• SeanRenaud said on Jun 27, 2008....

  I don't need to read his book to get his point.  If he changes the minds of just a few witless people over it's enough.  There are those who cling tightly to their fairy tails and sadly there is nothing to be done to fix that.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jun 27, 2008....

  The delusion is his, Sean.  To claim that people who believe in God are witless is arrogant and certainly not supportable. There are plenty of bright, ingenious people (such as the aforementioned Alister McGrath) who believe.  McGrath is even held in high esteem by Dawkins himself.  It is not as easy as you might think to discern between reality and fairy tale.  Even evidence is subjective as it has to be processed by subjects (namely human beings).  Dawkins, being that he has his doctorate in philosophy, should know better.

• Antimatter said on Jul 02, 2008....

  Your lightning and lottery analogies reflect a gross misunderstanding of statistics, mulgere-hircum. The probability of a particular individual winning the lottery is quite low, but the probability of anyone winning the lottery is very high. In fact, the probability of anyone winning is the sum of each individual's probability of winning.

  P(anyone winning) = P(person A winning) + P(person B winning) + ...

  The above equation works when only one person can win the lottery (i.e. the event is mutually exclusive). If more than one person can win the lottery simultaneously, then the calculation is slightly more involved, but it's effectively still a sum of many smaller probabilities.

  This is why Dawkins can use his probability argument to argue that god almost certainly does not exist while simultaneously arguing that life is not altogether improbable. The probability of god existing is analogous to the probability of a single individual winning the lottery. There's only one reality, so we only get to roll the god dice once. The probability of life existing somewhere in the universe is analogous to the probability of some individual somewhere winning the lottery. We can effectively roll the life dice once for each suitable planet in our vast universe.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 03, 2008....

  Let me reiterate my main point once more:
  
  X being improbable does not equal X being false.  This is the case no matter how improbable X is.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 03, 2008....

  The short answer MH is that the world is ont he backs of four elephantsts riding on the back of a turtle because hey those satelite photos could be fake.  Check.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 03, 2008....

  I'm reposting my comment because of an annoying typo that I HAD to fix
  
  Antimatter, while I appreciate your comment, I find that you are missing my point entirely.  Who says there is only one reality?  Dawkins was somewhat pushing the multi-universe theory in his book.  If there were clearly such a thing, it would seem likely that each verse had it's own reality.  But multi-verses aside, who says there is only one reality here and now?  Where is the scientific data you have to back that statement up?  Also, even supposing there were only one reality, who is to say that any one of us holds the truth of that reality?  Now, when it comes to probability, who's to say we really know what the odds are that God does or does not exist?  If Dawkins, and creationists (respectively), were to be honest, we can't even begin to accurately calculate the odds because we don't know all of the possibilities, nor do we know all of the potential factors that make up each individual possibility.  Regardless of which belief we hold, God or No-God, we are really crap-shooting in the dark.  Dawkins has faith in his No-God hypothesis while others have faith in their God hypothesis.  Dawkins doesn't like to consider himself among the faithful, but the truth is...we all are.  The sad part of Dawkins' book is that he wrote it thinking he was really on to something.  But there is not a single argument in his book that hasn't been touted before and none of them are truly convincing unless you fall into the trap of accepting the straw-man that Dawkins builds Christianity (or any religion) to be.
  
  Now, back to my point...probability does not mean anything. I understand your equation and will not argue against it...but in the long run, whether God is highly probable, somewhat probable, somewhat improbable, or highly improbable, does not hold any bearing over the truth value of whether God exists or not.  Let's pretend that atheists are right in saying that God does not exist.  Let's also imagine a reality where God does not exist but where the probability of God existing is high.  Does that high probability change the fact that God does not exist?  Now reverse it.  Let's pretend that theists are right that God does exist.  And let's also imagine a reality (one that I am sure you imagine every day) where God's existence is highly improbable.   Does that high improbability change the fact that God exists?  Probability just makes people feel comfortable with their decisions, positions and/or choices when there is no certainty that they should be feeling comfortable at all.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 03, 2008....

  Sean, who am I to tell you that that reality isn't true?  Whether I believe it or not, we could be living in that reality...or at the very least...there could be that reality somewhere in the multi-verse.  All jokes aside, ALL realities have been laughed at, even the one you hold today as being the truth.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 03, 2008....

  But we absolutely must make our decisions based on the information we have available to us.  I'm not saying close your mind and refuse to consider new evidence but you've already looked at a group of evidence and found it wanting you should at least speak aganist it if not redicule those who believe it.  It depends on the level of controversy.  If something is highly controversial by all means let dialogue continue.  If it's a fringe keeping something alive it's possible should be killed off

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 04, 2008....

  Hmmm...does that make any sense, Sean?  Who are you to decide to kill something off?  And if we are to bring high controversy into it, we should definitely keep religion in dialogue.  Not that numbers prove anything to be true or not true, the majority of people hold religious beliefs.  Again, I am not saying that to validate the truth of any or all religions.  So, my stating that is not a logical fallacy, but a fact.  Here's why I mention that fact.  There is more than a "fringe" keeping religion alive...rather there is a majority.  Athesim is the fringe.  Now, we can delve deep into Dawkins' conspiracy theory.  Nah, actually it isn't that deep and certainly not based on any evidence.  He states that the majority of scientists are "closet-atheists" who pretend to be sympathetic in order to keep their paycheck.  Most of the major universities and institutions are secular and Dawkins claims seems highly unlikely.  For instance, if scientists are to worry about their paychecks for announcing themselves to be atheists, why is it that Dawkins writes books like "The God Delusion"?  There are plenty of well paid, and overly vocal, atheists out there.  How disingenuous to presume that any scientist who has sympathies toward religion is dishonest.  I am sure there are many such scientists who object to such a presumption.  Aside from scientists, the majority of people believe in a god or gods.  Again, that does not prove the existence of such divinity, but it does put atheism on the fringe.  Of course, to Dawkins there are only two such replies to this...either they are dishonest, or they are ignoramus.  Arrogant, to say the least, but also foolish.  Besides where's the evidence to back that up?
  
  Speaking of evidence, what is evidence but data that passes through a subjective mind(s). The problem is that evidence does not alway point to truth...otherwise scientific knowledge would never change.  For instance, evidence (i.e., through looking at the sky at night) pointed to everything circling around the earth.  It was the predominant view for a really long time.  It was evidence based.  When I look at the sky at night, there is evidence that points me toward the belief that everything circles the earth.  Ah, but new evidence pushes aside the old evidence, or at the very least, makes me view the new evidence in different and less substantial ways.
  
  I love how the word evidence gets tossed around.  Dawkins says that religious people throw faith around in order to get a free-pass.  Well, it is also true that atheists throw evidence around in order to get a free-pass as well.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 04, 2008....

  If evidence points to truth science would never change?  That's rediculous utterly rediculous and if I didn't think you were serious I'd just ignore that comment all together.  New evidence can change everything  before it.
   
  I'm isolated human being, evidence says that the world is flat.  It looks flat. things can be laid down flat upon it, its flat yes!  Maybe somebody gets up to a high enough mountain and is able to see the curve of the horizon, maybe somebody tries to find the end of the world and comes back where they started oh shit the world is round!
   
  Evidence doesn't by definition leads to proof, it leads to the best possible answer at the the moment.  Twenty years from now we might discover proof that Inteligent Design is a fact, that there is a guiding inteligence he just isn't omniopent.  It could be like computer design where a bunch of guys are designing computers and programs and some work and some don't bu tthey are all working with the same basic chips and plastic etc.  The current evidence dosn't support that.
   
