Dawkins Demolished

[scottycelt]

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).

No, I'm sorry, I believe you're quite wrong. The atheist most definitely believes in a non-existence which is 'something' ... if he/she believed in 'nothing' (like the agnostic) he/she would then certainly have nothing to prove. In any case. it's the atheist who keeps bringing up this question of scientific proof and it's quite bizarre when he/she invariably runs a figurative mile when challenged in turn on belief and supporting 'proof'. Dawkins now appears to recognise this element of 'faith' in atheism.

You talk about the difference between 'not believing that God exists' and 'believing in the non-existence of God'. I suppose again it all comes down to flexible interpretation of language and this seems to be where some atheists like.to have it both ways.

'Not believing' in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is surely the same in practice as believing in the 'non-existence' of the legendary beast.

I'll leave any linguistic pedantries in such cases for others to fuss over ... in any debate, it's surely more important to discover what people actually believe or do not believe.?

[scottycelt]

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.

And I have clearly explained where I think they are wrong ,,, you do not accept that to say 'I don't believe in Father Christmas' is a belief in itself ... ie, that he doesn't exist! ... I simply accept that statement (belief) at face value.You obviously don't.

If somebody tells me that he doesn't know whether FC is real or not, then now you're talking ... that person can sincerely claim to have no belief either way!

Why should you be so uncharitable as to suggest I'm winding anybody up? I can assure you that any frustration at not 'getting through' to others applies just as much to myself!

In truth, it all comes back to my previous point about the importance of common definition and meaning. We now seem to be bogged down in petty language disputes rather than discussing Professor Dawkins!

[Pabmusic]

...Dawkins is absolutely correct if this is his current stance, imv, An agnostic is not convinced of any existence and has absolutely no faith, either way...I'm delighted to be able to agree with Dawkins on something, at long last ...

I have noted a number of posters express surprise at Richard Dawkins's 'change of heart' in calling himself an agnostic, or in not being 'sure' whether God exists or not. Of course it's no change of heart, simply a consistent position maintained since at least 1986 in The Blind Watchmaker. It's the simple point that proving a negative outside mathematics is impossible. Now I see the Daily Telegraph (very surprisingly) has said it all for me:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100139447/richard-dawkins-is-an-agnostic-but-we-knew-that-already/

[Bryn]

I have noted a number of posters express surprise at Richard Dawkins's 'change of heart' in calling himself an agnostic, or in not being 'sure' whether God exists or not. Of course it's no change of heart, simply a consistent position maintained since at least 1986 in The Blind Watchmaker. It's the simple point that proving a negative outside mathematics is impossible. Now I see the Daily Telegraph (very surprisingly) has said it all for me:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...-that-already/

Oh dear, I see that Lester John Murray, in his comment of Today 01:42 AM gets his number of the beast wrong. The 'true' number, as every schoolboy knows, is not 666 but 616.

[John Skelton]

No, I'm sorry, I believe you're quite wrong. The atheist most definitely believes in a non-existence which is 'something' ... if he/she believed in 'nothing' (like the agnostic) he/she would then certainly have nothing to prove. In any case. it's the atheist who keeps bringing up this question of scientific proof and it's quite bizarre when he/she invariably runs a figurative mile when challenged in turn on belief and supporting 'proof'. Dawkins now appears to recognise this element of 'faith' in atheism.

You talk about the difference between 'not believing that God exists' and 'believing in the non-existence of God'. I suppose again it all comes down to flexible interpretation of language and this seems to be where some atheists like.to have it both ways.

'Not believing' in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is surely the same in practice as believing in the 'non-existence' of the legendary beast.

I'll leave any linguistic pedantries in such cases for others to fuss over ... in any debate, it's surely more important to discover what people actually believe or do not believe.?

Whether you accept it or not I promise you it's not a 'linguistic pedantry'. It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist simply to believe there isn't a God: the problem, perhaps, is the metaphysically loaded word 'existence'. The atheist needn't give a fig whether God exists or non-exists because as far as the atheist is concerned there isn't a God to do either. To 'prove' the non-existence of God would be a kind of negative theology. Why would an atheist be interested in that?

And more to the point why should an atheist be interested in that? She has made her mind up in the absence of anything that says to her there is a God, on the basis that the old 'objective' proofs for the existence of God have all been disproven. As I said, the onus is on the believer - who does in this instance believe in something, God - to show why others are wrong to simply say there is no God, neither an existing or a non-existing God. Or if you really want to 'fuss' about existence: God exists inasmuch as the unicorn exists - in the human imagination.

You have the belief (in God). The atheist just doesn't accept there is a God to believe in or not to believe in. You don't either believe in the existence or the non-existence of unicorns, I'd guess. You just know there's no such thing. Similarly the atheist with God. It is disingenuous to accuse the atheist of "running a mile when challenged in turn on belief and supporting 'proof'." The atheist has proofs enough, to do with the replacement of any need for God to explain the physical laws of the universe. The atheist is quite right to respond "You are the one who believes in God's existence. What proof do you have for God's existence?"

This isn't taking the atheist's side. It's trying to get to the logic of the situation. Again: the positive belief in something which for the atheist isn't there is yours, so it's up to you not the atheist to prove the thing (if proof is what is at issue here. And as I've said I don't think it needs to be. Though at that the atheist should just shrug her shoulders). If someone said to you "unicorns exist!" and you said "get away!" and they said "go on then, prove the non-existence of unicorns" you would think they were being daft. And you would be right .

[MrGongGong]

Oh dear, I see that Lester John Murray, in his comment of Today 01:42 AM gets his number of the beast wrong. The 'true' number, as every schoolboy knows, is not 666 but 616.

A basic knowledge of metal is useful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlSidenJ5-E

is

668 the neighbour of the beast ?

[Richard Tarleton]

I have noted a number of posters express surprise at Richard Dawkins's 'change of heart' in calling himself an agnostic, or in not being 'sure' whether God exists or not. Of course it's no change of heart, simply a consistent position maintained since at least 1986 in The Blind Watchmaker. It's the simple point that proving a negative outside mathematics is impossible.

Quite. And sorry to keep on about Kant (and Schopenhauer), it's just that they explain things so much better than anyone else, indeed philosophy for the last 200 years or so has been footnotes to Kant : but, to repeat from my earlier post,

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 rest on certainty either way. In such a case the only rational alternatives are either to hold what is acknowledged to be a fallible opinion on one side, or else to suspend judgement

Think on this and Dawkins' position is entirely logical. God is noumenal, we cannot know him, or know that he doesn't exist. Therefore believe or not, as you like.

[heliocentric]

Why should you be so uncharitable as to suggest I'm winding anybody up?

Because you accuse me of "playing with words" and John Skelton of being "quite wrong" when what you ought to be doing is checking up on your own mistaken assumptions about epistemology and logic. You also claim to know what atheists "most definitely believe" when several are here telling you categorically that they do not believe what you say they do. What is one to think?

[scottycelt]

Whether you accept it or not I promise you it's not a 'linguistic pedantry'. It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist simply to believe there isn't a God: the problem, perhaps, is the metaphysically loaded word 'existence'. The atheist needn't give a fig whether God exists or non-exists because as far as the atheist is concerned there isn't a God to do either. To 'prove' the non-existence of God would be a kind of negative theology. Why would an atheist be interested in that?

And more to the point why should an atheist be interested in that? She has made her mind up in the absence of anything that says to her there is a God, on the basis that the old 'objective' proofs for the existence of God have all been disproven. As I said, the onus is on the believer - who does in this instance believe in something, God - to show why others are wrong to simply say there is no God, neither an existing or a non-existing God. Or if you really want to 'fuss' about existence: God exists inasmuch as the unicorn exists - in the human imagination.

You have the belief (in God). The atheist just doesn't accept there is a God to believe in or not to believe in. You don't either believe in the existence or the non-existence of unicorns, I'd guess. You just know there's no such thing. Similarly the atheist with God. It is disingenuous to accuse the atheist of "running a mile when challenged in turn on belief and supporting 'proof'." The atheist has proofs enough, to do with the replacement of any need for God to explain the physical laws of the universe. The atheist is quite right to respond "You are the one who believes in God's existence. What proof do you have for God's existence?"

This isn't taking the atheist's side. It's trying to get to the logic of the situation. Again: the positive belief in something which for the atheist isn't there is yours, so it's up to you not the atheist to prove the thing (if proof is what is at issue here. And as I've said I don't think it needs to be. Though at that the atheist should just shrug her shoulders). If someone said to you "unicorns exist!" and you said "get away!" and they said "go on then, prove the non-existence of unicorns" you would think they were being daft. And you would be right .

John, you misunderstand. I've already described the idea of asking an atheist to prove the 'non-existence' of God as 'ridiculous'. However, that does not mean that God does not exist. God may be (and is) real to some people but asking them, in turn, to prove that beyond doubt I described as 'equally as ridiculous'. Somebody once described it as trying to prove that 'love' exists which is not a bad way of putting it. If we take things at the purely theoretical level it is just as incumbent on a scientist to explain why he may be ruling something out like the existence of God. One would quite naturally ask him/her why he is making such a huge statement. If the scientist snapped back by replying 'I don't have to explain anything' a few eyebrows might be raised. Of course, that scientist simply saying that he/she sees no evidence for any existence is quite different, and there I agree with you ... there is no proof required. However, as the police authorities would confirm there might be plenty of evidence for something without clinching proof ... rejection by others of that evidence does not mean it doesn't actually exist!

As to the question of simple logic ... here goes, I'll try another route <sigh>

a) I think stealing is wrong
b) I don't think stealing is right.

Would some members here consider that one of those is a 'thought' and the other isn't?

In other words I would have to explain why I formed the first statement view but not the second ... ?

If so, I humbly beg to differ ...

[heliocentric]

I note that you've diluted "believe" to "think" for your example.

You're "begging to differ" actually with every philosopher who has dealt with this matter at least since Kant, so I'm not sure your begging can be described as exactly "humble".

[scottycelt]

Because you accuse me of "playing with words" and John Skelton of being "quite wrong" when what you ought to be doing is checking up on your own mistaken assumptions about epistemology and logic. You also claim to know what atheists "most definitely believe" when several are here telling you categorically that they do not believe what you say they do. What is one to think?

You might well have added ... 'all in my humble opinion, of course ..' ...

I'm merely trying to discover what people actually do believe.

I've never accused you of anything ... all the accusations here seem to be coming from your own direction ... am I not entitled to suggest others may be wrong in the same way as you do about my own comments?

[scottycelt]

I note that you've diluted "believe" to "think" for your example.

You're "begging to differ" actually with every philosopher who has dealt with this matter at least since Kant, so I'm not sure your begging can be described as exactly "humble".

Never mind about me and every philosopher .. just answer the question!

[John Skelton]

If we take things at the purely theoretical level it is just as incumbent on a scientist to explain why he may be ruling something out like the existence of God. One would quite naturally ask him/her why he is making such a huge statement. If the scientist snapped back by replying 'I don't have to explain anything' a few eyebrows might be raised.

But the (atheist) scientist isn't ruling out something like the existence of God and has no interest in doing so. To do that she would need to show something along the lines that God's existence is incompatible with the laws of physics. But that's a nonsense, given that as far as she's concerned there isn't a God (again: not that God doesn't exist, but simply that there isn't a God. Or: there isn't a God to either exist or non-exist); it would be like showing there can't be one or more unicorns because if a unicorn was to break wind three times in a minute the moon would melt.

For the atheist "there is no God" needn't be a huge statement. It is for you, because God is important to you. But to the atheist God just isn't.

If pressed for an explanation, there's plenty the atheist scientist can come up with. Because science over the centuries has come up with verifiable reasons for phenomena which were attributed to God's agency before the science was in place. She can point to all of that and if she's sensible say believe in it if you must but accept that in scientific terms (the atheist scientist's area of expertise) there is no longer any explicatory necessity for God.

"However, as the police authorities would confirm there might be plenty of evidence for something without clinching proof ... rejection by others of that evidence does not mean it doesn't actually exist!" Fine: it's up to you to show that atheist scientist what all this evidence is. If you choose to continue along this line. What is the evidence?

[heliocentric]

I'm merely trying to discover what people actually do believe.

But you seem unwilling to accept that some people actually don't believe.

Of course you're entitled to suggest others may be wrong, but various "others" are deploying a working knowledge of science, of logic, of philosophical traditions and so forth, whereas all you seem to have to say is "in my opinion you're wrong", which you can hardly expect to be taken very seriously, let alone to be convincing. But of course you know that. I shall leave it there.

[Flosshilde]

all you seem to have to say is "in my opinion you're wrong",

Which is why I find discussing (almost) anything with religionists so frustrating and, ultimately, pointless. They simply answer any argument with, in so many words, 'I know, because God told me'. At which one can only give up in despair & leave them to it, as long as they don't try & impose their 'knowing' on me.