is richard dawkings mentally handicapped? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob371ZgGoY

File: 72 KB, 1280x720, 1234123t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 18:52:32 2021 No.17636965 [Reply] [Original]

is richard dawkings mentally handicapped?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eob371ZgGoY

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 18:58:40 2021 No.17636992 >>17636965 No. He actually knows perfectly well what the question is. It’s impossible to deliver atheist apologetics for as long as he has and still not understand the challenge to justify something.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:01:33 2021 No.17637008

>>17636992
Who is this Daniel Dennett guy by the way? I’ve seen him with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris on their ridiculously named Four Horseman podcast but I’ve not heard of anyone being as disingenuous and hubristic as the other 3 prior to seeing that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:08:41 2021 No.17637052 >>17637008 >I’ve seen him with Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris on their ridiculously named Four Horseman podcast THEY HAVE A PODCAST ALL TOGETHER? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:11:40 2021 No.17637077 File: 66 KB, 500x410, 1613028897036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17637052 >>17636965

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:13:00 2021 No.17637088
File: 101 KB, 1024x747, 1613028929181.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17637077
New atheism was a think-tank creation with clear political agendas. An uprooting of a generation, if you will. All to prepare them for whatever lackluster nuhistory they have in mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:14:55 2021 No.17637099 >>17637008 He believes consciousness doesn't exist because we can't measure it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:15:08 2021 No.17637101 File: 64 KB, 693x729, 1614185435537.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17636965 >what is the evidence for evidence Do th*ists really?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:34:19 2021 No.17637217 >>17637101 t. actual retard that hasn't touched a philosophy book since high school

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:36:42 2021 No.17637231 He has been corrected on so many mistakes but he persists. I think it's all a grift because he clearly doesn't care about the truth. There at least was a place for a loud obnoxious atheist, even if his arguments are bad.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:47:06 2021 No.17637297 >>17637231 He's been on the Epstein plane. Not much room for truth once you go there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 19:56:30 2021 No.17637364 >>17636965 To be fair the guy is asking the question in the most bizarre way possible and then some guy in the audience simplifies it into a softball that doesn't reveal his circular reasoning. The standards for intellectuals are so fucking low.

>>	࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDYqWRDiE Wed Feb 24 20:02:50 2021 No.17637390 >>17636965 HE IS AN ATHEIST —WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:06:51 2021 No.17637410 >>17637008 >Four Horsemen podcast Jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:07:21 2021 No.17637411 >>17637390 >>17637364 >>17637231 >>17637101 >>17637077 >>17636992 >>17636965 So should I read the Selfish Gene or not? Does it go into retard atheist shit? I just want to learn about genes and stuff

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:08:50 2021 No.17637419 >>17637411 It's a very good book. It's not about atheism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:09:28 2021 No.17637420 >>17637411 It's his best book supposedley. I've heard that a lot of biologists think its wack. But I haven't read it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:17:36 2021 No.17637464 >>17636965 >what evidence is there that evidence is a necessary standard for a belief system? Think about this for a second.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:20:36 2021 No.17637482

>>17637464
The guys problem is not emphasizing different types of evidence. If you're an empiricist you only believe we can get truth out of our senses and the natural world. But you don't get that belief out of your senses or find the existence of empirical truth under a rock. So it's a self-refuting position. That's what the guy was really asking but Dawkins just sidestepped into asserting pragmatism over and over hoping that if he says IT WORKS IT WORKS IT WORKS 5 times the dummies won't question his assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:21:55 2021 No.17637487 >>17637482 Yes. This which "work" in the practical world justify themselves if the essence of the question is: "Why do we do what works?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:25:58 2021 No.17637509 >>17637487 To say that its true because it works is to say that it matches up to a system of value that you already have and haven't justified (in this case, empiricism). He is question begging.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:28:11 2021 No.17637528 >>17637509 >>17637487 >>17637482 You guys are why regular people don't take philosophy seriously. While you're jerking each other off with word games, other people are actually making the world a better place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:29:03 2021 No.17637536 >>17637528 (you) now fuck off

