NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't really agree. The approach to religion described by "fundamentalism" that I've seen used by people using the word seriously (and not just as a glib little pejorative) is one that still has some connection to the etymology of the word. The approach to religion described by "fundamentalism" does usually tend entail (often coercive) proselytism, but only because that proselytism is (perceived as) one of the fundamentals of the religions that tend to spawn the "fundamentalists" we are most familiar with. It is a return and rigid adherence to what are considered to be the fundamental aspects of a particular religion, be they a certain moral code, a particular dogma or a literalist interpretation of scriptures. Whether others might think these particular things are fundamental is largely irrelevant.

The attitudes of Christian, Islamic and (to a lesser extent) Jewish fundamentalists have come to define the word, unfortunately and it's probably inevitable that it will become just another useless trash word. Still, if one is going to simply start using to describe groups of people in a way that essentially implies that it means "attitudes I don't like", I'd at least like to see some real justification for it.

I've heard sociologists lecture on the subject, albeit only a couple of times. They used the word, not to describe those who worry about actual fundamental aspects of a religion, but instead to describe those who are almost wholly considered with what would seem to be sidebar issues. In the Christian religion, for instance, a sociologist would refer to someone as a fundamentalist if they were wholly focussed on issues like abortion/gay marriage/censorship/etc., but had little understanding of (or interest in) the basic teachings of Christianity. As I've heard it used in sociology, the term "fundamentalist" refers to those who feel that their religion is under attack, and thus focus on specific issues that are generally far from "fundamental", while pretty much ignoring the basics of the religion.

It isn't used as a perjorative term there, just a descriptive one. Most of us think of these things as "bad" traits, so it seems perjorative.

I've heard sociologists lecture on the subject, albeit only a couple of times. They used the word, not to describe those who worry about actual fundamental aspects of a religion, but instead to describe those who are almost wholly considered with what would seem to be sidebar issues. In the Christian religion, for instance, a sociologist would refer to someone as a fundamentalist if they were wholly focussed on issues like abortion/gay marriage/censorship/etc., but had little understanding of (or interest in) the basic teachings of Christianity. As I've heard it used in sociology, the term "fundamentalist" refers to those who feel that their religion is under attack, and thus focus on specific issues that are generally far from "fundamental", while pretty much ignoring the basics of the religion.

It isn't used as a perjorative term there, just a descriptive one. Most of us think of these things as "bad" traits, so it seems perjorative.In christianity, at least, the main trait of a fundamentalist sect is their insistence on the inerrancy of scripture, and often, a literalist interpretation of it. That's where you get things like young earth creationism from, for example. It's not technically the same as evangelicalism, though there's often some overlap.

That Dawkins fella is still scary. Anybody that advocates one true way is scary.

I'm presuming you have an open mind about the following then: Pixies, unicorns, ESP, Odin, leprachauns, vampires, werewolves &c.

An open mind? Of course.

In fact, with the possible exception of Odin who is more a personification of natural forces, I think they all have a basis in actual scientifically measurable fact. Stories of pixies could have been prompted by any number of insects. Horses with horns may have existed at some point, or the idea of a unicorn may have developed out of some other horned species. The human mind is quite powerful and often does things and figures things subconsciously. Tricksters, even short ones, have existed for some time. Certain medical conditions give a person a taste for - even a need for - consuming blood or blood products. Rabies or other diseases that could be passed from animals to human beings could have been the spark for werewolf stories.

But they really have nothing at al to do with my comment. If any of these things exist in some form - even if they exist as they have been described, they aren't supernatural. They are a part of the natural universe and are bound by its rules - albeit rules we may not yet understand. They have abilities beyond human abilities, but even if they do exist, that fact doesn't make them supernatural.

The supernatural is that which is outside of the natural - outside of the universe - and thus not bound by its rules. This is the reason that science cannot be used to investigate it, as the methods of science are confined to the universe - that which is bound by said rules, and that which can be empirically measured. And a deity that created the universe would, out of pure necessity, exist outside of (and before) it.



Do you think she shouldn't?
Is there a positive case to be made for their existence?

Does there have to be a positive case already to be open to the possibility of one?

In christianity, at least, the main trait of a fundamentalist sect is their insistence on the inerrancy of scripture, and often, a literalist interpretation of it. That's where you get things like young earth creationism from, for example. It's not technically the same as evangelicalism, though there's often some overlap.

You're using fundamentalism in the way that they use it, rather than in the way I've heard sociologists use it. The point I'm making is that there is a difference. Smunkeevilee is a fundamentalist - a self-described fundamentalist, but she would not be described as a fundamentalist from a sociological viewpoint.

I've heard sociologists lecture on the subject, albeit only a couple of times. They used the word, not to describe those who worry about actual fundamental aspects of a religion, but instead to describe those who are almost wholly considered with what would seem to be sidebar issues. In the Christian religion, for instance, a sociologist would refer to someone as a fundamentalist if they were wholly focussed on issues like abortion/gay marriage/censorship/etc., but had little understanding of (or interest in) the basic teachings of Christianity. As I've heard it used in sociology, the term "fundamentalist" refers to those who feel that their religion is under attack, and thus focus on specific issues that are generally far from "fundamental", while pretty much ignoring the basics of the religion.

It isn't used as a perjorative term there, just a descriptive one. Most of us think of these things as "bad" traits, so it seems perjorative.

I've never heard it seriously used with that definition, but admittedly, I don't know many sociologists. It seems a rather nonsensical definition to give to the word (which, I suppose, one should expect from sociologists), but very well, I'll bow to it for the sake of argument.

Given that we assume that definition, how do you justify describing people like Dawkins with it? What are the "sidebar" issues he is preoccupied with that distract from the "basic teachings" of atheism?

Feeling that science is under attack, I'll grant you. If we're talking about the USA, I would even agree that it is, though Dawkins himself is an Englishman and Britain doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with it.

An open mind? Of course.

In fact, with the possible exception of Odin who is more a personification of natural forces, I think they all have a basis in actual scientifically measurable fact. Stories of pixies could have been prompted by any number of insects. Horses with horns may have existed at some point, or the idea of a unicorn may have developed out of some other horned species. The human mind is quite powerful and often does things and figures things subconsciously. Tricksters, even short ones, have existed for some time. Certain medical conditions give a person a taste for - even a need for - consuming blood or blood products. Rabies or other diseases that could be passed from animals to human beings could have been the spark for werewolf stories.

But they really have nothing at al to do with my comment. If any of these things exist in some form - even if they exist as they have been described, they aren't supernatural. They are a part of the natural universe and are bound by its rules - albeit rules we may not yet understand. They have abilities beyond human abilities, but even if they do exist, that fact doesn't make them supernatural.

The supernatural is that which is outside of the natural - outside of the universe - and thus not bound by its rules. This is the reason that science cannot be used to investigate it, as the methods of science are confined to the universe - that which is bound by said rules, and that which can be empirically measured. And a deity that created the universe would, out of pure necessity, exist outside of (and before) it.



Does there have to be a positive case already to be open to the possibility of one?


I'm talking about the supernatural versions. Not cases of mistaken identity. You know: imortal white horses with horns that can only be touched by a virgin; small flying people that live in the woods and play tricks on christians, that type of thing. Not cases of mistaken identity.

Does there have to be a positive case already to be open to the possibility of one?Not to concede the possibility of their existence, but then again, it's possible that the universe as we see it is just a huge loogie sneezed out of the Great Nostril, too. But I see no reason to imagine that's actually the case until I see a positive case made for it. So I see no need to believe in ESP or pixies until there's a positive case made for it. The null set is the starting point.

Is there a positive case to be made for their existence?

*reviews the list*

Sure. Their existence has been documented.

*reviews the list*

Sure. Their existence has been documented.

You've got a funny way of using the word "documented" then.

You've got a funny way of using the word "documented" then.

It was written down in documents. Seems quite an accurate use of the word.

You've got a funny way of using the word "documented" then.

Yes, yes I do. I use it in a general sense rather than tying it to any particular methodology of documentation so I don't get trapped into the sort of nonsense that goes on with folks who like to believe that only their particular book or set of books or type of books are worth looking at. Silly me for not being prejudicial.

Yes, yes I do. I use it in a general sense rather than tying it to any particular methodology of documentation so I don't get trapped into the sort of nonsense that goes on with folks who like to believe that only their particular book or set of books or type of books are worth looking at. Silly me for not being prejudicial.Then, no offense, your use of the word documentation does not provide a positive case for their existence. I require something a bit more empirical.

What I bolded there is the reason that atheism is not a position of faith, despite what opponents of atheism say. Atheists don't believe in god(s) because there is no positive reason to believe in them. It's my personal belief that opponents of atheism try to spin atheism as a belief position because they know, subconsciously, that their logical position as believers is untenable, and the only way they can come out on top of any argument is to say the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" That's not to say that people of faith are necessarily stupid or anything--I don't believe that--but I think they'd be better off if they acknowledged the fact that faith and logic don't intermingle and just accepted it.

Most atheists are like that; it's not that they believe God doesn't exist, but that they haven't seen the evidence necessary to commit to a particular belief in God and so have no belief. Obviously, there are the explicit ones that are a totally different case, but for all intents and purposes implicit atheism is the more common one and the one that should be used for purposes of comparison.

Given that we assume that definition, how do you justify describing people like Dawkins with it? What are the "sidebar" issues he is preoccupied with that distract from the "basic teachings" of atheism?

I didn't describe Dawkins as a fundamentalist. I simply compared him to them and pointed out that the problems we have with fundamentalists are the same as those we have with militant atheists. Just as a fundamentalist will often feel that their belief is absolutely correct and that all others should be made to agree, militant atheists feel that their views are absolutely correct and that all others should be made to agree. A fundamentalist sees all other beliefs as a danger - often one to be wiped out, just as a militant atheist sees all religious beliefs (ie. all other beliefs) as a danger - often one to be wiped out.

I listed these similarities, as well as others, in a previous post.

Feeling that science is under attack, I'll grant you. If we're talking about the USA, I would even agree that it is, though Dawkins himself is an Englishman and Britain doesn't seem to have as much of a problem with it.

Yes, science is under attack in the US, from a TINY subset of the population. That attack must be met, but you aren't going to do much good by painting all people of any religion with the fundamentalist or extremist brush. It would be one thing if Dawkins called for more education to try and refute extremist viewpoints. It is quite another when he is basically on a crusade against religion in general.


I'm talking about the supernatural versions. Not cases of mistaken identity. You know: imortal white horses with horns that can only be touched by a virgin; small flying people that live in the woods and play tricks on christians, that type of thing. Not cases of mistaken identity.

None of those things are truly supernatural, even if they do exist, unless they are purported to exist outside the universe and outside its rules.

The legends of ghosts, vampires, what-have-you do not place these beings outside the universe. They place them within it, and bound by its rules. If any such beings exist, they are not supernatural, by definition. They are natural, and not-yet-understood.

It's nice to see that you completely ignored over half of my post. Perhaps you should go back and read it. Here, I'll even requote it for you:

But they really have nothing at al to do with my comment. If any of these things exist in some form - even if they exist as they have been described, they aren't supernatural. They are a part of the natural universe and are bound by its rules - albeit rules we may not yet understand. They have abilities beyond human abilities, but even if they do exist, that fact doesn't make them supernatural.

The supernatural is that which is outside of the natural - outside of the universe - and thus not bound by its rules. This is the reason that science cannot be used to investigate it, as the methods of science are confined to the universe - that which is bound by said rules, and that which can be empirically measured. And a deity that created the universe would, out of pure necessity, exist outside of (and before) it.


Not to concede the possibility of their existence, but then again, it's possible that the universe as we see it is just a huge loogie sneezed out of the Great Nostril, too. But I see no reason to imagine that's actually the case until I see a positive case made for it. So I see no need to believe in ESP or pixies until there's a positive case made for it. The null set is the starting point.

Having an open mind merely implies conceding the possibility.

And I see no reason to suggest that pixies exist unless I see evidence for them either. Thus, I do not believe in pixies. You are right that the null set is the starting point.

I have, however, had experiences that lead me to believe that God exists. I recognize that you might not have had these experiences, or that you might have had them and interpreted them differently, or any other number of possibilities. It is why I don't try to make a case for the existence of God to others - I cannot exactly demonstrate what is a personal occurrence.

Then, no offense, your use of the word documentation does not provide a positive case for their existence. I require something a bit more empirical.

And that is your choice. Some people don't see empirical evidence as the only kind.


Most atheists are like that; it's not that they believe God doesn't exist, but that they haven't seen the evidence necessary to commit to a particular belief in God and so have no belief. Obviously, there are the explicit ones that are a totally different case, but for all intents and purposes implicit atheism is the more common one and the one that should be used for purposes of comparison.

They should be used as the comparison when we are talking about atheists in general. However, we are not. We are specifically talking about militant atheists. There may be some militant atheists out there who are implicit atheists, but I have yet to see or hear of one. Militant atheists tend to be explicit atheists, which makes sense, as a simple lack of belief wouldn't generally be something that people would feel the need to evangelize about or try to force on others.

Then, no offense, your use of the word documentation does not provide a positive case for their existence. I require something a bit more empirical.

I require you to demonstrate scripturally that there is a positive case for quantum mechanics.

Oh but wait, that would be silly because I'm asking you to prove within my system that which lies outside its scope. Maybe we should refrain from doing that.

They should be used as the comparison when we are talking about atheists in general. However, we are not. We are specifically talking about militant atheists. There may be some militant atheists out there who are implicit atheists, but I have yet to see or hear of one. Militant atheists tend to be explicit atheists, which makes sense, as a simple lack of belief wouldn't generally be something that people would feel the need to evangelize about or try to force on others.

Exactly. That's why it's so important to set down immediately who is being criticized; I don't want to paint the vast majority of atheists who simply have a lack of belief and leave it at that with the same brush as the crusaders who try to actively spread their belief system. You can't convert people to lack of belief, and most people with that lack of belief aren't going to be evangelizing because they don't think it should be or needs to be.

That's why I think a lot of the militant "implicit" atheists are really just explicit ones using the definition of implicit atheism to avoid criticisms that they are evangelizing their beliefs. And, of course, it makes implicit atheists look bad, which is terrible and hurts the people who want nothing to do with the squabbling over beliefs.

I require you to demonstrate scripturally that there is a positive case for quantum mechanics.

Oh but wait, that would be silly because I'm asking you to prove within my system that which lies outside its scope. Maybe we should refrain from doing that.
As long as you're admitting that any argument over the factual existence of god or gods is outside the realm of, you know, fact...

As long as you're admitting that any argument over the factual existence of god or gods is outside the realm of, you know, fact...

If you mean "fact" in the sense of that which is likely to be deemed factual by those using correct scientific methodology, yes.

The legends of ghosts, vampires, what-have-you do not place these beings outside the universe. They place them within it, and bound by its rules. If any such beings exist, they are not supernatural, by definition. They are natural, and not-yet-understood.


You're restricting the definition of supernatural. It can also mean departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. Which these things certainly do.

At any rate, there is no reason to suppose the concept of god cannot be treated in exactly the same fashion, or to create a special exception for it. You cannot be open minded about god, and closed minded about pixies. The evidence for both is strikingly similar.

You're restricting the definition of supernatural.

Indeed. I made it clear in my first post that I wasn't referring to "natural, but unexplained." Generally, when a word can have more than one definition, we choose one of them for use.

It can also mean departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. Which these things certainly do.

It has been used in that way, hence the reason that I made it clear in my very first post on the subject that I was not using that definition. In fact, I never use that definition, because I find it to be rather useless. By that definition, much of quantum mechanics is "supernatural" because we have not yet explained it and we don't see weird things like electron tunneling all the time.

At any rate, there is no reason to suppose the concept of god cannot be treated in exactly the same fashion, or to create a special exception from it. You cannot be open minded about god, and closed minded about pixies. The evidence for both is strikingly similar.

Yes, actually, there is a reason. The creator of the universe (which many people believe god to be), if there is one, is by definition outside that universe. If it exists, it has existence outside of the universe and is not bound by the rules of the universe. If either of these things were not true, it could not possibly have been the creator of the universe.

A deity thought to be part of the universe and governed by it, like many ancient pantheons and some polytheistic belief systems might be investigated by science. A deity thought to be the creator of the universe itself, however, cannot be. It is outside that realm.

Yes, actually, there is a reason. The creator of the universe (which many people believe god to be), if there is one, is by definition outside that universe. If it exists, it has existence outside of the universe and is not bound by the rules of the universe. If either of these things were not true, it could not possibly have been the creator of the universe.


I don't see why the creator of the universe - assuming for the sake of argument there is one - has to be outside the universe. On creation it could have merged with the universe, or ceased to exists, or other possibilities. Even if a prime cause is assumed, the fact that the universe was created doesn't really tell you anything about the creator itself. Especially since all observed phenomena since then can be explained without the intervention of the creator.

Conversely, if there is a creator that exists outside the universe, why is there any reason to assume that only the creator has that quality? It is just as reasonable to suppose that there are other similar entities that share those identical qualities themselves the only difference being is that they were not the original cause of our physical universe. I don't see how being the prime cause gives anything a unique position per se. (Other than being the prime cause).

And supposing the creator is free to ignore the natural universe on a whim, what limits the manner in which it manifests itself? If you accept that a creator is capable of suspending the natural order to its own ends, anything is possible. Pixies that transend natural laws themselves, for example. What's to stop that from happening? If there are no rules which apply, then literally anything is possible.

An observation:

The prevailing complaint against Dawkins isn't that Dawkins' arguments are wrong because they are irrational, illogical, or incorrect.

Instead, the complaint is that Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are offensive to the theist community.

An orthodoxy is in question here, and the more convincing the argument, the graver the offense.

This is a standard of right or wrong - does it offend the values of my community or does it not- that frightens me to my core.

This difference in criteria of right and wrong lies at the heart of the conflict between science and religion.

Religion attempts to reinforce and preserve the values and beliefs of the community, whereas science applies the scientific method to the world and evolves and changes its beliefs over time.

Darwin exposed a horrible truth to Christians:
That which does not change to meet the demands of the environment will perish.

Science evolves.

But as long as Christianity remains in stasis, vainly clinging to the genetics of its antiquated beliefs, it will only be a matter of time before Christianity meets extinction.

The prevailing complaint against Dawkins isn't that Dawkins' arguments are wrong because they are irrational, illogical, or incorrect

Well, they're not exactly reflective of a deep knowledge of the history of religion or theology. That's why he gets hammered by theologians who know a lot more about their beliefs than he does. Hell, Francis Collins handed his ass to him in a debate in Time a few weeks ago.


Science evolves.

But as long as Christianity remains in stasis, vainly clinging to the genetics of its antiquated beliefs, it will only be a matter of time before Christianity meets extinction.

Christianity has evolved very well; the religion has changed so dramatically over its history that it's hard to argue that it is not well adapted to its environment. The religion is dynamic and growing, and to argue that it's static requires total disregard for its history, even in to the present. Christianity's core values may not have changed, but many of those are universal and practical even today; they don't need to change because they're perfectly well suited to the environment they are currently in.

It's even still growing by 2.5% per year, which is pretty damn good for a 2000 year old organization. If anything, it's doing even better now than it was in the past now that the Soviet bloc has collapsed and religion is surging back in to popularity in those regions.

No one can prove satisfactorily whether there is a deity or not.
Here is my point of view.
In April 2003 my wife was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. It has no known cause, but it is always fatal. She was 47 at the time. She worked hard all her life, raised three children with me, and we have had a long happy marriage. She was an outstanding swimmer, representing her country in the Olympic Games. Until recently she was a brilliant teacher.
Myeloma is a particularly nasty cancer. It attacks the bone structure, leaving holes which resemble a Swiss cheese. It, as you can imagine, is excruciatingly painful, and even the strongest opiates only offer marginal relief. The median life expectancy, after diagnosis, is three years, even after a stem cell transplant, and harsh chemo- and radio-therapy.
If there is a god, then at best he/she is uncaring; at worst, unbelievably cruel. There will be some of you who will say that we should pray for a miracle. Sorry, this disease is invariably fatal. If god is all powerful, then this bastard of an illness should cease to exist. If god is omniscient, then the suffering of my wife is part of a plan.
I have long since ceased to believe in religious fairy stories. I am behind Dawkins 100 per cent, and I trust that he and his successors continue to explore and explode the religious hypocrisies.

I don't see why the creator of the universe - assuming for the sake of argument there is one - has to be outside the universe.

At the very least, it has to have existed before the universe, thus giving it existence outside the universe. In order to be the Creator, it has to have (or have had) existence outside the universe, thus making it supernatural in the purest sense of the word.

((I think I'll just snip the irrelevant parts))

Conversely, if there is a creator that exists outside the universe, why is there any reason to assume that only the creator has that quality?

There isn't. There may be other entities that are truly supernatural - ie. outside the universe. There may be no such entities. The point is that science is bound by the universe. If anything exists outside of it, we cannot use the scientific method to investigate it.

And supposing the creator is free to ignore the natural universe on a whim, what limits the manner in which it manifests itself?

Its own designs? Whatever rules may limit its existence? That isn't really a question that can be directly answered.

If you accept that a creator is capable of suspending the natural order to its own ends, anything is possible. Pixies that transend natural laws themselves, for example. What's to stop that from happening? If there are no rules which apply, then literally anything is possible.

Indeed. Hence the fact that science cannot operate outside of the natural and cannot assume that there is a creator capable of suspending the natural order to its own ends. Science is bound by the axioms in which the scientific method is based, and those axioms do not allow for things happening that are "outside the rules."

This is why, when the first electron seemingly disappeared from a particle accelerator, the scientists didn't say, "MAGIC! IT'S SUPERNATURAL!" Instead, based within the scientific method and the axioms on which it is based, they thought, "There must be something governing the action of these electrons that we do not yet fully understand....." and went from there.

Even if the supernatural is regularly "messing with" things within the natural, science will never perceive it as such. The base axioms of science assume that the universe runs on a specific set of rules. When we see something that appears to be an anomaly, we question the rules as we understand them and modify them to fit with the new data. Supernatural interference, to science, would never appear to be supernatural. It would simply appear to be natural, but not yet understood.