  Throw evidence around to get a free pass?  IT's not a free pass when you prove something.
   
  And I'm Sean Renaud that's who I am to dismiss your frivoulous bullshit and frivoulous bullshit. 
   
  I can't wait until you get your way and biology class includes an exert on spiders that explains how one upon a time there was a beautiful young woman who wove the most beautiful blankets, the most beautiful in the entire world.  So beautiful that she claimed they were more beautiful than what Athena herself could weave, and the great goddess came down and turn her into a spider.
   
  After all according you there is not reason that shouldn't be taught at the university level.
   
   

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 04, 2008....

  Dude you've got me pegged wrong.  And I just love when that happens.  If I had my way, the possibility for being wrong in our assessments would be taught in school.  I am all for teaching the known sciences and current theories.  I am just against teaching them as the absolute truth with no "MENTIONED" possibility of error and/or no room for alternate viewpoints.  So much of the science I learned in school has changed since then.  Hell, Pluto isn't even a freakin' planet anymore.  Yet the very things that changed, I was taught were known truths.  Clearly not.  Stop putting words into my mouth.  Besides, it is Dawkins who thinks he can determine what should be taught at the university level, not me.
  
  But that aside, everything you just wrote is exactly my point.  Evidence does not necessarily lead to proof and/or truth.  It just leads to what we believe, or hope, to be the best possible explanation of things.
  
  "IT's not a free pass when you prove something"
  
  Let me ask you something.  Show me how God is disproved (Dawkins self-admittedly hates this).  If you can't but feel like reaching into the bag to pull out "lack of evidence" then you now know exactly what I am talking about.  It's thankful that in this universe, we don't live on the planet Renaud or the planet Dawkins where the rule is that people have to accept your dismissal.  So, dismiss it...but you're not going to kill it off.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 04, 2008....

  You can't disproove anything.  If you can't prove it you shouldn't believe it.  You can't prove that I'm not a ghost of the internet who merely shows up to disagree with you.
   
  The pluto point is kinda silly, mostly because they changed something almost arbitrarily.  Its the they aren't Indians, they are Native American's argument.  They are whatever you call them.
   
  Science itself automatically teaches that things aren't set in stone, that a new discovery could change things.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 04, 2008....

  "After all according you there is not reason that shouldn't be taught at the university level."
  
  Hey Sean, one other thing on this...
  
  Any theory that is SERIOUSLY put out there should be taught...what is the harm in giving a FULL education?  Dawkins says that God can be treated scientifically but does not want God taught in science class.  But Dawkins can't have his cake and eat it too.  I am of the other bent...God can't be treated scientifically and therefore should not be taught in the science class. But on the same note, why not present the theories that are circulating around the world of science, including ones you may dislike or disagree with.  So long as they are presented as being other "theories" or "hypotheses" there is no harm in expanding the minds of students.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 04, 2008....

  Because there really aren't other theories.  Creaitonism and Inteligent design have ZERO supporting evidence and can't be considered other theories anymore than the Arachne theory of spiders.
   
  Also Happy 4th!

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 04, 2008....

  LOL!  Happy 4th to you too Sean.  But I wouldn't say Zero evidence.  We are here, right? We exist in a universe that supports life.  And no theory of how we are here necessarily rules out God.  There is much that you believe in Sean, that you cannot prove.  Love is something that you cannot prove.  You can prove hormones and chemicals, you can prove the natural pull toward procreation and pleasure, but you cannot prove that love is really anything more than a psychological construction.  You cannot prove that you will make it to work safely when you leave in the morning.  For all you know, you will crash and burn.  Yet you do believe that you will get there safely.  And it is an irrational belief, because there really is no evidence to support your belief.  There is no proof that you will get to work safely.  I can go on and on.  We do not, for the most part, operate on proof, rationality or probability.
  
  "Science itself automatically teaches that things aren't set in stone, that a new discovery could change things."
  
  And yet you are ready to kill off the idea of a Creator?  Yes, I agree that science should be taught that way and that any responsible scientist upholds that...but...in school that is more in theory than in practice.  Most of the stuff taught in science class is taught as fact...and people get pissy if anything other than those "facts" are taught.
  
  Believe it or not, I am not for Intelligent Design being taught in the science class.  I think the predominant theory should be taught...but I do think that the ID debate should be offered as an elective class.  Notice I said debate.  In other words, have a class that teaches ID and what it is and what it claims...but in that same class, also offer the arguments against ID so that the kids are not getting fed one side, but all the known sides to the debate.  I am for FULLY educating the kids, not keeping them in any bubble, whether it be a secular or religious bubble!  All bubbles should be popped!

• curmudgeon said on Jul 04, 2008....

  Seems to me if Dawkins is leaving the door open to God's existence - however improbable - it's still a leap of faith to conclude that God does not exist. If those who believe in God are deluded because of this improbability, is it not possible that those who do not are delusional as well?
   
  One, of course, could argue that based on the level of improbability, those who don't believe are "less delusional", than those who do, but that's not much of an attraction, as far as credibility goes.
   
  Someone across the Universe from us may claim that we humans don't exist based on the improbability that other intelligent life can exist, and lack of observable evidence of intelligent life in the Universe does indeed exist.
   
  Such a belief would be patently false, wouldn't it? Yet the "evidence", or lack thereof, would support such a belief.
   
  Ultimately, it really does fall back to faith,for both sides. It's just so sorry to see someone of Dawkins' stature make that leap of faith while ridiculing and villifying others for simply making a different leap of faith.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 04, 2008....

  Exactly, curmudgeon!  Why write a book where in your main argument you basically admit that life coming into existence on its own in a way for "natural selection" to take over is highly improbable?  His argument is the equivalent of my daddy is bigger than your daddy.  Dawkins' entire argument revolves around a straw man against which he precedes to say, "your belief's improbability is larger than my belief's improbability; therefore, your belief is ALMOST CERTAINLY not true.  I mean come on!  Again, as the title of this post asks, is he joking?
  

• Antimatter said on Jul 05, 2008....

  Of course probability means something. Outside the ideal mental abstractions of (simple) mathematics, everything is a matter of probability. Unicorns could exist somewhere, but they most likely don't, so I'll assume they don't unless I see compelling evidence to the contrary. Likewise, there's a miniscule chance that gravity will stop functioning tomorrow, but I'm not running around treating that situation like it has a 50% chance of occurring. Why must we treat the question of whether god exists differently?

  I'm assuming there's only one reality (which encompasses any and all universes) because that's an assumption of those who believe in god. Theists generally believe god is eternal and transcends all dimensions.

  Further, I think you're missing the point of Dawkin's book. His goal was to point out that atheism is far more likely to be true than Christianity, and he does that by postulating that a creator is always at least as improbable as his creation. Dawkins doesn't need to quantify the actual odds; he simply needed to establish the relative probability.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 05, 2008....

  And MH is argueing incredibly that while it's true that us being spontaneiously here is more likely than a creator able to make us being spontaneously here and that he in turn created us that we shouldn't discount the possibility but yet still shouldn't teach it. 
   
  His POV makes my head spin.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 07, 2008....

  Antimatter, Dawkins is merely blowing smoke.  It's witty, but not necessarily true.  Again, just because something is improbable does not make it false.  Thus, it is a risk, even if you view it as a miniscule risk, to completely discount something over its level of improbability, especially since we honestly can never know the probability of the existence of God.  Where do we pull our numbers from.  It is a subjectively driven calculation.  What I mean by that is this.  Person X does not believe in Creationism but rather is an atheist who believes in Neo-Darwinism.  Based off of his/her subective beliefs, that person starts looking for evidence and/or data to prove his proposition that God does not exist.  The same is true for the Creationists who set out to prove that God exists.  My opinion is that neither Person X nor Person C (the Creationist) has found anymore than what they've wanted to find.

