Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[shtreimel]

Tried to stay away, but like a car accident...

In previous posts, I mentioned that I work on an early psychosis team. Pharmacology, neuroscience and bio-psychiatry...we've got it all. And we know shit. We're so blinded by "science", "quantitative studies"...and our clients suffer, and suffer. Why? I have no doubt it's because we're living in an era where ""soul", "spirit" are relegated to new-agey (read: unscientific) corners. In other words, if you can't measure it, it ain't worth discussing (which is amusing, because we seem to hang onto that self construct called "romantic love". We live, kill and die for it...though it's nothing more than, what, random neurotransmitters firing dopamine...seretonin?).

Thank God (yup, I said it), there's other psychiatrists and neuroscientists who are humble enough to consider that there are things we'll never be able to measure with tools, tests, etc., and have no problem with human struggle in the form of ill souls, spirit, etc.

[mauve]

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

I like beetles, does that make me godly?

[edge100]

Tried to stay away, but like a car accident...

In previous posts, I mentioned that I work on an early psychosis team. Pharmacology, neuroscience and bio-psychiatry...we've got it all. And we know shit. We're so blinded by "science", "quantitative studies"...and our clients suffer, and suffer. Why? I have no doubt it's because we're living in an era where ""soul", "spirit" are relegated to new-agey (read: unscientific) corners. In other words, if you can't measure it, it ain't worth discussing (which is amusing, because we seem to hang onto that self construct called "romantic love". We live, kill and die for it...though it's nothing more than, what, random neurotransmitters firing dopamine...seretonin?).

Thank God (yup, I said it), there's other psychiatrists and neuroscientists who are humble enough to consider that there are things we'll never be able to measure with tools, tests, etc., and have no problem with human struggle in the form of ill souls, spirit, etc.

I have no problem with the concept of spirit, or even god, depending on what you mean by that.

If a cancer patient (I'm a cancer researcher) feels that prayer helps them deal with their treatments, and provides them solace so they don't have a nervous breakdown when facing death, then so be it. I think that's as critically important as having ones family there to provide help in the rough times. Whether there is a physiological mechanism behind all of this (there surely is) is really beside the point; if it makes YOU feel better, then that's what counts.

But this isn't what I'm talking about, and it isn't what Dawkins' is talking about in his book. In fact, Dawkins' specifically allows for the Einsteinian god, which is what I just described.

The issue I have is when all of this starts to encroach on the nature of the literal physical reality of the world. Let's say you're taking cisplatin (a typical anti-cancer drug) to treat your ovarian cancer. Cisplatin works by damaging DNA and causing cells to die or stop doubling; the cancer cells are most vulnerable because they are the most rapidly doubling cells in the body (along with bone marrow and hair cells, which explains the common side effects of anemia, susceptibility to infection, and hair loss).

Now, your cisplatin works based on physical principles (I have my Ph.D. thesis on this I could share with anyone who would like more detail). This does not change. Now, if someone prays, that may elicit specific physical changes in their body (no one is denying this), which could alter the efficacy of cisplatin, thereby altering the treatment outcomes.

In this sense, I understand the power of prayer; the feeling of peace it brings may elicit real, literal physical changes. Of course, randomized controlled trials tell us that, on average, praying does nothing to help overall survival (at least from open-heart surgery), but on the individual level, it may very well make a real, concrete difference.

But this provides not one scrap of evidence that Jesus was divine and born of a virgin, or that god can literally affect change in the physical world.

Let me ask you this: why does god hate amputees? (http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/)

Seriously. Why has god NEVER (EVER) healed even a single amputee? Surely at least one amputee at some point in history has prayed to god to have their severed arm or leg back, and has deserved it (pious life, devotion to god, acceptance of Jesus as saviour, etc). Jesus is quite specific on the topic of prayer (I'm copying from the above linked site, which goes into FAR more detail, if you'd like):

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! - Matthew 7:7

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. - Matthew 17:20

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. - Matthew 21:21

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. - Mark 11:24

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it. - John 14:12-14

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Matthew 18:19

If prayer does work, it seems to work only in very specific cases where the REAL effect could be, in reality, a literal change in physiology induced by prayer. If prayer really were effective as a means of improving health, or even SLIGHTLY biasing your chances of improved health (and remember, Jesus is very clear that honest prayers WILL be answered), you would expect that at least ONE amputee would have been healed at some point in the last 2000 years.

This argument is, of course, incredibly facetious, but it drives home a very important point: there is no proof that, even if prayer actually works, that its effects are mediated through god-induced changes to the physical world. I would accept regrowth of limbs to be consistent with god's input, since it (apparently) cannot be explained in any other way; I have FAITH that limbs cannot regrow, because the quantity of data supporting this is massive.

[edge100]

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

I like beetles, does that make me godly?

Sorry, only liking Beatles does.

[mauve]

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

I like beetles, does that make me godly?

Sorry, only liking Beatles does.

right on

[Simon Waters]

Tried to stay away, but like a car accident...

I have FAITH that limbs cannot regrow, because the quantity of data supporting this is massive.

Other's belief in a system you don't agree with is hard to fight against. If everyone believed in God and was righteous it would be easy for miracles to happen every day. Each persons' faith would be strong. This is not the case. Also my experience is that to a certain extent God likes to leave things as man influences things. I know this doesn't cover everything but say if someone loses their leg in a car accident due to another's drunk driving it is a lasting weight on the shoulders of the guilty driver that he caused another to lose a limb.

And I would like to respond to your assertation that prayer has not been proven by randomised tests, by saying that the bible states "do not test God".

[jb61264]

34 pages strong and no end in site...holy crap!

[mauve]

religion is like a computer platform for a bio-robot.

[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.

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.

A] you have no idea what my qualifications are
B] it's not a religious matter it's a logic/metaphysics philosophical one
C] dawkins gambles with his soul in way a pascal (a far greater mind by any estimate) could not accept
D] so much for keeping away from ad hominem arguments from atheists
E] i have proven my point with the help of your response, thank you

[edge100]

Tried to stay away, but like a car accident...

I have FAITH that limbs cannot regrow, because the quantity of data supporting this is massive.

Other's belief in a system you don't agree with is hard to fight against. If everyone believed in God and was righteous it would be easy for miracles to happen every day. Each persons' faith would be strong. This is not the case.

I'm not fighting ANYONE'S belief system, in that people are absolutely 100% free to believe whatever they want. And I'm certainly not saying that prayer cannot work; it certainly can, in the same way the "will" can work (i.e. "I willed myself to finish the marathon"). Prayer may have profound effects upon the individual's physiology (and I would imagine, though I haven't checked, that there must be some published data on this somewhere). The issue, as I've repeatedly said in the last few pages, is that some people being to believe the literal truth of the god they're praying to (which is ok with me), and then begin to impose that belief on the rest of us. This may take many forms, from simple proseltyzing (which I can deal with by saying, "leave me alone") all the way to flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people on a Tuesday afternoon (which I cannot deal with). This may not describe YOU, but one cannot seriously claim that it does not describe a significant number of 'religious' people.

Also my experience is that to a certain extent God likes to leave things as man influences things. I know this doesn't cover everything but say if someone loses their leg in a car accident due to another's drunk driving it is a lasting weight on the shoulders of the guilty driver that he caused another to lose a limb.

There are many angles I could take on this line of reasoning:

1) Jesus does not make this assertion. He is quite clear, in fact (one of the few times he is): if you pray, and you BELIEVE that the outcome has happened, it will happen. Surely at some point in history, at least ONE (I'm only asking for ONE example) amputee has met this standard.

2) There are many people who claim to have regained their vision, or have had tumours magically disappear through "prayer", and interpreted this as god intervening. But how is this different than having a leg or arm or fingers grow back? The removal of a tumour is not subtle; if god only wanted to grant those wishes that didn't expose him as god, removing tumours is just as bad as regrowing limbs.

3) Surely at some point in history, a great surgeon has lost an arm, and many lives have been lost because he or she could no longer operate. This person's prayers would have been good for god to answer. I can think of several other specific examples.

All of this is mental gymnastics get around the two BLATENTLY OBVIOUS explanations: (a) god doesn't answer prayers AT ALL (i.e. god isn't a personal god at all) or (b) there is NO god to answer the prayers. Either of these is rational to me, and neither requires ANY additional manuevering.

And I would like to respond to your assertation that prayer has not been proven by randomised tests, by saying that the bible states "do not test God".

I'm going to assume that if you don't see the flaw in THIS logic, you won't ever see the logic in what I'm saying. Please see my previous posts on the value of clinical studies, sponsored by cigarette manufacturers, showing that cigarettes aren't harmful.

This last argument typically goes something like this:

Atheist: "Why do you believe in god?"
Christian: "Because the Bible tells me so."
Atheist: "And why do you believe the Bible?"
Christian: "Because it is the word of God."

This should be the prototypical example in every Psychology 101 textbook under "Logical Fallacies: Circular Logic".

[Tone Deft]

I like beetles, does that make me godly?

Sorry, only liking Beatles does.

right on

The Beatles are bigger than Jesus.

Props to you guys for taking it this long, being civil and apparently even READING that the others are posting, you're freaking me out with all this politeness.

[jb61264]

You know what I find funny about the whole evolution versus creation argument? It's that each side is SO bent on proving the other side wrong that neither is willing to accept that it's possible that both creation and evolution explain the beginning of our universe and our existence.

There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schoroeder that shows the parallels between religious teachings and scientific findings and argues that the latest science and a close reading of the Bible are not just compatible but interdependent.

When you get right down to it...as humans, we can only make assumptions/hypothesis about the scientific questions of the universe and then we design experiments to test these assumptions for accuracy until we can replicate them for the sake of creating theories which combine wider domains of inquiry into some sort of undertandable structure...it's all based upon what we as humans are capable of measuring and understanding.

My contention is that there are so many "laws" fo physics and chemistry that exist elsewhere in our universe that we can't possibly begin to understand to how everything started...we're comfortable with our laws of physics and chemistry that seem to apply to our little corner of the universe...but, to me...saying that there aren't laws of chemistry and physics that we don't yet know about is like saying that there is no chance that life could exist anywhere else in the universe...comeon...we can't even begin to comprehend how big the universe really is anyway.

[TomTom]

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?

[Tone Deft]

Intelligent design is sort of the middle ground where religious people give a nod to Darwin.

There's also the study of psychology, I believe we're in the dark ages when it comes to understanding how the brain and mind work. At this point we're more about medicating than treatment (there's no money in the treatment, but that's another thread.)

[edge100]

You know what I find funny about the whole evolution versus creation argument? It's that each side is SO bent on proving the other side wrong that neither is willing to accept that it's possible that both creation and evolution explain the beginning of our universe and our existence.

There is a book called "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schoroeder that shows the parallels between religious teachings and scientific findings and argues that the latest science and a close reading of the Bible are not just compatible but interdependent.

When you get right down to it...as humans, we can only make assumptions/hypothesis about the scientific questions of the universe and then we design experiments to test these assumptions for accuracy until we can replicate them for the sake of creating theories which combine wider domains of inquiry into some sort of undertandable structure...it's all based upon what we as humans are capable of measuring and understanding.

My contention is that there are so many "laws" fo physics and chemistry that exist elsewhere in our universe that we can't possibly begin to understand to how everything started...we're comfortable with our laws of physics and chemistry that seem to apply to our little corner of the universe...but, to me...saying that there aren't laws of chemistry and physics that we don't yet know about is like saying that there is no chance that life could exist anywhere else in the universe...comeon...we can't even begin to comprehend how big the universe really is anyway.

Absolutely. Agree 100%.

I am as confident in the literal truth of evolution as I am in the literal existence of gravity or electromagnetism. Now, both evolution and elecrtomagnetism are theories, based on mountains of converging lines of evidence that support their veracity. In the latter case, electromagetism is one of the four fundamental forces, from which all other forces are derived: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. The hottest topic in physics for the last 100 years is the Grand Unified Theory, that would unite the forces into a single entity. If that ever comes to pass, which I'm sure it will, electromagnetism will have been "incorrect".

Evolution, as we know it now, may be supplanted by a more complete theory. While we don't know what such a theory will look like, we do know at least one of its fundamental characteristics: it will explain why evolution appears to be right in 2007.

The "does life exist elsewhere?" question is not really on the same footing as the god hypothesis (to borrow from Dawkins); good arguments, based on observable evidence, could be made either way. THAT probability is far closer to 50/50 than the existence of a personal god, for which no evidence FOR exists and significant evidence AGAINST exists.

Once again, I have no problem with the concept of a "higher power". I even have no problem accepting that the universe may have been created by this "higher power". But there is almost certainly no personal god. Of course, as soon as you accept this "higher power" argument, you must also ask the timeless question, "if everything comes from something more complex, and god created the universe (ergo god is more complex than the universe), what created god?" This is an infinite series, and gets you nowhere.