This isn't a problem with science, but it is a limitation. Most of us recognize science as a way to investigate the natural and to figure out more about it, so there is no problem. But Dawkins claims that he can use science to investigate the supernatural, ignoring two limitations of science: (a) Empirical evidence is a must, and one cannot empirically measure that which is outside the universe (otherwise, it would be within the universe) and (b) Science could never reach a conclusion that the supernatural existed, as its base assumptions would lead it to include any supernatural interference into its explanation of the natural.

It is one thing for Dawkins to claim that he only accepts scientific evidence, and there is none for God. It is quite another to claim that he can actually use science to investigate or disprove God. The former is logical. The latter is either illogical or based in a flawed understanding of the scientific method and the basis on which it was derived.

An observation:

The prevailing complaint against Dawkins isn't that Dawkins' arguments are wrong because they are irrational, illogical, or incorrect.

Instead, the complaint is that Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are offensive to the theist community.

An orthodoxy is in question here, and the more convincing the argument, the graver the offense.

This is a standard of right or wrong - does it offend the values of my community or does it not- that frightens me to my core.

This difference in criteria of right and wrong lies at the heart of the conflict between science and religion.

Religion attempts to reinforce and preserve the values and beliefs of the community, whereas science applies the scientific method to the world and evolves and changes its beliefs over time.

Darwin exposed a horrible truth to Christians:
That which does not change to meet the demands of the environment will perish.

Science evolves.

But as long as Christianity remains in stasis, vainly clinging to the genetics of its antiquated beliefs, it will only be a matter of time before Christianity meets extinction.

Nice point :) Christianity has evolved.... but your right... it can only go so far.

Its my understanding that Dawkins isn't saying that theism is wrong.. just that its unnecessary and irrelevant not only to science.. but to life. Just as any other philosophical game is unnecessary and irrelevant. They may well be very absorbing. Infinitely studiable, and even in some ways comforting or disconcerting, but that ultimately it is just a game.

And people who tell someone else that something is "Just a Game" are almost universally considered just as rude and arrogant as Dawkins.. no matter how right they are. I don't need to know much about Soccer in order to tell you not to get so worked up about it.. its just a game. I don't need to know the tactics.. I don't even need to know the rules... I certainly don't need to have studied it for thousands of years... but I can still come along and arrogantly tell you its just a game. You can get as upset about it as you like.. but it doesn't stop me being right just cause I am being an ass....

The thing that has undeserved respect is the philosophical game... not Dawkins himself.

Religious thought, on the other hand, he IS saying is wrong. The idea that our moral codes can only be given to us by acceptance of religious teachings can be disproved empirically. I think he actually does a reasonably good job of getting us started down that path.

Well, they're not exactly reflective of a deep knowledge of the history of religion or theology. That's why he gets hammered by theologians who know a lot more about their beliefs than he does. Hell, Francis Collins handed his ass to him in a debate in Time a few weeks ago.

You don't *actually* have to know that much about Christianity to know that it doesn't make very much sense. God, the centerpiece, is a massive self-contradiction.

Christianity has evolved very well; the religion has changed so dramatically over its history that it's hard to argue that it is not well adapted to its environment. The religion is dynamic and growing, and to argue that it's static requires total disregard for its history, even in to the present. Christianity's core values may not have changed, but many of those are universal and practical even today; they don't need to change because they're perfectly well suited to the environment they are currently in.

It's even still growing by 2.5% per year, which is pretty damn good for a 2000 year old organization. If anything, it's doing even better now than it was in the past now that the Soviet bloc has collapsed and religion is surging back in to popularity in those regions.

You're quite right. My point is that Christianity has to change to accept new ways of thinking. Any Christian who wants to study biology or medicine has to come to terms with the truth of evolution. Any Christian who wants to study psychology has to come to terms with the fact that there is no immutable, indivisible soul. Any good scientific, rational Christian must come to terms with the unreasonable and irrational nature of their belief in God. This is true, just as Christians, in astronomy or not, have already come to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the reverse.

An observation:

The prevailing complaint against Dawkins isn't that Dawkins' arguments are wrong because they are irrational, illogical, or incorrect.

Actually, yes, that is exactly the prevailing complaint against Dawkins' arguments.

Instead, the complaint is that Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are offensive to the theist community.

I don't find Dawkins' arguments offensive, except in the fact that they quite often misuse and misrepresent science, and that offends my sensibilities as a scientist. I see no more reason to take offense at Dawkins spouting that he is absolutely right and all other ideas should be abolished than I do to actually take offense when Fred Phelps says essentially the same thing. Both are equally full of shit.

No one can prove satisfactorily whether there is a deity or not.

Indeed.


Here is my point of view.
In April 2003 my wife was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. It has no known cause, but it is always fatal. She was 47 at the time. She worked hard all her life, raised three children with me, and we have had a long happy marriage. She was an outstanding swimmer, representing her country in the Olympic Games. Until recently she was a brilliant teacher.
Myeloma is a particularly nasty cancer. It attacks the bone structure, leaving holes which resemble a Swiss cheese. It, as you can imagine, is excruciatingly painful, and even the strongest opiates only offer marginal relief. The median life expectancy, after diagnosis, is three years, even after a stem cell transplant, and harsh chemo- and radio-therapy.

I'm sorry to hear that.

If there is a god, then at best he/she is uncaring; at worst, unbelievably cruel. There will be some of you who will say that we should pray for a miracle. Sorry, this disease is invariably fatal. If god is all powerful, then this bastard of an illness should cease to exist. If god is omniscient, then the suffering of my wife is part of a plan.
I have long since ceased to believe in religious fairy stories. I am behind Dawkins 100 per cent, and I trust that he and his successors continue to explore and explode the religious hypocrisies.

So your argument is, "No one can definitively prove or disprove the existence of God, but, if any deity exists, I hate that deity, so Dawkins should go on claiming to be able to do the impossible."???

An observation:

The prevailing complaint against Dawkins isn't that Dawkins' arguments are wrong because they are irrational, illogical, or incorrect.

Instead, the complaint is that Dawkins is wrong because his arguments are offensive to the theist community.

Hmm. I must've missed that.

I'll just point out that I do think his arguments (relating to the existence of God) are irrational, illogical, and incorrect.

An orthodoxy is in question here, and the more convincing the argument, the graver the offense.

This is a standard of right or wrong - does it offend the values of my community or does it not- that frightens me to my core.

Indeed. The scientific community uses that standard all the time. But don't tell them that, they'll be offended and resort to circular arguments to try to demonstrate the validity of their system. Funny how folks tend to do that regardless of what belief system is in question.

This difference in criteria of right and wrong lies at the heart of the conflict between science and religion.

Religion attempts to reinforce and preserve the values and beliefs of the community, whereas science applies the scientific method to the world and evolves and changes its beliefs over time.

Darwin exposed a horrible truth to Christians:
That which does not change to meet the demands of the environment will perish.

Science evolves.

But as long as Christianity remains in stasis, vainly clinging to the genetics of its antiquated beliefs, it will only be a matter of time before Christianity meets extinction.

Christianity evolves as well. You must have missed the last couple thousand years of its history or something.

No one can prove satisfactorily whether there is a deity or not.
Here is my point of view.
In April 2003 my wife was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. It has no known cause, but it is always fatal. She was 47 at the time. She worked hard all her life, raised three children with me, and we have had a long happy marriage. She was an outstanding swimmer, representing her country in the Olympic Games. Until recently she was a brilliant teacher.
Myeloma is a particularly nasty cancer. It attacks the bone structure, leaving holes which resemble a Swiss cheese. It, as you can imagine, is excruciatingly painful, and even the strongest opiates only offer marginal relief. The median life expectancy, after diagnosis, is three years, even after a stem cell transplant, and harsh chemo- and radio-therapy.
If there is a god, then at best he/she is uncaring; at worst, unbelievably cruel. There will be some of you who will say that we should pray for a miracle. Sorry, this disease is invariably fatal. If god is all powerful, then this bastard of an illness should cease to exist. If god is omniscient, then the suffering of my wife is part of a plan.
I have long since ceased to believe in religious fairy stories. I am behind Dawkins 100 per cent, and I trust that he and his successors continue to explore and explode the religious hypocrisies.

I'm sorry for your loss, but it is important that you seek hope not cynacism.

You don't *actually* have to know that much about Christianity to know that it doesn't make very much sense. God, the centerpiece, is a massive self-contradiction.

I don't know, there are quite a few people who see no problems with it. And, of course, perhaps the contradictions are the point; by thinking about the paradoxical nature of God, you will discover greater religious insights and enhance your understanding of him.


You're quite right. My point is that Christianity has to change to accept new ways of thinking. Any Christian who wants to study biology or medicine has to come to terms with the truth of evolution. Any Christian who wants to study psychology has to come to terms with the fact that there is no immutable, indivisible soul. Any good scientific, rational Christian must come to terms with the unreasonable and irrational nature of their belief in God. This is true, just as Christians, in astronomy or not, have already come to accept that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the reverse.

The thing is, a lot of Christians have done that. There are some very prominent people in all of those fields that are religious and see those teachings as perfectly compatible with scientific knowledge.

And psychology says nothing about the soul; it deals with the human mind as here on Earth and as it works according to physical mechanisms. It's entirely plausible that the mind is merely a reflection of the soul working through the brain to interact with things on this Earth; the thing is, the very nature of the soul makes it something that can't be observed or quantified. Most modern Christian interpretations have discarded traditional Cartesian dualism, so it's not even the same as it used to be. That idea has evolved according to the evidence.

Its my understanding that Dawkins isn't saying that theism is wrong.. just that its unnecessary and irrelevant not only to science.. but to life.

This isn't the impression I have gotten. And if that's all he was saying, he wouldn't have to constantly harp on it and write books about it. He wouldn't claim that he could somehow empirically disprove the existence of god. He wouldn't make a lot of the claims that he makes, actually.

Religious thought, on the other hand, he IS saying is wrong. The idea that our moral codes can only be given to us by acceptance of religious teachings can be disproved empirically. I think he actually does a reasonably good job of getting us started down that path.

You seem to be equating "The idea that our moral codes can only be given to us by acceptance of religious teachings" with "religious thought." That would be an incorrect assumption. I know quite a few religious people who don't believe that - myself included.

Any Christian who wants to study biology or medicine has to come to terms with the truth of evolution.

(a) Be careful using "truth" in scientific terms. Evolutionary theory, just like anything in science, is still constantly under question. It is the prevailing and accepted theory, but it is still open to question.

(b) Most Christians have no problem whatsoever with evolutionary theory. It is only a small subset that feel the need to battle against scientific progress.

Any Christian who wants to study psychology has to come to terms with the fact that there is no immutable, indivisible soul.

Do they? Why?

Any good scientific, rational Christian must come to terms with the unreasonable and irrational nature of their belief in God.

Does basing something on my personal experiences automatically make it "unreasonable and irrational." Science requires empiricism. All of life does not.

I believe that my fiance loves me. I believe that I love him. I have no direct empirical evidence of this, but my personal experience leads me to believe it is true. Does that make it unreasonable and irrational?

No, I do not hate the deity. I just do not believe that any deity could allow the existence of myeloma, unless the deity is merely a puppet-master. So I reject the worship of god. In the same way that Christians, Muslims etc, are believers , I am a non-believer, as no one can marshall any evidence for the existence or otherwise of a deity.

This isn't the impression I have gotten. And if that's all he was saying, he wouldn't have to constantly harp on it and write books about it. He wouldn't claim that he could somehow empirically disprove the existence of god. He wouldn't make a lot of the claims that he makes, actually.

Yeah .. ok he may gone too far with saying he can empirically disprove God... I guess you hang out with people who play the game enough eventually you are going to join in. Dawkins may be a smart guy.. but he is just a guy after all...
Almost all of his most frustrating discussions would be with people who just can't or won't address the idea outside the boundaries of the game itself. Too many of those and you get drawn in to arguing on the same level.. and hence playing the game. He originally did start out (at least in the lectures I saw) saying that it was just irrelevant. Its the old adage "Don't argue with idiots, they will always drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

If he is telling people that they can't play the game, then he has gone too far. If on the other hand he is just trying to get people to understand that it is "Just a game" then he has a pretty fair point

You seem to be equating "The idea that our moral codes can only be given to us by acceptance of religious teachings" with "religious thought." That would be an incorrect assumption. I know quite a few religious people who don't believe that - myself included.

Sorry perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous. I wasn't suggesting that that summed up religious thought. Just that it was part of it.

Religious thought has basically been immune from criticism from outside theological discussion for a very long time. I think setting up the idea that many of the precepts of religion are actually falsifiable... even if the whole deity business is not.. is not a bad start.

((I think I'll just snip the irrelevant parts))

How is that irrelevant? It's just pointing out that it is equally reasonable to assume that at the point of "creation" the supernatural ceased to exist. And further, that there is no objective reason, even if you do accept a creator to assume that it still exists.


Even if the supernatural is regularly "messing with" things within the natural, science will never perceive it as such. The base axioms of science assume that the universe runs on a specific set of rules. When we see something that appears to be an anomaly, we question the rules as we understand them and modify them to fit with the new data. Supernatural interference, to science, would never appear to be supernatural. It would simply appear to be natural, but not yet understood.

So it's all just engineering then? If you accept that there is a supernatural, and science is so blind to it, what can science tell you? At that point there is no reason to prefer the theory of evolution to the theory put forward by some extremists that claim all the fossils were put there by god to tempt us. Nothing can ever be known and all choices are equally valid from that point on. That's hardly a very meaningful way to view the universe. It's essentially a self inflicted state of ignorance.

It is one thing for Dawkins to claim that he only accepts scientific evidence, and there is none for God.

That's actually what he claims.

It is quite another to claim that he can actually use science to investigate or disprove God. The former is logical. The latter is either illogical or based in a flawed understanding of the scientific method and the basis on which it was derived.

Actually he's not claiming that. He's claiming that science is the only meaningful way to investigate anything. He's suggesting that the existence of god is a hypothesis like any other. Either that hypothesis can be investigated by the scientific method - in which case there will be evidence &c. - or it can't. If it can't it's a meaningless concept.

He's basically rejecting the idea of non overlapping magesteria. (Which I gather you don't).

Yeah .. ok he may gone too far with saying he can empirically disprove God... I guess you hang out with people who play the game enough eventually you are going to join in. Dawkins may be a smart guy.. but he is just a guy after all...

Indeed. But smart guys who want to keep the respect that goes along with their accomplishments should probably be careful what they say. I'm not overly familiar with Dawkins' scientific work, probably because his evangelical atheism is much more prominent. It is unfortunate, and his misuse of science in this instance makes me much more suspicious of his scientific work than I would be otherwise.

Almost all of his most frustrating discussions would be with people who just can't or won't address the idea outside the boundaries of the game itself.

But, to be fair, he also will often refuse to address religion outside the boundaries of science. When he debates with scientists who are also religious, he insists on scientific evidence for religion, even when those he debates are clear that their religious beliefs are outside of their scientific investigation.

Personally, I have much more respect for someone who can say, "Yes, I believe this, but I do not claim to be able to back it up scientifically," than someone who attempts to take science where it cannot go. Dawkins has even tried to bring science itself into moral discussions, as if the scientific method can somehow reveal what we *should* do, rather than what we can do.

Sorry perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous. I wasn't suggesting that that summed up religious thought. Just that it was part of it.

But it isn't necessarily part of it. Some religious people believe that. Of course, in truth, they scare me. All too often, you see the person who says, "If there is no God, why aren't we all raping and murdering, etc, etc.?" It scares me because they are essentially implying that, if they did not believe in God, they would be doing these things. Seems like dangerous people to me.

Religious thought has basically been immune from criticism from outside theological discussion for a very long time. I think setting up the idea that many of the precepts of religion are actually falsifiable... even if the whole deity business is not.. is not a bad start.

I don't think religious thought was ever immune to any criticism (or any thought for that matter). The issue is often a matter of axioms. An atheist will likely have an entirely different starting point than a theist. In order to have a productive discussion, they need to agree upon a starting point, at least for the purposes of the discussion. That is often rather difficult in an area based so heavily in personal experience.

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa. That assumption is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the world's theistic religions and so is not useful in any kind of "proof" against God other than perhaps a straw man God set up to argue against.

It's easy to disprove God if you make up the attributes you want to argue against.

It'd be easy to disprove god, also, if there were defined attributes and a solid argument for him. Since these two elements keep scurrying further and further away as science encroaches in upon the unknown's homeland, it'll never be likely to happen. Define god today, science disproves, and theism goes, "Oh, yeah?" and comes up w/ something even more elusive to evidence.

I think Dawkins is doing a fine job, as does Oxford. He, like I, find belief in the unfounded and preposterous to be just the same as its subject matter.

When one's aims are to destroy adult fairy-tales, to keep them from deluding and corrupting our society, it DOES take a certain amount of hubris. How else, I ask, is he to continue to face down and annihilate the same false arguments again, and again, and again without giving up? This saving the world business...it's a lot of work, and by the bulk of the posts in here it appears to be quite thankless.

MacDog

How is that irrelevant? It's just pointing out that it is equally reasonable to assume that at the point of "creation" the supernatural ceased to exist. And further, that there is no objective reason, even if you do accept a creator to assume that it still exists.

It is irrelevant because the discussion was of whether or not science could investigate the supernatural, not of what the supernatural itself would be like.

So it's all just engineering then? If you accept that there is a supernatural, and science is so blind to it, what can science tell you?

It can tell us about the natural world - exactly what we use it for. If the axioms on which it is based are incorrect, we will glean incorrect information from it. However, it seems to have held up pretty well thus far.

At that point there is no reason to prefer the theory of evolution to the theory put forward by some extremists that claim all the fossils were put there by god to tempt us. Nothing can ever be known and all choices are equally valid from that point on. That's hardly a very meaningful way to view the universe. It's essentially a self inflicted state of ignorance.

The fact that nothing can be "KNOWN" doesn't mean that all choices are equally valid. It all depends on what axioms you start with. Even in science we don't talk about what we "know". Instead, we discuss what we have derived from the data available, with the full knowledge that further information might change our ideas.

Most people do put stock in the empirical. We haven't really seen much that would suggest that we shouldn't. As such, for most people, the theory backed up by testing and empirical data will be seen as preferable to something without such data. And, since those theories generally allow us to actually *do* something, I think they will continue to be seen as such.

That's actually what he claims.

That's not all he claims.

Actually he's not claiming that.

Yes, he is. He has claimed that science can be used to disprove the existence of God. ((If it can't, then it isn't a scientific question - which he has claimed it is.))

He's claiming that science is the only meaningful way to investigate anything.

This is an opinion he is entitled to. I'd like to see him demonstrate it.

I would like to see him use science to definitely investigate, for instance, love. Or perhaps he doesn't feel such emotions, since he purportedly relies *only* on empirical evidence. You can't actually investigate such a concept using the scientific method. It relies entirely upon personal experience which cannot be directly shared and any attempt at scientific study will be based in self-diagnosis, which makes it immediately suspect. Is love a useless concept?

Edit: Meanwhile, he is dipping into philosophy that is outside of the scientific realm. It is apparent that he doesn't think that science is truly the only meaningful way to investigate anything, or he would stick to it and stay out of the other realms of philosophy.

He's suggesting that the existence of god is a hypothesis like any other. Either that hypothesis can be investigated by the scientific method - in which case there will be evidence &c. - or it can't. If it can't it's a meaningless concept.

You mean there will be empirical evidence.

Of course, his claim wasn't either/or. He said it is a scientific question. In other words, a being outside the universe can be investigated by the scientific method. And therein lies his mistake.

He's basically rejecting the idea of non overlapping magesteria. (Which I gather you don't).

Indeed, but that isn't what you have described. Rejecting the idea would be to say that all religious concepts can be scientifically investigated (which they cannot) - and that is what he is saying.

What you have described wouldn't be rejecting non overlapping magesteria. It would be rejecting the discussion of religion (and, indeed, the supernatural itself) completely. They wouldn't be separate areas. They wouldn't be the same area. The latter simply wouldn't be an issue at all. And, again, if Dawkins really saw religion as "not an issue," I highly doubt he'd devote so much time to it.

It'd be easy to disprove god, also, if there were defined attributes and a solid argument for him.

God is the creator of the universe.

Disprove it.

When one's aims are to destroy adult fairy-tales, to keep them from deluding and corrupting our society, it DOES take a certain amount of hubris. How else, I ask, is he to continue to face down and annihilate the same false arguments again, and again, and again without giving up? This saving the world business...it's a lot of work, and by the bulk of the posts in here it appears to be quite thankless.

Saving the world? How laughable. You are ascribing even more arrogance to him than even he seems to have. I'm sure, however, that people who think there just might be something else in existence are somehow destroying the world. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, his method to "annihilate the same false arguments again and again," seems to be to make false arguments again and again. It hardly seems so noble when you can't do it without that, does it?

Actually he's not claiming that. He's claiming that science is the only meaningful way to investigate anything. He's suggesting that the existence of god is a hypothesis like any other. Either that hypothesis can be investigated by the scientific method - in which case there will be evidence &c. - or it can't. If it can't it's a meaningless concept.

Golly, that sounds a lot like the "truth can only be found through Christianity" nonsense that I've heard before, just couched in slightly different terms.

But, to be fair, he also will often refuse to address religion outside the boundaries of science. When he debates with scientists who are also religious, he insists on scientific evidence for religion, even when those he debates are clear that their religious beliefs are outside of their scientific investigation.
To continue with my soccer analogy .. when someone makes the claim that soccer is just a game it offends those who love soccer. There is however no way to argue that it is just a game from within the sphere of thought on soccer.
Does that make it any less true that its just a game.
Proponents of soccer will argue that its the "just" bit that they are offended by. They will talk of the power, and tha passion. The feeling of elation they get from being part of the game.. how can it be "just a game". In order to make that observation you would have to be looking from the outside in.. not from the inside out.



Personally, I have much more respect for someone who can say, "Yes, I believe this, but I do not claim to be able to back it up scientifically," than someone who attempts to take science where it cannot go. Dawkins has even tried to bring science itself into moral discussions, as if the scientific method can somehow reveal what we *should* do, rather than what we can do.
Science does have a part to play in the moral sphere. Certainly as much of a part as religion does. If you can demonstrate that a particular moral code is empiracally more compatable with human society then surely thats helpful.
If you could use science to show that people are much happier in societies where gay marriage was allowed would that not assist a government to make a choice on what is essentially a moral ground?
What is wrong with using empirical evidence when examining our shifting moral codes?



