Religion Again

[dipstick]

I read Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion recently and despite a convincing scientific argument in favour of atheism I still don't know that I don't know. Does that make me an agnostic agnostic I wonder or does two agnostics make an atheist? Mind you,I'm not totally convinced by his argument and believe me I'm not religious. I feel he uses the laws ofscience convincingly enough especially concerning natural selection, improbablity and the laws of physics to a certain extent to demonstrate that our existence can be explained without having to resort to religion. But religion was never a problem with me as I don't have any anyway. However, does he prove that there is no God? Maybe he might have shown that the Gods such as Yahweh and even the present day Gods were/are unlikely but when you go back to the Big Bang and there seems to be reasonable proof that this happened, how can he explain the unexplainable? Hesays that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge at present which in time will be filled in and all explained. But maybe science can't explain everthing down to the last detail, after all the laws of physics collapse at singularities, such as black holes and the big bang. Why does he feel science can explain maybe what is the unexplainable?

what's new here?? Do we need Dawkins to tell us that there are some explained things ... I can't understand how anyone isn't at least agnostic these days with all the scientific knowledge we have ..

[blackandwhite]

I'm reading that at the moment, heavy going but I'm enjoying it. On the same subject, Sean Moncrief (sp?) has a book out about the top 20 religions in the world.Well worth a read.

[Balla Boy]

Dawkins doesn't set out to prove that there is no God. He admits in the book that it isn't possible to prove that "God" (however we may define him) doesn't exist. He seeks to prove that God as imagined is improbable, and that we have no need to posit his existance as an explanation for unexplained phenomena.


Hence the "blue teapot" analogy constructed by Russell - you can't prove that there isn't a blue teapot orbiting the sun, but there's no reason to suppose that there is.


Dawkins also points out that people who believe in a judaeo-christian God find it very easy to reject outright the existance of Thor, Astarte, Isis, Shiva etc etc etc which would seem to conflict with the general sense that agnosticism is the strongest rejectionist stance that we should take.


He admits to being agnostic - as he puts it he is agnostic about God in the same way that he is agnostic about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Agnostic officially, but to the extent that it is purely a technicality.


And beyond that, he concedes that if someone chooses to define God as some sort of "universal force" or the laws of the universe in the way that some ascribe to Einstein, then he believes in God. His explicit issue is with the notion of a concious entitiy who is an active agent in the universe.

[daveirl]

Good post BB

Good post BB

thanks Dave [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]

[dipstick]

Dawkins doesn't set out to prove that there is no God. He admits in the book that it isn't possible to prove that "God" (however we may define him) doesn't exist. He seeks to prove that God as imagined is improbable, and that we have no need to posit his existance as an explanation for unexplained phenomena.


Hence the "blue teapot" analogy constructed by Russell - you can't prove that there isn't a blue teapot orbiting the sun, but there's no reason to suppose that there is.


Dawkins also points out that people who believe in a judaeo-christian God find it very easy to reject outright the existance of Thor, Astarte, Isis, Shiva etc etc etc which would seem to conflict with the general sense that agnosticism is the strongest rejectionist stance that we should take.


He admits to being agnostic - as he puts it he is agnostic about God in the same way that he is agnostic about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Agnostic officially, but to the extent that it is purely a technicality.


And beyond that, he concedes that if someone chooses to define God as some sort of "universal force" or the laws of the universe in the way that some ascribe to Einstein, then he believes in God. His explicit issue is with the notion of a concious entitiy who is an active agent in the universe.

He categorically states he is an atheist not an agnostic. He sets out to prove within the realms of science that God does not exist, hence the title The God Delusion. A delusion is a false beliefand he goes to pains to explain the delusionof Godthroughout the book. As regards the teapot analogy, he uses this to explain the absurdity of some arguments in defense of asupreme being not as an argument in it's favour. Fair enough, he concedes that a "God" within the realms of the laws of science might exist but I think he means here that if you want to clutch at straws so be it.

[Balla Boy]

But his atheism is a rejection of theism, not the deism that you were hinting at earlier.


I agree on the "blue teapot" thing - but his point there, surely, is that it is not possible to definitely prove thata blue teapot is revolving around the sun. In the same way, science can never definitively prove that God does not exist.

[SkibRed]

The Bear in the big blue house isnt bad either.

