Richard Dawkins claims “psycho” cyclist smashed up his Tesla – while he was in it

From beyond the grave? Did I confuse my sciences?

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Mr Hawkins version of events seems very one-sided 🤔🙄

I resemble that remark

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Mr Hawkins version of events seems very one-sided 🤔🙄

This is also true of his so called science.

iandusud wrote:

....

This is also true of his so called science.

Ooo, an evolution denier? 

I'll just go and put some popcorn on....

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

....

This is also true of his so called science.

Ooo, an evolution denier? 

I'll just go and put some popcorn on....

I'm sure it's just a reasonable quibble at the good standing of sciuriology.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm sure it's just a reasonable quibble at the good standing of sciuriology.

Just-so-story! No, the truth is that they are not rodents at all but descend separately from the squirrelosaurus and the ones we find attacking people have just reverted to that ancestral characteristic:

https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2011/11/04/prehistoric-patagonian-squirrel-like-mammal-with-sabre-teeth.html

chrisonatrike wrote:

Just-so-story! No, the truth is that they are not rodents at all but descend separately from the squirrelosaurus and the ones we find attacking people have just reverted to that ancestral characteristic:

https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2011/11/04/prehistoric-patagonian-squirrel-like-mammal-with-sabre-teeth.html

Incidentally, I've been branching out into a new fashion line of squirrel teeth

hawkinspeter wrote:

Incidentally, I've been branching out into a new fashion line of squirrel teeth

Oooh HP, where do you get your hair done?

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Incidentally, I've been branching out into a new fashion line of squirrel teeth

Oooh HP, where do you get your hair done?

The local hare-dresser's

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

....

This is also true of his so called science.

Ooo, an evolution denier? 

I'll just go and put some popcorn on....

No not at all. But his "anti-God science" is an embarasment to the scientific community. 

iandusud wrote:

....

No not at all. But his "anti-God science" is an embarasment to the scientific community. 

Is it? are you a spokesman for the "scientific community"?

Not sure what you mean by "anti-god science". It is very clear that there is no space for gods (or any superstitions) in the practice of scientific research if that's what you mean. Although there are relatively few religious scientists (compared to the wider population at least) I would doubt that any serious ones would consciously leave a gap in their research for their god to inhabit.

If you mean that ToE is anti-gods, again no. It does however leave no space for the role of gods in any capacity to explain biodiversity, and the existence of modern humans. Especially the latter, as modern theistic religious arguments are frequently anthropocentric. But it is not anti-gods, it's just that there is no place for gods, and they are not considered.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "his" ...science.  I doubt very much that RD would claim it was his science.

ToE is not new, or controversial (except with science deniers of various stripes), and you are not a denier as you stated above. So, not sure what your problem is with RD, on a scientific level at least.

Quote:

It is very clear that there is no space for gods (or any superstitions) in the practice of scientific research if that's what you mean.

Oh, I don't know about that. I've observed no small degree of incantations, invocations and ritualistic behaviour - particularly towards the end of an experiment. By the time you get as far as biology it's virtually a religion. Not sure about the psychologists. They might be hiding it because of the physicists, chemists and biologists sniggering at them. Engineers?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Quote:

It is very clear that there is no space for gods (or any superstitions) in the practice of scientific research if that's what you mean.

Oh, I don't know about that. I've observed no small degree of incantations, invocations and ritualistic behaviour - particularly towards the end of an experiment. By the time you get as far as biology it's virtually a religion. Not sure about the psychologists. They might be hiding it because of the physicists, chemists and biologists sniggering at them.

Well if you're talking about the black candles on the points of the pentagram carefully aligned with the ley lines drawn in white chalk that we physicists always employ, I would have thought it was bleeding obvious that the rituals, ahem, er.... experiments just don't work without them.

Great slithering Quetzalcoatl, next you'll be saying that white coats are unscientific.....

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Quote:

It is very clear that there is no space for gods (or any superstitions) in the practice of scientific research if that's what you mean.

Oh, I don't know about that. I've observed no small degree of incantations, invocations and ritualistic behaviour - particularly towards the end of an experiment. By the time you get as far as biology it's virtually a religion. Not sure about the psychologists. They might be hiding it because of the physicists, chemists and biologists sniggering at them.

Well if you're talking about the black candles on the points of the pentagram carefully aligned with the ley lines drawn in white chalk that we physicists always employ, I would have thought it was bleeding obvious that the rituals, ahem, er.... experiments just don't work without them.

Great slithering Quetzalcoatl, next you'll be saying that white coats are unscientific.....

They're fine as long as you wear the appropriate ritual belt:

chrisonatrike wrote:

....

They're fine as long as you wear the appropriate ritual belt:

 

Hmmmm. Does it come with a hood?

Captain Badger wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

....

They're fine as long as you wear the appropriate ritual belt:

 

Hmmmm. Does it come with a hood?

A fume hood? Oh - I don't know, I only saw that at night, by burning cross torch-light. I think that look might have started in Spain though.

Captain Badger wrote:

[...] we physicists [...]

Great slithering Quetzalcoatl, next you'll be saying that white coats are unscientific.....

Quetzalcoatl eh? Always thought that was more one for the aerodynamics lot? Or the genetic engineers. Thought the physicists were Tlāloc fanciers? Mind you the ones I knew were specifically dealing with nuclear and hydropower...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

[...] we physicists [...]

Great slithering Quetzalcoatl, next you'll be saying that white coats are unscientific.....

Quetzalcoatl eh? Always thought that was more one for the aerodynamics lot? Or the genetic engineers. Thought the physicists were Tlāloc fanciers? Mind you the ones I knew were specifically dealing with nuclear and hydropower...

Not sure about physicists (I imagine theoretical physicists might have a thing for Yog-Sothoth).

I was under the impression that many biologists follow the cult of Shub-Nuggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young (I hear that their parties are amazing...).

brooksby wrote:

Not sure about physicists (I imagine theoretical physicists might have a thing for Yog-Sothoth).

I was under the impression that many biologists follow the cult of Shub-Nuggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young (I hear that their parties are amazing...).

Splitters!

brooksby wrote:

.....

Not sure about physicists (I imagine theoretical physicists might have a thing for Yog-Sothoth).

I was under the impression that many biologists follow the cult of Shub-Nuggurath, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young (I hear that their parties are amazing...).

Well, they're ok, but do get a bit out of hand. Now I can cope with a bit of nudity as well as the next badger, but I can tell you that  I wasn't the only one to get their coat when someone suggested we play the game with the mayonnaise...

chrisonatrike wrote:

.....

Quetzalcoatl eh? Always thought that was more one for the aerodynamics lot? Or the genetic engineers. Thought the physicists were Tlāloc fanciers? Mind you the ones I knew were specifically dealing with nuclear and hydropower...

His is a broad church, and all comers are welcome. Except for quantity surveyors. Some are beyond salvation.....

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

....

No not at all. But his "anti-God science" is an embarasment to the scientific community. 

If you mean that ToE is anti-gods, again no. It does however leave no space for the role of gods in any capacity to explain biodiversity, and the existence of modern humans. Especially the latter, as modern theistic religious arguments are frequently anthropocentric. But it is not anti-gods, it's just that there is no place for gods, and they are not considered.

ToE is not new, or controversial (except with science deniers of various stripes), and you are not a denier as you stated above. So, not sure what your problem is with RD, on a scientific level at least.

As you say I'm not at all at odds with the ToE. And neither is Christianity. One of things that I dislike about R D is that he goes around saying what Christians believe, such as that the world was created in 6 days which is not the view of the vast majority of Christians and neither is the historical point of view of the Church or of the OT Bible. The creation story as described in Genesis 1 is clearly allegorical and this sort of story telling is an Ancient Near Eastern tradition (Jesus himself taught almost exclusively in paraboles). There are those who prefer to interpret Gen 1 at litteral, at odds with history and traditional scholars, but they are a small minority, and R D is being totally disingenuous when he implies the contrary. It's like car drivers who say "cyclists hate car drivers", when in fact most cyclists are themselves car drivers. Chrisitianity (and Judaism before it) has also always held the view that the universe had a begining point, whereas post enlightenment science held the position that the universe had always existed until the Big Bang Theory was postulated and they caught up with the biblical narative. 

The reason I take issue with Dawkin's (and not with other atheists, be they scientists or not) is because he states that religion and science are in conflict, a position that many scientists, atheist or not, do not adhere to. As I have already said he tells people what christians believe by picking out extreme minority views and presenting them as mainstream beliefs. He also presents scientific theory as facts, and this is why he is poor scientist. His science is pop-science and not serious and would never hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny. 

I have no problem with atheists (they are as entitled their beliefs as any of us) and neither do I have any problem with science. On the contrary I consider that if one finds that there is a conflict between science and christianity there is either a problem with your science or a problem with your theology (the latter is more generally the case).

As an aside I have know many christians who are scientists. Two of them are leading figures in UK their respective fields. One of them, who holds the most senior post in the UK, is regularly invited to speak on Radio 4 to talk on his subject. The third is now retired but he again held the most senior post in the UK in his field before retirement. The idea that science and faith are incompatible is a myth.

Hi Ian, thanks for the long thought out response. I'd say that your view of RD is closer to the caricature presented by some sections of the press than the reality . I think this is understandable as this caricature is much better to hang outraged opinion pieces on, rather than someone who gives a firm but mannered "no" in response to the meddling in science that most organised religions (particularly, but not exclusively, of the Abrahamic flavour) seem to enjoy.

I'll try and respond to some of your points

iandusud wrote:

......

As you say I'm not at all at odds with the ToE.

I'm genuinely glad to hear it

iandusud wrote:

And neither is Christianity.

Although this sadly is not actually the case. Remember that you do not speak for all Christians, and many denominations clearly do have a doctrinal problem. Even those that claim otherwise (eg catholicism) can't seem to accept that gods had no role in evolution, particularly that of modern humans

iandusud wrote:

One of things that I dislike about R D is that he goes around saying what Christians believe, such as that the world was created in 6 days which is not the view of the vast majority of Christians and neither is the historical point of view of the Church or of the OT Bible.

Which church? there are thousands of denominations. Neither does he state that all Christians believe that. It cannot be denied though that some do, and some of them are in positions of immense power. These are the ones that end up in spats over ToE

iandusud wrote:

The creation story as described in Genesis 1 is clearly allegorical

Is it? do you know who wrote it, and their motivation?

In any case, that is virtually irrelevant, when powerful lobby groups state otherwise and public policy is influenced by stories that you can interpret anyway you like. Pointing out that they are utterly factually incorrect is one line of defence. 

iandusud wrote:

....and R D is being totally disingenuous when he implies the contrary.

implies or states? Maybe he's being allegorical....

iandusud wrote:

.... until the Big Bang Theory was postulated and they caught up with the biblical narative. 

Oh come off it Ian. Science hasn't "caught up" - religious stories, fun though they are, aren't even in the running

Note that the BB only refers to our observable universe. It isn't necessarily "all".

iandusud wrote:

The reason I take issue with Dawkin's (and not with other atheists, be they scientists or not) is because he states that religion and science are in conflict, a position that many scientists, atheist or not, do not adhere to.

No, he takes exception that science is often under attack by some religious groups that see their relevance fading. In that sense, some (powerful) religious are in conflict with science. And it is a real problem, particulalry in say the US (where most of his spats occur).

iandusud wrote:

....He also presents scientific theory as facts, and this is why he is poor scientist.

I think this comes from a misunderstanding of what a scientific Theory is. It's not a hunch, or a hypothesis. It's a description and explanation of observable facts that is detailed enough to make verifiable predictions, and has been accepted via peer review.

Theory of relativity, Quantum theory, ToE et al. They are essentially true. Might they be abandoned or amended? yes, in the face of new evidence that falsifies them. It's worth noting that's what happened when ToR replaced Newtonian physics. Even then, NP was still accurate enough to provide sufficient knowledge to get man t the moon, and is used to this day for dynamics - it is a perfectly good approximation in the case of non-relativistic speeds. It is still in a very real sense the foundation of Rocket Science.

As far as ToE is concerned it's one of the best supported theories - you'd have to look at the Thermodynamic theories to find better support. It's as close to explaining the facts as we're ever likely to get

iandusud wrote:

His science is pop-science and not serious and would never hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny. 

ToE is indeed popular, and he is one of the scientific writers that has made it so. And yes, ToE DOES stand up to peer review. In fact, biology really makes no sense at all without it.

iandusud wrote:

I have no problem with atheists (they are as entitled their beliefs as any of us)

Again thank you. Sadly not all the religious share your open view, as I have experienced directly myself, and is very well recorded in history and indeed current affairs.

iandusud wrote:

and neither do I have any problem with science. On the contrary I consider that if one finds that there is a conflict between science and christianity there is either a problem with your science or a problem with your theology (the latter is more generally the case).

I would only disagree very slightly with that statement

iandusud wrote:

As an aside I have know many christians who are scientists. Two of them are leading figures in UK their respective fields. One of them, who holds the most senior post in the UK, is regularly invited to speak on Radio 4 to talk on his subject. The third is now retired but he again held the most senior post in the UK in his field before retirement. The idea that science and faith are incompatible is a myth.

Science is an activity aimed at getting to the facts and explaining them. Religion is very poorly defined, and can cover a spectrum of anything from culture to tribalism, from life philosophy to blind belief and superstition. So they clearly can occupy the same belief space, although when they overlap the cognitive dissonance can be pretty unbearable.​

However science and faith are, by definition at least, incompatible. Faith can be defined in a number of ways, belief without evidence, complete unquestioning trust, Strong doctrinal belief, belief in dogma. All of these (if applied to a particular topic) can only get in the way of getting to the facts. I'd say your friends are great scientists in spite of their religion, rather than because or alongside it, although not having met them I accept that that is merely a hypothesis.

Hi Captain,

I'll try and repsond to some of your points. You are assuming that the ToE cannot  have room for God, but I'm not suggesting that God has no role in evolution. This is position that most Christians hold and it in no way dismisses the ToE. However not everyone, including scientists, understand the ToE in the same way. For example I think most people would consider humans to be the most evolved species but the ToE tells us that species evolve by surival of the fittest and we see this demonstrated with other animals where the weak and sick are shunned in order for the species to evolve to be stronger and fitter. However humans care for the weak and disabled which would appear to be incompatible with the survival of the fittest model.

I certainly don't claim to speak for all Christians and as you say there are those who flatly deny the ToE, but they are a small minority. The problem is, as with the anti-cycling mob, is that they tend to be the ones who shout the loudest and are the most confrontational. 

You make a lot references to religion and I'm not speaking for my part about anything other than christianity. 

You ask me how I know that Gen 1 is allergorical. Anyone (not just biblical scholars) who studies ANE history will confirm this. There are different styles of OT biblical narative, allergory, historical, appocalyptic... I can assure that this isn't disputed by scholars (although it may well be by less scholarly fundamentalist christians). It is also worth noting that the Gen 1 account describes an evolutionary process. 

I'm not sure why you mock biblical narative, which has been substanciated by scientific study, as fun religious stories. You may dismiss them as such but please be aware that ancient writings of all sorts are important historical records that give insight into ancient cultures that have shaped our present ones. They are taken very seriously and studied by historians and athroplogists among others.

I totally understand what scientific theory is and it therefore unscientific to present it as indisputable fact. I think in this respect RD needs to show a bit more humility. 

I'm not suggesting that ToE doesn't stand up to peer review, it's RD's characatures of people of faith that don't. 

I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences of "religious" who don't agree with you. However, to use the above analogy, I'm sure you've had bad experiences with car drivers who don't agree with you. Sadly there are biggoted people in all walks of life but please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Science and faith are not at all imcompatable. In fact I would go so far as to say that science is based upon faith. For example when you sit down on your chair to eat your supper you don't for one moment fear that it will collapse under you. This is faith in the chair's capacity to support your weight based upon experience. Christian faith is based upon experience as is science. A scientist will theorise and experiment. If the results of his experiement lead him to believe that he is correct and he continues to see the same positive results he will have faith in his theory. I can assure that the christian experience is no different (you might like to put it to the test )

Many in the scientific community find atheism irrational from a scientific point of view. This was certainly true of Einstein. Agnosticism is a much more rational point of view for scientist, who by nature should have an open mind.

Wow!  [Dawkins'] science is pop-science and not serious and would never hold up to peer reviewed scrutiny? .... whereas your hand-me-down musings from Middle-Eastern Bronze Age goat-herds do? Any of them?  Give us a break. This is a cycling website.

iandusud wrote:

Many in the scientific community find atheism irrational from a scientific point of view. This was certainly true of Einstein.

While it's certainly true that Einstein was a deist rather than an atheist (i.e. he saw the working of some form of the divine in the natural order), it's disingenuous to recruit him for your arguments without acknowledging his view of formal religion and the Abrahamic God, summed up in a letter as: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Rendel Harris wrote:

iandusud wrote:

Many in the scientific community find atheism irrational from a scientific point of view. This was certainly true of Einstein.

While it's certainly true that Einstein was a deist rather than an atheist (i.e. he saw the working of some form of the divine in the natural order), it's disingenuous to recruit him for your arguments without acknowledging his view of formal religion and the Abrahamic God, summed up in a letter as: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Please read what I said in context :-). It wasn't disingenuous. I was talking about agnosticism vs atheism.