But it isn't necessarily part of it. Some religious people believe that. Of course, in truth, they scare me. All too often, you see the person who says, "If there is no God, why aren't we all raping and murdering, etc, etc.?" It scares me because they are essentially implying that, if they did not believe in God, they would be doing these things. Seems like dangerous people to me.

I don't think religious thought was ever immune to any criticism (or any thought for that matter). The issue is often a matter of axioms. An atheist will likely have an entirely different starting point than a theist. In order to have a productive discussion, they need to agree upon a starting point, at least for the purposes of the discussion. That is often rather difficult in an area based so heavily in personal experience.

But if I have a stupid idea it is fine to criticise me for my idea. If that stupid idea is part of my religion suddenly you have to respect my stupid idea.. simply because it forms part of my ideology. That seems unproductive. Dawkins seems to be saying a stupid idea is a stupid idea... just because that stupid idea is part of someones religion doesn't make it any less stupid and we should treat it that way.

Its considered rude and crude.. simply because religion has been a protected topic for so long.... no its not immune but it certainly has a serious defense mechanism..and not one that is necessarily justified.

EDIT: Your attitude to religion would have been unacceptable to most religious figures only a few decades ago. religion is evolving... I think Dawkins is just an impatient man. He wants to get where its going fast enough for him to enjoy the benifits of that kind of world.

If you could use science to show that people are much happier in societies where gay marriage was allowed would that not assist a government to make a choice on what is essentially a moral ground?

Only if you're already assuming a utilitarian form of morality.

Only if you're already assuming a utilitarian form of morality.

Is there any other kind?

If so... why is that religious (supposedly static) morals are busily evolving. Morals have a use.. therefore they are utilitarian.

To continue with my soccer analogy .. when someone makes the claim that soccer is just a game it offends those who love soccer. There is however no way to argue that it is just a game from within the sphere of thought on soccer.
Does that make it any less true that its just a game.

No, but it makes it impossible for people on either side to have a productive conversation about it. In the end, they basically just have to say, "I don't understand your viewpoint and you don't understand mine. Let's agree to disagree."

Science does have a part to play in the moral sphere. Certainly as much of a part as religion does. If you can demonstrate that a particular moral code is empiracally more compatable with human society then surely thats helpful.

How do you separate society from its moral codes? And would the thing that people liked the best necessarily be "moral"? Slavery was very compatible with human society for a long time, but most of us don't think it is "moral."

If you could use science to show that people are much happier in societies where gay marriage was allowed would that not assist a government to make a choice on what is essentially a moral ground?

Is "It makes people happy," the basis of morals?

What is wrong with using empirical evidence when examining our shifting moral codes?

There is nothing wrong with using empirical evidence when doing so. The problem is that the scientific method cannot be used. The basis of what is "moral" and what is not are not based in science, but in subjective discussion on the matter. I might define "moral" as whatever allows the most people to live. You might define it as whatever allows the most people to be happy. Someone else might define it as whatever promotes ecological diversity. Science can tell us how to meet these possibly conflicting goals, but it cannot tell us which one is morally right. It falls to other philosophical endeavors to determine that (and they certainly don't *have* to be theology).

But if I have a stupid idea it is fine to criticise me for my idea.

Indeed, and if it is demonstrably stupid and I can show it to be untrue it might even be fine for me to call you stupid, but that is another story altogether.

Dawkins seems to be saying a stupid idea is a stupid idea... just because that stupid idea is part of someones religion doesn't make it any less stupid and we should treat it that way.

And Dawkins is the ultimate authority on what ideas are and and are not stupid, eh?

Your attitude to religion would have been unacceptable to most religious figures only a few decades ago.

It's unacceptable to many of them today too. =)

Is there any other kind?

Yes, yes there are. As I recall, there are systems of morality based on the intent of the moral actor rather than the resultant net effect on overall happiness.

If so... why is that religious (supposedly static) morals are busily evolving.

I suspect an intelligent religious person would respond that it is our understanding of morality that is evolving, not the actual morality set out by God.

Morals have a use.. therefore they are utilitarian.

A hydrogen atom has a use. Clearly it is utilitarian because of this.

Sorry, not true. I think we have a case of equivocation on the word "utilitarian" here.

It'd be easy to disprove god, also, if there were defined attributes and a solid argument for him. Since these two elements keep scurrying further and further away as science encroaches in upon the unknown's homeland, it'll never be likely to happen. Define god today, science disproves, and theism goes, "Oh, yeah?" and comes up w/ something even more elusive to evidence.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are just as strong, if not stronger, than they've ever been. All science has done has pushed God out of where he shouldn't be; people, including religious teachers and theologians, have been railing against the "God of the Gaps" since ancient times. It's hardly bold or particularly insightful to assume that God is beyond the realm of the physical universe and so isn't going to be found as a property of nature.


When one's aims are to destroy adult fairy-tales, to keep them from deluding and corrupting our society, it DOES take a certain amount of hubris. How else, I ask, is he to continue to face down and annihilate the same false arguments again, and again, and again without giving up? This saving the world business...it's a lot of work, and by the bulk of the posts in here it appears to be quite thankless.

Religion is not a delusion. In order for it to be a delusion, it has to be something that is obviously in contradiction with the truth, and as far as I know nobody has ever shown that there is no God and therefore any belief in him is a delusion. Once someone can prove beyond any doubt that God does or does not not exist, and can present it in a factual and testable manner, I will listen. Otherwise, the existence or nonexistence of God is based on attacking a strawman or faith, and that's not exactly a strong basis for belief.

All Dawkins is using are a bunch of old arguments against God, and he's using those same old arguments against a bunch of similar old arguments for God. His hubris is nothing more than an overconfidence in his own abilities and his religious zeal for his faith of explicit atheism. He's an evangelical for his religion, and nothing more.

Claim: God is not a self-contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and beneficent, why do good people suffer?

There are no answers to these questions.
God is a self-contradcition and cannot exist as specified by Christian orthodoxy.

I don't know, there are quite a few people who see no problems with it. And, of course, perhaps the contradictions are the point; by thinking about the paradoxical nature of God, you will discover greater religious insights and enhance your understanding of him.

Counter-Claim: God is a self-contradiction and I'm totally okay with that.

If your belief in God allows contradictions, then believing in God is compatible with believing God does not exist. In short, you admit that God's non-existence is quite possibly one of his profound mysteries.

Furthermore, such a belief is no more rational than any of these ideas:
- Believing the world is run by a secret society of invisible pink unicorns
- Believing that reality is just an illusion created to deceive us all
- Believing that you are invincible despite the fact you are now missing an arm from that traffic accident
- Being Pro-Life and a member of the NRA


Most Christians have no problem whatsoever with evolutionary theory. It is only a small subset that feel the need to battle against scientific progress.
And psychology says nothing about the soul; it deals with the human mind as here on Earth and as it works according to physical mechanisms. It's entirely plausible that the mind is merely a reflection of the soul working through the brain to interact with things on this Earth; the thing is, the very nature of the soul makes it something that can't be observed or quantified. Most modern Christian interpretations have discarded traditional Cartesian dualism, so it's not even the same as it used to be. That idea has evolved according to the evidence.

Back in the day, heliocentrism was risqué.
Though more than a century old, evolution is still a sensitive spot for some of the faith.
The issue of the soul is probably going to be the next big hurdle. The science has been done, it just hasn't hit the fan yet (for some odd reason). The mind is like waves in a sea- it is a pattern of action on a material medium. This is scientific theory.

Cut the brain down the middle and you wind up with two independent minds. I don't see how you can explain that (and the many other findings of psychology and neuroscience) with an indivisible, immaterial soul.


Even if you can, it doesn't change the fact that you're just creating arguments to defend things you already believe. Scientists, ideally, change their conclusions when new evidence that challenges the theory is presented. Religion, conversely, tries to change their interpretation to fit the conclusions they had to begin with.

Does basing something on my personal experiences automatically make it "unreasonable and irrational." Science requires empiricism. All of life does not.

I believe that my fiance loves me. I believe that I love him. I have no direct empirical evidence of this, but my personal experience leads me to believe it is true. Does that make it unreasonable and irrational?

Just.... just... look 'empirical' up in a dictionary. Please. Just... please. >_o

Golly, that sounds a lot like the "truth can only be found through Christianity" nonsense that I've heard before, just couched in slightly different terms.Except you can't exactly set up experiments testing Christianity's effect on the natural world, now can you? You can, however, observe how the natural world works and attempt to understand it. There's no equivalency here.

Except you can't exactly set up experiments testing Christianity's effect on the natural world, now can you? You can, however, observe how the natural world works and attempt to understand it. There's no equivalency here.

Once again, you're applying the standards of one system to another system as if you can reasonably expect it to adhere to them. Feel free to use scripture to prove quantum mechanics if you think that makes sense.

Claim: God is not a self-contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and beneficent, why do good people suffer?

There are no answers to these questions.
God is a self-contradcition and cannot exist as specified by Christian orthodoxy.

I don't know because I'm not a theologian. I'm sure there are thousands of Christian apologists willing to answer your questions that could do a lot better job than I ever could.

Back in the day, heliocentrism was risqué.
Though more than a century old, evolution is still a sensitive spot for some of the faith.

And now almost all religious people accept them. It just goes to show that religion is as adaptable to new ideas as anything else, and can change to accommodate them.

The issue of the soul is probably going to be the next big hurdle. The science has been done, it just hasn't hit the fan yet (for some odd reason). The mind is like waves in a sea- it is a pattern of action on a material medium. This is scientific theory.

Well, no. The thing is, the "soul" is as testable and provable as God is; even if you can show that things happen because of physical causes, it says nothing on whether or not the soul exists. Even if the soul is not necessary for psychology or neuroscience, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it's entirely possible and workable that the soul controls the brain and generates thought through it even though it's working through the physical brain. Nobody knows what happens after death, so it's pointless to say what happens because it will never be testable.

I mean, for all we know the soul could even be a vibrating field of quantum particles that generate the computations necessary for thought or something equally exotic yet based in the physical universe.

Cut the brain down the middle and you wind up with two independent minds. I don't see how you can explain that (and the many other findings of psychology and neuroscience) with an indivisible, immaterial soul.

Who's to say that a soul can't have its perception deceived? If the body is the tool of the soul, it can have its interactions with the physical world altered by changes in the body.

Using a car as an analogy, if your brake cables fail, your tires puncture or your steering wheel locks, you lose control of your car and it does what it "wants" according to the laws of physics regardless of what you want it to do. I don't see why the soul might be in the same position in the event of injury, mental illness, or whatever. If the machine isn't working, it doesn't matter what the operator wants it to do.

Even if you can, it doesn't change the fact that you're just creating arguments to defend things you already believe. Scientists, ideally, change their conclusions when new evidence that challenges the theory is presented. Religion, conversely, tries to change their interpretation to fit the conclusions they had to begin with.


I'm an agnostic. Neither side will convince me short of proof through direct experience, and neither side is capable of using science to argue against the other without misusing it and abusing its purpose.

Claim: God is not a self-contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and beneficent, why do good people suffer?

There are no answers to these questions.

Actually, yes there are. And I already gave them (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12078792&postcount=230) to you.

Except you can't exactly set up experiments testing Christianity's effect on the natural world, now can you? You can, however, observe how the natural world works and attempt to understand it. There's no equivalency here.

Well, of course not. They're not the same thing and have completely different roles.

Once again, you're applying the standards of one system to another system as if you can reasonably expect it to adhere to them. Feel free to use scripture to prove quantum mechanics if you think that makes sense.
Here's the difference--quantum physics makes no claim on the accuracy or inaccuracy of scripture, but scripture does make claims on the way the universe works.

Here's the difference--quantum physics makes no claim on the accuracy or inaccuracy of scripture, but scripture does make claims on the way the universe works.

But that's not a problem unless you interpret those texts literally. And literal interpretation is hardly an idea with basis in the history of Christianity and Judaism; the Jews in particular had men who dedicated their entire lives to interpreting, debating, and reinterpreting the text of the Torah to determine the teachings hidden in its stories, and they encouraged people to read, think, and ask questions about it.

Biblical mythology is very useful for teaching people about God and morality, but it's not meant to be interpreted literally; that doesn't mean the truths contained in it are untrue, but that they should be seen as stories meant to convey moral and religious ideas rather than as a history or scientific text.

Cut the brain down the middle and you wind up with two independent minds. I don't see how you can explain that (and the many other findings of psychology and neuroscience) with an indivisible, immaterial soul.

Um...no, you don't. You end up with a dead person. One side of the brain isn't going to keep a person alive all on its own, nor is it going to hold an entire person's mind.

Even if you can, it doesn't change the fact that you're just creating arguments to defend things you already believe. Scientists, ideally, change their conclusions when new evidence that challenges the theory is presented. Religion, conversely, tries to change their interpretation to fit the conclusions they had to begin with.

Not necessarily. In science, we sometimes find that evidence that originally seemed to challenge a theory is actually compatible with it, and thus no change is necessary. Other times, we find that the the new evidence is incompatible, and the theory must be changed. The same two possibilities are open to those who are religious.

Just.... just... look 'empirical' up in a dictionary. Please. Just... please. >_o

Ok. And? One of those definitions is the one used in science:

3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

If we want to use all of them,

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em·pir·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

that's fine. It means that I have empirical evidence for God.


Except you can't exactly set up experiments testing Christianity's effect on the natural world, now can you? You can, however, observe how the natural world works and attempt to understand it. There's no equivalency here.

There are many things that you can't set up an experiment to test. Unless Dawkins is going to call all of them useless pursuits, then the argument falls flat (or becomes hypocritical). I understand being skeptical of that which cannot be empirically tested, but quite a few things fall under that description. And the scientific method itself was derived from a less empirical, philosophical approach.

Here's the difference--quantum physics makes no claim on the accuracy or inaccuracy of scripture, but scripture does make claims on the way the universe works.

I'm not a literalist. I don't read the Judeo-Christian story of God's developing relationship with humanity as if it were a physics text.

You'll have to try another line of argument.

Here's the difference--quantum physics makes no claim on the accuracy or inaccuracy of scripture, but scripture does make claims on the way the universe works.

If the Bible is taken literally, then you run into the problem of science commenting on its accuracy and it commenting on the accuracy of science.

Of course, as Vetalia pointed out, it isn't an issue if you are looking only for spiritual truths, rather than physical ones, in Scripture.

I'm not a literalist. I don't read the Judeo-Christian story of God's developing relationship with humanity as if it were a physics text.

You'll have to try another line of argument.
If you're not using it or another holy book as the word of god or gods, then you can't expect to use it as an argument against atheism either.

If you're not using it or another holy book as the word of god or gods, then you can't expect to use it as an argument against atheism either.

There's a difference between using it as the word of god or gods and using it as a literal textbook.

If you're not using it or another holy book as the word of god or gods, then you can't expect to use it as an argument against atheism either.

I really have no need to make an argument against atheism, so I'm not particularly bothered by that.

And by the way, it's quite possible to believe that scripture is inspired by God and also believe that it's silly to read it as a scientific text.

I really have no need to make an argument against atheism, so I'm not particularly bothered by that.

And by the way, it's quite possible to believe that scripture is inspired by God and also believe that it's silly to read it as a scientific text.
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll

Split the brain in half and you get two minds. (http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Gazzaniga%20Experiments.html)

OKAY.

Let's see if I understand correctly:

The SOUL operates the MIND and the mind operates the BODY.
BUT! The SOUL is UNDETECTABLE, has NO observable effects on the MIND, and is UNNECESSARY for the MIND and BODY to work.

And yet you still believe it exists.

....

.......

Maybe.... maybe I'm just confused.

I've never met this God guy, so tell me a little about your invisible friend.
Describe or define to me what makes God, well, God. And tell me what you mean when you say he/it/whatever exists.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll

:D

Religion is not a delusion. In order for it to be a delusion, it has to be something that is obviously in contradiction with the truth, and as far as I know nobody has ever shown that there is no God and therefore any belief in him is a delusion. Once someone can prove beyond any doubt that God does or does not not exist, and can present it in a factual and testable manner, I will listen. Otherwise, the existence or nonexistence of God is based on attacking a strawman or faith, and that's not exactly a strong basis for belief.
I have lived with philosophers, and am technically pursuing a Doctorate of Philosophy (in Molecular Biology) but don't have a lot of background in the field (as is probably blatently obvious) so I don't know the right terms for things:

Is there a name for those Philosophical instances where something possible is considered that can not be proved one way or another.

eg

"I am not awake, my life is simply an elaborate dream"

I imagine all examinations of existence would fall into this basket of interesting but ultimately unprovable.

This brings me to my perception of the situation.

I guess religion is not necessarily a delusion... but it is just another existence explanation. It seems to me that existence is a very tough thing to examine... and one on which very little insight can be gained. Why place more emphasis on theism rather than say any of the other equally valid theories of existence. When it comes down to it, they are all just philosophical games.

If I spent my life playing WoW, it wouldn't make me delusional (though I may well end up that way) but it would be a massive distraction.

Thats kind of how I see theism. Its an excellent distraction but ultimately an unrewarding pursuit that many people have put an awful lot of time and effort into.

There are all sorts of word/idea puzzles that you can set up that are equally as distracting.

Religion is completely open to the construction of new versions... eg scientology (not sure if the urban myth about it being a bet with A C Clarke is true or not but its certainly a recently developed religion) Pastafarianism etc etc...

So it can quite clearly be simply a human construct. It just seems to me that humanity has got stuck in a bit of a loop.. once the construct exists its impossible to get rid of.

I think Dawkins analogy of a computer virus is kind of a cute way of looking at it.

Theism seems to be a virus of the mind.

Dawkins is a passionate man. A man who cares about learning. He sees religion as a distraction. Some very very intelligent people spend an awful lot of time thinking about it. Its a shame. Imagine what they could have come up with if they had put that resource to another use..........

Claim: God is not a self-contradiction.

If God is omnipotent, can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?


No, because that is a paradox. The rule of a paradox means it cannot exist, to be all powerful does not mean you are able to perform a paradox.

"I am not awake, my life is simply an elaborate dream"

Actually- read O.K. Bouwsma's "Descartes' Evil Genius" if you ever have the chance. It's a short piece and clever refutation of this kind of skeptical claim.

The essence of the argument is this: Reality is the most vivid thing we experience, by definition.

Any claims to the effect 'reality is an illusion' are claims that 'reality is not reality', and are obvious self-contradictions.

This isn't rocket science, it's logic, and a lot of people, especially philosophers, have trouble realizing that the problem they've been worrying about since Descartes isn't a problem at all.

My train of thought:

Q:Is it possible to concieve of an entity that can do anything?

A:Well... yes I just did...

Q:Once you have concieved of this entity is it possible to disprove its existence?

A:Well no. By definition it can do anything...

Q:So could God be a human construct?

A:Yes...

Q:Once concieved would the idea be able to be discarded?

A:No it can't be disproved...

Q: Can you concieve of a time when this question had not been posed?

A: Yes.. especially if you are a believer in evolution its easy to see that previous to the formation of minds that the idea could not have existed..

Q: Could theism be simply a construct of the human mind?

A: certainly..

Q: Well is it a construct??

A: Can't tell...

Q: So does it matter?

A: Not as far as I can see....

A (theism): Yes!

So this is the point at which we differ... I just can't see why given that in all probability the idea is a human construct you would choose to believe it is otherwise. Additionally regardless of your belief one way or the other, it is a problem without a resolution.

It could be a human construct or it might be somehow real... either way I don't see why it should effect your life... let alone your belief in it effect mine.

At some point it would be nice if people moved on. Got used to the idea that it was a naughty looping thought and started putting the 10% of the brain capacity into thinking about problems that do have resolutions.

If I had to get up and give lectures about problems that do have a possible resolution to people who are distracted by a problem that doesn't have a resolution all the time I think I would end up being a bit of an ass about it too.. just like ol R Dawkins

snip

Good post.

The problem is, the idea of God isn't just the idea of an invisible guy in the sky.

The question of a creator is a question that requires a nescecerry conclusion, rather then a question like "is there a pig with 10 black spots on the face that say the name Hi that lives in London and is owned by a bloke called Bob". Something like this, though obsurd, would be impossible to proove either way. However a question like this doesn't require an answer as the pig does not affect anything else in the universe.

However, the question of a creator is really a question that comes from travelling down the line of cause and effect that causes an effect that causes etc... The question is the classic chicken and the egg, the "what came first, the cause or effect?"

This question does not have any more or less likelyness, unlike the idea of just some guy in the sky, who is not required by any means to be there and does not affect anything in the universe. The question is a required question. The question not only has no proovable conclusion, it has no way of attatching more or less credibility to either conclusion.

I'm finding this very hard to explain in words I would like to describe.

I am not a philosopher. I have, however, existed on this small rock rather longer than most on this site. It does not make me more wise, but it does add a soupcon of experience. I am rather closer to the end of existence than most persons here and I see nothing in my life which gives any indication that any deity exists.
Dawkins uses the term "virus" to explain how religious belief devolves down the generations. I find his arguments compelling. Since mankind became capable of cognitive reasoning, humanity has looked at the stars and asked the profound questions:
Why are we here?
What is the meaning of our existence?
Why do we die?
Where do we go after we die?
What is our purpose?
Religion has attempted to answer those profound questions by attempting to give meaning to our lives:
We are part of god's plan.
There is an afterlife.
Our life serves a purpose in that it glorifies god.
As I have said earlier I can not disprove the existence of god. BUT which sane person would accept the existence of an all powerful entity which never reveals itself. .
Face it! We are not part of a plan. We will not have eternal life. Life is not a rehearsal.
My life experience tells me that god is a myth. I urge you to read Dawkins.

Good post.

The problem is, the idea of God isn't just the idea of an invisible guy in the sky.

The question of a creator is a question that requires a nescecerry conclusion, rather then a question like "is there a pig with 10 black spots on the face that say the name Hi that lives in London and is owned by a bloke called Bob". Something like this, though obsurd, would be impossible to proove either way. However a question like this doesn't require an answer as the pig does not affect anything else in the universe.

However, the question of a creator is really a question that comes from travelling down the line of cause and effect that causes an effect that causes etc... The question is the classic chicken and the egg, the "what came first, the cause or effect?"

This question does not have any more or less likelyness, unlike the idea of just some guy in the sky, who is not required by any means to be there and does not affect anything in the universe. The question is a required question. The question not only has no proovable conclusion, it has no way of attatching more or less credibility to either conclusion.

