to reveal the nature of an omnipotent being who doesn't necessarily want its nature revealed. As far as debunking the central ideas of theism directly, science is useless because as far as the scientific process is concerned, theism doesn't play fair.

It's not that theism doesn't play fair, it's that it doesn't seem to play at all!

And I'm pretty sure that there are some creationists who do believe that their god planted evidence.

Trust me, they are fringe creastionists!

I'm fairly certain that everyone's reality is in some respects a rationalization of what one wants. That being said, your particular interest in the nature of religion is immaterial here; not to be flip, but it isn't relevant to anything I'm talking about.

Oh, but you are being flip. My interest is, indeed, relevant since you have chosen to speak about this with... me...

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Are you sure that's what you're trying to say? I thought you were trying to describe someone who thinks that hammers can drill screws into wood...

My claim is that people don't think critically of their own beliefs. They asymetrically apply reason to other people's beliefs and not their own. It sounded like your rebuttal is that logic and reason can only do so much and we're forced to be stupid. Before I attack a strawman, let me ask you: what were you trying to say?

Logic and reason can only do so much, why would that make us stupid?

My claim is that there are plenty of people who seem to apply reason asymmetrically to other people's beliefs and not their own, and that from my experience a sizable portion of the people who claim to reject theism on the grounds that it is "unreasonable" fit this category.

Honestly, do you see me doing this?

I can only assume you are referring to the final paragraph that you quoted, in which case, no, but I wasn't talking about you. You are not the focus of anything that I said in that paragraph. You can rest assured that when I am talking about you I will use the word "you".

I've already stated that people have used the word "logic" colloquially and that it has a literal meaning that I often refer to as "formal logic." I've already stated that I prefer to use the term "reason" because what people use to rebut religion is not logic in the strictest sense. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?

Yes, I know who you are and how you define things. What I'm saying is that the people who use the term "logic" colloquially use it because it lends a certain authority to their position that their position doesn't deserve. It's fine if one uses the term "logic" to refer to the relative agreeability of an argument, they just shouldn't be so dismayed when technically they're incorrect.

For the record, I haven't co-opted the word "logic." My complaint is that people are not applying due critical analysis. They are willing to use logic and reason on anything except what they want to believe. My atheism is not just a philosophical stance, it's also a practical one. It's not just a "preference," like whether you enjoy chocolate or not. It's a claim that can and should be debated just like any in politics and it's just as important, too...

Again, I am not talking about you; your specific justifications for your atheism aren't what I'm interested in. My initial response to Mr. Rotten was concerned with debunking the idea that atheism is somehow the only logical position one can take with respect to the existence of god. That's the discussion I was having and that's the discussion you joined. If you want to talk about something else, lay out your position and if it interests me we can go from there.

Only the ones that don't understand what strawmen are. For it to be a "strawman," I must claim that what you're saying is that religion is oppressing me and then attack that oppression. Of course, I'm not doing that...

It's an expression of what I dislike about religion. Specifically, the state of religious affairs in the US right now. It's actually a bit of personal hyperbole since I'm not in the US right now but I feel for the American people who have to suffer through that nonesense! ...and I suppose I like to debate on webforums...

It's more of a red herring, my mistake. I'm always surprised how much google knows.

If you're going to hold opinions or make claims about Richard Dawkins, you should probably have actually seen or read his material. Otherwise, you really are just attacking a strawman.

No, I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked. I am familiar with the Courtesan's Reply, which was written by someone other than Dawkins. I've already stated that I'm not that familiar with Dawkins' work directly, and that any claims I make about them aren't necessarily accurate. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?

Again, it depends on what you mean by "reality." Remember my criteria? Is "Iron Man is a good movie!" a statement of reality?

It's as much a statement of reality as "It's 6:30 p.m." What's your point?

Oh, but you are being flip. My interest is, indeed, relevant since you have chosen to speak about this with... me...

Once again, I'm not interested in talking about why you are an atheist. I'm talking about the concept of logic as it relates to validating various ways of looking at the world.

