More Dawkins critism

Zillah

Schuhart wrote:

But, standing outside of the situation, its certainly possible to conceive of both a perfect goat and a perfect octopus.

No...no it isn't. Thats my point. Essentially, I've explained why the term "perfect X" outside of context is nonesense, and your response is essentially "I can't use English to support my position but I'll still insist its right". It is an imprecision in the language, we're discussing the meaning and useage of the word "perfect". Dismissing that as if it somehow supports your impossible notion of objective perfection is disingenous at best.

aidan24326

Originally Posted by Schuhart
But, standing outside of the situation, its certainly possible to conceive of both a perfect goat and a perfect octopus.

Schuhart I don't know how you could possibly think that. What the hell would a 'perfect' goat be? That is completely meaningless. To even define the necesary criteria for something as complex as a goat would be impossible. You can conceive of something all you like but it still doesn't necessarily exist anywhere outside your own head. To suggest that someone can imagine the 'perfect being', call it god for convention, one would have to define what attributes this being would possess to be intrinsically perfect, and it's already known that the christian ideal of their perfect god is a logical impossibility.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Originally Posted by Schuhart
But, standing outside of the situation, its certainly possible to conceive of both a perfect goat and a perfect octopus.

Schuhart I don't know how you could possibly think that. What the hell would a 'perfect' goat be? That is completely meaningless. To even define the necesary criteria for something as complex as a goat would be impossible. You can conceive of something all you like but it still doesn't necessarily exist anywhere outside your own head. To suggest that someone can imagine the 'perfect being', call it god for convention, one would have to define what attributes this being would possess to be intrinsically perfect, and it's already known that the christian ideal of their perfect god is a logical impossibility.

Hmm. Isn't all judging in competitions done against a "perfect" standard. If we had a goat version of Cruft's (and I'm not going to Google it), then all entrants are presumably being judged against exemplars of their breed - what you might call "perfect" specimens.

In addition, nearly all taxonomic systems use "type specimens" - which are then, by definition, perfect. Somewhere, there is a "type specimen" for each breed of goat.

Zillah, I'm not sure you're actually competent to redefine the English language all by yourself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Isn't all judging in competitions done against a "perfect" standard. If we had a goat version of Cruft's (and I'm not going to Google it), then all entrants are presumably being judged against exemplars of their breed - what you might call "perfect" specimens.

In addition, nearly all taxonomic systems use "type specimens" - which are then, by definition, perfect. Somewhere, there is a "type specimen" for each breed of goat.

yes but it still requires a subjective judgement, which is the whole point is it not?

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

yes but it still requires a subjective judgement, which is the whole point is it not?

Well, not really - in the case of type specimens they have to demonstrate all the characteristic features - and these are dictated by taxonomic requirements.

In the case of dog shows and the like, I wouldn't be as certain, but the standards are only subjective in the sense that the standards to be judged are decided by humans - once they have been determined, I assume some of them are objectively measurable.

If all this discussion is about is the idea that for "perfect" to be a meaningful term we must (a) say what thing it is we are determining the perfection of, and (b) how we would determine that it is perfect - then, both those things are part of the definition of the word, and all that is objected to is sloppy usage of the term.

Curiously, I doubt Anselm was using the word in a sloppy and non-technical sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

aidan24326 wrote:

yes but it still requires a subjective judgement, which is the whole point is it not?

But we seem to be using 'subjective' to mean two different things. One is what I'd call 'truly subjective', as in 'that's a nice goat'. Your idea of a nice goat might be completely different to mine, or that the only good goat is a dead one. I might think that a nice goat is one chosen by God to be his bride. That's truly subjective - no argument.

But I take it that, unless we take language to a place where it means nothing, the word 'goat' must denote something that has a certain goatness about it. I'd be surprised if we would really argue that long over what a perfect circle should be. A perfect goat might be a more complex proposition, but I don't in principle see any reason why such a concept cannot be conceived, without any real subjective element. I'd take it that the marking sheet for best goat at Crufts would have a set of objective criteria against which animals can be scored, making the idea of a perfect goat very different to the idea of a nice goat.

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, not really - in the case of type specimens they have to demonstrate all the characteristic features - and these are dictated by taxonomic requirements.