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:29:56 2021 No.17637543

>>17637509
Sure. But if the premise is anything BUT "why do we do things which work," the questioner wouldn't be in an auditorium speaking into a microphone to a scientist asking him why he believes evidence, by definition, isn't self-evidently an argument for something's truth. He should instead be grunting noises and gesturing in the general direction of the most truth-looking man in his vicinity, hoping to received some not-necessarily-sense-based reply to his gruntings.
Some premises become justified by the manner in which we can't help but inquire about them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:30:57 2021 No.17637545 >>17637528 Wah, wah, wah...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:32:46 2021 No.17637556 >>17637528 Forget regular people, Dawkins is an oxford educated biologist and he is too low IQ to grasp philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:39:01 2021 No.17637594

>>17637543
Yeah the questioner believes in these things, and so does Dawkins. These are preconditions to discuss anything. But that's not the same thing as actually justifying them and making them make sense within the totality of what you believe. Dawkins and this redditor >>17637528 seem to think that justification doesn't matter because in their opinion it 'works'. Fine but an opinion is not a justification.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:45:19 2021 No.17637639

>>17637594
>Yeah the questioner believes in these things, and so does Dawkins.
As well as everyone in the audience, everyone watching the video on youtube, and you and I discussing it. It's a premise so deeply embedded in our manner of existing that to deny it is, as the whiney bitch above noted, a masturbatory/semantic ritual which itself relies on the premise that some pure, objective "truth" insulated from practical reality is possible, useful, or true.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:45:48 2021 No.17637645

>>17637594
>Fine but an opinion is not a justification.
With Descartes devil experiment there's really nothing we can truly prove other than we exist (and mathematics).

The scientific method acknowledges this which is why it's based on subjecting models to sustained challenges only with the most rock-solid taken as effectively proven (and even then the door is still open to further challenges).

You might consider this a cop-out but as Dawkins said, this approach has worked and thus should be followed until something better is found to replace it.

By all means, try and find a better approach but while you do, the rest of us will continue on in the existing manner in which work is conducted, imperfect as it may be.

I guessa question I would have is: so what? If there is no flawless justification for the scientific method, what should we do? What is your suggestion? Do we simply stop everything until someone works out a perfect indisputable system to replace our current one?

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:52:17 2021 No.17637691

>>17637645
>With Descartes devil experiment there's really nothing we can truly prove other than we exist (and mathematics).
to even formulate the thought (using words, which you didnt invent yourself) implies the existence of consciousness that isnt yours but that understands your perspective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 20:54:18 2021 No.17637705 >>17637645 no one in this thread is questioning science functionality

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:03:21 2021 No.17637762

>>17637231
Because they appeal to the Redditor masses. They don’t know what it means to justify a claim and neither does their audience. They are rhetoricians who say things they like and nothing more so they get away with it. Just look at the comments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:05:23 2021 No.17637777 https://youtu.be/E9TMwfkDwIY I find Hitchens the least insufferable because of this video

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:07:55 2021 No.17637800 >>17637777 >everyone converts to [the EXACT religious beliefs you hold RIGHT NOW] when they near death Woah...

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:10:42 2021 No.17637828

>Anti-gay attitudes in Africa today can be traced to Colonial Christian missionary activity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268121000585?via%3Dihub

>Reparations for Slavery Could Have Mitigated U.S. Covid Infections, Harvard Study Finds

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/2/16/hms-reparations-impact-on-infections/

Science wins, wear the mask.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:12:05 2021 No.17637839

>>17637777
As admirable as the declaration that he wouldn't try to convince the last religious believer had he the opportunity is, he prior argument that fine-tuning suggests some deity or designer is actually more thoroughly explained/disproven than almost any other theological argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:12:51 2021 No.17637843 >>17637828 Not muslim too? Curious.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:13:59 2021 No.17637850

>>17637645
There is a flawless justification for it but only if you affirm metaphysical truth. Empiricists want to cram everything into the physical and that's why you end up having no way to justify any of the basic, abstract universal beliefs you have and have to appeal to pragmatism over and over which is just a plastering over the top of universal abstract beliefs which aren't found in the physical world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:16:33 2021 No.17637867 >>17637843 muslims were very tolerant of homosexuality before they encountered the west and before Wahhabism, just like Japan

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:18:20 2021 No.17637883 >>17637839 What's admirable about it? Seems like false humility to me. >If I was such a big brained atheist I could conver- I mean convince everybody to agree with me I'd leave the last guy alone because I'm just that nice of a dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:22:40 2021 No.17637917 >>17637777 Checked

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:27:05 2021 No.17637950

>>17637883
It's admirable because he seems to admit for all the rhetoric surrounding theology/anti-theological debates, he admits to appreciating the flavour and flare that comes with having religious people around rather than having some uniform ideology ruling the world.

Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:30:18 2021 No.17637975

>>17637411
All it does is propose a superior model for evolution (which, after reading the book myself, does seem superior at explaining the mechanism of evolution). There is no religion, except for the last chapter on memetics where he claims religion is an idea which is successful for the same reason superior genes are successful. You can skip this chapter though, it's nothing very insightful after you've read the important part of the book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:34:15 2021 No.17637999 >>17637950 Maybe he means that but it comes off kind of unconvincing by framing it as the last religious person. That persons views would be completely irrelevant so it doesn't matter either way.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 24 21:47:05 2021 No.17638069 >>17637645 >With Descartes devil experiment there's really nothing we can truly prove other than we exist (and mathematics). That's cool and all, except that Descartes was proactively refuted by Aquinas.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:12:32 2021 No.17639290 >>17636965 how do men sit like that my balls get crushed

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:20:56 2021 No.17639313 >>17639290 When you are thin enough on the leg department you can do it, even with a sizable sausage.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:26:05 2021 No.17639325 >>17639313 i always thought it was to hide boners, wouldn't want mine to pop out of my belt

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:29:14 2021 No.17639338 >>17637420 It's not wack, just outdated. But still a good introduction to gene selection theory.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:35:18 2021 No.17639360 File: 25 KB, 314x357, david-bentley-hart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17636965 https://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/05/believe-it-or-not This is relevant again

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:37:24 2021 No.17639365 File: 58 KB, 575x767, IMG_20180909_215554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17637850

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:37:36 2021 No.17639366 >>17639325 It only works when it's pre-emptive, it's impossible to get that position with a boner on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:40:27 2021 No.17639373 >>17636992 >Still doesn't understand that theists are the ones with the burden of proof lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:41:58 2021 No.17639380 >>17639373 Theism exists, so it can only refer to things that exist. The nature of Theos is the only thing not understood.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 02:51:38 2021 No.17639398 >where is the proof that you need proof Dawkins use of Pragmatism in the answer is absolutely fine. I say this as a Theist who hates Dawkins. What's the anger here about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 03:13:56 2021 No.17639469 >>17637101 Well? What is it? The claim that the world which comes to us via our senses is all that can be talked about is faith based in itself.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 03:38:57 2021 No.17639576

>>17639398
See >>17639469 The validity of Dawkins idea of proof must itself be proven, but proof cannot prove its own validity any more than we can physically step outside ourselves. You might say that the fact that it "just works" is proof enough, but a lot of Idealists would say otherwise. No doubt the men in the cave also thought the shadows "just worked" and that this was enough. You then get into this problem of sufficient reason which no atheist has managed to actually undermine conclusively, so they tend to either ignore it or say the question is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:36:46 2021 No.17640077 >>17636965 Quite so.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:37:49 2021 No.17640082 >>17637777 He actually did good work in journalism before opting for the fedora lifestyle.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:40:30 2021 No.17640097

>>17639576
It just works was how we thought of Newtonian physics until Relativity came along. It's cute. I would also like to say that I'm tired of calling it scientific method when we only do that to deify it as it's proper name should be the Baconian method for Francis Bacon, it's inventor.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:48:13 2021 No.17640140

>>17637777
>>17640082
He is an absolutely based and talented writer. If Christcucks and liberals would just ignore his post-2002 religious and foreign policy writings, they'd be able to enjoy three-decade-long series of essays and articles which articulate why writing is so great and important.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:48:39 2021 No.17640145 >>17640097 Newtonian physics do "just work" unless you're going near the speed of light. The model still has uses and people didn't dismiss Einstein's work because it conflicted with existing models. This isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:52:57 2021 No.17640156 >>17640145 They also do not work at quantum scale anon. The analogy does work as I am comparing it to the Baconian method itself which has limiting factors in both that which is immeasurable and that which is irreplaceable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 05:55:33 2021 No.17640171 >>17639380 >Theism exists You mean the belief in god exists? Yes it does

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:02:59 2021 No.17640200

>>17640156
>They also do not work at quantum scale anon.
True, and when that was discovered people created new models to understand the new physics. So far all is working as expected.

This whole thread is one of the most desperate I've ever seen on /lit/. A bunch of people are essentially trying to say that because most scientists don't have a perfect philosophical foundation to their work, their work is meaningless and basically refuted. Meanwhile, the top minds of /lit/ either think they have said perfect method (which is never elaborated on) or they think that acknowledging that they know nothing means they know more.

