The Rintrarian Archive

Normally things like this do not bother me so much. I could not care less about the actual conclusion if the method to arriving at the finish line were reasonable. And by reasonable or rational I do not want to imply that reason or rationality is the only way by which a conclusion can be drawn.

I say this because reason and rationality demand all the facts. It is impossible for a person to see all the facts. Even if someone could see all the scientific proofs and have them at the ready, on the tip of the tongue at all times, it would be impossible to know them all. This is because of prejudices, personal theories, and a very personal world view. Facps are interpreted. Facts do not exist as entities on their own accord.

This creates an interesting connundrum. If all information is processed by the individual and, in said processing, some information is given greater value than other information, then it is plausible to state that some information will be put into disuse and some into over-use.

With this as the case, when a person seeks truth, no matter what the form or what the method, the person will employ particular information and will exclude other information. This is true in the case of historical, literary, and scientific research (as well as any other conceivable field).

This is the problem with science. This is the problem with religion. This is the problem with history. This is the problem with philosophy. Et cetera ad nauseum.

This this also the problem with humanity.

We want truth and meaning. We want to understand the world around us. Some of us place a higher value on the philosophical aspects; Others on the religious; Others on empirical proofs; Still others look towards art and entertainment, and find meaning there.

Richard Dawkins is looking for scientific proof. He claims there is no God. But that is not a scientific query. God is not something science can measure and his path to proving his atheism does not do so with science. He attempts to prove it with philosophy. Even-so, if there is indeed no God and science is the ulitimate purveyor of truth does it matter so much what people believe or how much we know about the world? Does it actually matter considering that life is without any innate meaning or purpose?

The people who look to philosophy and religion, or art and entertainment, or science and rationality, all look to find meaning and purpose and truth in life. Richard Dawkins does a dis-service to everyone by seeking to bully people into his own perspective on how to find meaning in life. Dawkins’ goal is to preach evolution and convert the theists. In this he finds meaning and feels that it is the only way.

While religion is capable of being interpreted differently by different people and, in such, is used as a justification for actions which may well be deplorable, this is not enough to falisify religion. I can call on personal family histories which would speak of the same evils under the hand of atheists (Stalin). I could also look to Pol Pot in Cambodia. But that only proves that ideology in any extreme can be deemed as evil. This also proves that when ideology is exploited and given power over people, it is the people that are exploited.

All that is left to be said is that Dawkins wishes to remove religion because he does not agree. He has not seen proof, and the proofs he has seen do not prove. He has selectively evaluated the world and interpreted it in a particular way. He has found meaning and has a glimpse at truth. The truth he has seen and shared we should cherish. But this is true of everyone. Everyone has seen truth of some sort. But to seek to extinguish the sense of meaning in others rather is to remove meaning from life even if it is a contrived meaning.

But contrived meaning is the only thing Dawkins has left us with. An evolved sentient being can only create meaning in a meaningless world. And, yet, even a contrived meaning will mean the world to the beholder.

Fume-hood be with you.

The Scientific Method has severe flaws. If the Atheist is correct, then belief in God is a delusion. If the theist is deluded and perceives the world in a particular way (ie. makes an observation) and develops a hypothesis for that then the hypothesis is faulty. However, the hypothesis is then tested by the theist and is proven or disproved.

If the hypothesis is proven true then a deluded mind has conjured up some cloudy idea that has been substantiated.

If the hypothesis is proven false then the deluded mind will either question the hypothesis or question the test. Both of these are actually worthwhile. In fact, both must be done and should be done in a particular order. The test should be questioned first. How do we know that the test is accurate? If the test succeeded then we would not have questioned it but it may still have been faulty. Then the hypothesis should be tested.

When testing a hypothesis it is important to note that simply adding a “not” to the statement is not necessarily true. The observations may have been incomplete and needing to be modified slightly but not completely rejected.

This is where I have my largest problem with the scientific method. Science is about observation. A hypothesis is based on observation. As such a deluded mind cannot ascertain what is necessarily real and what is necessarily not-real. But a deluded mind does not know it is deluded. (Read Joseph Heller’s Catch 22.)

In the same vein, no person believes that their own beliefs are false. What I consider as truth cannot be, at the same time, considered by myself to be fiction. The same goes for Richard Dawkins and his missionaries. Dawkins has made some observations about life. He has a hypothesis (but he attacks the antithesis in his book). He provides several “tests” which he feels are sufficient to prove his thesis (by attacking the opposite of his thesis). When he gets the results he wants he moves on to the next test.

All of Dawkins’ tests are philosophical. By philosophical I mean they are not empirical and cannot be “proven” in the sense of an equation.

Because science is based on observations, the scientific method does not produce truth statements about reality but statements of substantiated observations and, more often than not, falsified observations. The next set of observations will be tested on the grounds of the previously substantiated observations. And then again and again these build the fortress of science. As such the only “truth” we have is that which is based on other “truth.”

