The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by ernestm »

There is one 'disproof' of God's existence that many claim is 'scientific,' from Professor Richard Dawkins. Those making the claim point to Dawkin's qualifications. That's just about the only legitimate justification. Dawkins holds two PhDs, and ran the postgraduate college in Oxford before he retired from it and wrote a polemic called 'The God Delusion.'

The new atheists' claim to Dawkins' scientific undeniability has no bearing on the academic community at all. While scientific journals have politely reported on the book in their 'News' sections, none of them have published his so-called 'proof' as peer-reviewed, corroborated, scientific fact. Peer corroboration is typically considered necessary for a scientific finding to be accepted, Moreover, despite the supposed importance of Dawkin's opinion, not even one dissertation has been written about his atheistic assertions in the college he used to run, nor even in the entire University. However, new atheists ignore all that, continuing to assert their echoing of Dawkins is 'scientific.'

Ad hominum remarks would typically be inappropriate in a scholarly rebuttal, but Dawkins himself fires a barrage of personal insults at religious people at every interview opportunity. Hence the shockingly low regard he now garners in his own prior castle should not be ignored either. In the Oxford halls where he once reigned supreme, Dawkins now is at most tolerated as a once-great man who has lost his marbles, and far more frequently, spurned due to his unbridled spite for anyone else but himself. Regardless, one frequently hears glowing admiration from those who parrot his ideas. Of the hundreds of new atheists who mocked the first draft extracts of this article, none had any relevant educational qualifications in the philosophy of science, instead sharing no more than an avatar of themselves as a baboon sticking its tongue out, a skeleton holding a machine gun, a cartoon of naked women having an orgasm, etc. One would really expect a man with Dawkins' education not only to realize the type of response he would get from many followers of Sam Harriset al., but also to feel responsible enough not to provoke it, which he does in numerous quips on YouTube and so on.

Further, one might note that Dawkins had ALSO previously complained his landmark work on genetic altruism in 'The Selfish Gene' (1976) had been stolen and distorted into atheistic rhetoric by the likes of Sam Harris and Ayn Rand. Given Dawkins' subsequent degradation in behavior, one might reasonably believe 'The God Delusion' was never intended to be a real scientific proof, but actually written to exploit the hordes of the gullible and naive who flocked to the calling of the supposed 'new atheism.' Dawkins fed upon the disciples of those he had previously despised for adopting his thought into their own personal agenda.

Upon the PROPER examination of exactly what is 'knowable' within the fundamental tenets of science itself,it is clear that there can be NO scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of a Creator, one way or the other. Professor Dawkins 'disproof' is instead purely rhetorical, decided via a value judgment of beliefs upon opposing sides, presented as if by a prosecuting attorney desiring only to win a case.

Moreover, all Dawkins' observations on how science can explain reality as well as it can do NOT prove God is 'unnecessary' as he claims. Instead, our advancing of scientific knowledge makes the existence of an Intelligent Designer MORE likely, as science uncovers more sophistication in the mechanics of any intended Design.

In fact, from what we now know about the origination and evolution of life, an Intelligent Designer may have needed to create such a vast universe, simply to assure a species would develop that is even capable of appreciating divine purpose.Note AGAIN, this is merely to say there are other possibilities, not that anything can be scientifically proven on the topic. 'Proof' is entirely irrelevant and a completely inappropriate term in scientific investigation altogether.

Hence, this article seeks to rectify the notable lack of formal, qualified critical response to Dawkin's book, which in view of how those admiring it have portrayed themselves to me is perhaps not surprising. Nonetheless, Dawkins' was MEANT to be presenting scientific proof. So this article contains an appropriately scientific rebuttal. Since this article's presentation in its entirety, the only criticisms related to its actual scientific content are several dozen requests for clarifications on the nature of rationalism and statements about formal logic from the philosophy of science groups, which I have attempted to address properly.