  Sean, what you fail to realize is that I am not arguing probability at all. I have not conceded to Dawkins or to you or to anyone that God is more or less improbable than his creation because I believe that it is a bogus proposition.  You are so certain in data and/or numbers that don't necessarily prove anything one way or another.  All it proves is that you can wittily piece numbers together in a logical way to make your argument seem stronger than the next.

  Antimatter's unicorn pishposh is just that.  It's witty, and it makes anyone who believes in God look like delusional morons who believe fairytales.  But does it prove they are, in fact, delusional?  No.  It's just a witty statement, nothing more nothing less.  It's about as witty as me saying that since Anselm "proved" God by stating that God is that than which no other greater thing can be conceived, then God (according to that definition must exist even if God is Natural Selection.  But no atheist, or theist for that matter, would want to view Natural Selection as God.  Besides, Anslem no more proved God than Dawkins has disuaded anyone from believing in something as "improbable" as God.

  I am not claiming anything more than the improbability of our discovering the true probability or improbability of God.  The improbability that the Creationists and Dawkins go on are just subjective brain nuggets with little substantial and/or objective value what-so-ever.

  Again, as far as probability is concerned, where do we get those numbers from?  And please, do not rehash Dawkins' book, I am still reading it and I am more than familiar with his probability argument.  I want to know where you find certainty in the probability?  Why do you place so much faith in your ability to think your way to truth.  Human thought is limited and subjective.

   

  Forgive me if I do not respond right away, I am on vacation and have limited computer access.  That actually has been doing me well!  ;^)

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 07, 2008....

  One other thing, Antimatter.  Why piggy back on the ideas of delusional morons in order to prove a point.  If theists are delusional, why go on their understanding of "one" reality.  Couldn't that understanding be delusional as well.  And another thing I don't understand is why atheists care so much about God.  Seriously, atheists talk more about God than theists do.  It really is quite astounding and causes my head to spin

• curmudgeon said on Jul 07, 2008....

  If we all share one universal reality, the overwhelming "reality", at least on Earth, is that God exists in some form.
   
  Now it could be that four billion people are wrong, but if that's the way we construct our reality, honestly, what difference does it make? Each of us will learn the truth soon enough when we leave this existence.
   
  Meanwhile, I won't stake my faith out on mathematical probablities, because I believe that with faith, people can overcome the greatest of odds. And even if the outcome goes the other way, at least they gave it everything they had because they believed.
   
  It's like Mariano Rivera closing out the Red Sox the other day. He let a run in and loaded the bases, but then he pulled out his 23rd save out of 23 attempts. He didn't go along with the high probability that he would lose. He got himself together and cut the Red Sox to pieces.
   
  Now, Rivera is the best closer in baseball, but he sure didn't get there by going along with probabilities. I mean, how many young players are out there wanting to be in the big leagues? What is the probability of someone, even with Rivera's skill, all the way from the DR coming to America and playing for the Yankees?
   
  Overcoming the odds in life takes belief.
   
  Betting red on the faith wheel is like dipping reduced fat nilla wafers in light soy milk.

• Antimatter said on Jul 07, 2008....

  Mulgere-hircum, I'm not sure where you're going with your argument. Dawkins may be blowing a lot of hot air, but what does that make your comments here in this thread? We're left again with witty yet insubstantial smoke, and we're back at square one. How would you suggest we proceed?

  The hard data disproving the popular god is out there. For instance, double-blind studies all show that prayer is not effective at healing patients. This is inconsistent with the popular superstition that prayer is worthwhile and effective. Further, lightning does not strike murderers and child molesters any more frequently than we'd expect if lightning were unguided. Again, this is inconsistent with the popular superstition that god punishes those who grievously sin.

  Of course, the theologians' definitions of god are quite a bit more developed than popular superstition. These more refined notions of god are carefully crafted to be immune to any objective test, and are therefore entirely non-falsifiable. Consequently, the entire exercise consists of hot air, since there's absolutely no objective way to choose among competing ideas about god. My unicorn analogy was therefore quite generous, since the existence of unicorns would leave hard evidence like, say, a unicorn.

  Human thought may be limited and subjective, but unless you have some alternative to human intellect that you haven't shared yet, it's the only “way to truth” available to us. So tell us, why do you reject Dawkin's postulate that a creator is always at least as improbable as his creation? Could you provide an example of an intelligent creator that was less complex than the entity it designed? If not, how can you be so certain that Dawkin's postulate is “bogus?”

  Whose definition of theism would you have me use if not the one provided by theists?

  Atheists may seem to talk about god a lot because that's the only meaningful thing I could talk about as an atheist. When I'm talking about other subjects, I speak as a citizen, as a friend, as a skeptic, as a libertarian, as a secular humanist, or as a professional in my field. I'm atheist in all those roles too, but my atheism is not particularly relevant.

• Antimatter said on Jul 07, 2008....

  Curmudgeon, a false proposition does not become true even if everyone accepts it. And unlike baseball players seeking a victory, theists don't believe god can pop into existence if we believe hard enough, so don't know what to make of your argument.

  (That and I rather enjoy my reduced fat Nilla wafers in light soy milk! But I'd take almond milk over soy milk any day.)

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 07, 2008....

  Too bad about Unicorns being rare but real ain't it?  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4116471.ece

   

• curmudgeon said on Jul 08, 2008....

  Yeah, I thought about the baseball analogy and realized that Rivera is on the mound in the first place because the probability of his saving the game - even in a four on no out situation - is higher than anyone on the Yankees.
   
  But Sean - from Mulgere's summary even Dawkins is admitting that we can't really know whether the proposition of God's existence is false or true, just that the probability is lower.Whatever the odds, he still chooses to believe what he believes. He still makes a leap of faith because he isn't and can't be 100% certain..
   
  The vast majority of people on this planet are staking out their position that the proposition with the lower probability is true. It's not demonstrably false, just highly unlikely. As before, it's highly unlikely that someone across the universe from us will ever know we humans exist, but to believe that we don't exist would be false. To believe that we do exist would be to believe in that which is highly improbable yet true.
   
  In Christian circles we call this a mystery - we in our time haven't seen, yet we believe. We believe in one of the most rediculous, illogical, unreasonable propositions ever construed by man. And yet this proposition resonates with us and has endured throughout millennia in a way that, frankly, ever-changing conclusions about observable phenomena just can't compete. And that proposition is still spreading around the world.
   
  Who created God? I don't know. But just because I don't know the answer to that particular question, that's not reason enough for me not to believe in God.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 08, 2008....

  Assuming Aliens are equally advanced as us they believe in us.  We've run the numbers and figured life probably exists a lot of places, mathmatically.  So we already kinda believe.  That's beside the point and really just amusing.
   
  It's true that it's not demonstrably false, we can only disprove the claims made by various religious texts and that has been done ad nasuem, but then the religious interpreters claim metaphor combined with nobody has ever truly believed, not even John when he was looking directly at God and even then he didn't have faith. 
   
  The problem comes when people start living their lives based on the less likely option to the detriment of those around them.  Stem Cell research standing out as the hugest pure positive thing that has fallen prey.  (We could also debate abortion, capital punishment, birth control around the world, and cloning but at least these things have potential pitfalls)
   
  Which is like damn everybody wants to fuck our advancement.  Dems won't allow us to use what we have and Reps won't let us learn new ways to use what we've got.

• Antimatter said on Jul 09, 2008....

  It isn't a leap of faith to accept propositions that we perceive as more likely to be true. We do that all the time, including Christians. We do not know that general relativity is correct with 100% certainty but only with 99.9% certainty. Likewise, Christians really don't know with certainty whether god exists, because their leaders require them to make a "leap of faith." Atheism does not require a leap of faith because no action is required from those who accept atheism. It does not demand that we worship the non-deity, tell all our friends, or dedicate our lives to atheism.

  Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theistic belief systems. As I mentioned above, that's why atheists seem to only talk about theism. When I talk passionately about some other subject, my atheism is no longer relevant and some other categorization fits better.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 09, 2008....

  "Run the numbers?" Are you throwing the Drake Equation out as a "scientific", "rational" basis of belief in alien intelligence? THAT's amusing!!! A math formula provides no basis for belief until observable evidence supports it. Until then, it's just speculation.

  "...because their leaders require them to make a "leap of faith."

  "Require" is a really strong word. It's as though pastors of local churches have this super power to disown and excommunicate people if they don't believe. This is pure bullshit.If you don't believe, you can always leave, find a more suitable church, or simply quit going altogether. Some communities are more tightly knit than others, but they are not representative of the entire religious spectrum. Churches are places where people with similar outlooks, values and desires come to share in life's various experiences. In some, membership entails reading scriptures a certain way. So be it. Such is not the case in many others. Some come to church not knowing what they believe but stay because they like the community and the message. Those who choose to commit their lives to a particular faith community do so of their own free will. Well, not entirely, because they would claim that God is calling them to this commitment.

  In any case, one can believe in God without being a member of a church, buying into any doctrine of any sort, or following any formal practice whatsoever. You both have tacked on doctrinal requirements and the commission to spread the gospel where no such requirement exists to simply believe in God.

  It seems to me that officially atheist regimes have also worked to the detriment of people, mostly their own populations.

  Embryonic stem cell research is not the most promising field in medical science. Nor is it the only type of stem cell research being conducted. To claim that Christians with moral objections to one specific scientific endeavor are standing in the path of scientific advancement is patently false and truly peculiar, given that we have so many less objectionable alternatives.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 09, 2008....

  1. It is cleary one of the most promising fields in medical science.  Christians are also standing in the path of other things that mentioned, I just chose the most glaring one and it's not false, it's a fact. 

  2. You're right, you can believe in God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Which is roughly what you're arguing at this point.  So what if the Qu'ran is provably false, I'm not a Muslim.  So what if the Bible is patently fictional, I can still believe in God he's my personal God and any rule you can find in any book doesn't apply to him because he's mine.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Antimatter, forgive me as I respond in bits and pieces, if indeed I have anymore time to reply after reading all of the posts.  Your lightning striking example shows how inept you are at theology.  Sure, there are fundamentalist groups who would say that God punishes those who do wrong and rewards those who do right.  But standard, mainstream, theology says otherwise.  Now you can point to old testament texts where God is indeed punishing...of course it is humans writing about God punishing...and it is typically always "them" that God is punishing.  But that aside...there are other texts (not even including Job) where bad things happen to good people.  Jeremiah got his ass kicked and almost his life handed to him.  Jesus got crucified.  Joseph got betrayed by his brothers, dumped in a ditch and sold into slavery.  So, your argument only speaks to one group, not the whole.  Secondly, what evidence "disproves" God.  Even Dawkins isn't bold enough to say that!  Dawkins also admitted that the double-blind tests were stupid because an omiscient God would see through that.  All that test proves is that there are idiots who think they can toy with prayer and it also proves yet another theological misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer.  I could go into this but somehow I recognize the futility of that.  One other thing, Antimatter.  Find a single, truly objective person and I will I believe in objective data.  Being that that search will last you a life time, I am going to understand that, no matter what I believe in or disbelieve in, data is always subjective by the time my brain, or anyone's brain, has processed it.  Human beings are subjects, not objects.  We are not capable of being fully objective.  Evidence is to be interpreted.  Dawkins' interpretation of genes is based on the same evidence as Denis Noble's.  Listen to the two:

  These two examples can be found in Alister McGrath's scholarly rebuttal of Richard Dawkins's 'The God Delusion'.

  From Dawkins's The Selfish Gene: "[Genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remot control.  They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence."

  From Denis Noble's Biology of Life: Music Beyond the Genome (Noble rewrote Dawkins' statement in the way that reflects his findings in the same subject based off of the same evidence): "[Genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, function emerges.  They are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience in reproducing ourselves.  We are the ultimate rationale for their existence."

  Both are totally reliant on the same piece of evidence.  This shows the subjective nature of the interpretive process.  Evidence is only (possibly) objective prior to being process through the human mind.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, is for certain...no matter how certain we are.  That is not to say that we shouldn't continue to advance the natural sciences and continue to make the best educated guesses we can.  But we should be humbled not made arrogant by what we believe to be our findings.  I am all for science until it tries to be become something its not. I am all for religion until it tries to become something its not.  I am all for reason, but I do not believe it to be flawless.  One last thing on probability, which is what this post was initially dealing with...let me quote from Alister McGrath, who happes to be Dawkins' colleague at Oxford:

  "The one inescapable and highly improbable fact about the world is that we, as reflective human beings, are in fact here.  Now it is virtually impossible to quantify how improbable the eixistence of humanity is.  Dawkins himself is clear, especially in Climing Mount Probable, that it is very, very improbable.  But we are here. The very fact that we are puzzling about how we came to be here is dependent on the fact that we are here and are thus able to reflect on the likelihood of this actuality.  Perhaps we need to appreciate that there are many things that seem improbable.  We may be highly improbable--yet we are here.  The issue, then, is not whether God is probable but whether God is actual."  (Taken from "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath).

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Let me superficially correct my typo...Dawkins's example is Climing Mount Improbable.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 09, 2008....

  Sean,

  1. Treatments are already being developed using adult stem cells. None that I know of has yet emerged from embryonic stem cell research. Not only that, but recent experiments have found ways to form different kinds of stem cells without having to create embryos, thus rendering the creation of embryos strictly for scientific research unnecessary. Were it not for moral objections, this new option may have surfaced much later on. In a way, moral objections have actually advanced medical science, not hindered it.

  So no, embryonic is not really all that promising and hardly worth the fake political controversy.

  2. I'm coming to understand that atheists and theists approach the word belief in different ways. Theists understand that there's more to belief than simply that which we see in front of us. Indeed, we understand that what we think about what we see can change, but our belief in God does not change because again, what we believe is not entirely rooted in only what we see.

  Atheists are convinced that they root their conclusions as to God's existence in what is observable and provable. They cling to this conviction with all the fiery tenacity of Pentecostal preachers despite the overwhelming reality that they cannot rule out God's existence either through logic or mathematics without taking a leap of faith - in other words, choosing to believe based on what they cannot prove or disprove. But they just won't admit it, which is just fine. I don't root my beliefs entirely on what I can prove, so I can't expect anyone else to either.

  But when atheists have finally run their course, they turn to ridicule and pull out the flying spaghetti monster.

  What, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster either??? :-)

  At which point this discussion must simply end...for now.

  BTW - I'm not a Muslim, not because I think the Qu'ran is false, but because Christian worship, scripture and practice resonates with me in ways that other faith practices don't. I find Islamic calls to prayer beautiful, mysterious and haunting and I can see why a billion people and counting are attracted to that practice. But in the end Christ is my way and my light and my life.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 09, 2008....

