Dawkins and Determinism

[Angrboda]

I think the view that metaphysical naturalism entails existential nihilism is a false one, but I don't feel like doing any heavy lifting here. Let's just leave that in the "open question" category.

[naimless]

I think the view that metaphysical naturalism entails existential nihilism is a false one, but I don't feel like doing any heavy lifting here. Let's just leave that in the "open question" category.

So do you feel that someone with the view of metaphysical naturalism is hypocritical in blaming someone else for their differing view on religion?

[Anomalocaris]

I think the view that metaphysical naturalism entails existential nihilism is a false one, but I don't feel like doing any heavy lifting here. Let's just leave that in the "open question" category.

So do you feel that someone with the view of metaphysical naturalism is hypocritical in blaming someone else for their differing view on religion?

Hypocrisy is meaningful if the hypocrit had a choice. In a predetermined world the hypocrit had no choice.

[naimless]

So do you feel that someone with the view of metaphysical naturalism is hypocritical in blaming someone else for their differing view on religion?

Hypocrisy is meaningful if the hypocrit had a choice. In a predetermined world the hypocrit had no choice.

So what causes someone to realise this and still be hypocritical?

[Anomalocaris]

Hypocrisy is meaningful if the hypocrit had a choice. In a predetermined world the hypocrit had no choice.

So what causes someone to realise this and still be hypocritical?

Predetermination.

[justin]

I had considered this, but Wiki explains:

Dawkins describes his childhood as "a normal Anglican upbringing". He was confirmed, and embraced Christianity until his mid-teens, at which point he concluded that the theory of evolution was a better explanation for life's complexity, and ceased believing in a god. Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing."

I just don't understand why a man left with nothing is motivated to spread nothing.

Nothing for his religious belief because the evidence point otherwise. He realised their was a truth and his religion distorted that. He is motivated by truth not nothing.

[naimless]

So what causes someone to realise this and still be hypocritical?

Predetermination.

I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.

I had considered this, but Wiki explains:


I just don't understand why a man left with nothing is motivated to spread nothing.

Nothing for his religious belief because the evidence point otherwise. He realised their was a truth and his religion distorted that. He is motivated by truth not nothing.

If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

[Simon Moon]

For starters, I believe that there is probably no god and that the universe is deterministic. Dawkins appears to believe similarly.

Now, why would a man who has discovered this allow himself to be emotionally attached to spreading atheism?

There is something so trivial about it all.

I believe you are using a very simplistic reading of determinism.

The following was written about Sam Harris, but it obviously applies.

"This view fails to factor in a fundamental and necessary element of determinism, viz. that the state of the universe at any given moment contributes to the state of the universe in the very next moment by way of a set of causal relationships. So, simply because Sam Harris cannot alter his physiology or change his mind in some way required by an agent-causal system does not mean he cannot participate in the causal chains which might results in another person being persuaded by a certain argument, etc. To claim that the state of the universe at any given moment is fixed regardless of the behavior of the objects which populate it would be a non-causal view of the universe, since the objects in that universe seemingly maintain no causal relationship with one another"

[Anomalocaris]

Predetermination.

I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.

Actually, I don't think he is being hypocritical, for the same reason why he is not being hypocritical for eating even if he is convinced that whether he would suffer malnutrition is predetermined. I will think about a better description of why perception of optimal behavior in fact should not change by knowledge of predetermination. But I need to go to a meeting now.

[justin]

Predetermination.

I meant more specifically and I think you know I did. Answering everything with "predetermination" still doesn't answer "how". It is not too dissimilar to how religious people respond when you ask them, what causes the tide to go in and out? Well god does, you don't need to explain it any further. In this case, well, predetermination does, you must leave it as an open question.

Nothing for his religious belief because the evidence point otherwise. He realised their was a truth and his religion distorted that. He is motivated by truth not nothing.

If he was motivated by truth he would focus on his work as a scientist, not as an atheist. He explained the theory of evolution led to his conclusion of atheism, so why try and spread atheism at all? Just spread the theory of evolution.

He was the professor of public understanding of science at oxford. He is well known for his work in evolution and zoology as well. He does focus on evolution very much. Genetics also. Alot of these problems arise from creationist and religious distorting or attack these fields of study. He spoke out against religion because of it's corruptness. He defends atheism because of the fucked up things religion has done and it's irrational beliefs that stunt our progress in science, culture, morals, laws, and education to name a few. And saying if he was focused on the truth he would've just focus on the work well why is that? He stands against the lie and stone age myths that religion spreads and uses to harm and control things and people so how does him standing for atheism contradict him being motivated by truth?