Richard Dawkins

monosharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

Yes it is a Christian view that he does. They might want to figure out why he tells everyone someone different though.

Some christians believe god tells them homosexuality is bad, some believe god tells them its fine. Is someone using gods phone to make prank calls ?

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Avoid them more to the point. Why doesn't he address the concept of god as opposed to poking fun at a strawman?

Look I was expecting this great read that would answer some questions I may have. It did no such thing. I never believed in a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud smiting people with thunderbolts.

So perhaps it's great - great to people who'd rather point and laugh than educate - great in the way that Mills & Boon is great, but personally I prefer more from a book.

Look Zulu, you might as well be arguing that you were disappointed in the book because it didn't give a good recipe for soup. That wasn't what the book was about. Dawkins didn't address the concept of god that you're talking about because such a god is irrelevant to our existence. God only matters when people claim that he's intervening in the world and that they know what he wants, so that's the type of god that the book dealt with. The fact that the book wasn't about what you thought it was going to be about isn't a failing of the book

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can God demonstrate his existance to someone? And if he does, would they know he existed? It's a Christian view of God that he can and they do.

I can see no way out of this for atheists.




Dawkins arguments rest on empiricism being true. That's the problem.

I'll await Wicknights attempt to circumvent the dilemma over in the other thread then..

antiskeptic, I had exactly the same discussion with someone over on A&A a few months ago. You were both arguing that empiricism is insufficient/unnecessary and that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. On that much you agree but only on that much, your views of the truth were totally contradictory. He was arguing for the truth of something a bit like Buddhism.

From that scenario I can determine that the truth claims made by at least one of you are wrong. I cannot determine which of you is wrong but I can determine that one of you definitely is. And the other thing I can determine is that both of you are wrong in your assertions that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. If it was, you would both have the same view of the truth but you don't, therefore it's not. Empiricism might not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a billion totally contradictory views of the world, each one declaring itself to be the truth

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Yes it is a Christian view that he does. They might want to figure out why he tells everyone someone different though.

There are lots of reasons for different views. Not that this affects the atheists dilemma: God can and if he does then a person knows. Empiricism must but bow it's head to it's creator.

(you'd be assuming God exists for the sake of discussion, of course)

Some christians believe god tells them homosexuality is bad, some believe god tells them its fine. Is someone using gods phone to make prank calls ?

I wonder. If God wasn't bringing conviction to mind at a certain point in time (God help me if God revealed to me the full extent of my sin in one fell swoop) would I feel fine about my sin? Probably.

Santification is a process. It need not be that God bring all sin to mind in one fell swoop. It might not be that God bring certain sin to mind ever. God only knows, there's too much sin to deal with it all this side of etermity.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are lots of reasons for different views. Not that this affects the atheists dilemma: God can and if he does then a person knows. Empiricism must but bow it's head to it's creator.

(you'd be assuming God exists for the sake of discussion, of course)

The very fact you have to assume god exists for the sake of discussion is the atheist dilemma - not any debates that result from that assumption. I'm not sure why a world-wide uniformed system such as empiricism & the scientific method must bow it's head to a creator that billions of the global population don't have any belief in?

Zulu

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look Zulu, you might as well be arguing that you were disappointed in the book because it didn't give a good recipe for soup....

Look Sam, I have an opinion, I was asked for it, & I gave it.

The book doesn't claim to be a YOU HAVE BEEN CENSORED cook book - stop being facetious.
The book claims: "Dawkins will delight any reader with a modicum of intelligence & intellectual regard who doesn't need to have the human world wrapped up into a convenient & cosy package created by a shadowy super-being".
The book claims: "This is a brave & important book. Is it too much to hope that it will dump religious bigotry in the dustbin of history...".

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

Turtwig

Zulu wrote: »

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

Which the majority of the world happen to hold to...

Zulu

Malty_T wrote: »

Which the majority of the world happen to hold to...

...and?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

antiskeptic, I had exactly the same discussion with someone over on A&A a few months ago. You were both arguing that empiricism is insufficient/unnecessary and that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth.

My argument is that IF God THEN empiricism is a God-designed way to knowledge. AND IF God designed THEN we're dependent on God, ultimately, for our knowledge. Also THEN, any means God utilises to enable knowledge is as good as any other (since he is the provider of certainty whatever the means by which he provides it).

Conclusion: there is no more certainty to be had by empirical demonstration of his existance than there is to be had via direct, personal demonstration of his existance. In both cases, God would be doing the work of sustaining the state of knowledge.

On that much you agree but only on that much, your views of the truth were totally contradictory. He was arguing for the truth of something a bit like Buddhism.

Stating that empiricism adds nothing of substance and demonstrating (eg: above) that empiricism adds nothing of substance are two different things.

From that scenario I can determine that the truth claims made by at least one of you are wrong. I cannot determine which of you is wrong but I can determine that one of you definitely is.

Hopefully some light has been shed on the subject

And the other thing I can determine is that both of you are wrong in your assertions that personal experience alone is enough to determine truth. If it was, you would both have the same view of the truth but you don't, therefore it's not.

As ever, what I say has a rider. IF God THEN. I can't determine whether it's God actually, or some alien messing with my brain. But then again, neither can you regarding your empirical experiences.

Empiricism might not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than a billion totally contradictory views of the world, each one declaring itself to be the truth

Empiricism has a place. And where it has no place it shouldn't attempt to comment.

A billion wrong views don't in any impinge on the rightness of a right view. Don't lose sight of the wood for the trees.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The very fact you have to assume god exists for the sake of discussion is the atheist dilemma - not any debates that result from that assumption. I'm not sure why a world-wide uniformed system such as empiricism & the scientific method must bow it's head to a creator that billions of the global population don't have any belief in?

You might not have followed the set up of previous discussion.

I'm dealing with what's possible for God (if he exists) so as to dismantle certain atheistic objections - one of which says that non-empirically demonstrable knowledge of God's existance isn't actually knowledge. When in fact it would be - if God exists.

This doesn't prove God or attempt to add to a proof of God. It just deals with this particular atheistic approach. The aim is to stalemate objections - not prove God.

Sam Vimes

Zulu wrote: »

Look Sam, I have an opinion, I was asked for it, & I gave it.

The book doesn't claim to be a fucking cook book - stop being facetious.
The book claims: "Dawkins will delight any reader with a modicum of intelligence & intellectual regard who doesn't need to have the human world wrapped up into a convenient & cosy package created by a shadowy super-being".
The book claims: "This is a brave & important book. Is it too much to hope that it will dump religious bigotry in the dustbin of history...".

The paper back I have claims a whole lot, the title sets an expectation (does it not) but it doesn't anywhere briefly highlight that it's only going to attack a very narrow & limited view of "god".

And the book does not claim to be about the type of god you're talking about any more than it claims to be a cook book, in fact it specifically says it's not about that type of god. The problem here is that the word god is so ill-defined and variable that it can mean anything. There are pretty much 6 billion definitions of it, one for each person on the planet. If Dawkins was to deal with them all he'd still be writing ten years after he was dead so instead he dealt with one type, the theistic interventionist type. If he was to try to argue that he knows something about what happened "before" the universe existed and what does or doesn't exist "outside" it, things he cannot possibly know, then he'd be no better than a theist

Fanny Cradock

This is a bad tempered thread. Group hugs from all (under penalty of torture for disobeying).

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

My argument is that IF God THEN empiricism is a God-designed way to knowledge. AND IF God designed THEN we're dependent on God, ultimately, for our knowledge. Also THEN, any means God utilises to enable knowledge is as good as any other (since he is the provider of certainty whatever the means by which he provides it).

Conclusion: there is no more certainty to be had by empirical demonstration of his existance than there is to be had via direct person demonstration of his existance. In both cases, God would be doing the work of sustaining the knowing mechanism.

And your argument fails because there are a billion different views of god, all claiming to be the one true one. God's existence is actually irrelevant here because it is abundantly clear to that EVEN IF a god exists, personal experience alone is not a reliable indicator of its nature. In fact if I was to accept your argument, that empiricism is no more reliable an indicator, then there is no reliable indicator, none whatsoever so we shouldn't even bother ourselves with the question because the answer is unknowable

antiskeptic wrote: »

A billion wrong views don't in any impinge on the rightness of a right view. Don't lose sight of the wood for the trees.

Oh but it does because there are a billion people who are all just as sure as you that god has been revealed to them but if you are right then they must all be wrong. Without any form of independent verification it simply becomes an arrogant declaration that you know better than the billion other people who are as sure as you are that they know the truth. How can you possibly know that you haven't been fooled in the same way they have?

mardybumbum

He has done so much for the understanding of science, and has done a pretty decent job of introducing the general public to the theory of evolution.
Its great to see somebody so passionate about the truth.

I only realised a few days ago that the man is pushing 70.
He looks a hell of a lot younger, and is full of vitality, probably due to the fact that he loves what he does.

As for the arrogant comments, well I dont understand them myself.
From what I have seen, he comes across as a gentleman.
Insulting maybe, If you believe in fairytales, but I dont think he can be called arrogant.

To date, I've read the Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, most of the Ancestors Tale and The God Delusion. I've bought the Greatest Show on Earth but haven't had the chance to read past the first chapter yet (damn study).

Im not sure what it is that makes a great author, but he explains the subject matter well, and in a manner which keeps me interested.
Thats good enough for me.

antiskeptic

*moved to the "Faith - the evidence of things not seen" thread.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm dealing with what's possible for God (if he exists) so as to dismantle certain atheistic objections - one of which says that non-empirically demonstrable knowledge of God's existance isn't actually knowledge. When in fact it would be - if God exists.

Is anyone suggesting non-empirically demonstrable knowledge is not knowledge? Or are they suggesting it is not evidence? If someone claims to have knowledge of god's existence then of course that is knowledge - to them - the issue is that in order to be considered empirical, there has to be more than just someone's word that X is the case, it has to be testable or viewable to all.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is anyone suggesting non-empirically demonstrable knowledge is not knowledge?

Yes. Although..

Or are they suggesting it is not evidence?

...I often have to remind people that I'm not offering evidence for God, I'm dealing with the objection that says I can't say God exists. Or that I can't know God exists.

If someone claims to have knowledge of god's existence then of course that is knowledge - to them - the issue is that in order to be considered empirical, there has to be more than just someone's word that X is the case, it has to be testable or viewable to all.

Of course...

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

I only realised a few days ago that the man is pushing 70.
He looks a hell of a lot younger, and is full of vitality, probably due to the fact that he loves what he does.

Wow! I would have said late 50's. It's those selfish genes keeping him looking young!

Anyway, considering that he was the Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, I wish that he wouldn't have been quite so divisive on the matter of science and religion. It seemed rather self defeating.

As a science author, he is widely acclaimed in terms of his writing style and his ability to elucidate complex topics that may otherwise not engage the public. As a scientist he enjoys renown amongst his peers. Though I have heard it suggested that in one important measure of any scientists career - citations - he doesn't excel. Whatever about the truth of this or its overall meaning about his "greatness" as a scientist, he has sired up the debate. And while he has been criticised heavily for manner in how he chooses to engage with his opponents and his grasp of topics outside his area of expertise - history, philosophy and theology - I think that he has certainly helped to reignite the debate. This might force people to actually rethink their position on God (I personally think that most once a year church goers are closer to Deists with a hazy idea of a God out there somewhere or "spiritualists" in the loosest sense of the word). People might have to look at the world beyond their work, the inevitable build-up to the weekend, the two holidays a year and whatever other things go into making up an otherwise ordinary life.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

...I often have to remind people that I'm not offering evidence for God, I'm dealing with the objection that says I can't say God exists. Or that I can't know God exists.

Well, I wouldn't say you can't claim god exists or that you can't claim you know god exists - I haven't heard many arguments against free speech at all tbh, people claim all manner of things and are perfectly at liberty to do so.

In my experience, objections are generally related to presenting either claim as fact without also presenting supporting empirical evidence.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure what kind of response the OP was expecting...I can't imagine any theist is going to suggest Dawkins is a fine author who makes some excellent points.

I disagree. Anthony Flew, AN Wilson and Bertrand Russell were fine atheist authors who, in their attacks against religion, made some excellent points. That was probably because they understood philosophy.

Dawkins is evidently very good in his field (science). His writing skills are also above average. However he goes downhill when he tries doing philosophy, and commits schoolboy howlers when he gets to the Bible or theology.

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

I disagree. Anthony Flew, AN Wilson and Bertrand Russell were fine atheist authors who, in their attacks against religion, made some excellent points. That was probably because they understood philosophy.

Dawkins is evidently very good in his field (science). His writing skills are also above average. However he goes downhill when he tries doing philosophy, and commits schoolboy howlers when he gets to the Bible or theology.

I think you are kind of agreeing with me. Russell, Wilson, Flew, you say they made some excellent points...do you think Dawkins makes absolutely no good points?

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

However he goes downhill when he tries doing philosophy, and commits schoolboy howlers when he gets to the Bible or theology.

At the risk of been infracted once again.

Its very hard to argue against the existence of God using the scientific method.
For example, lets imagine I worshipped the easter bunny.
There is nothing else you can do as a logical, non easter bunny believer but point out how ridiculous it is.
Ridicule is the only tool available.

I dont believe in the easter bunny btw. :pac:

Fanny Cradock

mardybumbum wrote: »

Its very hard to argue against the existence of God using the scientific method.
For example, lets imagine I worshipped the easter bunny.
There is nothing else you can do as a logical, non easter bunny believer but point out how ridiculous it is.
Ridicule is the only tool available.

I dont believe in the easter bunny btw. :pac:

So don't use the scientific method! And maybe instead of resorting to ridicule, perhaps you should just get on with your own life.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So don't use the scientific method! And maybe instead of resorting to ridicule, perhaps you should just get on with your own life.

So how can you argue against something which the scientific method/logic can say nothing about ?

How would you argue against scientology fanny ?*

*honest question

thebaldsoprano

His books are very accessible and much more enjoyable than his TV appearances, and I like the fact that he drums up a debate. Although a big gripe I have with his books his how he chooses his evidence and arguments to frame the 'debate' in his favour while overlooking evidence that might go against his ideas.

mardybumbum wrote: »

At the risk of been infracted once again.

Its very hard to argue against the existence of God using the scientific method.
For example, lets imagine I worshipped the easter bunny.
There is nothing else you can do as a logical, non easter bunny believer but point out how ridiculous it is.
Ridicule is the only tool available.

I dont believe in the easter bunny btw. :pac:

AFAIR he used an argument similar to this one in his section against agnosticism, except that the object in question was an orbiting teapot. His argument was, (and this holds for the Easter Bunny as well) that you could approach the problem using probability. While this is a fair enough argument, he conveniently overlooked the minor detail that God would've had to design and create the universe and instead puts God on a logical equivalence with a teapot! Probability can be applied in a meaningful sense to teapots in particular locations or bunnies placing eggs around the place, but applying it to omnipotent beings seems a tad optimistic. He completely missed the point about what it means to be an agnostic, and I'd guess he might have done so with Christianity as well.

monosharp

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

AFAIR he used an argument similar to this one in his section against agnosticism, except that the object in question was an orbiting teapot. His argument was, (and this holds for the Easter Bunny as well) that you could approach the problem using probability. While this is a fair enough argument, he conveniently overlooked the minor detail that God would've had to design and create the universe and instead puts God on a logical equivalence with a teapot!

And what exactly is wrong with that ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God. The analogy has also been used by sociologists to denote correlations with religion and social conformity.

Bertrand Russell (1872&#8211 wrote: »

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Probability can be applied in a meaningful sense to teapots in particular locations or bunnies placing eggs around the place, but applying it to omnipotent beings seems a tad optimistic. He completely missed the point about what it means to be an agnostic, and I'd guess he might have done so with Christianity as well.

How exactly ?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

So how can you argue against something which the scientific method/logic can say nothing about ?

How would you argue against scientology fanny ?*

*honest question

Huh? Scientology? (Can we at least try to stick to the subject matter?) I've never argued against Scientology before. I simply don't believe its claims and I get on with my life. If I did decided to argue against it, I would like to think that I wouldn't choose to use ridicule or show contempt to its believers. That only serves to alienate people.

mardybumbum

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So don't use the scientific method! And maybe instead of resorting to ridicule, perhaps you should just get on with your own life.

No, I think its important to keep pointing out how ridiculous ( in my opinion ) religion is.

thebaldsoprano

monosharp wrote: »

And what exactly is wrong with that ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

What is wrong is that teapots make tea, not universes.

And on the burden of proof argument, well let's say either

a) the universe spontaneously popped into existence
b) God put it there

There's obviously a burden of proof for idea b.

For idea a, I've never seen something as simple as an apple spontaneously pop into existence never mind a universe, so I'd argue that that places a burden of proof on people putting forward idea a.

So, the burden of proof doesn't lie solely with idea b.

How exactly ?

Because we've not come across a single omnipotent being and don't have any data on them.

PDN

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Because we've not come across a single omnipotent being and don't have any data on them.

We have and we do.