[Riptide]

@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">At it’s core, Dawkins argument is that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science). By faith/religion, he means belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence- i.e. prayer can heal the sick, or that there is a supreme God/Being listening to our bed-side thoughts (or while we watch <xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img]smileys/surprised.gif[/img]ffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="&#111;n"><st1[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]lace w:st="on">Munster</st1[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]lace></st1:State> in a tight match). For Dawkins, faith is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception and he gets quite heated about it..<o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]></o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]>@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]></o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]>@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Of course, Dawkins advocates that we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about.@@@@SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> @@@@/SPAN>False certainties should not be celebrated. @@@@SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">@@@@/SPAN>The bottom line... Christians believe that the Bible is a “magic book” that it was not authored by human beings, however brilliant, but by some supernatural force. This is a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence and about which there are many good reasons to be skeptical.<o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]></o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]>@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]></o[img]smileys/razz.gif[/img]>@@@@/SPAN>

[rugbynut]

I think a lot of these boys have missed the point about 'religion'. If it works for you... well and good, if it doesnt work... no sweat. Suppose its a bit like a pair of shoes, different sizes and styles for different people, some people dont even wear shoes...


Some people feel the need for spiritual guidance and more power to them if they find that in religion, others seem to get by without, however there comes a time in everyones life when they begin to question why we are here. I think the chineese are along the right path in believing that we are made up of 3 entities Mind, Body &amp; Soul. In recent years we have seen an explosion in shrinks who are doctors for the mind. We already have doctors for the body so that just leaves doctors for the soul...Mmmm

[Riptide]

@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Sorry about that.. copied it from an Office document and got some mad smileys..@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">At it’s core, Dawkins argument is that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science). By faith/religion, he means belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence- i.e. prayer can heal the sick, or that there is a supreme God/Being listening to our bed-side thoughts (or while we watch Munster</ST1<A href="smileys/razz.gif" target="_blank"></st1:State> in a tight match). For Dawkins, faith is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception and he gets quite heated about it..[/url]@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O<A href="smileys/razz.gif" target="_blank">@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Of course, Dawkins advocates that we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about.@@@@SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> @@@@/SPAN>False certainties should not be celebrated. @@@@SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">@@@@/SPAN>The bottom line... Christians believe that the Bible is a “magic book” that it was not authored by human beings, however brilliant, but by some supernatural force. This is a claim for which there is not a scintilla of evidence and about which there are many good reasons to be skeptical.<O<A href="smileys/razz.gif" target="_blank">@@@@/SPAN>
@@@@SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><O<A href="smileys/razz.gif" target="_blank">@@@@/SPAN>

[boots]

Ye're all going to hell.

[McCloud]

Ye're all going to hell.

Not possible doesn't exist[img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]

[boots]

Ye're all going to hell.

Not possible doesn't exist[img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]

You're only making it worse for yourself.

[dipstick]

But his atheism is a rejection of theism, not the deism that you were hinting at earlier.


I agree on the "blue teapot" thing - but his point there, surely, is that it is not possible to definitely prove thata blue teapot is revolving around the sun. In the same way, science can never definitively prove that God does not exist.

Yes he rejects theism and dismisses deism completely and pantheism pretty much as well. Deism is perhaps more in tune with our upbringing I guess and maybe that's whyIemphasized it more in my original post. He also has little time for agnostisicsm either. I consider myself a weak agnostic, I was always a bit of a fence sitter anyway at the best of times.


His idea that science can never conclusively prove the "teapot", as well as the "God" thingis his thinking at present. He feels that all the "gaps" in science will be filled in eventually but he can't be sure. Maybe the quantum computers of the future which apparently arenot so far away may find an answer. Anyway, my arse is sore from the fence.

[rathbaner]

My kids believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy, but not in God. They go to the local Catholic school (not much choice) and there's no problem with the teachers or the kids about it.

This country has really improved.

I was worried that they may be infidels, pagans, unbelievers

but they're just kids.

Sweet.

[bruffian]

I think a lot of these boys have missed the point about 'religion'. If it works for you... well and good, if it doesnt work... no sweat. Suppose its a bit like a pair of shoes, different sizes and styles for different people, some people dont even wear shoes...


Some people feel the need for spiritual guidance and more power to them if they find that in religion, others seem to get by without, however there comes a time in everyones life when they begin to question why we are here. I think the chineese are along the right path in believing that we are made up of 3 entities Mind, Body &amp; Soul. In recent years we have seen an explosion in shrinks who are doctors for the mind. We already have doctors for the body so that just leaves doctors for the soul...Mmmm

agreed.i do find it ironic that many of the most evangelical and preachy people that ive come across are atheists,the kind of people who wait patiently for someone to mention God,so they can go off about how its ridiculous to believe in God.each to their own i say.


im not going to get into the whole bigger debate though


on a slightly related topic anyone see the south park episode recently with dawkins in it? very funny

To be honest it's quite possible to argue that Science is the new religion and it's followers the new fundamentalists who will brook no challenge to their word and look to quash any debate that challenges what they say.


