Dawkins Demolished

[heliocentric]

Another way of framing the "existence" matter is this: if you believe in god there seems to be no particular reason why you wouldn't also be prepared to believe in other things for which there's no scientific evidence (nor any idea of what such evidence would look like), for example fairies. Of course it's considered somewhat silly for a grown-up to believe in fairies, although there is no scientific evidence that they don't exist. One might then ask why it isn't considered silly to believe in god.

[scottycelt]

One problem with the atheist tag is that one needs to be informed about God before being able to disbelieve in him/her/it - as Jonathan Miller put it, more-or-less, in defining himself as non-theist, rather than a-theist, iirc from his fine TV series The History of Disbelief.

However it still sits uncomfortably with me, being asked by scottycelt to know for certain that God doesn't exist before being privileged to be considered an atheist.

A. I know for absolute certainty there are fairies at the bottom of my garden
B. I know you are just saying this to put me into the position of having either to deny that there are, admit that I might be wrong in my certainty that there aren't, or say there could just be fairies at the bottom of your garden. Based on you positing the proposition and inviting me to prove or disprove it or admit there is a possibility, it's heads you win, tails I lose.

I think it is perfectly valid for scottycelt or anyone else to try and ascertain what a person actually believes (or not) so we are in little doubt what we are all discussing. There seems to be some overlapping into agnosticism by some who claim to be atheists which is unhelpful.

My understanding has always been that atheists claim that there is no God, and agnostics are not sure whether there is or not. If some atheists now say they cannot be wholly certain of non-existence, surely they have moved into the latter camp?

An agnostic doesn't have to prove anything as he/she is not making any claims. However, I still maintain that an atheist must be asked to substantiate any claim in exactly the same way as a believer. A cowering behind 'I don't have to because it's like having to prove there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden' is very convenient for the atheist. The believer could easily counter that he doesn't believe in the existence of fairies waving magic wands suddenly emerging from a total void either, so therefore there is absolutely no need to prove the logical alternative existence of a Creator!

Believers and atheists both believe in something, whereas the agnostic sits on the fence ... surely we all know which of these we happen to be?

[Lateralthinking1]

Following up on scottycelt's post, can I put forward the idea that it is possible to be none of these things. Large numbers of people in Britain just don't think about religion at all. I don't see them all as agnostic. Much of the categorisation says most about the obligations people feel that they are under to be institutionalised. In fact, even agnosticism is a club. Independence isn't allowed.

As I listened to the Sunday service on the radio this morning - the first in years - I was reminded of all the things I didn't like. The cold echoes in the building; the piety, repetition and non-musicality of the call and response; the singing in unison from a throng that I just knew comprised lovely people and complete bastards, the latter being able to melt "benignly" into the occasion.

For Williams who gave the address to get in the word "clutter", the very word that Dawkins had used, and to turn it on its head seemed overly political and disappointingly disingenuous. I suppose he thought he was being clever.

Spring was outside. The crocuses in the garden. The birdsong. A sense and understanding of my version of God descended.
Some would call me a believer. Many wouldn't even if I told them that I believed. Not signed up enough or something.

The latter isn't good enough for me. I can tolerate others calling me an agnostic; for me to view that as totally irrelevant and actually wrong. But I believe in my own way because nature is far more meaningful to me than institution. I just won't be packaged as a brand in that sense. No one is born atheist, agnostic or believer. The very young have no instructed affectation.

[Serial_Apologist]

Another way of framing the "existence" matter is this: if you believe in god there seems to be no particular reason why you wouldn't also be prepared to believe in other things for which there's no scientific evidence (nor any idea of what such evidence would look like), for example fairies. Of course it's considered somewhat silly for a grown-up to believe in fairies, although there is no scientific evidence that they don't exist. One might then ask why it isn't considered silly to believe in god.

Well it could be argued that fairies and God are on different scales, imaginary or not. It's not surprising that Freud came up with the notion of God as substitute father-figure, since, as filtered through family to wayward offspring, "The Almighty", postulated as final arbiter and judge when disease, flood, earthquake or famine strike the community, is an important component of social control - especially an idea of God as perfection to be striven for yet at the same time unattainable due to our supposedly innately flawed nature. And this is why I cited the very different image of the godhead presenting in the non-Christian-based traditions which present God mythologically in terms of an energised interdependent pattern of life with which we as human beings see ourselves and act either in accord or not.

