Dawkins Demolished

[heliocentric]

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.

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it in 1980 (talking about the USA, but this phenomenon is hardly limited to that country): The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

[scottycelt]

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.

You still haven't answered the question posed to John, and which you were first to deride .. and when have I ever not 'accepted' that some people don't believe ... ?

You also appear to be indulging in a pique of 'intellectual' snobbery without actually engaging in this particular debate ... that is, what does an atheist actually believe or not believe, which was inspired by the Dawkins incident at Oxford.

Celebrated philosophers and yourself notwithstanding, I have always previously understood that a) Christians believe in God, b) Atheists believe there is no God, c) Agnostics have no particular belief either way. Logically (to me) the first two are beliefs, the third is not.

There is either a God or there isn't ... the introduction of pure sophistry into any such discussion is unhelpful.

[John Skelton]

Why should heliocentric answer a question posed to me?

Calling atheism a "belief" is to attempt to turn it into some form of negative theology. Atheists are simply content with the knowledge that there is no God, given that there is absolutely no positive, verifiable, evidence in their terms that such a thing is any different to a host of other fantastic projections of the human imagination. Again: saying that it's impossible for an atheist to say categorically that God doesn't exist is asking an atheist to share a theological standpoint. Why should they?

If you are claiming the kinds of objective, scientific, proofs that a God ... might exist, thus leading the atheist to admit the practical possibility of the existence of God then you need to produce them. You are asking atheists to believe like you but the other way around. And I don't agree with your description of agnosticism: it's not "no particular belief either way", it's more an openness to hesitation. But there's plenty of evidence that where God was once thought necessary (causally necessary) that is no longer the case.

Rather than requiring heliocentric to answer questions you addressed to me, why don't you have a stab at the question I asked you?

"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?

[scottycelt]

Why should heliocentric answer a question posed to me?

Calling atheism a "belief" is to attempt to turn it into some form of negative theology. Atheists are simply content with the knowledge that there is no God, given that there is absolutely no positive, verifiable, evidence in their terms that such a thing is any different to a host of other fantastic projections of the human imagination. Again: saying that it's impossible for an atheist to say categorically that God doesn't exist is asking an atheist to share a theological standpoint. Why should they?

If you are claiming the kinds of objective, scientific, proofs that a God ... might exist, thus leading the atheist to admit the practical possibility of the existence of God then you need to produce them. You are asking atheists to believe like you but the other way around. And I don't agree with your description of agnosticism: it's not "no particular belief either way", it's more an openness to hesitation. But there's plenty of evidence that where God was once thought necessary (causally necessary) that is no longer the case.

Rather than requiring heliocentric to answer questions you addressed to me, why don't you have a stab at the question I asked you?

"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?

This is getting quite ridiculous ... because hellocentric him/herself brought my question up, and which you have singularly failed to answer as well, that's why ...

Okay, even I now give up. You do not accept that a belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster is actually a belief while a belief in its existence is a belief. We'll have to disagree about that, I'm afraid, even if it upsets those who apparently believe that Kant is akin to God.

I'm not asking atheists to believe in anything and I'm certainly not asking them to prove a non-existence as you keep claiming. I was referring to evidence for God, not conclusive proof to satisfy an atheist, and if others reject that evidence out of hand, then there is not a lot one can do about it. As I said, that does not necessarily make the evidence invalid.

We are not going to progress here as we obviously have differing use of language and have quite a different idea of simple logic.

I'm off out now, so thanks for the discussion!

[Pabmusic]

The sun is many (many) times bigger than the moon. I don't doubt that for a moment, but it's a mighty difficult thing to prove, even for a scientist with access to all the gadgetry there may be (although I suppose it is provable in the end), so I cannot honestly say that I know the sun is bigger than the moon. Does that mean that I hold only a 'faith' position? Well, strictly, perhaps I do, but now contrast it with this: I believe that Elgar was (in Stravinsky's words on the day of Elgar's death) "a supremely great composer of whom the British people should be proud". Now that really is a faith position, since there is nothing I can do to bolster my view except point out what either I think or others have said.

This is a similarly confusing position to the one atheists are in. They cannot prove the non-existence of a god, but there again they can point to the huge amount (no, the overwhelming amount) of evidence suggesting that god has no role in that part of life we do understand. (Perhaps god's role is confined to the things we don't understand.) Theirs is a 'faith' position only in the way that my belief in the relative sizes of the sun and moon is one.

Just to take up a different tack: I much prefer to call myself a humanist, because I do not care to be defined by my belief (or otherwise) in a god, which of course is what 'a-theist' does.

[eighthobstruction]

>>>even if it upsets those who apparently believe that Kant is akin to God<<<

....surely I thought it was Jock Stein....

[Lateralthinking1]

Believing that there is no God is a faith position. It has to be because it is a belief. It isn't though the same as having a religious position. That depends on the other part of the equation. The what is believed in. The God.

Atheists therefore have a solid case if they argue against those who believe in God. Their case is less than solid if they argue on the basis that the problem is with a belief per se for they too have a belief of some sort.

[John Skelton]

I was referring to evidence for God, not conclusive proof to satisfy an atheist, and if others reject that evidence out of hand, then there is not a lot one can do about it. As I said, that does not necessarily make the evidence invalid.

What is this evidence?

[John Skelton]

Believing that there is no God is a faith position. It has to be because it is a belief. It isn't though the same as having a religious position. That depends on the other part of the equation. The what is believed in. The God.

Atheists therefore have a solid case if they argue against those who believe in God. Their case is less than solid if they argue on the basis that the problem is with a belief per se for they too have a belief of some sort.

But that stretches the meaning of "belief" so thin it could apply to anything: 'I know potato crisps are made out of potatoes' - 'I believe that potato crisps are made out of potatoes'. 'I know that there are no such things as unicorns' - 'I believe there are no such things as unicorns'. Why bother with the belief? 'I believe that potato crisps are spontaneously produced by the agency of the Holy Spirit passing through a cloud of butterflies', that's belief. The atheist thinks that God and the unicorn, or spontaneous sacred potato crisps are equally implausible. That isn't belief in something: it's being quite satisfied that something is the case.

If someone wants to change the atheist's mind about any of those things the onus is on them to produce what scottycelt, before he gave up in exasperation at the idiocy of everybody else , called "evidence". I don't see why the onus should be on the atheist who doesn't believe in the thing, unless the atheist is missing something which can be shown to the atheist to at least suggest she is mistaken.

It's quite possible to think about God in other ways; the atheist won't find those ways 'convincing' but that's really not what they are for.

[Mattbod]

Of course believe is a matter of faith and as a religious person even i cannot be sure. However there are questions that science cannot answer and whilst I am a believe in science and evolution I am also a believer in God. I would say my position tallys very much with that of the former Cambridge Physics Don and Priest John Polkinghorne. His books are well worth a read wherever you stand on this topic. However I have found that discussion on this subject always leads to unpleasantness as Athiests are becoming just as evangelical as some Christians now. Politics and religion on the net: leave well alone :P

[Serial_Apologist]

It's a shame scotty has thrown in the towel, because in one of his messages awhile back, he seemed to be comparing the idea of God with that of love, inasmuch that both concepts (if I may call them that) defy definition. And I wanted to take scotty up on that, since neither love nor God are considered in the abstract umbrella terms for whole ranges of attributes that they are, but always come loaded with baggage.

"You don't love me! - I know it now".
"Er, that depends what you mean by love".
"You wouldn't come to St Sprees this morning to help me with carrying the host home!"
"But we made love last night!"
"God - you never change"

[Ferretfancy]

Pabmusic,

The observed diameter of the moon just happens to be approximately the same size as the observed diameter of the sun, thus making total eclipses possible. Sooner or later on these boards some religionist or another will propose that God fixed it that way so that we can enjoy the show!

" It is the most common of follies to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind"
HL Mencken

+

[vinteuil]

The observed diameter of the moon just happens to be approximately the same size as the observed diameter of the sun, thus making total eclipses possible. Sooner or later on these boards some religionist or another will propose that God fixed it that way so that we can enjoy the show!


+

... reminds me of the Lichtenberg aphorism -

"He marvelled at the fact that cats had two holes cut in their fur at precisely the spot where their eyes were."

[Notebook G; §26; 1779-1783]

[Lateralthinking1]

But that stretches the meaning of "belief" so thin

But does it John? Isn't there a big difference between I know crisps are made from potatoes and I believe crisps are made from potatoes? Generally belief is applied to what you think likely rather than what you know. Most English people know that crisps are made for potatoes. Someone in a tent in a desert who has never seen a crisp before might say "I think this could be made from potatoes" before becoming more definite - "yes, I believe it is".

Dawkins is 6.9 out of 7. He believes there is no God. He thinks he knows there is no God but he accepts he can't know for certain. The facts are not unequivocally transparent. Hence he believes his assessment is right. So just as the woman in the tent believes that the mysterious crisp comes from potatoes - she is sufficiently sure to have faith in that assessment - so an atheist who gives due weight to the gaps in science can feel sufficiently sure to have faith in his theory that God doesn't exist but not sufficiently sure to have that as knowledge.

To be a 7 out of 7 in 2012 would be unscientific. In many respects, to claim to be a 7 removes credibility from the position. The most you can have as an atheist is a strong belief or faith. That God is not at the end of it - in fact almost exactly the opposite - is surely what makes that belief or faith incapable of being religious?

[Lateralthinking1]

neither love nor God are considered in the abstract umbrella terms for whole ranges of attributes that they are, but always come loaded with baggage.

S-A - I am in broad agreement with your parallel. The baggage is in any attachment and what is required of it. The more sharply defined this is - and God is pretty specifically defined with added detail in the pen-umbra of religion and its texts - the more difficult it can be to have love inside that is broadly applied in the day to day.

Scotty will no doubt have a very different answer. I don't know. He might even think what I am saying is a negation of, or a sidestepping of, God. We'll see in time. It isn't conventionally applied Christianity.

I think though that there is almost a logical discrepancy between the Christian "fill your hearts with love and joy wherever you go" and "oh by the way, to be able to do it, please filter it through this narrow regulatory tube".

Love is felt. It doesn't require a set procedure. Fundamentally it stands alone. But when it is felt, any relevant power or procedure can feel accommodated - ie God, Christianity, the Commandments, even a spouse - so that each exists almost as one and the same with no specific directional channelling. It's a seamless two way flow.