  1.  You're simply wrong.  Which bloc clearly explained to you months ago.  The reason everybody was so excited that adult stem cells could be made to do anything was because it was thought to be impossible.  They had to struggle to get adult stem cells to the point that embryonic start at. 

  For the moment though I'm gonna accept your logic.  The democrats are right that we should refuse to drill for more oil, after all refusing to let republicans drill, rising gas prices will aid science in coming up with a better engine sooner.

  2.  Wait, you don't think the Qu'ran is false?  So you believe that Jesus Christ was just a prophet and not the Son of God?  Can't have it both ways Cur.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 10, 2008....

  1. No treatments so far from embryonic. Treatments from adult. The facts simply speak for themselves.
   
  2. Christ asks - "Who do YOU say that I am?" In other words, we all have the choice  to say what we say about Christ. I proclaim Jesus as Lord. Muslims proclaim Mohammed as their prophet.We have fundamentally different systematic theologies, the main one being in our image of God.
   
  Some people might see a conflict here, but I don't.   If some or even all of them think we're getting it wrong, that's their issue. This isn't a math problem where only one answer is true. Even if we likened it to math, quadratic equations can have both postitives and negatives as correct answers. How is it that solutions that are polar opposites can both be true?
   
  In any case, this is about the beliefs we hold to be true. Even if there exists some objective truth, we will always see it subjectively, because we are subjective people.
   
  Yeah yeah - flying sphaghetti monster. I have no problem with someone believing the in flying spaghetti monster either. I prefer Cookie Monster, though.

• Antimatter said on Jul 10, 2008....

  "Your lightning striking example shows how inept you are at theology."

  Thanks for the insult. If you read carefully, you'd notice that I wasn't presenting it as theology. I almost went into seminary in my youth; I'm well aware of all the Biblical examples you cited of god sending rain to the righteous. (Matthew 5:45) My point was that popular — not necessarily doctrinal — beliefs about god have absolutely no basis in fact despite being trivially quantified. That's the god we can easily disprove. As I went on to say, formal theology carefully defines god into a corner where he can never be demonstrated to exist or not.

  "Find a single, truly objective person and I will I believe in objective data.

  What are you talking about? You cannot find a "truly objective" individual because being objective almost always requires the consensus of many individuals. Being truly objective requires a diverse peer review process to filter out personal interpretations and prejudices.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 10, 2008....

  Antimatter - even with peer reviews and so on, there's no objectivity in human  conclusions about anything, only consensus.
   
  Truth may exist, but because we humans only have one perspective, we will always see it subjectively, even if it's a collective perspective.
   
  Again, rational, observable, demonstrable proof is not a requirement for belief in God or anything else for that matter. Coming to belief in God and the establishment of material facts are two completely different exercises.
   
  Attempting to disprove a particularly described God is just a rediculous exercise and does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of God.
   
  I never realized that atheist arguments are so lame, one-dimensional and irrational.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 10, 2008....

  And we wonder why our kids test so poorly.

• Antimatter said on Jul 10, 2008....

  "Antimatter - even with peer reviews and so on, there's no objectivity in human conclusions about anything, only consensus.

  What definition are you using for the word "objective?" It's not synonymous with "absolute truth."

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Antimatter, sorry it insulted you.  Not my intent.  But let me say this, Curmudgeon is right in saying that pulling a "particular described God" (whether it is popular or not is debatable) and knocking it down does nothing to actually disprove the existence of God.  So why do it?  Dawkins does this too.  It is the straw-man fallacy.  You pick the worst possible example of God, lump the majority together as if they believe in that worst possible example of God, and then show them to be foaming, ravenous idiots.  I could do that with some atheists I know.
  
  An ex-boyfriend of my cousin is an atheist and he is the biggest jerk I know.  This particular story I am recounting is the night he broke up with her.   On that night he went out to see some friends.  Being night time, and that she was alone, my cousin locked the door.  Plus, he had a key to get in.  Well, when he came home, he stood at the door knocking.  She saw that it was him and opened the door.  He stomped in and shouted, "What the hell did you lock the door for?"  Then he huffed away and called her a "mental case!"  He says he hates her and never wants to talk to her again because she is a "paranoid bitch."  And I quote.
  
  Now for the fun part.  I could say that when you take the aforementioned asshole, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, etc., it is clear that whatever atheists possess, they don't possess morals or manners.  They are quite selfish and do as they please, because they only really believe in themselves and there ability to know more than those they look down upon.
  
  Of course, I don't believe that.  But rather, I am making a point.  My picking some  of the world's asshole atheists does nothing to prove or disprove atheists as moral human beings.  It just shows the specific people I mentioned to be assholes, but they certainly don't speak for all atheists.  I happen to know atheists whom I get along with quite well.  Some of whom I am close friends with.  And they are decent, caring, moral people.  I happen agree with Dawkins in his point on morality, at least so far as him claiming atheists as capable of morality despite their disbelief in any god.  But let's play fair. Using anecdotal examples as straw-men to be knocked down is hardly fair, nor is it honest or accurate.  In fact, it is down-right fallacious.
  
  "Atheism does not require a leap of faith because no action is required from those who accept atheism"
  
  What do you mean by "action"?  If belief or disbelief are considered to be actions, it would certainly seem to be true that both act upon there decision to believe or disbelieve.  But even if that is not included, I am not sure you are correct here.
  
  Let's think about this, who's required to do what?  Can not a person who believes in God do anything beyond believing?  Let me rephrase that question, is a person who believes in God REQUIRED to do any more than believe?  I know plenty of people who "believe" in God who don't belong to any church, or obey any sort of rules.  They just believe that God exists.  There are people who believe that God exists and that all of humanity will be saved because God is love.  These people don't believe in hell, and they certainly don't act upon any rule system because ALL will be in paradise anyway.  No, the fact is no one is required to do anything.   Rather, religious people choose to act out their faith in God because that seems to be the next logical step in there having the belief that God exists.  But is this not the same thing for atheists.  Sure they are not required to act.  An atheist could keep to his/her self and not do anything in support of atheism.  But I have yet to see that be the case.  The atheists I know are quite vocal about their atheism.  And they do act in various ways in support of atheism.  Hell, you are acting by being a presence in this particular blog.  It does, after all, seem to be the next logical step in your believing there to be no-God.  If that were true, then it would seem to be the most moral thing to let other people know so that less and less people will be caught up in a delusion.  This is the very premise of "The God Delusion," is it not?  So required...no; "called" (in religious terms) or driven...yes.  And of course, being called means that there is a choice to answer or ignore the calling.  No requirement.  Just an opportunity waiting to be answered or ignored.
  
  One other thing, anything believed but not known requires a leap of faith...even if you perceive it to be a tiny leap over a sidewalk crack.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Oh, and on objectivity. Objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity.  Even if you got a billion people in a control group, you would still have a billion subjective people.  There is something to be said, as curm mentioned earlier, of the collective subjective.  Any group formed with an agenda, no matter how detached they are supposed to be, will still be seeking that agenda.  Even if the group doesn't know the agenda they will be serving its purpose.  Agendas are subjective, not objective.  This is not a bad thing, nor does it mean that we can't discover stuff or that we can't know things...but we can never be certain about what we know or dont' know.  Knowledge is elusive.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Anti-matter- I'm using your criteria:

  "You cannot find a "truly objective" individual because being objective almost always requires the consensus of many individuals. Being truly objective requires a diverse peer review process to filter out personal interpretations and prejudices."

  This is not objective. This is consensus.

