Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…193194196198199…327

Comments

  • Options
    #5852
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The science in your post has literally nothing to do with what you claim are the "implications" of the science.


    Perhaps ask Bell, after all all of this is an implication from his theory, right?

    There are three aspects to my post on Bell's theory. One is the science, two is the implications of the science, and three is my speculation. It appears you accept the science, do not understand the implications of the science, and are outraged by my speculations. I have no interest in convincing you of my speculations as you have no interest in moving from your rigid scientism. I would encourage you however to read up on what Bell's theory is telling us, and try and understand what a universe where every concept we had of local realism has been shattered.

    Unfortunately I cannot ask Bell as he died tragically in 1990, the year he was nominated for a Nobel prize.


  • Options
    #5853
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The appropriate response on the God question is that the objective evidence from science tells us nothing. Have you read the God Delusion? Do you not think Dawkins is making an argument to try and prove the non-existance of God using science? A careful reading of his book demonstrates he uses science selectively, and picks and chooses to make his argument. He is as entitled to peddle his worldview as anyone, but unfotunately a lot of people interpret him as an authority on the God question, when he clearly is not.

    What atheists on this forum need to at least attempt to understand is that knowledge comes from both objective (externally measured) and subjective (internally experienced) sources. There is absolutely no compelling evidence to claim objective sources are more valid, given we don't even know if our objective reality is actual reality. Thats was my point in bringing up Bell's theory, it proves that actual reality is very different to how we observe it. It is very difficult to wrap your head around what a non-local reality is, that all models of local realism are incompatible with the most solid and unshaken scientific theory in the history of science..

    There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations. This is where the discussion should be, and not arguments over who owns science.


    Jeez, you probably don't mean it or even realize it but could you tone down the condescension just a little- thanks. And secondly I have no interest in discussing Dawkins . You keep pulling these names - Dawkins Popper Bell - like rabbits out of a hat, but as far as i can see ( which I admit is fairly limited) have no relevance to the discussion. All you are doing is setting up these strawman arguments and then in your own mind knocking them down.

    It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

    All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.


  • Options
    #5854
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Jeez, you probably don't mean it or even realize it but could you tone down the condescension just a little- thanks. And secondly I have no interest in discussing Dawkins . You keep pulling these names - Dawkins Popper Bell - like rabbits out of a hat, but as far as i can see ( which I admit is fairly limited) have no relevance to the discussion. All you are doing is setting up these strawman arguments and then in your own mind knocking them down.

    It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

    All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

    Whatever about condescension you did actually ask for a name and received it. Stating that you have no interest in discussing Dawkins seems to come a little late in the day.

    I see no problem with scientific data being used to shore up any particular religious claim or even undermine it. Would you disagree with this? Also, what false dichotomy are you speaking of?


  • Options
    #5855
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Originally Posted by marienbad;
    It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

    An so we get creationism, I.D. and their mirror images fundamentalist Islam. This is a purely modern phenomena, I doubt anyone before the 19th century ever though of God as something to be proven, it was something you believed or didn't.
    Now we are stuck with the 'godddidit'* versus 'physicsdidit' and it is not about that an never was. Who did it isn't the point of faith unless that faith is only a way to control the 'it' in which case it's not faith it's magic.

    *handy little term 'goddidit' :D


  • Options
    #5856
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Whatever about condescension you did actually ask for a name and received it. Stating that you have no interest in discussing Dawkins seems to come a little late in the day.

    I see no problem with scientific data being used to shore up any particular religious claim or even undermine it. Would you disagree with this? Also, what false dichotomy are you speaking of?

    I assumed the poster was referring to names on here , maybe I was mistaken and if so fine.

    Scientific data is used for everything or should be , it is the selective use, the deliberate misquoting , the supression of, that I have a problem with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5857
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    marienbad wrote: »
    It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science.

    All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.

    Sorry if it sounded condescending, it certainly was not my intention.

    Why would you limit the co-opting of science to non-science individuals? That is my point, co-opting science is done by many scientists as well as non-scientists, on both sides of the fence. Have you not read anything by theistic scientists who argue science demonstrates their beliefs are correct? Sorry for throwing out more names but Bernard Haisch and Gerald Schroeder spring to mind. We can certainly debate their beliefs but we can't dismiss or deny that they are scientists.

    What do you think Dawkins, a scientist, is doing other than co-opting science in his anti-theistic ranting? He has convinced millions of people, in particular non-scientists, that science proves the non existance of God. I speak to lots of young people as I have teenage children and I would say 80% of those I have speak to regard The God Delusion as their bible. I think that's tragic as they have never and perhaps will never even consider the possibility of God, as their superficial reading of the book (if they have read it at all) convinced them there is no God and we live in a purposeless universe.

    I am a scientist and willingly admit I co-opt science to fit my worldview when it comes to my beliefs. I try and reason what science is telling me in the context of my beliefs, along with what I both objectively and subjectively observe. I think thats what every person does who considers the question posed in this thread. My beliefs have little to do with faith however as I do not identify with any particular religion.


  • Options
    #5858
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    I wasn't really involved in the discussion, but allow me to say something on this co-opting science bit. To me, it isn't using science to argue a position. I see it as a person who isn't a scientist using science to argue a point, or someone who is a scientist but is speaking on a field outside their area of expertise. With this view, co-opting science can be a good or bad thing.

    Depending on how honest the facts are being presented, firstly, but also how well informed the person doing so is so they can even be honest with an actual view of the facts. An ignorant person can not be true to the science even with the best of intentions. When you see young earth scientists who are working in a field that would give them no specialized knowledge on how old the planet or universe is, that is them co-opting science, for instance.

    Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).


  • Options
    #5859
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).

    Dawkins discusses far more than biology in the God Delusion, but I generally agree with your point that scientists commenting on science outside their field have more credibility than non-scientists. Credibility on subject matter outside science, such as theology or arguments in favor of or against the concept of God, is another matter entirely.

    There is no science to back up young earth creationist claims.


  • Options
    #5860
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).

    Because some people use their understanding of science to make claims that lie beyond science. This can't be said to be wrong but it should be acknowledged.


  • Options
    #5861
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Dawkins discusses far more than biology in the God Delusion
    While I have a copy, it has been a long time since I read it. The quality of what he has to say, then, isn't really something I can speak on.
    but I generally agree with your point that scientists commenting on science outside their field have more credibility than non-scientists.
    Well, yes, but you do have to have a grain of salt approach too. Just an example that comes to the top of my head, PZ Myers was talking to someone in some random vid somewhere, and the stuff he was saying on astronomy... Well, it isn't his field, so he isn't going to be expected to talk well on the subject.
    There is no science to back up young earth creationist claims.
    Indeed, and that is when you get dishonest co-opting. There may be those who honestly believe that which they are peddling, but there surely are those who know better, but are just spreading disinformation for whatever reason, be it they think it's for the greater good, personal profit or anything else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5862
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Because some people use their understanding of science to make claims that lie beyond science. This can't be said to be wrong but it should be acknowledged.

    It kind of is wrong, it's a form of lieing at worst and an appeal to authority at it's most innocent. Either way it's dishonest.


  • Options
    #5863
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Sorry if it sounded condescending, it certainly was not my intention.

    Why would you limit the co-opting of science to non-science individuals? That is my point, co-opting science is done by many scientists as well as non-scientists, on both sides of the fence. Have you not read anything by theistic scientists who argue science demonstrates their beliefs are correct? Sorry for throwing out more names but Bernard Haisch and Gerald Schroeder spring to mind. We can certainly debate their beliefs but we can't dismiss or deny that they are scientists.

    What do you think Dawkins, a scientist, is doing other than co-opting science in his anti-theistic ranting? He has convinced millions of people, in particular non-scientists, that science proves the non existance of God. I speak to lots of young people as I have teenage children and I would say 80% of those I have speak to regard The God Delusion as their bible. I think that's tragic as they have never and perhaps will never even consider the possibility of God, as their superficial reading of the book (if they have read it at all) convinced them there is no God and we live in a purposeless universe.

    I am a scientist and willingly admit I co-opt science to fit my worldview when it comes to my beliefs. I try and reason what science is telling me in the context of my beliefs, along with what I both objectively and subjectively observe. I think thats what every person does who considers the question posed in this thread. My beliefs have little to do with faith however as I do not identify with any particular religion.

    I don't want to limit science at all , it is the misuse of science I have a problem with. You can use science all you want to justify, explain , make sense of, whatever worldview you want , and the best of luck to you.
    And I really don't care one iota . You can't prove the existance of a deity and I can't disprove it to your satisfaction . If you could it would not be called faith, it would be called science.

    But the problem for me begins ( as tommy2bad alluded to in post 5855 , If I read it correctly) when organisations or individuals begin to co-opt selectively science for their own ends. And this is even not that big a deal as long as they keep it to themselves.

    And this is the central issue, when organisations misuse science to bolster their arguments in the public sphere and in public policy. And we have a long history of this be it the tobacco industry ,oil and coal companies , religious organisations , political ideologues .

    Dawkins et al (imho) are just a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism we have witnessed in the last 50 years. And while he may at times come across as a hysterical ould nag he and his ilk are essential to provide some balance in the general discourse .

    Just as an aside,as regards the tragic nature of kids and The God Delusion , why so ? I would hope they will read more than One Book in forming their worldview.


  • Options
    #5864
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    An so we get creationism, I.D. and their mirror images fundamentalist Islam.
    I strongly object to your comparison of mainstream Christians and other montheists, including moderate Muslims who are Creationists to fundamentalist Islam.
    For anybody who wishes to argue that Christians who are Creationists aren't mainstream Christians ... can I quote from article 2 of the Forum's Charter
    Quote:-
    "2. For the purposes of this board 'Christian' means broad assent to historic Christian belief such as is contained in the Apostles' Creed. ."

    The first statement in the Apostles' Creed is ... "I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord."


  • Options
    #5865
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't want to limit science at all , it is the misuse of science I have a problem with. You can use science all you want to justify, explain , make sense of, whatever worldview you want , and the best of luck to you.
    And I really don't care one iota . You can't prove the existance of a deity and I can't disprove it to your satisfaction . If you could it would not be called faith, it would be called science.

    But the problem for me begins ( as tommy2bad alluded to in post 5855 , If I read it correctly) when organisations or individuals begin to co-opt selectively science for their own ends. And this is even not that big a deal as long as they keep it to themselves.

    And this is the central issue, when organisations misuse science to bolster their arguments in the public sphere and in public policy. And we have a long history of this be it the tobacco industry ,oil and coal companies , religious organisations , political ideologues .

    Dawkins et al (imho) are just a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism we have witnessed in the last 50 years. And while he may at times come across as a hysterical ould nag he and his ilk are essential to provide some balance in the general discourse .

    Just as an aside,as regards the tragic nature of kids and The God Delusion , why so ? I would hope they will read more than One Book in forming their worldview.
    The truth is that both Atheists and Theists are using science to support their respective worldviews.
    Atheists have, for a long time, co-opted science to their cause of denying the existence of God ... and Theists are increasingly finding that science can prove the existence of an intelligence(s) of Divine orders of magnitude.

    Throughout the 'heady days' of the nineteen sixties and seventies it was confidently predicted that science would eventually reach the point where it would be able to definitively answer the question of whether God exists or not ...
    ... the Atheists smugly assumed that the answer would be in the negative ... I remember this, because many of my Atheist friends, at the time, confidently assumed that this would be the case ... and my Theist friends were much more uncertain and circumspect as to whether the result would be in favour of God or not - and they has a 'back-stop' position that it might not be possible to use science in this manner at all.

    The scientific jury has 'come in' on the 'God question' ... but unfortunately for the Atheists, the verdict is in the affirmative ... and the Atheists have gone into denial ... along with quite a number of Theists ... for some inexplicable reason.


  • Options
    #5866
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    There is a big difference though between "creationists" who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity and "young earth creationists" who believe in a timeline for creation from a literal reading of their scripture. YEC believers are surely a minority among the worldwide population of Christians, Jews and Muslims?


  • Options
    #5867
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    The truth is that both Atheists and Theists are using science to support their respective worldviews.
    Atheists have co-opted science to their cause of denying the existence of God ... and Theists are increasingly finding that science can prove the existence of an intelligence(s) of Divine orders of magnitude.

    But only one side uses censorship


  • Options
    #5868
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    But only one side uses censorship
    Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument ... so I guess it will be just as ineffectual in protecting Atheism ... as it has been in protecting any other idea whose time has passed its 'sell-by' date down through the centuries.


  • Options
    #5869
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There is a big difference though between "creationists" who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity and "young earth creationists" who believe in a timeline for creation from a literal reading of their scripture. YEC believers are surely a minority among the worldwide population of Christians, Jews and Muslims?
    Leaving the time-line out of it ... and even the time-line isn't an issue for OEC (Old Earth Creationists) ... there are no fundamental differences ... most Creationists are fully-paid up members of all types of mainstream Churches, Synagogues and Mosques worldwide.


  • Options
    #5870
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument ... so I guess it will be just as ineffectual in protecting Atheism ... as it has been in protecting any other idea whose time has passed its 'sell-by' date down through the centuries.

    So why did you use it then


  • Options
    #5871
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    So why did you use it then
    Creationists are sometimes the victims of censorship ... and I have never used it.

    I welcome openness and the free-exchange of ideas ... it's some Atheists (and some Theists) who want Creationists (and especially their ideas) banned from schools ... and science ... and everywhere else where a ban can be imposed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5872
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... anyway God is great and He lives ... and He loves us all ... and this is all that ultimately matters.


  • Options
    #5873
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists are sometimes the victims of censorship ... and I have never used it.

    I welcome openness and the free-exchange of ideas ... it's the Atheists (and some Theists) who want Creationists (and especially their ideas) banned from schools ... and science ... and everywhere else where a ban can be imposed.

    Then I suggest you rething your own post number 5864


  • Options
    #5874
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Then I suggest you rething your own post number 5864
    Why?
    Objecting to erroneous stereotyping ... and pointing out salient facts is legitimate ... and has nothing to do with censorship.


  • Options
    #5875
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Why?
    Objecting to erroneous stereotyping ... and pointing out salient facts is legitimate ... and has nothing to do with censorship.

    That is not what you did though is it ? Instead of adressing the points raised you tried to shut the poster up by invoking the charter.


  • Options
    #5876
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is not what you did though is it ? Instead of adressing the points raised you tried to shut the poster up by invoking the charter.
    I didn't invoke the Charter ... I merely pointed out the fact that the Charter defines a 'Christian' as having a broad assent to the Apostles' Creed ... and therefore a 'Christian' is by the definition of the Charter a believer in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.
    I agree that the Charter is quite correct that such a broad assent is a basic requirement to be considered a 'Christian'.


  • Options
    #5877
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    I didn't invoke the Charter ... I merely pointed out the fact that the Charter defines a 'Christian' as having a basic adherence to the Apostles' Creed ... and therefore a 'Christian' is by the definition of the Charter a believer in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.

    hair splitting


  • Options
    #5878
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    hair splitting
    Its a fact ... and it shows that 'Creationists' aren't the only Christians who believe that God Created Heaven and Earth ... all 'Christians' do so.


  • Options
    #5879
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Goodnight everybody.


  • Options
    #5880
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    nagirrac wrote: »
    There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations

    That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

    In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5881
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Morbert wrote: »
    That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not.

    In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.
    Morbert this christian would disagree. I wouldn't disagree that their is evidence of God, I would however disagree that the evidence is the same as empirical evidence we use for science. God isn't for dissection or examination under a microscope.
    Theirs more to living than just empirical evidence.
    Disagree with niagrac not you


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement