Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

Comment #22581 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm

The tendency of atheist ideology to steal concepts from Christianity (as well as from other religions) never ceases to amaze me. You attack religion, but then borrow its ideals and claim them for your own. The problem is that when you try to base human worth and equality on what boils down to a purely subjective system you are left with little more than an arbitrary declaration. It is not even a rationally justified claim.

"We affirm the worth, dignity and autonomy of every individual, and the right of everyone to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others."

Whenever I see the concept of "worth" being applied to humans within the framework of secular humanism it makes my brain wince. Worth is a meaningless concept unless there is a higher entity which exists to apply worth. A well-cut diamond is worth ten thousand dollars only because we say it is worth that much. A pure-bred grey-hound is worth nine hundred dollars only because we say it is. Diamonds do not give themselves their own worth; they are inanimate objects incapable of thinking or logic. Likewise, dogs cannot ascribe their own value to themselves because that would contradict the very nature of value.

So my question is, what makes anyone think humans are any different? Are we valuable simply because we say we are? Consider this statement: "I have value because I say I have value. My opinion matters because I am valuable". Any educated person can quickly identify that as circular reasoning.

Now, what if I say that you are worthless? Well, then you may be able to argue that most of the world does not share my opinion. But what if it did? For many different people this has unfortunately been the case. History attests to the fact that when we ascribe human worth, the results are not pretty. Slavery, genocide, murder: all of these atrocities arise because the perpetrator's concept of "worth" is skewed. When there exists nothing to ascribe value, it becomes an arbitrary and meaningless concept, and I would submit that all atheists strike it from their vocabulary in the name of intellectual honesty.

"We affirm the right of everyone to open and comprehensive education."

Forgive me for sounding snoody, but this one just makes me laugh. If by "comprehensive education" they mean forcing secular humanist dogma down children's throats, then they seriously need to look up the word "comprehensive". If by "education" they mean stifling any inquiry whatsoever into a logically unjustified claim being touted as science, then they also need to look up the word "education".

"We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively."

I could point out a number of flaws here, but I would like to concentrate on the usage of the word "science". I've noticed that atheists really like to muddy the waters by using the word "science" interchangeably in the context of past events and present, repeatable events, therefore clouding the distinction between historical science and empirical science. This is also the fallacy of equivocation. Atheists like Dawkins tend to talk about the science that gave us the cellular phone and helped us discover the laws of thermodynamics, and then talk about microbe-to-man evolution in the same context, as if it somehow carried the same amount of certainty and authority inherent within empirical science. While this statement may not directly state the relationship, it is certainly implied in the language used.

102. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22483 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 19, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Fighting dogmatism with more dogmatism are we?

103. Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

Comment #22331 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 14, 2007 at 9:57 pm

"Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what's observed in the universe."

This statement demonstrates a general misunderstanding of the concept of science. Science is indeed useful for explaining phenomena that regularly occur in the Universe, such as a rain storm or a solar flare, but its effectiveness is greatly diminished when attempting to explain historical events, especially those that imply a supernatural causation due to our current knowledge of the universe and how it operates. Historical science, if you wish to call it science, simply does not entail near the same level of certainty that can be provided by empirical science. It is therefore hard for me to understand why militant atheists believe their extreme dogma to be justified with such a high level of certainty that they feel they reserve the logical right to assert that only half-witted ninnies can believe in such fairy tales as a supernatural being causing a supernatural event.

Now before you all start loading your guns, keep in mind that the word "supernatural" simply implies that which exceeds, or is unbound by nature and the subsequent laws. For instance, when we try to conceptualize the beginning of the Universe, it is indeed proper to call it a "supernatural" occurrence, for such an event is never observed in nature, nor is it implied by any natural phenomenon. This is a question that science was never meant to answer given its inherent limitations. The creation event cannot be repeated, and it was not observed. It therefore it falls in the realm of history. Science can certainly give us clues as to what could have happened, but it can offer little more than this. It is a tool, and it has its limits.

It just frustrates me when people such as Dawkins use the word science in respect to alleged historical events such as reptiles magically turning into birds and then use it in the context of empirical science interchangeably and without distinction, therefore causing anyone who doesn't know any better to infer that this pseudo-science carries the same level of certainty that empirical science can offer. This is the fallacy of equivocation, and I must admit it is very effective at muddying the water, so to speak.

