The God Delusion

[zerothehero]

Now don't get me wrong. I was an avid reader of Richard Dawkins. The selfish gene excelllent book. But don't you think he is taking his atheism a little bit too far. He harps on about the scientific method and yet never mentions the problems that exist philosophically in science i.e the measurement problem of quantum physics or the extension into string theory which cannot be rated as science as it is scientifically unprovable.

More like the "Dawkins Delusion".

 

mr D. What does quantum physics tell us about our world philosophically?

 

and Is String Theory Science?

[InfiniteNow]

Now don't get me wrong. I was an avid reader of Richard Dawkins. The selfish gene excelllent book. But don't you think he is taking his atheism a little bit too far.

No. He challenges people to think about religion the same way they think about science. No evidence, no proof, no worth our time.

 

 

He harps on about the scientific method and yet never mentions the problems that exist philosophically in science

His purpose is to stop people from the active process of non-thought that comes with religion. You are now pretending that it is his job to defend all of science? Interesting claim you've made. Care to support that?

 

 

i.e the measurement problem of quantum physics

To exactly which "problem" do you refer? Be specific.

 

 

or the extension into string theory which cannot be rated as science as it is scientifically unprovable.

Since when is Dawkin's a string theorist? His background is in biology if I recall correctly. Basically, what the hell is your point other than ad hominem attack?

 

 

[EDIT=InfiniteNow] Probably better described as a red herring than an ad hominem. [/EDIT]

 

 

 

More like the "Dawkins Delusion".

Is he a "poopy head" too? :shrug:

 

 

mr D. What does quantum physics tell us about our world philosophically?

Relevance?

 

 

and Is String Theory Science?

 

It's a theory, being explored using the method of science. Again, though... what IS your point?

 

 

 

Your post seems to have nothing to do with the work of Richard Dawkins. It seems to have nothing to do with the problems inherent in religion. It seems to have nothing to do with much of anything.

 

Is this the best you can do at regurgitating what someone else taught you? Try harder next time.

 

 

Except... one minor exception. Your thread title. You are correct that god is a delusion... or, did you steal that too?

[zerothehero]

No. He challenges people to think about religion the same way they think about science. No evidence, no proof, no worth our time.

 

His purpose is to stop people from the active process of non-thought that comes with religion. You are now pretending that it is his job to defend all of science? Interesting claim you've made. Care to support that?

 

Yes I would. He is claiming science is the method to understand our role within the universe. But in every program where he bashes religion (by the way I am not religious) but does not show the problems facing science today which are the implications of quantum theory.

To exactly which "problem" do you refer? Be specific.

 

Since when is Dawkin's a string theorist? His background is in biology if I recall correctly. Basically, what the hell is your point other than ad hominem attack?

He his proclaiming science has all the answers and it doesn't. And he has taken the mantle of protector of science which must cover all fields.

 

[EDIT=InfiniteNow] Probably better described as a red herring than an ad hominem. [/EDIT]

 

 

Is he a "poopy head" too? ;)

 

Relevance?

 

 

It's a theory, being explored using the method of science. Again, though... what IS your point?

 

A theory that is based upon the faith that the mathematics is beautiful and hence must be on the right track but can NEVER be proven. Isn't that just faith in mathematics.

 

Your post seems to have nothing to do with the work of Richard Dawkins. It seems to have nothing to do with the problems inherent in religion. It seems to have nothing to do with much of anything.

 

It is a point that he he doesn't replace religion/philosophy with anything but just hard science. Einstein said "God does not play dice" because he didn't like the implications of Quantum Physics.

 

Is this the best you can do at regurgitating what someone else taught you? Try harder next time.

Easy to point out problems you haven't understood try giving some answers next time.

Except... one minor exception. Your thread title. You are correct that god is a delusion... or, did you steal that too?

 

To summarize you cannot just replace god/philosophy with science without engaging the philosophical implications. And the leading implications in this field is a) Multi-universes that happen when any choice is made B) we create the unviverse by the simple act of observing.

[InfiniteNow]

To summarize you cannot just replace god/philosophy with science without engaging the philosophical implications. And the leading implications in this field is a) Multi-universes that happen when any choice is made ;) we create the unviverse by the simple act of observing.

 

Again... how is this relevant to the book by Richard Dawkins under the title "The God Delusion?" Are you obfuscating intentionally, or do you really just have no idea what you're talking about? Support your position. If you cannot, that's fine, but don't expect anyone else to be convinced by a garbage strawman/ad hom/red herring argument.

 

 

Btw...Your description of the science you reference betrays your lack of understanding. The leading implication of QM is not multiverses, that is a leading implication of a hypothesis known as the many worlds interpretation. Also, the idea that the universe is "created" by observing is a misinterpretation of the nature of the collapsing wave function, as well as a limited understanding of what the literature describes as observation.

 

Again, though... relevance?

[zerothehero]

Understanding is a slow and painful process....

1 + 1 = 2

 

with me so far..;)

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, ZTH! ;)

 

The introduction forum is meant to be a warm & friendly place where new members are showered in the encouragement and well wishes of our online community, while giving some personal details the better by which to know them. It’d be best, I think, to take the Dawkins into the forums, starting threads on each point to be made, or joining existing relevant threads.

 

Ehh, introductions… zerothehero, meet infinitenow, long-time, highly esteemed member and legendary defender of the absence of faith. :phones: Infinitenow, meet zerothehero, freshmea… I mean, new member with interests seemingly right along hypography’s lines. As infi knows well, and ZTH either learned when joining of should soon, hypography aspires to being a well-moderated site, and has among its small collection of rules a general one that everyone be courteous and play nice.

But don't you think he [Dawkins] is taking his atheism a little bit too far.

Personally, no – I think several of Dawkins’s strengths, and to a great extent, his popularity, are due to his uncompromising and unapologetic approach. For someone who addresses science and religion more gently, I recommend Gould.

 

There are certainly many theists and atheists who think Dawkins’s approach suffers from being too extreme, and atheists who think it’s just right or not extreme enough. I honestly can’t imagine any theists who are big Dawkins fans, but stranger folk exists than are dreamt of in my philosophy. B)

[InfiniteNow]

Ah... Craig... You old softy.

 

To be clear, had this truly been zerothehero's first introductory post, I would have been much softer (and, most likely, have ignored it completely). However, his introductory post was, in fact, another, so beside the fact that he came to Hypo with axe in hand ready for grinding, he also can't quite seem to grasp the concept of forum topics.

 

You, being the ever patient teacher, illuminated this amply above, whereas I chose to actually respond to the tripe he was sharing with the community.

 

Here's that warm, neutral, "stick a toe in the water" introduction to which I referred:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/introductions/13546-tell-me-im-wrong.html#post198382

 

 

I suppose it's that whole "everyone be courteous and play nice" rule that keeps me from posting here as much as I did previously. Oh well. Everyone wins I guess. ;)