The God Delusion

[Shimmering Wang 1]

you are one apropos motherfucker. for the record, i don't like that cd very much, but it's so damn catchy i keep going back. like cigarettes.

Yeah, same with me. The first time I listened to it, I thought I'd accidentally downloaded some kind of teaching tool for first graders. Then I listened to it again. And again. etc. My roommates would get really mad, and I don't blame them, especially when I listened to it after listening to, say, Architecture in Helsinki. "What are you? Six years old?"Wang

[crowTrobot 2]

say more about this. i'm pretty sure i vehemently disagree, but before i respond i want to know why you're saying this.

which part? that modern science has left religious belief utterly without the physical supports it once claimed? or that the nature of determining benefit/detriment for humanity is more scientific than philosophical? (long-term i would think it can in principal be reduced to statistics, at least on a coarse scale allowing objective trends to be seen).

if books like this weren't dissected, criticized, whatever, they'd run the risk of working the same magic as that "bible" thing so many atheists despise. just sayin.

i think you've made some unfair generalizations, though. to me he seems to be using atheism (weak atheism or whatever you want to call it based on science) to combat cultural brainwashing that leads to religious extremism, and not so much religious belief that results from free thought. there is a lot of philosophy of atheism in the book to counter free-thinking theism, but the scientific attack seems to be more about exposing the religious-based cultural structures that don't allow or cultivate free thought. i don't really get the impression his aim is to attack religious belief in general itself using science as you are suggesting he's attempting to do (or was that something copernicus suggested? too lazy to read back).

[copernicus 0]

can you explain how this is a truth claim of a different sort than one which posits a creator? there is no evidence of a creator, there is evidence of things being created every day that require no intellect for them to have been created.this is what i don't understand about arguments for or against a creator: saying "A exists" and "A does not exist" only take on any force as statements when justified by an epistemological framework, which can be chosen from a pretty profound multitude of options. do you think science is the avenue toward the truth? ok, then you're probably going to make the latter statement because you chose the scientific method to be the official arbiter of truth. do you think personal experience which need not be repeatable ultimately defends what you believe? ok, then you're more likely to hold that a creator exists. Personal experience is experienced and interpreted by the brain, which has been shown to be unreliable in its interpretations under many circumstances. Something that is unrepeatable and unobservable may be convincing to the individual, but when that deluson is co-opted for the benefit of others (ie for the church to accumulate wealth) then it becomes far more insidiousmy point is that we aren't given any clues as to which epistemology is the "right one," so acting as if "science is obviously more reliable than religious faith for everyone" is just as naive as claiming that "obviously my god exists and i should make everyone believe in him just as i do." no, i'm not done with the book yet, but for now, both you and dawkins seem to make the first sort of claim, and i disagree with it on largely logical grounds. but science IS more reliable, by virtue of its repeatability. science is a system of logic, just like religion,there is no logic to support religious belief, so "just like" is an egregious misstatement but with a different value system as a foundation. that's fine, and it's not a knock on either science or religion to say that. the second one group makes the claim that their value system is objective, you find the seat of both intolerance (as opposed to pluralism, which i would instead advocate) and, yes i'm going to say it, fascism. i just don't see why it's so wrong to allow people to believe whatever the **** they want as long as it doesn't lead them to go off killing people. i agree, unfortunately that is often the resulti'm just as dissatisfied with televangelists as i am with dawkins in that regard--both adopt the rhetorical stance of some fatherly figure (coughjesuscough) that is going to show those few undecided people the light or the materialistic structure thereof, respectively. frankly, i find that sort of stance quite insulting.it's similar to the difference between spherical geometry and euclidean geometry in math. in euclidean geometry, the shortest difference between two points is a straight line. on a sphere, however, that's part of a great circle instead (and why planes don't fly directly from city to city). it's not that either claim is "wrong" on its own grounds, it's just that they're accomplishing something similar in games defined by different rules. you wouldn't imagine that a euclidean geometrician would go running up to a flight coordinator and start yelling at him for making planes fly on great circles, would you? it's equally silly for scientists and religious figures to butt heads over the status of a creator and assume that such discussion is productive. it might be interesting to watch, and they might learn something about each other in the process, but there's no reason for either one to expect some sort of conversion experience on the part of the other. the importance of the debate isnt to convert anyone, it is to demonstrate the risks to society of any line of inquiry being dead-ended by the introduction of a creator. As a scientist Im sure you are aware of the many roadblocks that scientists had to overcome, roadlocks placed in the name of god. so yeah, if dawkins really wanted to cultivate "free thinking," he wouldn't be forcing people to ascribe to the claim that the scientific method is the only way to truth, and that its value system is obviously the best one from which to work. I am quite sure that Dawkins would not object to any system that was not illogical and was observable, and also quite sure that he would not discount the possbility that there is some system other than science that might be found that had those attributes. After all, it was "free thinking" that led to logic and the scientific method. Meanwhile, Until there is some other system found, the scientific method is the best we have to work with, and nothing comes close. It is not Dawkins forcing that choice, it is the sum total of all human intellectual puruits that forces that choice.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

