Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[joshuajames]

omnidirectional redshift proves the bigbang and since the universe is based on causality the nothingness of the pre-bang state requires a prime mover, an initial cause, which (again, due to the nothingness of pre-bang) cannot be a component OF the universe, it is distinct of the cosmos. it doesn't matter what a you call it, but something (in fact everything) doesn't come from nothing in a causal system, so the only possible arrangement is an eternal "super-cosmological" force with the potential to initiate reality. this is the only thing athiests need to understand before they attack people ad hominem as ignorant and deluded religious drones.

i have yet to hear a single reply to this concept in any discussion about the existence (or necessity of God or supernaturalism). now if you want to move the discussion into an argument on the merits of deism vs. messianism that's completely appropriate and is a good starting point for a dissection of religion in general, but proud athiests really out to go back and instead of performing destructive autopsies on what the assume to be the cadaver of theology, they learn the anatomy of the universe and the rational mind.

if this has already been addressed in the preceding mess, please let me know.

[BoimB son of BoB]

did you know that deeply religious people tend to have some malfunction in the brain... or more correct: overreactivity in a certain region of the brain...something to do with dreaming and halucinations ...

seriously... wish i had a reference for that somewhere...

I would be cautious in using the word 'malfunction', since we know very little about the 'normal' function of the brain. Consider a disease like cystic fibrosis or sickle-cell anemia, which is caused by the 'abnormal' function of a specific gene (CFTR and Beta-globin, respectively). With respect to what the protein should be doing, the function is 'abnormal'. However, a defective CFTR protein reduces water loss during cholera infection, resulting in BETTER than normal survival. Similarly, a defective Beta-globin reduces the ability of the malaria parasite to live inside red blood cells, thus providing BETTER than normal survival from malaria (an incredibly lethal, largely preventable disease).

The point is, 'malfunction' and 'abnormal' are relative terms, which should be used sparingly.

that is Darwin at it's best my friend, and indeed, in natural selection/non-human world there is no 'good' or 'right', like you say it's all relative especially in a changing environment.

[Seyser Koze]

Just an observation from this mornings papers:

1) The segregation of men from women on buses in Israel. Women are being told by the men to sit at the back of the bus and if they complain they are harassed, shouted at and spat on. There is no law that means this has to happen. No, it is segregation as correct in the eyes of religion. Good luck Israeli women, when it comes to trying to argue your case with the irrational religious fundamentalist, you're gonna need it.

2) A vicar here in the UK has been found out by a husband of having sex his wife, the vicar even sent her rude cards featuring naked men on the front and suggestive messages inside.

So much for no adultery.

If only we atheists could good and true lives following in the example of these clowns.

[Seyser Koze]

omnidirectional redshift proves the bigbang and since the universe is based on causality the nothingness of the pre-bang state requires a prime mover, an initial cause, which (again, due to the nothingness of pre-bang) cannot be a component OF the universe, it is distinct of the cosmos. it doesn't matter what a you call it, but something (in fact everything) doesn't come from nothing in a causal system, so the only possible arrangement is an eternal "super-cosmological" force with the potential to initiate reality. this is the only thing athiests need to understand before they attack people ad hominem as ignorant and deluded religious drones.

i have yet to hear a single reply to this concept in any discussion about the existence (or necessity of God or supernaturalism). now if you want to move the discussion into an argument on the merits of deism vs. messianism that's completely appropriate and is a good starting point for a dissection of religion in general, but proud athiests really out to go back and instead of performing destructive autopsies on what the assume to be the cadaver of theology, they learn the anatomy of the universe and the rational mind.

if this has already been addressed in the preceding mess, please let me know.

I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Why should we be respecting your authority on the subject of how the universe began?

You are not qualified to comment on such things, religious or not. So please do shut up.

We have already stated time and time again that Dawkins spoecifically states in his book that he peraonslly believes that the PROBABILITY of a god is so small in his eyes that he leads his life as if there isn't one. He also believes that time will eventually see scientific answers to all the questiosn we have.

