Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[shtreimel]

They ARE rare breeds.

Not in my circles. Still, if majority = quality, than shopping trumps meditation, Britney Spears trumps My Bloody Valentine and McDonalds trumps fish and a salad.

Again, my Orthodox shul (due to it's proximity to hospitals and universities) is well visited by academics, scientists, doctors...

Your point is well taken, though we may disagree as to the meaning of "majority opinion" though.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Not sure what you constitute as "proof"...but the fact that our Torah (Bible) states that Jews will be:

1) Scattered all over the world
2) Remain a small people
3) Survive

is quite remarkable given our history, and how many empires have risen and fallen, yet Jews march on. I've heard secular Jewish historians state that if there is a God, it can be seen in the details of Jewish history.

By all accounts, we should have disappeared a long, long time ago. So much so, that the Dalai Lama invited 4 rabbis to address issues of diaspora and survival (see: The Jew and the Lotus).

[edge100]

Are you just as willing to state that there isn't any more proof supporting that he doesn't exist as there is supporting his existence?

We're taking this thread back about 4 pages. I've addressed this. It has to do with burden of proof.

What is less unlikely, Jesus' being born of a virgin and ascending into heaven on the third day, or Mohammed ascending to heaven on a winged horse (sorry to use the same examples again and again), Zeus sitting atop Mt. Olympus with his lightning bolt, or a celestial teapot orbiting the sun? And even if there is an answer to this, is this REALLY the standard by which we make EVERY OTHER choice?

As I said before, lack of evidence against something doesn't provide a scrap of evidence FOR something. One hopes you never sit on a jury and employ this type of reasoning:

"Well, there's no evidence that he DIDN'T kill the guy, so he must be guilty!"

So you're using basic legal principles to explain some of the unanswered questions about our existence? Do you not subscribe to the fact that there are things that happen that have no explanation as far as we can understand them? (sort of an X-files phenomena thing) or are you of the belief that humans are capable of understanding and measuring everything?...do you believe in ghosts?

I certainly do not believe that we can explain everything. I do believe that everything has an explanation. Note the subtle difference.

I have been quite clear (in fact, I've taken great pains to emphasize this) that I have no objection to the putative existence of a higher power. But defining a "higher power" as a "personal god" is only one possible defintion, and in my estimation (for whatever that is worth...likely not much), the most unlikely definition of all. A universe in which a personal god was operating would be a very difference place that a universe in which 'god' had no active role; I believe our universe is very close to a perfect match of the latter.

My point about the legal principle of assumption of innocence is not made to equate legality with religion; that is a straw-man argument, and is a little bit disappointing, considering the great lengths I have gone to to ensure that this debate is two-sided and fair.

The REAL argument I was clearly making is that you DO employ the "legal" standard in every other thing you do. The existence or lack of existence of god is the only instance in which reverse onus proof is used to justify something. By the same token as you use reverse onus proof to refute my argument, I can say, "What proof do you have that Russell's celestial teapot is not literally orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter?"

The "legal" principle of presumption of innocence is based on the logical basis that you can never, ever prove a negative. I haven't asked you to do so (well, I have, but only in the most facetious way I can), so why are you asking me to do likewise?

[jb61264]

We're taking this thread back about 4 pages. I've addressed this. It has to do with burden of proof.

What is less unlikely, Jesus' being born of a virgin and ascending into heaven on the third day, or Mohammed ascending to heaven on a winged horse (sorry to use the same examples again and again), Zeus sitting atop Mt. Olympus with his lightning bolt, or a celestial teapot orbiting the sun? And even if there is an answer to this, is this REALLY the standard by which we make EVERY OTHER choice?

As I said before, lack of evidence against something doesn't provide a scrap of evidence FOR something. One hopes you never sit on a jury and employ this type of reasoning:

"Well, there's no evidence that he DIDN'T kill the guy, so he must be guilty!"

So you're using basic legal principles to explain some of the unanswered questions about our existence? Do you not subscribe to the fact that there are things that happen that have no explanation as far as we can understand them? (sort of an X-files phenomena thing) or are you of the belief that humans are capable of understanding and measuring everything?...do you believe in ghosts?

I certainly do not believe that we can explain everything. I do believe that everything has an explanation. Note the subtle difference.

I have been quite clear (in fact, I've taken great pains to emphasize this) that I have no objection to the putative existence of a higher power. But defining a "higher power" as a "personal god" is only one possible defintion, and in my estimation (for whatever that is worth...likely not much), the most unlikely definition of all. A universe in which a personal god was operating would be a very difference place that a universe in which 'god' had no active role; I believe our universe is very close to a perfect match of the latter.

