Cory,
As far as I'm concerned, we've hashed out the arguments for and against calling atheism a religion. I don't think we'll really come to a definition of "Religion" that we will both agree on. And that's where we're falling short.
Admittedly, this post is more in reference to your comments on Richard Dawkins then to the rest of the post.
The belief of Dawkins that you are referring to is called: Panspermia. It is the idea that life has traveled through space, probably carried on something like a comet, which found it's way to Earth, and started multiplying here. Versions of this theory has been around at least since the 5th century B.C. and is not something Dawkins made up.
Not that I necessarily believe this is how life began on Earth, but I think it is a valid theory worth exploring. For one, we have recorded the existence of extremophiles, some of which could actually survive a trip through space. For two, humans may have inadvertently done this ourselves. We know that certain strains of extremophiles that can survive a trip through space happened to be around during the Cambrian Explosion.
Of course this theory doesn't explain how life began, but it could explain how life began on our planet. We know that collisions with extra-solar objects and planets can launch pieces of the planet into space. We know that Earth has been bombarded with meteorites.
Given that we know there is life that can survive a trip through space, and that we humans have actually done it with our own space-equipment, I don't see how this idea is assinine whatsoever. And I certainly don't see how it is self-contradicting. It has nothing to do with intelligent design whatsoever, and has everything to do with known natural processes.
Well, that's all I have to say about that for now. Take care Cory!
-Mike
Indeed, panspermia may be a valid idea, but that isn't what Dawkins was suggesting. At least, not at that time. here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8&feature=related
(sorry I don't know how to make a word link like you).
I know Dawkins made excuses for this interview afterwards, claiming to have been "duped" and suggesting that he was offering some sort of straw to the ID crowd, but it doesn't change the fact that he was describing an alien intelligence that purposely seeded life on this planet (I think he later called it directed panspermia). I am certain his whole opinion was not made clear and that he would have soad and clarified more had he been given the chance (like with a best selling book). But whatever the condition, this interview exposes a contradiction in his beliefs and is an assinine position for the leading atheist of our day to take - under any condition. You don't have to agree, I'm simply explaining why I stopped taking Dawkins seriously.
You're right, we'll never agree on a definition of religion, and I didn't suspect that we would. Plenty of places in this debate to agree to disagree.
The origin of life is really where this debate comes to a head. There are plenty of theories as to how life on this planet may have begun, but nothing to explain how life anywhere did begin. This is the part where faith matters, for you as well as me, and the place where we are both on equally shaky ground. Still, these discussions are a great deal of fun and I hope we are both learning a lot from them.
Until next time!
Cory
Cory,
ReplyDeleteYou've almost got me going into a rant about Expelled and Ben Stein. Let's suffice it to say that I think Expelled is a terribly edited piece of work. But that's beyond the point of this discussion.
You do understand that what Dawkins was saying during this conversation was a hypothetical scenario, right? He doesn't necessarily believe this. It was his explanation as to IF life on Earth were intelligently designed, this is how he could see it happening. He even goes forth into saying how, if it were true, where you could look to find the evidence to prove it.
He also said that it wouldn't explain how the designer came about, and therefore, life would still not have come about by intelligent design.
What I think is terrible editing is putting Ben Steins voice over at the end. He completely misrepresents what Dawkins was saying. This is a very slimy, underhanded technique.
And just to get a non sequitur, Ad Hominem jab out there against "Expelled": you should probably question how in the world anyone can go to Aushwitz and tie it in with the ID fight. It's clearly an underhanded jab designed to create an emotional response. This technique has a name: Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Sorry, I have very strong feelings against this movie.
Take care Cory!
-Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI understand what Dawkins tried to explain his part in the movie as after the fact, yes. What I don't understand is why someone would bother to get into hypotheticals about something they don't even believe ON CAMERA. He can claim he was duped all he likes, he still laid out a contradictory position under full knowledge that he was being recorded. he should simply have not offered the position at all if he is so against its validity.
The connection to Auschwitz isn't with ID, it's with the mentality that refuses to entertain competitive perspectives. It may be ad hominem, but its a legitimate form, not a fallicious one. It certainly gets an emotional response, but its a valid connection and I would definately not call it underhanded.
An underhanded attempt at creating an emotional response with a fallicious ad hominem might better result by calling your book "The God Delusion."
Clearly you have strong feelings about the movie. I think we're moving into a tangent that I don't want to get into, because I can already feel my defensive hormones flowing and that's when dangerous things are said.
I'll suffice it here to day that I think Dawkins was/is intellecutally dishonest and made an assinine claim that he has since tried to defend/rationalize. But my opinion here doesn't matter to the debate at large, and unless we start citing/referencing arguments from Dawkins or others of his ilk, discussing him isn't terribly relevant.
I'll concede to you that he was taken out of context, but not that it was Stein's fault or manipulation. Dawkins set himself up and looked like an ass. IMO. At least he doesn't wear sneakers and shorts everywhere.
Cory
Sounds like at some point we need to start having movie reviews.
ReplyDeleteI haven't actually been to it before today, but there is a website called, "expelled exposed" that discusses the dishonestly put forth by the film makers of expelled. Of course there's no way of getting around seeing it as a biased source. But I think anyone who has seen Expelled would probably benefit from seeing the story from the other side.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Ya I've seen it. I also watched Dawkins' series "the art of quote mining" in which he defends his statements in Expelled. I still am not convinced against the claims made in Expelled. I also wouldn't hinge my entire belief system on them. It's an interesting idea that I think Ben Stien approached fairly and rationally. But there is bias on both sides, and it really becomes a matter of whose bias you will align with. I guess that's the nature of anything, almost.
ReplyDeleteMovie reviews could be a lot of fun! I don't watch many movies, though, so I'm not sure how much I will be able to participate. But there's certianly an interesting direction to think about for the blog in the future.
Cory