Let me ask you something, any of you ever seen the big bang? Seen the photographic proof? The video evidence? Nope then surely that means it can't be real? Isn't that the scientific argument against religion, you haven't seen the proof, it's all just fairy tales.


Ah I hear you say but scientists tell us they can prove it. Really? How, their theories suggest according to their rules it may have happened. But aren't theories like beliefs and isn't blind faith in belief's to be laughed at and ridiculed as being pathetic and feeble minded?


Yes but these are highly trained and educated people who tell us. Yes but you know what, they could be wrong, they could be lying, they could be making it up, they could be congenital half wits. How many of those great people who rule the roost in science have you actually met and been able to discuss this with? How many have you been able to question face to face or faith to faith even?


The reality is much of the science that "explains" how we exist is conjecture and theory - just as much of the religion is. But because the person telling it to you is a scientist then it's not blind faith to believe it.


Now personally I have a lot of issues with human interpretation of christianity. Firstly we're told this is the all knowing all powerful God. Yet this omnipotent being trusted JUST 12 Jewish guys to tell the world about him. bo***cks boys and girls. Now that makes no sense. The ultimate intelligence in the cosmos can't work out that you're not going to convince most people by sending a group of outsiders to tell them about you? Nah. Most religions share beliefs and background stories. Things like the flood story were common amongst most religions of biblical times. The reality is there's enough of a spread amongst unconnected peoples to suggest there is something in some of what most major religions believe.


The point was made about Thor, Odin etc being easily dismissed in the minds of most Christians. Well actually they're no different to the Old Testament tales of armies led by the angels - God's battle commanders. If you want to take these things and really analyse them you can generally find ways of binding the basics of major religions (and paganism is still a huge religion) together.


One question, however, that I've yet to hear a Scientist ever manage to explain. Before the tiniest sub-atomic particle that led to the big bang was there, what was there? Where did that come from? The answer is we just don't know that yet. Ah I see so what the high priests of the cult of science are saying is, trust me that can be explained by science. But hang on, aren't we back to that much derided blind faith?


The thing is it's easy to dismiss miracles when simple minded people talk in terms of a miracle being where some cloud descends and saves the sinking ship. You know what I think is a miracle? Someone working out that if you inject people with a small culture of a disease it can actually make them imune to it. Other people letting them do it to find out. Now that's a miracle.


As has been said there's an element to this that's been missed and that element is that people have a right to believe what brings them comfort. Dawkins has been much derided in the English media for his dig at Peter Kay. Kay believes in a God because he finds it comforting. Dawkins denounced this as 'how can you take someone seriously because they believe in God because they find it comforting'. The general gist of the response was what a

[Harry]

great post Omer


Personally I don't read too much in the science lark, as regards God existing it's a hard one. I've had some very personal tragedies happens to my family, and it comforts me to think we'd meet up again. Believing that they have been eaten by worms and are part of nature only disturbs me, I'd much rather believe there's more to it, and to be honest I do believe we're only on a beginners coursehere on Earth, what's around the corner I don't know, but it's illogical for me to believe there's nothing else there.


It's illogical not to believe in God full stop I think.


Different Strokes for Different Folks I think.

[Balla Boy]

Admirable rhetorical energy there, EO, but rather missing the point I think.


The big bang is a theory - a robust one, but a theory. It's robust because it fits with other known and observable phenomena. So no points there.


Theories aren't like beliefs. That's just rhetorical sleight of hand. Theories are there to be assessed, analysed and disproven where relevant. Beliefs proscribe the need for further investigation.


I've met lots of very senior scientists, as it goes. Many of the most senior scientists in the UK. And hadlenghty discussions with them. I don't see the relevance of that though.


Before the big bang, there was nothing. It didn't come from anywhere, because it was nothing. Then there was a singularity. That became something. Not blind faith - just the point at which the likes of you and I stop understanding the physics. I don't understand how my skin regenerates itself either. Fortunately, this has yet to lead to it ceasing to do so.


And everyone is quite entitled to believe in God. They just can't expect not to have those beliefs analysed and criticised by others. The right to belief does not equate to your beliefs not being criticised by others.


The point that you miss is that a lack of knowledge isn't fatal to science - it's a spur to the acquisition of further knowledge. It's not in any way reasonable to argue that becuase science can't fully explain an element of the big bang, it must have been started by an all powerful being.


If people choose to believe, then there's not much that can be done I suppose. But if people choose to believe what they find comforting rather than applying their critical functions to the world around them, then in the long term we're truly screwed. Because it's easier to believe that we can't fix poverty, and it's easier to believe that we aren't responsible for global warming, and it's easier to believe that all the injustice we see in the world will be magically rectified elsewhere.


Religion is all well and good as a comfort blanket, but it always has and always will limit our sense of agency in our own existance.

[Harry]

I don't understand what you mean by this Balla..


But if people choose to believe what they find comforting rather than applying their critical functions to the world around them, then in the long term we're truly screwed.


Explain to me what my critical functions are? You're making it sound that those who believe in things that are not factually proven are going to destroy humanity.


ps I don't want to ha ve a massive conversation about this, you are the Soloman of the forum, I know this, tisn't often I question you.

[dipstick]

I am not a scientist EO but I feel that science offers at least a rational explanation for some of the great mysteries of life. For example Darwin's natural selection provides a logical and yet to be proven wrong explanation of theevolution of life. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable in the sense that it is possible theoretically to make an observation that the theory or proposition was false, even if it's never made. Faith does not offer that privilege. You have to take it at face value and that's it. I have no problem with this at all, but I feel one should have the option of an explanation at least. Some people don't require this and more power to them.


As regards the Big Bang and so forth, these are theories not blind faith. Hubble was able to show the existence of cosmic radiation whichscientists were looking for as evidence to back up the BB theory. The point I'm making is that theories at least are backed up by evidence. Religion doesn't seem to offer this although I know the Creationists would disagree strongly here. Interestingly, the Creationists who believe in the story of creation accordingto the bible use scientific means to further their case.


I don't know much about miracles except the match against Gloucester and I suppose if miracles can happen, one happened that night. I'm being a bit facetious and I apologise. I agree with you about Dawkin's personality though. He is well read, well informed and well connected. He makes no secret of this and the fact that according to him the more intelligent a person is the more likely he or she is to be an atheist. Now if that's not a superiority complex I don't know what is.


I started this post as I felt that though not religious myself that Dawkin'streatisedidn't entirely convince me. Maybe I'll have to talk with some of his atheisticfriends in Mensa or work on my intellect a bit more. Too many hard nights may have dulled my faculties perhaps. Or maybe Dawkins is talking through his hole, a black hole, no doubt.

[Harry]

its a shame i don't have any grass I'd love to have a massive reifer now and discuss this further Dipstick. One day we'll be able to pass a joint through the net. Bring it on.


Hawkin's is a liar.

[danthefan]

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but a lot of people don't seem to know the difference between the general meaning of the word "theory" and the concept of a scientific theory. They're totally different things. For example, gravity is a scientific theory. You can test it, verify it experimentally, compare these results with your theoretical mathematics, etc. It is also open to correction, it only takes one case of gravity not being observed to blow it out of the water.

[dipstick]

its a shame i don't have any grass I'd love to have a massive reifer now and discuss this further Dipstick. One day we'll be able to pass a joint through the net. Bring it on.


Hawkin's is a liar.

Sorry to hear about your family's misfortunes Harry. As I have said if religion helps why not? As regards passing the joint through the net I had roast beef already today and I'm like a fat sausage at this stage. Oh! you meant a different type of joint did you?

[Harry]

[img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]


Dan is going to makea whopper too!

[Balla Boy]

I don't understand what you mean by this Balla..


But if people choose to believe what they find comforting rather than applying their critical functions to the world around them, then in the long term we're truly screwed.


Explain to me what my critical functions are? You're making it sound that those who believe in things that are not factually proven are going to destroy humanity.


ps I don't want to ha ve a massive conversation about this, you are the Soloman of the forum, I know this, tisn't often I question you.

Can't claim any Solomon titles after the unfortunate baby dividing episode in Mallow (it worked in the book) but my point was that if we're to fix most of the problems around us, we have to engage with the world and accept that we are the masters of our own fate. No one is coming to rescue us or sort it out on our behalf.


Religion (at least christiaanity) has always encouraged the belief that suffering should be borne in anticipation of rewards to come.


Ultimately, the things that it's comfortable to believe aren't always right and believing what we prefer rather that what we can establish is true is a dangerous habit.

[Old Dog]

I think that he meant Soloman Rushdie, BB! He's probably placeda Fatwah on you,valid in Douglas City and itsenvirons.

[daveirl]

Let me ask you something, any of you ever seen the big bang? Seen the photographic proof? The video evidence? Nope then surely that means it can't be real? Isn't that the scientific argument against religion, you haven't seen the proof, it's all just fairy tales.


Ah I hear you say but scientists tell us they can prove it. Really? How, their theories suggest according to their rules it may have happened. But aren't theories like beliefs and isn't blind faith in belief's to be laughed at and ridiculed as being pathetic and feeble minded?

There's plenty of proof of the Big Bang. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...background_rad iation