[KnifeMissile]

What have we been talking about?

Originally Posted by filtherton

Logic and reason can only do so much, why would that make us stupid?

My claim is that there are plenty of people who seem to apply reason asymmetrically to other people's beliefs and not their own, and that from my experience a sizable portion of the people who claim to reject theism on the grounds that it is "unreasonable" fit this category.

It shouldn't make us stupid but that's what it sounds like you're saying. Let me clarify this point.

It sounds like you're arguing that because logic can't construct an answer to all our questions, it makes sense to forego their use whenever it suits us. I think this is stupid. At the very least, whenever contradictions can be logically built from our presuppositions, we should change our presuppositions.

I agree that all manner of people believe all manner of things for no good reason and this also applies to atheism. That doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable position and I would argue that it is. I would also argue that theism is an unreasonable position or, at least, that no good argument has ever been set forth. Surprisingly, this actually strays from the topic of conversation where I entered but not necessarily from the topic of the thread...

Again, I am not talking about you; your specific justifications for your atheism aren't what I'm interested in. My initial response to Mr. Rotten was concerned with debunking the idea that atheism is somehow the only logical position one can take with respect to the existence of god. That's the discussion I was having and that's the discussion you joined. If you want to talk about something else, lay out your position and if it interests me we can go from there.

Actually, looking back on the thread, I was responding to roachboy and you were the one to rebut my response to him. It just so happens to be the same topic and that's whether atheism is the only reasonable stance and I assert that it is.

It's more of a red herring, my mistake. I'm always surprised how much google knows.

I don't think it's a red herring, either. If I had claimed oppression and abandoned my original claim of the unreasonable nature of theism, then I would agree that it was a red herring. Besides, that term is more properly used to describe narration rather than argument...

No, I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked. I am familiar with the Courtesan's Reply, which was written by someone other than Dawkins. I've already stated that I'm not that familiar with Dawkins' work directly, and that any claims I make about them aren't necessarily accurate. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking?

You say "I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked" as if they were mutually exclusive acts. You were answering my question with a strawman argument. That you already mentioned that you don't actually know Dawkins' arguments doesn't change the fact that you were attacking strawmen, it's merely an admission of such.

I wasn't suggesting that you spend the kind of effort necessary to, say, read his book. You could just spend a couple of minutes watching a video of him. You have strong enough opinions of him that you must have some interest in his work...

It's as much a statement of reality as "It's 6:30 p.m." What's your point?

My point is that, unlike your example here, it's not a statement of reality. I thought there was an understanding between us in this regard. It's not actually that great an example 'cause much of the reason why it doesn't describe reality is that it's a poorly defined term but the point is that it's not falsifiable and thus not a statement of reality, by my use of the term.

The current time is falsifiable while an opinion on a movie is not. Consequently, the current time is a statement of reality while an opinion on a movie is not...

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

What have we been talking about?

In these types of conversations it's difficult to tell sometimes.

It sounds like you're arguing that because logic can't construct an answer to all our questions, it makes sense to forego their use whenever it suits us. I think this is stupid. At the very least, whenever contradictions can be logically built from our presuppositions, we should change our presuppositions.

No. All I was saying is that logic can't construct an answer to all of our questions, that it is naive to assume that it can. This has nothing to do with theism, I maintain that theism in a general sense can be completely logical.

I agree that all manner of people believe all manner of things for no good reason and this also applies to atheism. That doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable position and I would argue that it is. I would also argue that theism is an unreasonable position or, at least, that no good argument has ever been set forth. Surprisingly, this actually strays from the topic of conversation where I entered but not necessarily from the topic of the thread...

I don't think you can claim that a position is reasonable without taking into account the basis for that position. Atheism is a reasonable position when it is held by someone who has a reasonable basis for holding it. It is not a reasonable position if it is held for unreasonable reasons.

All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a deity; any other qualities you give it are nothing more than projection.

