I'm going to address each topic in his essay carefully, here. Everyone else can feel free to jump in and add to it. I've split this up so that I can focus each issue.
Memesfriend's mate
I am immensely fascinated with this subject, and would certainly like to discuss this in person as Facebook can be highly limiting. However, I will dignify your comment with a brief reply.
I noticed you have been inspired by some of Dawkins' work. I have spent many years evaluating his material, and have also read extensively the theistic responses given. Although I agree with Dawkins on many levels, it has to be said that many of his arguments, in regards to theology and philosophy, are ultimately flawed. In The God Delusion, for instance, Dawkins sets out the idea of "memes," which you mentioned, as if it were recognized scientific orthodoxy, not mentioning the convenient fact that the mainstream scientific community views it as a decidedly flaky idea, best consigned to the margins.
Take one of Dawkins' typically audacious statements: "Memes can sometimes display very high fidelity." This is a creedal assertion posing as a statement of scientific fact. Dawkins is virulently critical of religious faith, yet he himself precisely makes the error of which he accuses others. Statements like these, and many of the central arguments in his work regarding the God hypothesis, ultimately does nothing but undermine the intelligence of his readers.
You must remember that things like DNA and even the quantam theory even started as pure speculation. You accuse Dawkins of being a victim of his own assertions, but I am yet to read any article that classifies Memes and social genetics as a solid scientific theory. Rather, it is a work in progress, like much of the scientific research that gets drawn up by scientists all around the world. To dismiss the study on memes as 'unscientific' also means undermining the other supposd sciences - Economics, Psychology, etc.
Memes are also used to identify social behaviour patterns, and are often used (manipulated) successfully for profit by marketing companies.
As for your last sentence, please could you give me an example of Dawkins' central arguments undermind the intelligence of his readers?
God & EvolutionFriend's mate said:
Some atheists propose that, because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe without bringing God into the equation, we can safely conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place. However, such reasoning involves a common logical fallacy, which can be illustrated as follows.
If someone in a remote part of the world was given a car, let's say, but has never seen one before, he might think there is some kind of being (a god) in the engine making it go. If he were to one day study engineering, however, and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no being inside it. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in the existence of a being who designed the engine in the first place, this would be a category mistake. (I do not believe that God "designed" all beings separately, as creationists do; rather, I strongly adhere to the notion of gradual evolution through natural selection. The example above is meant to illustrate that postulating no God, simply because the universe and the laws that govern it can be explained in mere mechanisms, would be patently false.)
I don't see the relevance of the example of a car engine in this debate, sorry. Please could you elaborate. Are you trying to say that everything has to have a creator?
Any scientist or atheist I speak to has never expressed their disbelief in god because the universe and laws can be governed by mechanisms. Rather, their disbelief in god is geared more towards the lack of evidence to suggest that a creator exists. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Instead of trying to prove evolution is not false, I would like creationists to prove to me that creationism is true.
Consider Richard Swinburne's argument; he states, "I am not postulating a 'God of the gaps', a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains."
The point to grasp here is that, God is not an alternative to scientific explanation, and therefore is not to be understood as a God of the gaps. On the contrary, Swinburne's argument states that the intelligibility of the universe itself needs explanation. It is therefore not the gaps in our understanding of the world which point to God, but rather the very comprehensibility of scientific understanding that requires explanation. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the discovery of all the elegant mathematical laws that are infinitesimally precise, is why cosmologists, especially, are postulating God a rational explanation. Where did the laws of the universe come from? From nothing? Absurd!
Like I said, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Scientists are doing everything they can through careful research before asserting any facts. As you claim to be a scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the careful structure of scientific research.
Who suggested the laws of the universe came from no where? The problem is, creationists are the ones emphasising that the laws of the universe came from an almighty creator - which
is absurd. 1+1 does not equal 11.
It is important to note this because writers such as Dawkins will insist on conceiving God as an explanatory alternative to science. Such activity is not necessarily to be regarded as a mark of intellectual sophistication.
Many scientists see a connection between the laws of nature and the Mind of God. These include Einstein, the discoverer of relativity; the progenitors of quantum physics, the other great discovery of modern times, including: Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, to name but a few.
Hold up, hold up. Stephan Hawking has written in A Brief History of Time that the lack of knowledge of black holes, etc is not evidence for a god. Hawking is also a great scientist, but he has clearly mentioned his disbelief. I won't say anything about Einstein because there is ample evidence to suggest either way (that he was a believer, and that he was an atheist). I think that when Einstein gets put into a creationism vs. evolution debate, it just turns into a viscious circle.
Paul Davis, arguably the most influential contemporary expositor of modern science, writes: "Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Atheists claim that the laws [of nature] exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted."
The many scientists who posit God do not merely advance a series of arguments or syllogisms of logic. Rather, they
propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself on the rational mind. It is, indeed, a compelling vision for many.
The key word there in Davis' quote is 'must'. Until there is evidence to prove that there is unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the unvierse is rooted, I suggest that his quote not be used as ammo for a silly excuse for a rebuttal.
When scientists conduct an experiment, and they can't put there finger on a certain aspect of it, or they don't like the results, they do not say 'There MUST be more to it' and end it there. They do more research, spend more time, FIND that extra link that they are looking for. However, this is based on sound doubt. Paul Davis' quote suggests more of a 'this doesn't make sense to me, so I'm going to continue assuming that a god exists' tone.
I will carry on with this later....got a lot to do today!
Topic: Any biologists or evolutionists who can check out these claims?