I'm finding this very hard to explain in words I would like to describe.

It is really really tough concept to express, I agree. I know I am crap at it..

I will start by saying that I live in Christian society and know effectively nothing about the 33 million plus gods in the hindu pantheon let alone all the other gods around so I will talk about the christian God.. of which I know something, not much, I admit, but I did read the bible, my uncle is a minister and I have chatted to plenty of people about Him.

So we started with the idea of an entity that could do anything.

The original idea has definitely been filled out. Thousands of years of thought you would expect no less...

If you want people to play the game you have to make it worth their while. "An entity that can do anything" is a cool idea but in order to get people to think about it a lot (when it clearly hurts your head to do so) you need consequences. The neat thing about an entity that can do anything is that ... well he can do anything. Including have consequences.....

So yes there is the additional bits about heaven and hell. The idea is going to be just that much more successful as an idea virus with them.

I can see what you mean that this means that it has consequences if you believe or not... but ultimately its still an unaswerable question. Its still just as irrelavent to the pursuit of knowledge as any other unanswerable question. Thats why its such a shame that people put so much energy into discussing it.

Scientists like to stand on the shoulders of giants. The better the work that your predecessors have done the easier it is for you to do good work. If all the brilliant minds that have got stuck on this unanswerable question had been working on answerable questions then those questions would be so much easier to answer. Thats enough to make any scientist upset.

Split the brain in half and you get two minds. (http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Gazzaniga%20Experiments.html)

That isn't two minds, my dear, nor is it a brain cut in half. It is a situation in which the hemispheres are not connected and input on one hemisphere or other creates a different response than the other.

It's not unheard of. Similar injuries along with other damage have caused subjects to be able to write, but not to read, or to sing, but not to speak, or any other number of issues.

It is one brain - one mind - that is not fully connected.


I guess religion is not necessarily a delusion... but it is just another existence explanation. It seems to me that existence is a very tough thing to examine... and one on which very little insight can be gained. Why place more emphasis on theism rather than say any of the other equally valid theories of existence.

Because theology means more to some people, so they will choose to emphasize them more? Because certain experiences have led people to believe that theism is worthwhile?

Personally, I don't think the, "What if we're all in a dream/book/etc.?" question is one worth my time. I have no reason to believe that I am in a dream/book/etc. - my existence is real to me, even if it isn't in reality. If someone has an experience that causes them to question this reality, then they might focus more on that question.

Thats kind of how I see theism. Its an excellent distraction but ultimately an unrewarding pursuit that many people have put an awful lot of time and effort into.

If you find something to be unrewarding, does that mean that it will be equally unrewarding for everyone?

Dawkins is a passionate man. A man who cares about learning. He sees religion as a distraction. Some very very intelligent people spend an awful lot of time thinking about it. Its a shame. Imagine what they could have come up with if they had put that resource to another use..........

Why is it Dawkins' business how someone else uses their resources? Is he the emperor of the world? If I want to do something that he thinks is a waste of time, that's my business. Personally, I think his crusade against religion is a waste of time - especially when he could spend that time actually contributing something to society.


As I have said earlier I can not disprove the existence of god. BUT which sane person would accept the existence of an all powerful entity which never reveals itself.

Does the fact that you have not seen evidence for God mean that no one has? Does it mean that God has never been revealed in any way?


Scientists like to stand on the shoulders of giants. The better the work that your predecessors have done the easier it is for you to do good work. If all the brilliant minds that have got stuck on this unanswerable question had been working on answerable questions then those questions would be so much easier to answer. Thats enough to make any scientist upset.

You place an awful lot of limitations on the mind. Believe it or not, I can contemplate the existence or non-existence of God and still carry out my scientific experiments. I can build a scientific theory and still have time to think about my family and friends and the fact that I'd really like children.

I don't think science has been at all hindered by the fact that people also contemplate religion. Certain forms of religious thought have attempted to hinder science, but, for the most part, there is no reason that they cannot coexist.

You place an awful lot of limitations on the mind. Believe it or not, I can contemplate the existence or non-existence of God and still carry out my scientific experiments. I can build a scientific theory and still have time to think about my family and friends and the fact that I'd really like children.

I don't think science has been at all hindered by the fact that people also contemplate religion. Certain forms of religious thought have attempted to hinder science, but, for the most part, there is no reason that they cannot coexist.

The human mind is limited. Multitasking is a difficult business. If I am deep in thought on one idea then another idea is likely to be getting less attention.

There are plenty of theologians... religious scholars etc that devote themselves to the study of these ultimately unanswerable questions. I am not saying that religion directly hinders science (though on occassion it does in particular circumtances) however I am saying that it distracts from it. If you are thinking about religion and theism your not thinking about potentially solvable questions. So the solvable questions are no closer to being solved.

Its like saying that having to do my job doesn't effect my ability to surf. But it does as the more time I spend at work the less time I spend surfing.....

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and extend his expertese around philosophy. Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless. Another part of his time is waisted when he tries to ridiculre religion using his very very scewed, and I mean scewed, understanding of theology using taken out of context quotes and misinterpretations to support his weak arguments of banning religion etc...

I also think he is one of the most arrogant and hypocritical men on the planet, and represents what is wrong with militant atheism.

Anyone agree?

As long as there are debates like the Grand Canyon visitor centre debate over the 'necessity' to give space to religious 'ideas' of scientific data (and yet, they only want one religous view represented... thay hypocrisy you mention?) - there will be space for the scientist to fight back on equal terms.

I think Dawkins recognises his science can never really be a totally valid tool for debating theology, but then - I am also glad that someone is visible in taking a stand against the theocratic ambitions of mobolised extremist Christianity.

Why is it Dawkins' business how someone else uses their resources? Is he the emperor of the world? If I want to do something that he thinks is a waste of time, that's my business. Personally, I think his crusade against religion is a waste of time - especially when he could spend that time actually contributing something to society.

He is responsible, its his job to care.
He is being paid to aid the advancement of science.

If you were a contractor tasked with improving efficiency in the workplace and on arriving you found that half the employees waste half their time surfing the net... you wouldn't put that in your report??

Sure its none of his business to tell you that you can't surf then net... but it is his job to say that its inefficient use of resources...

No, it fails entirely because it falsely assumes God is bound to the same laws of the universe, and vice versa. That assumption is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of the world's theistic religions and so is not useful in any kind of "proof" against God other than perhaps a straw man God set up to argue against.

It's easy to disprove God if you make up the attributes you want to argue against.

Which can, at least, be observed as parody of the 'intelligent designer' idea...

Which can, at least, be observed as parody of the 'intelligent designer' idea...

Well, intelligent design deserves to be parodied; it makes no sense to use a 2,000+ year old metaphorical text on spirituality, morality, and the nature of God as a science book.

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Lewis Carroll

Indeed I have, from your perspective. And you have done the same, from my perspective.

Not because you believe in the value of science (I happen to love science), but because you adhere to it dogmatically, treating it as if it were a twisted and malformed religion, turning it into that thing which you refuse to believe in another guise. I will always fight the creeping dogmatism that threatens to turn science into a perverted religion, the institutionalization of what should not be chained to a monolithic edifice. Because I oppose unhealthy religion, and because I love science, I will most definitely oppose science being turned into an unhealthy religion.

:D

You could actually debate me instead of grinning at a lack thereof on the part of someone who's on your side.

Well, intelligent design deserves to be parodied; it makes no sense to use a 2,000+ year old metaphorical text on spirituality, morality, and the nature of God as a science book.

Absolutely agreed.

The 'problem', if you like, is that being entirely logical about it has 'no voice'. That's why I think people like Dawkins are important - there are a lot of loud voices on one 'side' of the debate - and they can be very persuasive.

Dawkins, even if fatally flawed, presents a visible, audible counterpoint.

I may not agree with all his arguments, but I'm glad he is making them. He is at least bring it 'to the table'.

The human mind is limited. Multitasking is a difficult business. If I am deep in thought on one idea then another idea is likely to be getting less attention.

Indeed. But even the most devoted scientist doesn't spend all of her time doing nothing but thinking about science. There are other aspects of life that can hold our attention sometimes.

There are plenty of theologians... religious scholars etc that devote themselves to the study of these ultimately unanswerable questions. I am not saying that religion directly hinders science (though on occassion it does in particular circumtances) however I am saying that it distracts from it. If you are thinking about religion and theism your not thinking about potentially solvable questions. So the solvable questions are no closer to being solved.

If you are studying religion and theism (or philosophy, or any other non-science field) rather than science, its probably because you are more interested in such pursuits. What makes you think that, if religion were removed, all of those minds would suddenly be interested and pursue science?

Its like saying that having to do my job doesn't effect my ability to surf. But it does as the more time I spend at work the less time I spend surfing.....

But the fact that you go surfing in your free time isn't going to affect your ability to do your job, now is it? To suggest that my contemplation of religion will keep me from completing my job as a scientist makes equivalent sense with saying that my love of reading will do so. Believe it or not, even scientists have free time - sometimes more of it than many others, considering the nature of some experiments.


As long as there are debates like the Grand Canyon visitor centre debate over the 'necessity' to give space to religious 'ideas' of scientific data (and yet, they only want one religous view represented... thay hypocrisy you mention?) - there will be space for the scientist to fight back on equal terms.

Two wrongs make a right, eh?

I think Dawkins recognises his science can never really be a totally valid tool for debating theology,

Do you? His own comments seem to contradict this.

but then - I am also glad that someone is visible in taking a stand against the theocratic ambitions of mobolised extremist Christianity.

I'd be happier if that visible person were someone that didn't give such a bad name to the rational people who wish to see the efforts of extremists thwarted. He's a bad example - just more of the same only as an atheist rather than a religious extremist.


He is responsible, its his job to care.

It is his job to care what everyone else decides is a worthwhile pursuit for them? Wow! Nobody told me that was my job when I became a scientist!

He is being paid to aid the advancement of science.

Then he should do that, instead of harming it by trying to suggest that science = militant atheism.

If you were a contractor tasked with improving efficiency in the workplace and on arriving you found that half the employees waste half their time surfing the net... you wouldn't put that in your report??

If Dawkins' employees are writing religious essays on the clock, he can complain. Otherwise, this analogy is useless. Unless, of course, you think the only occupation that anyone, anywhere, at any time should have is to contemplate science.

Sure its none of his business to tell you that you can't surf then net... but it is his job to say that its inefficient use of resources...

No, it isn't. It is his job to pursue knowledge through the scientific method. Instead, he wastes his time complaining about what others - often not scientists - are doing - generally in their free time. He harms the advancement of science by painting it as absolutely at odds with the vast majority of the population. How, precisely, is that "doing his job"?

Absolutely agreed.

The 'problem', if you like, is that being entirely logical about it has 'no voice'. That's why I think people like Dawkins are important - there are a lot of loud voices on one 'side' of the debate - and they can be very persuasive.

Dawkins, even if fatally flawed, presents a visible, audible counterpoint.

I may not agree with all his arguments, but I'm glad he is making them. He is at least bring it 'to the table'.

This makes equivalent sense with your average Christian saying, "I think Fred Phelps is full of crap, but at least he's visible and audible and brings it to the table." Dawkins, as far as I can tell, is the Fred Phelps of militant atheism.

If the method used in the discussion is counterproductive (and just as clear a misunderstanding of science as those on the other side), what does it actually help?

Got to go now. I'll check in tomorrow.

This makes equivalent sense with your average Christian saying, "I think Fred Phelps is full of crap, but at least he's visible and audible and brings it to the table." Dawkins, as far as I can tell, is the Fred Phelps of militant atheism.

If the method used in the discussion is counterproductive (and just as clear a misunderstanding of science as those on the other side), what does it actually help?

The point would be that 'that side' of the argument already has it's 'Fred Phelpses' - and they are loud, and persuasive to some - for the simple reason that there is no equivalent voice in the 'let's think about it rationally for a minute' camp. Some of Dawkin's work is well worth looking at, and it should be held separate from his atheism. I'm sure you'd agree, 'evolution' doesn't require atheism - no matter what the Phelpses of the world might say.

So - Dawkins plays two roles - the scientist, and the demagogue. The demagogue is important because it is a counterpoint to the 'loud noises of the hollow vessels' on the 'other side'.

Does he make the best case possible? Probably not - but people like Phelps are monopolising the table, and it is hard to shoulder through that crowd to be heard. The arguments for logic are on loose footing already, and the theocratic-isation of science are heading us back towards Pre-Copernicus in a handbasket. Someone needs to be actually visible against the theft of the 'scientific' from 'the sciences'.

Does he make the best case possible? Probably not - but people like Phelps are monopolising the table, and it is hard to shoulder through that crowd to be heard. The arguments for logic are on loose footing already, and the theocratic-isation of science are heading us back towards Pre-Copernicus in a handbasket. Someone needs to be actually visible against the theft of the 'scientific' from 'the sciences'.

It'd be a lot easier to fend off the Phelps crowd if science wasn't undergoing "theocratic-isation" from within. Folks like Dawkins are just part of an attempt (well-intentioned, I'll grant) to turn science into a religion instead of turning religion into science. Neither is very good for science.

That isn't two minds, my dear, nor is it a brain cut in half. It is a situation in which the hemispheres are not connected and input on one hemisphere or other creates a different response than the other.

*twitch*

The brain is composed of two equal hemispheres, if you cut the connection you have a brain cut in half.

What separates one mind from another is that it one mind is not aware of what the other mind is thinking.

When the two hemispheres are connected, the person behaves as if they have one mind, as per usual.

Once the two hemispheres are split, they behave as if they have two minds, i.e. the thoughts of one half are not available to the other half.

What does this show?
The mind is divisible.
If the 'soul' is linked to both halves of the brain, then the soul must have been cut, since the two halves of the brain are no longer linked. Information cannot be internally transfered between the two halves.

The mind is best understood without reference to a soul.
The universe is best understood without reference to a God.
Morality is best understood without reference to religion (see Dawkins).
Life, then, as a whole, is best understood without God.

If you use God to provide you hope, then it is false hope. Find real hope by working towards a better future for humanity.

If you use God to provide fulfillment in life, find real fulfillment by doing that which makes you proud of your life.

As has been previously said, life is not a rehearsal.

The mind is not immortal.
You can see it- see it in people with neurodegenerative diseases. They don't die and go to a better place. They disintegrate, memories, thoughts, a little bit at a time, all goes. It's not like they can't communicate- that there's a problem with the soul's connection to our world- it's that they can't think anymore, they're losing that ability. And what are we, if not thinking beings?

You can see it- see it in people with neurodegenerative diseases. They don't die and go to a better place. They disintegrate, memories, thoughts, a little bit at a time, all goes. It's not like they can't communicate- that there's a problem with the soul's connection to our world- it's that they can't think anymore, they're losing that ability. And what are we, if not thinking beings?

That means nothing in regard to the soul; all it shows is that the body can decay and reduce the mental processes of the brain.

If the body is the physical tool of the soul, then it's entirely possible that the soul can survive even if the body decays; the ability of that person to interact and think in this world becomes increasingly limited because of the disease, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a soul behind the scenes that is unable to communicate due to declining brain and sensory ability.

If you damage the car, it may escape the control of the driver or do things regardless of the driver's will, just like damaging the brain may cause the brain to act in ways contrary to the soul's desires.

I want to know if the people who are arguing against Richard Dawkins' views actually read any of his books - or if you are going on other people's opinions.

If you haven't actually read it - you cannot, with any credibility - criticise it.

The same is true for any other critique - just reading other people's opinions, then forming your own based on theirs is a poor method of attaining any sort of rational understanding of any argument.

I am willing to bet you have NOT read it. ;)

It'd be a lot easier to fend off the Phelps crowd if science wasn't undergoing "theocratic-isation" from within. Folks like Dawkins are just part of an attempt (well-intentioned, I'll grant) to turn science into a religion instead of turning religion into science. Neither is very good for science.
I am not sure that arguing that religion has got it wrong is arguing to make science a religion.

It was my impression that Dawkins was saying that what religions (he refers to Christianity almost exclusively) have been saying is inaccurate, irrational or irrelevant. I don't think he has put science in place of religion. That appears to be entirely in the minds of those that seem to need some form of religion. The argument goes.. "So you are saying traditional religion has got it wrong, that must mean you think science can do it better"
Dawkins says "Science doesn't need to do it at all....its irrelevant"

I can't really say I get the objection a lot of people have to 'militant atheism', ie. atheists arguing the case for atheism, or for that matter to religious people arguing the case for religion. After all, if you think that all metaphysical opinions are personal, subjective and equal and find it offensive if other people suggest otherwise you can ignore them, whereas if you want to know what the right answer is to these questions you can join in the debate. Sure, Dawkins is unnecessarily abrasive and arrogant, but then it's better we have a few people like that than nobody speaking out for their opinions.

I think it's interesting that the question of 'is reality real' has come up here, and that most people have come to the conclusion that it is, because it's the most real thing we have and there simply isn't any practical purpose in suggesting it isn't. I would say the same logic says there isn't any practical purpose in the idea of a God either.

That's because the only definition of truth that makes sense to me is the scientific positivist one (if I've gotten my terminology right). That says that any theory about the world has no intrinsic 'truth' that we can ever verify; it's just a pretty picture in our heads. It's only value comes from the predictions it makes; in other words, what's true is what works. You can see that if you take the data from our most trusted source; our senses. We only trust our senses because they allow us to do crucial things, like find food and watch TV. If something that looked like a carrot could tasted like a banana half the time, I would trust my eyes much less; ie. our senses tell the truth because they make predictions which allow us to live our lives; they work. Like the question of whether reality is real, the question of whether what they tell us has any intrinsic truth is at best completely untinteresting, but mainly it's just meaningless. The existence of God, or the essential 'truth' of whether God exists, cannot of course be proven or disproven. But in my opinion this question is likewise meaningless, since the hypothesis of God makes no predictions and is not useful in explaining any natural phenomena. Therefore it is untrue.

That means nothing in regard to the soul; all it shows is that the body can decay and reduce the mental processes of the brain.



That's an interesting standpoint. Surely no-ones' mind and body work perfectly, so my soul cannot be the same as my consciousness, and it never could have been. So in what sense is my soul actually the same person as me? As a materialist, I would say these sorts of questions just show how slippery our concepts of identity and consciousness really are; there is no qualitative difference between the questions 'am I the same person from one moment to the next' and 'am I the same person if my brain is damaged'.

That's an interesting standpoint. Surely no-ones' mind and body work perfectly, so my soul cannot be the same as my consciousness, and it never could have been. So in what sense is my soul actually the same person as me? As a materialist, I would say these sorts of questions just show how slippery our concepts of identity and consciousness really are; there is no qualitative difference between the questions 'am I the same person from one moment to the next' and 'am I the same person if my brain is damaged'.

That's an interesting question, and it's a rather tough one to answer. "Self" and consciousness are both such slippery concepts that it's hard to nail down what they are. It gets even worse when you bring in subjective experiences and qualia, which can't be reduced or really explained without sacrificing some of their properties.

It's also possible that the soul is not a true active being, but rather something we create through experiences on Earth; the point of living is to shape our soul for beyond death, and so the soul is a product of our biological consciousness rather than a preexisting animating force or the source of ourselves. We may only experience the soul upon death because it takes our lives to shape it, and without living we cannot create ourselves. In other words, nature creates the brain, which leads to the mind which in turn creates the soul.

It's also possible that the "soul" may be something physical and immortal; for example, if the mind is really an emergent property of quantum computation, then the soul would survive death so long as it could compute on that level.

I can't really say I get the objection a lot of people have to 'militant atheism', ie. atheists arguing the case for atheism, or for that matter to religious people arguing the case for religion. After all, if you think that all metaphysical opinions are personal, subjective and equal and find it offensive if other people suggest otherwise you can ignore them, whereas if you want to know what the right answer is to these questions you can join in the debate. Sure, Dawkins is unnecessarily abrasive and arrogant, but then it's better we have a few people like that than nobody speaking out for their opinions.

I think it's interesting that the question of 'is reality real' has come up here, and that most people have come to the conclusion that it is, because it's the most real thing we have and there simply isn't any practical purpose in suggesting it isn't. I would say the same logic says there isn't any practical purpose in the idea of a God either.

That's because the only definition of truth that makes sense to me is the scientific positivist one (if I've gotten my terminology right). That says that any theory about the world has no intrinsic 'truth' that we can ever verify; it's just a pretty picture in our heads. It's only value comes from the predictions it makes; in other words, what's true is what works. You can see that if you take the data from our most trusted source; our senses. We only trust our senses because they allow us to do crucial things, like find food and watch TV. If something that looked like a carrot could tasted like a banana half the time, I would trust my eyes much less; ie. our senses tell the truth because they make predictions which allow us to live our lives; they work. Like the question of whether reality is real, the question of whether what they tell us has any intrinsic truth is at best completely untinteresting, but mainly it's just meaningless. The existence of God, or the essential 'truth' of whether God exists, cannot of course be proven or disproven. But in my opinion this question is likewise meaningless, since the hypothesis of God makes no predictions and is not useful in explaining any natural phenomena. Therefore it is untrue.


Couldn't agree more.....

Not a philosopher! So why must he try and extend his expertese around philosophy. Constantly waisting his time trying to disprove God using very ammature philosophy which is very ancient, so ancient that most of it is addressed by Thomas aquinas in the 12th century and made pointless. Another part of his time is waisted when he tries to ridiculre religion using his very very scewed, and I mean scewed, understanding of theology using taken out of context quotes and misinterpretations to support his weak arguments of banning religion etc...

I also think he is one of the most arrogant and hypocritical men on the planet, and represents what is wrong with militant atheism.

Anyone agree?

While I do agree that he comes off as having a vendetta against religion, and it is very offputting, I would also say that, as an expert on the status and development of human nature, he would be more than qualified to make philosophical statements.

Richard Dawkins is rather limited. He does a fine job against pure theists who rely solely on biblical or religious logic. He fails completely against philosophical arguments for god like metaphysics and deism. In this area he is a complete idiot and cannot fathom and explain appropriately deistic arguments that can be merged with religion. He also claims that the Einsteinian view of god as the supreme clockmaker is not religious. This is a fallacy. In my personal view god is transcendent and embodies everything. If you are a literalist he will take you apart. I am rather enjoying his book the God Delusion, but the missing arguments leave holes big enough to drive a large truck through. He also claims that eastern philosophies are personal philosophies not religion, this is a huge mistake which if you look closely will reveal philosophical arguments for god which he has no inkling exist. There is plenty in eastern christianity with much deeper arguments than he presents. Still it is worth reading his somewhat entertaining books which provide good ammunition if you run into extremists.