2) 'BURDEN OF PROOF'
By far the most frequent response to Section 3 of this article, which contains my scientific refutation of Dawkins, is that the 'burden of proof' must be aggressively demanded from theists, because they have had the audacity to make a claim atheists find not only derisively false, but far more significantly, and far too frequently, offensive. Putting aside the irony of that, I have been required to point out five simple problems of scientific fact with the emotional rejections of there being any other alternative than a meaningless, purposeless universe:

2a) 'Burden of Proof' is Rhetoric, not a Scientific Method
Burden of proof' is the evaluation of beliefs for a judgment determined by persuasive force. While its method has significance in rhetorical or legal scenarios, it is not anywhere close to being a scientific method. In empirical science, there is no 'proof,' only corroboration. The only significance of evidence is to increase the strength of a theory, but a theory can never be proven, because an alternative better explanation could always be found. Outside persuasion of opinion by rhetoric, the concept of 'proof' only appears in deductions (in formal logic) and very specific syllogisms defining necessarily tautological expressions (in mathematics). It should ALSO be noted that courts of law can overturn ANY opinions previously regarded as proven true, at any time of their own choosing, by their own principles, illustrating that there is not really any guaranteed 'proof' of anything otherwise.

2b) Onus of Proof is on Atheists, not Theists
Even if one is going to bother with rhetorical debate, the burden of proof is not on the claim that God exists, as Dawkins states. Many theists feel that proof one way or the other should not exist, because it should be a matter of faith. By the rules for 'reverse burden of proof' in rhetoric, the onus is therefore on atheists to prove God does NOT exist, otherwise, a significant segment of opponents to such atheists' demands are not refuted. That is to say, as some believing 'A' also believe that 'A' should not be provable, then according to the rules of rhetoric, those claiming 'not-A' is true can ONLY prove 'not A' themselves, else opponents' beliefs are not completely denied. That has nothing to do with the philosophy of science, but it does show that Dawkins does not even have a valid rhetorical position either.

2c) Occam's Razor is Inapplicable
Dawkins adds to his argument that the existence of God should be removed by Occam's razor. That is not a scientific argument either. Occam's razor can only remove explanations at an equivalent level of semantic abstraction. Because theistic explanations of existence are causal, the explanation is at a higher level of abstraction than random occurrence, and therefore not removable by Occam's razor. For further definition, please see the discussion of formal logic below.

2d) Random Life Origination: just ANOTHER Red Herring
First off, a probabilistic argument cannot be considered 'proof,'' merely a statement of statistical likelihood, and therefore, NOT PROOF. Notwithstanding, current estimates at best vary by hundreds of orders of magnitude, due to huge differences of opinion on appropriate premises, rendering the statistical deductions totally meaningless, AS WELL AS devoid of anything resembling 'proof.' And even beyond that, even if it could be shown that life likely originated by random chemical reactions, that could have been an intentional product of Intelligent Design.

2e) Evolution proves Nothing Either
The more science provides logical descriptions of reality, the more intelligent any Creator that might exist appears, which should be as we expect, considering the size and complexity of the Universe we know.

The most that evolution can prove in the debate on intelligent design is that any Divine Being that exists knows how to use tools. For some reason, atheists assume any God that exists must be stupider than a Neanderthal. The ability to use tools is a primary definition of intelligence in science. Perhaps we should sympathize with atheists possessing such primitive reasoning abilities for not knowing how to use their thumbs either, given the level of intelligence they presume for a Being capable of designing the entire universe. Such individuals then criticize what they perceive as 'flaws in creation' such as inequality and disease, ignoring all the evidence, for thousands of years, in every single religion, of nothing more than empathy for the flaws, and a sincere overriding concern as to what humanity chooses to do with what we are each uniquely given.

The extent of debate on evolution exceeds all bounds of rationality and descends into complete absurdity.

2f) Our Geometric Decentralism is Irrelevant
Atheists desire us all to see our place in the universe as an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in the remote outreaches of one of zillions of galaxies, as a way of diminishing the dignity of the human condition into a random occurrence. They neglect that any Divine Being capable of creating a universe of the complexity we know would find geometric placement in space completely insignificant compared to entropic complexity.

One human brain contains more than 86 billion neurons, and the earth's population is approaching 8 billion, making the number of human neurons in the human population now alive equivalent in degree to the number of stars in the observable universe. The degree of sophistication in ordered matter is greater here, by thousands of orders of magnitude, than any other location in all known space and time, within which, humanity and its vast span of interactions are the most sophisticated system of all. Even if the forces necessary for our placement on this planet occurred randomly with respect to Euclidean space, that would not diminish, in any way, any intentional design of the material universe to procure our existence.