There are, of course, so-called Christians who have taken on board aspects of Hindu, Taoist and/or Buddhist thinking, while retaining the idea of the Christian god - the composer Jonathan Harvey being one.

[Serial_Apologist]

Following up on scottycelt's post, can I put forward the idea that it is possible to be none of these things. Large numbers of people in Britain just don't think about religion at all. I don't see them all as agnostic. Much of the categorisation says most about the obligations people feel that they are under to be institutionalised. In fact, even agnosticism is a team. Independence isn't allowed.

As I listened to the Sunday service on the radio this morning - the first in years - I was reminded of all the things I didn't like. The cold echoes in the building; the piety, repetition and non-musicality of the call and response; the singing in unison from a throng that I just knew comprised lovely people and complete bastards, the latter being able to melt "benignly" into the occasion.

For Williams who gave the address to sneak in the word "clutter", the very word that Dawkins had used, and to turn it on its head seemed overly political and disappointingly disingenuous. I suppose he thought he was being clever.

Spring was outside. The crocuses in the garden. The birdsong. A sense and understanding of my version of God descended.
Some would call me a believer. Many wouldn't even if I told them that I believed. Not signed up enough or something.

The latter isn't good enough for me. I am content enough for others to call me an agnostic; for me to view that as totally irrelevant and actually wrong. But I believe in my own way because nature is far more meaningful to me than institution. I just won't be packaged in a brand in that sense. No one is born atheist, agnostic or believer. The very young have no affectation.

This kind of coincides with the way I feel about this whole subject, Lat. Would you have believed in God if no one had put the idea into your head in the first place is what I'm asking (in a generalised way, not pointing a gun at you!) There is, of course, no "tabula rasa" - life is more akin to what ecologists call "secondary succession" because of human intervention in a natural course of events which some I can just about go along with might call the Laws of God. God as metaphor; laws as the way nature operates rather than needs to conform to something "beyond" itself or be chucked out of Eden's Garden.

Categorisation is part and parcel of what makes us human - we might as well put up with being "male", "straight", "British", "working class", "retired" etc - not because all those categories correspond to realities "out there" or "in here" - though when we're lucky, they do ), but because in order to find our place on the stage, we unquestioningly go along with categories that render us and everything else useful or useless willy-nilly until they obviously don't work practicably, or especially if our self-image is wildly at odds with the categories. So long as we don't identify with ourselves *as categorised* but have - ahem - faith in a notion of an undivided underlying unity that is there for the rediscovery, we're, um, "saved", I think. Beyond that, it's a question of politics.

[Lateralthinking1]

This kind of coincides with the way I feel about this whole subject, Lat. Would you have believed in God if no one had put the idea into your head in the first place is what I'm asking (in a generalised way, not pointing a gun at you!) There is, of course, no "tabula rasa" - life is more akin to what ecologists call "secondary succession" because of human intervention in a natural course of events which some I can just about go along with might call the Laws of God. God as metaphor; laws as the way nature operates rather than needs to conform to something "beyond" itself or be chucked out of the Garden. Categorisation is part and parcel of what makes us human - we might as well put up with being "male", "straight", "British", "working class", "retired" etc - not because all those categories correspond to realities "out there" or "in here" - though when we're lucky, they do ), but because in order to find our place on the stage, we unquestioningly go along with categories that render us and everything else useful or useless willy-nilly until they obviously don't work practicably, or especially if our self-image is wildly at odds with the categories. So long as we don't identify with ourselves *as categorised* but have - ahem - faith in a notion of an undivided underlying unity that is there for the rediscovery, we're, um, "saved", I think. Beyond that, it's a question of politics.

Yes, I largely agree. Every time I hear women saying that they have decided to behave more like men, I think right. So that is 50% of the population who are all approximated then, there's one fixed idea, it is by definition wrong and the women in question are in slavery to fiction at the very point they think they are finding liberation. The next thing they are in a boardroom or somewhere conforming to those norms. They might be fulfilled and good luck to them but there are guys in the streets around them being house husbands, playing in jazz bands and planning their next ascent of Kilimanjaro. Many wouldn't want to be the Senior Manager of Making People Redundant, or even have the latest sports car, nor would they see such a role as being necessarily male.

It is a good question as to whether God would have entered into my head if no one had ever mentioned God. Of course, we don't get given the choice. I would say that there was a feeling of being connected with the countryside very early on that went beyond human language in all its forms. Obviously it isn't scientific. It is not poetic either. It isn't Wordsworth wandering among daffodils because tremendous though literature can sometimes be, and expansive, it is all a bit airy and dreamy. It has an angle. Perhaps more to the point, it is human. In contrast, this feels not organic exactly but more like tapping into a wider whole.

A very, very, strong sense there. Stronger than almost anything. Quite powerful in its connection and relaxing at the same time. If it sounds like this is heading off towards astrology, it isn't. It feels more practical and substantial. More like common sense while at the same time being intangible. It is also uplifting and not unlike music itself. The association is with God but in a way that can be "cluttered" by religion rather than supported by it. Still, the latter at its most modest can inspire respect and a kind of awe. I can't describe it any better than that and I don't feel that it is at all unusual. When people stop tearing about in their cars, they too describe it. I find some people - not all - tend to exhibit it as soon as they are, say, walking in rural hills.

[scottycelt]

Following up on scottycelt's post, can I put forward the idea that it is possible to be none of these things. Large numbers of people in Britain just don't think about religion at all. I don't see them all as agnostic. Much of the categorisation says most about the obligations people feel that they are under to be institutionalised. In fact, even agnosticism is a club. Independence isn't allowed.

As I listened to the Sunday service on the radio this morning - the first in years - I was reminded of all the things I didn't like. The cold echoes in the building; the piety, repetition and non-musicality of the call and response; the singing in unison from a throng that I just knew comprised lovely people and complete bastards, the latter being able to melt "benignly" into the occasion.

For Williams who gave the address to get in the word "clutter", the very word that Dawkins had used, and to turn it on its head seemed overly political and disappointingly disingenuous. I suppose he thought he was being clever.

Spring was outside. The crocuses in the garden. The birdsong. A sense and understanding of my version of God descended.
Some would call me a believer. Many wouldn't even if I told them that I believed. Not signed up enough or something.

The latter isn't good enough for me. I can tolerate others calling me an agnostic; for me to view that as totally irrelevant and actually wrong. But I believe in my own way because nature is far more meaningful to me than institution. I just won't be packaged as a brand in that sense. No one is born atheist, agnostic or believer. The very young have no instructed affectation.

We are not necessarily talking about institutions, more about personal belief regarding the existence of any God. There can only be one of three answers when asked the question about God.

a) I believe there is a God
b) I believe there isn't a God
c) I don't honestly know what to believe/I'm so stupid the question has never really entered my little head.

The separate possible answers to c) both amount to agnosticism in practice.

Of course there also might be an infinite number of fairies and/or maybe millions of Gods, but those who either believe in God, or deny any existence, are hardly likely to be in that somewhat eccentric category, so it can be safely ignored here!

I cannot honestly believe that any human being has never reflected on how he/she suddenly happened to find themselves on Planet Earth. They may well quickly expel such thoughts and concentrate on getting on with their lives, but, as such folk cannot be clearly defined as having an opinion one way or the other, they may be safely referred to in any such discussion as being 'agnostic' ?

That is not to deny that, inevitably, there will be a huge range of additional and separate views within each of these basic 'groupings' ...

[heliocentric]

We are not necessarily talking about institutions, more about personal belief regarding the existence of any God. There can only be one of three answers when asked the question about God.

a) I believe there is a God
b) I believe there isn't a God
c) I don't honestly know what to believe/I'm so stupid the question has never really entered my little head.

No, those aren't the only possible answers. There's also (d) I don't believe there is a god, which is the way most atheists (including myself) would put it. Not believing in something is not the same as actively believing in its absence.

[Lateralthinking1]

Scottycelt - I don't think the average footballer or model at any level would contemplate it. I just mention these as easy examples - perhaps stereotypes and a bit unfairly. Maybe at the times of illness or death, they start to ask a few questions. Otherwise, no. While some might not have high IQs, it doesn't seem to me that stupidity comes into it. They just get on with life, often on a shallow level. I would say that many weren't on the A-A-B scale at all but if they were asked. Ah, they would then provide an answer as expected, or required, not that it would be full of deep meaning.

They will be among those who won't be voting at the next election. Many will have never thought a great deal about politics. Joining them will be significant numbers who are extraordinarily political. The latter will be wise enough to know that none of the options reflect their outlook sufficiently. There is a good chance I will be one. That doesn't mean that I'm not political. It doesn't mean I can't be bothered. It doesn't mean that I can't make my mind up. It means none of the above. What it also means is that I will keep my political outlook and stay true to it. It isn't a direct analogy but it is pretty close.

Incidentally, there is a problem. I would say that I was a believer. I would also describe myself as Christian. If the more shallow were asked, many would provide the same answers. But if from a Christian perspective, none of us can be what we say we are, then how are we to categorise? Obviously we will decide we are included even if others say we are excluded. Neither description will be strictly accurate. Agnostic looks right because it is in the middle but it is a cop out and misrepresents the position.

Actually, it is a bit like being Old Labour. You describe yourself as Labour. You can't bring yourself to vote for New Labour. New Labour don't see you as being Labour in a way that can be accommodated. MORI put you down as a floating voter who couldn't quite decide between Labour and the Conservatives and the Liberals record you as a potential Liberal voter at the next election.

[Alison]

No one talks much these days about the 'non realism' brand of Christianty as espoused by Don Cupitt and others.

Is this a cop out as well ?

http://www.doncupitt.com/non-realism

[Richard Tarleton]

We are not necessarily talking about institutions, more about personal belief regarding the existence of any God. There can only be one of three answers when asked the question about God.

a) I believe there is a God
b) I believe there isn't a God
c) I don't honestly know what to believe/I'm so stupid the question has never really entered my little head.

It's probably a mistake re-entering this thread but....

Scotty, it's telling that the word "believe"is key to each of your three possibilities. Where do you stand on knowledge and reason?

Kant showed that there were whole areas of intellectual activity in which claims to knowledge transgress the bounds of sense - e.g. theology, and proofs of the existence of God, the soul, and immortality. He did not consider that he had disproved any of these, but as having shown them to be beyond the possibility of proof or disproof, since they were beyond all possibility of experience or knowledge, and thus forever incapable of being known.

As elegantly summarised by Bryan Magee, Kant said that "where the truth or falsehood of a proposition can be ascertained, it is superstitious to rest on faith, but where it cannot, it is equally superstitious to adopt an attitude of certainty either way. In such a case [e.g. the existence of God] the only rational alternatives either to hold what is acknowledged to be a fallible opinion on one side, or else to suspend judgement" - i.e. to be an agnostic. As it happens Kant believed in god, the soul and immortality, but this in no way undermines his philosophical position.

Schopenhauer took Kant's philosophy a stage further. His "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" looks at how we know, and are capable of knowing, things. God is not knowable to us, with the sensory and intellectual equipment available to us. Believe if you like, but he/it isn't knowable. God is part of the noumenon, the realm beyond our knowledge and understanding.

There are the same number of atoms in the universe as there were after the big bang. Some of these are, briefly, you and me. They come from the stars. I find this testable hypothesis quite full enough of wonder. For a brief and elegant summary of how you came to be, I really do recommend Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale".

[Lateralthinking1]

No one talks much these days about the 'non realism' brand of Christianty as espoused by Don Cupitt and others.

Is this a cop out as well ?

http://www.doncupitt.com/non-realism

Alison - Thank you. On that basis, I'm a non-realist but it would be great if he could find a better label. Realist, for example, with something else being given to realists and other people.

[scottycelt]

No, those aren't the only possible answers. There's also (d) I don't believe there is a god, which is the way most atheists (including myself) would put it. Not believing in something is not the same as actively believing in its absence.

So what you are saying is that a) I believe there isn't a God and b) I don't believe there is a God are quite different?

[Richard Tarleton]

So what you are saying is that a) I believe there isn't a God and b) I don't believe there is a God are quite different?

Scotty I'll try again.

Knowledge
Reason
Belief

Discuss

[Lateralthinking1]

Richard Tarleton - I have read your post and would seriously like to ask you the following questions -

1. If there are "whole areas of intellectual activity in which claims to knowledge transgress the bounds of sense", can that activity include the application of rationality by any individual or more broadly and if not why not?

2. Is it really the case that where the truth or falsehood of a proposition cannot be ascertained "the only rational alternatives are either to hold what is acknowledged to be a fallible opinion on one side or else to suspend judgement"? What of placing the proposition in a frame where truth or falsehood are not of relevance and belief is?

3. Is belief categorically irrational? Is it not rational to the extent that belief is a human trait and not to have belief would be
irrationally inhuman?

4. If the proposition concerns the existence or not of God, is this not based on assumptions about God that irrationally exclude the assumption that it is possible to prove that God unequivocally exists?

5. That rationally one would not suspend judgement until such proof had been found but rather, given that if there were proof, it would be in the here and now, albeit not observed, factor it in to the series of assumptions on which options for determination would be based?