It's also possible that the soul is not a true active being, but rather something we create through experiences on Earth; the point of living is to shape our soul for beyond death, and so the soul is a product of our biological consciousness rather than a preexisting animating force or the source of ourselves. We may only experience the soul upon death because it takes our lives to shape it, and without living we cannot create ourselves.

Hmmm. So the soul is some sort of abstraction generated from our consciousness in a way that transcends time? I don't think though, that you could really call this 'life after death'; there couldn't be any sort continuous line of consciousness between life and death, and so I would say that 'you' still die for good. And the timelessness of the soul implies that it must be static after death; what sort of life could it be to be completely static. It sounds to me like the only sort of existence the soul could have would be just a lump of unchanging data, like a book or a computer program sitting on a CD before I install it on the computer.

I want to know if the people who are arguing against Richard Dawkins' views actually read any of his books - or if you are going on other people's opinions.

If you haven't actually read it - you cannot, with any credibility - criticise it.

The same is true for any other critique - just reading other people's opinions, then forming your own based on theirs is a poor method of attaining any sort of rational understanding of any argument.

I am willing to bet you have NOT read it. ;)

I've read some of his arguments. They're hardly impressive, and show a miserable failure to analyse objectively rather than to simply prove that he can find truth-as-the-system-defines-it within that system. Any bone-head with a bunch of memorized verses of whatever their favorite holy book happens to be can prove the truths of their scriptural system within the system, and any good theologian can easily prove that God exists within his or her system.

I am not sure that arguing that religion has got it wrong is arguing to make science a religion.

Neither am I. Fortunately, I don't think he's arguing to make science a religion. What he does seem to be advocating; however, is putting it up as the only method of grasping truth. I recall that having not very nice effects when religions have done it. I also recall them integrating themselves into a variety of social institutions and becoming entrenched and dogmatic. Sounds strikingly like what is happening with science.

It was my impression that Dawkins was saying that what religions (he refers to Christianity almost exclusively) have been saying is inaccurate, irrational or irrelevant. I don't think he has put science in place of religion. That appears to be entirely in the minds of those that seem to need some form of religion.

The argument goes.. "So you are saying traditional religion has got it wrong, that must mean you think science can do it better"
Dawkins says "Science doesn't need to do it at all....its irrelevant"

If that was all he was saying, I'd be fine with it. Sadly, it's not.

I really don't give a damn that he's an atheist. I agree with him that ID is not scientific, and that Christianity and other major and minor religions have serious problems.

There is plenty in eastern christianity with much deeper arguments than he presents.
He was refering to Buddhism and Confusianism when he called eastern religions more philosophies then religions.
He dismissed eastern christianity when he dismissed christianity as a whole.

I've read some of his arguments. They're hardly impressive, and show a miserable failure to analyse objectively rather than to simply prove that he can find truth-as-the-system-defines-it within that system. Any bone-head with a bunch of memorized verses of whatever their favorite holy book happens to be can prove the truths of their scriptural system within the system, and any good theologian can easily prove that God exists within his or her system.


If the system he's talking about is science, which describes the entire natural universe, then if he can prove, "According to science, God does not exist" then what he's really saying is, "God does not exist by the laws of the natural universe".
Which is reasonable proof to infer that God does not exist, period.


Neither am I. Fortunately, I don't think he's arguing to make science a religion. What he does seem to be advocating; however, is putting it up as the only method of grasping truth. I recall that having not very nice effects when religions have done it. I also recall them integrating themselves into a variety of social institutions and becoming entrenched and dogmatic. Sounds strikingly like what is happening with science.

Again, because science infers the laws of the natural universe by observing the laws of the natural universe, science is always a good method of grasping truth if you can use it.
In contrast to religion, which infers the laws of the universe from its holy book, which means it's usually not much better then guessing.

I'd be fine with it. Sadly, it's not.

I really don't give a damn that he's an atheist. I agree with him that ID is not scientific, and that Christianity and other major and minor religions have serious problems.

Yeah I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet. I have listened to him lecture about the book, and heard his arguments before and even heard him read selected passages from it. But after just reading a few reviews I note that he does appear to have gone a little far in his attempts to disprove God..... Looks like he eventually got tempted to get down with the fools and fight them on their own grounds... a battle you are always gonna lose.

Its like arguing that soccer is just a game with a bunch of soccer fans.Eventually after being dragged into a discussion of the rules of the game you end up saying that the offside rules don't make any sense in real life. He should have stuck to the "Its just a game" line and left the arguing of semantics of whether its a good game or not to those that play the game. Whether or not its a good game or not is completely irrelavant to whether it is just a game.

Relgion may very well be an excellent game... I can't bring myself to get into it... but that doesn't change the fact that its just a game.

If the system he's talking about is science, which describes the entire natural universe, then if he can prove, "According to science, God does not exist" then what he's really saying is, "God does not exist by the laws of the natural universe". Which is reasonable proof to infer that God does not exist, period.

Simply re-stating the same old circular argument with different words is not going to work. And telling me that God can't be proven using science is not exactly useful either. I'm already well aware of that.

Again, because science infers the laws of the natural universe by observing the laws of the natural universe, science is always a good method of grasping truth if you can use it.

I happen to think that science is very useful for finding truth too. That, of course, doesn't preclude me from thinking that it needn't be put on a pedestal or that it suffers from the same flaws that other methods of acquiring truth suffer from.

In contrast to religion, which infers the laws of the universe from its holy book, which means it's usually not much better then guessing.

Well no shit. Inferring the laws of the universe from a book about spirituality and morality is pretty damn silly.

Yeah I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet. I have listened to him lecture about the book, and heard his arguments before and even heard him read selected passages from it. But after just reading a few reviews I note that he does appear to have gone a little far in his attempts to disprove God..... Looks like he eventually got tempted to get down with the fools and fight them on their own grounds... a battle you are always gonna lose.

Its like arguing that soccer is just a game with a bunch of soccer fans.Eventually after being dragged into a discussion of the rules of the game you end up saying that the offside rules don't make any sense in real life. He should have stuck to the "Its just a game" line and left the arguing of semantics of whether its a good game or not to those that play the game. Whether or not its a good game or not is completely irrelavant to whether it is just a game.

Agreed. He'd have been much better off that way.

Relgion may very well be an excellent game... I can't bring myself to get into it... but that doesn't change the fact that its just a game.

Science and philosophy are excellent games as well. I play them all just fine, personally. :)

Hmmm. So the soul is some sort of abstraction generated from our consciousness in a way that transcends time? I don't think though, that you could really call this 'life after death'; there couldn't be any sort continuous line of consciousness between life and death, and so I would say that 'you' still die for good. And the timelessness of the soul implies that it must be static after death; what sort of life could it be to be completely static. It sounds to me like the only sort of existence the soul could have would be just a lump of unchanging data, like a book or a computer program sitting on a CD before I install it on the computer.

It could be Obviously, if the soul survives it's not going to be the same as what was there before; that raises the various Ship of Theseus arguments about what exactly would happen. Would the soul just flick on upon death, or is it always on? Is it dependent upon certain properties, such as brain function, with brain death marking the transition? That last one's interesting, since it raises the possibility that PVS patients would be alive without a soul, and the meaning of that has some pretty significant moral issues especially in regard to euthanasia.

The ability of that soul to keep developing after death would hinge on whether or not the soul can interact with matter independent of the body. Of course, if the soul you've made at the end of life is what you'll have in the afterlife, it would stand to reason that you should try to make life as fulfilling as possible to get the most of what happens afterwards. And, of course, if you just die and there's nothing you still lived a fulfilling life while you had the chance.

Now, if the soul upon death can interact with others, it could develop further but only if it could also remember.

If the system he's talking about is science, which describes the entire natural universe, then if he can prove, "According to science, God does not exist" then what he's really saying is, "God does not exist by the laws of the natural universe".
Which is reasonable proof to infer that God does not exist, period.

" If he can 'prove' "...well, I'll start there. Any scientist worth his/her salt knows that science doesn't prove anything. Science, (namely, the scientific method), can only disprove any given hypothesis / theory. Given that 'God' cannot be systematically observed, quantified, and categorized - in order to be tested - Science can't disprove God. Which does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that Science is a stupid way to think about God.

The biggest problem with the whole thing is that humans have come to look upon Science as a way to learn 'the Truth'. It works well when you're worried about next Tuesday's weather; it's quite a different thing when you delve into matters of Faith. Some things are just best left to Faith. Because some things are basically Unknowable. Which pisses us humans off...but that's just the way it is.

" If he can 'prove' "...well, I'll start there. Any scientist worth his/her salt knows that science doesn't prove anything. Science, (namely, the scientific method), can only disprove any given hypothesis / theory. Given that 'God' cannot be systematically observed, quantified, and categorized - in order to be tested - Science can't disprove God. Which does not mean that God does not exist. It only means that Science is a stupid way to think about God.

The biggest problem with the whole thing is that humans have come to look upon Science as a way to learn 'the Truth'. It works well when you're worried about next Tuesday's weather; it's quite a different thing when you delve into matters of Faith. Some things are just best left to Faith. Because some things are basically Unknowable. Which pisses us humans off...but that's just the way it is.

If he can prove it to an extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
He never actually tried to disprove God ENTIRELY, he tried to prove that he has a chance of existing similar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And he did that decently, because lack of God is the assumed hypothesis and all arguments against that are provably false.
He also brought up that God has some problems, namely there is no possible way that God can be omnipotent even if he does exist (he would have to be so weak he couldn't be descibed as God to solve the problem of evil) , and if he does exist he's a jerk, according to the Bible at least(and the Koran, and probably others).

Simply re-stating the same old circular argument with different words is not going to work. And telling me that God can't be proven using science is not exactly useful either. I'm already well aware of that.



How is that circular?:confused:

And he did that decently, because lack of God is the assumed hypothesis and all arguments against that are provably false.

That's not the assumed hypothesis, for the simple reason that there is no basis for a proof, test, or experiment and there is no defined criteria. What I see as proof of God might not be seen as proof by someone else, or vice versa; if I say the universe itself is proof of God, what arguments are there against it?

The only arguments for or against God are entirely subjective; there is no objective argument on either side.

He also brought up that God has some problems, namely there is no possible way that God can be omnipotent even if he does exist (he would have to be so weak he couldn't be descibed as God to solve the problem of evil) , and if he does exist he's a jerk, according to the Bible at least(and the Koran, and probably others).

The problem is, we can't really conceive of omnipotence because it's way beyond anything humans can be; what we see as a failure to exert power may in fact be part of a plan that runs for centuries or millenia in to the future. God's action or lack of action now might be intended to avert something else in the distant future, or something similar.

And, of course, there can be trivial limits on omnipotence without making the being any less powerful.

That's not the assumed hypothesis, for the simple reason that there is no basis for a proof, test, or experiment and there is no defined criteria. What I see as proof of God might not be seen as proof by someone else, or vice versa; if I say the universe itself is proof of God, what arguments are there against it?

The only arguments for or against God are entirely subjective; there is no objective argument on either side.


Yes, the assumed hypothesis is that an object doesn't exist, because if it wasn't, I've got some floating teapots to introduce you to.


The problem is, we can't really conceive of omnipotence because it's way beyond anything humans can be; what we see as a failure to exert power may in fact be part of a plan that runs for centuries or millenia in to the future. God's action or lack of action now might be intended to avert something else in the distant future, or something similar.

And, of course, there can be trivial limits on omnipotence without making the being any less powerful.

I really don't like "we can't concieve of it" arguments.
We can concieve of string theory, with its 11 dimensions and all.
Why can't we conceive of a relatively simple thing like omnipotence?
And if God was truely omnipotent, he could find a way to do any good thing with no bad effect from it. So the question, "Why hasn't he done anything. if he both can and wants to?" still applys.

If he can prove it to an extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

If you're applying a judicial burden of proof, then 'reasonable doubt' could apply. But, please define reason. And doubt. My Point being that 'prove' and 'Science' tend to be mutually exclusive. Or at least should be.


He never actually tried to disprove God ENTIRELY, he tried to prove that he has a chance of existing similar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

'Flying Monkeys from my Arse' have a chance of existing just as much as the FSM. I can't 'prove' they don't. I certainly can't disprove them ENTIRELY (your caps). Of course, you can't disprove a negative. Or prove one for that matter. Seeing as I can't quantify those aerial butthole simians.


And he did that decently, because lack of God is the assumed hypothesis and all arguments against that are provably false.

Lack of God is the assumed hypothesis? How So? How can you test for something that you can't quantify? Anyhoo, I think Dawkins is much too savvy a scientist to actually have done that, but I haven't read him since 'Blind Watchmaker'...I'll take your word that that's what he was trying to do (which I have my doubts about).

He also brought up that God has some problems, namely there is no possible way that God can be omnipotent even if he does exist (he would have to be so weak he couldn't be descibed as God to solve the problem of evil) , and if he does exist he's a jerk, according to the Bible at least(and the Koran, and probably others).

The Problem of Evil is indeed a problem for the rational mind to comprehend. Hell, I don't think I can get past it myself. I have problems granting God all three of His tenets (Omnipotent, Omniscient (sic?), Benevolent). But again, just because I can't comprehend something of this nature does not mean that I disregard its possibility.

It goes back to some things not being matters of Science/Reason/Logic. Some people call it a cop-out to say that things can fall outside of those realms; I, however, can live with it. More Power to those who wish to spend a lifetime fretting over it; I choose not to. Such is my Choice.

Yes, the assumed hypothesis is that an object doesn't exist, because if it wasn't, I've got some floating teapots to introduce you to.

Well, here's a problem: How do you know that you are not observing God?

There are plenty of people who have had religious experiences and are totally convinced of his existence; you might think that there is no evidence, but they believe there is plenty. Given that there is no way to know for sure other than direct experience, how can you dismiss the millions, even billions of people throughout history that have had spiritual or supernatural experience? There's no basis for dismissing it, which means that you can't even know if there is any evidence for it or not.

And if you can't even determine if there is evidence or if the evidence that exists is valid to begin with, you can't even take the default position of nonexistence.


I really don't like "we can't concieve of it" arguments.
We can concieve of string theory, with its 11 dimensions and all.
Why can't we conceive of a relatively simple thing like omnipotence?
And if God was truely omnipotent, he could find a way to do any good thing with no bad effect from it. So the question, "Why hasn't he done anything. if he both can and wants to?" still applys.

Is omnipotence simple? You're talking literally infinity, and that is something that the human mind cannot grasp beyond a superficial understanding as a mathematical symbol. Even string theory, with its complexity, is still finite in most of its concepts; a thing like God that is entirely infinite, supreme, transcendent and perfect is so utterly inconceivable in its entirety that even if we spent our entire lives contemplating it we would be no closer at the end then we were when we started it.

And God may be doing things; the problem might be that we're simply not looking at them from the right angle. What we see as random or the products of human decisions may be God working through them.

On a side note, I hate it when people get it into their minds that they have to force other people to think like themselves.

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"Oh," says Richard Dawkins, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't."

"Oh, I hadn't thought of that." says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

"Oh," says Richard Dawkins, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't."

"Oh, I hadn't thought of that." says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Kudos for Hitchhiker references. ;)

Kudos for Hitchhiker references. ;)

Now you just have to work in a few Firefly/Serenity references!

Now you just have to work in a few Firefly/Serenity references!

Shiny! :)

(Best show. Ever)

Shiny! :)

(Best show. Ever)

So do I have my sig observation preferences off or something? I don't see Mal's quote there. :(

So do I have my sig observation preferences off or something? I don't see Mal's quote there. :(

My sig was a Mal quote for a long time... maybe it's time to bring it back. :)

My sig was a Mal quote for a long time... maybe it's time to bring it back. :)

Indeed.
*bows*

Indeed.
*bows*

*genuflects*

But that's not a problem unless you interpret those texts literally. And literal interpretation is hardly an idea with basis in the history of Christianity and Judaism; the Jews in particular had men who dedicated their entire lives to interpreting, debating, and reinterpreting the text of the Torah to determine the teachings hidden in its stories, and they encouraged people to read, think, and ask questions about it.

Biblical mythology is very useful for teaching people about God and morality, but it's not meant to be interpreted literally; that doesn't mean the truths contained in it are untrue, but that they should be seen as stories meant to convey moral and religious ideas rather than as a history or scientific text.

If it is not intended to be literal then it is hardly a valid instruction book, my friend. As far as the "useful for teaching people about God and morality" statement is concerned, I must disagree. It teaches about only one god, and one would be hard pressed to see him as a moral one.

Be wary of appeals to authority, friends. Especially when such a figure as the target of said appeal has NEVER been found, despite its omniscience and omnipresence.

Why, I ask, do we not use Moby Dick as a moral guide instead of the bible? It too is not meant to be taken literally, as the bible has been catalogued here, and posesses far less wretchedness in its bindings.

Not a philosopher!

Philosophers call this the "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

If it is not intended to be literal then it is hardly a valid instruction book, my friend. As far as the "useful for teaching people about God and morality" statement is concerned, I must disagree. It teaches about only one god, and one would be hard pressed to see him as a moral one.

Be wary of appeals to authority, friends. Especially when such a figure as the target of said appeal has NEVER been found, despite its omniscience and omnipresence.

Why, I ask, do we not use Moby Dick as a moral guide instead of the bible? It too is not meant to be taken literally, as the bible has been catalogued here, and posesses far less wretchedness in its bindings.
Indeed. I am wary of any person who requires God-belief to understand morality. I am wary of any person who must believe in the literal reality of fables in order to take their meanings. And I am very, very wary of any person who thinks that ANY single book is a sufficient source for morality, guidance, or understanding.

This makes equivalent sense with your average Christian saying, "I think Fred Phelps is full of crap, but at least he's visible and audible and brings it to the table." Dawkins, as far as I can tell, is the Fred Phelps of militant atheism.

I dunno about that, Demi. Dawkins is one harsh SOB, but comparing him to Fred Phelps is a bit much.

Phelps is a man who openly and frequently advocates the execution of those who do not follow his world-view. I have never read Dawkins advocate execution (or even assault) for religious believers. If you have a quote, please share it.

Phelps has been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and more. I am not aware of Dawkins being similiarly dedicated to a life of crime.

Phelps earned a two-year degree from John Muir College. He has been disbarred and banned from practicing law in the state of Kansas due to grossly unethical conduct.

Dawkins earned BA degree in zoology followed by MA and DPhil degrees. He served as assistant professor at UC Berkeley, a lecturer and reader at Oxford, and Balliol College (at Oxford) now offers the Dawkins prize for "outstanding research into the ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities." He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Westminster, the University of Durham, and University of Hull, the Open University, the University of St Andrews, and Australian National University.

I can understand Dawkins being viewed as a radical, an agitator, and even a jerk. I can understand people being pissed off at him, or hating what he has to say. But I think it is complete and utter bullshit to compare him to Hilter or Fred Phelps, as people have done several times on this thread. There is simply no valid comparison to be made there.

"

The biggest problem with the whole thing is that humans have come to look upon Science as a way to learn 'the Truth'. It works well when you're worried about next Tuesday's weather; it's quite a different thing when you delve into matters of Faith. Some things are just best left to Faith. Because some things are basically Unknowable. Which pisses us humans off...but that's just the way it is.

Science isn't a way to learn the truth, science is the definition of truth. The scientific method is really just a formalisation of the way that we decide whether anything is 'true' or not. Every time you walk through a doorway you are doing science; you have used past experience to decide that if you tried to walk through the wall you would bump into it. If we saw a doorway any random place rather than the place we could get through, our powers of sight would be useless and therefore untrue. In the same way God tells me nothing useful about the world, and therefore does not exist in any meaningful sense of the word.


There are plenty of people who have had religious experiences and are totally convinced of his existence; you might think that there is no evidence, but they believe there is plenty. Given that there is no way to know for sure other than direct experience, how can you dismiss the millions, even billions of people throughout history that have had spiritual or supernatural experience? There's no basis for dismissing it, which means that you can't even know if there is any evidence for it or not.



Isn't there? I think most research has shown that outside stimuli can trigger religious experiences, from bright lights to LSD. The fact that other studies show the religious people are happier and have longer lifespans hints at the evolutionary origin of a religious experience. So I would we have massively more evidence that religious experiences are as a result of physical circumstances in our brains rather than the existence of an unimaginable being, whose thought processes work in some undefined, who lives on some other plane of existence and interracts with the world in an undefined way.

The fact that other studies show the religious people are happier and have longer lifespans hints at the evolutionary origin of a religious experience.

The problem is that we cannot yet determine if the religiosity itself is what produces greater happiness or increased life span. It might be that participation in religious organizations provide the social networking that most humans thrive upon. It may be that such networks provide material benefits that are otherwise unavailable to many people (like churches providing daycare, food shelves, etc).

Religion clearly serves many purposes for people, and fulfills many different needs. The real question is, can something that is not religion also fulfill those needs for all people?

The problem is that we cannot yet determine if the religiosity itself is what produces greater happiness or increased life span. It might be that participation in religious organizations provide the social networking that most humans thrive upon. It may be that such networks provide material benefits that are otherwise unavailable to many people (like churches providing daycare, food shelves, etc).

Religion clearly serves many purposes for people, and fulfills many different needs. The real question is, can something that is not religion also fulfill those needs for all people?


Heh why even talk of greater happiness, of course things other than religoin can do the same job. Why not just talk about that which makes you feel. It could be anything, I really don't understand this 'them or us' menatlity that comes from both camps. heh live and let live an all that!

The point would be that 'that side' of the argument already has it's 'Fred Phelpses' - and they are loud, and persuasive to some - for the simple reason that there is no equivalent voice in the 'let's think about it rationally for a minute' camp.

There's your first problem. Dawkins isn't in the "let's think about it rationally for a minute" camp any more than Phelps is. They are both loudmouthed ideaologues yelling that they are absolutely right and everyone else is stupid/damned/what-have-you.

I'd like to have loud voices in the actual rational camp. The problem is that people don't want to hear or notice rational voices. Thus, what they notice is Fred Phelps and Richard Dawkins.

Some of Dawkin's work is well worth looking at, and it should be held separate from his atheism. I'm sure you'd agree, 'evolution' doesn't require atheism - no matter what the Phelpses of the world might say.

