You missed the point — Leontiskos

His point was that Richard Dawkins and others believe in scientism. An accusation that is often used to discredit atheists and falaciously invalidate their arguments.

Dawkins himself has clarified his position by stating that he does not consider himself a proponent of scientism. He has expressed the view that while science is an incredibly powerful and reliable method for understanding the natural world, there are also limits to what science can address. He acknowledges that there are philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical questions that may fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

"Science disproves God"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

For Dawkins & co. the answer is "B". — Leontiskos

What does B mean? That science mostly disproves the existence of God? That is nonsensical.

If it means that science can undermine religious beliefs such as creation stories, that doesn't seem very indicative of belief in scientism.

Let's try this:

"Richard Dawkins believes in scientism"

A. True
B. More true than false
C. Neither true nor false
D. More false than true
E. False

A newcomer to Dawkins would come away with a more accurate understanding if they attended to Wayfarer's posts rather than your own. — Leontiskos

I just reviewed my posts and I've practically said nothing about him, other than what he's said himself. I haven't "paraphrased" anything he's said or misrepresented him.

uncharitable interpretation and the lack of effort to ascertain intended meaning — Leontiskos

:lol: Speaking of...

your quibble here amounts to, “No, Wayfarer, Dawkins does not believe that science provides a 7/7 certainty that God does not exist. He only believes that it provides a 6.9/7 certainty that God does not exist. How intellectually dishonest of you.” — Leontiskos

But thanks for agreeing that Wayfarer was exaggerating the truth, if only by 1.43%. Exaggeration is a misrepresentation. Why exaggerate and misrepresent if you have no agenda?

Again, valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

It’s a valid paraphrase of what Dawkins and Dennett are on about. Not my problem if you can’t see it. — Wayfarer

If a paraphrase is deliberately biased or used to misrepresent the original content to serve a specific agenda, it is considered unethical and misleading. Valid paraphrasing should prioritize accuracy, objectivity, and a faithful representation of the source material's content and meaning.

Claiming that "science disproves God" is clearly indicative of belief in scientism. None of them say that however, so you are forced to exaggerate what they say to make it appear that they believe in scientism. Your "paraphrasing" shows bias and is misrepresentative. That makes it invalid.

It's dishonest for anyone to do this. For a moderator of a philosophy forum to do this can lead to the degeneration of the integrity of the forum, I fear.

He might not use the exact phrase — Wayfarer

I did a page search for "science disproves God" and nope, it's not in any of those quotes.

There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer

There are no examples of him saying what you claim he says, that science disproves God.

throughout his popular writing career has held up science as an example of rational thinking and religion as no more than bigotry and superstion — Wayfarer

And he probably doesn't believe in the tooth fairy. What does that have to do with you saying that he claims that science disproves God?

He doesn't claim that science disproves God. Your saying he does is dishonest.
Your failure to admit the truth is also dishonest.

Everyone you are disagreeing with has provided sources, with quotes. You have provided neither. — Leontiskos

Except for the quote that addresses my complaint.

To quote myself (which includes me quoting Dawkins):

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says things like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. — praxis

Do you believe that Wayfarer was merely paraphrasing and it was a happy coincidence that the paraphrasing supported his assertion so well?

For all I know Dawkins or Harris has made the claim that "science disproves God" and I just can't find it. Can you?

I think that I should first back up a bit and point out that atheists such as Harris don't go after fundamentalists because they're easy targets. From what I gather, he's concerned with fundamentalism because he generally considers it the most dangerous (think 9/11) form of theism.

It's interesting to contrast religious liberalism/fundamentalism and science/scientism in terms of power or weakness.

I think everyone can agree that science is valued for its explanatory and predictive power, that it provides a structured framework for identifying and solving problems, that it facilitates technological advancements, etc etc.

I'm not sure what value scientism has as a philosophical position though I think it can interfere with the practice of science by limiting exploration, slowing scientific progress and paradigm shifts, underestimating theory and subjective experience, and neglecting moral and social issues that may arise in science.

Science has power, or rather it has high value. It's unclear what value scientism may have, and it can have a negative impact on science, essentially weakening it.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism.

I shouldn't have brought him up — Wayfarer

You should be honest when bringing him up. It’s probably a good idea for the moderators of a philosophy forum to be intellectually honest.

It’s the characterization of ‘weakness’ that I don’t follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism?

None of the characters were particularly interesting, or novel anyway, if you’re familiar with Murakami’s work. They’re very similar to characters in some of his other books, and in fact the character of Ushikawa is in The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

I think there’s some truth to the idea that a person can get stuck in an alternate world or a cat town and it takes some kind of ordeal to escape.