3) SCOPING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Having addressed Dawkin's rhetorical assertions, it remains to be stated what actually can be said as knowable about God's existence in science. To do so, one really must start with a proper understanding of what science itself considers 'knowable.' The next subsection starts from a metaphysical stance, describing the reasonable but ultimately limited doctrine called 'rationalism' upon which science is founded. The remaining subsections then define precisely the total scope and limits of that which is scientifically knowable, in absolute terms.

3a) Metaphysical Basis of Science
Science can prove a well-defined subset of deductions about states and events in the apparent material world. Metaphysics defines what the states and events are. A field in metaphysics, epistemology, states what propositions can be drawn that are knowable. To this end, the nature of science's metaphysical basis is necessarily bound to a limited description within which truthful statements are possible.

The primary 'premise' which limits the metaphysical foundation of science is that the material universe is logically explicable. Not all reality is necessarily logically explicable, and therefore, holding that science explains everything could legitimately, from a metaphysical perspective, be regarded as a religion. Most scientists assume belief in the necessity of rational explanation, often at an unconscious level, and are generally unaware that assertions based on scientific knowledge can ultimately not be more than religious beliefs.

The MAIN DIFFERENCE between science and other belief systems is that science's legitimate statements and propositions are entirely rational, drawn from observations of material reality and the rules of formal logic. That is, once one has accepted the metaphysical and logical premises, then a properly expressed scientific theory, after peer corroboration of substantiating empirical observations, is not subject to rational doubt.

Scientific theories nonetheless remain theories, because others could always be found with greater explanatory power. Contrary to common thought, the discovery of more powerful theories does not prove older scientific theories are wrong. According to the principles of the philosophy of science, older theories remain at least in as much as their models are capable of predicting future events in any useful manner.

3b) Fundamental Premises
Science strives to limit statements about truth to those which invoke as little skepticism as possible. Hence all science rests on the smallest possible set of dogma it can define, called, 'scientific laws.' Such laws are the most fundamental statements that must be necessarily true for a rational description of reality. These laws include the Law of Object Permanence (LOP) and the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM), both of which are necessary for logical description. LEM allows a firm distinction between truth and falsehood, which is the foundation of all theory and mathematics. LOP is the foundation of all physics, wherein the addition of energy equivalency allows the laws of thermodynamics to be drawn.

The fields of quantum mechanics and particle physics are examples where theories derived from the principles of LEM and LOP can easily break down, and ultimately, it is not necessarily true that science will ever be able to explain all observed phenomena, because reality may be fundamentally irrational.

For example, people observe phenomena attributed to 'the holy ghost,' whose existence is frequently challenged, but as it has no object permanence, it has been outside the bounds of science to evaluate the truth of its existence. The most that science has been able to do is evaluate the effects of such phenomena on the apparent material world.

3c) Formal Statements of Truth
Statements of 'empirical' truth consist of (a) states, which are observations of the material world, and (b) events, which are transitions between states. States must be directly observable, or deductions from directly observed events, to be considered as scientific facts, as demonstrated by corroborated experimental results. Descriptions of states and events are called statements. Deductions, inductions, and causes are propositions.

Only deductions can be proven true beyond doubt in formal propositional logic. Generally speaking, only inductions drawn from propositional logic itself are provable, the most fundamental example of which is the logical derivation for natural numbers from propositional logic in mathematics. Other inductions and causes add a level of abstraction that the scientific method can only corroborate, and not prove as necessarily true.

3d) Scientific Methods and Theories
The purpose of science is to explain states and project the likely occurrence of events in the future world with theories. The scientific method proposes from a hypothetical model that specific results will be found to corroborate a hypothesis to substantiate the causal relationship in a theory, based on a model which is defined in lower-order concepts drawn from associated scientific fields. The model is corroborated by experiments to validate its cogency as an explanation. After corroboration, predictions can be drawn from the theory, which is the most useful product of science. Theories also provide explanations. Explanations are entertaining, but the substantive value of a theory to society is its accuracy and completeness in predicting future states.