Of course it doesn't, despite Dawkins' loudmouthed claims that science itself requires that one be an atheist. The problem is that, when someone makes such incorrect claims about the very nature of science, any scientific work is immediately much more suspect. I see Dawkins as no different from a theist scientist claiming to be able to investigate God with science. They are both spouting untrue claims about science, and are thus dangerous to science.

So - Dawkins plays two roles - the scientist, and the demagogue. The demagogue is important because it is a counterpoint to the 'loud noises of the hollow vessels' on the 'other side'.

Personally, I'm not going for this whole, "Two wrongs make a right," thing you've got going here. I don't think the answer to the Fred Phelpses of the world is to be just like them only arguing against them.

Does he make the best case possible? Probably not - but people like Phelps are monopolising the table, and it is hard to shoulder through that crowd to be heard. The arguments for logic are on loose footing already, and the theocratic-isation of science are heading us back towards Pre-Copernicus in a handbasket. Someone needs to be actually visible against the theft of the 'scientific' from 'the sciences'.

If Dawkins was actually doing that, I'd be happy, but he's not. Instead, he is equally twisting science to his own stance on religion.


I want to know if the people who are arguing against Richard Dawkins' views actually read any of his books - or if you are going on other people's opinions.

You've set up a false dichotomy there. Dawkins is a pretty vocal guy. He's done numerous interviews and debates. I've read some of those, so I don't need his books to know where he stands.

Isn't there? I think most research has shown that outside stimuli can trigger religious experiences, from bright lights to LSD. The fact that other studies show the religious people are happier and have longer lifespans hints at the evolutionary origin of a religious experience. So I would we have massively more evidence that religious experiences are as a result of physical circumstances in our brains rather than the existence of an unimaginable being, whose thought processes work in some undefined, who lives on some other plane of existence and interracts with the world in an undefined way.

But it's entirely possible that God intended for us to have those experiences, and created the universe with the intent of sentient beings developing that could understand and receive a spiritual aspect in the form of the soul.

Of course, just because a mystical experience can be induced or be explained physically doesn't mean it's not real. In fact, many of the people who have had experiences involving psilocybin and DMT are absolutely convinced that what they experienced was real and it has had a significant effect on their quality of life. I don't think a physical explanation eliminates or even challenges the possibility of those experiences being real; it's interesting and important, but says nothing about the truth of them.

If the system he's talking about is science, which describes the entire natural universe, then if he can prove, "According to science, God does not exist" then what he's really saying is, "God does not exist by the laws of the natural universe".
Which is reasonable proof to infer that God does not exist, period.

Is it. Can you reasonably assume that there is nothing outside of the natural universe? Do you have some sort of empirical evidence to back this up? Oh wait, you can't, since we can't measure "outside the natural universe."

With many concepts of God, it makes sense that God cannot be found within the natural universe, as God is believed to be the creator of that universe, meaning that God would have existence outside of it.

Again, because science infers the laws of the natural universe by observing the laws of the natural universe, science is always a good method of grasping truth if you can use it.

....within the natural universe and that which is bound by its rules, yes.

In contrast to religion, which infers the laws of the universe from its holy book, which means it's usually not much better then guessing.

Religion doesn't necessarily deal with the "laws of the universe" at all. It deals with spiritual matters, with what might be outside of the universe itself and how that might affect us within the universe.


On a side note, I hate it when people get it into their minds that they have to force other people to think like themselves.

Hear, hear!

And it doesn't matter if that person is Fred Phelps or Richard Dawkins, they're equally fricking annoying.


If it is not intended to be literal then it is hardly a valid instruction book, my friend.

Really? In that case, most of the stories we use to teach lessons are not valid.


I dunno about that, Demi. Dawkins is one harsh SOB, but comparing him to Fred Phelps is a bit much.

I don't think so. They're world-view is basically the same, at opposite ends of the spectrum. They both are fully convinced that they are absolutely right and that everyone should agree - period.

He may be more law-abiding in pursuing those ends, but the underlying arrogance is the same. The utter absurdity of claiming that everyone else in the world who doesn't agree is stupid is the same. The complete lack of any understanding of others' views or any attempt to understand them is the same.


Isn't there? I think most research has shown that outside stimuli can trigger religious experiences, from bright lights to LSD. The fact that other studies show the religious people are happier and have longer lifespans hints at the evolutionary origin of a religious experience. So I would we have massively more evidence that religious experiences are as a result of physical circumstances in our brains rather than the existence of an unimaginable being, whose thought processes work in some undefined, who lives on some other plane of existence and interracts with the world in an undefined way.

Outside stimuli other than sex can trigger orgasms. Does that mean that sex cannot cause orgasms?

The fact that we can trigger a portion of the brain and cause what people describe as being similar to religious experiences doesn't mean that they cannot be caused by actual religious causes. It just means that the physical body is involved, which really isn't surprising. "Religious experiences" might be entire psychosomatic, they might be some evolutionary response to community, they might be any number of things - and one of those things *could* be an actual response to the divine. Of course, that is something we really can't measure for, so, in science, we'll stick to the natural.

It's kind of like measuring human emotion. We can talk to all the people who say they love someone else and measure the activity in their brains when they think about that person. We can figure out that certain chemical reactions are happening within the brain at that time. Does this mean that the chemical reactions cause the emotion of love? Or does the emotion of love cause the chemical reactions? If we can force those reactions outside of the emotion, does that mean that the emotion itself does not exist?

"I am not awake, my life is simply an elaborate dream"

Actually- read O.K. Bouwsma's "Descartes' Evil Genius" if you ever have the chance. It's a short piece and clever refutation of this kind of skeptical claim.

The essence of the argument is this: Reality is the most vivid thing we experience, by definition.

Any claims to the effect 'reality is an illusion' are claims that 'reality is not reality', and are obvious self-contradictions.

This isn't rocket science, it's logic, and a lot of people, especially philosophers, have trouble realizing that the problem they've been worrying about since Descartes isn't a problem at all.

two obvious problems:
1) people sometimes do have dreams that within the dream they are convinced it is reality - hell, people sometimes remember things that only happened in dreams as if they happened as real events. so apparently dreams can be 'vivid enough'.
2) that's not the definition of reality. if reality is 'the most vivid thing we experience', that kinda screws us. we know, for example, that the insane vividly experience all sorts of weird shit. and let me introduce you our good friend lsd...

With many concepts of God, it makes sense that God cannot be found within the natural universe, as God is believed to be the creator of that universe, meaning that God would have existence outside of it.

no one's god exists entirely outside of the universe, except maybe aristotle's unmoved mover, which has been shown to be unnecessary at best. any gods that have interaction with the creation will have empircally detectable effects within the universe (assuming that empiricism is a valid method of learning things, anyways), except in two very specific cases.

firstly, if they cover up each and every one of their interactions to make it look as if they didn't do anything. of course, nobody believes in these sorts of gods. and secondly, if their interactions look precisely like the normal flowing of the universe - that the gods are constantly interacting with the universe and we just call those uniform and regular interactions 'the laws of nature'.

no one's god exists entirely outside of the universe, except maybe aristotle's unmoved mover, which has been shown to be unnecessary at best.

Existence outside the universe does not mean that an entity cannot interact with the universe. I exist outside of my computer, but I'm interacting with it right now.

any gods that have interaction with the creation will have empircally detectable effects within the universe (assuming that empiricism is a valid method of learning things, anyways), except in two very specific cases.

And those empirically detectable effects would appear, under use of the scientific method, to simply be more data used to determine the laws of the universe. We couldn't measure that the effects were being caused from outside the universe as science cannot measure outside the universe. As such, any "miracles" would be seen by science as further empirical data to incorporate into the explanation of natural law.

If, for instance, some supernatural entity has forced mutations that furthered evolution, we couldn't scientifically measure that fact. We could measure that mutations occurred, but would have no way of measuring that God caused them. We would incorporate those mutations into our other observations of mutation and, from that data, derive our theories. But those scientific theories will always be limited to the natural, even if the supernatural is actually involved, as the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

firstly, if they cover up each and every one of their interactions to make it look as if they didn't do anything. of course, nobody believes in these sorts of gods. and secondly, if their interactions look precisely like the normal flowing of the universe - that the gods are constantly interacting with the universe and we just call those uniform and regular interactions 'the laws of nature'.

By the methods of science, we would call those interactions, whether uniform and regular or not, part and parcel of the laws of nature. This is precisely why science cannot be used to investigate or disprove the supernatural. By its own axioms and its own methods, empirical data is included into the description of the natural - the realm of science. If certain occurrences, in fact, originate from outside the natural, science is not a tool that can discover this.

I wonder if Dawkins could do something useful and prove the genetic link between illiteracy and god bothering.

I wonder if Dawkins could do something useful and prove the genetic link between illiteracy and god bothering.

Do you get some sort of personal satisfaction out of insulting anyone who disagrees with you? Does it make your convictions stronger if you assume that anyone who disagrees must simply be ignorant or stupid?

Do you get some sort of personal satisfaction out of insulting anyone who disagrees with you? Does it make your convictions stronger if you assume that anyone who disagrees must simply be ignorant or stupid?

It works for the Nazz...

How is that circular?:confused:

I take it you're not going to debate my second point?

Anyway, here's the quote:

If the system he's talking about is science, which describes the entire natural universe, then if he can prove, "According to science, God does not exist" then what he's really saying is, "God does not exist by the laws of the natural universe". Which is reasonable proof to infer that God does not exist, period.

"If science alone, then no proof of God, therefore science alone."

I've heard a variety of versions of that one couched in all sorts of pretty rhetoric. Often the conclusion is implied, as in this case.

Another one of my favorites that I hear often is:

"Science is good because it is <insert description of science here>."

I have to laugh when people tell me that science is good because it's science. It reminds me too much of people telling me that God is good because it's God, which is wonderfully ironic when atheists are making that sort of statement. :)

Do you get some sort of personal satisfaction out of insulting anyone who disagrees with you? Does it make your convictions stronger if you assume that anyone who disagrees must simply be ignorant or stupid?

No, I just get sick of poorly spelt religious garbage. Why would I take the opinion of a 12 year old seriously?

I wonder if Dawkins could do something useful and prove the genetic link between illiteracy and god bothering.

Actually, some of the most intelligent cultures on Earth are highly religious; in particular the Jews and Jains are noteworthy for being extremely well educated, and education is an inherent part of their religious culture. And, for that matter, Christianity was instrumental in preserving literacy and the knowledge of the ancient Greeks and Romans during the Dark Ages.

I exist outside of my computer, but I'm interacting with it right now.

the universe itself is akin to seperate objects within the universe?

in any case, your interacting with the computer shows that both the computer and you are operating within the same system. if gods interact with the thing that contains everything that exists, then gods are part of the universe in at least some sense.

And those empirically detectable effects would appear, under use of the scientific method, to simply be more data used to determine the laws of the universe. We couldn't measure that the effects were being caused from outside the universe as science cannot measure outside the universe. As such, any "miracles" would be seen by science as further empirical data to incorporate into the explanation of natural law.

If, for instance, some supernatural entity has forced mutations that furthered evolution, we couldn't scientifically measure that fact. We could measure that mutations occurred, but would have no way of measuring that God caused them. We would incorporate those mutations into our other observations of mutation and, from that data, derive our theories. But those scientific theories will always be limited to the natural, even if the supernatural is actually involved, as the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

By the methods of science, we would call those interactions, whether uniform and regular or not, part and parcel of the laws of nature. This is precisely why science cannot be used to investigate or disprove the supernatural. By its own axioms and its own methods, empirical data is included into the description of the natural - the realm of science. If certain occurrences, in fact, originate from outside the natural, science is not a tool that can discover this.

we've had this discussion before, and it goes wrong in the same place still. this only works because you are holding a weird, empty conception of god - one that may or may not have done anything in particular, one that has no content - and because you seem to think that we would be unable to determine if something was actually in violation of the 'natural laws'.

first off, other people's gods have allegedly done very particular things, and we can in principle disprove all of those (and have done so to many of them). we might not be able to do so for gods that have no predictable consequences, sure. but if gods have no predictable consequences then it seems to me that we aren't actually talking about anything. at best we don't actually have any content-filled understanding of this concieved thing we are claiming exists. it just seems sort of meaningless to talk like that.

secondly, if there was a god-being that occasionally interacted with the universe in a way that went against the normal flowing of the rules, then the only scientific theory that would work to explain said actions would be that one of the laws of the universe is that there is a being that can do such things. all other possible explanations could be empirically tested and would fail. it would take science a long time to come to that conclusion, and it would always be open to testing new non-god-being explanations, but the same can be said for every scientific theory. it's sort of our epistemic lot in life.

the universe itself is akin to seperate objects within the universe?

Of course not. But if existence encompasses more than our universe, then the various objects within existence (including our universe) might very well be akin to separate objects within this universe.

in any case, your interacting with the computer shows that both the computer and you are operating within the same system. if gods interact with the thing that contains everything that exists, then gods are part of the universe in at least some sense.

No, they wouldn't be part of the universe any more than I am part of my computer. They would simply exist within the same existence as the universe and have a method of interacting with it.

we've had this discussion before, and it goes wrong in the same place still. this only works because you are holding a weird, empty conception of god - one that may or may not have done anything in particular, one that has no content - and because you seem to think that we would be unable to determine if something was actually in violation of the 'natural laws'.

Of course we would be unable to determine if something was actually in violation of "natural laws." We don't know what the natural laws actually are. We try and figure them out using science, by a specific method that, if our starting axioms are correct, will get us closer and closer to the actual natural laws with every correction. Of course, if those starting axioms are not correct, then what?

Note that one of the starting axioms is that the universe actually has laws - rules that always apply. If the rules don't always apply within the universe, then the methods of science are based in a false axiom. Induction is no longer useful.

first off, other people's gods have allegedly done very particular things, and we can in principle disprove all of those (and have done so to many of them). we might not be able to do so for gods that have no predictable consequences, sure. but if gods have no predictable consequences then it seems to me that we aren't actually talking about anything. at best we don't actually have any content-filled understanding of this concieved thing we are claiming exists. it just seems sort of meaningless to talk like that.

If something is not bound by the rules of the universe, how are we going to predict what it will do? Only within a bounded system that follows specific rules can we do this.

As for disproving actions of a deity, that doesn't disprove the deity itself. If I tell you that my mother gave birth to twins, and you find that she did not, she still exists.

secondly, if there was a god-being that occasionally interacted with the universe in a way that went against the normal flowing of the rules, then the only scientific theory that would work to explain said actions would be that one of the laws of the universe is that there is a being that can do such things.]

That is so wrong it isn't even funny. It displays a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method itself.

Get one things straight before you even try to talk about science: WE DON'T KNOW THE RULES! WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE THEM OUT!

Once you've repeated that at least a hundred times and fully understand it, come back and continue the conversation.

In science, if something seems to go against the rules, we question the rules, because we are well aware that our knowledge of them is not complete. When electrons started disappearing from particle accelerators, we didn't conclude that some supernatural entity was stealing them. We questioned the rules, assuming that some property of electrons must allow them to move in ways that the rules, as we knew them, simply wouldn't alow.

all other possible explanations could be empirically tested and would fail. it would take science a long time to come to that conclusion, and it would always be open to testing new non-god-being explanations, but the same can be said for every scientific theory. it's sort of our epistemic lot in life.

How would we know when we had empirically tested all possible explanations? This is the other property of science that people don't seem to understand. Even if science truly got to the point of absolute knowledge - if we knew everything about the mechanisms of the universe, we wouldn't know that we knew it. The method isn't meant to give us absolute truth, but to get closer and closer and closer to it over time. Even if we were completely there, we would still continue to question and test, looking for further knowledge.

Note that one of the starting axioms is that the universe actually has laws - rules that always apply. If the rules don't always apply within the universe, then the methods of science are based in a false axiom. Induction is no longer useful.

if the rules only apply most of the time, then the science would still work just fine. we'd just sometimes run into some particularly baffling events. no big deal.

or maybe we could say that your science wouldn't work, but mine still will. and since mine works in this world which apparently does lack random rule breaking sky monkeys and in at least some worlds that do contain those miscreants, i'd say my science is better than your science.



If something is not bound by the rules of the universe, how are we going to predict what it will do? Only within a bounded system that follows specific rules can we do this.

As for disproving actions of a deity, that doesn't disprove the deity itself. If I tell you that my mother gave birth to twins, and you find that she did not, she still exists.

if god caused there to be a worldwide flood 5,000 years ago, that has a number of absolutely testable consequences which we would predict. no rules on god's reasons or actual particular actions are needed to come up with those predictions.

and if you really believed there was an entity which you called 'mother' that gave birth to twins and you found that no such twins were born, then the proposed entity 'mother' would quite literally have been disproven. some other entity could exist, and you could use the same name for her. but the two entities are not the same.


That is so wrong it isn't even funny. It displays a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method itself.

Get one things straight before you even try to talk about science: WE DON'T KNOW THE RULES! WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE THEM OUT!

Once you've repeated that at least a hundred times and fully understand it, come back and continue the conversation.

In science, if something seems to go against the rules, we question the rules, because we are well aware that our knowledge of them is not complete. When electrons started disappearing from particle accelerators, we didn't conclude that some supernatural entity was stealing them. We questioned the rules, assuming that some property of electrons must allow them to move in ways that the rules, as we knew them, simply wouldn't alow.

sure. however, if it really was the case that the sky monkeys just did weird shit periodically, then by logical necessity all other distinct empirically testable rule sets would turn out to be false. eventually, you'll have run through enough alternatives that the sky monkey hypothesis would seem to be the best option. it would be ludicrous to withold tentative support for it at that point, just as it is ludicrous to withold tentative support for the dominant scientific theories of today.

How would we know when we had empirically tested all possible explanations? This is the other property of science that people don't seem to understand. Even if science truly got to the point of absolute knowledge - if we knew everything about the mechanisms of the universe, we wouldn't know that we knew it. The method isn't meant to give us absolute truth, but to get closer and closer and closer to it over time. Even if we were completely there, we would still continue to question and test, looking for further knowledge.

you cannot test all the possible explanations.
for anything.
this is a general failing of inductive methods of knowing.

take any standard scientific data set - there are an infinite number of equally good possible explanations for it. or to think of it more graphically, take a set of 4 points on a graph. there are an infinite number of curves that you could draw connecting them. based on just those 4 points you cannot distinguish which of those curves is the right one. they are all equally good so far. this gets at why a good theory must be predictive; we want to be able to distinguish it from all the other possible explanations for the current data points, so we see which one is right about the next one. we add another point to the graph and we rule out vast swaths of possible curves that didn't go through that point. yay!

except there is a problem. we now have 5 points on the graph, and we can still draw an infinite number of curves connecting them together. uh-oh. even worse, the next data point, while ruling out even more possibilities, still leaves us with an infinite number of possible curves. and the next, and the next.

but we do not, and should not, allow this difficulty to stop us from thinking that science allows us to know things. our determinations on this point are not ruled entirely on the basis of the data alone, but also other principles (such as parsimony) and social practices. and if we actually do get it right, we would be completely justified in believing so, despite the infinite other possibilities we have ignored.

so if we came across something that seemed out of place with the other laws of the universe, we would try out hundreds or thousands of alternate rules to account for it. but all of those would fail, because they wouldn't capture the true rule - 'sky monkeys do what they want'. justified belief works the same for evolution by natural selection as it does for interfering sky monkeys. test and reject enough alternatives and it becomes wrong to withold belief.

as for the concept of 'enough' it seems to me that this flows from some psychological facts about who we are and rules how induction works (it may be unjustified itself, but if it actually works in the universe then justifications can flow from it).

education is an inherent part of their religious culture.

Religious education. Studying Talmud all day.

Sure, it translated into secular success - but only after much of its religious element was removed.

And Jews, these days, are not only well-educated but also irreligious.

Religious education. Studying Talmud all day.

But they also encouraged discussion of the concepts and debate about the meaning of the text; it wasn't rigid and dogmatic like other religons, which produced free thought and a culture of learning that was a lot stronger and more equal than in others. Education and study were duties to God.

They also considered secular education important to understanding religion better, which was why so many Jews had skilled positions in the Islamic and Christian nations during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Sure, it translated into secular success - but only after much of its religious element was removed.

True, but even when Jewish communities were highly religious, they were well-educated, healthy, and successful.

And Jews, these days, are not only well-educated but also irreligious.

Yeah, that's true. Of course, a lot of them still believe in it but they are very liberal about their beliefs and don't adhere as strictly as their ancestors did to the laws set down in the Torah and Talmud.

But they also encouraged discussion of the concepts and debate about the meaning of the text; it wasn't rigid and dogmatic like other religons, which produced free thought and a culture of learning that was a lot stronger and more equal than in others. Education and study were duties to God.

Sort of. There were limits, as Baruch Spinoza would testify.

But, yes, Rabbinic Judaism was pretty liberal about permitting pluralism in practices and interpretation of the law.

They also considered secular education important to understanding religion better,

That varied. Some did, some didn't. Questions like this one sparked off their share of contentious debates.

which was why so many Jews had skilled positions in the Islamic and Christian nations during the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Literacy rates were higher among Jews; that played a large part. And they served as useful scapegoats if things fell apart.

True, but even when Jewish communities were highly religious, they were well-educated,

Relatively. But, then, we are comparing highly religious communities to other highly religious communities - or at least communities where the education opportunities were controlled by the highly religious.

healthy,

I'll admit that Jewish religious practices encouraged hygiene, but we've overcome that particular problem too.

and successful.

When they weren't being abused, expelled, and slaughtered for their religious beliefs - all in the name of other people's religious beliefs.

Yeah, that's true. Of course, a lot of them still believe in it but they are very liberal about their beliefs

Implying rather strongly that they don't really believe.

and don't adhere as strictly as their ancestors did to the laws set down in the Torah and Talmud.

Or at all, really. And what use is a religion that you only pay attention to when it's convenient?

And what use is a religion that you only pay attention to when it's convenient?

Sounds like it'd be pretty damn convenient.

Sounds like it'd be pretty damn convenient.

though not as a religion

I don't think so. They're world-view is basically the same, at opposite ends of the spectrum. They both are fully convinced that they are absolutely right and that everyone should agree - period.

He may be more law-abiding in pursuing those ends, but the underlying arrogance is the same. The utter absurdity of claiming that everyone else in the world who doesn't agree is stupid is the same. The complete lack of any understanding of others' views or any attempt to understand them is the same.