My point about the legal principle of assumption of innocence is not made to equate legality with religion; that is a straw-man argument, and is a little bit disappointing, considering the great lengths I have gone to to ensure that this debate is two-sided and fair.

The REAL argument I was clearly making is that you DO employ the "legal" standard in every other thing you do. The existence or lack of existence of god is the only instance in which reverse onus proof is used to justify something. By the same token as you use reverse onus proof to refute my argument, I can say, "What proof do you have that Russell's celestial teapot is not literally orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter?"

The "legal" principle of presumption of innocence is based on the logical basis that you can never, ever prove a negative. I haven't asked you to do so (well, I have, but only in the most facetious way I can), so why are you asking me to do likewise?

actually i'm not asking anyone to do anything one way or the other...i just don't subscribe to one argument or the other because the bottom line is that there is not proof God exists and there is no proof that God doe not exist...it's all a debate set in motion between scientific and theological explanations.

[edge100]

They ARE rare breeds.

Not in my circles. Still, if majority = quality, than shopping trumps meditation, Britney Spears trumps My Bloody Valentine and McDonalds trumps fish and a salad.

Again, my Orthodox shul (due to it's proximity to hospitals and universities) is well visited by academics, scientists, doctors...

Your point is well taken, though we may disagree as to the meaning of "majority opinion" though.

This is just misleading, however, because even if Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I were the only three scientists who didn't believe in Yahweh, there still wouldn't be any more proof supporting his existence.

Not sure what you constitute as "proof"...but the fact that our Torah (Bible) states that Jews will be:

1) Scattered all over the world
2) Remain a small people
3) Survive

is quite remarkable given our history, and how many empires have risen and fallen, yet Jews march on. I've heard secular Jewish historians state that if there is a God, it can be seen in the details of Jewish history.

By all accounts, we should have disappeared a long, long time ago. So much so, that the Dalai Lama invited 4 rabbis to address issues of diaspora and survival (see: The Jew and the Lotus).

And I would think (and I really do mean this in the most sensitive way you can possibly say this) that the history of the Jewish people (particularly the recent history) would be enough to convince you that god really isn't looking out for your best interests.

I know exactly how you'll respond to this, so I even hasten to use this line of reasoning with you, but there you go. You'll say that your survival is testament to the fact that you really are god's chosen people, or something to that effect. While I agree that your faith in god is likely responsible for "willing" your people through the horrors of your past, once again this does nothing to provide positive proof in favour of the literal existence of your god.

Once again, I see nothing 'divine' in the three examples you give. The REAL test of causality is, "could B have happened in the absence of A?" In this case, I think you fall well short of establishing this.

Also, I should point out that while my specific knowledge of Judaism is limited, I do recognize that community is a major part of the religion, and that, as you must surely agree, a significant number of Jews continue to 'practice' Judaism in the absence of a true belief in the literal existence of the god of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In that sense, identifying as "Jewish", I would wager, is somewhat different (again, in some cases) as identifying as "Christian" or "Muslim", where a specific belief in a god with certain powers is a central tenet. Please correct me if I have made any major errors in this paragraph.

[edge100]

actually i'm not asking anyone to do anything one way or the other...i just don't subscribe to one argument or the other because the bottom line is that there is not proof God exists and there is no proof that God doe not exist...it's all a debate set in motion between scientific and theological explanations.

But there is also no proof that the celestial teapot doesn't exist. If that is all we need to justify belief, then the teapot is as valid as Jesus.

Explain, please, what ELSE we need, since lack of proof against is, as I've just clearly shown, insufficient. The only other rational response to this is an admission that the celestial teapot is equally likely to be true as any other proposition for which no proof against exists. You cannot have it both ways; lack of proof against is either sufficient to imply potential truth (in which case the teapot is equal with Jesus) or it isn't (in which case Jesus is as unlikely as the teapot).

[shtreimel]

Once again, I see nothing 'divine' in the three examples you give. The REAL test of causality is, "could B have happened in the absence of A?" In this case, I think you fall well short of establishing this.

And I do. Not in a "If I bang my fist on a table it'll hurt" sort of way, but in a subtle, read between the lines kinda way. And IMHO, that's the most sensitive way to understand what God wants, does, etc.