Corroborating a hypothesis does not make the explanation true. Science can make only limited inductions from corroborations, and most inductions are speculation.

For example, if one observes that a dog is brown, philosophy defines how much one can extrapolate that other dogs are brown, with terms defined by a philosophical 'theory of meaning', within a theory's model. Inductions on causality provide new hypotheses, which are useful in refining a theory, and enable some meaningful yet unprovable statements in soft science, discussed next.

3e) 'Hard' versus 'Soft' Science
To ensure that a result of an experiment corroborates a theory, it is most desirable for its experimental method to include 'control groups.' The states of the control groups are designed such that they differ from the subject states of the experiment in every way except the expected causality. The control groups should verify that no other variable accounts for the experimental result. Fields where experimental controls can be complete are referred to as 'hard' sciences.

Some aspects of the human condition are not directly observable or even scientifically provable, including 'consciousness' and 'free will.' Sometimes referred to as 'intrinsic' states and events, consciousness and free will are impervious to direct observation.

Scientific fields that examine states and events influenced by consciousness and free will are known as 'soft science.' The division is not absolute in disciplines. For example, the discipline of psychology includes behavioral study, which is entirely a 'hard' science, and 'psychoanalysis,' which is entirely a soft science. Other disciplines which extend theory beyond behavioral observation include political science, economics, and anthropology.

Because of the inaccessibility of consciousness and free will, their state and events caused by their state can only be known by inductive logic, and the creation of control groups is extremely difficult. For these reasons, soft sciences often make exceptions to the rules of hard science in order to state anything meaningful, and so justifiably may be considered 'arts' rather than 'sciences.'

3f) Knowledge versus Belief in Science
To define that which is rationally knowable beyond doubt, it is appropriate to apply the most restrictive definition of indubious fact in the philosophy of science, as formulated by Karl Popper:

Beyond those limits defined by philosophy, all speculations on unobserved states and events remain that. Speculations. The act of stating that any speculation is true is a statement of belief, not scientific knowledge. Anything beyond directly observed phenomena in science is a belief to a greater or lesser extent, and even if largely substantiated, still only a belief based on theory.

To Popper, performing experiments to corroborate ANY theory that cannot be falsified is so ridiculous, he calls it 'pseudoscience.' Opinions on that differ. Yet even if experiments cannot be performed to prove or disprove God's existence, the ordered nature of the universe implies an agent. It can't be verified by experimentation. The inference still remains.

New theories of meaning for natural language since Popper hold that some events are so likely they are considered knowable. But when considering 'proofs' of any kind, knowledge should still be defined in the strictest manner possible, to avoid any possible objection. The problem with 'statistical likelihood' is that there is no way to define what exact probability should be acceptable to consider the expectation a necessary result.

For example, however much one thinks the sun is rising tomorrow, in the strictest definition of science that can only ever be a belief, because, for example, intervening events could destroy the planet before the expected dawn. That is the 'epistemological' interpretation of natural language: some beliefs are so likely that they are said to be known, but that is not in the strictest terms scientifically accurate.

The act of inferring necessary truth to speculations is referred to as 'scientism.' However much one allows expected events to be regarded as knowable, all scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) are called 'theories' because a greater-order causality may exist, either within the scope of testable hypotheses, or outside the domain of science. The extent that theories explain as yet unobserved events is unknowable, and therefore, belief, to a greater or lesser extent, in all cases.

4) THE ONLY VALID SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS ON GOD'S EXISTENCE
Having defined exactly the extent and limits of all that is knowable within the rationalist doctrines of science, it is clear that science has absolutely nothing to contribute to 'proving' the existence of God or not. That which is referenced by the term 'God' itself exists in purely inferential mental space. the existence of God or not must be founded on inductive reasoning for which no testable method can provide 'proof' one way or the other, within the scope of all that is epistemologically and empirically definable as rationally knowable as drawn upon the rational premises of scientific discovery.