I'm still not convinced.

Dawkins expressed certainty on one particular subject: that religiosity/superstition as humans currently practice it is a crock of shit.

I feel precisely the same way about racism, and I'm not afraid to say so. Does that make me a Fred Phelps type, too?

I believe pretty much the same things about racism and racists as Dawkins does about the superstitious. I believe racism is irrational and sloppy thinking that humanity would be better off without. I believe racism provides people with certain perks, particularly in the social bonding area, but that the short-term benefits of racism are outweighed by the damage caused by racism on the whole. I believe there are plenty of sane reasons why people might become racist, but I think racism is still stupid when you get right down to it.

Most people are pretty damn convinced that their world view is right (because otherwise they wouldn't hold that view, they'd hold what they believed was the right view), and most of them are also damn convinced that things would be better if everybody agreed with them. Granted, some people aren't like that (we agnostics tend to be annoyingly mellow about this), but most are. I don't think Dawkins is unusual in this regard.

Phelps and Dawkins may share a similar level of conviction about their individual beliefs, but the way in which they choose to pursue their agendas is so radically and completely different that it is ridiculous to compare them.

Phelps advocates the physical abuse and murder of those who do not agree with him; Dawkins does not. Phelps advocates torture, rape, battery, and murder; Dawkins does not. Phelps is prepared to break the law when it suits him; Dawkins does not. Phelps protests at the funerals of people who did not live according to his code, informing their family members of why their love one is going to hell; Dawkins does not.

Phelps believes that those who do not agree with him will be tortured FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY. Dawkins believes that people who choose to be superstitious are wasting time during the only lifespan they will have. Forgive me, but I think comparing an ETERNITY of torture to one human lifetime is just bogus.

Sort of. There were limits, as Baruch Spinoza would testify.

True. They weren't perfect by any stretch, but were well ahead of their time when it came to free discourse.

That varied. Some did, some didn't. Questions like this one sparked off their share of contentious debates.

True. Some of it depended on where the Jewish communities were located; Middle Eastern and Moorish Jews tended towards encouraging university education in particular.

Literacy rates were higher among Jews; that played a large part. And they served as useful scapegoats if things fell apart.

It was their education and success, even in times of hardship, that made them easy scapegoats for non-Jews.

Relatively. But, then, we are comparing highly religious communities to other highly religious communities - or at least communities where the education opportunities were controlled by the highly religious.

As religion's control broke down, that shifted and education became more common. I guess it just goes to show that religious beliefs have their place, and when they enter fields like politics (and vice versa), the potential for abuse and corruption is ripe.

I'll admit that Jewish religious practices encouraged hygiene, but we've overcome that particular problem too.

Of course, but only after we realized that it was a good idea to follow similar practices.

When they weren't being abused, expelled, and slaughtered for their religious beliefs - all in the name of other people's religious beliefs

It just goes to show that the ignorant can be convinced of some really terrible things and them put them in to action without thinking.

Implying rather strongly that they don't really believe.

Or that their beliefs have simply changed to reflect a new interpretation of God.

Or at all, really. And what use is a religion that you only pay attention to when it's convenient?

I don't know. I guess that's something a non-practicing Jew would have to answer.

I'm still not convinced.

Dawkins expressed certainty on one particular subject: that religiosity/superstition as humans currently practice it is a crock of shit.

But his arguments for that position are utterly baseless and have been pretty harshly and successfully attacked by theologians and even religious scientists. He does not have a strong argument against the validity of the various faiths in existence today other than the same ones used against religion for a long time (and which really aren't any stronger than the theistic ones). And, furthermore, if he is an implicit atheist he has no reason to go after religious beliefs, especially those of people who have similar positions to his. A person without beliefs shouldn't attack the beliefs of those who are doing nothing wrong.

The only one he has is "I haven't seen any evidence", and like most beliefs are only good for him.

I feel precisely the same way about racism, and I'm not afraid to say so. Does that make me a Fred Phelps type, too?.

But racism is a lot different than religious belief.

I'm still not convinced.

Dawkins expressed certainty on one particular subject: that religiosity/superstition as humans currently practice it is a crock of shit.

I feel precisely the same way about racism, and I'm not afraid to say so. Does that make me a Fred Phelps type, too?

I believe pretty much the same things about racism and racists as Dawkins does about the superstitious. I believe racism is irrational and sloppy thinking that humanity would be better off without. I believe racism provides people with certain perks, particularly in the social bonding area, but that the short-term benefits of racism are outweighed by the damage caused by racism on the whole. I believe there are plenty of sane reasons why people might become racist, but I think racism is still stupid when you get right down to it.

Most people are pretty damn convinced that their world view is right (because otherwise they wouldn't hold that view, they'd hold what they believed was the right view), and most of them are also damn convinced that things would be better if everybody agreed with them. Granted, some people aren't like that (we agnostics tend to be annoyingly mellow about this), but most are. I don't think Dawkins is unusual in this regard.

Phelps and Dawkins may share a similar level of conviction about their individual beliefs, but the way in which they choose to pursue their agendas is so radically and completely different that it is ridiculous to compare them.

Phelps advocates the physical abuse and murder of those who do not agree with him; Dawkins does not. Phelps advocates torture, rape, battery, and murder; Dawkins does not. Phelps is prepared to break the law when it suits him; Dawkins does not. Phelps protests at the funerals of people who did not live according to his code, informing their family members of why their love one is going to hell; Dawkins does not.

Phelps believes that those who do not agree with him will be tortured FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY. Dawkins believes that people who choose to be superstitious are wasting time during the only lifespan they will have. Forgive me, but I think comparing an ETERNITY of torture to one human lifetime is just bogus.

You're point about phelps is correct in my opinion. However hating racism and hating religion is not the same thing. Racism is a hate, a prejudice, an attack. To hate and attack Racism is to counter attack an attack, to hate hate.

To hate and attack religion and religious people is attacking an innocent, an unjustified offensive first move.

For fundamentalism, that is a different story however.

if the rules only apply most of the time, then the science would still work just fine. we'd just sometimes run into some particularly baffling events. no big deal.

If the rules only work part of the time, then they aren't the rules, and induction is logically unsound. If a theory is not consistent with all of the available data, even the "baffling events", then the theory is not consistent at all, and is not scientifically valid.

You are, once again, falling into the "god of the gaps" mistake.

or maybe we could say that your science wouldn't work, but mine still will.

Only if your science is somehow outside the scientific method, which is based in certain axioms.

if god caused there to be a worldwide flood 5,000 years ago, that has a number of absolutely testable consequences which we would predict. no rules on god's reasons or actual particular actions are needed to come up with those predictions.

and if you really believed there was an entity which you called 'mother' that gave birth to twins and you found that no such twins were born, then the proposed entity 'mother' would quite literally have been disproven. some other entity could exist, and you could use the same name for her. but the two entities are not the same.

So existence is defined by what others think of you, not by what you actually are?

sure. however, if it really was the case that the sky monkeys just did weird shit periodically, then by logical necessity all other distinct empirically testable rule sets would turn out to be false. eventually, you'll have run through enough alternatives that the sky monkey hypothesis would seem to be the best option. it would be ludicrous to withold tentative support for it at that point, just as it is ludicrous to withold tentative support for the dominant scientific theories of today.

By going with the "supernatural sky monkey" theory, you would have stepped outside of science. By accepting the idea as valid, you would be rejecting some of the basic axioms on which science is based - namely, that the universe itself runs on set rules. And, you would be using the same argument that I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue against, "We can't explain it so it must be supernatural," - the "God of the gaps" argument.

you cannot test all the possible explanations.
for anything.
this is a general failing of inductive methods of knowing.

Indeed. Hence the reason that the scientfic method would fail in a non-deterministic universe.

Of course, the fact that you have admitted this gets rid of the, "We just test every other possibility, and if we find nothing that way, we conclude that it is supernatural." We cannot test every other possibility.

And, if we accept a supernatural explanation, we have taken the discussion outside of science.

but we do not, and should not, allow this difficulty to stop us from thinking that science allows us to know things. our determinations on this point are not ruled entirely on the basis of the data alone, but also other principles (such as parsimony) and social practices. and if we actually do get it right, we would be completely justified in believing so, despite the infinite other possibilities we have ignored.[/qutoe]

How would we know that we had gotten it right? Why should we ever stop questioning the accuracy?

[quote]so if we came across something that seemed out of place with the other laws of the universe, we would try out hundreds or thousands of alternate rules to account for it. but all of those would fail, because they wouldn't capture the true rule - 'sky monkeys do what they want'. justified belief works the same for evolution by natural selection as it does for interfering sky monkeys. test and reject enough alternatives and it becomes wrong to withold belief.

First of all, it is very likely that we could come up with a rule that would capture all the data we had - even the "sky monkeys". And then, when something new occurred that didn't fit, we'd have to alter the rule. And so on. That is how science progresses, my dear.

By this logic, we should have given up on modeling quantum mechanics long ago and just decided it was all supernatural.

*You,* as a person, may be convinced after enough testing that a supernatural cause is *the* cause. That belief, however, would be just as outside of science as current theism is. Science would do what it is bound to do - use the scientific method and continue to alter its explanations to fit with new data, never dropping to the "God of the gaps" argument and saying, "We don't know, so it must be supernatural."

As religion's control broke down, that shifted and education became more common. I guess it just goes to show that religious beliefs have their place, and when they enter fields like politics (and vice versa), the potential for abuse and corruption is ripe.

Then why encourage them at all? Religious beliefs, after all, tend to be all-encompassing; few of them have an "unless the majority disagrees" clause.

When have religions ever been apolitical? It runs against their natures. Indeed, an apolitical religion would be a hypocritical and inconsistent one that neglected its own teachings.

Or that their beliefs have simply changed to reflect a new interpretation of God.

Yeah, that's what they say. But then, they're generally very inconsistent and incoherent when it comes to explaining this "interpretation of God."

But his arguments for that position are utterly baseless and have been pretty harshly and successfully attacked by theologians and even religious scientists.

I would love it if you could provide some specifics, here. I've yet to see successful assaults on many of Dawkins' arguments. Not the least of which is his argument that there's no evidence for God/gods in the first place.


He does not have a strong argument against the validity of the various faiths in existence today.

Sure he does, and so does anybody who thinks about it for two seconds. Hell, Demi has personally highlighted many of the arguments against the validity of her own faith on numerous threads! Plenty of believers are quite ready and willing to accept the limitations of faith and religion, and are quite able to continue holding to their religion even as they admit the many ways in which it cannot be substantiated or supported by objective means. Plenty of people can admit that there are valid arguments against the beliefs they hold (I do this all the time).

And even if Dawkins didn't have a single solid argument, that STILL would not make him comparable to Fred Phelps. Fred Phelps isn't Fred Phelps because he's got lousy arguments; he's Fred Phelps because he's a batshit insane asshole who has dedicated his life to calling for the murder and torture of people who he doesn't like.


Even so, if he is an implicit atheist he has no reason to go after religious beliefs, especially those of people who have similar positions to his.

There are plenty of reasons to go after religious beliefs even if you are an implicit atheist. You may not AGREE with those reasons, but they exist.


But racism is a lot different than religious belief.
Why? In the context of this discussion, how it is not a valid comparison?

I'm still not convinced.

That's because you are specifically looking for where the comparison fails (as all eventually do), rather than where it is valid.

If I compare a blue triangle to a blue square because they are both blue, that is a valid comparison. Sure, you could come in and say, "But triangles have three sides and squares have four sides, so you can't compare them!" but it would be missing the point.

Dawkins expressed certainty on one particular subject: that religiosity/superstition as humans currently practice it is a crock of shit.

And that anyone who disagrees with him is stupid.
And that anyone who disagrees with him is going to be less proficient in science.
And, in some cases, that religion itself should be outlawed or indoctrinated out of society.
And that science can be used to investigate that which is outside of empirical measurement - outside of nature itself.
And so on...

He's said a lot more than just that. In fact, you've even added "as humans currently practice it," as if Dawkins allows for some form of religion, which he doesn't.

I feel precisely the same way about racism, and I'm not afraid to say so. Does that make me a Fred Phelps type, too?

Edited. Didn't really make sense.

Most people are pretty damn convinced that their world view is right (because otherwise they wouldn't hold that view, they'd hold what they believed was the right view), and most of them are also damn convinced that things would be better if everybody agreed with them. Granted, some people aren't like that (we agnostics tend to be annoyingly mellow about this), but most are. I don't think Dawkins is unusual in this regard.

Personally, I think the world would be a rather boring place if we all agreed on everything. On top of that, we'd never learn anything from one another. It'd be a pretty shitty place, come to think of it. I think we'd all be shitty people if we refused to question ourselves every now and then, just as we question others.

I don't have a problem with the fact that Dawkins thinks he's right. I would expect that. I have a problem with his attitude towards others.

Phelps and Dawkins may share a similar level of conviction about their individual beliefs,

...which, I'm guessing, is pretty damn weak. Only those who are weak in their conviction feel the need to rant and rave like those two do. They NEED everyone else to agree with them to grant them surety in their own beliefs. What could be more sad?

Sure he does, and so does anybody who thinks about it for two seconds. Hell, Demi has personally highlighted many of the arguments against the validity of her own faith on numerous threads!

???? I have.

I'm pretty sure if I thought my faith invalid, I wouldn't have it.

Why? In the context of this discussion, how it is not a valid comparison?

Racism can be shown to be harmful to human beings. All Dawkins has against religion is, "I don't agree with it, so it's bad for you to believe it!!!!!"

If your only argument against racism was, "I don't agree, so you are stupid for believing it," it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

But it's entirely possible that God intended for us to have those experiences, and created the universe with the intent of sentient beings developing that could understand and receive a spiritual aspect in the form of the soul.



Of course it's possible that religious experiences are part of God's plan, that they're caused in a supernatural way while neuroscientists aren't looking or that God covers up his workings on the brain in, but only the same way that anything is possible. I would say along the same lines it's possible that God hid dinosaur bones to test our faith, that religious experiences are beamed into our brains by aliens hiding behind Jupiter and that toys come alive when children leave the room. But if we can explain religious experiences both immediately (through neuroscience) and in a wider sense (through evolutionary theory) then explanations involving God become pointless. They have no practical effect on our understanding of the world, and any definition of truth that allows a proposition to be true that doesn't do this quickly becomes ridiculous.


Outside stimuli other than sex can trigger orgasms. Does that mean that sex cannot cause orgasms?

The fact that we can trigger a portion of the brain and cause what people describe as being similar to religious experiences doesn't mean that they cannot be caused by actual religious causes. It just means that the physical body is involved, which really isn't surprising. "Religious experiences" might be entire psychosomatic, they might be some evolutionary response to community, they might be any number of things - and one of those things *could* be an actual response to the divine. Of course, that is something we really can't measure for, so, in science, we'll stick to the natural.


If there was no evidence that anyone had ever had sex, and no obvious way that anyone could have sex, than yes, I would say that sex cannot cause orgasms. What is the 'natural' exactly? It seems to me that it's anything that makes any predictions about observable phenomena, that have any bearing on our understanding of the world. So the supernatural is useless and therefore untrue.


If we can force those reactions outside of the emotion, does that mean that the emotion itself does not exist?


Kind of. It would mean that the emotion as we intuitively understand it, as a kind of unworldly abstraction that magically descends on us, dosen't exist, but rather it's just an understanding by our consciousness of certain physical processes in our brain, where consciousness is itself a complex computational machine arising from physical processes.

If the rules only work part of the time, then they aren't the rules, and induction is logically unsound. If a theory is not consistent with all of the available data, even the "baffling events", then the theory is not consistent at all, and is not scientifically valid.

induction is logically unsound anyways.

and what sort of metarules rule out rules that say '...except when the sky monkeys interfere'? i see nothing that a priori rules out that possibility. and were we to be in that world, i would still know that evolution happened.

You are, once again, falling into the "god of the gaps" mistake.

except that my hypothetical sky monkeys hypothetically actually exist. therefore the gap is real. if the gap cannot be filled otherwise, then the god that fits there is real. this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fill it some other way. it just means that we will fail, due to the nature of reality.

Only if your science is somehow outside the scientific method, which is based in certain axioms.

if your axioms lead to science not working in certain minimally different possible worlds, then your science blows. my science still works in those possible worlds because it rejects your unnecessary axioms while maintaining those that actually made it science in the first place.

So existence is defined by what others think of you, not by what you actually are?

no, existence is defined by the world. the mother that had twins is clearly possible - there is nothing inherently contradictory about our having lived in such a world. we just happen not to, so the mother in question doesn't actually exist.

By going with the "supernatural sky monkey" theory, you would have stepped outside of science. By accepting the idea as valid, you would be rejecting some of the basic axioms on which science is based - namely, that the universe itself runs on set rules.

in a world in which it is true that the sky monkeys sometimes fuck with shit, any science that rejects that hypothesis is no good at describing the universe.

it's odd, but your conception of science requires you to reject the existence of god no matter what, while mine would allow one in if it actually existed. but i'm the atheist here.

And, you would be using the same argument that I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue against, "We can't explain it so it must be supernatural," - the "God of the gaps" argument.

it is typically a bad agrument. but this is usually because either there is no gap or the argument is a particularly bad induction. it also doesn't typically make for much of a god in the end, which is just fun to point out. but this is only because there actually isn't a god to be found there - if there was, then the gaps would be real.

Indeed. Hence the reason that the scientfic method would fail in a non-deterministic universe.

what sort of reading of QM gets you around that one?

Of course, the fact that you have admitted this gets rid of the, "We just test every other possibility, and if we find nothing that way, we conclude that it is supernatural." We cannot test every other possibility.

yeah and? we can't test every possible explanation for anything, but at the end of the day we still go out the door rather than the window - despite the fact that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the observed data that predict that if we went out the door this time, the world will explode. we test the ones that seem relevant and we test enough of them. beyond that we have to leave it up to hope that in this universe induction works and we are the sort of beings whose sense of 'relevance' and 'enough' generally works.

How would we know that we had gotten it right? Why should we ever stop questioning the accuracy?

we can't and shouldn't. being right is just a necessary condition for knowledge. i was saying that we wouldn't be accidentally right in that case, that we would be justified in believing ourselves to be right.

Racism can be shown to be harmful to human beings. All Dawkins has against religion is, "I don't agree with it, so it's bad for you to believe it!!!!!"

If your only argument against racism was, "I don't agree, so you are stupid for believing it," it wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Actually I think religion and racism can both be shown to be harmful to humans in certain circumstances, and cause no harm in others.

My Grandmother was racist. Pretty much everyone in her generation was, but she would never have hurt a fly. She was your typical sweet old woman. Does that mean that racism wasn't harmful?

My Grandmother was religious. Pretty much everyone in her generation was, but she would never have hurt a fly. She was your typical sweet old woman. Does that mean that religion wasn't harmful?

Racists identify a separation between you and another person based on skin colour.

Religion identifies a separation between you and another person based on belief.

Racism has a lot to do with creating a group by identifying who isn't in your group.

Religion has a lot to do with creating a group by identifying who isn't in your group.

Racism has been used as an excuse for murder. It was all right to murder him because he was no better than an animal. He was Black.

Religion has been used as an excuse for murder. It was all right to murder him because he was no better than an animal. He was a heathen.

You can show that Racism is irrational.

You can show that Religion is irrational.

Just because you don't like racism and you do like (your particular) religion, doesn't make them all that different.

Anything that is used to separate people on purely arbritary and an irrational basis can be used for no good means.

I am not saying that religion is inherently evil.. I don't think there is such a thing... but it can most certainly be used for evil.

though not as a religion

Not as a healthy or meaningful religion. I'm sure you're well aware that there are plenty of unhealthy and meaningless religious beliefs.

If god exists in the manner described by monotheistic religions, then he is uncaused by definition.
But, the existence of a single uncaused thing (God) completely breaks the reasoning behind ID.

But, the existence of a single uncaused thing (God) completely breaks the reasoning behind ID.

Wait...there's reasoning behind ID?

Wait...there's reasoning behind ID?

burn!

If there was no evidence that anyone had ever had sex, and no obvious way that anyone could have sex, than yes, I would say that sex cannot cause orgasms. What is the 'natural' exactly? It seems to me that it's anything that makes any predictions about observable phenomena, that have any bearing on our understanding of the world. So the supernatural is useless and therefore untrue.

In other words, "I think that certain things are the only things that matter. Therefore anything outside that realm cannot possibly exist."

If you think only that which makes predictions about obvervable phenomena is useful, that is fine. But to suggest that you not finding a use for it means that it doesn't exist is just plain illogical.

Kind of. It would mean that the emotion as we intuitively understand it, as a kind of unworldly abstraction that magically descends on us, dosen't exist, but rather it's just an understanding by our consciousness of certain physical processes in our brain, where consciousness is itself a complex computational machine arising from physical processes.

In other words, you don't think that human emotion truly exists. I disagree.


induction is logically unsound anyways.

Induction is logically unsound in a non-deterministic system. It isn't logically unsound within one. Hence the reason that the scientific method, at its base, must assume a deterministic system. Induction is a part of the method. If induction is *always* logically unsound, then the scientific method is logically unsound. Is that a statement you want to make?

and what sort of metarules rule out rules that say '...except when the sky monkeys interfere'? i see nothing that a priori rules out that possibility. and were we to be in that world, i would still know that evolution happened.

Science can only deal in that which it can investigate - that which falls within the axioms on which it is based. Taking it outside of that is like having a mathematical proof that says:

"Assume x is an even number.
X is the number 7."

except that my hypothetical sky monkeys hypothetically actually exist. therefore the gap is real. if the gap cannot be filled otherwise, then the god that fits there is real. this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fill it some other way. it just means that we will fail, due to the nature of reality.

By that logic, any person who uses the god of the gaps argument can say, "God is real, therefore I am right." How exactly would you go about proving that something you cannot empirically measure is actually real?

And how, since you've admitted that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for any given event, can you claim that the gap cannot be filled otherwise?

if your axioms lead to science not working in certain minimally different possible worlds, then your science blows. my science still works in those possible worlds because it rejects your unnecessary axioms while maintaining those that actually made it science in the first place.

Those axioms are the axioms on which the scientific method is based. If you are not talking about the scientific method, then you aren't talking about science. Philosophy maybe, but not science.

