Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Hinduism

[DavidRoss]

Science/rational thinking has it's limits??? Indeed.
Philisophy doesn't have limits??? Who suggested such a thing?  Not Elgarian.

What?  When? Where? How? Who?

What else is philosophy than rational thinking?? One hopes "rational thinking" is the method.  As for "what else?" -- you might visit the Continentals.

These threads with God in their name are so weird!  Ain't life grand!?

[DavidRoss]

You knew I'd splutter into my coffee at this image, didn't you? One always hopes....   

Tell you what, David - it's a considerable relief to be understood at all, so rare is it, in this particular arena. Thank you. And thank you.    Not least for your comments on the Pre-Raphaelite painters...though that bit of godawful "poetry" by Rossetti you posted damned near gave me heartburn!  Still, it minded me of the likely models for Tolkien's songs in his otherwise remarkable books.  I could well imagine Lewis and he and the other Inklings declaiming at The Eagle and Child while ensconced about a cheery little blaze, lamenting the lost honor of a world in decline.

[71 dB]

Thanks DavidRoss for quoting me "unquotinable" way!

To bring some sense to this mess I'll say this:

1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.

2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.

3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.

4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.

[DavidRoss]

Thanks DavidRoss for quoting me "unquotinable" way!

To bring some sense to this mess I'll say this:

1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.

2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.

3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.

4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.

A hammer is a great tool for driving nails.  It's not very useful, however, for interpreting poetry.  (Well...most poetry!  )

Your thinking is a heartbreakingly commonplace example of what happens when people fail to recognize their limits...or worse, overestimate their own capacity.  It closes off entire rooms--nay, wings--in the mansion of experience and understanding.  In the '60s one of our local counter-culture artists created a popular comic book character named "Mr. Natural" -- a peculiarly down-to-earth guru of common sense.  One of his most oft-used expressions was: "Use the right tool for the job."

[DavidW]

Huh?  I thought that 71 dB and Elgarian were the same.  You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!?  Surprisingly enough that means that I've learned something from a navel gazing Sean thread.

[DavidRoss]

Huh?  I thought that 71 dB and Elgarian were the same.  You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!?  Surprisingly enough that means that I've learned something from a navel gazing Sean thread.

Ahh...an understandable mistake, given your recent return, perpetuated by an equally understandable disinterest in reading his posts. 

(1) Elgarian is a new member with a mind as fine as Nigel's.
(2) 71dB (E L G A R) has turned over a new leaf and his posts are now more interesting than the old "Elgar rules, Beethoven drools--and if you don't think so it's because you're not a genius like me" staple of past years.

[Sean]

Hi DavidRoss, I must wind you up pretty well I guess. Have fun.

[DavidW]

Ahh...an understandable mistake, given your recent return, perpetuated by an equally understandable disinterest in reading his posts. 

(1) Elgarian is a new member with a mind as fine as Nigel's.
(2) 71dB (E L G A R) has turned over a new leaf and his posts are now more interesting than the old "Elgar rules, Beethoven drools--and if you don't think so it's because you're not a genius like me" staple of past years.

Ah cool beans!

[karlhenning]

Yes, and a nice leaf, too, Poju!

[Elgarian]

You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!?

Ahem. If to love much of the man's music, and love walking in the Malvern Hills is to be fanatical, then I'd have to admit to being a fanatic. But on the same basis, you could then describe me as a William Morris fanatic, a Cezanne fanatic, a Monet fanatic, a Turner fanatic, a PreRaphaelite fanatic, a Handel fanatic, a Vaughan Williams fanatic, a Massenet fanatic, a Bob Dylan fanatic, etc etc etc. I try my best, but I don't think I can be all those fanatics all at once and still have time to breathe. So I think I might not be an Elgar fanatic after all. Phew.

Have I convinced you? 

[Elgarian]

though that bit of godawful "poetry" by Rossetti you posted damned near gave me heartburn!

So my scheme for selling you a wheelbarrow-full of secondhand Rossetti poetry books isn't going too well, then? 

Still, it minded me of the likely models for Tolkien's songs in his otherwise remarkable books.  I could well imagine Lewis and he and the other Inklings declaiming at The Eagle and Child while ensconced about a cheery little blaze, lamenting the lost honor of a world in decline.

Don't tell me you're an Inkling-lover too?

We were talking of Dragons, Tolkien and I
In a Berkshire Bar. The big workman
Who had sat silent and sucked his pipe
All the evening, from his emptying mug
With gleaming eye glanced towards us:
"I seen 'em myself," he said fiercely.

[Elgarian]

1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.
2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.
3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.
4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.

I'm not sure if this was a response to my earlier post; but it is in any case exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I said: "What always dismays me about discussions such as these are the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth."

71dB, I wonder what experience or knowledge you base these rigid statements on? Are you a scientist, perhaps? Have you engaged in scientific research yourself? Have you considered Whitehead's discussion of the philosophical implications raised by scientific enquiry? Have you tried to undertake any part of the philosophical journey I suggested in my post? Forgive me for quoting myself again, but I do believe it's important: "The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie.  But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet."

I can't express the situation more clearly than that.

But before I stop, and even though I don't think anything I say will make the slightest difference, let's just pick out one of those statements and look at it:

3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.

How do we choose our friends? Or our partner (if we have one)? How do we decide which music to listen to? What painting to hang on our wall? Where to go on holiday? Whom we can trust? Whom we can love? How to cope if we're sad? How to share the joy if we're happy? These are the kinds of questions we face every day. Big questions, some of them. How effective are rational/scientific methods in providing answers? And how would your friends respond if you announced that you were going to decide whether to continue with their friendship by carrying out a process of scientific enquiry in order to get a 'sane' result?

[71 dB]

I'm not sure if this was a response to my earlier post;

No. It's my personal statement triggered by this thread. To be honest, I don't really understand most of what has been talked about.

but it is in any case exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I said: "What always dismays me about discussions such as these are the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth."

Whenever mankind has learned something new, it has been through science and rational thinking. Why would it be any different from now on?

71dB, I wonder what experience or knowledge you base these rigid statements on? Are you a scientist, perhaps? Have you engaged in scientific research yourself?

I have done scientific research (acoustics). I'm an acoustics engineer with an university degree.

Have you considered Whitehead's discussion of the philosophical implications raised by scientific enquiry?

No. I don't even know who this Whitehead is but I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Have you tried to undertake any part of the philosophical journey I suggested in my post?

Sorry, I haven't read this thread carefully enough to know about any suggestions by you. I might sound arrogant and ignorant but these philosophical issues can take much more spare time than a working man has. Maybe later. Maybe...

Forgive me for quoting myself again, but I do believe it's important: "The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie.  But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet."

Who says 2,500 years of rational thinking has taken us to the end of the journey? We have walked for long but we don't how long the journey is.

How do we choose our friends? Or our partner (if we have one)? How do we decide which music to listen to? What painting to hang on our wall? Where to go on holiday? Whom we can trust? Whom we can love? How to cope if we're sad? How to share the joy if we're happy? These are the kinds of questions we face every day. Big questions, some of them. How effective are rational/scientific methods in providing answers? And how would your friends respond if you announced that you were going to decide whether to continue with their friendship by carrying out a process of scientific enquiry in order to get a 'sane' result?

Rational/scientific methods for these questions are EXTREMELY complex and beyond practical. However, those answers do exist even if we can't access them. Irrational methods are "easy" and practical but also dangerous. That's why we should use rational thinking as much as possible to limit cumulative errors of irrational methods. We use scientific methods deciding whether to continue with their friendship: This friendship makes us both unhappy so we better end it. That is rational thinking even if "happiness" seems something irrational.

[Elgarian]

To be honest, I don't really understand most of what has been talked about.

That's an honest statement, but what concerns me is that if you don't understand most of what's been talked about, how can you be so sure that it can be dismissed?

Whenever mankind has learned something new, it has been through science and rational thinking. Why would it be any different from now on?

I believe what you're actually doing here is subconsciously redefining 'learning something new' in a particular way so as to make the sentence appear to be true; whereas actually it's a disguised tautology: 'Whenever mankind has learned something that can be found through science and rational thinking, it has been through science and rational thinking.' I would suggest that for example, the invention of the novel, the plays of Shakespeare, Elgar's Enigma Variations, the poetry of Ted Hughes, the paintings of JMW Turner, and indeed my new friendship with that interesting chap John who lives in the next street, are all ways of 'learning something new' that are not achieved through science and rational thinking.

I have done scientific research (acoustics). I'm an acoustics engineer with an university degree.

Thanks - that's helpful to know. I'm a physicist, myself.

No. I don't even know who this Whitehead is but I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion.

