Dawkins Demolished

[scottycelt]

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 adfopt 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".

It's surely never a mistake to enter a debate such as this unless one is intimidated by needless abuse and intolerance from others.

For the atheist everything is explained by the Big Bang. The believer (certainly not myself) might argue that the Big Bang was not an actual event ... that is precisely the sort of thing that science should be exploring and we all benefit from the increasing knowledge that it provides, but even Big Bangs have a 'creative' source, whether intentional or not ... I'm not aware that any explosion, major or minor, had no initial ingredients to cause the bang in the first place ... I'm sure every scientist would agree with that ... which begs the obvious question of origin of ingredients, not least from a purely scientific point of view.. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not (as so many atheists seem to claim) destroy belief in an original Creator.

We are now getting deeper into familiar and complicated territory, and it seems pointless going through the same old process again.

However, In the absence of any confirming knowledge, It does seem reasonable to ask of an atheist why the theory (to put it no higher) of a Creator is apparently being ruled out ... ?

[scottycelt]

Scotty I'll try again.

Knowledge
Reason
Belief

Discuss

Can you expand the point please, Richard ...?

My knowledge of what is around me and my reason fashion my belief ... I suspect that is true of billions of others whether 'believer' or 'atheist'!

[heliocentric]

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?

Correct. The first involves believing while the second does not.

[amateur51]

In the same way, the theory of evolution does not (as so many atheists seem to claim) destroy belief in an original Creator.

They do?

[Richard Tarleton]

Lat - answers to your questions interpolated in this quote.....

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?

Er - if it's rational, it's rational

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?

I think the quotation answered that

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?

See Schopenhauer - On The etc. - if it's reasonable, it's reasonable, and youi don't need belief. If it's outside reason, you're free to believe or not, as you choose

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?

By the very nature of what God is supposedf to be, he is not knowable to us. Believable, but not knowable. Hence the need for faith.

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?

Sorry Lat you've lost me with this one. Is there a possibility of proving the existence of God? This would rather do away with the need for faith.

[scottycelt]

Correct. The first involves believing while the second does not.

Forgive me, but aren't you simply playing with language here ...?

'I don't believe in the existence of fairies' and 'I believe that fairies don't exist' seem 100% compatible to me ...

[MrGongGong]

Forgive me, but aren't you simply playing with language here ...?:

Something that the Christian churches would never be accused of
of course "god"exists in the same way that the Wombles exist
though , of course, they are "real" puppets
and god is a "real" work of the imagination

[heliocentric]

Forgive me, but aren't you simply playing with language here ...?

No, I'm using language to express a point of logic. I don't wish to be patronising but it's really quite simple.

[Richard Tarleton]

Forgive me, but aren't you simply playing with language here ...?

'I don't believe in the existence of fairies' and 'I believe that fairies don't exist' seem 100% compatible to me ...

(sigh) Scotty you haven't taken Kant on board.

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.

[scottycelt]

No, I'm using language to express a point of logic. I don't wish to be patronising but it's really quite simple.

If your supposed logic is really that simple and straightforward why did you choose to be thoroughly patronising when you apparently did not wish to be ... ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat - answers to your questions interpolated in this quote.....

Sorry Lat you've lost me with this one. Is there a possibility of proving the existence of God? This would rather do away with the need for faith.

Thank you RT. I won't pursue this in too much detail as you have been kind enough to respond.

On 1, I think there is too much of a value judgement there on the part of the writer. He speaks of sense but one person's sense is another's madness. Of course, his field is one in which his success depends on sounding authoritative. This is done by being meticulously scrupulous in defining the options but presenting the terminology where it suits as not being open to interpretation. I also think that rationality has its limits. Joe Bloggs is told that he has two days to live. All the medical evidence shown to him appears conclusive. He thinks "to hell with this; I believe I have a month". He says a short prayer, books a fortnight in Marbella, goes there and survives it. Belief turns out to be more sensible with hindsight. It might even have had a positive impact medically.

On 2, the writer makes the assumption that if the truth or falsehood of a proposition cannot be ascertained you have to accept the fact or suspend judgement. What he does here is provide options that react to the situation. I am saying another is to say that it doesn't matter. Ask a different question instead. Can I believe this proposition? It's a third option that he rules out. This is different from a default position - "It isn't proven but I will believe in it anyway superstitiously". Rather it introduces late the belief question as if it should have been asked first. There is nothing absolute about giving the truth v falsehood question unequivocal priority. That is a rationalist's bias. A fourth option would be to suspend not judgement but all questioning entirely.

On 3, I am not well read in this area - Schopenhauer etc. However, I take issue with the fact that belief is always based on need. A contrarian would look at something that is generally thought reasonable and choose to believe something else. The assumption appears to be that belief can only provide a lukewarm and distorted alternative to knowledge. Another though would be that it has a distinct set of qualities and limitations that add to life and make any attempt at parallels somewhat dubious. I go with that one.

In fascist Germany, the order of reason was suspect. Those who believed that it was suspect were spot on. I am not saying that the whole body of reasoning is akin to Nazi Germany. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that reason is never quite as watertight as one might think from the beliefs that people put into it. The writer himself believes in his own reason. It is quite interesting that rationalists reason their reason and believe in their reason. Believers only believe what they believe. Because they feel no need to reason their belief, others say that they must have a reason to believe. In Germany, they did, but it isn't universal.

On 4 and 5, I am not sure what God becomes if he is known. Theologians could provide an answer. I don't think though that this is the issue. The angle we are discussing is the one provided by a rationalist. Dawkins is astute enough to accept that even he can only be 6.9 out of 7 in saying God doesn't exist. That is the scientist in him making the assessment. Taking that into account, I doubt that it would be rational to rule out the possibility of him being proven to exist unequivocally. In fact, surely it is the same thing. Not including it as one of the series of assumptions is therefore an artifical selecting out. The problem is that the rationalist wrongly equates unproven with incapable of being proven now. Actually, something that is provable is capable of being proven now. Suspension of judgement can only rationally apply to possible future revelation which is, of course, a very different thing.

Thank you again for taking the time and trouble to comment. Much appreciated.

[scottycelt]

(sigh) Scotty you haven't taken Kant on board.

(sigh) Richard, I respect your own obviously intense 'belief' in Kant ...and don't you think his statement confirms that unproven atheism is therefore every bit a 'superstitious' belief as any religion, which, for goodness sake, has been my main point here all along?

[John Skelton]

It's the difference between simply not believing that God exists and believing in the non-existence of God.

What is superstitious about not believing God exists in an "unproven" way? If God isn't there there's nothing to prove. If you can point to a proof of God's existence and demand a refutation you might be on to something. Otherwise there's nothing for the atheist to prove. You are the one who believes in something, not the atheist. The onus is on you if you think it's useful to think about this in terms of 'proof'. Which I don't (the old 'proofs' of God, his signature in Nature etc. while lovely haven't survived science).

[heliocentric]

If your supposed logic is really that simple and straightforward why did you choose to be thoroughly patronising when you apparently did not wish to be ... ?

I'm sorry, but I and others have from different angles explained this logic to you simply and clearly several times and it looks as if you really don't want to understand it, or you're just winding people up.

[Lateralthinking1]

Quote - It's the difference between simply not believing that God exists and believing in the non-existence of God.

The first is "I don't believe in that belief".

The second is "I believe that belief is nothing to believe in"

The first is not a faith position. The person gives no credence to any belief as far as we can tell.

The second is a faith position. You know that the person accommodates belief - just not that belief.