  From the American Heritage Dictionary:

  Objective:

  1. Of or having to do with a material object.
  2. Having actual existence or reality.
  1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair 1.
  2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

   

  Humans, because they are born and raised within a particular time, place, cultural context, acquire specific languages and value systems, grow up with very specific individual and collective experiences, heck because they live by seeing and hearing within a very specific range of wavelengths, all of these things cloud the ability to regard anything with objectivity. A phenonomena observed is viewed through the lens of experience. That's not objective in any sense of the word.

  We've strayed far from the existence of God. Suffice it to say theists choose to believe in God, atheists choose to believe that God does not exist. If you cannot admit that the atheist choice is based on incomplete data, you are being every bit as dogmatic and unreasonable as the most fundamentalist of believers.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 12, 2008....

  But the Atheist answer uses the available information while the theist view ignores the existing evidence.  You can't disprove God, ever.  It's simply not possible but that's not a reason to believe it.  The Matrix could be a true story too but if flies in the face of al existing evidence.  We work with what we have.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Wrong, Sean.  The theist does not ignore the existing evidence.  Rather, he interprets it differently.  Consider the example of Dawkins's understanding of Genes with the example of Noble's understanding of Genes.  They are both based on the same evidence.  Neither one of the two is ignoring the evidence, just interpreting it differently.  Both interpretations are equally valid, even if only one of them, or none of them, are interpreted as truth by any specific individual or collective group.
  
  Dude, the Matrix could be true.  And if you followed the storyline correctly, the computers would be programming that evidence into our brains.  Of course there being a matrix flies in the face of all existing evidence...the computers built the matrix, and all of the evidence available to be found in it, so that we won't know that we are being grown in pods to be used as batteries.  Any evidence you find, if the matrix is true, is evidence you've been programmed to find.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Cool.  Sense we are in agreement that believing in the Matrix is a valid viewpoint I'm gonna go start my search for The One.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 12, 2008....

  LOL!  Go for it man!  Let me know how the search goes!

• curmudgeon said on Jul 12, 2008....

  Matrix, Flying Spaghetti Monster, around and around we go.
   
  I see - coming to believe something based upon lack of evidence is valid so long as you're an atheist. I choose the Matrix.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 12, 2008....

  No, actually its NEVER valid and that really is the point. 
   
  The major way that traditional theists disprove FSM is well our religion was around longer or has more members niether of which really count for shit.  Besides we could easily find older religions, and if sheer numbers are an issue well we would need a few hundred years of believe or die Crusades, Inquisition, the full might of the Roman Empire (after the fall of the Western half) missionaries sent to all corners of the globe.  But really the numbers game that Christians and Islam are able to play aren't provably a matter of them being more believable than other nations, it was a matter of literally killing off the alternatives.  Voodoo stands out as a best case situation of refusing to go with the flow, and they are pretty much demonicized but they exist as a wierd mishmash of olden African relgiions and Christianlity which to be fair is more than most religions managed.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 12, 2008....

  No one brought up numbers here.  But while we are on numbers Sean, are you telling me that atheists don't play the same game.  E.g., "Well, the majority of scientists out there, who actually follow the evidence, are atheists."  That statement, and others like it, is assuming that scientists are the people to pay attention to when determining the actuality of God (and/or one's belief in that actuality) and that because there are a majority that interpret evidence in a particular way, we all should be aboard the atheist train.  I mean, can you not see that both sides (theists and atheists) play the same game?  Now, that doesn't condone that type of argument.  So I am not saying this to try and condone Christians doing it.  Anyone who points to numbers to prove the validity or truth of something is fallacious...but don't pretend it's just the "Christians" who are doing it, while the poor, abused atheists don't.
  
  As far as killing off the alternatives go, do you mean in a similar way that the atheistic Chinese are currently doing to the Tibetan Buddhist monks and to the local Chinese Christians?

• Antimatter said on Jul 13, 2008....

  I really don't understand where you two are going with your insistence that no human knowledge is objective. Yes, all “objective” knowledge is built by individuals who each have personal prejudices and interpretations. But you're building a false dichotomy; it doesn't follow that all knowledge is absolutely objective or merely subjective. It's a spectrum; many conclusions are far less subjective than others. For instance, an theory peer reviewed by a diverse community consisting of numerous diverse cultural and religious backgrounds is far more objective and reliable than a theory of a single individual.

  Okay. If you don't like my “straw man” god who listens to prayers, then define god. I'll use your definition. I'm trying to use the definition that most people use, since the theologians can't seem to agree on one.

  “If you cannot admit that the atheist choice is based on incomplete data, you are being every bit as dogmatic and unreasonable as the most fundamentalist of believers.”

  Has anything I've said so far led you to believe I might claim to have complete data?

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 13, 2008....

  No, I am not saying that knowledge hasn't any objectivity.  What I am saying is that we don't really know how objective our knowledge really is because of our subjectivity?  Can we still know truth.  Absolutely.  But how objective is that truth?  That is the question that you keep refusing to acknowledge.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 13, 2008....

  One other thing.  How much doe we really know?   We throw knowledge around as if it is something easily attained by a simple formula, but it's not.  Check out my blog entitled "Bitchin' Hitchens" for a complete discussion of this.

• Antimatter said on Jul 14, 2008....

  How objective is truth? I really have no idea what you're talking about.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Do I really have to spell it out, or do you not want to admit that even scientists need faith to believe in their theories.  I will spell it out for you:
  
  You said that I was building a false dichotomy and then you placed words in my mouth by saying that "it doesn't follow that all knowledge is absolutely objective or merely subjective."  But where did I say that all knowledge is ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE or merely subjective?  I didn't say that.  Nor was I implying it.  All I am saying is that for every bit of objectivity you think we have it is mixed with subjectivity.  Don't you get it? (O + S ≠ O)  No matter how objective we think we're being, no matter what methods or tools we use to attain objectivity (e.g. peer reviews and the like), we have know way of knowing, for sure, that we have attained objective answers.  First, answers are never really answers, are they?  Rather, answers are discovered data that have been interpreted.  But what did they get interpreted by?  Our subjective minds!  There's no way around this.  You say that I build a false dichotomy giving two dead end options for you two choose from.  But that's not the case.  All I am saying, is that if you want to throw evidence and knowledge around like a rag doll at play time, you have an issue to deal with: How do you get around our subjectivity and be confident you have done so?
  
  Now, I am sure you'll say something about the way around, but I am more interested in the confidence end of it.  You see, atheists call themselves skeptics, but they never follow their skepticism all the way through.  A true skeptic would be skeptical about science and other things as well.  Rather, the term skeptic has been reduced to define one who is skeptical about the existence of God.  Atheists, are skeptical about God but check in their skepticism at the door to pick up faith where science takes off. What's up with that?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Short answer.  If you were really a skeptic you wouldn't believe in rocks, or the sky, or puppies because well your subjective.  you want to believe in puppies so you overlook the evidence that they don't exist.  Of course he's not saying that, because he's not saying anything.
   
  MH, seriously run for office.  You could become president running on the platform that WW2 didn't actually happen.

• Antimatter said on Jul 14, 2008....

  What do you mean I'm putting words in your mouth? That's absolutely what you're saying. When you said, "we have know way of knowing, for sure, that we have attained objective answers," you're building a false dichotomy between "Objective Truth™" and "everything we know." My point was that knowledge isn't that simple. We have no way of knowing anything "For Sure™," including anything a theist has to say about the divine. But some knowledge is plainly more reliable and objective than other knowledge, and we have successful processes for acquiring that kind of knowledge.

  For instance, scientific theories. You asked why skeptics don't extend their skepticism to science. We do. But here's the difference: scientific theories can be tested. Countless scientific theories fail these tests and fall by the wayside. The few that do withstand scrutiny rise to the top. That's why faith is not required of scientists. That's also why science can satisfy a skeptical mind; we most certainly are not "checking our skepticism at the door."

