The probability that a moon sized rock might hurtle into the earth between now and tomorrow, or some other cataclysmic event that might destroy the earth (thus in effect making it so that the sun didn’t rise tomorrow), is no less probable than the likelihood that there exists a god as commonly defined by theology (about 99.9999% probably not, in both cases).
Well, not exactly. If a moon sized “rock” were close enough to hit earth tomorrow, we’d know about it 100% today.
I have a reason to have such certainty in this particular ability of science. Matter much smaller than the moon has been found, its trajectory projected, and then observed to miss our little ball by the amount predicted. All many months ahead of time.
I have a reason to have such certainty in this particular ability of science. Matter much smaller than the moon has been found, its trajectory projected, and then observed to miss our little ball by the amount predicted. All many months ahead of time.
And I’m pretty sure there are a lot more objects still out there that have yet to be found or tracked. You can’t prove with 100% certainty the non-existence of those other objects, all you can do is place a number on the likelihood that they exist. It might be absurdly improbable that something the size of the moon could exists and we not know about it. yes, but you don’t know that it doesn’t exist.
My point in bringing this up however is this, it’s a two fold point:
1) “I don’t know” is the proper science response to any “something” for which we don’t yet have direct recorded knowledge. A future event is an example of something for which we don’t yet have direct recorded knowledge.
2) Not having direct recorded knowledge of something does not limit you to just saying “I don’t know”. There is still a lot you can say about the probable existence and/or likely occurance of “something”.
Riley,
Are you really not sure that the earth will continue to spin for the next few days? Your argument that science cannot 100% predict the future is moot since science does not claim to have ANYTHING correct to 100%. The scientific model for our earth spinning and the sun rising tomorrow is so profound and has been correct so often that I am saying with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.
What does this have to do with Hedges????? Or anything?
Riley,
Are you really not sure that the earth will continue to spin for the next few days? Your argument that science cannot 100% predict the future is moot since science does not claim to have ANYTHING correct to 100%. The scientific model for our earth spinning and the sun rising tomorrow is so profound and has been correct so often that I am saying with 100% certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow.
So we agree. Science does not know anything with 100% certainty. My point here is that the argument made that science should only answer “I don’t know” to the question of “God”, is not different than the argument that science should only answer “I don’t know” to other questions that we are uncertain about.
traveler - 12 May 2008 10:31 AM
What does this have to do with Hedges????? Or anything?
What this has to do with Hedges is this:
Hedges is accusing Dawkins and others of being a fundamentalist because Dawkins reaches the conclusion that “God” (not a god, but “God” as defined by most theologians) almost certainly does not exist. Hedges misrepresents Dawkins as being certain that “God” does not exist. Dawkins, like most people when they speak informally, state as a matter of fact that “God” is a delusion, without quibbling about the fact that he is only 99.99% sure “God” is a delusion.
Some here have also accused Dawkins of being a fundamentalist in his views (or at least, they have accused Dawkins of misapplying science) and recently someone suggested that the only right and scientific thing you can say about the possibility that “God” exists, is that we “don’t know”. I am pointing out that, technically, that’s the right and scientific response to most things. But like most things, a scientific response is not limited to saying “I don’t know” we can also assign probabilities. Science has something to say about the probabilities concerning “God’s” existence, as it does about the probable existence of many other types of “something”.
Second part:
Oh, well that’s easy. I heard it straight from the horses mouth (Dawkins) on The Daily Show. Dawkins said that he was 99.9999% sure there is no god. And that’s enough for him to call himself an atheist.
This works both ways, however. The only correct scientific response from the Pope, Jerry Fallwell, Jimmy Swaggart, and other religious types should also be, “I don’t know.” They are the ones who really have a problem with this - not most of us here.
Maybe, but a substantial number of the posts on this thread have been dedicated to the assertion that any comment on the likelihood that “God” exists is a misuse of science, that the most a scientist can say on the matter is “I don’t know”, and that Dawkins is a “fundamentalist” for saying anything more than “I don’t know”.
