Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, Supernaturalism has lead to many wars and killings - history shows.

Many things lead to war and killing. Supernatural beliefs sometimes lead to kindness and altruism.

But a thought process that allows for a belief, not just in the possibility of the supernatural, but in the actualization of the supernatural, also allows the mind to advance its own delusions without being throttled by the friction of reality. The direction it leads is not inherently set, but the thought process itself is unstable. It can be manipulated, and it can spin out of control far more easily than views which are measured against common reality.

0 Replies

. . .which is exactly why children, in particular, should be protected from this kind of abuse.

0 Replies

rosborne, But the odds would indicate that supernaturalism has failed in the US where over 80 percent are christians, and about 10 percnet represented by "other" religions. The US has one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.

I'm not questioning that there are good being accomplished, but I'm not so sure it has to do with supernaturalism.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, But the odds would indicate that supernaturalism has failed in the US where over 80 percent are christians, and about 10 percnet represented by "other" religions. The US has one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.

IMO, belief in the supernatural is analogous to having an immune system deficiency. The deficiency itself doesn't hurt you, but it leaves you open to corruption (or influence) from other outside sources. Sometimes you catch something nasty and sometimes you don't. But if you had a choice in the beginning, why start with a psychological deficiency.

0 Replies

A question well asked to those people of religion. Wink

All my siblings are christians, and I'm the only atheist married to a buddhist.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

A question well asked to those people of religion. All my siblings are christians, and I'm the only atheist married to a buddhist.

Yes, you've made this point before. You told us that all of your family were Christians and they are smarter than you.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1510246&highlight=smarter#1510246

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
True science would not begin with a presupposition that everything has a natural cause.

True science does start with the assumption that everything has a natural cause.

real life wrote:
Why would it?

Because without it, magic would be used to explain everything, and the process of scientific inquiry would come to a halt.

Nonsense.

Modern science flourished, was actually established by many who believed in a supernatural God who had created the world.

There's a difference between allowing for the possibility of the supernatural (things outside of science), and using those possibilities in a scientific methodology.

Here's some additional information on methodological naturalism:

The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically. However, it gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

* The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

* Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere.

Always funny when someone says 'I would believe in the supernatural if I could observe it naturally.'

Kinda like a blind man saying 'I would believe in light if I could smell it for myself.'

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Always funny when someone says 'I would believe in the supernatural if I could observe it naturally.'

Nobody ever says that.

0 Replies

real wrote: Kinda like a blind man saying 'I would believe in light if I could smell it for myself.'

You need to learn the laws of our country on Roe vs Wade, and some lessons in logic.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically. However, it gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

Always funny when someone says 'I would believe in the supernatural if I could observe it naturally.'

The 'supernatural', by definition, cannot be observed. But, if I understand correctly, a supernatural force (if such things exist) could influence our natural, observable reality. If this is true then a supernatural phenomenon could be indirectly observed and studied.

rl,
Do you rely on the supernatural to explain your thinking on the subject of religion, only?

0 Replies

eche.
I have a couple of friends that use their "super natural powers" to pick the winners at the races... this is a observable phenomenon is it not?.
I wonder if real life would agree to that, he seems to uses the same technics with his statments

0 Replies

"Super natural powers" prolly backed up by studying the horses and jockeys with some luck thrown in.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

However there are many questions that science can't answer. Since science works through mathematical proof based on experiment and observation... science has absolutely nothing to say about things that can't be tested. God is certainly beyond mathematical testing or experimentation.

I think Dawkins does both science and religion a disservice by confusing the two.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. If by God you mean something vague like 'the supernatural' or 'that which is beyond mathematical testing or experimentation', then all you are saying is: that which is beyond mathematical testing or experimentation is certainly beyond mathematical testing or experimentation.

However, this highly unusual meaning of the word 'God' should not be confused with more common, religious, uses of the word. 'God' usually means more than just "that which is beyond mathematical testing or experimentation". And where it does mean more than this, it may be testable.

For example, say I believe that there is a God, and he makes all yellow objects scolding to touch. You may not be able to use science to disprove the abstract concept of an 'undisprovable entity', but you certainly can use it to disprove God as I have proposed Him. You can simply touch something yellow, and show that you are not scolded.

The majority of those who believe in a God believe that He has interacted with the world in some way. It is certainly possible to apply mathematical testing and experimentation to these claims. We may not be able to disprove God if the word God means that which cannot be disproved. But where, as in all religions, the word God has a more specific meaning, its alleged actions can be studied to see if they occurred or not.

0 Replies

But we can invoke the test of falsifiability to much of what design implies.

Also, not all sciences are immediately mathematically testable. As far as I know, rules of stratigraphy are purely descriptive and , at best, statistically inferred, (and this is retrospective, not prospective)

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

However there are many questions that science can't answer. Since science works through mathematical proof based on experiment and observation... science has absolutely nothing to say about things that can't be tested. God is certainly beyond mathematical testing or experimentation.

I think Dawkins does both science and religion a disservice by confusing the two.

Dawkins has a phrase for this sort of approach non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA. He directly challenges why religious ideas should be out of bounds for scientific scrutiny. Its not reciprocated by the religious creationists and intelligent designers who are all too keen to trample into scientific areas (usually with hilarious results). I am re reading "The God Delusion"...its certainly making me think.

0 Replies

Steve, "The God Dilusion" doesn't need to be supported by any book. It's all around us 24/7.

0 Replies

anton bonnier wrote:

eche.
I have a couple of friends that use their "super natural powers" to pick the winners at the races... this is a observable phenomenon is it not?.
I wonder if real life would agree to that, he seems to uses the same technics with his statments

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I don't play the ponies, and I always advise those who do to flush their cash down the stool instead because you can save gas money and babysitting charges that way. Cool

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
The subtle point which both"believers" and Dawkins tend to miss is that philosophical transcendence of what we call "reality" to the nondualistic inseparability of observer and observed, demonstrates the futility of claiming "absolute truth" for either protagonist. Thus the "comfort" which theists take in exploiting the tentative nature of "science" comes from falsely interpreting this nature as a "weakness" into which they insert an arbitrary psychological "solution" called "God"
. Im so glad that this was said , and said so well.

I also think Dawkins is full of horsie poop, and am as uninterested in a ranting atheist fanatic as i am in a ranting religious fanatic.

However, i consider the claim made here about "philosophical transcendence" to be an exercise in wool-gathering. A very great many mathematical and scientific observations have been made, and confirmed by replication, by "observers" who were unaware of one another, and who, for whatever you (Fresco) may allege about observer and observed, came to identical conclusion based on the evidence. You believe you can argue that all said observers were being inescapably subjective, but from where this observer stands, that's damned good evidence for having reached an objective conclusion.

This sounds like shadows on the cave wall, badly repackaged and peddled anew.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

To state unequivocally that there is no God, one would need to be omniscient.

Are you?

This is the most common, and most feeble ontological argument. Dawkins may, of course, state that there is no god. Personally, i consider myself an atheist simply because i am without god--no one has ever been able to show me that there is a god, so i operate on the assumption that there is not. In that such an assumption does not hinder the prosecution of my daily life, it is simply a part of a thought-experiment, and one which is of little interest to me.

You have claimed that science is unreliable because it starts with an unprovable assumption that there are only naturalistic causes for the effects which are (or seem to be--pace Fresco) in evidence about us. But that is a false characterization of the use of the scientific method. Science (to speak as though science were a discrete entity, and only for sake of ease of discussion) only concerns itself with natural cause and effect, in recognition of the impossibility (to date, at least) of any means of quantifying and verifying any other than natural cause and effect. In that respect, science does not deny that there is a god, it doesn't "care" whether or not there is a god, or any other supernatural entity.

You continually advance this bankrupt and disingenuous ontological argument.

0 Replies

I probably ought to have done this before making the last post, but, frankly, it didn't occur to me right away.

The ontological argument for god is that if one can conceive such a supreme being, said being must exist; or, alternatively, denying the existence of such a being is evidence for the possibility of such a being, at which point the theist reverts to the previous argument.

Here you can read a good précis of the ontological argument, provided by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

0 Replies

Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know