[BoimB son of BoB]

[
Yes, quantum theory predicts all kinds of things that do not jive with out current understanding of how the world works.

quantum mechanics descibes phenomena at the subatomic level and beyond.

it maybe isn't that a surprise that in this scale of magnitude the workings of nature seem unfamiliar when compared to our scale. for relativity, it is more accurate than newtonian physics, but becomes especially noticable at extremes. although they use einstein to correct satelite navigation and GPS systems... that's the beauty about science it allows ous to throw away all prepositions and assumptions we make about nature because we are humans and see the world colored by our daily live and limited scale. that's why religione etc IS a narrominded view, because, you are RESTRICTING the amount of possible explanations. science does not prejudge or take anything for true by faith, nor will it restrict itself to just a few hypothesis. it takes them all into acount and finds out which one is most likely given the evidence.

that's why religious people are IMHO narrow minded. religion can not compeet with the scientific method. because this method does not exclude any hypohesis at the start. the god hypothesis however is so improbable that it can be safely rejected as a serious candiate to explain ANYTHING.

[TomTom]

How does the existence of a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon exclude God? A lot of posts here accuse "religious" people of being "narrow-minded". What are the definitions of "religious" and "narrow-minded"?

Joe says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...explainable by science, God not involved.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...again, God not involved.

Mike says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...I see God in this design.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...I see God in this design as well.

Who can say Mike is more "narrow-minded" than Joe?

[mdk]

How does the existence of a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon exclude God? A lot of posts here accuse "religious" people of being "narrow-minded". What are the definitions of "religious" and "narrow-minded"?

Joe says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...explainable by science, God not involved.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...again, God not involved.

Mike says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...I see God in this design.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...I see God in this design as well.

Who can say Mike is more "narrow-minded" than Joe?

by that logic then either 'god' is axiomatic to the scientific theory, which is equivalent to the non-personal Einsteinian god explained earlier.
or
there is another phenomenon present (C) which is being attributed to god and doesn't have an explanation, the 'god of the gaps' also discussed earlier.

the way i'm starting to see it is that god is only an answer to a question that doesn't exist.

[edge100]

How does the existence of a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon exclude God? A lot of posts here accuse "religious" people of being "narrow-minded". What are the definitions of "religious" and "narrow-minded"?

Joe says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...explainable by science, God not involved.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...again, God not involved.

Mike says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...I see God in this design.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...I see God in this design as well.

Who can say Mike is more "narrow-minded" than Joe?

As mdk correctly points out, this is a question of how you precisely define god. In my view, we have to have a proper, complete defintion BEFORE we ask questions about the nature of the universe.

In the above scenario, 'god' may imply either a personal god, who takes an active interest in the fate of the universe (and in humans, as part of the universe). Alternatively, 'god' may imply a larger "force" or "power", that does not take any active role in the function of universe today. In this sense, 'god' could quite literally mean 'the laws of nature, as they exist in a universe subject to the conditions present in the current universe'. I have no issue with this latter definition, and it is, again as mdk points out, the Einsteinian 'god'.

'A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler' (an Einsteinian version of an old axiom called Occam's Razor) This means, in essence, that we should strip away everything that is unnecessary for a theory to be consistent with observable data. As I've tried to state here, 'god' (again, in the 'personal god' sense) is superfluous to a theory of the universe based on empirical methods. Every time a "gap" in our knowledge of how the universe works has been filled, in our entire recorded history, the gap has been filled either by science (i.e. an increase in our knowledge, usually brought about by an increase in our technological prowess) or by the recognition that the "gap" was really just an artifact, caused by error in method or interpretation. God has filled no gaps, ever. And all those gaps into which god has been placed by religion have later been shown to be, in reality, the result of a less-than-perfect scientific description, which was rectified by one of the two aforementioned processes.

Another hypothetical scenario, if you will (again, with apologies to Sam Harris):

If we were to revive a biblical scholar of the 13th century, and ask him various questions about various aspects of the world, his opinions would be absolutely laughable. He would have no concept of: the germ theory of disease, of the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, of electricity or magnetism (let alone the interrelation between these forces), of heredity, of light as a wave, of light as a particle, of the constant velocity of light, of relativity, of gravity, of how a neuron works, of how the kidney works, of how tumours develop, how (or indeed IF) the planets orbit the sun, and so on ad infinitum. He would explain the world in terms that would be hopelessly backward for even a 7 year old of the 21st century.