Right, so there are criteria by which we decide if the animal is "perfect". Its not "perfect" in some abstract objective sense, if merely meets our criteria 100%.

I'd take it that the marking sheet for best goat at Crufts would have a set of objective criteria against which animals can be scored, making the idea of a perfect goat very different to the idea of a nice goat.

No, they're not "objective criteria", they're subjective criteria. Perfect within the context of the crufts marking sheet.

Zillah, I'm not sure you're actually competent to redefine the English language all by yourself.

I'd really appreciate if you explained and justified that. As it is it seems like a condescending throw away comment that serves no purpose. If you have a point, make it, rather than sniping at me personally.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

Right, so there are criteria by which we decide if the animal is "perfect". Its not "perfect" in some abstract objective sense, if merely meets our criteria 100%.

It's perfect in the sense of perfect.

Zillah wrote:

No, they're not "objective criteria", they're subjective criteria. Perfect within the context of the crufts marking sheet.

The criteria in the case of Cruft's may be subjectively determined, but still objectively measurable.

In the case of type specimens, they are objectively determined, and objectively measurable.

Zillah wrote:

I'd really appreciate if you explained and justified that. As it is it seems like a condescending throw away comment that serves no purpose. If you have a point, make it, rather than sniping at me personally.

Apologies. It wasn't really intended as a personal comment - it's more that I think you are trying to limit the word "perfect" to a very circumscribed definition, while expanding the word "subjective" to an all-embracing definition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly.And if we claim that religion is "unscientific", and that the believer does not interpret evidence in the correctly scientific manner, when they have not set out to do so, are we not essentially making the same claim?

Religion can only be unscientific when it attempts to deal with matters which fall into the purview of science, or, rather, when religion tries to do science. Like creationists. Theology the most important aspect of religion, cannot breach scientific method - the fields are incommensurable.

Scofflaw wrote:

By which criterion we exclude all tribal religions (no book), Buddhism (no hierarchy), Shinto (no moral code, proscriptive or prescriptive - and no book).

Buddhism does have a kind of hierarchy - a spiritual authority at least. I wouldn't call Shinto or tribal spiritualities religions, no. I suppose that is a bit of a special definition, but I think the distinction is important, or rather any other use of the word religion would be relatively useless. Regardless, my point is that worship exists outside of religion, and whether or not you accept my criteria for religion, that remains true. Many forms of neo-pagan or magickal practices are undertaken be secular people, and involve worship.

Scofflaw wrote:

This is one of these things where I have to go back and see what on earth I thought my point was, and yours.

I brought in the degree to which they feel religious fervour because of your reference to suicide bombers and evangelical pastors, who are hardly representative of the mass of the faithful.

Ah - I didn't intend to argue that the mass of the faithful didn't believe in God - only that they didn't examine their concept of God too closely. Most people's personal conception of their God is rarely a close match for the "official viewpoint".

So, do you still assert that belief in God is a "footnote" to religious practice?

Talliesin wrote:

That can also be said of the atrocities made in the name of religion.

I don't see how. Could you elaborate?

bonkey

Schuhart wrote:

'Perfect' in this context means you can't actually think of any improvement.

Perfect should mean that there can be no improvement, regardless of whether you or anyone else can think of it.

In terms of the perfect circle, it only exists in mathematical form. In the physical world, if you look closely enough, you will always find that it breaks down, because the physical world itself breaks down at a certain granularity.

AS Schuart said : What you seem to be pointing to is an imprecision in language rather that the concept of perfection. It should be pointed out that science is no exception in this case - imprecision in language abounds.

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, nearly all taxonomic systems use "type specimens" - which are then, by definition, perfect.

I would disagree. Unless all taxonomic systems use type specimens, then the application of perfection is again a linguistic imprecision. It is a convenience of expression to avoid a far more complex description along the lines of "matches the type-specimen as closely as can be measured". It should also be pointed out that the type-specimen is highly unlikely to be fully specified. For example, how can we have a type specimen of something who's DNA has not been fully analysed? And even at a DNA level, there's still gaps in our knowledge. If anything, it suggests that type specimens are simply to provide a nomenclature of convenience.

