Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Read your own wiki quote, Tim.

I've answered your question already. God might work though prayers, holy water, people or whatever other method he chooses. But I've already dismissed the notion of a miracles on demand and Divine Slot Machines that you want so desperately to torpedo.

But for the sake of giving you the answer that you clearly want - Yes, I take it back. If your research showed that there was no curative properties associated with holy water (which is exactly in line with RC dogma - read your own link) then I would accept that as evidence towards that which I already believe; that holy water does not in and of itself have special properties.

If your research actually moved into the realm of reality (as opposed to talking about it on a forum) and demonstrated a correlation between healing and holy water then I don't know what I would think - it could be placebo, it could be divine.

Happy?

I agree the action of God might be non deterministic compared to other causal agents. So that one day God might decide to do something with the Holy water and other days he might not. Whereas hydrogen, an antibiotic or something more deterministic will do the same thing consistently so is more suited to clinical trial.

The purpose of taking a scientific approach is try to figure out what is going on objectively - to remove human bias.
What you are saying is believing in God requires the human bias and cannot be determined objectively through Science.
You see this is why Atheists differ with believers. Why believe something so major when you have no objective evidence but every single human bias possible.

The believer lives in the world of human bias and does not have a problem with that being a very reliable source of evidence.

Philangos, you see the people who really understand science tend to really understand how error prone human judgement can be without it and hence why so many people with deep understanding of critical thinking are not religious.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

So, atheists want to do tests to see if holy water doesn't do what it doesn't claim to do on the tin anyway?

I am more then happy to change my mind if evidence shows I am wrong. What is so wrong with being wrong?

If something comes through the rigours of science than it is worthy of some credibility. Nothing in any religion comes even remotely close to coming through the rigours of Science.

tommy2bad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am more then happy to change my mind if evidence shows I am wrong. What is so wrong with being wrong?

If something comes through the rigours of science than it is worthy of some credibility. Nothing in any religion comes even remotely close to coming through the rigours of Science.

Er, because it's not science? then again is psychology or philosophy ? Yet we take them seriously, why are you claiming that because you can prove something doesn't do something that no one claims it can do, you will disprove the whole house of cards?

Tim Robbins

tommy2bad wrote: »

Er, because it's not science? then again is psychology or philosophy ?

Clinical pyschological is scientific, alright. Very much so.
Science came from Philosophy. It is based on inductive logic which came from the Greeks. And most comteporary philosophy is more about asking questions rather than stating truths.

Why are you claiming that because you can prove something doesn't do something that no one claims it can do, you will disprove the whole house of cards?

Because when you understand Science you understand that the human mind is very error prone, even when it is convinced it is not. You need something that can weed out these errors and resolves disagreements.

So say you say make one scientific claim, I make another. We find an experiment whereby both ideas make different predictions - we see who is right and then we ditch the wrong idea.

On the other hand some European claims Christianity is 100% correct, some Iranian claims Islam is. They never resolve their differences.

If you notice you can almost correlate someone's religious persuasion from the culture they come from. This never happens in Science. People don't have a 95% of believing F=MA because they are British.

Religion on the other hand is prone to every single human bias you can think of and has zero evidence that is not prone to human bias. Most of them evolved in a time when the majority of people hadn't a clue about science. Then they sort of embedded in out cultures and served a purpose. But now, most people who can think very logically don't believe any of them.

I accept believign is comforting to many people and that's probably why it will never completly go away. Because comfort is more important than truth to most people. It will just evolve into different forms which will try to give it more credibility and enough people following it.

There are now about 30,000 different versions of Christianity; whereas for the first few centuries there were only about 3 or 4. Than 1 for ages up until the reformation.

tommy2bad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you notice you can almost correlate someone's religious persuasion from the culture they come from. This never happens in Science. People don't have a 95% of believing F=MA because they are British.

Religion on the other hand is prone to every single human bias you can think of and has zero evidence that is not prone to human bias. Most of them evolved in a time when the majority of people hadn't a clue about science. Then they sort of embedded in out cultures and served a purpose. But now, most people who can think very logically don't believe any of them.