There are enormous disputes even about that which the term 'God' might refer, but in the current era, ALL such conceptions are purely cognitive, without reference to any existing being or object. Even if a hypothesis could define 'God' in any way acceptable to consensus, there is a total absence of any method of testability against a control scenario, because no 'control scenario' is available whatsoever against which the inference can be validated. Whether God exists or not, the term itself, let alone its verifiable reference, is hidden behind multiple veils of uncertainty within the scope of scientific knowledge and its methods of investigation.

The existence of rational explanation for reality at all IMPLIES a rational agent, rather than refutes it.
As scientific explanations and predictions become more comprehensive and accurate, the likelihood of a Divine rational agent INCREASES, not DECREASES.
Nonetheless, with the absence of any possible control scenario against which to corroborate empirically the existence or not of a rational agent, defined by purely inductive reasoning, that is the total sum of that which can be truthfully stated within the bounds of the rationalist doctrine of science.

BEYOND the rationalist doctrines of science, individuals have personal experience that leads them to conclusions one way or the other. From the perspective of rationalism, all such conclusions are speculative beliefs. On whatever conviction individuals may feel about their conclusions, science has nothing further to contribute.

Wishing you a beautiful day.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by heracleitos »

Of course, in my reply I will be highly biased, as I confess to being just an utmost humble servant of our beloved Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of our universe.

In my impression, the revolution will always eat its own children:
Wikipedia on Dawkins wrote: In April 2021, Dawkins said on Twitter that "Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss." After receiving criticism for this tweet, Dawkins responded by saying that "I do not intend to disparage trans people.
He is clearly going to end up cancelled like Trotsky.

You see, as an overly privileged cisgender white male, one of the most evil expressions of the oppressive patriarchy, Dawkins refuses to admit that gender is just an illusion, that has been brutalizing hapless victims.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by heracleitos »

... for countless generations.

The man is so evil that he does not even realize it.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by ernestm »

I just object to his assertions contrary to the philosophy of science and lack of respect for other people in general.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by heracleitos »

ernestm wrote: October 6th, 2022, 11:42 pm I just object to his assertions contrary to the philosophy of science and lack of respect for other people in general.
Well, science as he defines it, is probably just another covid scamdemic at the core of his evilution.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7940
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by LuckyR »

OK there's a guy who has a weak argument. So what? Pointing that out doesn't strengthen the opposing viewpoint.
"As usual... it depends."
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by heracleitos »

LuckyR wrote: October 7th, 2022, 1:55 am OK there's a guy who has a weak argument. So what? Pointing that out doesn't strengthen the opposing viewpoint.
Yes, as an accomplished and even eminent biologist, Dawkins should know that "male" and "female" do not even exist. These things are merely imaginary social constructs.
People like him take pleasure in insulting the official narrative on transgenderism with his misguided binary views.

That is why the revolution should not accept his apology.

On the contrary, that kind of dangerous binarists need to be removed from all positions of power or influence.

I am sure that the proletariat of gender-fluid revolutionaries, the vanguard of the unstoppable movement to a brave new world without gender, will take care of that. Cancel Dawkins already !!!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

I've always called him the Demon Dawkins. I lost all respect for him when I saw him on TV, and he claimed certainty, on all manner of things, all the time. Not just confidence — certainty. He said over and over that He was right, and those who disagreed were wrong.

Anyone who contradicts Socrates like that should probably be ignored, in my experience.
Socrates wrote: I know that I know nothing.⁣
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8271
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

P.S. I didn't read the 100,000-word OP. Tl;dr. Sorry.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Count Lucanor »

ernestm wrote: October 6th, 2022, 9:57 pm There is one 'disproof' of God's existence that many claim is 'scientific,' from Professor Richard Dawkins. Those making the claim point to Dawkin's qualifications. That's just about the only legitimate justification. Dawkins holds two PhDs, and ran the postgraduate college in Oxford before he retired from it and wrote a polemic called 'The God Delusion.'

The new atheists' claim to Dawkins' scientific undeniability has no bearing on the academic community at all. While scientific journals have politely reported on the book in their 'News' sections, none of them have published his so-called 'proof' as peer-reviewed, corroborated, scientific fact. Peer corroboration is typically considered necessary for a scientific finding to be accepted, Moreover, despite the supposed importance of Dawkin's opinion, not even one dissertation has been written about his atheistic assertions in the college he used to run, nor even in the entire University. However, new atheists ignore all that, continuing to assert their echoing of Dawkins is 'scientific.'
[...]
I could not read this insufferable long post, but the first two paragraphs might be good indicators of the rest to come. What is portrayed there as the purpose and scope of Dawkins' book is completely misleading.