And in any case, the question of whether theism is reasonable or not depends on your definition of reason. Show me a nontrivial/noncolloquial definition of "reason" which doesn't include theism in it.

Actually, looking back on the thread, I was responding to roachboy and you were the one to rebut my response to him. It just so happens to be the same topic and that's whether atheism is the only reasonable stance and I assert that it is.

I could have sworn you quoted me in your response to roachboy. Even then, your particular justifications for your atheism still aren't germane.

I don't think it's a red herring, either. If I had claimed oppression and abandoned my original claim of the unreasonable nature of theism, then I would agree that it was a red herring. Besides, that term is more properly used to describe narration rather than argument...

Well, you offered up a possibly contentious statement of questionable relevance. If you didn't mean it as a red herring, mea culpa.

You say "I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked" as if they were mutually exclusive acts. You were answering my question with a strawman argument. That you already mentioned that you don't actually know Dawkins' arguments doesn't change the fact that you were attacking strawmen, it's merely an admission of such.

It would be a straw man if you were PZ Myers, the person who wrote the courtesan's reply, or Dawkins and I happened to be arguing with you about it. But seeing as how you are not PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, you don't really have a point. In fact, since you seem to be misstating the facts here and then using that misstatement of facts to call me out, the claim might be made that it is you who are employing straw men.

To be clear, anything involving the courtesan's reply is a footnote. I made an offhand remark about it seeming stupid, and then provided clarification about it when you asked, while admitting that I only had secondhand knowledge of it. It's not like I'm being deceptive here. Why do you need this to be a straw man so badly?

I wasn't suggesting that you spend the kind of effort necessary to, say, read his book. You could just spend a couple of minutes watching a video of him. You have strong enough opinions of him that you must have some interest in his work...

I have seen a few videos of him. It doesn't make my opinion of him credible. It doesn't have anything to do with the courtesan's reply, or my dismissive opinion of it.

My point is that, unlike your example here, it's not a statement of reality. I thought there was an understanding between us in this regard. It's not actually that great an example 'cause much of the reason why it doesn't describe reality is that it's a poorly defined term but the point is that it's not falsifiable and thus not a statement of reality, by my use of the term.

The current time is falsifiable while an opinion on a movie is not. Consequently, the current time is a statement of reality while an opinion on a movie is not...

How is an opinion on a movie not falsifiable? Everyone has criteria for what constitutes a good movie, it just isn't necessarily standardized. It might seem like it isn't falsifiable, but try this out:

Think of a movie you hate.
Consider the hypothesis: The movie is good.
Compare the qualities of the movie with the characteristics you use to define a good movie.
Either your hypothesis stands or it is falsified.

It is a pretty common procedure.

Right now my computer says it's 8:37. My microwave says it's 8:38. Who's right? Which statement is falsified?

You seem to be acting under the assumption that subjective statements aren't falsifiable. I think that's a mistake. When it comes down to it, there aren't necessarily any qualitative differences between statements of opinion and statements of fact. In fact, as far as I have been able to tell, opinion is of vital importance in most matters of fact; the data is what it is, but what it means is an altogether different thing, falsifiability be damned.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't think you can claim that a position is reasonable without taking into account the basis for that position. Atheism is a reasonable position when it is held by someone who has a reasonable basis for holding it. It is not a reasonable position if it is held for unreasonable reasons.

All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a deity; any other qualities you give it are nothing more than projection.

And in any case, the question of whether theism is reasonable or not depends on your definition of reason. Show me a nontrivial/noncolloquial definition of "reason" which doesn't include theism in it.

Indeed, I agree that our positions don't exist in a vacuum and require some kind of basis. I contend that most of us share a common basis for which theism is unreasonable. You can see this basis in action when theists dismiss a religion not their own. I maintain that they fail to apply this critical thinking to their own religion and that this is unreasonable. In my experience, theists agree with this idea, in principle, but rationalize that their religion somehow stands up to this criticism.

I could have sworn you quoted me in your response to roachboy. Even then, your particular justifications for your atheism still aren't germane.