One thorny issue it raises, for example, is that Homo Sapiens should have a type specimen. This implies there is a perfect human.

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

Religion can only be unscientific when it attempts to deal with matters which fall into the purview of science, or, rather, when religion tries to do science. Like creationists. Theology the most important aspect of religion, cannot breach scientific method - the fields are incommensurable.

Exactly. Despite this, many atheists insist on using scientific standards to judge religion when it is not making scientific claims. Indeed, the essential claim of many atheists is that the existence of god is open to scientific disproof - by which all religion is condemned.

Sapien wrote:

Buddhism does have a kind of hierarchy - a spiritual authority at least. I wouldn't call Shinto or tribal spiritualities religions, no. I suppose that is a bit of a special definition, but I think the distinction is important, or rather any other use of the word religion would be relatively useless. Regardless, my point is that worship exists outside of religion, and whether or not you accept my criteria for religion, that remains true. Many forms of neo-pagan or magickal practices are undertaken be secular people, and involve worship.

Obviously, I wouldn't be able to agree if I chose to define religion as anything involving worship...! Since it is clear we do not have congruent definitions, I'd have to ask you to clarify.

I suspect I know what you mean - that the worship offered to an entity in a ceremony is, if you like, "pay-as-you-go" as opposed to the religious "contract." However, the same would be true of many polytheistic systems - anyone can perform acts of worship, and many people would only perform them on a ceremonial basi - more frequently for their personal deity, infrequently. A friend of mine is married to a Hindu, whose family are specifically Ganesh worshippers, with occasional devotions to Hanuman, other gods as required (weddings etc). I would still consider that religion.

Sapien wrote:

So, do you still assert that belief in God is a "footnote" to religious practice?

Er, no...I hadn't done so. All I have claimed is that the majority of adherents to any given religion usually don't follow all the rules, or have quite the same conception of their deity. In addition, I have suggested that some, or many, believers, particularly the better educated, often deliberately don't examine their conception of God too closely, lest it vanish in the light of reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

bonkey wrote:

Perfect should mean that there can be no improvement, regardless of whether you or anyone else can think of it.

In terms of the perfect circle, it only exists in mathematical form. In the physical world, if you look closely enough, you will always find that it breaks down, because the physical world itself breaks down at a certain granularity.

Good, clear statement of what I’m trying to say.

Scofflaw wrote:

Sapien wrote:

So, do you still assert that belief in God is a "footnote" to religious practice?

Er, no...I hadn't done so. All I have claimed is that the majority of adherents to any given religion usually don't follow all the rules, or have quite the same conception of their deity. In addition, I have suggested that some, or many, believers, particularly the better educated, often deliberately don't examine their conception of God too closely, lest it vanish in the light of reason.

In fairness, I think I might have used the term ‘footnote’. While that might be an overstatement, I think the idea I’m trying to get across is that we approach religion seeing it as all built up on belief in God. Hence, we tend to think if you take away the God concept, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. But people seem to come into religion through a different process. I’m not dogmatic about this interpretation – I just think it’s pretty evident that theists are quite aware that the whole God business is a bit dubious, but it doesn’t take them out of the game. Hence, assuming we’re interested in understanding religion as a phenomenon, we need to ask why this is so – rationally, not in a fit of ‘them theists is thick, so they are’.

My example of the moment is from a short book on the psychology of religion that I read recently. Inter alia, the author quotes a study of America women who converted to Islam. What seemed to emerge as a common thread amongst those women was a liking for a faith that valued the homemaker role. What that suggests is that those individuals aspire to a homemaker role, and seek out a belief system that accords it a value that they feel is missing generally in the culture. Having found that belief system, they take what goes with it – praying five times a day, or whatever.

We’re tending to look at religion from the other end of the telescope. Hence, we’d half assume that those American converts must start by reckoning there’s a God who sent an angel to recite the Quran to Mohammed, and that as a consequence they’d better do whatever the angel said because its God’s word. While there is some value in looking at the formal proposition of a religion, it’s not the same as the real world experience. Leaving aside the special case of converts, as Scofflaw says you find adherents put their own spin on doctrines in any event. That’s essentially what I’m trying to communicate by describing belief in God as a footnote. It might not be logical, but there’s evidence to suggest its actually not the doorway in to a religion.

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

Exactly. Despite this, many atheists insist on using scientific standards to judge religion when it is not making scientific claims. Indeed, the essential claim of many atheists is that the existence of god is open to scientific disproof - by which all religion is condemned.

Which is to conflate logic and science - something an educated atheist wouldn't do.

Scofflaw wrote:

Obviously, I wouldn't be able to agree if I chose to define religion as anything involving worship...! Since it is clear we do not have congruent definitions, I'd have to ask you to clarify.

Is that actually your definition of religion? Couldn't you just have said that? Obviously I disagree. And you had previously said:

Scofflaw wrote:

Religion is, first and foremost, a group activity formalised by certain arbitrary rules.

Scofflaw wrote:

I suspect I know what you mean - that the worship offered to an entity in a ceremony is, if you like, "pay-as-you-go" as opposed to the religious "contract."

That is one example of what I might mean, though that dynamic can work within a religion, as I would define one. Worship is undertaken in spiritual contexts that could not be construed as religious (according to any definition I had hitherto encountered)...

Scofflaw wrote:

However, the same would be true of many polytheistic systems - anyone can perform acts of worship, and many people would only perform them on a ceremonial basi - more frequently for their personal deity, infrequently. A friend of mine is married to a Hindu, whose family are specifically Ganesh worshippers, with occasional devotions to Hanuman, other gods as required (weddings etc). I would still consider that religion.

Is that because you define religion as worship of a divinity? Hardly surprising then. What about a person who worships deities from different, unrelated mythologies? Is that religion? What about Freemasons, whose members can belong to any monotheistic faith, and who revere the "Great Architect" through complex ritual worship? Is that religion? What about people who worship deities that they have invented, or were invented by someone they know? Religion?

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no...I hadn't done so. All I have claimed is that the majority of adherents to any given religion usually don't follow all the rules, or have quite the same conception of their deity.

I have been working on the understandable assumption that you have been arguing Schuhart's assertion that "God looks like it is just a footnote in religious practice":

Schuhart wrote:

Focussing on one footnote within a religion does very little to convince people one way or the other. And belief in God looks like it is just a footnote in religious practice.

Sapien wrote:

I don't think atheists will be your greatest problem when it comes to convincing people of that. Should religion not be evaluated at face value?

Scofflaw wrote:

What is "face value" for religion?

Sapien wrote:

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure belief in God would come into it. One may very well theorise that many people maintain religious practice without believing in God, but that isn't exactly how religious communities present themselves to the world.

Scofflaw wrote:

Obviously, no religious community can present themselves as a sham. However, one may well observe that many people maintain religious practice without examining their concept of God too closely, in case it should turn out to be silly. They believe, but in what they generally can't say - however, the belief that they believe is important to them, and they will abandon a "faith" that admits it is a sham, because it can no longer offer an "authentic" religious experience.

Et cetera.

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, I have suggested that some, or many, believers, particularly the better educated, often deliberately don't examine their conception of God too closely, lest it vanish in the light of reason.

That may be true in some cases, but if I have learned nothing else from my interactions with the religious, there is no dearth of educated and intelligent people amongst there number who have come up with very clever reasons to maintain belief in deity - ideas that are then adduced by more ordinary believers whenever their belief in God is challenged, either by others or by their own ruminations. To phrase it memetically, you either underestimate the ability of the religion virus to defend itself, or overestimate the power of the cognitive immune system to reject its parts.

Schuhart

Sapien wrote:

there is no dearth of educated and intelligent people amongst there number who have come up with very clever reasons to maintain belief in deity

Some theists give a spirited defence of their formal beliefs. To our ears, we wonder how they can be convinced with what appear to be tenuous arguments. I’d again just suggest this could be another hint that the real reason for adherence to the religion lies elsewhere – i.e. what’s important for the theist is not that tenuous argument, but something else.

I'd stress again I don't mean to be dogmatic about this, although it does look to me to be an aspect of religion that pretty much screams out to be studied. People don't seem to believe in religion because God is a very credible concept. So what's the missing factor(s)?

robindch

> many atheists insist on using scientific standards to judge religion when it is
> not making scientific claims.

Perhaps not scientific claims, per se, in the sense that there is a claim, an undisputed definition of a theory, and linked predictions. But many claims and implications of various religion -- the earth is flat and 6,000 years old, every action and reaction guided by a deity, etc, etc -- are easily examinable and easily refutable.

Secondly, many, if not most, religious people base their religious beliefs upon evidence which can be examined. And the evidence turns out to be pretty poor in every instance I can think of.

> The essential claim of many atheists is that the existence of god is open
> to scientific disproof

Not by any atheists that I've come across. The existence of specific gods with specific attributes can be shown to be false, when the attributes are examined properly and shown to be contradictory or plain daft. But these are disproofs of specific instances, not disproofs of the general concept, which is, as far as I'm aware, undisprovable.

pH

robindch wrote:

But these are disproofs of specific instances, not disproofs of the general concept, which is, as far as I'm aware, undisprovable.

And when something is neither provable, disprovable nor undisprovable, and there is not the slightest shred of evidence in its favour then we're back to teapots orbiting planets and dragons hiding in garages.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> many atheists insist on using scientific standards to judge religion when it is
> not making scientific claims.

Perhaps not scientific claims, per se, in the sense that there is a claim, an undisputed definition of a theory, and linked predictions. But many claims and implications of various religion -- the earth is flat and 6,000 years old, every action and reaction guided by a deity, etc, etc -- are easily examinable and easily refutable.

Something which I have frequently argued. However, as most Christians (but not most of our Christian posters) will tell you, the Bible is not intended to be taken literally.

robindch wrote:

Secondly, many, if not most, religious people base their religious beliefs upon evidence which can be examined. And the evidence turns out to be pretty poor in every instance I can think of.

To follow Schuhart's point - they claim that this is so (and we assume that they are stupid because the evidence used is so tenuous), whereas it is clear from their willingness (in most cases) to abandon any specific line of "evidence" that their beliefs are unrelated to the evidence.

robindch wrote:

> The essential claim of many atheists is that the existence of god is open
> to scientific disproof

Not by any atheists that I've come across. The existence of specific gods with specific attributes can be shown to be false, when the attributes are examined properly and shown to be contradictory or plain daft. But these are disproofs of specific instances, not disproofs of the general concept, which is, as far as I'm aware, undisprovable.

Heavens. So all those hours I've spent arguing that very point against those on this forum who argue all gods are disprovable were wasted (or possibly not...). Any atheist, properly challenged, will generally retreat to the provable position of disproving specific Gods....but will mutter a special definition of God that essentially boils down to the Abrahamic deities, who are conveniently disprovable - or dismiss the argument for God entirely at that point, based on the scientific criterion of non-falsifiability.

The evidence for this assertion of mine is to be found throughout this forum (see post above, for example - the teapot dismissal is a science-based dismissal dressed up as philosophy) - people have repeatedly argued for the disproof of all deities through one or other of the two mechanisms above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote:

People don't seem to believe in religion because God is a very credible concept. So what's the missing factor(s)?

A little out of my depth here, however:

A couple of positive/negative factors spring to mind.

Negative from a non believer's viewpoint.

1. Hope for a better life (now or later)
2: To give a sense of meaning or order to one's life or life condition
3. As a bargaining tool to gain one's desires
4. Someone to turn to when there is no one else (not necessarily bad)
5. Brainwashing from a junior age (includes fear of retribution)
6. Fear of social castigation or as a result of social or ecclesiastic pressure
and probably a lot more I can't think of right now.

Positive from a believer's viewpoint.

7. Personal proof of the said God's existence
8. Personal connection with said God
9. Intervention by the said God

From a non believer's viewpoint, I think the missing factor could well be Hope; if one believes and follows the rules all will turn out fine in the end and one will be rewarded with a life of enjoyable permanence.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Heavens. So all those hours I've spent arguing that very point against those on this forum who argue all gods are disprovable were wasted (or possibly not...). Any atheist, properly challenged, will generally retreat to the provable position of disproving specific Gods....but will mutter a special definition of God that essentially boils down to the Abrahamic deities, who are conveniently disprovable - or dismiss the argument for God entirely at that point, based on the scientific criterion of non-falsifiability.

Hmm.

What the problem exactly? "Atheists" supposedly say all disprovable gods are false, and non-disprovable gods are, well, exactly that?

I think the arguments you speak of were more along the lines that a god without a single definable (and thus disprovable) characteristic is not really a god worth arguing about. It's just taking a word that historically carried with it a set of characteristics - and applying it to nothingness - and then saying "disprove that!"

And of course its not just the Abrahamic deities - unless you think Zeus, Thor, Amazonian tree-gods, etc. are any less disprovable than the old familiars.

Intriguingly,
The Atheist

Schuhart

Asiaprod wrote:

A little out of my depth here.

That's perfectly fine - we're all making it up as we go along.

Asiaprod wrote:

1. Hope for a better life (now or later)
2: To give a sense of meaning or order to one's life or life condition
3. As a bargaining tool to gain one's desires
4. Someone to turn to when there is no one else (not necessarily bad)
5. Brainwashing from a junior age (includes fear of retribution)
6. Fear of social castigation or as a result of social or ecclesiastic pressure
and probably a lot more I can't think of right now.

I think that's a fair list, and I'd suspect (for no objective reason) that a lot of the action belongs in point 2. For example, religion provides a framework for dealing with key life events. Say, having conventions about death that mean we can get through those moments. Also, it might be tied in with group mythology - I'm thinking of the way Irish Catholicism has that element of the faith being something that was maintained in the face of efforts to suppress it. Hence, the retention of the faith is not just about its doctrinal truth, but also an expression of national resilience in the face of someone else telling you what to do.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Hmm.

What the problem exactly? "Atheists" supposedly say all disprovable gods are false, and non-disprovable gods are, well, exactly that?

I think the arguments you speak of were more along the lines that a god without a single definable (and thus disprovable) characteristic is not really a god worth arguing about. It's just taking a word that historically carried with it a set of characteristics - and applying it to nothingness - and then saying "disprove that!"

And of course its not just the Abrahamic deities - unless you think Zeus, Thor, Amazonian tree-gods, etc. are any less disprovable than the old familiars.

Intriguingly,
The Atheist

Non-disprovable gods are certainly worth arguing about. We simply define God as (a) transcendent, (b) immaterial, (c) omnipresent to the extent of everything in the universe being "God-powered" and God-created. Optionally, we might add the rider that we can never perceive God unless He wishes to be perceived.

We cannot disprove such a deity, since He is not materially observable, is outside our comprehension, and we have no control Universe that we know to be God-free with which to make comparisons. In addition, with the optional rider, it is entirely up to Him whether we can perceive Him or not.

You and I would not see much point in worshipping such a deity, but there are plenty of people who would, and the vast majority of people would certainly accept such a being as a god.

So - a non-disprovable, but worshippable, God. I don't accept your "historical" argument, since there is a clear continuity between historically worshipped gods and this concept - in addition, some historical deities have had pretty much these characteristics (indeed, the concept is a very close match to the historical "deist" conception of God). Further, if I accepted your argument, I would have to accept JC's use of biogenesis to mean "spontaneous generation", since that's what it historically meant...

Now, that anyone would choose to dismiss such a concept of God on the basis of "non-falsifiability" is exactly what I am arguing atheists do - inappropriately apply scientific criteria. We can certainly say that such a God is not scientifically valid - but no gods are, by definition!

QED,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

You and I would not see much point in worshipping such a deity, but there are plenty of people who would, and the vast majority of people would certainly accept such a being as a god.

Before you QED this, explain exactly who these 'plenty of people' are please.

If there's anyone on this planet worshipping such a God I'd be amazed.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Before you QED this, explain exactly who these 'plenty of people' are please.

If there's anyone on this planet worshipping such a God I'd be amazed.

It's basically the deist conception of God - the God of Einstein, Gould, and a lot of intelligent theists. Certainly it is not a god as described by any major religions, but I haven't claimed it is - rather it is the 'god of the gaps' - the entity left over when you're done disproving every claim of intervention or creation. Try backing an intelligent theist into a corner, and you'll push him/her back to essentially this definition - but you won't stop him/her worshipping.

So, yes, plenty of people worship such a god, and they tend to be the most intelligent and rational of the theists. They didn't set out to worship such a god, and you could argue that this conception of god is simply what is left after all the baroque claims have been stripped away - but, and this is the point, people are still worshipping at that stage.

Strictly speaking, however, the QED refers to using the scientific concept of falsifiability as a test for the acceptability of conceptions of God in the first place - that being my main argument here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Schuhart wrote:

I think that's a fair list, and I'd suspect (for no objective reason) that a lot of the action belongs in point 2.

From my perspective, it would be a split between
1. Hope for a better life (now or later)
2: To give a sense of meaning or order to one's life or life condition.

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

It's basically the deist conception of God - the God of Einstein, Gould, and a lot of intelligent theists. Certainly it is not a god as described by any major religions, but I haven't claimed it is - rather it is the 'god of the gaps' - the entity left over when you're done disproving every claim of intervention or creation. Try backing an intelligent theist into a corner, and you'll push him/her back to essentially this definition - but you won't stop him/her worshipping.

I'm not implying he's intelligent, but when you back J C or wolfsbane into that corner let me know. I'm sure that some would argue your sentence should read 'when you back an intelligent theist without enough faith into a corner'.

So, yes, plenty of people worship such a god, and they tend to be the most intelligent and rational of the theists. They didn't set out to worship such a god, and you could argue that this conception of god is simply what is left after all the baroque claims have been stripped away - but, and this is the point, people are still worshipping at that stage.

My point is the 'number' you're calling 'plenty', I'd call 'a handful'. If there is more than a few thousand such people on this planet (theologians and religious physicists) I'd be amazed. Care to put a real number on your 'plenty'?

Strictly speaking, however, the QED refers to using the scientific concept of falsifiability as a test for the acceptability of conceptions of God in the first place - that being my main argument here.

Strictly speaking QED refers to using the mathematical concept of proof, which is something altogether different from scientific falsifiability.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

I'm not implying he's intelligent, but when you back J C or wolfsbane into that corner let me know. I'm sure that some would argue your sentence should read 'when you back an intelligent theist without enough faith into a corner'.

Sigh. Both JC and wolfsbane are what you might call "concrete" theists. You cannot back them into a corner using reason or evidence, because their minds will not permit the acceptance of contrary evidence. Also, JC is as thick as many short planks thickened with cornflour.

They are not typical of Christians - they are fundamentalists. They claim the scientific veracity of the Bible, so you are certainly not going to be able to back them into a corner using scientific evidence. They believe that all "evidence" is interpreted (a post-modernist viewpoint they resolutely fail to apply to anything else), and their minds are closed.

However, the fundamentalist's faith is actually weak, because they require that the evidence be on their side. Someone who continues to believe despite accepting the lack of evidence has stronger faith than the fundamentalist who insists on the verifiability of the Bible.

If I modify the sentence to say "intelligent reasonable theist", I think I can see your objection in advance.

pH wrote:

My point is the 'number' you're calling 'plenty', I'd call 'a handful'. If there is more than a few thousand such people on this planet (theologians and religious physicists) I'd be amazed. Care to put a real number on your 'plenty'?

I'd be perfectly happy to trawl for some kind of stats. In their absence, however, I can only go on my own experience. I have argued about religion with, at this stage, probably a couple of hundred theists (more if you consider public debates - well, I've been doing it for 25 years here and in the UK - it's something of a hobby), the majority of whom have been intelligent and fairly reasonable. Nearly all of them can be backed into a corner as described, and virtually none of them have lost their faith as a result - the exceptions have been a couple of born-agains.

Now, 'in my experience' is not the same as a statistical survey, of course, so you are free to dismiss it on those grounds.

However, for me to be wrong, it is necessary that my experience be very untypical - that the people I have met have all been unusual. Arrogant though I undoubtedly am, I don't believe that my life experience is that unique - and that I have pretty much met the entire 'handful' at this stage. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

pH wrote:

Strictly speaking QED refers to using the mathematical concept of proof, which is something altogether different from scientific falsifiability.

I have either annoyed you, or you have misunderstood me. Or both, of course. First, QED is used colloquially outwith mathematics, in the sense of "there you go", without anyone requiring mathematical rigour, as is "strictly" - so if you are objecting on those grounds, then I must have annoyed you. Otherwise, you have failed to read the sentence -

Strictly speaking, however, the QED refers to using the scientific concept of falsifiability as a test...

In this case, I thought it was reasonably clear that this statement refers to my use of QED at the end of my post. It could have been clearer if I'd said "strictly speaking, my QED refers...".

I suspect that I have annoyed you - care to tell me why?

concerned,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

We simply define God as (a) transcendent, (b) immaterial, (c) omnipresent to the extent of everything in the universe being "God-powered" and God-created. Optionally, we might add the rider that we can never perceive God unless He wishes to be perceived.

I think the point is that what ever we come up with by doing that defining is meaningless, since if what we are defining possess all those properties then we will not be able to define it in the first place.

We are attempting to assign properties to something that is impossible know the properties of. Therefore any attempt by us to define it is invalid. We might, by a cosmic fluke, get the some or all of these properties correct, but that doesn't make our guess any more valid.

If I am in a party and meet someone who I don't know the name of, and I start randomly blurting out names to them, I might eventually get to their name. But that doesn't mean I knew their name. I didn't. Equally I might never get to their name at all.

The concept "god" can be rejected not simply because we can disprove certain specific definitions, but also because we lack to the ability to define a "god" in the first place, just as I lacked the ability to know the persons name. It is not a definition, it is a guess.

What ever a possible entity is, it isn't a "god" as defined by humans, because such a definition is largely meaningless. A new unknown classification is required.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I think the point is that what ever we come up with by doing that defining is meaningless, since if what we are defining possess all those properties then we will not be able to define it in the first place.

We are attempting to assign properties to something that is impossible know the properties of. Therefore any attempt by us to define it is invalid. We might, by a cosmic fluke, get the some or all of these properties correct, but that doesn't make our guess any more valid.

If I am in a party and meet someone who I don't know the name of, and I start randomly blurting out names to them, I might eventually get to their name. But that doesn't mean I knew their name. I didn't. Equally I might never get to their name at all.

The concept "god" can be rejected not simply because we can disprove certain specific definitions, but also because we lack to the ability to define a "god" in the first place, just as I lacked the ability to know the persons name. It is not a definition, it is a guess.

What ever a possible entity is, it isn't a "god" as defined by humans, because such a definition is largely meaningless. A new unknown classification is required.

Woo! So, strictly speaking, we shouldn't call ourselves atheists, because we have no idea what we're denying the existence of?

surprised,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

f I modify the sentence to say "intelligent reasonable theist", I think I can see your objection in advance.

Would he be Scottish?

I'd be perfectly happy to trawl for some kind of stats.

Fine, a rough stab of the number of people on this planet worshipping your unfalsifiable God.

Scofflaw wrote:

Woo! So, strictly speaking, we shouldn't call ourselves atheists, because we have no idea what we're denying the existence of?

surprised,
Scofflaw

Woo! So, strictly speaking, we should call ourselves agnostics, even though we have no idea what you're NOT denying the existence of?

I leave Wicknight to deal with this, but if you start a sentence here with 'We simply define God as ... ' how long do you think you have before someone throws a teapot at you?

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Arrogant though I undoubtedly am

In fairness, you express your arrogance with modesty.

Scofflaw wrote:

Nearly all of them can be backed into a corner as described, and virtually none of them have lost their faith as a result - the exceptions have been a couple of born-agains.

I tend to picture it like a car with no petrol. There’s two average, reasonable theists in the front seat occasionally making quiet ‘vroom vroom’ noises. One agrees that the car probably isn’t moving, but reckons you have to believe in something. The other, shyly, says he actually thinks the car does move a little, but not in a way that anyone else can tell.

In the back seat you have a fundamentalist theist making loud and enthusiastic ‘vroom vroom’ noises. He confidently asserts that the car is moving at a brisk 80 kph, but equally maintains that he will reject any physical evidence to the contrary.

An atheist sits beside him. He irritates the fundamentalist by pointing out that ‘vroom’ was first chanted by Babylonian temple prostitutes prior to coitus. He tells the soft theists stories about the massacre of the ‘ne-yarr’ heretics, but they don’t seem too interested. Finally, he steps out of the car to demonstrate it’s not moving. They all lock the door behind him, and go on as before.