Dawkins in a Nutshell

[Miranda]

I was discussing some of the things that were said on this forum with someone else which prompted them to write this essay. I am not qualified to answer anything about the science but wondered what comments anyone would make in answer to the points raised in it, as piece of literature. The person who wrote it isn't on the internet but I will pass any comments on to them, if no one minds.

Miranda


Dawkins in a Nutshell.

In one discussion the question cropped up of proof of God. In our society if a man murders his wife but no body can be found the man can still be indicted for murder providing the circumstantial evidence is strong enough.
Consider then the quite unique circumstances governing man’s creation on the basis of the Big Bang theory. This is said to have occurred 15 000 million years ago. The explosion dispersed vast clouds of gaseous debris in the form of Hydrogen and Helium “atoms” which ‘happened’ to consist of three distinct ‘bits’. These bits were kept separated by an amazing electrical force that ‘appeared’. This kept one bit spinning round the other two bits called the nucleus, rather like we go round the sun. Then from ‘somewhere’ came another force called gravity. This force caused whirlpools of atoms to draw together till after an unspecified number of millions of years, they condensed so much that by the pressure they became white-hot furnaces called suns.
After more unspecified millions of years some suns get old and gradually shrink exerting such unimaginable pressure in their centres that the very nuclei of atoms - which usually repel, have so little room to move that a few are actually forced into unnatural embraces before they fly apart in horror. But before they can undo their guilty liaisons, they have become united in abortions known as the isotope Beryllium 8. This exists only until the divorce, a thousand billionth of a second after the marriage. But help is at hand. A few nuclei of helium nearby are forced on to the unwilling partners at that split second and settles their differences by joining them in new more stable relationships called carbons. This is the most rapid marriage and productive settlement ever known!
Now, it is thought whole chunks of flaming debris from various collisions of suns and perhaps other more solid accretions unspecified in space, formed into planets. These were caught and held exact distances by speed and gravity to circle the suns practically forever, and ours is one. But ours is very unique. From ‘somewhere’ its deep gorges were filled with water. What’s more it ‘acquired’ an atmospheric mixture of gases including oxygen and nitrogen so clouds can form and stop the sun frying everything below, including lunatics called sunbathers who came into being much later by the following assumed system. ‘Somewhere’ ‘somehow’, a pool became contaminated with various ingredients including the miraculous carbon without which no organic growth could start. In this witches brew acids formed, first R.N.A. and then from that to D.N.A. Then some real magic! A very special ‘membrane’ which is permeable for sustenance to pass through, somehow forms itself and wraps itself round some of each of the the two acids to enclose them in a structure we call a cell. Inside the new cell the two acids entwine lovingly and ‘exchange information’ with each other - like how to make a baby human or an elephant, though so far they have no ‘life’. However they don’t know where the life comes from.
So biologists like Darwin and Dawkins leave that little problem, and all the incredible ‘chance’ happenings before that, and start to form theories to feed to children as our origins, whereby a chance process appears which they call ‘natural selection’ and which supposedly does away with a controlling intelligence.
Well circumstantial evidence, as good as that by which we judge a man has murdered and disposed of his wife, I have now briefly outlined here to indicate that this particular intelligence does exist and is called God.

[GatsbyTheGreat]

I think you chose the wrong board to put this on. I'm not saying it doesn't belong here, just that most people here probably dont have a very extensive scientific background. But I could be wrong, who knows? Anyway, nobody has responded to this yet, so you should probably consider taking it to a science-based forum, rather than a literature one.
Now, to address the essay. I know I am about to expose my ignorance in the field of science, but could it be that science simply does not yet understand the universe well enough to fill in these holes? I am no scientist, so I'm afraid thats the best I can do. :blush: Since the essay holds religious content it is perfectly on topic here, but I think you would find more answers to this on a board that specializes in scientific query.

[emily655321]

I disagree. It doesn't intend to discuss science.

[GatsbyTheGreat]

Yeah, obviously it is biased, but I would be interested in hearing someone counter that theory. It could in the least spark intelligent debate.

[emily655321]

I call your bluff. Go for it. ;)

[crisaor]

I agree, it's not about science. I'm no scientist, but I do think that there is a lot of stuff that hasn't beeen provided with a suitable explanation. God would be a perfect way of explaining those holes in scientific theories (how convenient), but that doesn't explain them really, it's not an answer, it's just a way of not asking the question.

[cuppajoe_9]

The problem with this debate is that the atheist is supposed to have all the answers. You ask "Well where did the universe come from, if there isn't a God?" I don't know. I have absoultely no idea. If I did know that I would deserve, and probably get, a Nobel Prize. My field of experties is not the origin of the universe, but rather the works of fiction written therein several billion years after the fact. The theist, on the other hand, can easily answer question of that nature because they have an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, all-powerful and (if I may say so) highly improbable man with a white beard on thier side. Worse: there is almost by definition no argument that can be given that would show to the satisfaction of the theist that the existance of God is highly improbable. It's a debate that can't be won, so don't bother. Let the physicists get on with their work and try not to get too worked up by the anti-atheists.

