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

Richard Dawkins

Options
12357…24

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not following, you are going to have to expand on that. What do you mean "assumption of the answer"
    4+6=x as opposed to 4+6=god

    Edit: hang on, god is 10???


  • Options
    #123
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Zulu wrote: »
    4+6=x as opposed to 4+6=god

    Edit: hang on, god is 10???

    No God is seven:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Gone_to_Heaven


  • Options
    #124
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    No, no. You won't get away with that here.

    Dawkins made a blanket statement about religion in general. You can't support that statement by citing a minority group of people within one religion (creationists).
    It's not one minority group. I gave several examples of positions where the "god did it" explanation as an end point to inquiry is not just limited to creationists.
    PDN wrote: »
    You have just made a massive leap of logic.

    You can be of the opinion that 'God did it' makes more sense than other explanations and still be passionately interested in finding out how something works. There are plenty of Christian scientists who do just that every day. They may believe that God did it - but they want to discover how God did it. That, in fact, was the motivation that drove many scientific pioneers such as Newton, Copernicus and Galileo.

    Yes there are religious people who want to find out how god did it, that is true, but there is also the extremely common concept of the god of the gaps, where people think that every time something happens we don't understand/can't explain that entitles them to stick their god in there. Miracles are an example of this. It is pretty much impossible to make a statement that is going to cover every single person who describes themselves as religious, or describes themselves as anything for that matter, so the fact that his statement does not cover every religious person who ever lived doesn't make it null and void. Such a feat would be impossible.
    PDN wrote: »
    That is untrue, because many atheists are reasonable people rather than patronising arrogant fundamentalists. I have encountered numerous atheists who, rather than thinking my brain has failed, are able to acknowledge that intelligent people can reach different conclusions on these matters.

    Btw, we have some patronising arrogant fundamentalists on the Christian side who think that atheists brains have failed. Both sets of people IMHO are equally unpleasant.
    Oh don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that religious people are all stupid, far from it. There are a lot of religious people who are a lot smarter than me. But even the most intelligent brain can fail at some things


  • Options
    #125
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    What answer do I have?
    God did it.

    And a whole load that stem from that. Why are humans nasty to each other? The Fall and sin. What happens when we die? Heaven or hell. Where do morals come from? God.

    I could go on and on but I suspect you are being some what evasive.
    prinz wrote: »
    Dawkins comment was 'understanding the world' i.e. and everything in it. I don't have answers. I don't know how lots of things work. One of my favourite shows on TV is How is it made? and Mythbusters. I don't have all the answers. Very far from it.
    That wasn't Dawkins point.

    You are straw manning his quote to make it sound like Dawkins was saying that Christians never question anything. He is not, he is saying that religious people are satisifed with "answers" that don't explain anything
    prinz wrote: »
    Again nothing in religion stops me or instructs me not to look for those answers to questions that I have. I don't understand some diseases and illnesses. Does Christianity instruct Christian doctors not to bother invesitgating.. looking for a cure?

    Not the best example, given the existence of Christian Scientists.
    prinz wrote: »
    Maybe God opened the lunchbox. I don't know, but IIRC the people over at CERN are doing their level best to find out, and more power to them.

    But you already said you can't be demonstrated wrong. So how are they doing this exactly?
    prinz wrote: »
    It has evolved to fail? You could say the brain has evolved to question. For me religion is also about questioning, questioning people, societies, the human race..

    Well your wrong. The brain has evolved to find easily processable patterns in nature and map them to human interaction because it is easier for it to manage data that way. Questioning is something is finds rather difficult to do, and answers often produce detectable levels of stress.

    But this goes back to Dawkins point. If I tell you think your response, I'm pretty sure, is going to be I don't care, you can't prove I'm mistaken about God, you can't prove I'm imagining God, you can't prove God isn't real.

    You are satisfied not understanding because understanding leads to the possibilities our assumptions and preconceived view is in fact wrong.

    Which is why you have the Pope telling people not to look to closely at the Big Bang, or Francis Collins saying that studying the naturalistic view of morality is pointless.

    I'm beginning to understand why Dawkins gets so frustrated ...
    prinz wrote: »
    Can't remember who said it but remember a quote like 'I'd rather believe in God, and find out after death that there isn't one, than not believe and find out that there is.'

    Wow, you couldn't really have picked a better example of what Dawkins is talking about.


  • Options
    #126
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It is pretty much impossible to make a statement that is going to cover every single person who describes themselves as religious, or describes themselves as anything for that matter, so the fact that his statement does not cover every religious person who ever lived doesn't make it null and void. Such a feat would be impossible.

    So his statement is wrong then? As he said religion.. as in the concept itself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you agree that if you hold to a false explanation of something then you don't understand the thing that the explanation is attempting to explain?
    No, I don't agree at all. I think that's a very dogmatic approach. Sometimes people disagree about how things happened.

    For example, I have heard different historians produce several different explanations as to how and why different historical events turned out the way they did. I would not presume that they do not understand their subject. Rather I would say that they weigh the evidence differently.

    But you may well be satisfied with the false explanation, you may believe it is true and perfectly reasonable?

    Thus you are satisfied with not understand the thing?

    Now you are wrong for four reasons:

    1. Your initial premise was wrong (see above).

    2. You are now having to assume religion is false in order to argue against religion. Be saying that religion is satisfied with 'God did it', you must begin by assuming that God didn't do it in order to label that as a 'false statement'. Therefore you are presenting a circular argument.

    3. Your own logic can be used against yourself. If God did indeed 'do it', then your rejection of that position is a false statement. Therefore you are believing a false explanation to be true and reasonable. Thus you are satisfied with not understanding the thing, thereby demonstrating that atheism teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Hoisted on your own petard, my dear Wicknight.

    4. The idea that religious people are 'satisfied' with the explanation that God did it is in itself a false statement. Lots of religious people, encouraged by their churches, want to explore more to find out how God did it.
    The ultimate point of Dawkins quote though is that Goddunit is an end point. You don't go any further because you can't (how do you find to what God did). Yet people are satisfied with this.
    It isn't an end point - therefore Dawkins is wrong.


  • Options
    #128
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    Maybe I am. That's where faith comes in.

    Missed this the first time, but this is exactly what Dawkins is talking about.

    Faith is being satisfied without understand something, to accept something on trust or feeling rather than assessment and study. Religion teaches faith is a virtue.

    QED as it where.


  • Options
    #129
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    In the last couple of years exploring Christianity no one has ever answered any questions I have asked with 'God did it, and that's that'. Never.
    So you don't think that god created the universe, gave us morality, walked on water, raised from the dead, performed miracles or answered prayers?

    prinz wrote: »
    Why is it so difficult for you... surely that is the atheist equivalent of saying 'God did it'... i.e. it's very difficult for me to arrive at positions on the creation of the world without the opinion that God did it..
    Maybe I should be clearer. The phrase "your brain has failed" means that I am of the opinion that you accept many arguments that are flawed and could easily be shown to be flawed were you not predisposed to belief in god, kind of like when religious people say our "hearts are closed to god". In order to arrive at a position that opposes someone else's, it's a great help intellectually to be able to explain why it is that they fail to see what is so obvious to you.

    And no, it's not the atheist equivalent of "god did it". They are similar in that they are both very helpful in arriving at our respective positions but they are different in that "god did it" cannot be logically justified wheras if someone is shown unequivocally that the argument they are putting forward is flawed and their reponse is to call you arrogant, it's quite reasonable to say that their "brain has failed"
    prinz wrote: »
    It's not enough of a reason to believe in it.
    Thank you.
    prinz wrote: »
    Perhaps invisible pink unicorns do exist...
    Maybe they do. And maybe god exists but as you say, an inability to disprove either concept is not enough reason to believe in it
    prinz wrote: »
    Nope. I never told anyone what they should believe in. It's what I believe in that matters to me. If you want to believe in the orbiting tea pot, that's fine by me, as long as it improves your life and the lives of those around you.

    Don't you care about what's true? If all you care about is what makes people happy you might as well advise them to go into a drug induced stuper no?

    edit: btw, here you are confirming that you don't mind atheists as long as they don't talk about atheism. My position is simply that I reject your position so it's not actually possible for me to express my position without saying that your position is wrong


  • Options
    #130
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    So his statement is wrong then? As he said religion.. as in the concept itself.