... go back and read where it starts: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3985/P75/#37673.
Hedges describes several characteristics of what he calls a fundamentalist mindset. His first one is:
It is a binary world view of us and them. It is elevating ourselves to a higher moral plane and relegating others to a position of moral inferiority.
Evolutionary biologists and cognitive psychologists tell us that a binary, us and them, worldview is inherent in human nature and is exhibited by most (if not all) other animal species as well. It is manifested as suspicion and hostility towards those who are “different” in any way from our own group, and is likely rooted in group competition for territory and resources. I am amazed at the diversity and creativity of the criteria we as human beings use to elevate ourselves and our groups in our own minds above all others. Although I do believe this self-elevation bias is inherent and that it is not possible to rid ourselves of it, I believe we can ameliorate its effects on both ourselves and others by being aware of it within ourselves and consciously compensating for it. This innate bias is why it is so important that the culture teaches tolerance and teaches how to recognize the many forms of intolerance. Hedges’ criticism of fundamentalists is not only that they are intolerant but that they are “true believers” in their own superiority. My own sketchy reading of these authors tends to support this accusation.
Hedges:
[Fundamentalism] is an embrace of catastrophic, even apocalyptic violence as a cleansing agent to remove human impediments…..” to a better world. “For instance, the externalization of evil--the belief that evil is not something within us that we must battle against, but is embodied in human abstractions, people who no longer have human qualities but have been abstracted into visions or products of hate and violence that must be eradicated.
I have not read all of authors Hedges calls the “new atheists,” but so far I have not encountered this theme. However, I do see a common tendency to blame religion for the evils of the world. I tend to see religion not as the cause, but as an excuse for dehumanization and hatred of others. There are many other prominent excuses for aggression and warfare that could be pointed to as well, from race to tribal affiliation to language. I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views. I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.
Hedges:
Fundamentalism does not have to be a religious phenomenon. It is a way of viewing the world. It is a form of self-exaltation. It is utopian in that it believes that human history is linear, that there is such a thing as collective moral progress, which I don’t think either human history or human nature bears out….
I disagree with this. I believe cultures evolve, just as species do. If we define moral progress as the ability to live together and cooperate productively in larger numbers and closer proximity than in the past, there is evidence of collective moral progress.
Hedges:
the dehumanization of others is very much part of the fundamentalist vision…” “we have nothing to fear from people who don’t believe in God; we have everything to fear from people who don’t believe in sin, and by that I mean people who don’t understand their own flaws and their own moral corruption, and these people do not.” “the genocides of the 20th century weren’t carried out by religious fanatics.” “I spent 20 years as a war correspondent in societies that disintegrated and broke down, and I watched, when there is no structure, what human beings do to other human beings, and it’s appalling. So, as long as you live within an ordered structure, that veneer of civilization….is a kind of illusion. If our society were to break down we would react in the same Hobbsian manner….Any society is very fragile.
While I agree that any society is fragile, I do see evidence of “collective moral progress,” for surely we have today some, at least, more elaborate and resilient social structures than are characteristic of societies in which every transfer of power devolves into civil war.
Hedges:
I think the question is being in touch with your own capacity for atrocity, for our own myopia and forms of self-delusion….whether you are an atheist or not an atheist, the secret I think is deep introspection and self-criticism rather than self-exaltation, and I think that’s the problem with these new atheists, that what they’ve done is elevate themselves above others….
Trish: I have not read all of authors Hedges calls the “new atheists,” but so far I have not encountered this theme. However, I do see a common tendency to blame religion for the evils of the world. I tend to see religion not as the cause, but as an excuse for dehumanization and hatred of others. There are many other prominent excuses for aggression and warfare that could be pointed to as well, from race to tribal affiliation to language. I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views. I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.
I agree, and think it is a very important point to stress, that religion (in isolation) is not a cause for anything. You are also right to point out that it is an excuse, i.e. that it provides a ready justification or rationale for all kinds of actions, including unspeakable crimes (as the long histories of both Christianity and Islam have shown).
But if religion is merely a cover, what is the real driving force? I would argue - along with Marx and Engels - that these are found ultimately at the level of economic interests, i.e. ruling classes use religion, nation, race, or various other forms of ‘false consciousness’ in order to maintain their own property and wealth, including for the purpose of waging both class wars against their subjects at home, or wars against ruling classes in other parts of the world whom they wish to subject and expropriate.
From my perspective ‘liberalism’ ‘humanism’ etc. when divorced from a materialist class analysis, are simply other forms of false consciousness, and no different from religion to the degree that they can serve equally well (especially among the secular intelligentsia) to accommodate and conceal the real economic interests of the rulers. Hedges’ sanctimonious liberal Christianity, which conceals the material realities of decaying U.S. imperialism behind mystical concepts like ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are not one bit more useful in this respect.
Balak,
I agree that there must be a real driving force for violence and atrocities. However, I look for it in the evolutionary drives that are deeply embedded in the human psyche, specifically the drives for survival and status. It appears to me that wealth accumulation is motivated by a drive for power (which is a way of gaining status in the hierarchy). I see evidence for this first in the fact that being “rich” never satisfies this drive--it’s WHO you are richer than and WHO is richer than you that really counts--money is just a way of keeping score. I also see evidence in that power holders often risk or sacrifice wealth to gain or hold on to power. I believe the basic drive for status is a part of human nature, and that the existence and behavior of any ruling class is determined by the structure and rules of their society, not by anything unique to them.
From my perspective ‘liberalism’ ‘humanism’ etc. when divorced from a materialist class analysis, are simply other forms of false consciousness, and no different from religion to the degree that they can serve equally well (especially among the secular intelligentsia) to accommodate and conceal the real economic interests of the rulers. Hedges’ sanctimonious liberal Christianity, which conceals the material realities of decaying U.S. imperialism behind mystical concepts like ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ are not one bit more useful in this respect.
What an interesting perspective. You’ve added a completely meaningless phrase to my vocabulary (false consciousness), endorsed a completely bankrupt ethical and economic system, and failed entirely to appreciate the very real gains in overall wealth for even the poorest members that liberalism has brought.
Ah, communist propaganda. I had forgotten how vast your power to decieve.
I do not believe that group aggression and dehumanization would end if everyone in the world held the same religious (or non-religious) views. I believe the best way to combat group violence is building a strong, liberal, diverse society that places a high value on diversity and tolerance.
So, if everyone held the same views, it wouldn’t end group aggression and dehumanization, but the best way to combat group violence is for everyone to adopt your non-religious views on diversity and tolerance? You don’t see a contradiction here?
Essentially, you’ve just restated what Harris and Hitchens and Dawkins and humanists everywhere have been saying for centuries: the best way to combat out group violence is to make everyone a member of the in group. This is obvious. The problem with radical Islam, as a point of view, is that it absolutely refuses to become part of the in group. The problem isn’t that we haven’t made the offer, the US has a large muslim population. It is that that offer has been rejected.
The same is true of Jerry Falwell style Christianity, of course. They’ve been offered a seat at the table of human fellowship, and they’ve declined.
And the reason for this, as the “new atheists” keep trying to point out, is that some philosophies are conducive to joining with others in human solidarity, with fostering tolerance, and some just aren’t. Some cultures are better than others at building a strong, liberal, diverse society. Which means that if you have a goal of lower group violence, some cultures are objectively better at reaching that goal.
Thank you for having Chris Hedges, author of I Don’t Believe in Atheists, on Point of Inquiry. It’s good to see a critic of the New Atheists on your show. While I’m not a big fan of Dawkins and the Four Horsemen, I have mixed feelings about what Hedges says, too, and I think he may be exaggerating their views a little. Anyway, it’s good to hear a diversity of viewpoints, not just “Religion is the root of all evil!” (I know they don’t quite say that.)