I responded to both you and roachboy, in the same post. The forum software would have just automerged two consecutive posts, anyway. You were probably responding to the entire post, regardless of whether it were directed at you or not. These are not exactly private conversations so it's no big deal...

It would be a straw man if you were PZ Myers, the person who wrote the courtesan's reply, or Dawkins and I happened to be arguing with you about it. But seeing as how you are not PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand, you don't really have a point. In fact, since you seem to be misstating the facts here and then using that misstatement of facts to call me out, the claim might be made that it is you who are employing straw men.

To be clear, anything involving the courtesan's reply is a footnote. I made an offhand remark about it seeming stupid, and then provided clarification about it when you asked, while admitting that I only had secondhand knowledge of it. It's not like I'm being deceptive here. Why do you need this to be a straw man so badly?

The Courtesan's Reply? I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by filtherton

From my understanding, Dawkins quotes religious ideas to discredit them, but in doing so fails to show an adequate understanding of their significance. Whether his general criticisms of theism are correct or not, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by overstating the case.

I don't think you were referring to the Courtesan's Reply when you were saying this...

Furthermore, your assessment of what constitutes a strawman is simply incorrect. Who I am or am not is irrelevant. As long as you are refuting a claim that someone did not make as if they had made it, you are employing a strawman argument.

Finally, I have no fetish for strawmen. You brought it up in post #92 and I've been correcting your use of terms ever since...

While we're on the subject, can you provide a link to the Courtesan's Reply? A Google search has proved fruitless...

I have seen a few videos of him. It doesn't make my opinion of him credible. It doesn't have anything to do with the courtesan's reply, or my dismissive opinion of it.

It makes it more credible. At least you know something about him and can comment on the content of those videos. He does go over the same subject matter over and over again...

How is an opinion on a movie not falsifiable? Everyone has criteria for what constitutes a good movie, it just isn't necessarily standardized. It might seem like it isn't falsifiable, but try this out:

Think of a movie you hate.
Consider the hypothesis: The movie is good.
Compare the qualities of the movie with the characteristics you use to define a good movie.
Either your hypothesis stands or it is falsified.

It is a pretty common procedure.

Right now my computer says it's 8:37. My microwave says it's 8:38. Who's right? Which statement is falsified?

You seem to be acting under the assumption that subjective statements aren't falsifiable. I think that's a mistake. When it comes down to it, there aren't necessarily any qualitative differences between statements of opinion and statements of fact. In fact, as far as I have been able to tell, opinion is of vital importance in most matters of fact; the data is what it is, but what it means is an altogether different thing, falsifiability be damned.

I don't think I follow your reasoning here but, regardless, I'm not saying that subjective statements are necessarily non-falsifiable.

I don't quite like my example 'cause its non-falsifiability is rooted in the deliberately undefined term "good." Nevertheless, the statement can't be falsified while the term "good" is so poorly defined and, thus, is not a statement of reality. I think it's fair to say that poorly made statements are also not statements of reality and that's what I was thinking with that last paragraph.

Apparently, my examples suck so I'll go back to the abstract. Statements that are not falsifiable aren't statements on reality. If you make a statment that is impossible to verify, even in principle, are you really talking about something that is real? In a sense, these are nonsensical statements...


Finally, lets get back to the original point, which is that Dawkins isn't saying that all theistic claims are subject to scientific inquiry. He's saying that it can be, in contrast to Non-overlapping magesteria. My interpretation of his statements on this matter is that religions often make statements on reality that can be verified scientifically. He may have clarified this point in The God Delusion, which would relieve us of my interpretation so let me check on that before I assert this too strongly...




PS. I found the Courtier's Reply. You'll never guess how!

[asaris]

"Statements that are not falsifiable aren't statements on reality."

Really? Is that statement falsifiable? The problem, as the logical positivists finally realized in the 50s, is that all observation is theory-laden, so any project that attempts to make all knowledge 'scientific' is bound to fail, because it's bound to rely in its premises on something that is not itself 'scientific'.