And I don't think removing the laws of the universe would make it a "minimally different possible world." If there were no rules, it would be a HUGELY different situation. Logic itself, if it worked at all, would be quite different.

no, existence is defined by the world. the mother that had twins is clearly possible - there is nothing inherently contradictory about our having lived in such a world. we just happen not to, so the mother in question doesn't actually exist.

I wasn't talking about an imaginary mother, however. I was talking about my mother, who does exist.

in a world in which it is true that the sky monkeys sometimes fuck with shit, any science that rejects that hypothesis is no good at describing the universe.

Indeed. If there were constant supernatural interference with the rules of the universe, science wouldn't be good at describing the universe. We would never get to the actual rules, because they'd constantly be changing at the whim of the supernatural. In a way, there would be no rules to find.

it's odd, but your conception of science requires you to reject the existence of god no matter what, while mine would allow one in if it actually existed. but i'm the atheist here.

No, I don't have to reject the existence of God. I simply have to realize that I cannot investigate that existence (or non-existence) with science. If it is a question that interests me, science is not the way to examine it.

Science, as it stands, allows for a god or gods. It simply cannot investigate that possibility. God might be out there, and science is ambivalent to the question.

Only if you wish science to be able to answer all questions does this get in the way, and most of realize that it cannot. Science also cannot be used to determine right and wrong. Once we come up with some sort of definition of what makes something "right" and what makes something "wrong", we might be able to use science to determine what actions meet those criteria, but the criteria themselves, and therefore the basis of right and wrong, cannot be determined in that way. Does this mean that we should never ponder morality, as it cannot be decided by science?

it is typically a bad agrument. but this is usually because either there is no gap or the argument is a particularly bad induction. it also doesn't typically make for much of a god in the end, which is just fun to point out. but this is only because there actually isn't a god to be found there - if there was, then the gaps would be real.

You assume that there isn't a god there. Care to prove it?

The fact that a conclusion is true doesn't mean you can use a specific logical process to get there. You are basically saying, "It's ok for me to use an illogical argument as long as it gets me to the right answer."

If it would be logical, in your hypothetical case, to use the god of the gaps argument, then the god of the gaps argument is logical for anything we cannot currently explain.

what sort of reading of QM gets you around that one?

Probability does not imply a lack of determinism. It simply implies that we don't know everything. If we were fully aware of the mechanisms, all of the starting conditions, all of the properties, etc. of whatever we were looking at, probability wouldn't be an issue - we'd be able to figure out exactly the result. We need probablity because we don't know all of these things and, quite often, have no way of measuring them. In fact, if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is correct, we cannot measure all of the initial conditions, as our measurement itself would change them.

yeah and? we can't test every possible explanation for anything, but at the end of the day we still go out the door rather than the window - despite the fact that there are an infinite number of possible explanations for the observed data that predict that if we went out the door this time, the world will explode. we test the ones that seem relevant and we test enough of them. beyond that we have to leave it up to hope that in this universe induction works and we are the sort of beings whose sense of 'relevance' and 'enough' generally works.

And, in science, only those explanations that can be tested by science are relevant. If we go to explanations that cannot be empirically tested, we have stepped outside of science.

we can't and shouldn't.

Then, in science, we can never rest on a "It must be supernatural," explanation.

being right is just a necessary condition for knowledge. i was saying that we wouldn't be accidentally right in that case, that we would be justified in believing ourselves to be right.

We would be, yes. But that doesn't mean we would know that we were right or stop questioning our explanations. If we did, we'd have given up on the scientific method and what it entails.


My Grandmother was racist. Pretty much everyone in her generation was, but she would never have hurt a fly. She was your typical sweet old woman. Does that mean that racism wasn't harmful?

She never treated people as inferior because she believed them to be? She didn't advocate harmful policy because she believed certain ethnicities to be less deserving, or inferior?

Racists identify a separation between you and another person based on skin colour.

Religion identifies a separation between you and another person based on belief.

Racists define certain groups as inferior based on skin color. Some members of a religion might define others as inferior based upon belief, but it is not a requirement of religion.

Describing racism as "identifying separation based on skin color," is disingenuous. Obviously, my skin color is different from my coworkers. There is a "separation" of sorts there. The question is what I do with that separation. Racists imply a whole lot more than, "You have a different skin color," from that simple aspect.

If someone has a different belief than me, I imply nothing more than, "They have a different belief."

Racism has a lot to do with creating a group by identifying who isn't in your group.

Religion has a lot to do with creating a group by identifying who isn't in your group.

No, it doesn't. When it comes right down to it, nobody is a member of my religion but me, and the same is essentially true of all religion. We can group people together loosely based on some shared belief, but their religion as a whole will always be different from the next person's. My religion isn't defined by who isn't in it, or by who is in it. It is defined by my relationship with and beliefs about God.

A better comparison would be to compare political views and religious views.

Racism has been used as an excuse for murder. It was all right to murder him because he was no better than an animal. He was Black.

Religion has been used as an excuse for murder. It was all right to murder him because he was no better than an animal. He was a heathen.

Race was used as excuse for murder. Racism was the thought that seemed to make it ok.

Religion has been used as an excuse for murder. Extremism was the thought that made it ok.

This comparison doesn't work.

You can show that Racism is irrational.

You can show that Religion is irrational.

Can you? Can you delve into my personal experiences and show me that you would not have come to the same conclusions I did?

Just because you don't like racism and you do like (your particular) religion, doesn't make them all that different.

It has nothing to do with like or dislike. They are fundamentally different. None of your comparisons were valid.

Anything that is used to separate people on purely arbritary and an irrational basis can be used for no good means.

And I don't use my religion to do so. What's your point?

I am not saying that religion is inherently evil.. I don't think there is such a thing... but it can most certainly be used for evil.

....which is irrelevant to the comparison.

In other words, "I think that certain things are the only things that matter. Therefore anything outside that realm cannot possibly exist."

If you think only that which makes predictions about obvervable phenomena is useful, that is fine. But to suggest that you not finding a use for it means that it doesn't exist is just plain illogical.


I'm not just saying that only that which makes predictions is useful, I'm saying only that which makes predictions means anything. How would you define existence? What is the difference between a universe where God exists and one where he dosen't? Saying God exists is like saying that you've discovered a new kind of cow, which is exactly like a Frisian cow in every observable way apart from it morphs into an elephant whenever your back is turned. I would say "I don't care. It's a cow whenever I see it, it's a cow whenever I turn around, so to me it's always a cow." In the same way, I would say "I don't care that God may or may not 'exist'. Whenever I perform an experiment, he has no noticeable effect, so to me he dosen't exist." I think that the whole idea of determining whether something is true in an outside reality is a total chimera, and that the only truth can be whether a hypothesis helps us to interact with the world in a more predictable way. The actual hypothesis itself is just a device, a mental representation, that we use to do this, and can never be true or false in some intrinsic way.



Only if you wish science to be able to answer all questions does this get in the way, and most of realize that it cannot. Science also cannot be used to determine right and wrong. Once we come up with some sort of definition of what makes something "right" and what makes something "wrong", we might be able to use science to determine what actions meet those criteria, but the criteria themselves, and therefore the basis of right and wrong, cannot be determined in that way. Does this mean that we should never ponder morality, as it cannot be decided by science?


I would say that science is the only way to come to any conclusions about the objective outside world, because the scientific method, that a theory must make useful predictions, is the very definition of truth. This does indeed mean that there is no point debating moral foundations like 'life is valuable'; morality is an axiomatic subject like maths. Generally this isn't a problem, since most ethical debates involve arguments about logical inconsistencies, rather than the moral foundations which just about everyone agrees on. The only way to argue about a moral axiom is to say 'this is the way humans are'.

And on determinism...I think it is possible to see ways that science could work in a non-determinist world. Determinism is, I think, in a large part the idea that one event causes another. If the arrow of time turns out to be an illusion, however, science could still describe some characteristics of the four- dimensional (or 6 or 11 or 23 dimensional) objects that inhabit spacetime.

You know, I think I'll call it a day with this thread.

But racism is a lot different than religious belief.

Why?

Wait...there's reasoning behind ID?

Pretty sure it's "Cuz" and "I said so."

Pretty sure it's "Cuz" and "I said so."

No - you trivialise, my friend...

It is actually 'cos'... and 'some old guy said so, a long time ago'. ;)

Why?

Because racism is the dislike or hatred of a particular race of people and religion is a belief system? That's like saying evolution and social Darwinism are similar. I mean, they're alike on a certain level, but their similarity is an abstraction that isn't a valid comparison between the two.

Because racism is the dislike or hatred of a particular race of people and religion is a belief system? That's like saying evolution and social Darwinism are similar. I mean, they're alike on a certain level, but their similarity is an abstraction that isn't a valid comparison between the two.

I am not for a second saying that they are the same thing.. otherwise they wouldn't be racism and religion...

But racism involves saying that someone is more worthy or better in some way based on their ancestry.

The major religions usually say the same kind of thing. Christianity pretty much says if you don't believe in their belief system you are lost. You are not worthy of heaven. Islam says a similar thing.. they are a little more lenient as if you are Christian you can still go to heaven.. just not as cool a heaven as if you are Muslim.

Does that sound like there are artificial levels of worth built into the system?

Religion (not your own personal religion but organised religion) is designed around an us and them mentality.
Judaism is always going on about being Gods chosen people.

Saying I am better than you because of my religion is similar to saying I am better than you because of my race. If religious discrimination is not akin to racism (our race/religion are better than yours) then I must be really missing something.

I understand that just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are bigoted or prejudiced against people who follow other religions... but it is definitely part of the premise of almost all religions. There are lovely people who follow religion... they would never tell someone they were going to hell for having a different belief.. but in their heart they know that they are right and the other people are wrong.. (otherwise what is the point of holding your religion) They are somehow more worthy because they follow a certain belief system than someone else.
There are also lovely racists, they feel that their particular race is superior in some way. They would never tell someone that they are inferior but it doesn't change the fact that thats the way they feel.

So you can see that you have to be extreme for it to go bad... whether its racism or religion. A little passive racism is still pretty normal. People still have innate prejudices against people from cultures that they are not familiar with. They may want a French cyclist to win a competition because they associate with them more than the Kenyan he is racing against. It doesn't mean that just because they think he is a better cyclist because he is French that they are suddenly an evil racist.. it has to be taken to an extreme before its a problem.

How extreme would you have to be to go to a foreign country and tell people that they are going to go to hell unless they give up their customs and adopt yours. How discriminatory are you being saying that their belief system is inferior to yours. And yet plenty of well meaning people become missionaries and attempt to bring the good word to other cultures.

Religious separation is just as illogical as racial separation .. just as likely to breed extremism as separation on the basis of ancestry.

Personally I think both schools of thought are ridiculous...
inwardly perhaps I feel superior to people who are religious or racist.. maybe I am a "realist". I just haven't taken it to the extreme of discriminating against people who do not believe in the real... yet.

Religion is scarey when you look from the outside in. It scares the pants off me... and it evidently scares the pants off Dawkins too.... I don't think you need to be a philosopher to say that...

She never treated people as inferior because she believed them to be? She didn't advocate harmful policy because she believed certain ethnicities to be less deserving, or inferior?

She may have been condescending to people of colour because she thought they were a little stupider than white folk but that would have been about the worst thing she did. Someone might have been passively offended but no more. She was still a racist... she just wasn't extreme about it


Racists define certain groups as inferior based on skin color. Some members of a religion might define others as inferior based upon belief, but it is not a requirement of religion.


Thou shalt follow no God but me...

Only through me shall you pass the the gates of heaven...

Sounds like there is some pretty heavy requirements for it in some religions...



No, it doesn't. When it comes right down to it, nobody is a member of my religion but me, and the same is essentially true of all religion. We can group people together loosely based on some shared belief, but their religion as a whole will always be different from the next person's. My religion isn't defined by who isn't in it, or by who is in it. It is defined by my relationship with and beliefs about God.

A better comparison would be to compare political views and religious views.


See that is a really odd definition of religion. I can see how you can have a personal religion. But it is often (in fact almost always) associated with a more widely accepted religion. Saying your religion has nothing to do with anyone else is disingenuous. If you think of yourself as a christian .. sure you may have a particular personal belief system but it is a subset of the wider christian faith.



Race was used as excuse for murder. Racism was the thought that seemed to make it ok.

Religion has been used as an excuse for murder. Extremism was the thought that made it ok.

This comparison doesn't work.


Thast because you have made a false comparison

Race was used as excuse for murder. Extremism was the thought that seemed to make it ok.

Religion has been used as an excuse for murder. Extremism was the thought that made it ok.

It is taking the inherant difference in worth implied by both types of separation to an extreme that is the problem...


Can you? Can you delve into my personal experiences and show me that you would not have come to the same conclusions I did?


Isn't it about faith... about the suspension of reason... isn't that the appeal? Like I said I am not religious so I may well be getting it wrong. I am not meaning to be rude.. I simply don't understand...


It has nothing to do with like or dislike. They are fundamentally different. None of your comparisons were valid.


I disagree I think the comparisons were pretty valid...

The major religions usually say the same kind of thing. Christianity pretty much says if you don't believe in their belief system you are lost. You are not worthy of heaven. Islam says a similar thing.. they are a little more lenient as if you are Christian you can still go to heaven.. just not as cool a heaven as if you are Muslim.

Does that sound like there are artificial levels of worth built into the system?

But similar levels are built in to any system that has some kind of reward or punishment built in. In capitalism, if you don't work you don't deserve to have a decent standard of living. In the job market, if you don't have an education your opportunities are going to be limited and you'll probably end up unemployed. In nature, if you can't compete with others you die from predation or starvation, and so on.

Christianity's levels of worth are pretty similar to those in any system that involves success or failure.

Religion (not your own personal religion but organised religion) is designed around an us and them mentality. Judaism is always going on about being Gods chosen people.

Yeah, but that's true of a lot of ideologies. Capitalism, liberalism, rationalism, any -ism for that matter (except perhaps Buddhism) all have an us vs. them mentality if you break them down far enough. Our system works, and yours doesn't, and this is why you should use our system rather than yours...that's the crux of every debate.

Saying I am better than you because of my religion is similar to saying I am better than you because of my race. If religious discrimination is not akin to racism (our race/religion are better than yours) then I must be really missing something.

If you are a religious believer, you're not supposed to say that. All religions condemn pride, and Christianity specifically states not to judge others; a superiority complex is not justified because it is a source of sinful pride.

I understand that just because someone is religious it doesn't mean they are bigoted or prejudiced against people who follow other religions... but it is definitely part of the premise of almost all religions. There are lovely people who follow religion... they would never tell someone they were going to hell for having a different belief.. but in their heart they know that they are right and the other people are wrong.. (otherwise what is the point of holding your religion) They are somehow more worthy because they follow a certain belief system than someone else.

There are also lovely racists, they feel that their particular race is superior in some way. They would never tell someone that they are inferior but it doesn't change the fact that thats the way they feel.

If they never tell someone or treat others wrongly, does it really matter? If it has absolutely no effect on anyone or anything they do, it's completely meaningless whether they're anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, or whatever.

So you can see that you have to be extreme for it to go bad... whether its racism or religion. A little passive racism is still pretty normal. People still have innate prejudices against people from cultures that they are not familiar with. They may want a French cyclist to win a competition because they associate with them more than the Kenyan he is racing against. It doesn't mean that just because they think he is a better cyclist because he is French that they are suddenly an evil racist.. it has to be taken to an extreme before its a problem.

Exactly. Which is why it doesn't really matter what people believe as long as it doesn't hurt others. If you keep your prejudices to yourself, it isn't a problem.

How extreme would you have to be to go to a foreign country and tell people that they are going to go to hell unless they give up their customs and adopt yours. How discriminatory are you being saying that their belief system is inferior to yours. And yet plenty of well meaning people become missionaries and attempt to bring the good word to other cultures.

At the same time, many missionaries do very good things for the places they go. Religious organizations are some of the most charitable organizations on Earth, and religious people donate more to charity and volunteer more than comparatively nonreligious people. And, to top it off, many of the charities that are sponsored by churches do not disburse their donations on the basis of faith. Helping people comes first and in many cases faith plays no part.

And "fire and brimstone" type conversion is only very rarely successful. Most missionaries today use other methods of spreading their faith; it's really no different than any attempt to convert people from one belief system to another. In fact, they are doing the exact same thing that Dawkins has been trying to do with his evangelism. You can't condemn them for doing that without condemning Dawkins' evangelical activities.

Religious separation is just as illogical as racial separation .. just as likely to breed extremism as separation on the basis of ancestry.

There is almost no religious separation in most belief systems today; even if people believe that their religion is the only way to heaven, it does not affect their interactions with others. In the US, which is a very religious country, people of multiple faiths or no faith interact and treat each other equally everyday; the same is true in much of the rest of the world. In fact, I cannot recall a single time when someone even asked what my religious beliefs were outside of a discussion on religion.

Extremism can exist without religion. It just takes on a different form, perhaps on the basis of political sentiments; in fact, some of the worst crimes of the 20th century have been committed on the basis of political or ethnic grounds rather than religious ones.

Personally I think both schools of thought are ridiculous...
inwardly perhaps I feel superior to people who are religious or racist.. maybe I am a "realist". I just haven't taken it to the extreme of discriminating against people who do not believe in the real... yet.

Well, that just shows that superiority has nothing to do with religion. People without religious beliefs can be equally as biased or even more than people with them. All religion is is a reason for people to feel superior rather than a source of it in and of itself.

Religion is scarey when you look from the outside in. It scares the pants off me... and it evidently scares the pants off Dawkins too.... I don't think you need to be a philosopher to say that...

Ideas do not scare me...it's the people who use them that determine what I fear. I know full well that any idea has the potential for good or evil depending on who uses it. Take away religion, and the evil people who abused religion would simply latch on to something else and the same things would happen with only the name of the belief system being changed.

There is almost no religious separation in most belief systems today; even if people believe that their religion is the only way to heaven, it does not affect their interactions with others. In the US, which is a very religious country, people of multiple faiths or no faith interact and treat each other equally everyday; the same is true in much of the rest of the world. In fact, I cannot recall a single time when someone even asked what my religious beliefs were outside of a discussion on religion.

OK here is a personal example. Growing up many of my friends were Jewish. I attended plenty of Shabbat dinners, Bar Mitzvahs etc etc. So I generally had a pretty good handle on the Jewish faith. In uni I went out with a Jewish girl. We got on really well. Her family on the other hand was very disaproving, not based on my personality or background I might point out. They got on well with me, I also did everything I could to ingratiate myself with them, from helping pull up carpet to mowing the lawn. It turned out however that as far as dating their daughter was concerned the only thing I did right in their eyes was have an uncle (by marriage) who was a prominant member of the Jewish community. They ended up forcing her not to see me due to me not being Jewish.

It seems to me that my faith shouldn't really have anything to do with whether or not I was a decent human being or good enough for their daughter... if I wasn't good enough because I was black that would be viewed by society as an obviously bad thing. The fact that I am not good enough because I am an atheist is somehow a perfectly valid reason though?



Extremism can exist without religion. It just takes on a different form, perhaps on the basis of political sentiments; in fact, some of the worst crimes of the 20th century have been committed on the basis of political or ethnic grounds rather than religious ones.

Extremism can definitly exist without religion. I was only just a sentence earlier discussing racial extremeism.


Ideas do not scare me...it's the people who use them that determine what I fear. I know full well that any idea has the potential for good or evil depending on who uses it. Take away religion, and the evil people who abused religion would simply latch on to something else and the same things would happen with only the name of the belief system being changed.

What makes religious discrimination or racism scary is that its simply a percieved difference, not a real difference.

If you chose not to take someone on your basketball team because they were black or because they were Jewish that would be an illogical choice. But to chose someone because they were taller or better at basketball makes sense. Its not discrimination its rational.

A political viewpoint can have the pros and cons examined... a religious viewpoint is sacred. Its not open to examination or criticism.... thats what makes it scary. Not to mention its not based on any kind of link to reality. Its a faith position.

Because racism is the dislike or hatred of a particular race of people and religion is a belief system? That's like saying evolution and social Darwinism are similar. I mean, they're alike on a certain level, but their similarity is an abstraction that isn't a valid comparison between the two.

No - those are just your definitions though.

Racism is is not just dislike or hatred - it isn't racism if it is entirely rational. Racism, therefore, requires an irrationality. Racism also requires an exclusionism inherent in the concept.

Religion isn't just a belief system - people can believe many things before they cross into the novel terrain of religion. Religion requires a different kind of rationality - one which allows certain (often illogical and conflicting) weak assumptions to be made. Religion is - by all scientific standards - irrational. Religions almost universally also teach exclusionism.

The only difference is - one group feels smugger about their exclusionism, because they think they are sanctioned by a higher power... and feels thjat their particular brand of irrationality is somehow superior to all other kinds.


You are right, religion and racism are not identical - and that is because religion is far more dangerous.

that wasn't the argument I was addressing. the argument stems from the atheist saying to the theist: "well... who created god?" and the theist replying "god has always existed."

That's not what is occuring.
The argument of the theist introduced the assumed but not explicitly stated premise 'if something is complex it necessarily has a creator', when positing the first premise. The atheist could be a real nuisance and point out that
B doesnt necessarily follow from the truth of A. Then the theist would have to prove that the universe being complex necessitates that the universe was created. Instead the atheist patiently waits to the end and points out that where A is a premise of an argument and not A is the conclusion, the argument concerned is unsound and so does not prove what it purports to prove.

the atheist then dismisses this argument as fallacious, while in the same light is able to conceive "the universe has always existed" DESPITE rejecting a similar argument from the theist.
No, the theist doesnt have to believe that the universe was or was not caused, they only need to know that if the presence of quality A (complexity) necessitates B (having been created by a creator) that it cannot be true that something has the quality of A in the absence of B, or, that if something can have quality A in the absence of B it isnt true that possesing quality A necessitates the presence of B.

if you want to accept the possibility of the universe existing infinitely, then you should be able to conceive the possibility of the supernatural entity existing infinitely. and vice versa.
If you accept the possibility of a universe existing infinitely, then you dont accept that the universe is such that it necessarily has a creator so the theist's argument will fail to preceed past the first premise. If you accept that some complex thing can not have a creator, then you dont accept that being complex necessitates a creator so the theist's argument fails at the first premise. Either way you can logically conclude that the theist's argument does not prove what it purports to prove.