[ShoutGrace]

there is a gap before the big bang

Clarify, please.


Theists seize on these gaps and use them to seize the oppurtunity that since science can't explain everything immediately it must be wrong. They suggest the alternative, what they call a god, who created everything and this neatly fixes all those bothersome questions.

I'm glad to see you know how theists operate.

Just because I'd like to say that God created the Universe doesn't mean that I know how He did it. Why can't there be gaps there too? Interesting is the methodological atheism going on here (this is more, at root, a philosophical issue): should the scientist (or historian, or any scholar) immediately exclude the possibility of anything supernatural? There have been some good debates on that front recently.

How can we look at the origins of this Universe and say that it is more probable that God does not exist? The clearest evidence for the probability of God's existence comes from cosmology.


Let the physicists get on with their work.

I can hardly wait for the advances in cosmology and astrophysics (if our knowledge in these areas continues to progress, which it should?).


highly improbable man with a white beard on thier side.

Why improbable? Maybe we should start a thread. :D

[cuppajoe_9]

Just because I'd like to say that God created the Universe doesn't mean that I know how He did it.

And again, if you did, you would likely recieve a Nobel Prize.


I can hardly wait for the advances in cosmology and astrophysics (if our knowledge in these areas continues to progress, which it should?).

It's been advancing more or less steadily since Copernicus, there's no reason why it should stop now.


Why improbable? Maybe we should start a thread. :D

Well, mostly because of all the adjectives I wrote before 'improbable' and also because, if what the cosmological theists claim is true, this thing was the first thing that ever existed. (Please note: any use of the phrase "God exists outside of time" without a very clear explanation of what, exactly, that means will result in great frustration on my part.)

[mks100]

Well circumstantial evidence, as good as that by which we judge a man has murdered and disposed of his wife, I have now briefly outlined here to indicate that this particular intelligence does exist and is called God.

This is a cleverly written prose suggesting that even thinking what scientists makes you as ridiculous as their ideas. Using pseudo-scientific language as this author does merely serves to misinform and mislead. The fact is that gaps in our knowledge do exist - there is a gap before the big bang, gaps in the different steps of evolution, etc. Scientists are continually working to close these gaps. When they do, in the course of plugging a gap they may create two smaller sized gaps on each side, and so on ad infinitum until we know everything. That day will probably never come, but we do know an awful lot already.

Theists seize on these gaps and use them to seize the oppurtunity that since science can't explain everything immediately it must be wrong. They suggest the alternative, what they call a god, who created everything and this neatly fixes all those bothersome questions. No need for science! God answers all those difficult questions for us! Furthermore this god as well as creating the universe (6000 years ago wasn't it?) hangs around to keep an eye on all of us, listens to what we all say, think and watched what we do (simultaneously). Sorry, but give me logical reasoning and actually trying to work out what did happen any day over hiding in the corner and saying that the answer to any question is "god".

[mks100]

Clarify, please.

I mean we don't know what happened before the big bang



...should the scientist (or historian, or any scholar) immediately exclude the possibility of anything supernatural? There have been some good debates on that front recently.

Absolutely so if there is no evidence to verify such possibilities



How can we look at the origins of this Universe and say that it is more probable that God does not exist? The clearest evidence for the probability of God's existence comes from cosmology.

The concept of probability is an interesting one. The idea that there is a god or there isn't - hence 50% probability each way is overly simplistic.

What evidence is there from cosmology for god's existence?

How do you correlate the religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old but yet scientists have dated it as much, much longer?

Also, the OP's original details about the Big Bang were written using lots of inverted commas, suggesting the what they were talking about was rubbish. Bill Bryson's excellent book "The Short History of Nearly Everything" provides a nice neat account of what is known about this. Of course it is just a theory, but at least it a theory based on evidence and observation, not on ancient texts, authority and tradition.

I came across a quote by Darwin recently that i thought was interesting:


"I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in god has been used by many persons as an argument for this existence. Bt this is a rash argument... the idea of a universal and beneficient creator of the universe does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."

Incidentally, since this is a literature forum, all of these ideas are expanded upon in Richard Dawkin's excellent book "The God Delusion".

[rufioag]

I think it all boils down to the idea of, can something come from nothing and by this I mean can material items come from nothing? Can something spontaneously create itself and in that, why, if space is infinite in area with no boundaries as we should assume(do you agree?), why should all these particles randomly form at the same place or in such a way that would create enough gravitational pull to pull every bit of substance to a particular spot?