First, Dawkins' book does not attempt to "disprove God's existence". At most, he attempts to prove that the god hypothesis is not a good one. That would be a disproof of theistic arguments and that's an entirely different problem.

Secondly, it is doubtful that Dawkins or any of his supporters ever claimed that his book is a scientific paper. Dawkins' specialty is evolutionary biology and his book is not an evolutionary biology paper, he did not present it like that. He said his book was to "raise consciousness" and goes on to present arguments to convince theists that atheism is a better, more rational position. That's it.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Robert66 »

LuckyR wrote: October 7th, 2022, 1:55 am OK there's a guy who has a weak argument. So what? Pointing that out doesn't strengthen the opposing viewpoint.
The pithy dismissal, LuckyR's stock in trade, is in this instance a valid response to ernestm's lengthy piece.

What is surprising about bad actors using rhetoric masquerading as "proof" in their efforts 'to exploit the hordes of the gullible and naive'?

One proven fact is that such rhetoric is a wealth-generating formula.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Tegularius »

As is well-known scientifically, god is not a good explanation for anything and that is the main thesis of the God Delusion.

However one thinks of Dawkin's character, he's much too intelligent to insist there can be any overt proof offered one way or another for a speculation impervious to any kind of ratification. The best that can be offered is the probability of such an entity existing. Based on everything we know, that is so low as to be almost not there. The minuscule which remains merely subsists till the end of time as a formality of logic.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by Tegularius »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 7th, 2022, 9:53 am I've always called him the Demon Dawkins. I lost all respect for him when I saw him on TV, and he claimed certainty, on all manner of things, all the time. Not just confidence — certainty. He said over and over that He was right, and those who disagreed were wrong.

Anyone who contradicts Socrates like that should probably be ignored, in my experience.
Socrates wrote: I know that I know nothing.⁣
A child knows that it knows nothing; it hasn't existed long enough to know much of anything. But if an adult still insists on knowing nothing then that person is either a fool or a liar.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by ernestm »

Robert66 wrote: October 10th, 2022, 3:39 pm
LuckyR wrote: October 7th, 2022, 1:55 am OK there's a guy who has a weak argument. So what? Pointing that out doesn't strengthen the opposing viewpoint.
The pithy dismissal, LuckyR's stock in trade, is in this instance a valid response to ernestm's lengthy piece.

What is surprising about bad actors using rhetoric masquerading as "proof" in their efforts 'to exploit the hordes of the gullible and naive'?

One proven fact is that such rhetoric is a wealth-generating formula.
I countered Dawkin's claim to proof and stated as much could be said within the rules of science. I don't have any reason to repeat it.
heracleitos
Posts: 439
Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm

Re: The Almighty Dawkings Delusion

Post by heracleitos »

ernestm wrote: October 20th, 2022, 8:57 pm I countered Dawkin's claim to proof and stated as much could be said within the rules of science. I don't have any reason to repeat it.
Dawkins is not on the ball by dealing with things like the so-called "God delusion". In the meanwhile, the world has moved on. Now it is about the "male versus female delusion".

Dawkins refuses to admit that "male" and "female" are dangerous social constructs that are imaginary at best, and delusional at worst.

Some people take their delusions even so far that as a man they prefer to have sex with a woman. These evil people discriminate an entire gender, no matter how fake and delusional their views are! They oppress half of the population with their prejudice. They perpetuate the detestable patriarchy. That kind of people will be cancelled by the revolution!

As a transgender lesbian victim with a beard, who identifies as a woman, in spite of a misleading male appearance, and who has a very pronounced lesbian sexual orientation, I am sick and tired of the endless gobs of discrimination and oppression!

I deserve a safe space and copious subsidies and other welfare benefits to protect me from the evil patriarchy. I am waiting with an open wallet for victim compensation. So, where is the public money, because I deserve it!
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021