The ONE and ONLY thing this person would still be an expert in today is Christianity; his religious knowledge would be absolutely spot on. There are only two ways to explain this:

1) We perfected our knowledge of god prior to the 13th century, whereas our knowledge of everything (literally EVERYTHING) else was laughably rudimentary,

OR

2) the concept of 'god' was simply a tool, invented by people who didn't even understand that washing your hands was a good way to avoid disease, to explain things that were simply unfathomable to the masses; that is, the concept of 'god' should be tossed into the wastebin of history along with bloodletting, the geocentric model of the universe, and every other example of ridiculous fables that were based on the best possible evidence available at the time (which was, very often, none).

In 800 years, our level of knowledge will be looked at with the same degree of scorn, and rightfully so; new data will suggest newer and better theories. But at every step of the way, the new theories will have to explain why OUR theories appeared to be right. And if the same trend we have seen for the last 15,000 years continues, it will be inquiry and empirical methods that fill the gaps, not god.

[BoimB son of BoB]

How does the existence of a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon exclude God? A lot of posts here accuse "religious" people of being "narrow-minded". What are the definitions of "religious" and "narrow-minded"?

Joe says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...explainable by science, God not involved.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...again, God not involved.

Mike says:
Phenomenon A is explained by scientific theory 1...I see God in this design.
Phenomenon B is explained by scientific theory 2...I see God in this design as well.

Who can say Mike is more "narrow-minded" than Joe?

i can. go educate yourself

this smells like ID

[TomTom]

If we were to revive a biblical scholar of the 13th century, and ask him various questions about various aspects of the world, his opinions would be absolutely laughable. He would have no concept of: the germ theory of disease, of the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, of electricity or magnetism (let alone the interrelation between these forces), of heredity, of light as a wave, of light as a particle, of the constant velocity of light, of relativity, of gravity, of how a neuron works, of how the kidney works, of how tumours develop, how (or indeed IF) the planets orbit the sun, and so on ad infinitum. He would explain the world in terms that would be hopelessly backward for even a 7 year old of the 21st century.

The ONE and ONLY thing this person would still be an expert in today is Christianity; his religious knowledge would be absolutely spot on. There are only two ways to explain this:

1) We perfected our knowledge of god prior to the 13th century, whereas our knowledge of everything (literally EVERYTHING) else was laughably rudimentary,

OR

2) the concept of 'god' was simply a tool, invented by people who didn't even understand that washing your hands was a good way to avoid disease, to explain things that were simply unfathomable to the masses; that is, the concept of 'god' should be tossed into the wastebin of history along with bloodletting, the geocentric model of the universe, and every other example of ridiculous fables that were based on the best possible evidence available at the time (which was, very often, none).

In 800 years, our level of knowledge will be looked at with the same degree of scorn, and rightfully so; new data will suggest newer and better theories. But at every step of the way, the new theories will have to explain why OUR theories appeared to be right. And if the same trend we have seen for the last 15,000 years continues, it will be inquiry and empirical methods that fill the gaps, not god.

What this all points too (and, btw, I do agree) is that you can't get to God by looking only at the physical universe. I do agree that given time, we would discover scientific explanations for absolutely every physical process we see. And if you restrict the argument about the existence of God only to that of the physical world, then yes, God is superfluous. Where the superfluousness (sp?) ends is inside the human conscienceness (heart, mind, soul...whatever label you want to attach). I sense God - there's no way I could prove this to you...just like I can't prove to you that I miss my father. To me there is a profound ultimate hopelessness and uselessness in a universe without God. I don't mind if you call that a crutch - that crutch is very very real to me - I can't prove the realness to you. That's the core of my belief. You can even discount me as a kook - but true kooks usually have a kookiness that spills over into different areas of their lives. I don't think that's the case with me.

So back to my original point, is there anything in what I've said that would rightfully characterize me as "narrow-minded"?

[TomTom]

i can. go educate yourself

In what? I have a masters degree in electrical engineering...I've studied lots of physics. Is that not enough? Perhaps I should just study..just study until I agree with you...is that what you're saying?

[TomTom]

i can. go educate yourself

seriously...there seems to be a deal of bitterness in that short post. Just admit that you don't like Christians - it's fine. Be intellectually honest - you're bringing as much bias to this table as everyone else here.

[BoimB son of BoB]

i can. go educate yourself

In what? I have a masters degree in electrical engineering...I've studied lots of physics. Is that not enough? Perhaps I should just study..just study until I agree with you...is that what you're saying?

no, i will just say: it is not enough

[BoimB son of BoB]

i can. go educate yourself

seriously...there seems to be a deal of bitterness in that short post. Just admit that you don't like Christians - it's fine. Be intellectually honest - you're bringing as much bias to this table as everyone else here.

oh there is bitterness allright! and no i don't like christianity as muchas i do not like muslim, jewism and allthe other kaka.

but seriously, i do not mean it personal. all i see is a lot of confused minds. some more wisted than others.

as you claim to be intelectual capable, and i will not dispute or doubt that, i think, if you are interested, there is a whole lot on the subjct you should read apon. because they deal exactly with the way you describe your faith.

i do not need a god to make my life meaningfull. that's were we differ. that's why people so desperatly fight secularism. they feel afraid of it. they shouldn't. but is should however open their eyes.

[edge100]

What this all points too (and, btw, I do agree) is that you can't get to God by looking only at the physical universe. I do agree that given time, we would discover scientific explanations for absolutely every physical process we see.

We agree on this. The issue is, however, that many definitions of god make definite statements about the nature of the physical world.

And if you restrict the argument about the existence of God only to that of the physical world, then yes, God is superfluous. Where the superfluousness (sp?) ends is inside the human conscienceness (heart, mind, soul...whatever label you want to attach). I sense God - there's no way I could prove this to you...just like I can't prove to you that I miss my father.

Again, I agree. But what you are describing is different than a god who answers prayers and takes an interest in what I eat and with whom I choose to share my life. If you want to define god as 'human conciousness', that's fine. I'm quite certain that given time, we will discover the physiological mechanisms that underlie human conciousness.

To me there is a profound ultimate hopelessness and uselessness in a universe without God. I don't mind if you call that a crutch - that crutch is very very real to me - I can't prove the realness to you. That's the core of my belief. You can even discount me as a kook - but true kooks usually have a kookiness that spills over into different areas of their lives. I don't think that's the case with me.

I don't think you're a kook at all; I think you've put real honest thought into this, and come to a different conclusion than me (although, from the sounds of things, we're not too far off...just some differences in nomenclature, really). There's nothing wrong with honest debate about a subject; I'm not 'right' or 'wrong', but I have a spin on things that I believe is consistent with the evidence I see before me.

As for a profound hopelessness without god, on this matter I disagree. There is a beautiful anecdote in Dawkins' book about a meeting he had with James Watson (co-discovered of the 3D structure of DNA). He presents Watson with this line of reasoning, to which Watson retorts (to paraphrase) "Yes, but I intend to have a very nice lunch today." Your belief IS a crutch, but that's fine. We all have things we do for no other reason than they make us feel good; everything doesn't have to have a purpose. I make music because it makes me feel good. The problem only starts to manifest itself when the things we do for ourselves begin to influence the things other people can or cannot do; when we start to make predictions about the physical world based on our "crutches".

So back to my original point, is there anything in what I've said that would rightfully characterize me as "narrow-minded"?

You don't seem narrow-minded at all. You seem quite rational. Your belief in 'god' appears to be simply a need to feel that there is something larger than yourself. That's fine. I don't hear anything in what you're describing to indicate that you want to influence my life in any way, and I don't hear anything in your description that is incompatible with the physical world (virgin birth, resurrections, and the like). I take solace in different things than you do, but to each their own.

Whether there literally is a god isn't known (although it is answerable, as I've argued). But whether or not their is, we can say a few things regarding this question:

1) The literal god, if one exists, has left no physical evidence proving this existence, and has provided several pieces of evidence that are consistent with the hypothesis that one does not exist,

2) The literal god, if one exists, has chosen to use natural selection to advance the "complexity" of the species on Earth, or at the very least has gone out of its way to provide multiple lines of converging evidence that make it appear this way, and

3) The literal god, if one exists, has a particular fondness for beetles, given the sheer number of them that inhabit the planet.