I find it hard to grasp the idea that at some point in time(or over a period of time) matter could spontaneously create itself.

Of course, these are difficult questions and can be expanded on to such a degree that its a never ending cycle of beliefs.

[ShoutGrace]

I mean we don't know what happened before the big bang


You're assuming that something happened before the Big Bang. In fact, you need for something to happen before the Big Bang.



Absolutely so if there is no evidence to verify such possibilities

Of course, but the question is obviously much more complicated than that. Human ideology comes into play when people have to decide whether something could be supernatural in origin or not.

I'm going to have to examine my Hume, he was the one who said a lot about this.



The concept of probability is an interesting one. The idea that there is a god or there isn't - hence 50% probability each way is overly simplistic.


I find the entire "probabilty" exercise misappropriated, and for all practical purposes worthless. The most rigorous atheist/theist debates have centered on the topic "Is it more probable that God exists?"

Which is why I even mention it.




What evidence is there from cosmology for god's existence?


I'll scavenge here, the best evidence is obviously the Big Bang:

From Nasa:



The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.


Painfully simplistic, yet fundamentally what I'm getting at.


The Big Bang model tells us that both physical space and time itself came into existence at a specific point in the finite past (I have come to the conclusion that 'time' is entered in because without material, attributing time to nothingness is illogical).

Before the Big Bang, we had the singularity.

[ In the beginning (about 8 to 15 billion years ago) the universe in which we inhabit did not exist. In its place there was an incredibly dense region referred to as a singularity.

1. we are not sure where 'singularity' came from
2. we are not sure of its properties
3. we are not sure how old it was
4. we are not even sure if time (i.e., causation) had meaning in the beginning.

All we really know for sure are those events that followed singularity. That is, observations made billions of years later (i.e., recently) are consistent with some concept of singularity: an extremely hot and dense universal beginning. ]

As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University says, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the Universe came from nothing, and by nothing."

There are a mulititude of theories concerning the origin of the Universe, thought none as widely and greatly accepted and studied as the Big Bang. Hawking/Harte's Quantam Gravity Model (which is a variant of the Big Bang) has received the most attention. I can post more about that if anyone wants. The best evidence, however, indicates that the Universe did in fact begin to exist. Theist philosophers then ask, What was the Universe's cause?

1. Everything (material) that begins to exist had a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause

Premise 1 is safe because it is rooted in the metaphysical truth mentioned above, namely, 'out of nothing, nothing comes'.

The crucial premise is premise 2. If premise 2 can be proven (and it may or may not be able to, though the evidence more than suggests it) then premise 3 follows logically and inescapably.



Robinhood3000 commented earlier on Anthony Kenney's comments, which tie into your above: something occuring before the Big Bang.




Initially, many scientists rejected the Big Bang theory because they thought it was religious in nature. The prevailing view at the time was that the universe was eternal, having always existed. Some felt the idea that the universe had a beginning would imply a creator (see Kalam cosmological argument), which would be unscientific.[32] These connotations troubled astronomer Fred Hoyle and others, who developed the now discredited steady state theory as an alternative to the Big Bang which would allow for an eternal universe. Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington had no such qualms, arguing that evidence of a Big Bang and start to the universe made "religion possible for a reasonable man of science."




How do you correlate the religious view that the earth is 6,000 years old but yet scientists have dated it as much, much longer?


Which religious view is that? Aren't there religious views that hold contradictory datings?

How did scientists date the age of the earth (we are both well acquainted with how, I imagine, my question is leading in nature).



Also, the OP's original details about the Big Bang were written using lots of inverted commas, suggesting the what they were talking about was rubbish. Bill Bryson's excellent book "The Short History of Nearly Everything" provides a nice neat account of what is known about this. Of course it is just a theory, but at least it a theory based on evidence and observation, not on ancient texts, authority and tradition.

I may read the book someday, thanks. Incidentally, cosmology is generally considered to be based on evidence and observation.


I came across a quote by Darwin recently that i thought was interesting:

Maybe interesting, though I can't figure out what it has to do with anything.


"I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in god has been used by many persons as an argument for this existence.

Darwin is relating something infantile in nature. Whoever those people are that believe that their belief is a sign of his existence haven't thought about it long enough.

The argument doesn't withstand philosophical scrutiny, obviously. Why has it even been mentioned? :confused: :confused: :confused:



Incidentally, since this is a literature forum, all of these ideas are expanded upon in Richard Dawkin's excellent book "The God Delusion".