Well yeah religion is a cultural thing, so what? so is language and music and art.

See that bit in bold? It's important because it's why people believe, it has a purpose, it's not ignorance or prejudice or couldn't be bothered thinking, it's because it serves a purpose.

Ahh so you're one of the logical thinking ones then! Live long and prosper.

Tim Robbins

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well yeah religion is a cultural thing, so what? so is language and music and art.

See that bit in bold? It's important because it's why people believe, it has a purpose, it's not ignorance or prejudice or couldn't be bothered thinking, it's because it serves a purpose.

Well a lot of it is ignorance. The scientific understanding or respect from the average believer is usually shockingly low.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I agree the action of God might be non deterministic compared to other causal agents. So that one day God might decide to do something with the Holy water and other days he might not. Whereas hydrogen, an antibiotic or something more deterministic will do the same thing consistently so is more suited to clinical trial.

I'm not sure what this means. God is a person, not a deterministic or indeterministic process. Comparing God or any person to an element of carbon or whatever is the category error to end all category errors.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What you are saying is believing in God requires the human bias and cannot be determined objectively through Science.

That is not what I am saying. How about we agree that you'll allow me to speak for myself?

Science is a tool. That's all. Like many tools it is wielded by humans, all of whom are subject to biases, especially when it comes to analysis and interpretation. And precisely because of this we have disciplines like philosophy of science (which are themselves subject to human interpretation) that try to address questions like the limitations of science.

This aside, there might well be scientific evidence for God - it's certainly the contention of quite a few Christians. If you want to know more about this the I would suggest checking out veritas.org or the Faraday Institute (to mention but two resources) and look up people like Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox and others. You might not buy what they are saying but perhaps it will make you consider that people have actually considered the justifications for their faith.

As for the rest of your post - it's smug, superior, elitist clap-trap. Instead of presenting us with a thought experiment staring the pope, a jug of holy water and a bunch of sick people, you could have saved quite a few posts and gone straight to the the core of your argument, the one you were going to present all along irrespective of what anyone said. That would be where you imply atheists are in some way superior because, you know, they are atheists. You could then have mentioned keywords like the words "reason" and "rationality" (without ever bothering to define what they are) and how you have a special relationship with such concepts because, you know, you're an atheist. The coup de grâce would have been the elevation of science on top of your scientistic philosophy at the expense of all other forms of knowledge.

I don't say that to be a grammar Nazi, but the word science is common noun and therefore it is spelled with a lower-case "s". No need to elevate it beyond its standing, which is exactly what you have done throughout your post.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure what this means. God is a person, not a deterministic or indeterministic process. Comparing God or any person to an element of carbon or whatever is the category error to end all category errors.

Everything is either deterministics or non deterministic. A person's behaviour can be predicted, analysed and looked at scientifically. That is clinical pyschology.

Science is a tool. That's all. Like many tools it is wielded by humans, all of whom are subject to biases, especially when it comes to analysis and interpretation. And precisely because of this we have disciplines like philosophy of science (which are themselves subject to human interpretation) that try to address questions like the limitations of science.

It is the best tool we have for removing human biases.

This aside, there might well be scientific evidence for God - it's certainly the contention of quite a few Christians. If you want to know more about this the I would suggest checking out veritas.org or the Faraday Institute (to mention but two resources) and look up people like Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox and others. You might not buy what they are saying but perhaps it will make you consider that people have actually considered the justifications for their faith.

It's extremely unlikely they have anything remotely scientific to justify "faith".

As for the rest of your post - it's smug, superior, elitist clap-trap. Instead of presenting us with a thought experiment staring the pope, a jug of holy water and a bunch of sick people, you could have saved quite a few posts and gone straight to the the core of your argument, the one you were going to present all along irrespective of what anyone said. That would be where you imply atheists are in some way superior because, you know, they are atheists. You could then have mentioned keywords like the words "reason" and "rationality" (without ever bothering to define what they are) and how you have a special relationship with such concepts because, you know, you're an atheist. The coup de grâce would have been the elevation of science on top of your scientistic philosophy at the expense of all other forms of knowledge.

I don't say that to be a grammar Nazi, but the word science is common noun and therefore it is spelled with a lower-case "s". No need to elevate it beyond its standing, which is exactly what you have done throughout your post.

Well the facts non-believers may be on average intellectually superior or just better at logic. Just like believers are better at grammar in this case - and good spot by the way.

If that is the case - what is wrong with saying it? If it is true, it is true.

If believers are intellectual superior and we're the stupid ones - well then that is the truth. So be it. We're thick and we missed it.

If you are over sensitive you are hindered at getting at the truth.

Let's just let the evidence speak out.

marienbad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well a lot of it is ignorance. The scientific understanding or respect from the average believer is usually shockingly low.

Of course it is shockingly low or at least rigidly compartmentalised, otherwise religion would collapse in less than 5 minutes like the house of cards it is.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

Of course it is shockingly low or at least rigidly compartmentalised, otherwise religion would collapse in less than 5 minutes like the house of cards it is.

LOL, if you think atheists have a better grip of science than believers then you are sadly deluded.
As to compartmentalization, of course believers compartamentalize, faith and science are not the same category of knowledge so we keep them separate.
Your the ones making the error of assuming that their is only one kind of knowledge.

Tim Robbins

tommy2bad wrote: »

LOL, if you think atheists have a better grip of science than believers then you are sadly deluded.
As to compartmentalization, of course believers compartamentalize, faith and science are not the same category of knowledge so we keep them separate.
Your the ones making the error of assuming that their is only one kind of knowledge.

Well look at the best Scientists, Mathematicians, Software Engineers and it is usually 90% agnostic / atheist. 9% watered down religion and 0.99% probably the same levels as the average believer here, 0.01% the same as J C.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well look at the best Scientists, Mathematicians, Software Engineers and it is usually 90% agnostic / atheist. 9% watered down religion and 0.99% probably the same levels as the average believer here, 0.01% the same as J C.

What an incredibly puerile bit of willy waving.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

What an incredibly puerile bit of willy waving.

It is a pertinent fact that since the enlightenment, religion's credibility loss has been stark. You may not like the facts - and dismiss it in a very puerile way - but that's what's happening in the real world.

Good point about Wall. I'd say he is in the 9%. Interesting bit here... http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/02/09/06/1343222/larry-wall-on-perl-religion-and

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

LOL, if you think atheists have a better grip of science than believers then you are sadly deluded.
As to compartmentalization, of course believers compartamentalize, faith and science are not the same category of knowledge so we keep them separate.
Your the ones making the error of assuming that their is only one kind of knowledge.

Of Course believers compartmentalise , particularly believers in organised religion . How could it be otherwise in a world where little 15 year old Johnny is constantly at it, or the 16 your old having a secret abortion and thus on a journey to hell to sit along side Fred West and Atilla the Hun .

If it was'nt inculcated from birth or from ignorance the whole house of cards would collapse.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Everything is either deterministics or non deterministic. A person's behaviour can be predicted, analysed and looked at scientifically. That is clinical pyschology.

Again, Tim, read what I actually said. Why do I have to keep on reminding you of this? So. what I said was that "God is a person, not a deterministic or indeterministic process". That's why it is of no use comparing God (even the concept of God) or any person to a element like carbon. Also, you should actually look up what clinical psychology is before you tell us what it is.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's extremely unlikely they have anything remotely scientific to justify "faith".

Is that a scientific claim you are making? Have you done some sort of probability analysis to determine that the arguments made in lectures you have never listened to can not be justified? Now that would be a fascinating bit of research!

Incidentally, the word for faith in the NT is pistis. It means, amongst other things, the trust you place in something. In the context of the speakers you have already dismissed, you know, without bothering to listen to them, this would be trust in God based upon the evidence they are aware of.

I would have thought that actually listening to people who are smarter than you and have spent time and effort trying to grapple with their faith would have been worthy of your time. That is to say, engaging with the stronger arguments rather than the weaker arguments. But seems clear that you zero interest in having your atheistic biases and presuppositions challenged. All of which goes, in amusing fashion, to undermine the thrust of your previous posts.

I've stripped down your argument further, Tim. In future you can dispense with the verbiage (your thought experiments and the like) and just say the following:

"You silly theists are so dreadfully biased and dumb. Thankfully atheists are intellectually superior and we have reason, rationality and science on our side. Now go away from me with your arguments because I've already decided that they must be rubbish."

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, Tim, read what I actually said. Why do I have to keep on reminding you of this? So. what I said was that "God is a person, not a deterministic or indeterministic process". That's why it is of no use comparing God (even the concept of God) or any person to a element like carbon. Also, you should actually look up what clinical psychology is before you tell us what it is.

That doesn't make sense. Things are either deterministic or non deterministic.

Is that a scientific claim you are making? Have you done some sort of probability analysis to determine that the arguments made in lectures you have never listened to can not be justified? Now that would be a fascinating bit of research!

I have read, studied quote enough to have an informed opinion on the matter.

I would have thought that actually listening to people who are smarter than you and have spent time and effort trying to grapple with their faith would have been worthy of your time. That is to say, engaging with the stronger arguments rather than the weaker arguments. But seems clear that you zero interest in having your atheistic biases and presuppositions challenged. All of which goes, in amusing fashion, to undermine the thrust of your previous posts.

I have read books by William Reville (Science writer in Irish Times - Church of Ireland), Ken Miller (Catholic), Martin Rees (Church going sympathiser) and watched 2 hour talks from Francis Collins (some other active Christian). I also had a lecturer who was a born again and liked to whip out the odd prayer every now and again.

The pattern is the same wishy - washy arguments that just seem to come from a bicarmeral brain.

Do I have to go through every single Scientist who is a Christian before I can have a reasonable informed opinion?

I've stripped down your argument further, Tim. In future you can dispense with the verbiage (your thought experiments and the like) and just say the following:

"You silly theists are so dreadfully biased and dumb. Thankfully atheists are intellectually superior and we have reason, rationality and science on our side. Now go away from me with your arguments because I've already decided that they must be rubbish."

It's a very limited form of thinking if you are going to be dismissing thought experiments. They are a central part to critical thinking, psychology and philosophy.

You come across sometimes that you wish to dismiss all forms of thinking that give you the answers you don't want.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, Tim, read what I actually said. Why do I have to keep on reminding you of this? So. what I said was that "God is a person, not a deterministic or indeterministic process". That's why it is of no use comparing God (even the concept of God) or any person to a element like carbon. Also, you should actually look up what clinical psychology is before you tell us what it is.



Is that a scientific claim you are making? Have you done some sort of probability analysis to determine that the arguments made in lectures you have never listened to can not be justified? Now that would be a fascinating bit of research!

Incidentally, the word for faith in the NT is pistis. It means, amongst other things, the trust you place in something. In the context of the speakers you have already dismissed, you know, without bothering to listen to them, this would be trust in God based upon the evidence they are aware of.

I would have thought that actually listening to people who are smarter than you and have spent time and effort trying to grapple with their faith would have been worthy of your time. That is to say, engaging with the stronger arguments rather than the weaker arguments. But seems clear that you zero interest in having your atheistic biases and presuppositions challenged. All of which goes, in amusing fashion, to undermine the thrust of your previous posts.

I've stripped down your argument further, Tim. In future you can dispense with the verbiage (your thought experiments and the like) and just say the following:

"You silly theists are so dreadfully biased and dumb. Thankfully atheists are intellectually superior and we have reason, rationality and science on our side. Now go away from me with your arguments because I've already decided that they must be rubbish."

Well if one is inclined to be Bayesian this actually highly probable. There are so many religious claims and explorations there isn't enough time in one standard lifetime. It's hard to even read into atheist thought and it has the advantage of just challenging supernaturalist claims. Rationally speaking it's better to follow the group that makes more accurate predictions and claims about the universe namely methodological naturalists.

indioblack

PDN wrote: »

What an incredibly puerile bit of willy waving.

It may well be wiily waving - a bit tasteless for a Christian thread - but how many scientists have determined from their experience that god's existance is a reasonable possibility?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

tommy2bad wrote: »

LOL, if you think atheists have a better grip of science than believers then you are sadly deluded.
As to compartmentalization, of course believers compartamentalize, faith and science are not the same category of knowledge so we keep them separate.
Your the ones making the error of assuming that their is only one kind of knowledge.

Well look at the best Scientists, Mathematicians, Software Engineers and it is usually 90% agnostic / atheist. 9% watered down religion and 0.99% probably the same levels as the average believer here, 0.01% the same as J C.

Since I've started at my programming job, I've met several evangelical Christians across our London offices some I meet with weekly to pray with. Again I know quite a few Christian programmers at other companies in the 2 - 3 km radius of my office who do the same.

At my church there are numerous scientists and again computer programmers.

Either these people (myself included are in the 0.99 or we're just really bad at our jobs, in which case why are we still in them!)

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Tim Robbins wrote: »

tommy2bad wrote: »

LOL, if you think atheists have a better grip of science than believers then you are sadly deluded.
As to compartmentalization, of course believers compartamentalize, faith and science are not the same category of knowledge so we keep them separate.
Your the ones making the error of assuming that their is only one kind of knowledge.

Well look at the best Scientists, Mathematicians, Software Engineers and it is usually 90% agnostic / atheist. 9% watered down religion and 0.99% probably the same levels as the average believer here, 0.01% the same as J C.

Since I've started at my programming job, I've met several evangelical Christians across our London offices some I meet with weekly to pray with. Again I know quite a few Christian programmers at other companies in the 2 - 3 km radius of my office who do the same.

At my church there are numerous scientists and again computer programmers.

Either these people (myself included are in the 0.99 or we're just really bad at our jobs, in which case why are we still in them!)

As I've said before being a computer programmer does not a logician make. Also computer programming aka software development is so far from theoretical computer science, that's its better described ad the art website creation.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

As I've said before being a computer programmer does not a logician make. Also computer programming aka software development is so far from theoretical computer science, that's its better described ad the art website creation.

Tell that to Tim then. Its not my job to herd cats

Tim said that not many Christians are good software engineers.

By the by, I don't think atheism is more logical. In respect to morality it is than logical even the most basic form of theism.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Tell that to Tim then. Its not my job to herd cats

Tim said that not many Christians are good software engineers.

By the by, I don't think atheism is more logical. In respect to morality it is than logical even the most basic form of theism.

Software Engineer isn't the same as Software Developer. There are far more Soft Dev than Soft Eng people around. As I said think in terms of art versus engineering. However I think it's easy to ignore how susceptible people are to compartmentalisation. From my experience a degree and a job in software means nothing. Looking to the actual scientists and mathematicians responsible for modern computing I can think of people on both sides of the fence. Von Neumann and Godel versus Alan Turing for example.

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well if one is inclined to be Bayesian this actually highly probable. There are so many religious claims and explorations there isn't enough time in one standard lifetime. It's hard to even read into atheist thought and it has the advantage of just challenging supernaturalist claims. Rationally speaking it's better to follow the group that makes more accurate predictions and claims about the universe namely methodological naturalists.

Interestingly Bayesian has already been applied to apparently prove the existence of God. Most notably by Richard Swinburne in his book The Existence of God and Stephen Unwin in his book The Probability of God. There is also a short exposition on one approach here. A critique of Unwin by Victor Stenger can be found referenced in the comments section.

As for the methodological naturalist part of your post - you do realise that methodological naturalism is a philosophy? It's not the same thing as science - which is a discipline that looks at the natural world. Your methodological naturalism is a metaphysic that relies on science. You don't get to claim science for yourself. And that's why the methodological naturalist doesn't in principle do science differently to the theistic scientist.

indioblack wrote:

It may well be wiily waving - a bit tasteless for a Christian thread - but how many scientists have determined from their experience that god's existance is a reasonable possibility?

I'm not sure how we could reasonably be expected to answer that question. None of the research into the beliefs of scientists gets close to asking about experience and how that shapes their beliefs. But assuming that yours is not a rhetorical question, I have provided two links in a previous post that answer your question, at least at a personal level. The second one will be of particular interest as that was pretty much the topic of conversation.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interestingly Bayesian has already been applied to apparently prove the existence of God. Most notably by Richard Swinburne in his book The Existence of God and Stephen Unwin in his book The Probability of God. There is also a short exposition on one approach here. A critique of Unwin by Victor Stenger can be found referenced in the comments section.

I must apologise I would take me a while to respond to the to those philosopher's claims and their use of Bayes. I have some reading to do thanks for the challenge. My fault for waving Bayes around.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As for the methodological naturalist part of your post - you do realise that methodological naturalism is a philosophy? It's not the same thing as science - which is a discipline that looks at the natural world. Your methodological naturalism is a metaphysic that relies on science. You don't get to claim science for yourself. And that's why the methodological naturalist doesn't in principle do science differently to the theistic scientist.

My bad, I thought that it was the method of doing good science and was distinct from philosophical naturalism. I would say it's the other way around science i.e. building true beliefs about the universe should limit itself to the study of natural causes hence methodological naturalism. I've been schooled again.

indioblack

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interestingly Bayesian has already been applied to apparently prove the existence of God. Most notably by Richard Swinburne in his book The Existence of God and Stephen Unwin in his book The Probability of God. There is also a short exposition on one approach here. A critique of Unwin by Victor Stenger can be found referenced in the comments section.

As for the methodological naturalist part of your post - you do realise that methodological naturalism is a philosophy? It's not the same thing as science - which is a discipline that looks at the natural world. Your methodological naturalism is a metaphysic that relies on science. You don't get to claim science for yourself. And that's why the methodological naturalist doesn't in principle do science differently to the theistic scientist.



I'm not sure how we could reasonably be expected to answer that question. None of the research into the beliefs of scientists gets close to asking about experience and how that shapes their beliefs. But assuming that yours is not a rhetorical question, I have provided two links in a previous post that answer your question, at least at a personal level. The second one will be of particular interest as that was pretty much the topic of conversation.

Checked out your two links - the second one was a bit over my head - but the first link sounds interesting.
I liked the review, "This book is very bad news for anyone planning a career in Evil"!

Fanny Cradock

indioblack wrote: »

Checked out your two links - the second one was a bit over my head - but the first link sounds interesting.
I liked the review, "This book is very bad news for anyone planning a career in Evil"!

Sorry, I meant the links in a previous post. The second link is to a cordial discussion between two very genial chaps. It's entitled "Christianity and the Tooth Fairy: a law professor questions an Oxford scholar" and I think it would be of particular interest to you given the question you asked at the top of the page.

indioblack

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, I meant the links in a previous post. The second link is to a cordial discussion between two very genial chaps. It's entitled "Christianity and the Tooth Fairy: a law professor questions an Oxford scholar" and I think it would be of particular interest to you given the question you asked at the top of the page.

OK, will check them out.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Since I've started at my programming job, I've met several evangelical Christians across our London offices some I meet with weekly to pray with. Again I know quite a few Christian programmers at other companies in the 2 - 3 km radius of my office who do the same.

At my church there are numerous scientists and again computer programmers.

Either these people (myself included are in the 0.99 or we're just really bad at our jobs, in which case why are we still in them!)

Just so it's clear...

There are many useless programmers as there many science graduates who cannot even explain the scientific method when you ask them. Once you reach a certain level of quality in science, maths and computers - you hit a 90% of agnostic, atheistic, 9% watered down believer/ church goer and ...

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

Tell that to Tim then. Its not my job to herd cats

Tim said that not many Christians are good software engineers.

Correct I stand by that. You will find some that are just like you will find some scientists that are creationists but as I keep saying to you look at the pattern. Intelligence and educational level goes up, chances of being religious go down.
Intelligence and educational level go down, chances of being religious go way up.

It doesn't mean one side is right or one side is wrong. It just means what it means.