It is therefore improper to make the claim that, as these new "definitions of science" assert, science can or has provided a sufficient answer to the question of origins. Science, when used correctly, can certainly provide us with logical inferences as to how certain historical events might have happened, but it is improper to equate what comes down to an interpretation of stagnant evidence to the same level of certainty offered by empirical science.

"#2: Faith can't achieve knowledge; it only results in dogma."

That's an interesting stance. It demonstrates a very, very shallow understanding of the concept of faith. Faith, contrary to your philosophically absurd claim, is a necessary condition for knowledge. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.

A mistake that Dawkins and many other atheists make is that they fail to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist. You cannot absolutely prove it, but it is a reasonable belief based on the general self-evident concept that our senses can be trusted most of the time. However, there still exists the element of faith.

I would encourage you to look past your own dogma and re-examine your beliefs, especially those regarding the concept of faith. I am often surprised to find how few atheists (or anyone for that matter, including Christians unfortunately) actually know why they believe what they do. Of course, on the off-chance that I am provided with a lumpy morsel of an atheist's justification, I am not surprised to find fallacy after fallacy hiding behind the already counter-intuitive claims.

104. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #22271 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 13, 2007 at 8:17 pm

"In one video, a Liberty University student tells Dawkins, "I can't prove you exist." This is wrong and backwards."

Your claim is philosophically shallow. The word proof implies an absolute level of certainty. Absolute certainty is unattainable due to what we understand of the nature of our senses, which can and do deceive us from time to time. Proof therefore exists in no other claim except that I exist.

Granted, a scientist may use the word proof in reference to an established law or fact in science, but when examined closely, this usage is technically a little flawed. The word "proof" in the scientific context means only that there is a sufficient evidential basis for belief in a certain claim. It is not absolute.

In my "discussion" with Dawkins, I was obviously not using the word proof in the context of science. I was using it in the sense that ensures absolute certainty. Understanding this, it is therefore reasonable to believe in that which can be justified with good logic and strong evidence, but there still exists an element, however small, of faith.

"That finite little number at the end is assumed to be an uncertainty, a possible God hiding deep within the infinity of the unknown."

You grossly misunderstand my argument. It's the other way around. I was arguing that although we cannot know for certain that our Universe did not create itself (or exists eternally, as some believe, although I don't think Dawkins holds this position), it is simply not a reasonable idea to accept. Sure, the Universe could have created itself, but this is not a concept supported by any good logic or experience.

Now Dawkins argues that, although he may not know how the Universe came into existence, he's darn sure that a supernatural Creator isn't a reasonable answer due to science's inability to explain such an entity. This argument is flawed however in that it presupposes that every valid question can be answered by science, which is philosophically a very weak position.

In my debates with atheists, I am often presented with this argument. I simply answer by saying, "explain gravity". Sure, you can tell me what causes it and all of the different theories that explain its aspects and general nature, but science cannot answer the question of what exactly it is. Science's explanatory power is therefore not unlimited. It can give us such things as the car and the television, and explain the intricate biological processes in the cell, but it cannot answer every question we can conceive, especially in the realm of historical events.

Some would argue then that the question of "what is gravity" is simply not a valid question. Why? Well, they will tell me that any question science can answer is a question worth asking. This however is begging the question. Consider this claim in standard form: "If a question is valid, then science can answer it. If science can answer a question, then it is valid." This statement assumes its own truth in order to justify itself.

Therefore, logic does not require that we explain the existence of a supernatural Creator using science (keep in mind that science is not the only mode of inquiry we have available to us). It is sufficient to observe and explain the effects of gravity, but it is scientifically impossible to explain what it is. This however does not negate the reasonability of its existence. Likewise, we can observe and explain the effects of a Creator, even if this entity cannot be explained utilizing science. Science can do great things for the human race, but what Dawkins fails to realize is that it is just a tool. It is not an all-in-one Swiss army knife king of the tool-shed; it has its designated function, just as a hammer does. It has its own purpose, and it is no doubt very effective at accomplishing this purpose, but would you use a hammer to cut a board?