There are a lot better atheist pieces than Dawkin's latest. Here is the New York Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?ei=5070&en=195e37668e296438&ex=1162962000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1162844513-sABjyTo5AO7VHKKXSsI7zA

[ennison]

Mr Dawkins is rather a lightweight zealot of the English school of atheists. Does God believe in him? I suspect Dawkins is a composite figure, a chimera, a type of altered atheist reality. Recent extracts from his 'novel' in the press show the usual frantic malice - and he has such a pleasant face too!

[cuppajoe_9]

Does God believe in him?If God is supposed to be omniscient, then presumeably he does.

[i_rebel]

Atheists do not exist. Being an atheist means to be in the possession of some firm arguments of God's nonentity. Now, who can sustain something like that?

[cuppajoe_9]

Atheists do not exist.Awww, nuts.


Being an atheist means to be in the possession of some firm arguments of God's nonentity. Now, who can sustain something like thatLast time I checked, being an atheist meant not believing in deities. However the 'no evidence whatsoever for God's existance' argument holds quite a bit of water, if you ask me.

[Tiresias]

i do think that the burden of proof lies with those who both affirm and deny a statement. this is obviously difficult for thiests (because first they need to affirm exactly what "god" means) and for athiests - who do have to deal with the paradox generated by "ex nihil nihilo fit". if everything physical has a cause it is like the chicken and the egg, and saying that something physical has always existed - well....if you are seeking truth then you have to confront it sometime? and of course there are the "laws" of nature to deal with. no matter about how we affirm them (hume) but rather how can a set of things that appear beyond the physical affect the physical? you might say that they are generated by the physical, but if they also keep the physical in order then we are faced with another chicken and egg scenario. one link that you may find interesting www.theory-of-reciprocity.com - read this late last night but still seems interesting

[i_rebel]

Awww, nuts.

Let's not become to familiarly, ok? Hope you agree.


Last time I checked, being an atheist meant not believing in deities. However the 'no evidence whatsoever for God's existance' argument holds quite a bit of water, if you ask me.

Obviously my english general knowledge is keeping me away from expressing myself as I want to. So... I'm going to try one more time.

Atheism means denial of
- God's existance
- any knowledge about God
(of any deities, actually)
There are many forms of atheism.
Atheism comes from a false conception about God. Intelligence can not prove God’s nonentity nor science, but practically, humans doubt and live according to an atheistic morality against their own coscience. In reality, there are no true atheists, but people who believe they don’t believe in God. To deny God, with your mind, you need proofs.

Thank you

[ghideon]

Does God exist? Geez...better minds then many(Plato,Descartes,Kant,Sartre)have struggled to figure out if anything at all exists and if something does exists is it ever possible to actually know anything about it.
If there is one thing I know about God it is that I will never,ever, know close to one half of one percent of God's nature.
Does God exist? God transcends existence. God is beyond being. If there is a force that we have named God then by its very nature we may never be able to prove this entity is real.
Dawkin's has an agenda. I have not read his book and I probably wont. But I certainly hope that he is upfront about what he wants. Because I don't like the man. I do not admire those who stand on a soap box and pontificate, no, chastize those who stand on other soap boxes.
Right now, in 2006 billions of human beings will read something, hear something and then with very little questioning pledge life and limb to the zealot.
Humility. That is what the world needs right now and in a big big way. We need to really figure out how to talk to each other with respect while asking hard and difficult questions. I know I am pretty much making an argument here but really I want to find a better way of dialouge. Yes/No. Right/Wrong. God is/God is not.
Using Western Reason and its sibling Rationality(which is not the only paradigm out there...nor does it have the greatest of track records in many important moral ways) to determine whether God exists? Problematic.
I write this hoping to be a humble, irrational, Jewish intellectual. I got alot of work ahead of me. Oh, and my mother was in the CP when she raised me. That's Communist Party for those not in the know. But shhhh...Big Bro is listening.

[byquist]

If you can find it there's a good little essay of Nov. 17th by David P. Barash called "The Social Responsibility in Teaching Sociobiology" in The Chronicle of Higher Education, pinpointing Dawkins as a pusher of self-interest in his Selfish Gene book. Barash see something more going on, altruism for its own sake.

[ennison]

Ah young Cuppajoe strikes again. Yes God is aware of his existence. In a hundred years God will still be aware of him but the world will have forgotten him. Such a shame but his bank balance is improving and why should I grudge him that temporary joy.

[ennison]

A hundred years yes and for eternity, but that is such an unimaginable length of time for created beings a hundred years will do for most of us to mean a long, long time.

[ghideon]

Awww, nuts.

Last time I checked, being an atheist meant not believing in deities. However the 'no evidence whatsoever for God's existance' argument holds quite a bit of water, if you ask me.

Fair enough but we are talking about the big G here...God and I would think that if this eternal, infinite, all surrounding, omnipotent,transcendent,force wanted to hide itself from mere mortals then that would pose few difficulties for God and quite a few for use humans.

Do you have enough faith in our ability to gather evidence and examine it that we are ready and able to determine if God is real? I don't.

Hey...I think there should be another CSI show...CSI Divinity. Although that does imply that God has committed a crime and...well I hope the All Mighty would forgive me for that thought.:) Afterall, ratings week is upon us.

[Orionsbelt]

Well I haven't read this man's book. However it seems to me that this is a very well dramatized version of the same old argument. "The universe is big and hard to understand for me therefore it must have been created by this really powerful, smart, all pervading force." While this is an appealing conclusion, it does not necessarily follow. My ability to understand, however large or small, complicate or otherwise has no relationship to the facts. I cannot conclude anything based on the fact that something is hard to understand and seems complicated and improbable. Maybe it’s just the math that’s hard. Maybe I can conclude that I am not as bright as I think I am. That often appears to be the case especially if you ask my wife and friends. I personally think it was an accident caused when one of the little gods stuck a finger in the nuclear reactor! The big gods have been trying to clean it up ever since but they keep getting people and such stuck on the planets. While I agree that it is all very amazing. This seems to me to be just intelligent design on a different scale. PS the concept of the atom was first conceived by the Greeks. We have simply seen fit to expand on it somewhat.:thumbs_up

[pixordia]

Apparently Richard dawkins is coming to the University nearby where I live in Februaray.
I will be interested to go and listen to him.
Somehow I can't help feeling within, that there is a higher power.
I agree a lot with what Ghideon has stated and believe the key to peace and harmony in the world is humility and service to others.
There is something very empowering in being able to give of yourself to others and not feel servile.
Think about it.
It is the true essence of love and good.
Pix

[Orionsbelt]

Somehow I can't help feeling within, that there is a higher power.
I agree a lot with what Ghideon has stated and believe the key to peace and harmony in the world is humility and service to others. It is the true essence of love and good.
Pix

I agree with you. I think "science" gives us a look at things that make me stand in complete and stunned amazement. I have no handy explaination. I try hard to resist sticking things in the same old can. I think this prevent people from seeing more clearly. My opinion is that linking these amazing discoveries back to the same old stuff also fuels false justifications. Others, including the animals and plants, and this little orb is all that we have. I'll be content to stay right here in heaven.

[cuppajoe_9]

Fair enough but we are talking about the big G here...God and I would think that if this eternal, infinite, all surrounding, omnipotent,transcendent,force wanted to hide itself from mere mortals then that would pose few difficulties for God and quite a few for use humans.Fair enough, but I see no reason what his motivation might be for doing that, and, even if he had, he could not possibly grudge my disbelief in something that he has intentionally concealed all the evidence for.

Atheism comes from a false conception about God. Intelligence can not prove God’s nonentity nor science, but practically, humans doubt and live according to an atheistic morality against their own coscience. You are assuming that atheism leads to or is synonymous with immorality. It doesn't and isn't.

In reality, there are no true atheists, but people who believe they don’t believe in God. To deny God, with your mind, you need proofs.There is no such thing as a negative proof. You cannot prove that something does not exist. I cannot prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto, but I don't believe that there is one anyway. This is not to say that the evidence for God is on par with the evidence for Plutonian teapots, but it is still hardly enough to convince me. To quote Asimov: "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

[ghideon]

Quote:Originally Posted by ghideon
...we are talking about the big G here...God and I would think that if this eternal, infinite, all surrounding, omnipotent,transcendent,force wanted to hide itself from mere mortals then that would pose few difficulties for God and quite a few for use humans.

Quote: Originally Posted by cuppajoe
Fair enough, but I see no reason what his motivation might be for doing that, and, even if he had, he could not possibly grudge my disbelief in something that he has intentionally concealed all the evidence for.

Good reply. I was arguing that just because human beings have not yet detected evidence of God does not convince me that God does not exist. There is,imho,an arrogance in the "we lack evidence" claim because 1)it assumes that our ability to gather evidence is advanced enough to make such a profound claim. And I do not believe that our current scientific methods are adequate as of yet. 2)The claim that we have used our rational methodology and determined that God does not exist lowers God to the level of planets,sub-atomic particles, gravity and black holes and other objects that we have discovered.
If there is a God then I assume it is a spirit,essence,being-ness that transcends all essences, that transcends all subject-object relations, that is beyond all categories that have been constructed(at least in the West)to understand our universe. And with that said I believe that now, at the dawn of the 21st century, we are still not at a stage in concsciousness where we can "detect" that which is neither subject or object.
Some may say that the nature of certain sub-sub-sub atomic particles(that they can be in two places at the same time and other such magical properties)means that we can detect aspects of nature that go beyond our common assumptions. I would counter that, these recent discoveries show that we are now on the edge of a reality far far stranger than anything we could have imagined.
It is as if we have scaled a great mountain and on the very top the view is quite grand. We now see so much more then we ever did before and at the same time we also see other mountains higher still and our celebration of victory is humbled by the truth that we are still so far from the heavens, still so far from that which I can not speak of, that which has not yet been named.




Quote originally posted by Cuppajoe:
;) There is no such thing as a negative proof. You cannot prove that something does not exist. I cannot prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto, but I don't believe that there is one anyway.

Oh, and just a note about trying to prove a negative. Not to stray too far from this topic of God but a few weeks ago a major player in US Nuclear Policy explained that the Bush administration uses the "prove a negative" trick to indict nations such as Iran and Iraq. First we may send in UN Inspectors and they may come up with evidence that needs to be examined more thoroughly...perhaps they have questions about a nation's use of certain technologies connected to nuclear weapons. But then a funny thing happens, Bush forces these nations, that are now simply being questioned, to come up with proof that they do not have nuclear weapons, proof that they are not attempting to construct such weapons. And, as you most certainly understand, that is not possible. Iran can not prove that they are not trying to build nukes because no matter what they state there can be 100 more questions that can be asked. "Sure you say that there is no weapons grade plutonium but perhaps you are hiding it underground?" "No" "Well, can you prove that you are not hiding it?" "I want you to let us look in every single Iranians home and every single school and every store, cafe,supermarket and workplace and every govt building" then I am sure we will discover something.
And, ofcourse, if they did that there would be even more questions since there would be thousands and thousands of additional data to be examined and questioned.
The more I read about philosophy the more I seem to understand the dirt and mud of politics. But hey, that is rather Platonic of me...lol.;)

[ennison]

Apparently there is a golf ball in orbit round the earth. Well I looked and looked last night but dash me if I could see it. Would I have needed a bigger telescope, better eyesight or more faith? Maybe all three.
If an observer on a very distant planet had a good enough instrument she would be able to see what happened on Earth several thousand (or more) years ago. So the past, your past, is out there accelerating away to a galaxy nowhere near you. What an odd idea!!

[cuppajoe_9]

There is,imho,an arrogance in the "we lack evidence" claim because 1)it assumes that our ability to gather evidence is advanced enough to make such a profound claim. And I do not believe that our current scientific methods are adequate as of yet. 2)The claim that we have used our rational methodology and determined that God does not exist lowers God to the level of planets,sub-atomic particles, gravity and black holes and other objects that we have discovered.Again, I do not claim to have any positive evidence of an 'ungod', nor do most scientists, Dawkins included. An 'ungod' would be even more difficult to come up with evidence for than a god who is intentionally concealing himself. The fact remains that I still have yet to encounter any empirical evidence or a priori argument that would lead me to the conclusion that any sort of deities exist. I do not think I am being arogant in that calim.
Apparently there is a golf ball in orbit round the earth. Well I looked and looked last night but dash me if I could see it. Would I have needed a bigger telescope, better eyesight or more faith? Maybe all three.I am not quite sure what to make of this. Are you saying that my position that there is no teapot in orbit around Pluto is unsound?

[ennison]

A Russian cosmonaut whacked a golfball off from the space station. Not the first time they've done that kind of high profile publicity stunt. Really I guess he could have launched a teapot too - if there had been money in it. My point is the idea of seeing the past from a huge distance away. (What we see of the stars is not as they are but as they were) You would need some sort of special powerful telescope to see the detail of our individual lives. A technologically advanced civilisation many light years away might have such an instrument and may be tuning in to watch the Battle of Thermopylae live now. (A sort of Roman theatre.) God certainly has that ability and doesn't need the telescope.

[cuppajoe_9]

I heard about the golfball stunt. I suppose if your job is to play Flash Gordon, you're allowed a bit of silliness from time to time, although from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of astrophysics, the chances that the golfball actually went into orbit, as opposed to simply crashing into the atmosphere and disintergrating, are rather slim.
My point is the idea of seeing the past from a huge distance away. (What we see of the stars is not as they are but as they were) You would need some sort of special powerful telescope to see the detail of our individual lives. A technologically advanced civilisation many light years away might have such an instrument and may be tuning in to watch the Battle of Thermopylae live now. (A sort of Roman theatre.) God certainly has that ability and doesn't need the telescope.I am still quite at a loss as to what this has to do with Russell's Teapot.

[aeroport]

although from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of astrophysics, the chances that the golfball actually went into orbit, as opposed to simply crashing into the atmosphere and disintergrating, are rather slim.

Physically impossible, if I'm not mistaken, considering that the force of gravity on earth is really not that powerful. A golfball would indeed be hard-pressed to compete...

[Orionsbelt]

As an asside the golf ball will be in orbit or destroyed depending on which dirction it was hit. If it was hit toward the seventh green at Augusta National, it probably burned up on the way. If it was hit toward the the fourth pin in the sea of tranquility, it is probably still headed that way to this day.

Teapot - speculation no proof may or may not be there.

Golf ball - observed fact

god - see teapot. unless you CHOOSE to believe. Then it's a place in the dinning room where you would put the teapot when you find it but you work around in the meantime.

[ennison]

Eh I didn't observe any golf ball. Nonetheless I suspect it may be a fact. So I choose to believe it. It's an act of faith in some scientists/reporters/commentators/ observers etc. Still I also believe because, perhaps, I choose to that they're mostly looking through the wrong end of the telescope at the wrong things.

[Wintermute]

God certainly has that ability and doesn't need the telescope.

God? Which God?

[Wintermute]

It's absolute certainty that scares me. In this amazing, gigantic universe how can anyone be 100% certain they know what's really going on--that their idea of a creator is the right one? I'd be willing to bet the goobers that crashed the planes into the wtc were 100% certain. Does faith imply certainty? Anyway, I'm with you CuppaJoe, I've yet to see any evidence.

[ennison]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Is there any point believing something if you think it is not true.
I'll bet they did an all but neither of us will make much dough on that one.

[JGL57]

I suppose Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" might be an interesting read for someone who has never read anything like it before - ditto the anti-theism books of Sam Harris. But I read books essentially like these thirty or more years ago - nothing new under the sun and all that.

The atheist vs. theist debate is stupid - not because I say so, just look at the facts. - People arguing about the existence of something outside of the purview of science? It's a trivial debate at best, like Notre Dame vs. USC football - which is superior? Ha.

My view on morality and "religion" and ontology has been stated quite eloquently by Col. Robert F. Ingersoll, Albert Einstein, and Joseph Campbell - all dead white men, sure, but some dead white men were pretty sharp in their time. :lol: The guy we know as the Buddha seems to have had some good ideas also (except for that reincarnation thing - that seems highly implausible to me).

Point is, I am happy with my “beliefs” – and happy to discuss them with anyone as an intellectual exercise. The thing is - people are just going to believe whatever the heck they are bound to believe, and so if they just agree to obey the law then problem solved. We can all just ignore proselytizers, i.e., those who are agitated and are SERIOUS about the idea that it is very IMPORTANT that all agree with them – ignore them, that is, or tell them to go take a flying leap. :D

[ennison]

Well since the states that made atheism their spiritual foundation have all been intolerant and exceeedingly brutal compared with the worst theocracy then the debate is not stupid and making the small horizon of science the parameter for debate is too limiting for human beings. You are quite right you can always ignore someone who wants you to share her beliefs. I practise that constantly and have almost got it off pat but oops I failed here

[JGL57]

Well since the states that made atheism their spiritual foundation have all been intolerant and exceeedingly brutal compared with the worst theocracy then the debate is not stupid...

Atheism a spiritual foundation? What the heck does that even mean?

Also, I believe you are confusing or conflating atheism with various secular fanaticisms or ideologies. That is not nice. That's the equivalent of identifying Baptists with the KKK or the Catholic church with child molestation or Lutherans with mass murder.

Some millions of people in the U.S. today identify themselves as atheists, with a total of close to 20 million identifying themselves as, at the least, non-religious.

And you would think that this is the cohort that would be the source of most immorality and violence in the U.S. today? And your evidence for this would be..... what?

[Guzmán]

Well since the states that made atheism their spiritual foundation have all been intolerant and exceeedingly brutal compared with the worst theocracy then the debate is not stupid and making the small horizon of science the parameter for debate is too limiting for human beings. You are quite right you can always ignore someone who wants you to share her beliefs. I practise that constantly and have almost got it off pat but oops I failed here

1)"states that made atheism their spiritual foundation have all been intolerant and exceeedingly brutal compared with the worst theocracy"
Im not too keen on history, but what about the Inquisition, or the countless holly wars there have been in the name of Christianity or any other religion.

2)I live in Uruguay which I doubt anyone woul call an atheist country in regards to demographics, however we do have a history of secularism and there is no official religion. I have yet to see the intolerant and exceedingly brutal society you talk about. Im very proud to say we have had a stable democracy for some time and there has always been freedom of creed. Reading what is posted on these forums im surprised at how we live in different worlds; before joining this forum i had never in my life encountered anyone who believed in creationism and whenever I read news about education boards in the states trying topull evolution or add creationism to the biology program it surprises me how that would never happen in Uruguay.