Also, I should point out that while my specific knowledge of Judaism is limited, I do recognize that community is a major part of the religion, and that, as you must surely agree, a significant number of Jews continue to 'practice' Judaism in the absence of a true belief in the literal existence of the god of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. In that sense, identifying as "Jewish", I would wager, is somewhat different (again, in some cases) as identifying as "Christian" or "Muslim", where a specific belief in a god with certain powers is a central tenet. Please correct me if I have made any major errors in this paragraph.

Community plays a huge part. But this wasn't created by man, rather by God (if you believe the Torah was divine). However, all of your points are vaild, and form a comprehensive account of my doubting mind.

[edge100]

They ARE rare breeds.

Not in my circles. Still, if majority = quality, than shopping trumps meditation, Britney Spears trumps My Bloody Valentine and McDonalds trumps fish and a salad.

There is a GLARING logical error here, that I figured out on the subway home tonight (big loser, I know!)

Let's say we wanted to figure out what percentage of scientists have won a Nobel Prize. There are two ways (on the surface) of doing this (one logical, one illogical):

1. Ask all scientists, "Have you ever won a Nobel Prize?" From this, divide the number of "yes" answers by the total number of scientists asked, multiply by 100, and you have the answer. This is the logical method, and it is exactly equivalent to the method employed in Dawkins' book. A very small percentage will be the result.

2. Ask all Nobel Prize winners, "Are you a scientist?" The result will be that ~30-40% of all Nobel Prize winners have been scientists. This is true, but does not answer the question originally posed, which was "What percentage of scientists have won a Nobel Prize?"

Dawkins' argument is akin to example #1, yours is akin to example #2. The fact that you know many religious scientists doesn't add anything to the question of whether many scientists are religious, though it clearly shows that scientists CAN be religious, which was never in question.

I hasten to evn mention this, because it's so tangential to the central discussion. But I'm doing it anyway, at my own peril.

[shtreimel]

though it clearly shows that scientists CAN be religious, which was never in question.

Actually the question really isn't "can scientists be religious", rather the issue, on this bb anyway, is can a scientist, who happens to be religious, use the same intellectual rigor for both disciplines? With respect to Collins, I've read that he's a brilliant scientist, yet an idiot when it comes to God. HUH? Why? Why are atheists so judgemental? So uncomfortable with a God fearing scientist?

[conny]

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.

I would say a complete definition before asking questions is a self contradictionary. (Think: Gödel)

We don't act/feel/live in accordance with complete definitions.
Think: Falling in love.
Think: Feels I'm going to kill myself.

We deal with hazards, hopes etc.
Prove me wrong.

// C

[edge100]

though it clearly shows that scientists CAN be religious, which was never in question.

Actually the question really isn't "can scientists be religious", rather the issue, on this bb anyway, is can a scientist, who happens to be religious, use the same intellectual rigor for both disciplines? With respect to Collins, I've read that he's a brilliant scientist, yet an idiot when it comes to God. HUH? Why? Why are atheists so judgemental? So uncomfortable with a God fearing scientist?

I'm not made uncomfortable by this. But, you have to recognize that this gets used as an argument for the existence of god all the time. If the point is that "some scientists are religious", I agree. If the point is, "some scientists are religious, therefore science and religion are compatible", my tolerance begins to fade, and if the point is "some scientists are religious, therefore god exists", I tune out completely. This isn't because I have a problem with scientists being religious (although one wonders why their critical analysis disappears when it comes to religion), but because this line of reasoning lends nothing to the overall discussion.

[edge100]

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.

I would say a complete definition before asking questions is a self contradictionary. (Think: Gödel)

You are completely misinterpreting (purposely?) what I said. The PROPER CONTEXT of what I said was that we must define what we all mean by god first; a complete definition of god.

Without this, we may not be discussing the same thing (since peoples' definition of god may vary. We also leave open the possibility of changing our definitions at the last minute to suit the direction of the discussion, which I've termed "moving the goalposts."

[Tone Deft]

Did any of you notice that this thread was started in hell?

Point - Satan.

[MathematiK I]

minds dont kill people....
people with minds kill people

[joshuajames]

Just curious...anyone here ever read any of Lee Strobel's books:

The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith

thoughts?

I've read the Case for Christ...and have the Case for Faith (but haven't yet read it).

i've got the case for christ but haven't read it.

what does it say?

i'd thought "mere christianity" by cs lewis sums it up too well for me

[D K]

i don't know about this god shit,
but i do know that
"if you want to make it on broadway, you simply must have a jew"