Does atheism matter?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And again, your view of belief is far more simplistic because and would exclude about 98% of the planet's population

Dawkins is political.

I can see the attraction in the seven points but dont agree with it as too reductive.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't say they're mutual enemies. Religious people like science because they think that their God exists and that science can do nothing but prove that. On the other hand, scientists don't like religious people much because of this whole idea

It makes slightly more sense, but for lack of evidence. How can science prove that God exists? How do you know scientists don't like religious people? Do religious scientists not like religious people too?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No one said it was a prerequisite. It does help though. A good example of how:

---

An atheist scientist is trying to prove the existence of the nucleus of the atom.

Method:
Carry out Rutherford's experiment

conclusion: The nucleus exists

---

---

Now a theist (Christian?) scientist is trying to prove the existence of the nucleus of the atom.

Method:
Carry out Rutherford's experiment

conclusion: I don't know if the nucleus exists because God might have manipulated the stream of alpha rays.

Are you deliberately writing parody? Why would the Christian believe that the universe is not governed by rational laws? The whole idea that the universe is governed by laws came from Christianity and that is why science flourished in Europe. Learn some history! Unless that is you want to believe in a parody of the Christian because you want it to be true.

Also, dismissing science is not a pre-requisite of belief but if you don't want to you have to develop an "allegorical" view of the bible, ie acknowledge that a lot of it is simply wrong but don't reject it on that basis because you really really want the bits that haven't been proven false/wrong to be true

PDN has explained ad nauseum that much of the Bible is meant to be read allegorically by the authors. There's nothing wrong with seeking a logical harmony between scripture and observation.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Dawkins is political.

I can see the attraction in the seven points but dont agree with it as too reductive.

You keep saying this but yours is even more reductive!

What type of system would you prefer that's less simplistic and reductive?

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

It makes slightly more sense, but for lack of evidence. How can science prove that God exists? How do you know scientists don't like religious people? Do religious scientists not like religious people too?

I was being facecious. Of course scientists like religious people. As for religious scientists not liking religious people, I watched Dawkins interview George Coyne who quite dislikes religious people who try to usurp science. It's on youtube if you want to take a look

Húrin wrote: »

Are you deliberately writing parody? Why would the Christian believe that the universe is not governed by rational laws? The whole idea that the universe is governed by laws came from Christianity and that is why science flourished in Europe. Learn some history! Unless that is you want to believe in a parody of the Christian because you want it to be true.

But god can overrule those laws whenever he pleases.

Húrin wrote: »

PDN has explained ad nauseum that much of the Bible is meant to be read allegorically by the authors. There's nothing wrong with seeking a logical harmony between scripture and observation.

Meant by who? All I think when I hear 'allegorical' is that people are randomly highlighting passages and saying this is allegorical but this is literal truth.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But god can overrule those laws whenever he pleases.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians view the universe as being governed by rational laws. So without reason to believe that God is creating an illusion, our fictional scientist wouldn't think what you said he would think.

Meant by who?

The authors.

All I think when I hear 'allegorical' is that people are randomly highlighting passages and saying this is allegorical but this is literal truth.

It doesn't matter what you think, if you're uninformed and wrong about it.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Christians view the universe as being governed by rational laws. So without reason to believe that God is creating an illusion, our fictional scientist wouldn't think what you said he would think.

Now that's a very important point. The way an atheist would see it, there is never reason to believe that God is creating an illusion whether it's in a science experiment or doing a miracle or raising someone from the dead. To an atheist there is always a rational explanation but not so with believers. How do they decide which is which?

Húrin wrote: »

The authors.

They asked them did they? Makes me wonder why there's so many branches of christianity if we know from the authors themselves which way things are meant to be interpreted

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's a very important point. The way an atheist would see it, there is never reason to believe that God is creating an illusion whether it's in a science experiment or doing a miracle or raising someone from the dead. To an atheist there is always a rational explanation but not so with believers. How do they decide which is which?

To a believer there is always a rational, natural explanation unless there is some evidence that such an explanation doesn't add up. Some religions think that gods are continually governing the universe through the arbitrary exercise of power. Christians believe that God created laws to govern the universe.

They asked them did they? Makes me wonder why there's so many branches of christianity if we know from the authors themselves which way things are meant to be interpreted

We can't know for sure, but the branch of study to understand the intentions of the authors is called exegesis. It's not a matter of wishy-washy thinking of what the reader wants to be allegorical.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

To a believer there is always a rational, natural explanation unless there is some evidence that such an explanation doesn't add up.

Now that's an important difference. If a non-believer is presented with something where the rational explanation doesn't add up, it goes into the "unknown" category, they acknowledge that the explanation they thought was right wasn't and go about trying to find the actual rational explanation. The non-believer doesn't have a "miracle" category because once something goes in there you've acknowledged there is no rational explanation. There always is.

This is most prominently shown in that pretty much all atheists say they have no idea what created the universe where believers talk about what must have happened when in reality human beings do not have the knowledge to be saying what must have happened. Another example would be holding onto the idea that the resurrection took place even when there are dozens of possible rational explanations.

Húrin wrote: »

Some religions think that gods are continually governing the universe through the arbitrary exercise of power. Christians believe that God created laws to govern the universe.

If that is true then christians cannot believe in miracles or the resurrection. If they believe in them then they think the laws can be broken at will but if they don't then there is absolutely no problem with them being scientists. But are they really christians? If they want to accept the moral teachings of Jesus then that's fine and admirable but that's different to believing he was God.

Húrin wrote: »

We can't know for sure, but the branch of study to understand the intentions of the authors is called exegesis. It's not a matter of wishy-washy thinking of what the reader wants to be allegorical.

I've highlighted the important bit. I'm sure there are compelling arguments put forward but no one actually knows. This comes back to the difference between what you and I consider evidence. You think that the bible can be essentially put to a vote and if a lot of people think it should be interpreted a certain way then that's enough. I'm sorry to tell you but the only people whose opinions matter are the authors and since we can't ask them it will always boil down to what one person thinks they meant and whether a lot of people agree. They decide what it must mean because what it appears to mean doesn't seem right

The way I think people mostly decide if something shoul be allegorical is if:

1. It no longer fits with our morality (think killing people)
2. It doesn't fit with our rationality/clearly didn't happen (think saints raising from their graves and wandering around the town or Noah's ark)
3. It appears to contradict itself
4. There appears to be an error (Augustine actually said this I believe, that an apparent error or contradiction indicates an allegory or metaphor or something like that)

The problem with an allegorical reading from a non-believers point of view is that it dances around the actual explanation for all these things: It's just a book written by a group of primitive middle eastern people over the last 3000 years and God had nothing to do with it.

An allegorical reading acknowledges of all the problems with the bible but tries to explain them away because of an unwillingness to acknowledge that it might not have come from God at all

CDfm

that sounds like a load of quantum decoherence to me