And it is more often than not that the truth we actually are left with is not that which has been tested but the testing apparatus itself.

—

I believe in testube. I believe in Bunson Burner. I believe in thermometer.

Fume-hood be with you.

Those of you who know me or have read my previous posts will know that I have been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Until the other day I could not put my finger on what concerned me most about the book. His conclusion (and his assumption at the begining) is that God does not exist. I would not care if his conclusion was that God existed and I do not care that it is that God does not. I would have the same concern either way.

The premise of Dawkins book is that God does not exist and that he can prove this because the existance of God is question that is scientific in nature.

From this, as we shall see, [the agnostics] often make the illogical deduction that thte hypothesis of God’s existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP [Temporary Agnosticism in Practise] category. Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability. [p.48]

Those of you who have had a chance to argue with me will know that I do not have much faith or trust in the scientific method. I have problems with this for a number of reasons. One of which is epistomological. Where does knowledge come from? How does knowledge of truth substantiate itself? Why is the “rational” scientific method deemed as the end-all be-all method in the quest for knowledge and truth?

This is where I turn to Sir Karl Popper (you can also check out wikipedia or the Karl Popper Web. or anything else that suits your fancy).

Karl Popper’s contribution to philosophy and science is an important one. The principle is simple (especially in hindsight and especially when dumbed down like I have done). Nothing is true unless it is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. This principle is how Einstein could learn more about the universe with a piece of chalk. A theory is scientific even if it is false. The ability to be wrong is crucial to science or else it has no merit.

For example, Einstein’s theory that light bends as it passes by large objects was imagined in Einstein’s head. This theory would be proven false if light were seen passing by a large object and not bending and, therefore, falsifyable. The sun was thought to be large enough and the light from stars passes by the sun. During a full eclipse the stars can be seen during the day (and are, therefore, passing past the sun). If the stars were in the same position when the sun was in between the viewer and the source then the Einstein was wrong. Otherwise, he is right. The ability to prove something false is imperative for its truth-worthiness. However, Einstein was right and his idea is deemed as truth (but is still falsifyable).

Another important thing to note is how Einstein came up with such a theory. He did not first observe it. He could not have observed it first. This is a case of real science. Other “science” (like Dawkins’ book) rely entirely on pre-observation and even prejudice. Dawkins claims that the question is scientific but that his theory is not falsifiable (at least he does not provide any opportunity). Dawkins looks at many elements of the “proof” of God but denies them all for reasons which do not qualify as scientific and excludes other reasons which are, generally speaking, scientific. (Consider some archeological evidence which may prove some accuracy in the Bible, for example.)

Dawkins and his missionaries will, likely, state that there is more than enough proof falsifying the God Hypothesis that there could not possibly be a God. If Dawkins has done what he set out to do then the “scientific” proposition that “there is a God” has been proven false. However, the removal of one theory does not instantly institute another in its place. “A provable God” (or “A personal God”) is not replaced with “No God whatsoever.” If this were the case then Dawkins has provided a scientific claim which he does not believe is falsifiable and, in which case, is useless and not truth-worthy. Just as stating “Some people are idiots” has not merit. I can prove that some are idiots but this statement cannot be falsified and, therefore, is not scientific.

If Dawkins has provided a scientific claim that “Nothing supernatural exists” then this must be falsifyable, at least in theory. This can be only proved false using philosophy and not using science. The “supernatural” is not a thing (the supernatural is, therefore nothing as in no-thing). In being not a thing the supernatural cannot exist as a physical entity. With this as the case there is no scientific method by which it can be falsified. Because it cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. Because it cannot be falsified it is not worthy of being called a “statement of truth.” Because the “supernatural” is not a thing then it is not a being and it does not exist as a physical entity.

Dawkins does not disprove the existence of God but what he does is discredit the “proofs” which he had pre-chosen to discredit. This discreditation is not necessarily complete or accurate or warranted but, at least to those who have been bullied into agreement, it is enough to attribute it as truth-worthy. However, whether God exists or does not is not a question which can be scientifically calculated and probability does not complete the equation. Probability does not answer any questions, it just gives a best guess. And guesses are not truth-statements. They are beliefs.

(Oh, and being agnostic is not necessarily believing that it is a 50-50 chance. Being agnostic is stating that there is not enough evidence either which way.)

I am having difficulty.

The consciousness does not exist. God does not exist. But genes have a desire to copy themselves? I don’t get it.

The selfish gene is the one that wants to make copies of itself over and over again. This is true to the extent that, after many mutations, genes control organisms to do or desire things so that the genes may be replicated. And, yet, the genes have switched form asexual reproduction to our current system of repetitive motions and cuddling. Nevermind the constant performance review process.

It seems that genes are rather stupid. They had a system by which they replicated themselves perfectly and then they decided (somehow) to make things more complicated. If people like Richard Dawkins want to explain things in the overly simplistic model which he constructs ex nihilo in the God Delusion then I want him to explain how sex came to be such a stupid affair. Asexually makes the most sense, at least if there is indeed a selfish gene. I mean if there is the sperm and the egg then the gene only has a 50% chance of being replicated. Asexually there is a 100% chance or thereabouts.

And are there other genes too? What about the genes that cause the organism to not reproduce or replicate? Would these be suicidal genes? What about genes that want to have organism to destroy other genes simply because they are different? Homicidal Gene? Would this be geno-xenocide?

If genes want to replicate and are creating organisms which will help them to reproduce then there are some serious questions that should be asked. At what point in the evolutionary path did these genes decide that this was necessary? Did a gene wake up one day and figure that it would be good to leave a legacy?

If the mind is simply a chemical cocktail that we think exists, even though thinking is a chemical response that exists purely in the chemical cocktail, then I wonder how a gene can control the organism and leave us who think we think but cannot control ourselves.

To put this more coherantly. The mind is simply chemicals and electricity. Genes control the organism. The chemicals and the reactions are the method by which genes control the organism. We are robots serving the work of the gene. The gene, therefore, is that which Jesus died for.

“Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Damn skippy. Because the genes made me do it. Rape, adultry and prostitution are results of millions of years of evolution.

Maybe I am missing something in this equation. Who knows? I have tried to ask my genes but they are busy trying to think up ways to get me girlfriend or something.

When I seek advice I look to someone who may be qualified to answer any question which I may have. When I don’t know something I look to a person (dead or alive) who is qualified to answer the question. If the person answering my question is condescending, arrogant, pompous and self-absorbed I am less likely to heed the advice given. If I want advice on bread-making I would seek out a baker and not a butcher. If I want advice on how to teach a monkey how to fling shit I would not look to Napolean. I would seek out Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins, I am sure, is a brilliant zoologist and evolutionary scientist. He is not a theologian or philosopher. He is an extrodinary writer and basturd. In The God Delusion Dawkins seeks to convert the masses.

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.

Dawkins is, afterall, an atheistic missionary. Like missionaries preying on heathen savages in bongobongoland, Dawkins seeks to heal the “mind virus” that is religion (p176). And Dawkins is far too kind to us theists. He will not “go out of [his] way to offend” because offending comes naturally for him (p.27)

The are several areas where Dawkins fails in his attempt to de-theos-ify the world. It could be his straw-man constructs. It could be his cherry picking of ideas and evidence. It could be his reduction to ridicule. It could be his arrogance. It could be his incomplete refutation. It could be his incredibly simplistic approach to religion and philosophy which are a direct result of his inability to comprehend that there are reasons why people believe in God outside of mere hearsay. It could be his bait-and-switch approach to dealing with arguments. It could be his hypothetical examples. It could be his lack of real examples (outside of his own personal anecdotes). It could be the anecdotal method to his own delusion. It could be many things but mostly it is all of them.

Dawkins delusion is not the same as that which he seeks to remove (the one of theism). His delusion is that he is god. Dawkins appears to believe that he is the saviour to our god-full world. The idea of god is one which he cannot fathom and, as such, is one which must be removed. It seems odd that Dawkins, an evolutionist, does not attempt to show ways in which evolution could or should remove the “waste” that is religion.

Dawkins discusses “anting” (a seemingly useless practise of some birds) and how there does not appear to be an evolutionary explanation. But the mere lack of evidence does not preclude that there is not actual reason for this to be less than purposeful. However, religion is a waste and the “advantages” of religion are quickly mentioned as a heading then the discussion changes to how aweful it is. Quite odd.

At any rate, Dawkins does not care what people think so long as they do not think of god. Unless, that is, that god is Dawkins. We are supposed to think critically of everything. But because he provides a long diatribe on the evils and stupidity of religion it is best not to even consider that he could be wrong.

When I was in junior high we had a section in my Language Arts class on “debating.” The topic that we were given did not mean anything to me and I knew almost nothing about it. I did not feel compelled to research the topic thoroughly but that did not keep me from writing a long speech on the topic. I do not remember what the topic was but I remember that I went second. When it was my turn to speak I blasted through my many points even though I knew they were ridiculous (my partner did not even know what I was going to say). After the speeches and the rebuttals the adjudicator came up and pronounced his verdict. It was declared a tie. Not because the arguments were equal. They were not. My arguments were clearly less well defined and were less impressive. The other team was clear, precise and clearly had a greater understanding of the topic. The adjudicator stated that “If you can’t win with insight, bowl them over with your bull shitting.”

Dawkins cannot win this argument with insight. He has not devoted enough time to both sides of the argument. Hatred for an idea does not constitute insight or ingenuity. But, judging by the length of the book and the many topics that are provided only curosry attention, he does bowl people over with bull shit.

Godless Dawkins is God. At least in his own mind. (Yet he cannot tell us how the mind or consciousness evolved or when or how it became a function to ensure the continuation of a species.)

God bless.