Personally, I don’t appreciate lies whatever camp they come from. Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest form of theism. Not important though, just curious.

I have things to say about [1Q84] — Jamal

Oh?

They aren't synonymous — Hanover

I appreciate your honesty, not that it was a big ask. I don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. I'm not a new atheist fan, by the way, I'm just partial to truth.

Do you believe those two statements are synonymous?

We recently chatted in Clark's AI art topic and he seemed fine to me, but then I swim in the low-quality end of the pool myself. Good thing I'm not a prolific topic starter. :grimace:

This is not as bad as the NFT bubble crap though so kinda refreshing. — simplyG

Actually, I understand that a lot of the NFT crap was AI generated. It helped to provide a new plaything for the rich and contributed to a big waste of energy

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker:

I don't interrogate Van Gogh every time my spirits are lifted by sunflowers; I don't take Yeats to task each time I read a poem. Something of them passes to me, by however indirect a route, that simply doesn't happen with computer generated art; those images never get past my eyeballs. — Vera Mont

I looked up the expression 'get past my eyeballs' and apparently it has something to do with vitreous detachment and floaters. I didn't know AI had that effect. Anyway, just for fun I wanted to see how Midjourney might forge some Van Gogh sunflowers. Some renderings were much closer but the following is interesting. Looks like impasto painting over a 3D sculpture.

Click the reveal button at your own risk of eye damage.

Science undermines religion and the belief in God.

Science disproves God.

Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same?

It's easy to intuit that science may tend to undermine religion. How can science disprove the existence of God? No one says that, other than believers fallaciously trying to invalidate atheist arguments.

How good are you at thinking paradoxically? — Athena

The only thinking I’m good at is not thinking.

New atheists like Dawkins claim there is evidence, like natural selection, that explains phenomena that were previously undertaken by religion, yes.

I could only find religious believers saying that Dawkins claims ‘science disproves God’. Dawkins himself says thing like:

I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.

That’s a far cry from claiming that science disproves God. But then believers are not known for their honesty.

There's a great deal of pseudo-scientific nonsense spouted by the 'new atheists' such as Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris who all mistakenly believe that 'science disproves God' or some such, leading none other than Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), no believer himself, to describe Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'. — Wayfarer

Some claim that Dawkins and crew believe that science disproves God but when you try to find them saying some such it’s not easy to find. What do they call that, a strawman argument?

Salvation — Isaiasb

The theological definition of salvation is the deliverance from sin and its consequences.

Have you been delivered from sin and its consequences? If not, do you know anyone who has been?

But think about all those poor guys who make motel room and doctor's office art. They need to work too. — T Clark

One of the first jobs I had was working in a painting factory that would mass-produce crap for hotels and the like. It was piecework, doing batches of around 20 canvases simultaneously. Talk about starving artists. :cry:

For me, "aesthetic experience" is an act of communication between two people. What happens when there is only one person there? — T Clark

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck:

Art is a creative process but sometimes it’s a destructive one too. Destructive in terms of destroying our deepest held convictions about the world and creative via romantic ideals or impressionism. Whatever the style may be beauty is mostly universal if it’s expressed elegantly enough and transcends time by being timeless and says something no matter how much society changes through the centuries. — simplyG

Seeing beauty in what's normally regarded as ugly via aesthetic experience can be rather depatterning, if you asked me. Anyway, it's not like revolutionary art comes before the impulse to revolt.

Once again we're talking about the utility of art, I note.

The question is what distinguishes human creativity from machine creativity as the latter is merely a program which produces results via input whereas human creativity stems from something different altogether such as emotion which machines are incapable of feeling. — simplyG

So far, AI doesn't identify creative problems or possess the impulse to express itself. Nor does it explore, play, or innovate of its own accord. I guess the impulse to express oneself requires consciousness, but I think the rest could be developed without it, and that's just around the corner.

Because that’s not religions goal. — Isaiasb

What is religion's goal?

Whilst aesthetics is an important part of art it’s not the be all end end all of art... — simplyG

I agree, and like I said it's not enough. I'm wondering what it would be like if it were enough. If it were maybe there would be no need for AI art.

Notice how you defer to religious authority. That's being religious. That's not being spiritual.

... the question pertinent is that of originality which is what real art should bring to the table... — simplyG

People have various criteria for art, such that it should be original, authentic, true, meaningful, reflect the values of society, or whatever else. I wonder if aesthetic experience is taken for granted or if it's practically an afterthought in our materialistic society and it is not enough.

