The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

Scofflaw

Calibos wrote:

On the question of having to have faith in science because I can never hope to understand everything myself in my own life time being exactly the same as faith in religion.

I had this very same arguement with my mother the other night. There had been an interivew with a cosmologist on Newsnight that night and I think they were basically talking about the Anthropomorphic Principle although that phrase was never mentioned. (The universe and its laws are exactly in the right proportions to give rise to Life-Thats the anthropomorphic Prin. right?)

Heh - close. The Anthropic Principle, I think, is the term you're looking for, although I like your term too - it sort of suggests that the Universe is made in man's image.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mountainyman

Zillah leave the moderating to the moderators. Whether you like it or not Stalin was an atheist. Clearly 'the Atheist' is unable to address the issue of science being falth based and as such has picked up his ball and gone home.
Zillah if you are capable of it address the issues at hand.

PH the existence or nonexistence of Canada simply is a social construct. If atheists are unable to distinguish between levels of reality in this obvious way no wonder they are out of touch with the divine.

Calibos:
I would have thought that no atheist would believe that the universe is suited to us logically the converse is more likely. The anthopomorphic universe principle sounds like an argument replacing God with the Universe.
However with an infinite amount of 'time' (if it is relevant to talk about time between universes) and thererfore an infinite amount of universes others far better suited to intelligent life will and have come along.

Further your mother is right. When physicists talk about proof they mean that they have balanced their equations in an aesthetically appealling way.


MM

robindch

> the existence or nonexistence of Canada simply is a social construct.

I'm sure many -- who knows, most perhaps? -- canadians would disagree with that.

If you're into postmodernism, then I you may enjoy reading up on the Sokal Affair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

...and immersing yourself in a copy of Benson and Stangroom's 'Why Truth Matters':

http://www.whytruthmatters.com/

_____________________
Hitler said he did the LORD'S WORK!

Dades

mountainyman wrote:

Zillah leave the moderating to the moderators. Whether you like it or not Stalin was an atheist. Clearly 'the Atheist' is unable to address the issue of science being falth based and as such has picked up his ball and gone home.

MM

There are two reasons I gave up responding:

1. Your repeated mention of Stalin was already addressed efficiently yesterday by robindch (here for example) - a response that you ignored. Bringing up the same topic in a different thread after ignoring the response in the first thread suggests you are wasting our time.
2. I have a life outside of boards.

So consider this a formal warning to address your attitude. Also bear in mind I have a hangover as a result of reason [2] and am only itching to use it.

guildofevil

mountainyman wrote:

Further your mother is right. When physicists talk about proof they mean that they have balanced their equations in an aesthetically appealling way.

And as he also pointed out, they can then take that maths and use it to make a plane fly. That seems like pretty conclusive proof and you don't need to know any maths to understand it. It also prooves that the equasions being ballanceed is much more than just “appealing” as you put it.

Oh. What a lovely equation.

Science is not faith based. Quite the contrary, everything in science is challenged and inspected for flaws.

Son Goku

mountainyman wrote:

Further your mother is right. When physicists talk about proof they mean that they have balanced their equations in an aesthetically appealling way.

They have never meant that ever. Proof applies to mathematical theorems and hence is only used literally by mathematicians. If a physicist uses the word proof (although I have rarely, if ever, seen the word used by a physicist) it is short hand for "There is enough data to support this model".

What sources have you gleamed the above statement from?

(In fact the phrase "balanced their equations" also makes no sense, I have no idea what that would involve. We don't have two things on each side that we're attempting to make add up to the same number)

Science is faith based in a very loose, "strict definition of the word" kind of way. However accepting that a group of people are being honest about their work, given the fact that the work has produced technologies in the past, requires no where near the kind of faith needed to assume a personal deity.

mountainyman

THE ATHEIST My bringing up Stalin was a joke and I would have thought a relatively obvious one. By the way I feel that your sad photograph of the dead university was a cheap and hyperemotional shot. What was I supposed to do, break down and start crying? Certainly you failed to adress the substantive point.

RobinDCH
But surely there is simply no doubt that Canada is a social construct. Think about what 'Canada' means to a Canadian as against what it means to you. Does the strong collective delusion of 30 million Canadians (as well as the 2 billion other people in the world who know of the 'existence' of 'Canada) mean that 'Canada' therefore exists. After all Bismarck did not accept the existence of 'Italy'.

A billion people believe in Vishnu. Does he therefore exist?


WRT the Sokal Affair
http://www.slate.com/id/2150974
An interesting comparison, but I don't think either the Sokal or Collins affair demonstrate very much.

guildofevil wrote:

And as he also pointed out, they can then take that maths and use it to make a plane fly.

...
Oh. What a lovely equation.
...

Science is not faith based. Quite the contrary, everything in science is challenged and inspected for flaws.

The fact that a given equation is used to make a plane fly does not mean that another equation (say one dealing with 'dark matter') is not being assessed aesthetically.
The people who are capable of working out the maths on 'dark matter' (for example) do all have an aesthetic appreciation of mathematics.
I agree that all assumptions are inspected for flaws in science. However they cannot be so inspected by me. I have to take alot of things on trust.

nb.
Are you people really incapable of seeing the difference between 'Canada' and the micobiological/chemical processes of 'evolution'. This is what is wrong with Dawkins; he seems to believe that there is such a thing as reality and that he knows what it is.

I am getting the strong impression that the reason atheists spend so much time talking about creationism and so forth is because should the discussion move away from well worn grooves you are incapable of dealing with it. Apart from robindch that is.

MM

mountainyman

Son Goku wrote:

...accepting that a group of people are being honest about their work, given the fact that the work has produced technologies in the past, requires no where near the kind of faith needed to assume a personal deity.

I think that point is irrefutable.
MM

pH

ianmc38 wrote:

The way in whcih he comes across is extreme and he belittles those that don't agree with his points of view. This is a recurring theme throughout "The root of all evil".

This is playing with the meaning of words.

How is "the way he comes across" extreme? and what has that to do with the word "extremist".

It's a long way from the normal usage of the word, and as for belittling ... Would you also describe Simon Cowell as an extremist? Frank, or possibly rude would appear to fit, just telling someone what they don't want to hear and refusing to sugar coat it does not an extremist make.

Extremist - advocacy of extreme measures or views.

What extreme measures does Dawkins advocate, or to you merely think that not believing in God is an 'extreme view'?

robindch

In the sense that you talked about it initially:

Are you people really incapable of seeing the difference between 'Canada' and the micobiological/chemical processes of 'evolution'. This is what is wrong with Dawkins; he seems to believe that there is such a thing as reality and that he knows what it is.

...Canada is not a social construct, but a largish country to left of Ireland on the map.

In the sense that you then switched to, canada is of course just an idea and has no physical existence outside of some neuronal connections in some people's minds.

Perhaps you would be less in a state of denial concerning reality if you would think more about how you define the terms that you're using to describe the world, and then stick to those definitions, rather than wandering from the physical to the notional at random and getting completely lost on the way.

guildofevil

Ok. mountainyman. Are you avoiding the point or missing it entirely?

Baby steps here:

You stated that “When physicists talk about proof they mean that they have balanced their equations in an aesthetically appealling way.”

I and others are denying that because it is not based on fact.

The example of a mathematical equation applied to make an aeroplane fly debunks the ridiculous notion that physicists work out their maths according to some strange notion of mathematical aesthetics.

I made no statements about dark matter, I said nothing about one equation being the proof of another equation. I just tried to show you that your idea of how scientists work is mistaken.

Aesthetics cannot make an aeroplane fly. Hard work and verifiable data can.

Maths is not art. Science is not theology. It's not about making up something you want to be true, it's about finding out what is true, regardless of whether you like it or not.

mountainyman wrote:

I am getting the strong impression that the reason atheists spend so much time talking about creationism and so forth is because should the discussion move away from well worn grooves you are incapable of dealing with it. Apart from robindch that is.

Then you obviously haven't been paying attention. I haven't mentioned creationism once.

Scofflaw

mountainyman wrote:

THE ATHEIST My bringing up Stalin was a joke and I would have thought a relatively obvious one.

Unfortunately, it's something that gets thrown at atheists all the time, by everybody, so it's hard to find funny, although I liked your contrast.

mountainyman wrote:

But surely there is simply no doubt that Canada is a social construct.

I would agree.

mountainyman wrote:

A billion people believe in Vishnu. Does he therefore exist?

As a social construct - undoubtedly.

mountainyman wrote:

The fact that a given equation is used to make a plane fly does not mean that another equation (say one dealing with 'dark matter') is not being assessed aesthetically. The people who are capable of working out the maths on 'dark matter' (for example) do all have an aesthetic appreciation of mathematics.

Again I would agree. Elegance is often taken as a measure of correctness - and scientists fight quite hard against abandoning elegant theories when the evidence is against them (but always eventually do so). However, this is only the case when the theory makes predictions which are not yet tested.

mountainyman wrote:

I agree that all assumptions are inspected for flaws in science. However they cannot be so inspected by me. I have to take alot of things on trust.

As do we all. It is occasionally possible to work things out from first principles, but rarely. We are pygmies, standing on big heaps of pygmies. However, our pygmies are constantly checked for freshness, and offending pygmies are regularly replaced!

mountainyman wrote:

Are you people really incapable of seeing the difference between 'Canada' and the micobiological/chemical processes of 'evolution'. This is what is wrong with Dawkins; he seems to believe that there is such a thing as reality and that he knows what it is.

Which do you object to here:

1. the idea of an objective reality?
2. the impression given by Dawkins that he knows what it is?

I have no problem with the first one.

mountainyman wrote:

I am getting the strong impression that the reason atheists spend so much time talking about creationism and so forth is because should the discussion move away from well worn grooves you are incapable of dealing with it. Apart from robindch that is.

Nah. We just hate Creationists. Hates 'em, o yess, yess we does.

hating Cretinists, yus yus,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Nah. We just hate Creationists. Hates 'em, o yess, yess we does.

Seconded

Beruthiel

Thirdededed!

Just can't get my head around how a person can be a Creationist and still have learned how to type words into a sentence.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Again I would agree. Elegance is often taken as a measure of correctness - and scientists fight quite hard against abandoning elegant theories when the evidence is against them (but always eventually do so). However, this is only the case when the theory makes predictions which are not yet tested.

Is it fair to say that this just reflects that scientific research is carried out by people, who form a social structure like any other human activity. Hence, you get factors like self interest coming into play. If you built your career on a particular discipline, you ll be slow to see it sidelined.

Religious organisations have that same constraint. But at least one contrast is science would claim to be open to new knowledge. Hence a well supported view that contradicts orthodoxy has to be accepted.

MeditationMom

by pH- What extreme measures does Dawkins advocate, or to you merely think that not believing in God is an 'extreme view'?

Doesn't he advocate to get rid of all the religions in the world? I haven't read the book, but if he is, that would surely qualify as extreme, no?

If God exists, let's try to prove it, instead of just saying it is stupid to think he does. It's just a theory that he exists. You can only be persistent in trying to prove a theory - in science or anywhere else - if you believe in the theory with your whole heart. Scientists have given their lives to prove theories they "believed" in.

Maybe when it comes to God - it can only be proven to oneself, but I am increasingly getting to believe we are getting closer to actually speed up that real discovery and proof, so it is a reproducible "event" without the old ways of decades of meditation etc. Kind of the difference between growing a cow for years, slaughtering it, curing it, eating the meat, and a fast food burger at McDonalds. We need a McDonalds Fast Enlightenment Religion.

Or believe in Dawkins? "There is no God." Looks like that is only his theory. And I think it is going backwards, rather than forward.
Has he proven it? How? Just because you can't see it or understand it, is no proof.

Canada - it doesn't exist, but this mutually agreed to idea sure helps people live in a certain way without chaos, with justice, with dignity, with a sense of belonging, called civilization.

The idea of God - not that all people who believe in "God" are agreed on the same idea - but the idea of something far greater and more perfect than us, someone we may have to be able "to look in the eye" who will look right through us "when we die", before whom nothing within us remains hidden, this idea - more or less - tends to make us "better", more "evolved" more kind, honest, loving, towards one another. Canada, God, Freedom, Communism, Hinduism, Buddhism, it's all the same - constructs by which we are trying to live with one-another in peace and love, with enough food to eat, and without killing each other. We are all free to argue about these constructs, well, maybe not all of us, unfortunately, but - may the best ones win.

People who believe in Physics have been able to fly to the moon in rockets on faith that the math is right. Pretty cool proof without understanding.

People who believe in God, or would say they know God (as in me and my father are One), have healed the sick, and can face stuff like crucifiction with love and forgivness - pretty impressive, too. And are still doing it today. Just one example, and the best documented one being Christian Science, where people believe that if you don't figure out how to do that, you have not yet understood anything Jesus has taught. There is official, legal recording of these healings, with witnesses etc and if you looked into it it, you would find it quite humbling.

Also, if you follow these "God"-inspired teachings (the God-Math ) like the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule - you will most likely be happier than if you don't, maybe not in the short term - which is always so confusing :rolleyes: - but certainly in the long term, and the long term is long - ask your parents or grand-parents. It can be proven by simple experimentation or by asking and watching people.

Not all of the Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, etc. is "right", and even if it were, much of it would be misunderstood, just like not all of Physics and Math is right or completely understood, which just brings me back to "fix and improve religion", like any science. Why not do experiments on the Ten Commandments, on time spent in prayer or meditation etc.? It actually is being done, nowadays and it gives me hope. (Neurotheology)

Oh, and by the way, your mother, Calibos, I would say "believes" in Math every time she gets on a bus, or in her car, or on an airplane. She not only believes in it, but counts on it. And as far as God is concerned, she is like a fish who doesn't believe in water. But she sounds cool to be able to have discussions like this with. You're lucky.

I'd like to see a creationist date some fossils, or make some logical predictions according to "the science" of ID, and I'd like to see Dawkins having to look into the eyes of a Jesus or Buddha. He would simply fall apart. His Ego crumbling in the face of that level of Light, Love, Trust, Peace, Knowing, Truth. But, that is not going to happen, and he means well. Another, but very serious, big, blustery fish, not believing in the ocean- it doesn't matter. Creationists and Dawkins are the same to me - just opposite ends of the same spectrum.

Only the fish who have either jumped, or been pulled out of the ocean for a time, know what ocean and water means, and they can try to describe it. Some of the other fish will intuitively believe them, maybe get interested in learning what is required for this jump, others will simply say - you're all fools - there is no ocean, and others have no interest in this discussion at all, one way or the other.

In other words, everyone is living and breathing, counting on and being sustained by "what is called God" - God is closer than your own breath and your own heartbeat, or as it says in the Qu'ran - closer than your own jugular vein - he is easily missed. The divine joke, you'll just laugh when you find him. The Earth was round long before it was discovered, gravity existed long before it was discovered and so on and so on. It will turn out the same with God.

Just think for a moment, what a shock it was to discover that the Earth was round, and not the center of the universe. It is a bit of a bigger shock to realize who and what God is, before you get your chuckle. (It certainly is not what people imagine)Therefore, it is not yet time for just everybody, and preparation is somewhat needed, to put it mildly - as in work on that open-mindedness, open-heartedness, courage, love, trust. My usual "crap", sermon :rolleyes: OK- I'll stop now. Got to go jump a few waves

robindch

> "There is no God." Looks like that is only his theory. And I think it is going
> backwards, rather than forward. Has he proven it? How? Just because you
> can't see it or understand it, is no proof.

Just to correct a common misconception. Dawkins DOES NOT claim that god does not exist. Just that he BELIEVES that god, as described, PROBABLY does not exist. The distinction is important and constantly misunderstood

Zillah

Meditation Mom:

1 - Science works on the concept of falisifiability. One fundamentally cannot disprove that God exists, hence it is not a "theory" in the correct sense, it is a claim, one that requires proof.

2 - Dawkins does not need to prove God does not exist, he is not the claiment. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, and scientifically speaking there is not a shred of evidence for God's existence, hence we reject the claim pending further information.

3 - You cannot experiment for the existence of God because of point 1.

4 - One does not have faith in math, one has an observation as to the consistent and comprehensive success and accuracy of mathematics.

Why not do experiments on the Ten Commandments, on time spent in prayer or meditation etc.?

Please describe an experiment to test the ten commandments. What are its aims and controls?

And prayer has been tested. A study got a whole bunch of cancer patients, had half of them prayed for and the other half did not get prayed for. The ones who got prayed for actually did slightly worse: they put it down to the extra stress of knowing there were dozens of people praying for them to get better.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Meditation Mom:
3 - You cannot experiment for the existence of God because of point 1.

Of course you can.

If we had a personal intervening God (the kind most people are interested in) then any claims about how he affects the physical world can be tested.

God himself (ie the study of how and why he does it) may be beyond science, but a God who intervened physically in this universe could have his actions detected by science.

So whereas science may not (in a very technical and philosophical sense) be able to say God does not exist, it can make the following statement:

Our universe with a God is indistinguishable from our universe without a God.

Then we use the 'duck method of inductive reasoning' (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck).

Put another way, if 2 things have no differences then they are the same thing.

God exists = God not exists
=>God does not exist.

Zillah

Cease your specious sophistry!

pH wrote:

If we had a personal intervening God (the kind most people are interested in) then any claims about how he affects the physical world can be tested.

No, then you're experimenting whether "Healing Case A" can be explained or not (it is falsifiable). You're not experimenting as to the existence of God.

If the claim is something akin to "God exists and always heals me when I pray like so" then its falsifiable and we can confirm that God does not exist if he ever doesn't heal someone. (But that sort of God only exists in the mind of schizophrenics, most believers are of the type below)

If the claim is simply "My God exists and heals people sometimes when he feels like it", it doesn't matter how many times we prove he didn't heal someone, the statement lacks falsifiability, we can never confirm he didn't heal someone we didn't test. Hence the assertion of God's* existence is not a "theory" as far as science is concerned.

*(the Judeo Christian God and 99.999% of other divinities that are sporadic interventionist Gods)

MeditationMom

robindth and zillah - thanks. That's why I am in this thread. Good points! Smart guys everywhere!

by robindth- Just to correct a common misconception. Dawkins DOES NOT claim that god does not exist. Just that he BELIEVES that god, as described, PROBABLY does not exist. The distinction is important and constantly misunderstood

I was afraid of that,and apologize. Typical when someone hasn't actually read the book(s). :rolleyes: I am glad to hear that about Dawkins. Sounds reasonable. The only question I would have for him then is "as described" - which discriptions is he talking about? There are simple-minded descriptions of God and very sophisticated ones that are more like "higher physics". He propably gives the descriptions he refers to in his book. He sounds intelligent and logical and would have to have done that. Then the only question that remains is to which extent does he understand these "higher physics"-kind of descriptions of God?

Here is one of my favorite ones, by Ramana Maharshi: "No one doubts that he exists, though you may doubt the existence of God. If you find out the truth about yourself and discover your own source, this is all that is required."

And your old MeditationMom can second that statement. Scofflaw, I think you may find this statement "reasonable" as well. No doubt, some of the more simplistic ideas about God are more of a hinderance than a help.

by zillah- Please describe an experiment to test the ten commandments. What are its aims and controls?

I have never designed a proper scientific experiment, so would need your help if you know what the rules are. "Aim" would be to prove that people who break one, two, three chosen commandments show higher levels of depression than people who don't, over a given period of time.

Maybe you could follow two groups of people - who consistenly break several, or all commandments, and people who don't - and then measure their levels of depression. You'd have to first be sure that breaking commandments is not a result of depression in the first place. So you'd have to start out with equally happy people to begin with and then have them go in the different directions and see where they would be after a while on the scale of happiness or peace/ contentment. Along the way you would have to eliminate all the people who would have had terrible things like rapes or murders happen to them or people in the "non-or-less-sinning" groups who have given into "temptations" Pretty difficult experiment to design and control especially with House's law that says: "Everybody lies." (Do you have that show - "Dr House"- in Ireland?) So maybe one should just try it, this way, or that way, for oneself. But, if people were serious and commited to this experiment, maybe it could be done.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Cease your specious sophistry!



No, then you're experimenting whether "Healing Case A" can be explained or not (it is falsifiable). You're not experimenting as to the existence of God.

If the claim is something akin to "God exists and always heals me when I pray like so" then its falsifiable and we can confirm that God does not exist if he ever doesn't heal someone. (But that sort of God only exists in the mind of schizophrenics, most believers are of the type below)

If the claim is simply "My God exists and heals people sometimes when he feels like it", it doesn't matter how many times we prove he didn't heal someone, the statement lacks falsifiability, we can never confirm he didn't heal someone we didn't test. Hence the assertion of God's* existence is not a "theory" as far as science is concerned.

*(the Judeo Christian God and 99.999% of other divinities that are sporadic interventionist Gods)

Truly said. We can never disprove any intervention by God, or some God. For example, God may be confining His interventions to a small tribe somewhere in the Amazon as yet uncontacted.

However, we can look at, say, Christianity, and say: "by their beliefs God is like this, or that". That gives us what we might call a "predictive model" of God as believed in by Christians (and we can break it down further).

This means we can actually say this - "for a given conception of God, we can say that either that this God does not exist, or that He is not like that conception of Him".

We can, in other words, disprove the existence of any specified God, but not the existence of Gods in general.

Christians usually opt out of this by claiming that god is ineffable (and that this is one of His characteristics), and therefore we cannot constrain Him in this way. Unfortunately for them, we can definitely say that their God is not like their conception of Him throughout the historic period. If this is ineffability, it is indistinguishable from simply not being like the God they conceive.

Occasionally, Christians remind me of battered spouses saying "oh but he/she loves me really, it's just a phase, they're not really like that...".

All of this is what makes me an alatrist rather than an atheist - there may well be Gods out there, but there are provably none worth worshipping.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

MeditationMom wrote:

I have never designed a proper scientific experiment, so would need your help if you know what the rules are. "Aim" would be to prove that people who break one, two, three chosen commandments show higher levels of depression than people who don't, over a given period of time.

Maybe you could follow two groups of people - who consistenly break several, or all commandments, and people who don't - and then measure their levels of depression. You'd have to first be sure that breaking commandments is not a result of depression in the first place. So you'd have to start out with equally happy people to begin with and then have them go in the different directions and see where they would be after a while on the scale of happiness or peace/ contentment. Along the way you would have to eliminate all the people who would have had terrible things like rapes or murders happen to them or people in the "non-or-less-sinning" groups who have given into "temptations" Pretty difficult experiment to design and control especially with House's law that says: "Everybody lies." (Do you have that show - "Dr House"- in Ireland?) So maybe one should just try it, this way, or that way, for oneself. But, if people were serious and commited to this experiment, maybe it could be done.

Alas, you would also need to show that the depression (if found) is an indicator of God's displeasure, as opposed to the result of going against social programming.

The best test would be Commandment 1 - after all, it's the only one that doesn't have any social programming sense built in. Are Muslims/Hindus/Shinto/etc less happy than Christians? I think not.

Speaking personally as someone who has broken 9/10 of the commandments, and who continues to break at least four of them every day (pretty much always the same four these days, more's the pity), and five on Sundays - I'm afraid I have a pretty positive outlook on life. Still, I'm not statistically significant!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

MeditationMom wrote:

I have never designed a proper scientific experiment, so would need your help if you know what the rules are. "Aim" would be to prove that people who break one, two, three chosen commandments show higher levels of depression than people who don't, over a given period of time.

Even if it went perfectly to your plan, all it would show is if the Ten Commandments are a good set of practices for avoiding depression. God doesn't feature in that experiment, those rules could have been written by some clever Middle Eastern guy thousands of years ago.

I'm afraid the only help I can give you is to say that you cannot "test" the ten commandments in relation to the existence of God in any useful manner. By the nature of the subject its impossible.

pH

Zillah wrote:

Cease your specious sophistry!

No, then you're experimenting whether "Healing Case A" can be explained or not (it is falsifiable). You're not experimenting as to the existence of God.

If the claim is simply "My God exists and heals people sometimes when he feels like it", it doesn't matter how many times we prove he didn't heal someone, the statement lacks falsifiability, we can never confirm he didn't heal someone we didn't test. Hence the assertion of God's* existence is not a "theory" as far as science is concerned.

*(the Judeo Christian God and 99.999% of other divinities that are sporadic interventionist Gods)

Even a sporadically intervening God could be detected at a statistical level.

So you're saying that the majority of believers believe in a God, who's prime characteristic is that he is undetectable.

They believe that a universe with their God in it is completely indistinguishable from a version of that universe that didn't have their God in it?

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

I was afraid of that,and apologize. Typical when someone hasn't actually read the book(s). :rolleyes: I am glad to hear that about Dawkins. Sounds reasonable. The only question I would have for him then is "as described" - which discriptions is he talking about? There are simple-minded descriptions of God and very sophisticated ones that are more like "higher physics". He propably gives the descriptions he refers to in his book. He sounds intelligent and logical and would have to have done that. Then the only question that remains is to which extent does he understand these "higher physics"-kind of descriptions of God?

One thing I've found reading the book is that Dawkins tries to pre-empts every question the reader might have. He's obviously aware through years of experience of the questions he will be asked when he makes an observation. For example in the first few chapters he pre-empts the "what type of god are you talking about" with references to Pantheism, deism, polytheism and so on.

MeditationMom you should pick it up and give it a read. I don't think it's going to change your spiritual outlook - you don't want to give that up - but it'll give you plenty of food for thought and discussion. Of course reading the book is not a pre-requisite for posting here. There are more than enough heathens happy to respond to any posts you make.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Even a sporadically intervening God could be detected at a statistical level.

So you're saying that the majority of believers believe in a God, who's prime characteristic is that he is undetectable.

They believe that a universe with their God in it is completely indistinguishable from a version of that universe that didn't have their God in it?

Well most believers wouldn't accept that his intervention is undetectable, but then they mostly don't understand science much.

Take for example something good happening to someone, that they attribute to God. You see this all the time at awards and stuff "I want to thank my parents, my cat, my toilet brush, and God".

How do you show that good things are or aren't caused by God?

This is one of the reasons I'm an atheists, the concept of God is too ridiculous to be real and clearly just an invention of humanity

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

"I want to thank my parents, my cat, my toilet brush, and God".

How do you show that good things are or aren't caused by God?

There's still more chance of me thanking God than a cat.
You blame cats, not thank them.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

There's still more chance of me thanking God than a cat.
You blame cats, not thank them.

dog lover!

Zillah

pH wrote:

Even a sporadically intervening God could be detected at a statistical level.

How? You need an average from which to detect deviation as an experimental control. Where do you get that from? We can't be sure God didn't interfere with the average we have taken and so it loses it usefulness as a control.

So you're saying that the majority of believers believe in a God, who's prime characteristic is that he is undetectable.

Yes, exactly; he doesn't exist, remember?

As Wicknight says, most of them aren't very scientific at all and would attribute normal events as evidence of His intervention.

They believe that a universe with their God in it is completely indistinguishable from a version of that universe that didn't have their God in it?

When you subject it to the sceptical eye, yes. But they don't do that.

Wicknight wrote:

dog lover!

Oh no...you're not a cat person are you? :rolleyes:

MeditationMom

Once again, I find myself agreeing with everyone - no more comments until I read this book - see you soon

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

How? You need an average from which to detect deviation as an experimental control. Where do you get that from? We can't be sure God didn't interfere with the average we have taken and so it loses it usefulness as a control.

That would be true if it weren't clear (from the Bible) that God intervenes rather spectacularly. The Bible doesn't outline the sort of God that just puts his thumb on one side of the scale.

I agree that Christians do assume a God who intervenes constantly in a myriad tiny ways, but there's no "Biblical evidence" for such a God.

Zillah wrote:

As Wicknight says, most of them aren't very scientific at all and would attribute normal events as evidence of His intervention.

True. The worshipper praises God that the sun rises in the morning.

Zillah wrote:

They believe that a universe with their God in it is completely indistinguishable from a version of that universe that didn't have their God in it?

When you subject it to the sceptical eye, yes. But they don't do that.

Also, they believe that the observed Universe is the one with God in it.

Zillah wrote:

Oh no...you're not a cat person are you? :rolleyes:

All the best people are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

New interview on BBC (not the Paxman one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNjpfBc7Jmw

He's REALLY publicising this book! Comedy Central, BBC, RTÉ...

adam_ccfc

Bought this today. Looking forward to reading it. I've heard good things.:)

lostexpectation

he himself calls it an attack on religion ... go dawkins


awful questions, neehh why don't you go to north korea??? WTF what's north korea go to do with anything


ah he is on colbert dunno of this has been posted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA