1. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237274 by spiderdancer on August 26, 2008 at 9:34 am

J Mac. Thanks for that. It seems to make sense. I like the fence bulldozer analogy. But if you hit a building with a bulldozer only intending to take out the side wall the entire building might come down! If scientists show that prayers fail to improve the sick surely believers that should re-evaluate their entire belief system rather than just jettison certain bits. I suppose the point is that this is a matter for them rather than the science class.

To the point gummidge you have to be very careful about only disproving a very specific version of design argument in which you've helped yourself to assumptions about the designer's goals and abilities.

2. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237249 by spiderdancer on August 26, 2008 at 8:54 am

Comment #237086 by J Mac on August 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm

The best way I'm aware of to address the concern without either "chickening out" nor turning off the religious is to take the methodological stance. If one is teaching a science class they just need to establish what science is. A distinction between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism is useful.

If I'm understanding this correctly "ontological naturalism" is the belief that the supernatural does not exist. On the other hand "methodological naturalism" says the supernatural may exist, but since science is the only effective way to investigate reality we can never know whether supernatural claims are true or not.

This sounds like NOMA in disguise to me. If the supernatural is by definition non-overlapping with the natural then science is indeed silent about supernatural claims. But this implies God, assuming him to be solely supernatural, never interferes with nature (or at least does not do so in a way that would be testable).

Why not take up an alternative evasion such as "instrumentalism"? That way scientific concepts need only be effective in describing the universe and making predictions. Whether they attach to an underlying reality can be left to the philosophy class.

3. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237081 by spiderdancer on August 25, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Quite a moving article.

I support the teachers playing a bit of politics here. It's important to separate cowardice from an awareness of what makes students tune-in. So I really was was about to condemn the "chicken livered" comment when I started writing here but I can't bring myself to do so. Answering a question falsely is never excusable (in a science class). NOMA or as it was called on a recent thread 'compatibilism' should be addressed if asked by the children.

If the teacher himself is bringing up the question about the limits of science he MUST give the right answer. The right answer is obviously that some claims such as 'the flying spaghetti monster seeded the universe with life' are indeed intrinsically untestable and therefore immune from scientific investigation. On the other hand many religious claims such as the eath is 6000 years old, dinasaurs co-existed with humans and praying can help you recover from illness are completely within the realm of science and therefore falsifiable. Sure, there are versions of deism or 'theistic evolutionism' that don't make these kind of claims but it is important to understand these are not the mainstream religions.

If teachers really feel this kind of answer will make children irreversibly tune out, they should evade these questions (unless it is directly part of thr subject matter they are teaching!) rather than giving false answers.

4. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235707 by spiderdancer on August 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #235643 by chewedbarber: I don't think you've thought this through. Which religion should we include in our study of evolution?

I think you've misrepresented what I've said here. I was defending Dawkins to the extent that I think it is fair to address the religion - evolution conflict in documentaries about evolution, especially those that give a historical perspective.

This is quite a different matter from advocating bringing religion into science classes. Religion in general should be kept out (though it might be worth a mention in a history of science, epistemology or scientific method class.)

5. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235590 by spiderdancer on August 23, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #235523 by AfraidToDie

I think I agree with you here.

Unlike RD I believe I have been an atheist all my life. Apparently I asked mother at 4 years old 'who made god?'. It is perfectly obvious, or it least it seemed so to me, that the religions out there are incompatible with each other, the construct of god is arbitrary and does not do any real explaining or predicting. None of this requires any knowledge of natural selection.

With Dawkins being such a prominent evolutionary biologist as well as such a well known atheist the public are bound to make an link between evolution and atheism. Dawkins, influenced by lawyers, says at the beginning of the program 'I want to persuade you that evolution offers a far richer and more spectacular view of life than any religious story. It's one reason I don't believe in God.'

I think this is a little unfortunate. I disagree with those who feel religion should be kept out of evolution programs - this is just evading the obvious conflict between the two. But on the other hand I think the link should be made very carefully pointing out both that religion is absurd even if one is totally ignorant of natural selection and also that it is possible for 'religious stories' to be devised in such a way that they are compatible with evolution.

6. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235323 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Comment #235320 by J Mac. Ok fair enough. I accidentally undestood it purely as belief in a supernatural creator without the other claims added.

7. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235317 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Comment #235310 by AfraidToDie I think you are all too quick to throw Meadon under the bus.

Meadon deserved to go under the bus for substantially misrepresenting things.

However in the interests of fairness I should point out that Paula Kirby's defence 'Richard does nothing more than ask them to look at the EVIDENCE' apparently contradicts Dawkins 'I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM'.

"Deism" according to Wikipedia is 'the theistic belief that a supreme God exists and created the physical universe, but shall not intervene...'. That sounds to me like deism as well as theism requires at least a belief in creationism. Are there really a lot people in practice who believe in a god that did not create the universe? Or maybe Richard is defining CREATIONISM to include the rejection of evolution? Anyway I'm confused by the distinction so how the hell are kids supposed to understand it?

8. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235299 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Meadon, the fact that it is logically possible to construct a version of deism compatible with evolution makes no difference. Those kids had quite clearly been indoctrinated with views that were incompatible with evolution and each other i.e those of the other holy books. Ducking such a conflict just won't do.

It is logically consistent to believe the devil or an intelligent teapot seeded the planet with life so that it would evolve by natural selection.

9. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235148 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #235106 by deebeeh on August 22, 2008 at 12:27 pm

This is a very common misunderstanding. To restrict "evolution" to what is observed in the lab greatly diminishes it. Evolutionary claims are much more substantial: that man and monkey are cousins is most definitely fact but it is NOT direclty observable. Dawkins absolutely gave the right answer.

10. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235055 by spiderdancer on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #234986 by Meadon

I hate to be contrarian, but I think Dawkins was guilty of just horrendously bad pedagogy

Of course the religions of those children in the programme are not compatible with evolution and science. Let's not pretend otherwise, even the kids themselves could see it.

Sure, it may be possible to devise a non-interventionist God that set the wheels of evolution in motion - but 'theistic evolutionists' and atheists agree that this is quite different from a literal interpretation of a holy book. Dawkins job in the context of the program is only to say their versions of religion are incompatible with science and invite them to consider alternatives. After all, one of world's most famous atheists is not really trying to teach the children: he's presenting to us the audience.

To try to teach evolution without reference to religion is disingenuous, due to the obvious conflict between widely held religious views and science. It also ignores the historical perspective. In terms of tactics Dawkins acknowledges he values clear thinking and reason more highly than simply persuading people of evolution.

11. Losing my religion

Comment #234092 by spiderdancer on August 20, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Comment #233436 by Steve Zara

I agree. I found The Extended Phenotype a delight to read.

I too agree. I think the extended phenotype is excellent. But the orginal 1976 classic is surely the best (and The Blind Watchmaker second?). In defence of the TGD rather than making "one long argument" you kind of have to make several against the different incarnations of religion which makes it more difficult to do.

12. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #232016 by spiderdancer on August 17, 2008 at 1:04 pm

457. Comment #231746 by Steve Zara

Our brains, as produced by natural selection, are adapted to our ancestral past.

Now of course I believe that everything that happens is natural - in the sense that I am not invoking the supernatural. But if you say there is no sense in which we can escape our genes it sounds to me like you are taking up a position of genetic determinism.

Dawkins has criticised this, 'The only point I wish to make is that, whatever view one takes on the question of determinism, the insertion of the word "genetic" is not going to make any difference. If you are a full-blooded determinist you will believe that all your actions are predetermined by physical causes in the past, and you may or may not also believe that you therefore cannot be held responsible for your sexual infidelities. But, be that as it may, what difference can it possibly make whether some of those physical causes are genetic? Why are genetic determinants thought to be any more ineluctable, or blame-absolving, than "environmental" ones?'

If, for example, I am prone to uncontrollable fits of rage, unless I am a fatalist, it seems reasonable to believe there might be a way to "escape" and "rise above" my problem e.g. by seeing a counsellor. The principle is the same whether my rage is caused by genetic predisposition or something that happened in my childhood.

13. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #231063 by spiderdancer on August 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

It was a good programme, but as I have said before, I am not entirely at ease with Dawkins' view that we can "escape" or "fight against" our selfish genes. It suggests that there is some sort of "imperative" from our genes to act a certain way. There isn't. Our freedom to act thoughtfully and knowingly altruistically towards others is because of our big brains, which has genetic origin. That freedom will be as much subject to selection as anything else.

I know what Dawkins means - we should not be social Darwinists simply because Natural Selection is, well, natural. However, I think the way it is put across could lead to the mistaken assumption that we are "beyond nature", whereas we are simply the fifth ape doing what the fifth ape does.

I disagree with the comment above and this is important. Of course Dawkins is right that we alone can escape our selfish genes. Genes absolutely do give us incentives, pleasure centres to act in certain ways. But the key point here is that evolution is a very slow process. This means we are not perfectly adapted to our current environment that contains very recent developments such as the ability to fly around the world, the internet and rubber condoms. Darwin's Origin of Species is also extremely recent in evolutionary time. There is always a lag time so to say "freedom will be as much subject to selection as anything else" is misleading. Many of our current freedoms are only possible since the scientific revolution. Human evolution is simply outpaced by cultural evolution, advances in science or if you like memes.