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Sean:  you're showing your skill in logical fallacies.  Appeal to ridicule is a great way to divert attention away from the fact that you can't really respond against someone's argument.  As far as your "really skeptical" example, you are right.  If you follow skepticism to it's true end, you couldn't function as a human being.  That is why EVERY functioning human being, lives on faith no matter where that faith is placed.
  
  Antimatter:  you are wrong.  You are building the false dichotomy, not me.  I am not saying that it's all or none.  I am saying that it's a mix of both.  You are the one talking about hard objective data, not me. I am saying that once "hard objective data" mixes with human subjectivity, it is something other than "hard objective data."  Does that mean it is merely subjective?  No.
  
  Here is a fact that neither fundamentalist theists or fundamentalist atheists want to admit.  Intellectually, we are all agnostic.  We simply don't know.  The fact that we don't know causes us to have to believe.  Let's take Darwinism.  It seems to fit, nothing has really trumped it in way of explaining the natural order of things, so we go with it.  But where does evolution, or natural selection, even begin to hint at the non-existence of God?  That is conjecture.  That is an interpretation of evolution coming from people who subjectively don't want God to exist.  They may say there is not enough, or no, evidence in support of God...but let's face it, there is not enough, or no, evidence in support of no-God.  So, then people turn to probability, because (as Dawkins' himself admits) that is best possible argument against God.  However, as Alister McGrath states, the issue is not with the probability of God, but the actuality of God.
  
  So where are we now?  Back to square one.  The fact is, that regardless of your beliefs on the matter, you most certainly do need faith to hold them.  But I don't think you'll ever admit that.  I am beginning to see the arguments, on both sides, going nowhere.  I think Curm's recent post In a Nutshell: Theist v. Atheist sums it all up.
  
  The whole reason I posted this particular blog was because I couldn't believe that Dawkins' had nothing original or convincing to say on the subject.  I am still in disbelief about that.  Say what you will, Dawkins' just rehashes the same old, and tired arguments.
  

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Sean, one other thing.  Subjective minds do not equal ignorant minds.  Sure there is "hard objective data" out there.  And sure we do have knowledge...though that is a tricky thing in proving.  It would be silly not to believe that we know stuff.  But in the scheme of all of the things that are out there for us to "know," we really only have fragments of knowledge.  So, we try to build up our knowledge by seeking out "hard objective data."  I get it.  And sure, we do build upon what we know.  (I am not denying that...I have only been trying to present the tricky nature of knowledge.) But then, as subjective human beings, we muck up what we know with what we want to be true (and I am not saying that theists don't do this...all of humanity does this).  We jump from K to believing that e + n = nG as a result of K.  But that, of course, is nothing more than conjecture.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Like I said you should be a politician.
   
  Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existance of God, it doesn't even really have anything to do with Creationism if you want to be a complete jack ass about it.

• Antimatter said on Jul 14, 2008....

  "That is why EVERY functioning human being, lives on faith no matter where that faith is placed."

  The claim that everyone lives on faith is patently ridiculous. It's a shallow attempt to place theism and atheism on the same plane, usually part of an attempt to argue that atheism has no logical or empirical advantage over theism. In fact, non-theists do not live on faith but simply do not accept that which the theist accepts on faith. Those who can readily admit what they do not know do not require faith.
   

  "I am not saying that it's all or none. I am saying that it's a mix of both. You are the one talking about hard objective data, not me."

  Actually, I believe I was arguing that all claims are not equal, even though none are "For Sure" ... but whatever. Here's a pat on your back. Good job; you've soundly debunked me.
   

  "Let's take Darwinism. It seems to fit, nothing has really trumped it in way of explaining the natural order of things, so we go with it. But where does evolution, or natural selection, even begin to hint at the non-existence of God?"

  Well, that's an easy one: It doesn't. I should know; I was once a theistic evolutionist, one who believes god created humanity via the natural process of evolution. To imply that I think evolution debunks god would constitute a straw man, so be careful. Evolution certainly debunks the popular belief that god created humanity ex nihilo in the Garden of Eden, but I also know many theists would agree with me.
   

  "So, then people turn to probability, because (as Dawkins' himself admits) that is best possible argument against God. However, as Alister McGrath states, the issue is not with the probability of God, but the actuality of God."

  The problem with McGrath's statement is that we know we exist. It therefore makes sense to talk about our existence in spite of the odds that we might not've existed. We don't have a single iota of evidence on the subject of whether (the theologians') god exists, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about the "actuality of god."
   

  "The fact is, that regardless of your beliefs on the matter, you most certainly do need faith to hold them. But I don't think you'll ever admit that."

  I'll never admit it because it's not true. I don't need faith to reject a proposition that someone else accepts merely on faith.
   

  "The whole reason I posted this particular blog was because I couldn't believe that Dawkins' had nothing original or convincing to say on the subject. I am still in disbelief about that. Say what you will, Dawkins' just rehashes the same old, and tired arguments."

  Dawkin's Ultimate 747 gambit is indeed original, even though (if I may reuse your favorite condescending phrase) you'd never admit it. David Hume originally raised the question over the designer's designer, but Dawkins first expanded upon that argument by introducing Evolutionary theory as an alternative mechanism for explaining the development of complex intelligence.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 14, 2008....

  Sean: write me in on the ballot  ;-)
  
  Antimatter:
  
  Those who can readily admit what they do not know do not require faith.
  
  This simply doesn't follow.  I readily admit that I do not know God exists, but would you go so far as I do not require faith because of that admittance?  Of course not because there is another component that you are leaving out of the formula.  BELIEF.  I readily admit that I do not know that God exists, yet, I believe that God does.  Belief is where faith comes in.  No one that I know existed at the beginning of the universe.  Let's suppose that Darwinist Evolution is completely correct as it stands in our understanding now...that no other new data will come along and cause us to adjust it one way or the other.  It still takes belief to draw the conclusion from Darwinist Evolution that God does not exist.  Thus, anyone making and BELIEVING such claims has to operate on faith.
  
  Evolution certainly debunks the popular belief that god created humanity ex nihilo in the Garden of Eden, but I also know many theists would agree with me.
  
  I agree! The Garden of Eden, in my humble opinion, is only a metaphor written by people who didn't have the same understanding of the universe and its relationship with Earth as we do.   Notice, there is no value judgment being made there.  They understood things as all would when observations are being made with the naked eye.  But we have more advanced technology, and as a result, a better (not flawless) understanding of the universe and the earth.  To me, anyone believing in the 6,000 year old earth is just as idiotic as those calling the King James Bible (1611) the only authoritative translation because it is in Old English. 
  
  Besides, any careful theologian would note that there are 2 creation stories...the oldest one being the "Garden of Eden" story (Genesis 2:4b-24) and the youngest one being Genesis 1:1-2:4a.  The second story is believed to have been written during the Babylonian Exile.  In both there are two different presentations of God.  For instance, in the oldest story God is anthropomorphic and is walking and talking with the humans.  He is not omniscient (he gives Adam animals to be his partners before realizing that Adam would rather have someone from his own species, see Gen. 2:18-19).  His lack of omniscience can also be seen in Genesis 3:9.  But in the youngest story, God has most, if not all, of the characteristics of the God we commonly think of now.
  
  Some may look at these as contradictions...and they are if they are taken literally.  But when we understand that different people, in different times, under different circumstances wrote the two stories and we see the two stories as metaphors...not so much about God but about us and our place in the world...then the once evident contradictions begin to lose footing.  Now for those who claim the Bible as the eternal word of God, have a huge problem facing them in explaining such contradictions.  But for those of us who see the Bible as a people's attempt at understanding God and their relationship with him, the contradictions mean little to nothing.
  
  One last thing to prove my agreement with your statement quoted above.  Nothing in the those two creation stories supports the doctrine of ex nihilo.  When God created the heavens and the earth, he was hovering over the surface of the waters (chaos).  There was something there when he created the heavens and the earth, not nothingness.
  
  We don't have a single iota of evidence on the subject of whether (the theologians') god exists.
  
  I disagree.  As I have stated at some point, evidence is interpreted.  I look at the evidence that points us to believe in evolution and natural selection (both of which I do believe in) and I see God.  Others do not, which is completely fine.  But I don't think it is warranted to say that the evidence only points to no-God or that we haven't a single iota of evidence of the subject of whether God exists.  We know we exist; therefore, we ask why, when and how.  All three of those questions are valid questions that rise from our existing.
  
  I'll never admit it because it's not true. I don't need faith to reject a proposition that someone else accepts merely on faith.
  
  I disagree.  It is nonsense to say that theists accept God merely on faith.  Reason is certainly involved.  The biggest double fallacy of all, one that is constantly being thrown around by atheists, is that faith gives people an excuse not to think.  First, it is a Straw-man as it builds up theists into this group of people who prefer not to use reason when making the life-altering decision to believe.  Second it is an Appeal to Ridicule as it makes those "unreasonable" and "irrational" theists out to be ridiculous, thus knocking down the big straw man.  But nothing could be further from the truth.
  
  If I may reuse your favorite condescending phrase
  
  Why are you taking everything so personally.  It's not as if I am maliciously designing my responses in ways that will intentionally be condescending or offensive.  I am simply responding.  I am not meaning to be condescending or offensive...I am just debating the issues with you.  So I am sorry if I am coming off that way, but I am not intending to.
  

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 15, 2008....

  One other thing Antimatter...perhaps the Ultimate 747 is original.  I had heard it before reading Dawkins's book and so that is why it didn't seem original or new to me.  But it could be that in my discussions with others they were silently quoting him on that point.  As far as David Hume is concerned, it is true he was skeptical of religion, miracles and the like...but he too, was just as skeptical about science (in particular, he was extremely skeptical of our ability to determine cause and effect).
  

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 15, 2008....

  One other thing on cautious theologian's understanding of the Bible...
  
  People who try to debunk the Bible do so against those who accept the present Cannon as a whole.  Now this may sound like I don't accept the present Cannon.  That is not what I am saying.   What I am saying is fundamentalists tend to see the whole Cannon as always being there and as being the way God intended it to be (as if God is bothered by such trivial matters).
  
  Let's look at the two Creation stories.  When the oldest one was written, it was written with out and access or knowledge of the youngest one.  This chronologically makes sense.  The story was centered around oral tradition that had been passed down from generation to generation.  The youngest one, while the oral traditions were more than likely still known, was written independently of them.  The exiled Jewish priests recorded a new story, one that showed God as being all-powerful and in control of chaos.  This story gave hope to a people who were living in chaos without an identity.  And for what its worth, they were eventually freed from exile.
  
  These two stories didn't show up together in a single volume until the Septuagint was compiled for Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BCE).  The original Hebrew language writings were translated into Greek and placed in a single volume.  The Hebrew Tanakh got compiled in response against the Septuagint.  It's compilation was finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE.  I am a history buff so I make a point of knowing this stuff... ;^)
  
  The point of this is that most of the individual writings are older than the compilation and were not written with the intent of being compiled.  Some of the texts in the Bible reference other texts that are lost in history and are no longer available to us.  The way I and others like me look at the Bible is as an honest depiction of humanity.  In it you find tales of humanity at its worst and tales of humanity at its best.  And in between, you find ordinary people, like you and me, struggling to understand their place in life and their relationships with each other, with creation, as well as with their Creator.
  

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2008....

  Any definition of God we might offer would not encapsulate all that God is and isn't.

  Any definition of God we might offer would not prove or disprove God's existence.

  Any exploration of a particular aspect of human behavior or theology (human talk about God) neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. 

  If we accept that we are a product of evolution, then our human tendency to consider the divine in creation and in ourselves is also a product of evolution. In other words, our image of God, or belief in God, evolved with us. Faith survived the Age of Reason, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, Modernity, post-Modernity, World Wars, the Cold War, and is currently flourishing in the Information Age.

  Whatever we might think about the probability of the existence of God, I'd say the probability of belief in God surviving all of us is pretty high.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2008....

  That's just it Cur, it isn't flourishing in the West.  America aside faith is flourishing in the third world where stoning is an acceptable answer to looking at a man.
   
  That said all of your facts are true, we've said this a thousand times.  Nothing can ever disprove God, the best that you can do is prove that the Bible, Qu'ran, Torrah, Book of Mormon, Illiad etc are false.  That doesn't prove that there isn't a God of some sort, nothing can and nothing will

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2008....

  There's truth and falsity in everything humans have ever written and spoken. Scientists themselves admit that what they hold to be true (or highly probable) may one day be proven false. For me, though, there are a great many things in the Bible concerning human nature, ethics, and our place and relationship within the grand scheme of things that are true, that were always true and will always be true, at least untill we evolve into something different from how we are now. But let's not start this over again.

  Actually, Islam appears to be flourishing in France, Great Britain, Holland, Spain and some parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, thanks to immigration. Whatever we might say about that religion, non-faith and the State-sponsored Christian  faith are really what's on the decline in Western Europe.

• mulgere-hircum said on Jul 15, 2008....

  So Sean, how do we begin to "prove" the Bible false?  Before you answer that, answer this: do you mean the Bible as a whole, the Bible book by book, the Bible claim by claim, etc.?  What do you mean?  And I am only asking you to do this for one of the Books mentioned.  How exactly are you going to prove the Torah wrong.  I guess you could start by picking apart the stories of Moses and his various miraculous events and experiences.  But the aim of the Torah as a whole is to lay down the Law, starting with the ten commandments.  Are there anyone of those that you want to prove false?  How would you begin to prove a Law as being false anyway?  Laws are basically laws for those who are subject to them.  We can try to argue laws in terms of bad or worse, but not in terms of falsity.  Now you can expand to the Tanakh, which is the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament).  But again, how do you plan on falsifying it?  Are you planning on interpreting everything literally and at face value?  That would hardly be the most accurate and honest approach toward disproving something that very well could have been written intentionally as metaphorical.   So, you won't be able to debunk the whole Bible or Tanakh.  Some of the Bible, as I mentioned in my last post, refers to ancient texts that have been long lost and are not available to us.  One of those books is the "Annals of the Kings," which was a record of all of the kings and their deeds.  Who knows how detailed this log was and perhaps it would abolish any of the holes and/or discrepancies that we currently think we have.  But as I also said earlier:
  
  
  "To those of us who see the Bible as a people's attempt at understanding God and their relationship with him, the contradictions mean little to nothing...The way I, and others like me, look at the Bible is as an honest depiction of humanity.  In it you find tales of humanity at its worst and tales of humanity at its best.  And in between, you find ordinary people, like you and me, struggling to understand their place in life and their relationships with each other, with creation, as well as with their Creator."

• fearing said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Good post Mulgere-Hirum and nice to meet you.

• mulgere-hircum said on Sep 12, 2008....

  Thank you, Fearing.  Nice to meet you as well.

Comment on "Is Dawkins Joking...?"

Currently tagged	The God Delusion Richard Dawkins atheism LOL (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously