jay pettitt on 7/12/2007 at 10:15
Fine - empirical evidence for a god is conspicuous only by it's complete and utter absence in the natural universe despite the attentions of many billions of people over a thousand years or more. Attempts to show otherwise invariably end up looking dumb or just downright dishonest. If any other theory failed quite so spectacularly we'd take the hint and move on. We've given religion a good kicking, hray. Now what?
Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 10:32
Quote Posted by SD
Wrong. "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" is a theory for the origin of human life and the universe, and as such, it deserves to take as much of a scientific hammering as any other crackpot theory.
How can science assess this question? If a creator is outside the universe, we don't yet have good tools with which to assess it, unless it leaves a big HAY GUYS I DID THIS sign.
Of course you could say that, without such signs, or any way to know anything about a potential creator, we might as well ignore the concept and assume everything is the way it is due to natural laws. That's pretty much how I proceed myself. But agnosticism does seem the more intellectually honest option.
Thirith on 7/12/2007 at 10:36
Quote Posted by SD
Wrong. "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" is a theory for the origin of human life and the universe, and as such, it deserves to take as much of a scientific hammering as any other crackpot theory.
Thing is, God is a metaphysical concept, not a physical one. You can look at that as a cheap cop-out, which it may be, but arguing for the existence of metaphysical concepts in purely scientific terms simply doesn't work. Depending on your point of view, it's like trying to discuss colours with a man blind from birth or like arguing reason with someone who's completely bonkers. You're welcome to either point of view, but taking science as final proof for God's existence or inexistence simply is a denial of the issues that are being discussed.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2007 at 10:40
Quote Posted by chimpy
But agnosticism does seem the more intellectually honest option.
Only in so much as agnosticism about the tooth fairy is the intellectually honest option.
Thirith on 7/12/2007 at 10:54
So do you dismiss outright the possibility of anything metaphysical? (And please, no "I'm being scientific about this, so I acknowledge that I may be wrong (but I'm not, which is why I will go on being insulting towards those who believe in this possibility, however weakly or strongly)", because that insults both of us. It's as dishonest as Pascal's Wager.)
Chimpy Chompy on 7/12/2007 at 11:08
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Only in so much as agnosticism about the tooth fairy is the intellectually honest option.
Not if you're defining tooth fairy as something that's physically detectable and testable.
If, however, it's some kind of unknowable extra-dimensional tooth-stealing entity then, yeah, you might be right. Except that science has more in the way of useful answers to "why do we lose teeth" than "why is the universe here".
catbarf on 7/12/2007 at 11:50
Quote Posted by Thirith
I agree with you when it comes to proving God's existence. The bit in
The God Delusion where Dawkins shoots down the 'proof' for God's existence is really like shooting fish in a barrel.
This is sort of the impasse. Faith cannot be disproved. Nor can it be proven. The issue comes when I see websites like (
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm) this. Sure, you can't disprove someone's faith (which is the whole basis of religion). But when someone tries to turn that faith into fact, you have a problem.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2007 at 12:03
Quote Posted by "Thirith"
So do you dismiss outright the possibility of anything metaphysical?
If I'm being honest, then yes; absolutely
I see no reason at all whatsoever not to be of the mind that God isn't a preposterous (less so an age or three ago when theism may have represented an honest and significant attempt at understanding the nature of things) man made fiction the same as any other and that gaps in our knowledge and understanding of things are nothing more or less than gaps in our knowledge and understanding of things. Neither do I see how a concept of God is in any way substantively useful in the 21st Century as a mental exercise in trying to fill those gaps. Certainly not substantial enough to justify influencing public policy and institution.
God is the tooth-fairy for grown-ups and like the tooth fairy it requires persistent and universal retreat from honesty for the perpetual suspension of the myth. Long may religion retreat into obscurity - reality is much more intriguing.
Quote:
(And please, no "I'm being scientific about this, so I acknowledge that I may be wrong (but I'm not, which is why I will go on being insulting towards those who believe in this possibility, however weakly or strongly)"
Don't ask me questions and then suppose to put words into my mouth. I've already been (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1675965#post1675965) quite clear where I stand on this.
Thirith on 7/12/2007 at 13:03
Quote Posted by catbarf
This is sort of the impasse. Faith cannot be disproved. Nor can it be proven. The issue comes when I see websites like (
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm) this. Sure, you can't disprove someone's faith (which is the whole basis of religion). But when someone tries to turn that faith into fact, you have a problem.
Quite possibly I find people who present "proof" for God's existence just as ridiculous and/or irksome as you. Personally, I see doubt, if used constructively, as one of the most important elements of faith. If your faith can't stand up to doubt, then it's not worth the paper it isn't printed on. Give me someone who examines his faith and comes to the honest decision that he cannot believe in God over someone who has never put a single minute of thought into his faith anytime.
@jay pettitt: Thanks for your answer, and I apologise for doing what you felt was putting words in your mouth. I do think that in Dawkins' case, his answer to this issue is disingenuous. He gives lip-service to science ("I can't *know*") but then proceeds to ridicule the whole range of people who may disagree with him on the metaphysical. And as I've said before, I don't think that's good science or a good argument, but cheap rhetorics.
I've heard people referring to themselves as atheists and pretty much quoting much of Dawkins' arsenal verbatim, but who still think that there may be a metaphysical element to existence (or they even believe in something metaphysical that they simply define in very, very vague ways). I find those 'atheists' intellectually lazy or dishonest, but they are often the ones who just repeat what someone has preached, and in that they are as much sheep as a lot of religious people.
jay pettitt on 7/12/2007 at 14:06
I find catbarf irksome and ridiculous too. Oh wait :o
I've yet to read a Dawkins book, but it's on my to do list - as far as I can tell, overall his popular presentation of atheism is pretty damn good and to be welcomed, all things considered.