    Something I also find when people don't have much to support their position is that instead of arguing the point they go down the rabbit hole of saying that the statement is not universally applicable, in all circumstances, to all people, at all times. The statement that religion encourages us not to investigate the world around us is true in the same way that the statement "John is a murderer" is true. John has murdered but that doesn't mean that all he has ever done since his birth is murder


  • Options
    #131
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's not one minority group. I gave several examples of positions where the "god did it" explanation as an end point to inquiry is not just limited to creationists.
    Poppycock. In order to support a blanket statement you would need to demonstrate that most, if not all, religious people saw 'God did it' as an endpoint to enquiry. You, and Dawkins, cannot do that because it is manifestly untrue.
    It is pretty much impossible to make a statement that is going to cover every single person who describes themselves as religious, or describes themselves as anything for that matter, so the fact that his statement does not cover every religious person who ever lived doesn't make it null and void. Such a feat would be impossible.
    If it is impossible to make such a blanket statement, then presumably only a foolish, dogmatic, or dishonest person would do so. Which one do you think applies to Dawkins?
    Oh don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that religious people are all stupid, far from it. There are a lot of religious people who are a lot smarter than me. But even the most intelligent brain can fail at some things
    So you are OK because you are being patronising and arrogant towards intelligent people as well?

    Sam, I profoundly disagree with you on a lot of issues, but that doesn't mean that I think there is something wrong with your brain. I think you are mistaken on many issues, as no doubt I am on many issues, but such disagreements are part of being human. As I say, most atheists I encounter can acknowledge such disagreements without resorting to slurs about people having something wrong with their brains.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    No, I don't agree at all. I think that's a very dogmatic approach. Sometimes people disagree about how things happened.

    Yeah nice straw man but that wasn't actually what I asked you.

    If you hold to a explanation that is in fact false is it not the case that you do not understand the thing you think you understand?

    The alternative is that your explanation is in fact false but you do understand it. How does that work?
    PDN wrote: »
    For example, I have heard different historians produce several different explanations as to how and why different historical events turned out the way they did. I would not presume that they do not understand their subject. Rather I would say that they weigh the evidence differently.

    I would probably be safe to presume that if these historical accounts are wrong they don't understand the historical event.

    If someone explains Hitler's drive for power as being caused by a traumatic experience in his life that turns out never happened, then they do not understand Hitler's drive for power.

    If Christians understand the universe's creation as being a product of God and God doesn't in fact exist then Christians don't understand the universe's creation.
    PDN wrote: »
    Now you are wrong for four reasons:

    1. Your initial premise was wrong (see above).

    All I see above is a straw man.
    PDN wrote: »
    2. You are now having to assume religion is false in order to argue against religion.

    Yeah, perhaps you missed the "from the position of atheism" bit ... :rolleyes:
    PDN wrote: »
    Be saying that religion is satisfied with 'God did it', you must begin by assuming that God didn't do it in order to label that as a 'false statement'. Therefore you are presenting a circular argument.

    How is that circular?
    PDN wrote: »
    3. Your own logic can be used against yourself. If God did indeed 'do it', then your rejection of that position is a false statement. Therefore you are believing a false explanation to be true and reasonable. Thus you are satisfied with not understanding the thing, thereby demonstrating that atheism teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Hoisted on your own petard, my dear Wicknight.

    Well yes, obviously.

    From the position of Christianity atheists are satisfied with not understanding the truth of God's glory (I know I certainly am).

    You guys tell us that all the time, and then go on to explain it is because of our sinful nature.

    I wonder do you consider yourselves arrogant for doing so. :pac:


  • Options
    #133
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Poppycock. In order to support a blanket statement you would need to demonstrate that most, if not all, religious people saw 'God did it' as an endpoint to enquiry. You, and Dawkins, cannot do that because it is manifestly untrue.

    If it is impossible to make such a blanket statement, then presumably only a foolish, dogmatic, or dishonest person would do so. Which one do you think applies to Dawkins?
    Or you could give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt that you give so much of to other believers and the bible and take it that it wasn't meant to be a blanket statement that covers every religious person who has ever existed at all times of their lives in every area of their lives? If that is your requirement before anyone makes a statement about "religion" then no one will ever make what you consider to be a valid statement.
    PDN wrote: »
    So you are OK because you are being patronising and arrogant towards intelligent people as well?
    No, I'm ok with telling them they're wrong though. And in fairness PDN, pot kettle etc.
    PDN wrote: »
    Sam, I profoundly disagree with you on a lot of issues, but that doesn't mean that I think there is something wrong with your brain. I think you are mistaken on many issues, as no doubt I am on many issues, but such disagreements are part of being human. As I say, most atheists I encounter can acknowledge such disagreements without resorting to slurs about people having something wrong with their brains.

    It was a humorous metaphor. If you are wrong about something then by definition your brain has failed. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with your brain, it means that your brain is not perfect


  • Options
    #134
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It was a humorous metaphor. If you are wrong about something then by definition your brain has failed. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with your brain, it means that your brain is not perfect

    Ah, we're back to the different use of language again. So you're saying that anytime we think someone is wrong in their opinions then it is OK to tell them that their brain has failed?


  • Options
    #135
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    God did it.

    Er nope. Can't think of any question that I have given that answer to.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why are humans nasty to each other? The Fall and sin.

    Honestly? I don't know, but that's the best explanation I have come across, that people are weak, and that people sometimes do things for other than the greater or common good.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    What happens when we die? Heaven or hell..

    When I die I'll find out. Or maybe not. Different people have different ideas of what heaven and hell represent, even within Christianity.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Where do morals come from? God...

    Don't remember ever saying that either.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I could go on and on but I suspect you are being some what evasive....

    I could say you are throwing darts blindfolded here.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That wasn't Dawkins point.
    You are straw manning his quote to make it sound like Dawkins was saying that Christians never question anything. He is not, he is saying that religious people are satisifed with "answers" that don't explain anything....

    I am not satisfied with any answers, Christianity is about a constant search for answers.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not the best example, given the existence of Christian Scientists. ....

    :confused: So that is your comeback? A small off-shoot of Christianity? And you accuse me of being evasive? :pac:
    Wicknight wrote: »
    But you already said you can't be demonstrated wrong. So how are they doing this exactly? ....

    It can't be demonstrated wrong a belief that God exists.. the people at CERN are trying to find out what happened at the creation of the universe.. the two things are different issues.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well your wrong. The brain has evolved to find easily processable patterns in nature and map them to human interaction because it is easier for it to manage data that way. Questioning is something is finds rather difficult to do, and answers often produce detectable levels of stress.....

    So just how has humanity managed to investigate, invent, explore, create.. etc?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    But this goes back to Dawkins point......

    You are not addressing Dawkins point. Dawkins point was not about whether God existed or not. It was rather more basic than that.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are satisfied not understanding because understanding leads to the possibilities our assumptions and preconceived view is in fact wrong.

    What question have I been satisfied not understanding?


    Which is why you have the Pope telling people not to look to closely at the Big Bang, or Francis Collins saying that studying the naturalistic view of morality is pointless.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm beginning to understand why Dawkins gets so frustrated ....

    Because you, like him, like to pluck extreme examples then accuse others of straw manning, have preconceived ideas of what people think and believe and assume that others are wrong, on a questionable issue. Whereas I admit that my belief is a matter of faith, that the existence or not of God is undemonstratable at present.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Wow, you couldn't really have picked a better example of what Dawkins is talking about.

    How so? If I wanted to fulfill what Dawkins actually said I wouldn't even be on this forum.


  • Options
    #136
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Ah, we're back to the different use of language again. So you're saying that anytime we think someone is wrong in their opinions then it is OK to tell them that their brain has failed?

    Possibly not since it has become clear that people will interpret it as saying that there is something wrong with their brain rather than a humorous metaphor meant to illustrate that they're wrong


  • Options
    #137
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Missed this the first time, but this is exactly what Dawkins is talking about.
    Faith is being satisfied without understand something, to accept something on trust or feeling rather than assessment and study. Religion teaches faith is a virtue.
    QED as it where.

    However Dawkins doesn't know if God exists or doesn't exist either.

    Where is his statement that atheism instructs people to be satisfied without understanding the world? It works both ways.


  • Options
    #138
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Possibly not since it has become clear that people will interpret it as saying that there is something wrong with their brain rather than a humorous metaphor meant to illustrate that they're wrong

    Interpreting something 'metaphorically' to avoid the logical conclusion of what one reads in a text. Now where have I heard that one before? :pac:


  • Options
    #139
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Interpreting something 'metaphorically' to avoid the logical conclusion of what one reads in a text. Now where have I heard that one before? :pac:

    Well then you should accept my point, I'm talking your language* ;)


    *the language of religious people, not specifically of you**




    **I felt the need to clarify***




    ***Actually that statement was pretty clear. Move along


  • Options
    #140
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    However Dawkins doesn't know if God exists or doesn't exist either.

    Where is his statement that atheism instructs people to be satisfied without understanding the world? It works both ways.

    Well no, because Dawkins doesn't understand the world and isn't satisfied. He has a big section of this in The God Delusion.

    Atheism isn't an answer. It is simply a reason to continue asking the question.


  • Options
    #141
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So you don't think that god created the universe, gave us morality, walked on water, raised from the dead, performed miracles or answered prayers?

    Created the universe - I don't know
    Gave us morality - Cart and horse issue that one.
    As for the rest - Yes I do believe that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Maybe I should be clearer. The phrase "your brain has failed" means that I am of the opinion that you accept many arguments that are flawed and could easily be shown to be flawed were you not predisposed to belief in god, kind of like when religious people say our "hearts are closed to god".

    Is there a predisposition to belief in a deity? That's what I meant about someone saying there is a spiritual part of the brain. Interesting thought.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Maybe they do. And maybe god exists but as you say, an inability to disprove either concept is not enough reason to believe in it.

    For some people it doesn't present reason enough not to believe in it either.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Don't you care about what's true? If all you care about is what makes people happy you might as well advise them to go into a drug induced stuper no?

    Christianity is about the search for the truth. Drug enduced stupors wear off. The search for the truth never ends.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    edit: btw, here you are confirming that you don't mind atheists as long as they don't talk about atheism.

    Here I am discussing Dawkins with atheists who have a lot of respect for, and that confirms I have a problem with atheists discussing atheism? :confused:
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    My position is simply that I reject your position so it's not actually possible for me to express my position without saying that your position is wrong

    Like I said I have no problem with people if they think that what I believe is wrong. You're entitled to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Atheism isn't an answer. It is simply a reason to continue asking the question.

    As is religion!!!! Two sides of the same coin.


  • Options
    #143
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    Er nope. Can't think of any question that I have given that answer to.

    Well, yeah but you aren't a religion, are you?

    Are you saying that the Bible doesn't teach these things? Seriously?

    "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

    Strangely, what the Bible doesn't teach is the idea that God may or may not exist, we don't really know and to be honest we probably can't know, but it is important that people keep questioning and discovering even if it turns out God isn't real.
    prinz wrote: »
    Whereas I admit that my belief is a matter of faith, that the existence or not of God is undemonstratable at present.

    Which is what Dawkins is talking about. Why are you arguing he is wrong when you are admitting with pride you are doing exactly what he is talking about?


  • Options
    #144
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    prinz wrote: »
    Created the universe - I don't know
    Gave us morality - Cart and horse issue that one.
    As for the rest - Yes I do believe that.
    So you do use god to answer questions that as far as I'm concerned have a perfectly rational explanation that should be explored. As for the first two, you say you don't know if they're true but I'm sure religious people have told you they are, despite scientists making inroads in psychology to explain things like morality and even why we believe in gods
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

    prinz wrote: »
    Is there a predisposition to belief in a deity? That's what I meant about someone saying there is a spiritual part of the brain. Interesting thought.
    Actually a good bit of work has been done in that area, some of which is mentioned in the video above. scientists have used MRI scanners to search for a "god centre" of the brain but they've found that the areas used when considering god are the same that are used when considering other people. Here's an example that you might find surprising but which I didn't in the least:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html
    Dear God, please confirm what I already believe

    God may have created man in his image, but it seems we return the favour. Believers subconsciously endow God with their own beliefs on controversial issues.

    "Intuiting God's beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one's own beliefs," writes a team led by Nicholas Epley of the University of Chicago in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The researchers started by asking volunteers who said they believe in God to give their own views on controversial topics, such as abortion and the death penalty. They also asked what the volunteers thought were the views of God, average Americans and public figures such as Bill Gates. Volunteers' own beliefs corresponded most strongly with those they attributed to God.

    Next, the team asked another group of volunteers to undertake tasks designed to soften their existing views, such as preparing speeches on the death penalty in which they had to take the opposite view to their own. They found that this led to shifts in the beliefs attributed to God, but not in those attributed to other people.

    Moral compass

    "People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want," the team write. "The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

    "The experiments in which we manipulate people's own beliefs are the most compelling evidence we have to show that people's own beliefs influence what they think God believes more substantially than it influences what they think other people believe," says Epley.

    Finally, the team used fMRI to scan the brains of volunteers while they contemplated the beliefs of themselves, God or "average Americans". In all the experiments the volunteers professed beliefs in an Abrahamic God. The majority were Christian.

    In the first two cases, similar parts of the brain were active. When asked to contemplate other Americans' beliefs, however, an area of the brain used for inferring other people's mental states was active. This implies that people map God's beliefs onto their own.

    prinz wrote: »
    For some people it doesn't present reason enough not to believe in it either.
    Then the logical position is agnosticism, not belief.
    prinz wrote: »
    Christianity is about the search for the truth. Drug enduced stupors wear off. The search for the truth never ends.
    what you said was "I never told anyone what they should believe in. It's what I believe in that matters to me. If you want to believe in the orbiting tea pot, that's fine by me, as long as it improves your life and the lives of those around you". but what if the orbitting tea pot (or christianity) is not true? Personally I would much rather the cold truth than a comfortable delusion.
    prinz wrote: »
    Here I am discussing Dawkins with atheists who have a lot of respect for, and that confirms I have a problem with atheists discussing atheism? :confused:
    No, your assertion that Dawkins was arrogant/closed minded/whatever for expressing what are very common atheist positions shows that yuo have a problem with atheists discussing atheism


  • Options
    #145
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    As is religion!!!! Two sides of the same coin.

    I'm pretty sure you will find religion presents itself as the answer.

    Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life."


  • Options
    #146
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Which is what Dawkins is talking about. Why are you arguing he is wrong when you are admitting with pride you are doing exactly what he is talking about?

    You are confusing belief in something with an unquestioning acceptance that said thing is true. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I no longer have any interest in understanding it, in knowing for sure.

    Just because public opinion believes someone to be a murderer does not render the trial obsolete.


  • Options
    #147
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    Just because I believe something doesn't mean I no longer have any interest in understanding it, in knowing for sure.

    If you were not satisfied with that you won't believe it in the first place. You would be in the "I don't know" camp.

    That is the whole point of Dawkins quote.

    Dawkins quote is about people who are satisfied believing something is true when they have not established this to any serious standard (and thus can't understand it), which is basically what faith is, trust that something is true but you don't know why.

    BTW I would be very worried with someone who, before the evidence in a trial was presented, concluded I had murdered my wife based on faith.


  • Options
    #148
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you will find religion presents itself as the answer.

    Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life."

    So, the Christian belief that Jesus is the way to salvation equates to "I'm mot interested in discovering anything about the world or the universe"?

    It's stuff like this that leads me to think that you're not really interested in having a discussion.


  • Options
    #149
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Actually a good bit of work has been done in that area, some of which is mentioned in the video above. scientists have used MRI scanners to search for a "god centre" of the brain but they've found that the areas used when considering god are the same that are used when considering other people. Here's an example that you might find surprising but which I didn't in the least:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

    I don't find it in the least bit suprising, I find it a rather circular patter though. Did God/belief in God influence the people who then reflect that back on to God? Chicken and egg tbh. They seem to be arguing that people who believe in God already, put their opinions onto God as a sort of reinforcement of their own beliefs. Surely it's obvious that as they already believe in God their own beliefs would already mirror God's opinions. Tried to explain that better but that was the best I could do.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you will find religion presents itself as the answer. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life."

    As does atheism. However once again you are veering away from the Dawkins quote. His quote wasn't referring to belief in God, it was understanding the world.


  • Options
    #150
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    So, the Christian belief that Jesus is the way to salvation equates to "I'm mot interested in discovering anything about the world or the universe"?

    Nope, but then who said it did :rolleyes:

    I used to think some of you guys might have had a point about Dawkins being arrogant, though I personally didn't see it. I though maybe as an atheist I'm just missing how he comes across.

    This discussion has certainly opened my eyes though.

    Apparently when ever Dawkins says something you guys (and one assumes a lot of theists in the wider community) simply make up what you would like him to be saying, and ignore what he actually was saying.

    It is much easier to set a straw man on fire I guess.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    If you were not satisfied with that you won't believe it in the first place. You would be in the "I don't know" camp. That is the whole point of Dawkins quote..

    No, it's not. Dawkins did not say 'religion instructs people to be satisfied with not understanding God'.. he said it instructs people to be satisfied with not understanding the world


Advertisement