51. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12394 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:36 pm

Recognizing that all scientific conclusions are tentative does not preclude the objectivity of scientific results.
While the social aspect of scientific work is interesting and important, it does not undermine the objectivity of science. For one thing, the employment of scientific results, in the shape of medicines, bombs, and bridges are, for better or worse, culture-transcendent.
The culture-independent, epoch-independent nature of scientific inquiry is important. If scientists are grappling with the world as it really is, then the fruits of their endeavours should resemble one another insofar as they are accurate. Culture and epoch may vary, yet the results of scientific inquiry do not co-vary with them.

52. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12389 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:23 pm

By letting the facts speak for themselves.
I can objectively test the theory of gravity to verify if it is true or not.

53. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12388 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:21 pm

I explained that above in comment #12383.

54. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12386 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:16 pm

Evolution can be verified by anyone who wants to make the effort to do so.

55. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12383 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:13 pm

I reject the notion that as human beings we cannot be objective. Anyway, science is an international enterprise, both currently and historically. The truths unearthed by science are universal truths, transcending both individuals and individual cultures.
A curious feature of the international character of science is that researchers frequently converge on a conclusion, despite coming to it from different directions in different fields. This is certainly the case with evolution.

56. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12380 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:06 pm

I don't think the fact of evolution will be surpassed, although its theoritical aspects may be subject to some refinements as time goes on.

57. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12378 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 4:02 pm

The one thing you can say about Krisnamurti - who emphasized not thinking - is that he practiced what he preached.

58. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12374 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:57 pm

Do you doubt, godismyhobbit, that there is any real objective evidence for, say, evolution?

59. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12373 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:55 pm

I actually think it was the Krishnamurti mentioned above in a couple of posts who made the distinction between rational and irrational beliefs, just as he made a distinction between rational and irrational authority. I think RD pretty much makes the same distinction.

60. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12364 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:47 pm

"So Einstein's formidable brain was firing on two cylinders."

Which is probably why he wouldn't have anything to do with the notion of there being a personal God.

61. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12350 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Being dead has little, or nothing, to do with it, godismybody. Einstein has been dead a lot longer than Bohm, and look at the traction Einstein's ideas have had, and still have. Why? Because they can be tested.
Mind you, aside form his hypothesis about the implicate and explicate order, Bohm did some other fine work.

62. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12340 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 3:20 pm

Yes, godismyhobby, that is more philosophy than science, and one of the reasons that Bohm hasn't had much traction in the science of physics of late.
And there is a considerable difference between a theory and a hypothesis in science.

Logicel: I have often wondered to what extent man's deep psychological need for security and self-preservation has played in the invention of God and the notion of life after death.

63. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12329 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Yes, Algebratheist, I'm a big fan of Lee Smolin, but for those who really like the speculative stuff, I don't think one could do better than check out Antony Valentini, and what a prodigious intellect! Even Smolin - not lacking any intellectual abilities himself - acknowledged that Valentini scared him.

64. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12324 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:42 pm

Bohms implicate order is more a hypothesis than a scientific theory, godismyhobby, but a very interesting hypothesis for all that.

65. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12322 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:39 pm

Religion is just an early form of philosophy and the first real attempt to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life. But as Douglas Adams said, "...we now have vastly better (explanations). God is no longer an explanation for anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining."

66. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12314 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Yes, godismybooby, and it keeps talking :-)

67. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12311 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:19 pm

They know that, Algebratheist, but, short of any rational argument, thay have to resort to that kind of buffoonery.

68. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12307 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:15 pm

No, just a must.

69. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12303 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:13 pm

I think the irrationally inclined would like to think that RD is "becoming more barmy over the years", but that's probably only because his arguments are becoming more acute and irrefutable.

70. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12301 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:08 pm

I would love to talk to you about science, godismyhobbit, but bashing religious anti-science is a must.

71. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12295 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 2:04 pm

RD gives a wonderful example of what you are talking about, Frans, in The God Delusion, where in some kind of symposium a scientist goes up and in front of everybody there thanks the scientist who has just proven him wrong.
Where have we ever heard of a religionist suggesting, "Hey, I think we may have got this a little bit wrong".

72. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12292 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:56 pm

No, godismyhobby, just justified hyperbole.

73. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12290 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:53 pm

Oh, I don't know that this forum is a mess, Thrall.
I think it is fairly interesting myself.

74. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12287 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:48 pm

I always think of Mark Twain's comment when I hear somebody say "Jesus loves you".

"Now here is a curious thing. It is believed by everybody that while (God) was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous, and cruel; but when he came down to earth and assumed the name of Jesus Christ, he became just the opposite of that he was before: that is to say, he became sweet, and gentle, merciful, forgiving, and all harshness disappeared from his nature and a deep and yearning love for his poor children took its place. Whereas it was as if Jesus Christ that he devided hell and proclaimed it! Which is to say, that as the meek and gentle Savior he was a thousand billion times crueler than he was in the Old testament - oh, incomparably more atrocious than he ever was at the very worst in those days."

75. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12276 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:38 pm

I accept that religion is a human invention. Does that help?

76. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12273 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:36 pm

Thanks for taking me seriously, godismyshoddy, I appreciate it.

77. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12271 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:33 pm

RD is often called "intolerant", but considering the aberrant pseudo-scientific garbage that many believers throw at him, it is no wonder that he gets a little testy at times.

78. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12265 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:28 pm

I was joking, godismybody. Lighten up and stop taking yourself so seriously.

79. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12262 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:24 pm

A foundation without buildings is a waste of space.

80. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12260 by Vardu on December 11, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Atheists can be as humble as believers, it is just that believers are proud of their humility.

We should keep in mind that atheism only deals with what an atheist doesn't believe. Thereafter atheism becomes a foundation upon which to build a world view.

81. Photos from Richard Dawkins' Lecture in Lawrence

Comment #11727 by Vardu on December 6, 2006 at 11:13 pm

Richard, aside from writing brilliant books (including The God Delusion), has at the same time got to think of his retirement.
So, if, along with his scientific work and his battle against religious irrationalism, he manages to make a few bucks o the side for his retirement, then tickety-boo for him!
There probably wouldn't be one us - fortunate enough to be endowed with his talents - that would not be doing exactly the same thing.

82. Science vs religion

Comment #11726 by Vardu on December 6, 2006 at 10:57 pm

I don't think anybody deliberately goes about to create a savior by any name, sparkie_t, but certain individuals make claims for themselves and then convince others to believe in them. Geza Vermes has clearly shown that there were many claimants about like Jesus in First Century Palestine, charismatic teachers and leaders who gathered considerable followings. Jesus was just one of them, manifesting, as Anthony Storr points out in his great work, Feet of Clay, all the flaws that are entirely typical, though not universal, of such iconoclastic, and iconified men. They believe themselves to know the truth, usually by personal revelation, and their followers believe them too. They are often dismissive of detractors, derisive and damning. The New Testament, perhaps inadvertently, identifies that this was Jesus' attitude. But this is not surprising. It reveals him merely to be one amongst many cast in the same psychological mould.
The above mentioned Geza Vermes in his own study of Jesus the Jew reveals him to be one of potentially many cast in the same cultural mould.

83. Science vs religion

Comment #11722 by Vardu on December 6, 2006 at 10:35 pm

As an atheist, I have never claimed that God does not exist, I simply have never been convinced by any of the theistic arguments for the supposed entity's existence.
The one thing I have observed is that, many mysteries that were once attributed to a supernatural God have now been supplanted by completely natural explanations and, for the life of me, I cannot think of one that has gone in the other direction.
In fact, the more we humans learn about the universe and life, the less we credit Gods' intervention within either.
Mind you, belief in God is, obviously, a consoling and comforting belief for many, but that, as Richard Dawkins points out, doesn't make the belief true.