Whitehead was a mathematician and philosopher who worked with Bertrand Russell on the Principia Mathematica - a 3-volume treatise on the foundations of mathematics, generally considered one of the most important works ever written on mathematical logic (so I understand - I'm not capable of verifying the claim myself). Dawkins is an excellent biologist with, as far as I can judge, very little understanding of philosophy, whose statements on these issues seem to be driven by a hatred of religion rather than by rational thought. If we're going to read Dawkins launching attacks on aspects of human belief that he understands inadequately, wouldn't you say it's worth a look at why a serious philosopher like Whitehead raises serious questions about the limitations of science? If we're going to elevate science to the level of 'The One True Way' - shouldn't we look at some of the arguments against doing so? (After all, part of the spirit of scientific enquiry is to attack the strongest scientific statements and try to disprove them.)

Sorry, I haven't read this thread carefully enough to know about any suggestions by you. I might sound arrogant and ignorant but these philosophical issues can take much more spare time than a working man has.

I sympathise. I know very well what it's like, I promise you, and I'm not at all suggesting that everyone should study the history of Western philosophy. But if someone is going to make declarations about science as 'The One True Way' to acquire knowledge, then it must make sense to find out at least something about where the development of rational thought has led us? At least insofar as it concerns the findings of science?

Who says 2,500 years of rational thinking has taken us to the end of the journey? We have walked for long but we don't how long the journey is.

You misunderstand me. Obviously we can only follow the history of philosophy as far as it's gone up to now. That's what I mean by the end of the journey – it's not that philosophy stops, but that for the moment there's no more road to follow. Even so, having said that, I do think that something pretty substantial happens when we reach Wittgenstein. At that point a significant decision has to be made about where we go from here, and for me, that marks an end of sorts of that particular kind of journey. But to get there, and recognise the importance of it – you do have to travel the road. That's my point.

We use scientific methods deciding whether to continue with their friendship.

I don't believe it. We use intuitive and emotional responses to decide on a course of action; then we try to rationalise whatever decision we've reached, and declare it to be logical. (We're all very good at this kind of self-delusion. We can rationalise pretty well anything by including the information we want, and ignoring the information we don't want.)

My aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we've found the foolproof route to the truth.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

My aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we've found the foolproof route to the truth.

A question if I may...

Where is the flaw(s) with this position/outlook:

The problem with organized religion is that it is a system and every system is concerned with one thing - the survival of itself. Self-preservation is the foremost thought of any system, be it a religious system, a government, or an organism. What happens, then, is that survival often times replaces the search for truth.

Look at it this way: For the sake of argument, let's assume that a supernatural being exists (God) that created life, the universe, and everything. Now let's fast forward 2342323 years to present day and analyze our current situation. We have a myriad of different religions, all of which teach different things. Some believe in Christ, some in Buddah, some in ancient elven spirits, etc. The thing of it is, no matter what these religions teach, no matter which one you worship, the truth is simply the truth. Why is it that people feel a need to worship via religion.... Why not skip the middle man, and simply worship the truth without knowing what it is?

Simply say "I am here, and for whatever reason, I am thankful, and I will do what I can to make this place good and care for my fellow human."

Instead of this simple yet ultimately infallible way of worship, we worship via these systems of religions - systems that are only concerned with their own survival. These systems try to proclaim themselves as the Truth, they try and proclaim themselves as the sole heir of spiritual deliverence, when it is simply NOT the case. The tragedy of this is that men and women have lost their lives, have lived through life times of suffering, have shed blood and tears and leveled cities in the name of one system or another pretty much since the begining of time.

The truth is everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is a human first, and a Christian/Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim,etc..... second .

It's not ideology, it's just simply fact.

And the bitter irony of it all is that we seek out these religions as a way to be a member of some spiritual organization, as a way for guidance and reassurance, when in fact we all, each and every one of us, already belong to such an organization. Its called humanity.

[Elgarian]

Simply say "I am here, and for whatever reason, I am thankful, and I will do what I can to make this place good and care for my fellow human."

Well, I'd be happy to buy a pint of beer for anyone who took that attitude, Eric.

I've said this before, but we all need some kind of platform, however tentative, however provisional, from which to operate. If it seems to Jill that the existence of a divine being is highly probable (on whatever grounds), then her platform is going to reflect that in some way. I suppose the difficulty would arise if you extrapolated the notion of 'caring for my fellow human' to include attacking Jill's chosen platform with missionary zeal because it's not the same as yours.

[71 dB]

That's an honest statement, but what concerns me is that if you don't understand most of what's been talked about, how can you be so sure that it can be dismissed?

I don't believe I have dismissed anything. I wrote my personal statement. Reading responsies to it I hope to get an understanding of what this thread is about. The title of this thread is not explaining much. Dawkins isn't against Hinduism that much to my understanding, nor is he a supporter.

I believe what you're actually doing here is subconsciously redefining 'learning something new' in a particular way so as to make the sentence appear to be true; whereas actually it's a disguised tautology: 'Whenever mankind has learned something that can be found through science and rational thinking, it has been through science and rational thinking.' I would suggest that for example, the invention of the novel, the plays of Shakespeare, Elgar's Enigma Variations, the poetry of Ted Hughes, the paintings of JMW Turner, and indeed my new friendship with that interesting chap John who lives in the next street, are all ways of 'learning something new' that are not achieved through science and rational thinking.

To me art is about creating something new rather than learning something new. Science is about objective things, art is about subjective things.

Thanks - that's helpful to know. I'm a physicist, myself.

Cool!

Whitehead was a mathematician and philosopher who worked with Bertrand Russell on the Principia Mathematica - a 3-volume treatise on the foundations of mathematics, generally considered one of the most important works ever written on mathematical logic (so I understand - I'm not capable of verifying the claim myself). Dawkins is an excellent biologist with, as far as I can judge, very little understanding of philosophy, whose statements on these issues seem to be driven by a hatred of religion rather than by rational thought. If we’re going to read Dawkins launching attacks on aspects of human belief that he understands inadequately, wouldn't you say it's worth a look at why a serious philosopher like Whitehead raises serious questions about the limitations of science? If we're going to elevate science to the level of 'The One True Way' - shouldn't we look at some of the arguments against doing so? (After all, part of the spirit of scientific enquiry is to attack the strongest scientific statements and try to disprove them.)

Who knows, maybe I have heard about Whitehead. I forget things so easily. I wish I could read about everything but there is time because I am busy trying to enjoy my life before it's over. Without reading Whitehead's books I don't believe irrational thinking could save us from possible limitations of science. That's a completely crazy suggestion!

Dawkins isn't that good as a writer but he knows what he is writing about. He really justifies his thoughts. Dawkins is against harmful religions, not art or other harmless irrational things.

I sympathise. I know very well what it's like, I promise you, and I'm not at all suggesting that everyone should study the history of Western philosophy. But if someone is going to make declarations about science as 'The One True Way' to acquire knowledge, then it must make sense to find out at least something about where the development of rational thought has led us? At least insofar as it concerns the findings of science?

I have always believed that philosophy is science based on logic. At least philosophy seems very logical to me.

You misunderstand me. Obviously we can only follow the history of philosophy as far as it’s gone up to now. That’s what I mean by the end of the journey – it's not that philosophy stops, but that for the moment there’s no more road to follow. Even so, having said that, I do think that something pretty substantial happens when we reach Wittgenstein. At that point a significant decision has to be made about where we go from here, and for me, that marks an end of sorts of that particular kind of journey. But to get there, and recognise the importance of it – you do have to travel the road. That’s my point.

Yeah, but the next step is usually obvious and logical. It might take a great mind to see it put fortunately geniuses live among us. It took only one Einstein to get the theory of relativity.

I don’t believe it. We use intuitive and emotional responses to decide on a course of action; then we try to rationalise whatever decision we’ve reached, and declare it to be logical. (We’re all very good at this kind of self-delusion. We can rationalise pretty well anything by including the information we want, and ignoring the information we don’t want.)

Yes, but the decisions happen according to the laws of physics. That's the rational side of it, not our rationalisation of decisions.

My aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve found the foolproof route to the truth.

For me science isn't a "foolproof route" to the truth. Fools are too stupid to use science. Science is just superior candidate for the best (and probably the only) route to the truth, the best bet. It's stupidity not to choose the best.

[DavidRoss]

And the bitter irony of it all is that we seek out these religions as a way to be a member of some spiritual organization, as a way for guidance and reassurance, when in fact we all, each and every one of us, already belong to such an organization. Its called humanity.

Ain't it a rib tickler that Eric's all-too-common unreasoningly childish hatred of religion blinds him to the OBVIOUS: that religions are precisely the institutions humanity has created to provide spiritual guidance?  And the almost equally obvious: that although some of these institutions have at times been involved in all-too-human activities of the baser sort (slavery and wars of conquest, for instance), on the whole they have been by far the most overwhelming force for good among all human endeavors?

One needn't own horses to recognize the virtue of horse shoes.

[karlhenning]

To me art is about creating something new rather than learning something new.

I find that my experience of art is about both.

[71 dB]

the OBVIOUS: that religions are precisely the institutions humanity has created to provide spiritual guidance?

Some religions maybe but for example the monotheistic Abrahamic religions are custom-talored to dominate people. They are  psychologically so well camouflaged that even in the 21th century many are unable to see that.