This does not mean human natural selection is no longer happening. And it does not mean we are the only species doing things counterproductive in terms of offsping: other organisms may sometimes do this if the environment changes (without any awareness of this). The point is that we alone have brains large enough to understand the urges given to us by our genes and can actively rebel against them if we choose to either as individuals or collectively as a society.

14. Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Comment #228924 by spiderdancer on August 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Hmmm. I'm a bit sceptical that this is saying anything more than "evolution is consistent with the 2nd law".

We already knew this but maybe it's adding a bit more meat to the bones of that argument. I don't think it allows us to predict anything, for instance it is silent on the question of all organisms evolved from a common ancestor.

15. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224686 by spiderdancer on August 5, 2008 at 11:38 am

Not seen it yet as I'm in Canada, but just wanted to say keep up the good work. It's astonishing reading the comments in the British press how much cheap Dawkins bashing there is out there. Likening Dawkins to God, a preacher or a delusion is really quite pathetic. Denying a link between evolution and God is also pathetic.

Too many believers, happy to hide under a collective umbrella of religion when it suits, seek to brush off Dawkins' criticisms by saying it doesn't apply to THEIR (more sophisticated) version of faith. I'm wondering therefore if it might be useful remove this protective blanket by separating out 'deists', 'theistic evolutionists' and 'theists' so that attacks can be channeled more efficiently. I don't know whether any surveys have done on this but what proportion of believers accept evolution as compatible with God, and what proportion believe in an intervening, miracle performing prayer answering God?

16. The Group Delusion

Comment #110818 by spiderdancer on January 12, 2008 at 5:46 pm

In response to tribalypredisposed it is important to remember that genetic evolution is a very slow process. The genes simply haven't had chance to keep pace with technological and cultural changes of the 20th century.

I fully accept that the warrior example might be a case of group selection as the tribe generally fights a battle as a single vehicle. The point is that the bravery of an individual benefits his reproductive success directly relative to the population as a whole.

This is in contrast to kin altruism where an individual may severely incapacitate his own reproductive prospects if in doing so this increases the chances of his genes being passed on by a relative.

17. The Group Delusion

Comment #110767 by spiderdancer on January 12, 2008 at 10:50 am

Kin selection is vital in explaining altruism. And it is crucial to distinguish this from group selection.

Real altruism is when a vehicle reduces its chances of directly propagating its own lineage (often spectacularly) for the sake of another. This must occur because the behaviour in evolutionary history has generally led to in indirect propagation of its genes through a related vehicle.

Altruism due to group selection is fundamentally different. A brave warrior may also be said to be 'altruistic'. But this is only in the sense that he puts himself at a fitness disadvantage compared to other members of his tribe. But looking at the bigger picture, he is still behaving as a 'selfish vehicle', still maximising his number of direct descendents across the whole population. In other words he is really just helping the tribe as a means of helping himself, and dragging along a few free riders in the process. The bigger picture may also mean several generations (as it may take time for tribes with few 'altruists' to implode). So this is not really altruism at all or at least it is altruism of a different flavour.

Altruism of the second kind, unlike kin selection altruism, is susceptible to 'subversion from within', that is the 'altruist' being outcompeted within the group before the bigger picture can play out. Special conditions for group formation and extinction are therefore required for this kind of altruism to persist.

18. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #107806 by spiderdancer on January 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Of course the article has cherry picked some of Harris arguments to make the case more compelling. But in my view Gorenfeld has every right to do this.

The issue is absolutely fundamental and Harris has absolutely no reason to leave room for doubt. So I undertand why some on this thread think Dawkins should distance himself. James Randi at least has joined in the crtiticism.

It is either rational thinking using the scientific method or not! The results of the experiments Harris cites have not been properly verified. But the point is even if they were true the evidence would only be compatible with reincanation as well as an indefinite number of alternative hypotheses. Reincarnation is extremely improbable. To put reincarnation on a pedestle amounts to pseudo-science.

It won't do for Harris to claim he has been misrepresented. He is brilliant at debunking belief in God but he must come out and admit he has now abondoned these ideas to be worthy of the title of rational thinker.

19. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100412 by spiderdancer on December 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Not bad but not quite as good as the excellent CBC performance. Just a little bit aggressive, not relaxed enough for my liking (though in response to Vine perhaps anyone would be).

20. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100101 by spiderdancer on December 18, 2007 at 8:39 am

Absolutely top marks to Dawkins here. I've watched so many of these and this one was very good. Seemed to talk at a higher tempo than normal and with a smile. Not so aggressive but full of fluent answers.

21. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99927 by spiderdancer on December 17, 2007 at 9:55 pm

It may well be Harris (not Hitchens) who doesn't deserve to be in the company of the others. His position on (belief in?) reincarnation - not discussed in this conversation but available on YouTube - is irrational, embarrassing even, given his prominence as a voice of reason. He urgently needs to clear this up.

Hopefully the others will challenge him head on next time round!

22. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99715 by spiderdancer on December 17, 2007 at 11:50 am

What an excellent 2 hours. Good comments by IanG. Think I'm leaning towards a moderator.

This is all about rational thinking so smoking (not after all irrational) has nothing to do with it.

But I too have my reservations about Hitchins. Great to have someone charismatic and from a different background. But he seems to be a poor listener. The main problem is his occassional tendency to answer the same question differently; his repeated contradictions perhaps aided by alcohol. Are religions equally bad? Would the world be better if religion is irradicated? Also loose use of 'non-overlapping magisteria' not in the way Gould used it etc. All of this suggest muddled reasoning or that Hitch values theatre more importantly than the ideas.

A hopefully constructive criticism of Dawkins too. He seems to frequently back off from the question of whether some religions may have benefit by saying the main thing he cares about whether it (the existence of God) is TRUE and concedes the general ponit that belief in a falsehood could be beneficial. This won't do. Either he's going into the territory of saying the world would be better of without religion and presenting evidence for this or he isn't.

23. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #83022 by spiderdancer on October 28, 2007 at 3:19 pm

NO. Scientific claims require evidence not faith. They will be thrown out if they don't fit the evidence, cannot be tested or contain unnecessary elements that don't add to their predictive power.

Religious claims, on the other hand, are generally not testable and unparsimonious. A believer must have faith as there is no objective basis for choosing one religious claim ahead of its rivals.

24. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75427 by spiderdancer on October 2, 2007 at 4:01 pm

"But it can never be rational to say that because of my non-believe in religion, it would be good to murder, oppress women..."

What if I am brought up with a religious indoctrination that defines murder and oppressing women as sins. Then one day I break free, lose faith and fall into a brand of hedonistic atheism in which anything that feels good is good. Anything that feels right is defined as being right.

Now free from regious indoctrination, I decide take the law into my own hands and murder my brother who stole my inheritance. All of a sudden it is beginning to sound more reasonable to attribute my murderous vigilantism to non-belief.

Dawkins must be careful not to imply just because one defines goodness in a certain way one will be motivated to act according to this. And whether religions on balance do good surely depends on their success in suppressing evil tendencies by indoctrinating good values. This seems to be very much an empirical question and while I am on the atheists side I would prefer to see more evidence and a bit less conjecture.

25. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56332 by spiderdancer on July 15, 2007 at 5:29 am

To Comment 39 by Luis_Cayetano.

My reaction to reading this is what a shame both DS Wilson and Dawkins lace their serious science with a few personal criticisms. And Wilson seems to be attacking TGD for the purpose of publicising his book.

Putting this to one side the real debate is about the unit of selection. Dawkins and Wilson both accept the vehicle, replicator distinction and that the replicator view can provide great insights as Dawkins has shown expertly. They are also both critical of 'naive group selectionism'.

They agree in one sense replicators and vehicles are the 'apples and oranges' of the unit of selection debate. But in another they compete: which can provide most illumnination to evolutionary theory, which can offer the greatest insight?

Dawkins is the champion of the gene whereas Wilson "has been obsessing for 30 years" about the group. Dawkins argument is that understanding natural selection in terms of levels of vehicles is unwieldly, less parsimonious and likely to cause confusion. Essentially it is an extra layer of explanation that adds little and should be dispensed with. Wilson on the other hand is far open to the possibility that there is plenty to be gained from with-in group and between group perspective (in addition to the gene's eye view).

Wilson in colloboration with Sober (another of Wilson's armchair men?) has pointed out that benefits to a group must ultimately benefit the individual members of a group. And this allows group selection to be represented as individual selection, collapsing the distinction between selection at different levels. Wilson (and Sober) call this the 'averaging fallacy', a common mistake but one Dawkins in general does not commit.

Dawkins agrees group selection is an empirical possibility, just unlikely to have a significant evolutionary influence. This is because group selection will tend to be a weak relative to individual selection as the generation time is longer and the variation between groups is smaller. Group selection, when it opposes individual selection, also has the problem of 'subversion from within'.

This is where Wilson's not-so-private redefinition comes in. (Though it has to be said nobody has yet given a satisfactory definition of group.) It seems that in multi-level selection theory just fleeting acquaintances can count as groups. In his 1994 reply to Wilson 'Burying the Vehicle' Dawkins identified a number of problems with the multi-level approach saying that ''phenotypic effects (interactors) [may be] too diffuse, too multi-levelled, too incoherent to deserve the accolade of vehicle''. But then proceeded, perhaps hastily, to bury the vehicle concept altogether.
1994 - Burying the Vehicle


Listening to Dawkins recently he seems to be more accommodating towards the within-group between-group idea. But has he officially unearthed the vehicle as a potentially illuminating perspective and become a vehicle agnostic?