I’m not referring to pop art. I mean what I said, art that is cheap and produced in mass. There will always be a place (market) for it in a capitalist/materialist society. AI just makes production more efficient. The fact is that modern society (all of us) loves efficiency and predictability.

Reading through this topic you might think there was no such thing as cheap mass produced art before AI came along. :lol:

It’s not much of a threat to graphic design yet, even for low-end work. It’s output if far too generic and it can’t really do typography. That may change in the near future though. Currently the worst hit must be to stock photography and illustration. Last week I used Midjourney for a bunch of magazine ads instead of stock images. It’s cheaper, and it’s a lot quicker and more convenient to type some prompts than doing image searches and reviewing hundreds of images.

Midjourney AI. It has a feature where you can upload an image and the AI will generate a prompt from it. In this case it generated the prompt: A painting of trees by tim liu, in the style of california plein air, vibrant color fields, gari melchers, light brown and purple, bold colors, strong lines, dramatic skies, jeff danziger --ar 5:4

I used that prompt to generate the image above.

For what it's worth, it looks like a lot of the stuff on Midjourney. — T Clark

Good guess. :smirk:

What is important is not what we find, but what we are looking for. — Angelo Cannata

I'm looking for an aesthetic experience. Technically that can be found anywhere and anytime, though it's usually much easier to find in art, who or whatever produces it.

Human or AI?

Finished 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami. I liked it. Always been a sucker for a drawn-out love story. Only skipped a bit toward the end. Could have skipped a lot because so much is drawn out and recounted but for some reason I just like his writing. About halfway through I read 1984 because it was mentioned a few times in the story and I thought it might deepen the aesthetic or offer some insight. Not necessary, I think.

No pornography, although a bare breast from time to time. I don’t know whether this is because the program has limits built in or if sexually explicit images are not selected. — T Clark

It claims to be a PG-13 rating but I would class it at G. For example, if you make a prompt for Michelangelo's Statue of David it will only produce ones fully clothed. If you specify 'nude' it will refuse.

I can certainly see why it frightens graphic artists. — T Clark

:snicker: Yes it puts another dent in the industry, but we're accustomed to taking hits. Outsourcing, online templates, crowdsourcing... the devaluation is endless, or rather it's getting much closer to the end. I adopted it right away and it's a useful tool for GD, also for generating subject matter to paint. I prefer to paint from life but having any image that you can instantly generate and view from a monitor is very very handy. It takes time and effort to set up a still-life or find a good landscape or seascape.

I am running out of time and this might not help but logos is universal law. It happens this way because that is how the laws of the universe make it. This can be completely mechanical. Creativity can try new things and if the new thing isn't compatible it becomes extinct. We can call that chaos but we don't have to judge it as a bad thing. However, I am fascinated by the Egyptian and Aztec efforts to use math to understand the order of things and live in harmony with that order. — Athena

God is both logos and pathos, or rather, order and chaos then? When you have time.

The way to apply science to superstitious notions is to think in terms of a prime mover, logos, universal laws, and nature. — Athena

There isn't a way to apply science to superstitious notions because, if for no other reason, they cannot be measured in any way. Ghosts cannot be measured, for instance. I suppose that neural pathways could be measured and that could prove the existence of such notions, but no one is denying that such notions exist.

Anyway, there's something that bothers me about your idea of God. You seem to basically be saying that God is order (logos) and nature. The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that nature is order AND chaos, so if God is nature then God is both order and chaos. To put it in Nietzschean terms, God is both the Apollonian (similar to logos) and the Dionysian (similar to pathos). If God is only logos then what is pathos? The devil? :naughty:

I think anyone who is excessively wealthy must be scrutinised by that domain. That is my version of 'big brother is watching you.' Big brother would become a label for the mass of the population of the planet. This is the way a good 'big brother,' was always supposed to be, in a human family. A guy who helped protect the family from nefarious b*******. — universeness

I think if Orwell could have imagined an artificial general intelligence in 1949 his book 1984 would have been a bit different. Can you imagine the power of media manipulation and surveillance it could have? We appear to be rapidly approaching AGI and those who develop it, the excessively wealthy, will be in control.

What was the point? — Vera Mont

This...

I think the bottom line here is that sapiens are not rational beings and therefore suggesting that morality is essentially rational, that it "is a matter of cause & effect" is false and misguided. Morality involves personal and shared values, identity, and intuitions that we may not even be consciously aware of. — praxis