Or simply: "Huhuh at least I know I know nothing while you incorrectly think you know something ergo I'm better than you"

Truly desperate coping.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:13:48 2021 No.17640246

>>17640097
the fact that newtonian physics has been disproven is not a negative reflection on the scientific method because the scientific method is about the iterative honing of knowledge, not the derivation of final absolute truths. relativity will one day most likely be improved upon in the same way to better match new experimental data. this is not a point against the athiest's use of scientific method but for it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:16:55 2021 No.17640261 >>17636965 THE EFFICACY OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY DOES NOT COMMIT YOU TO ACCEPTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENTITIES INVOLVED IN THE THEORY. NOT EVERYTHING WHICH COMES UNDER THE CATEGORY 'TRUE' CAN BE DETERMINED WITH THE INDUCTIVE, BACONIAN METHOD.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:20:10 2021 No.17640275

>>17640246
Incorrect. The method as an algorithm cannot be used for any study of knowledge that cannot be measured or cannot be replicated. In the same way the Newtonian formulas are limited to only one realm of application and cannot be used for the very large or the very small. You are completely misunderstanding the comparison.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:20:13 2021 No.17640276

>>17640200
>>17640246
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it rests on the assumption that a final, complete theory of physics will be similar to the physics we currently have. It is entirely possible that a complete theory of physics will require including things which they do not currently include, such as consciousness. Quantum theory really does look like it will have to include consciousness to be completed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:22:10 2021 No.17640284 >>17637052 Would be tough considering one of them is a bit dead

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:25:20 2021 No.17640305

>>17640276
>it rests on the assumption that a final, complete theory of physics
it does not rest on any such assumption. in my post i made very clear that there is no "final, complete theory of physics" (>not the derivation of final absolute truths)
if one of the iterations to come includes a theory of consciousness outside of the physical phenomena we currently understand then so be it. i suspect you may be waiting a long time but that is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:26:54 2021 No.17640311 >>17640305 They're actively attempting to discover the Universal Field Theory anon.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:34:28 2021 No.17640355

>>17640311
good for them lol. classical physics was once considered 'universal' and complete as well. the scientific method is iterative and never-ending, this is acknowledged by all good scientists.

"In science, there are no universal truths, just views of the world that have yet to be shown to be false." - Brian Cox, Why does E=mc^2?

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:40:34 2021 No.17640380

>>17640355
Sorry, the 'unified' field theory is attempting to bridge quantum with astrophysics with a new formula. As of late it is apparently stigmatized to even attempt to do so as physics stagnates to only string theorists. It seems to me the only field worth perusing in stem if you want to advance humanity and make a difference NOW is in materials and manufacturing research. Materials is the most interesting thing going on right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 06:41:19 2021 No.17640383 >>17640275 >The method as an algorithm cannot be used for any study of knowledge that cannot be measured Yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 10:34:19 2021 No.17641429 >>17639365 Based

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 12:31:26 2021 No.17642101 >>17639290 i can actually fold my legs another time around

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 12:33:14 2021 No.17642115 >>17639373 Atheists have no less judgment about worldly matters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 12:38:07 2021 No.17642148 He's right, though.

Anonymous Thu Feb 25 12:46:42 2021 No.17642203

>>17639373
I know they like to pretend they're not doing this so they can avoid answering legitimate questions, but atheists are also saying something about the universe. When somebody asks you why you believe the things you do it's not enough to say that other people also believe things. It's a shame so many of the influencers of atheism like Bill Nye or Lawrence Krauss have adopted anti-philosophical attitudes because it has ingrained a lot of bad thinking in the movement. Consequently you guys do what a lot of ignorant people do in conversation, which is repeat pithy sayings without really understanding what you're saying or who you're saying it to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 13:02:59 2021 No.17642301 >>17636965 The evidence would be necessity wouldn't it? If we don't make the assumption that logic is 'true', and that everything flows from that, you don't have grounds to think anything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 13:08:06 2021 No.17642334 >>17636965 Another thread where scientifically illiterate pseuds and youtube comment section tier christians circle jerk over the problem of induction?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 14:19:31 2021 No.17642732 >>17640171 You can't refer to things that do not exist. Heck, some things exist because of faith - things like money and laws.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 25 14:24:00 2021 No.17642770 >>17642301 There are different kinds of Logic.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature