Dawkins/Hitchens V Creationism

hallsp

Greetings. Just want to get a picture of where people stand on creationism and particularly young earth creationism. I'd also like to know what your opinions on religion are. Do you think Richard Dawkins or, more recently, Christopher Hitchens provide a good argument against faith?

Boston

Boards ie massive mate.

Post question on one of these forums

hallsp

Is it a strict rule that you cannot post on a subject that has its own board? What if I wanted to gauge the opinions of college students rather than the more general public?

Boston

Think of it as less of a rule and more a case of good practice. On some forums its a heavily enforced rule, on others its a non issue. All forums on boards have distinct rules with very few rules applied to all forums. Generally however, this being the trinity forum, topic posted here should relate in some way to trinity or students in their capacity as trinity students. Your topic seems just general question on faith, which I can't see having any particular bearing to trinity. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it?

A futher point, topics like this posted in forums I linked to and other would frown on just asking open ended questions without first giving your own take on it.

Way to ruin a perfectly good thread, Boston.

Nietzschean

in fairness boston was polite and explained normal boards.ie proceedure..... it was all a bit vague

King.Penguin

I don't think there is any reason why an open and reasonable person should follow young earth creationism. There is insurmountable evidence to suggest that evolution (Darwinian or whatever) exists, the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and that literal interpretations of Genesis conflict with reality. There is no point even discussing this, there won't be an "creationists" on this forum to attempt to give the other side of the argument. We all know what the story is.

Moving onwards, there are a number of different religious views on this forum, ranging from the practising catholic, other Christian religion follower, to the agnostic, to the atheist.

I think the opinion on religion itself is also quite diverse on this forum. I'm sure some people believe religion as a concept accounts for more trouble then good, more discourse than reason. Terms like opiate of the masses spring to mind. There are others for which religion is very important aspect of their life.

This is true for all around the globe but what makes this slightly different on this forum and other boards forum is that the people who have completely different views on religion are very similar otherwise. What I mean, the people that are "religious" aren't crazy, fundamentalists who believe in creationism and the majority of the atheists aren't people who think religion is "evil" rather than unnecessary. Both groups are represented by reasonable and intelligent people with university education.

Dawkins is an excellent popular science writer. He can explain evolutionary biology and behavioural ecology very well in word. However, he's not an incredibly impressive debater or public speaker. The arguments he makes in interviews etc. that he composes off the top of his head are sometimes rather flawed. His second major fault is his anti-religion slant on everything. At best it's off-topic ranting that distracts from the interesting/important things he says/writes, at worst it's insulting and useless only serving to gain more controversy.

Sangre

Creationists are either idiots or deluded.

paperclip

As opposed to people who believe everything came out of nothing by magic or something? The gases have to come from SOMEWHERE, people.

Boston

Sangre wrote:

Creationists are either idiots or deluded.

Can they not be both?

paperclip: The "Gases" may of come from somewhere, but their alot older then creationists believe, regardless of where they came from.

The earth is flat people, the earth is flat.

Fallen Seraph

paperclip wrote:

As opposed to people who believe everything came out of nothing by magic or something? The gases have to come from SOMEWHERE, people.

This statement is very wrong.


wrt the original topic I'm of the opinion that to believe YEC requires willful ignorance. I think that the catholic creationism is incorrect, but worthy of respect, as it isn't as mind-bogglingly stupid as YEC. I've never read anything on hitchens, and I've only seen dawkins' tv show and have currently read the first chapter of the god delusion, and I gotta say I don't like the chap. While his good arguements are good; they're nothing new and when he's at his worst he's just as bad as a creationist, imo.

ApeXaviour

paperclip wrote:

As opposed to people who believe everything came out of nothing by magic or something? The gases have to come from SOMEWHERE, people.

I agree.. it's clear the only logical conclusion is that an invisible man in the sky whooshed them into existance about 7000 years ago.

Boston wrote:

The earth is flat people, the earth is flat.

Also agreed.

It's a flat rotating disc, accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. Giving us this impression that some radical theorists have decided (ludicrously) is as a result of virtual "graviton" particle exchange. When really it's basic newtonian inertia, none of this BS "action at a distance" lark.

Time Magazine

<Jonny> wrote:

Way to ruin a perfectly good thread, Boston.

QFT. Nobody is so pedantic about thread placement, Boston. Creationism has been done to death on Christianity; that does not mean it can't be discussed here.

King.Penguin wrote:

.

Very good post. Haven something to add though.

literal interpretations of Genesis conflict with reality

I disagree with this to the extent that just as many religious people blindly interpret scripture, many idiotic/deluded people like Sangre aren't aware of many arguments. The Genesis you read is a translation. Allow me to give you an example why it's not as idiotic as you might think. Revert back to the original language of Genesis and the word "day" is interchangeable with "age". So no longer do you have "And on the seventh day", you have something like "During the seventh age", which is far more in line with scientific research insofar as it creates an indefinite period of time for creation. Of course people like Dawkins don't point this stuff out.

Also although humans certainly evolved from hairy banana men, there can still exist the concept of "creation" or Adam and Eve through ensoulment; something makes them distinct as the first "humans". There's no specific reason to believe that ensoulment occurs with the transition to Homo sapien, either. In that sense, "human life" can be interpreted as having begun yesterday, or, say, 6,000 years ago. This is still creationism that I'm espousing, just a far more reasonable version of it. Ensoulment isn't a scientific theory, but neither really is sanctity for human life, or the belief in a God, or a view against abortion, but ensoulment as a concept is reasonably acceptable. Acceptable is of course subjective and often people say it's illogical to believe in such things. I agree, but logic isn't a definitive power in the world, either. It's not a prerequisite for truth.

Boston

Ibid wrote:

many idiotic/deluded people like Sangre aren't aware of many arguments

Sangre tends not to offer opinions without being certain of them. You are quiet wrong to suggest that the bible has any scientific backing. Noahs arch? We're all inbred?

hallsp

That's a good point Ibid. Placing your confidence in a reinterpreted third party interpretation is not a clever thing to do without consideration for the manner in which the text is dictated & translated. This, in my opinion, is why it is exceedingly difficult to trust a literal interpretation of a modern text.

Needless to say I am not a creationist but it's interesting to see what people think. Creationism has already produced at least one defender.

What do you think of the argument that positing the existence of a complex being to explain the existence of complex beings such as ourselves is essentially to do nothing at all?

aequinoctium

I read in the magazine 'discover' (not sure of the name) that Islam supposidly is somewhat in tandem with science. many interpretations of the Koran agree with modern scientific belief eg. number of bones in human body, planets orbit etc.

Attractive Nun

I think a central issue in the creationism V Dawkins/evolution/big bang debate is the inherent disadvantage that the scientific argument has, when compared to the religious. In the past few decades, the debate has essentially consisted mainly of scientific theorists proposing ideas, finding evidence for them and scrutinising other theories about where we came from (in other words, science). Then creationists, or whoever, search for inaccuracies in their research and point out flaws.

This is fair enough, it should present little more than a challenge to science, but I think it can create an unfair impression to many people that the evolutionary argument is 'limited' or 'incomplete'. Of course, there are questions left to answer, not least paperclip's "Where the **** did all this **** come from in the first place?", but in general I think it's fair to say that, by any reasonable standard, science has been - and continues to be - very successful in attempting to answer any questions that arise.

On the other hand, if people were to spend more time criticising creationist arguments (as, I guess, they are starting to do) with the same vehemency as the creationists attack evolutionary theory, then it would become unbelievably obvious to most that creationism is nonsense. The problem is, as Ibid has demonstrated, that creationists can continually move the goalposts by fabricating some new theory.

I would disagree that all religious people are idiotic, but I do think it's fair to say that anyone who has genuinely thought about these issues who still believes in creationism must either be deluded or simply a bit slow.

Sangre

I'm the deluded one? lol.

Tbh, science has better things to do than try to fight back against creationism. Their 'arguments' aren't worthy of academic discussion. They propose no theories or models but simply pick holes (badly) in conventional science. They collapse under the simplest of scrutiny or under their own contradictions. The only people they fool are lay, religious people with no grasp of the convoluted scientific terminology used.

fiveone

And the only people trashy best selling science books fool are those who have blatant disregard/ignorance not only for the thousands of years of study on the nature of god/belief/the unknown, but for the fact that religion in its multifarious forms (including science) is responsible for modern civilisation as we know it, whether you like it or not.

I know books like this are a science student's wet dream, but lets tone down the attack on other people's beliefs until you've solved it all yourself (preferably by performing and cataloguing monotonous experiments ad infinitum, which I suppose is a kind of religious experience in itself)

hallsp

lydonst wrote:

And the only people trashy best selling science books fool are those who have blatant disregard/ignorance not only for the thousands of years of study on the nature of god/belief/the unknown

Or anyone who wishes to look at religion from all angles, anyone not blinded by their narrow faith, or anyone with an interest in what empirical science has to say on the nature of existence!

lydonst wrote:

but for the fact that religion in its multifarious forms (including science) is responsible for modern civilisation as we know it, whether you like it or not.

While you may like to claim Science as your own, science can hardly be reduced to a subset of religion. In no way, shape or form is religion even remotely scientific or vice versa. Science is falsifiable for one, religion is, by definition, the very antithesis.

lydonst wrote:

I know books like this are a science student's wet dream, but lets tone down the attack on other people's beliefs until you've solved it all yourself (preferably by performing and cataloguing monotonous experiments ad infinitum, which I suppose is a kind of religious experience in itself)

Attacking belief systems is the bread and butter of science. And yes, scientific discovery can be viewed as distinctly spiritual, I wouldn't say religious though, but that's merely a choice of words.

fiveone

hallsp wrote:

Or anyone who wishes to look at religion from all angles, anyone not blinded by their narrow faith, or anyone with an interest in what empirical science has to say on the nature of existence!

Using my own opening against me ey? A cunning technique by an equally cunning linguist!

While you may like to claim Science as your own, science can hardly be reduced to a subset of religion. In no way, shape or form is religion even remotely scientific or vice versa. Science is falsifiable for one, religion is, by definition, the very antithesis.

And yes, scientific discovery can be viewed as distinctly spiritual, I wouldn't say religious though, but that's merely a choice of words.

I'm not religious if thats what you're implying. I await point number two..

Attacking belief systems is the bread and butter of science.

But what, then, are its meat and potatoes?

hallsp

lydonst wrote:

I'm not religious if thats what you're implying. I await point number two..

Well, religious or not you cannot claim that science is a religion without incurring some disquiet.

lydonst wrote:

But what, then, are its meat and potatoes?

Indeed. Perhaps experimentation and prediction!?

Sangre

lydonst wrote:

And the only people trashy best selling science books fool are those who have blatant disregard/ignorance not only for the thousands of years of study on the nature of god/belief/the unknown

And after all these thousands of years of study we still don't have one iota of proof. Only more questions. Interesting.

but for the fact that religion in its multifarious forms (including science) is responsible for modern civilisation as we know it, whether you like it or not.

What? How is science a form of religion in any shape or form? They couldn't clash any more.

So the Greeks and Romans invented democracy in the name of religion? They did it as a tribute to Zeus or Apollo?

I know books like this are a science student's wet dream, but lets tone down the attack on other people's beliefs until you've solved it all yourself

'Yes, I think your belief that the world is ruled by invisible pink unicorns is a perfectly reasonable, not idiotic belief. I respect your belief and yourself for holding them.'

Respecting beliefs is fun.

fiveone

Sangre wrote:

And after all these thousands of years of study we still don't have one iota of proof. Only more questions. Interesting.

Em, thats the point, and not everyone has to live according to your empirical criteria. I believe faith is the word, or something..

What? How is science a form of religion in any shape or form? They couldn't clash any more.

Science has its own ideals of progress, the belief it is helping and enlightening society, endless accumlation of empirical knowledge, and faith in human rationality. Religion and science are not simply opposites, this is a polarising belief propogated by scientists who "believe" in the ideal of totally objective framework for accumulation of knowledge as an end in itself.

THIS IS A BELIEF SYSTEM

So the Greeks and Romans invented democracy in the name of religion? They did it as a tribute to Zeus or Apollo?

Well, this is obviously a pretty complicated question. I'll go with yes for the minute.

'Yes, I think your belief that the world is ruled by invisible pink unicorns is a perfectly reasonable, not idiotic belief. I respect your belief and yourself for holding them.'

Respecting beliefs is fun.

If someone were to believe that and was happy with it then you have absolutely no right to assert your opinion over theirs without adequate grounds, which is exactly what you lack. Not everyone has to live according to naziesque ideas of rational living, especially when you refuse to acknowledge (or are ignorant of) the amount of "belief" and faith implicit in a scientific worldview. In my opinion, in fact, your belief is idiotic and sheep like, so lets dispense with the extreme examples shall we?

ApeXaviour

lydonst wrote:

Em, thats the point, and not everyone has to live according to your empirical criteria. I believe faith is the word, or something..

Faith being such a convenient concept. Okay so we can't prove any of this, or even provide any evidence. So how the heck are we gonna indoctrinate people and this spread? I know, let's develop this concept called faith. It can be like a test, people like being tested. We can make it seem like a competition to see who has the most faith, make this idiocy actually desirable among those who don't bother to question what they've been told repeatedly. Actually let's make it a sin to even question so they won't even consider it. It's brilliant marketing, I'll give you that.

Science has its own ideals of progress, the belief it is helping and enlightening society,

I suppose it depends on your definition of progress, but I can provide empirical evidence for how it is helping and enlightening society, more than hindering at least. There's no blind doctrine, rather simple sense.

endless accumlation of empirical knowledge, and faith in human rationality

Okay hold on, to be rational is to possess a faculty for reason, and use it, i.e. a free thinker. Free thinking is the dictionary antonym of having faith. "Faith in human rationality"... What does that even mean? It's like saying "he believes incredulously". To be human is to be imperfect, so I suppose our rationale is too, that's all I can give you. I certainly don't have "faith" in everybody's logical judgement, as they could be wrong. That's the beauty of it, we don't have any solid beliefs. Only reasoned ideas that evidence heavily supports, and thus are most likely correct.

Religion and science are not simply opposites, this is a polarising belief propogated by scientists who "believe" in the ideal of totally objective framework for accumulation of knowledge as an end in itself.

What are you talking about? That's not the case at all... It's a means by which to predict and explain the world around us. It contributes towards our fundamental knowledge, free thinking, economy and the progression and advancement of civilisation. It's not a belief system, it has no doctrine, it's all falsifiable. Literature contributes to free-thinking also, as well as politics. Equivalently neither of these are belief systems.

If someone were to believe that and was happy with it then you have absolutely no right to assert your opinion over theirs without adequate grounds, which is exactly what you lack.

So you don't think there are adequate grounds to dispute existence of invisible pink unicorns? Hmmm...

Not everyone has to live according to naziesque ideas of rational living

lol! Rational living. As in having sense? No literally, that's what rational means, incase you don't have a dictionary near by. Don't worry mate, science and logic don't preclude people from being as stupid as they see fit. It merely stops them from arguing their idiocy with any weight.

especially when you refuse to acknowledge (or are ignorant of) the amount of "belief" and faith implicit in a scientific worldview. In my opinion, in fact, your belief is idiotic and sheep like,

Right I've studied the universe. Though I accept many ideas on the face of them, I've also worked through many from first principals, through sound logic and evidence. To call this sheeplike is, well, wrong. At least, given my undertanding of how sheep behave. I have no "faith" in science per se, as faith is a belief that is not based on proof or evidence, which science's bread and butter.

Sangre

lydonst wrote:

In my opinion, in fact, your belief is idiotic and sheep like, so lets dispense with the extreme examples shall we?

I might get back to the rest of your post when I've time but this part made me laugh. Yes, I'm quite the sheep. I rejected the beliefs I was indoctrined as a child with, baaa. My beliefs are huge minority in Ireland, baa. My beliefs are also a global minority, baa.

I'm not a sheep because I've faith I'm a human. Case closed.

Fallen Seraph

lydonst wrote:

Science has its own ideals of progress, the belief it is helping and enlightening society, endless accumlation of empirical knowledge, and faith in human rationality. Religion and science are not simply opposites, this is a polarising belief propogated by scientists who "believe" in the ideal of totally objective framework for accumulation of knowledge as an end in itself.

THIS IS A BELIEF SYSTEM

Science and relgion are dissimilar. They are not opposites, not because they have things in common, but rather because they are not within the same category to compare. Comparing science and religion is like comparing onions and long distance running.


Moreover, science does not have ideals of progress, belief in helping and enlightening or faith in human rationality. The only "faith" science has is that the universe can be described mathematically and that empirical experiments can verify calculations.

Attractive Nun

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=DWyMBnfjQKI

dan719

lydonst wrote:

If someone were to believe that and was happy with it then you have absolutely no right to assert your opinion over theirs without adequate grounds, which is exactly what you lack. Not everyone has to live according to naziesque ideas of rational living, especially when you refuse to acknowledge (or are ignorant of) the amount of "belief" and faith implicit in a scientific worldview. In my opinion, in fact, your belief is idiotic and sheep like, so lets dispense with the extreme examples shall we?

If you are referring to the assumption of science that we can percieve and 5hat what we percieve actually exists then yes we have belief. Unfortunately if you choose to ignore this belief and instead decide you can fly, good luck to you. This so called belief is hard-wired into human beings as a neccesity to survival. Anyone who refuses it is usually classed as insane. It is also far more accepted and well documented among scientists i.e philosophy of science. Science is based on bare minimum of assumptions and logical deduction. Creation assumes the existance of an infinitely powerful being. Not exactly simple. And easily refuted by the question 'So where did he/she/it come from'.

fiveone

Both religious and scientific "worldviews" have their elements of idealism. One is called faith, the other is faith in the intristic positive effect of the a accumulation of knowledge in itself. Scientists can be just as idealistic and religious about their endeavours as believers. Do you think it was a good idea to develop the atomic bomb? Do you think that developing pharmaceutical drugs is a better option to preventative measures when it comes to disease? Scientists think they can get off scot free with this stupid concept of knowledge for the sake of it, based of pure rationality, and as a result they are easily manipulated by corporations and governments. The worse thing about is that you people are just as dogmatic about it as devout christians or whatever when you refuse other beliefs. In addition, there is no such thing as a human being existing on 100% rationality, it is an old fashioned fiction leftover from the enlightenment, so stop being so damn naiive. Attacking religion is the easy option, and its something I for one gave up on when I was about 14, so you're going to have to accept things are slightly more complicated than they appear.

Science has helped society, but it has also hindered it in many ways. To give a few examples of how a simple idea of "enlightening and improving society," can be upset, how about weapons? The increase of obesity due to ****ty food? Pesticides, the overuse of antibiotics, television feeding people crap that actually makes them more stupid.. I could go on, I could list positives either. The point is, its how you use the knowledge that counts, and there is no simple scale for the overall improvement of society. People are healthier? In the first world, yes. Are people happier? Are they leading more fulfilled lives? There was 30,000 prescriptions given out for anti depressants in the UK last year, according to sky news. Thank fukc for science!

And by the way, the issue of human rationality is more complicated than a dictionary antonym.

Oh and congratulations on you newfound enlightenment Sangre. Clap. clap.

"Moreover, science does not have ideals of progress, belief in helping and enlightening or faith in human rationality. The only "faith" science has is that the universe can be described mathematically and that empirical experiments can verify calculations."

Um, surely thats still faith? In human rationality and their ability to categorise the world, on a provisional and rational basis. Science has ideals, or else it wouldn't bother existing. Mkay? It just rejects them so dogmatically with the intention of objectivity and pure accumulation of data that it becomes easily assimilated into other belief systems. Like social darwinism, eugenics etc.

"f you are referring to the assumption of science that we can percieve and what we percieve actually exists then yes we have belief. Unfortunately if you choose to ignore this belief and instead decide you can fly, good luck to you. This so called belief is hard-wired into human beings as a neccesity to survival. Anyone who refuses it is usually classed as insane."

Its not necessary to survival, obviously. One may be mistaken by what he perceives, no? Happens quite often. I may not believe I can fly, but I might think im the best or whatever. If im wrong, do I die, or what? Am I mad?

Fallen Seraph

lydonst wrote:

Um, surely thats still faith? In human rationality and their ability to categorise the world, on a provisional and rational basis. Science has ideals, or else it wouldn't bother existing. Mkay? It just rejects them so dogmatically with the intention of objectivity and pure accumulation of data that it becomes easily assimilated into other belief systems. Like social darwinism, eugenics etc.

Yes it is still faith, I don't deny this; but you're missing my point.

Science isn't a philosophy in the way that Christianity or Stoicism is. Science doesn't have ideals. Scientists have ideals, them being human. One person could persue science to the end of furthering understanding, another to improve the human lot and a third in persuit of power and personal. Three completely different ideals. None of which have anything to do with science as a concept.


I would, however, qualify my statement that sciences requires faith by pointing out that while it does require faith, it only requires faith in the relatively trivial statement that "things are as they appear to be".

Tim Robbins

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I gotta say I don't like the chap. While his good arguements are good; they're nothing new and when he's at his worst he's just as bad as a creationist, imo.

I disagreed with many portions of the God Delusion and thought it was a bit one eyed in many parts, but still thought it was one of the best books I have ever read. Out of all the atheists books I have read:
Why I am not Christian (Russell), The End of Faith (Harris), Breaking the Spell (Dennet), Atheistm (A VSI), God is not Great (Hitchens) - The God Delusion is easily the best.

Toolbag

lydonst wrote:

Scientists can be just as idealistic and religious about their endeavours as believers. Do you think it was a good idea to develop the atomic bomb? Do you think that developing pharmaceutical drugs is a better option to preventative measures when it comes to disease?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=8dRfh70Jw44


How many lives have been lost in the name of religion? :rolleyes: How many have been lost to nuclear weapons?

Attractive Nun

lydonst wrote:

Both religious and scientific "worldviews" have their elements of idealism. One is called faith, the other is faith in the intristic positive effect of the a accumulation of knowledge in itself. Scientists can be just as idealistic and religious about their endeavours as believers.

Of course scientific worldviews can be idealistic - anything can be idealistic, but you're deliberately ignoring the central point in this whole argument. Yes, scientists (and 'science' in general) do make certain assumptions about the nature of things before they can 'do' science. The foremost of these is, I suppose, that the universe can be explained by rationality. You also mention "faith in the intrinsic positive effect of the accumulation of knowledge", which I suppose is true for all scientists - otherwise they wouldn't be scientists - but is hardly necessary for science itself.

I think it's important to make the distinction between 'falsifiable faith' - which I think is better termed 'belief' and 'unfalsifiable faith'. The former is essentially akin to making assumptions while the latter is very much more like the 'faith' that has been discussed in this thread. Making assumptions, as science does, is not the same thing as having faith. Science has rationally concluded that water, at 0 degrees centigrade, will always solidify. The only assumption being made is that the reasons for this are explicable by the rational deductions i.e. that water does not solidify at 0 degrees because an irrational, supernatural being decides that it should and makes it happen every time. If God was to come along one day and say that water should turn into pig's blood at 0 degrees, then science would say "Oh, look, we were wrong - the world is actually irrational". But this has never happened. Nothing in the universe has ever been adequately explained except by rationality. It is not a big leap of faith, therefore, to assume that everything can be explained by rational deduction. Many people, including myself, make this leap of faith - and I suppose you could classify it as some sort of faith. However, everyone accepts that - were something such as the above example to happen - then science would be wrong. Whatever miniscule, pedantic amount of faith is involved is very falsifiable. And, even still, while individual scientists might have faith in a 'scientific worldview', science itself is simply what happens after that assumption is made - and in itself requires no faith whatsoever, in fact it demands skepticism, which is quite the opposite.

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely about faith, complete, irrational, unfalsifiable faith. No rational evidence has ever been found for the existence of any sort of deity, afterlife or soul. Despite all logic to the contrary - and indeed many explanations as to why people might accept religion even if it isn't true - people persist in having faith in all of the above. No one will ever be able to prove that there is no God. But one could very easily, if it were true, prove that science cannot explain everything - yet no one has done so. Therefore, religion and science are nothing alike.

EGaffney

<--- Practicing RC.

I did not like the God Delusion. I believe its target audience is people who are already atheists, and possibly agnostics, and I think it was primarily written with the purpose of making money rather than inducing mass global conversions. This is partly because of the author and his well-known attitude towards the religious, but it's partially because the book itself isn't good enough on a persuasive level. Hitchens is more interesting, because he's done more outside work on politics and the like, and I met his colleague who also served as devil's advocate against the beatification of Mother Teresa when he visited the Phil, but I've never read him on religion.

I hope nobody minds my making a few observations on the preceding discussion. Creationism is falsifiable using the fossil record, and it has been falsified in the form in which it is generally given. Intelligent design is falsifiable with examples of imperfect, unintelligent design. Three come to mind at the moment. 1. Phalangal bones in dolphin flippers. 2. The human appendix. 3. The visual processing system in the human brain. Naturally, you can make modifications to these theories that avoid these problems, but using common sense rather than any scientific methodology, they seem to be constructed for sociological reasons, not scientific ones. That is why I adhere to the usual Catholic understanding of how the world as we know it came to be, and not these crazy ideas about a control-freak God, which only really gels with certain Protestant denominations which believe in pre-determined fate.

I think a problem arises when the scientific method is applied to questions which it is not designed to answer (e.g. the existence of God, a meta-physical being) and thus yields an invalid result. In this case, an assumption towards the negative based on the conventional usage of minimal extraneous beliefs, which is helpful in a scientific context but not really in a metaphysical one.

fiveone

Attractive Nun wrote:

I think it's important to make the distinction between 'falsifiable faith' - which I think is better termed 'belief' and 'unfalsifiable faith'. The former is essentially akin to making assumptions while the latter is very much more like the 'faith' that has been discussed in this thread. Making assumptions, as science does, is not the same thing as having faith.

Attractive Nun wrote:

Yes, scientists (and 'science' in general) do make certain assumptions about the nature of things before they can 'do' science. The foremost of these is, I suppose, that the universe can be explained by rationality.

Attractive Nun wrote:

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely about faith, complete, irrational, unfalsifiable faith.

Attractive Nun wrote:

Science has rationally concluded that water, at 0 degrees centigrade, will always solidify. The only assumption being made is that the reasons for this are explicable by rational deductions i.e that water does not solidify at 0 degrees because an irrational, supernatural being decides that it should and makes it happen every time.

Firstly, I disagree with the distinction, you can't really just take rationality for granted like that, it really does a massive amount of "faith" in human rationality and its connotations: within your water to ice experiment one would need to believe prior to the experiment that a) there is a rational order to the world that allows one to speculate on cause and effect to begin with b) that I am capable of being aware of, and have the ability to categorise all of the factors that make up the cause and the effect as an isolated, repeatable event c) that what I am doing is beneficial/productive in some way.

They are some quite big assumptions. Whats more irrational than acting on an inherently falsifiable and provisional belief? At least with religion I can say, for example, being moral is good, and be happy. Scientists just close their eyes and hope for the best. Is any speculation about the beginning of the universe, for example, not inherently irrational to begin with? By what leap of hubris and idealism can anyone even attempt to speculate on the series of events that led to the existence of the universe at this moment in time? You can't do repeatable/falsifiable tests for that, but you work according to the assumption anyway.

Attractive Nun wrote:

You also mention "faith in the intrinsic positive effect of the accumulation of knowledge", which ... is hardly necessary for science itself.

What is science but a system for collecting information, or a methodology? It is not only necessary, science is embodied by faith in research, albeit implicity.

Attractive Nun wrote:

Nothing in the universe has ever been adequately explained except by rationality. It is not a big leap of faith, therefore, to assume that everything can be explained by rational deduction.

What is adequate? What did your Mother tell you when you asked how babies are made? "Well, son, the zygote..." Humans lived long before science and will continue to do so.

Are inherently provisional and falsifiable explanations of the universe adequate? If science claims that there is no belief apart from that derived from falsifiable experiments, then SHUT UP telling me elcasei immunitas in actimel is going to help me live longer. In some cases belief in God may make people happier, it might be their one ray of hope. I'm glad wealthy college students can take it upon themselves to cleanse the unclean stupidity of the mob and those less well off in the name of enlightenment and progress. Please.

The God Delusion is trash. Its existence is somewhat justified in America where there is a concerted effort by creationists to alter the syllabus etc. But that isn't happening here and its just contributing to development of americanised, dogmatic and conformist sheep who insist on having an opinion without being able, methodologically speaking, to have an opinion.