Gove shows the door to creationism as science

[Pabmusic]

I...people say that science proves there isn't a god (or isn't God) but it doesn't. What it does do is show that many of the things which used to be explained by reference to a divine origin have coherent scientific explanations which renders the explanatory necessity of that divine origin redundant. That's been going on for centuries and is a good reason why fewer people believe in God.

Exactly.

[scottycelt]

I sort of agree about the atheist (I hadn't had my breakfast & was staring at a hillock of paperwork which will be this morning when I've typed this ). What I meant was: the scientist who proposes a theory of 'creation' which is godless is under no obligation to disprove the existence of a god or God for that theory to hold up. What it needs to be is scientifically coherent and 'verifiable' inasmuch as that's possible at such extremely complex theoretical levels (obviously that's what's being attempted at the moment).

The atheist who says there is no god is having her cake and eating it if she claims to be able to prove that scientifically, precisely because you can't prove the non-existence of something which isn't verifiably existent or non-existent definitively. Reverse ways, it's no good saying (a) there is scientific evidence for a god's existence because it seems incredible to the believer that a 'chain of events' is possible without an initiating 'consciousness' (b) because there isn't a scientific answer to everything the gaps in science are proof of God. We won't ever know everything, but that doesn't mean that everything isn't theoretically knowable.

If that makes any sense that's why I'm not an atheist: people say that science proves there isn't a god (or isn't God) but it doesn't. What it does do is show that many of the things which used to be explained by reference to a divine origin have coherent scientific explanations which renders the explanatory necessity of that divine origin redundant. That's been going on for centuries and is a good reason why fewer people believe in God.

The 'proofs' of God's existence are subjective proofs - and I see nothing wrong in that.

I guess I agree with much of that. To return briefly to Gove and the the tiny, marginal section of Christianity that is poorly labelled as 'creationism', I do not support the teaching of anything other than science in a science class. Even in faith schools (and I was brought up in a particularly 'traditional' one) there was no religion taught in class apart from 30 mins Religious Knowledge on a Friday! Even them, invariably the teacher failed to show and we all ended up heading for the school library.. ah, those were the days!

I take your point about the absurdity of attempting to prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist in the first place. Deplorable cynic that I am, I may not believe in the Loch Ness Monster and I certainly wouldn't expect a monster believer to demand that I disprove the monstrous existence beyond all doubt, but the evidence (subjective or not) for the existence of God is rather more serious and considerable. Of course we are free to reject that 'subjective' evidence, but a definitive statement claiming that God does not exist is rather more than that ... by it's almost quasi-religious dogmatism it automatically invites the provision of supporting evidence as is constantly demanded of the God-believer!

In other words, atheists should not be afforded an easier-ride regarding the burden of 'proof' compared to believers. It's just too cosy and convenient.

[Flosshilde]

In other words, atheists should not be afforded an easier-ride regarding the burden of 'proof' compared to believers. It's just too cosy and convenient.

Are atheists afforded an easier ride? As far as I can see it's believers who have an easy ride - the only proof they put forward is of the 'I can't believe that the universe began/man evoved without god' variety - 'I believe that god exists, so god must exist".

Even in faith schools (and I was brought up in a particularly 'traditional' one) there was no religion taught in class apart from 30 mins Religious Knowledge on a Friday!

Going a bit off topic, but the problem with faith schools is not specific teaching of religion, but the way in which the belief system permeates everything - the crucifixes on classroom walls is a concrete manifestation of this. It also means that such schools have special dispensation to opt out of equal opportunities/anti discrimination legislation in employment, and can also refuse to teach certain topics.

[Bryn]

" ... the evidence (subjective or not) for the existence of God is rather more serious and considerable."

Not if it isn't cited it isn't. How is one to consider unprovided 'evidence'? The so-called 'evidence' for the existence of either gods or a God that I have encountered is not what I would consider "serious", either.

[PhilipT]

Going a bit off topic, but the problem with faith schools is not specific teaching of religion, but the way in which the belief system permeates everything - the crucifixes on classroom walls is a concrete manifestation of this. It also means that such schools have special dispensation to opt out of equal opportunities/anti discrimination legislation in employment, and can also refuse to teach certain topics.

So what you're saying, basically, is that parents should be free to choose the educational ethos of their child's school, provided it's an ethos you approve of. Yes?

[John Skelton]

Ontological arguments for the existence of God:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

[Flosshilde]

If parents want that sort of school, then they should pay for it & not expect the state to contribute. If I'm paying (through taxation) then I don't see why I shouldn't have a say?

But what about the children? Shouldn't they have an education that's free from indoctrination?

[amateur51]

So what you're saying, basically, is that parents should be free to choose the educational ethos of their child's school, provided it's an ethos you approve of. Yes?

Not sure about Flossie, but I'd say that if a school accepts public money then it should not teach Creationism as science. That's all

Cross-posted with Flossie soz - you're right about the indoctrination.

How would people feel if we referred to 'The Myth of God's Creation'

[Flosshilde]

Ontological arguments for the existence of God:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/on...cal-arguments/

"Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists."

'I think, therefore he is'?

[Bryn]

"Descartes argues that there is no less contradiction in conceiving a supremely perfect being who lacks existence than there is in conceiving a triangle whose interior angles do not sum to 180 degrees. Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists."

'I think, therefore he is'?

As we can also conceive of there being no supremely perfect being, it follows that none exists.

[John Skelton]

'I think, therefore he is'?

That's the problem with identifying knowledge with subjectivity (the consequences of which become delightfully apparent in George Berkeley's philosophy); the problem Kant's philosophy begins with.

Because an ontological proof of God works doesn't mean there is a God, of course. Or vice versa. If it was possible to prove the ontological impossibility of God, that's all that would have been proved. Edit: as in Bryn's observation above. Either can be 'satisfactorily' proved. Which, perhaps, isn't very satisfactory ....

[Flosshilde]

Descarte's argument is rather subtle - as a triangle whose interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees is an impossibility it is an impossibility

[vinteuil]

As we can also conceive of there being no supremely perfect being, it follows that none exists.

As I can conceive of there being soup dragons on the other side of the moon, it follows that... etc etc etc

[Dave2002]

I guess that I'm disappointed by Dave2002's response which appears to suggest that if we can't anticipate what the journey's end will be then the journey is not worth making.

Good scientific progress occurs in incremental steps - the theories may be revolutionary but the testing is largely incremental.

Sorry if that's too slow, Dave2002 - the journey's the thing

Sorry, I'm not keeping up with this! Occasionally I have to do other things.

I wonder about your journey's end idea. It might be precisely because some of us may have conceptions about our own personal journey's end that we decide to enjoy ourselves now, while we can. It may be our only chance.

I think we have to content ourselves with our journey, which is a very small part of the overall journey. If we restrict ourselves to the universe as we know it know, current beliefs seem to suggest that it will "merely" continue to expand, and eventually become cold and uninteresting. There won't even be stars to see - not only because they will be too far away, but also because they will all have "gone out". We will also have "gone out", so it won't be any concern for us.

In the grand scheme of things we have very little impact, except that if we believe that we have any sort of free will, then we can influence the universe in very small ways. If I decide to boil a kettle I am increasing the entropy of the universe very slightly. Conversely if I don't, I won't.

Regarding God - whoever, or whatever that might be, why does "he" have to have some of the properties ascribed to "him"? If we assume the existence of a Creator, then (ducking the issue of who/what created the Creator), then why does the Creator have to be omniscient and/or omnipotent? It's perfectly possible to imagine creators who are unable to discern how their creations will behave, or to be able to alter their behaviour once initiated.

[Flosshilde]

Descarte's argument is rather subtle - as a triangle whose interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees is an impossibility it is an impossibility

Please ignore this, which I posted in error before it was completed. I've been trying to delete/edit it, but neither seems to work.