Zombrex wrote: » The science in your post has literally nothing to do with what you claim are the "implications" of the science. Perhaps ask Bell, after all all of this is an implication from his theory, right?
nagirrac wrote: » The appropriate response on the God question is that the objective evidence from science tells us nothing. Have you read the God Delusion? Do you not think Dawkins is making an argument to try and prove the non-existance of God using science? A careful reading of his book demonstrates he uses science selectively, and picks and chooses to make his argument. He is as entitled to peddle his worldview as anyone, but unfotunately a lot of people interpret him as an authority on the God question, when he clearly is not. What atheists on this forum need to at least attempt to understand is that knowledge comes from both objective (externally measured) and subjective (internally experienced) sources. There is absolutely no compelling evidence to claim objective sources are more valid, given we don't even know if our objective reality is actual reality. Thats was my point in bringing up Bell's theory, it proves that actual reality is very different to how we observe it. It is very difficult to wrap your head around what a non-local reality is, that all models of local realism are incompatible with the most solid and unshaken scientific theory in the history of science.. There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations. This is where the discussion should be, and not arguments over who owns science.
marienbad wrote: » Jeez, you probably don't mean it or even realize it but could you tone down the condescension just a little- thanks. And secondly I have no interest in discussing Dawkins . You keep pulling these names - Dawkins Popper Bell - like rabbits out of a hat, but as far as i can see ( which I admit is fairly limited) have no relevance to the discussion. All you are doing is setting up these strawman arguments and then in your own mind knocking them down. It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science. All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.
Originally Posted by marienbad; It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Whatever about condescension you did actually ask for a name and received it. Stating that you have no interest in discussing Dawkins seems to come a little late in the day. I see no problem with scientific data being used to shore up any particular religious claim or even undermine it. Would you disagree with this? Also, what false dichotomy are you speaking of?
marienbad wrote: » It would appear to me that you have come to the belief in the existance of a deity through faith,intuition , fitting a worldview whatever and are working from that leap of faith to reconcile that view with science. All the rest of it , local non local subjective objective is really just gobbledigook irrelevancies. Surely science strictly speaking has nothing to say on God - why would it ? It is the co-opting of science by non science individuals and organisations that has created this false dichotomy.
Pushtrak wrote: » Dawkins discusses biology, as it is his field. I don't see how he could co-opt science (when discussing that field).
nagirrac wrote: » Dawkins discusses far more than biology in the God Delusion
but I generally agree with your point that scientists commenting on science outside their field have more credibility than non-scientists.
There is no science to back up young earth creationist claims.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Because some people use their understanding of science to make claims that lie beyond science. This can't be said to be wrong but it should be acknowledged.
nagirrac wrote: » Sorry if it sounded condescending, it certainly was not my intention. Why would you limit the co-opting of science to non-science individuals? That is my point, co-opting science is done by many scientists as well as non-scientists, on both sides of the fence. Have you not read anything by theistic scientists who argue science demonstrates their beliefs are correct? Sorry for throwing out more names but Bernard Haisch and Gerald Schroeder spring to mind. We can certainly debate their beliefs but we can't dismiss or deny that they are scientists. What do you think Dawkins, a scientist, is doing other than co-opting science in his anti-theistic ranting? He has convinced millions of people, in particular non-scientists, that science proves the non existance of God. I speak to lots of young people as I have teenage children and I would say 80% of those I have speak to regard The God Delusion as their bible. I think that's tragic as they have never and perhaps will never even consider the possibility of God, as their superficial reading of the book (if they have read it at all) convinced them there is no God and we live in a purposeless universe. I am a scientist and willingly admit I co-opt science to fit my worldview when it comes to my beliefs. I try and reason what science is telling me in the context of my beliefs, along with what I both objectively and subjectively observe. I think thats what every person does who considers the question posed in this thread. My beliefs have little to do with faith however as I do not identify with any particular religion.
tommy2bad wrote: » An so we get creationism, I.D. and their mirror images fundamentalist Islam.
marienbad wrote: » I don't want to limit science at all , it is the misuse of science I have a problem with. You can use science all you want to justify, explain , make sense of, whatever worldview you want , and the best of luck to you. And I really don't care one iota . You can't prove the existance of a deity and I can't disprove it to your satisfaction . If you could it would not be called faith, it would be called science. But the problem for me begins ( as tommy2bad alluded to in post 5855 , If I read it correctly) when organisations or individuals begin to co-opt selectively science for their own ends. And this is even not that big a deal as long as they keep it to themselves. And this is the central issue, when organisations misuse science to bolster their arguments in the public sphere and in public policy. And we have a long history of this be it the tobacco industry ,oil and coal companies , religious organisations , political ideologues . Dawkins et al (imho) are just a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism we have witnessed in the last 50 years. And while he may at times come across as a hysterical ould nag he and his ilk are essential to provide some balance in the general discourse . Just as an aside,as regards the tragic nature of kids and The God Delusion , why so ? I would hope they will read more than One Book in forming their worldview.
J C wrote: » The truth is that both Atheists and Theists are using science to support their respective worldviews. Atheists have co-opted science to their cause of denying the existence of God ... and Theists are increasingly finding that science can prove the existence of an intelligence(s) of Divine orders of magnitude.
marienbad wrote: » But only one side uses censorship
nagirrac wrote: » There is a big difference though between "creationists" who believe that the universe was created by a supernatural entity and "young earth creationists" who believe in a timeline for creation from a literal reading of their scripture. YEC believers are surely a minority among the worldwide population of Christians, Jews and Muslims?
J C wrote: » Censorship is the last resort for a defeated argument ... so I guess it will be just as ineffectual in protecting Atheism ... as it has been in protecting any other idea whose time has passed its 'sell-by' date down through the centuries.
marienbad wrote: » So why did you use it then
J C wrote: » Creationists are sometimes the victims of censorship ... and I have never used it. I welcome openness and the free-exchange of ideas ... it's the Atheists (and some Theists) who want Creationists (and especially their ideas) banned from schools ... and science ... and everywhere else where a ban can be imposed.
marienbad wrote: » Then I suggest you rething your own post number 5864
J C wrote: » Why? Objecting to erroneous stereotyping ... and pointing out salient facts is legitimate ... and has nothing to do with censorship.
marienbad wrote: » That is not what you did though is it ? Instead of adressing the points raised you tried to shut the poster up by invoking the charter.
J C wrote: » I didn't invoke the Charter ... I merely pointed out the fact that the Charter defines a 'Christian' as having a basic adherence to the Apostles' Creed ... and therefore a 'Christian' is by the definition of the Charter a believer in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth.
marienbad wrote: » hair splitting
nagirrac wrote: » There is a very strong argument to be made that our subjective experience is more valid than our objective observations
Morbert wrote: » That position that most atheists, including myself, would find problematic. We believe statements about reality must ultimately be evidenced for others to find them compelling. That reality is quantum mechanical has been comprehensively evidenced. The metaphysical claims of various religions have not. In fact, I would wager most Christians would not agree with your position above, as literature is full of evidence-based arguments for particular religions. They would presumably disagree with my above statement, and argue that there is indeed evidence for God.