3)Im also baffled at the views on science and belief that have been aired on this and other similar threads. I am no epistemologist and i am not a scientist, yet. However I have been studying physics and mathematics on the University for almost four years now. You might also say that scientific thought has been around me for all my life: both my parents have phds in biology (they research on cellular biology and biophysics at the University) so throughout my life ive had first hand accounts on topics that have generated much debate in the religion-science issue, evolution and stem-cell research, for instance. After this rambling introduction let me give you my account on
scientific thought and its difference (and even opposition) with religious belief:
In science the gathering of evidence leads to the creation of a theorical model or a theory, most likelñy based on earlier theories, that describes the behaviour (mispelled probably) of the world. This theory is then again contrasted with experiments and if it is not falsed (not sure of the correct English word here) it is then held to be the most probable explanation. There is no faith involved in this process. Nor is there belief.

To me science is looking at the world with your eyes open, through reason. Faith is looking at it with your eyes closed.

[Guzmán]

Sorry if the last post may have been a bit long, this is a subject which I (maybe all of us I guess) have strong feelings about. Anyway, here's an extract from Nietzsche's the Antichrist, though maybe it will be fitter for the philosophy forum):

"It was through woman that man learned to taste
of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by
mortal terror. Man himself had been his _greatest_ blunder; he had
created a rival to himself; science makes men _godlike_--it is all up
with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--_Moral_: science is
the forbidden _per se_; it alone is forbidden. Science is the _first_ of
sins, the germ of all sins, the _original_ sin. _This is all there is of
morality._--"Thou shall _not_ know":--the rest follows from that.--God's
mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one
to _protect_ one's self against science? For a long while this was the
capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure,
foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man _must_ not
think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of
childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all,
_sickness_--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles
of man don't _allow_ him to think.... Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the
edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing
the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents _war_; he separates
the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always
had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of
science!--Incredible! Knowledge, _deliverance from the priests_,
prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution:
"Man has become scientific--_there is no help for it: he must be drowned!_"

[ennison]

'Im not too keen on history' So I notice.

[JGL57]

'Im not too keen on history' So I notice.

He at least got the Inquisition and the holy wars right. He did leave out the child molesting priests though, and the KKK, and about a thousand thousand other objections.

When religion ruled it was called the Dark Ages. When the scientific world came into being it was called The Enlighenment. Figure it out, dude.

[ennison]

Objections? Too what? The fact that the atheist states make your historical references look like the very small beer that they are. Ah tender souls.

[JGL57]

Objections? Too what? The fact that the atheist states make your historical references look like the very small beer that they are. Ah tender souls.

The "atheist" states you refer to were communist dictatorships. I've got a news flash for you, dude - not all atheists are or were communists.

Also, communists have only been around for less than a hundred years. Christianity ruled in the west for well over 1300 years. Pointing out the murders of communists is supposed to somehow offset the horror that was Christendom?

If you have to compare your religion to communist dictatorships in order to make it look good then why, exactly, am I supposed to be impressed? Nasty stuff comes in a number of brand names. I'll pass on yours too.

Here's a hint, dude. You are a christian. I am not a communist. You really want to continue this discussion? If so, I'm up for it.

[ennison]

You think the atheist states can be excused by being Marxist as well. Well a confirmed atheist would. Where have you seen a defense of what you refer to as Christendom in the last few posts. I can criticise a restaurant's food without having to open my own. I do not see any necessity to defend the indefensible which you seem to be inviting me to do (like you are doing) Atheists in power have been brutes. The atheist societies of pre-revolutionary Russia rushed to the Bolshevik cause and were ardent supporters of the atrocities. The one good thing about violent revolutions is that they frequently kill their own children once they run out of other victims. So although the atheists still hold power in China to the exclusion of all other groups they are drawing nearer to the horizon of their demise. Have a nice day pal.

[Guzmán]

The one good thing about violent revolutions is that they frequently kill their own children once they run out of other victims. So although the atheists still hold power in China to the exclusion of all other groups they are drawing nearer to the horizon of their demise.

WOW! You must be an atheist!

[ennison]

Ah Guzman anyone with a sense of humour goes up in my opinion. Touche!!

[JGL57]

You think the atheist states can be excused by being Marxist as well. Well a confirmed atheist would. Where have you seen a defense of what you refer to as Christendom in the last few posts. I can criticise a restaurant's food without having to open my own. I do not see any necessity to defend the indefensible which you seem to be inviting me to do (like you are doing) Atheists in power have been brutes. The atheist societies of pre-revolutionary Russia rushed to the Bolshevik cause and were ardent supporters of the atrocities. The one good thing about violent revolutions is that they frequently kill their own children once they run out of other victims. So although the atheists still hold power in China to the exclusion of all other groups they are drawing nearer to the horizon of their demise. Have a nice day pal.

I have no use for communism either - as I posted above and which you for some reason choose to overlook.

The point is I don't have to defend the atrocities in the bible.

Have a nice day your ownself, dude.