my point is that we aren't given any clues as to which epistemology is the "right one," so acting as if "science is obviously more reliable than religious faith for everyone" is just as naive as claiming that "obviously my god exists and i should make everyone believe in him just as i do." no, i'm not done with the book yet, but for now, both you and dawkins seem to make the first sort of claim, and i disagree with it on largely logical grounds.science is a system of logic, just like religion, but with a different value system as a foundation.

I'm going to disagree with this statement as well. Religion is not a system of logic. Rather, I would claim that it is the exact opposite of logic. It does not require proof or demonstration in order to have belief. The essence of logic is the concept of proof. The reason that science is more reliable is trivial. Science is more reliable because by definition science is that which is reliable. In other words, Science consists of that which can be demonstrated to be true in a repeatable way. Religion, on the other hand, in its purest form is the acceptance of statements without evidence. Attempts by religious people to provide evidence for their beliefs fall into the realm of science (be it good or bad science is questionable). I really don't understand your standing point that well. Science and logic aren't merely systems achieving belief among many competing systems. It a priori makes sense to require evidence to have a belief (else, by definition, there would be no reason to believe it). To believe in logic is to believe that truths should have proofs and beliefs should have some motivation for belief.Religion, on the other hand, has no "value system as a foundation" (as you say). It is arbitrarily chosen beliefs that are accepted on faith, without evidence or motivation. In the end, religion simply boils down to logic. People choose to believe in certain things based on certain pieces of evidence. In the case of Christianity, the evidence comes in the form of the Bible, Parents, Sunday School teachers, etc. People are exposed to these pieces of evidence and believe this evidence to be strong enough to form a basis of beliefs. There is no such thing as true faith. At some point, all beliefs must come from the external world in some way, and the means by which they come from the external world can be called "evidence." So, if someone tells you a story and you choose to fully believe it, in reality you're simply putting full faith in the person who told you said story and not in the story itself. If you want to say something along the lines of "I believe the story because it just makes sense to me" then all you are doing is comparing the story to facts about the real world that you believe and concluding that they are consistent. You're merely considering evidence and comparing the story to that evidence.So, there aren't competing ways of considering what is true and what isn't. Religion isn't a separate framework for considering truth. There's only one way that humans know of (and I would argue that there a priori can only be one way). Beliefs, truths, and facts can only come about through evidence and the consideration of evidence. The reason people have differing believes is because certain people have different standards for acceptance of evidence. Also, to finish, I totally disagree with your geometry argument. In this instance, science and logic would better be represented by math in general and religion by, oh, I don't know, randomly guessing theorems and asserting that they are true. We're not simply comparing two systems with different axioms, as you would suggest, but rather comparing one system with axioms (namely the rules of logic and the concept that the universe is governed by some sort of order) and a sytem with no axioms (which, as I would argue, really when closely examined falls under the first system).Really, the only two ways of examining the concept of truth are these:-The universe is ordered, is obeyed in some way by laws, and has structure. Therefore, understand beliefs and accepting truths is related to knowledge of this structure and these rules.-The universe is totally random. In this system, facts can't be ascertained since there would be now way to believe in them.Okay, I'm done with my rant. Merry Christmas all.

[copernicus 0]

Good post Yorke...I didnt respond to those points nearly as well. And checky, being fairly new to these discussions, Yorke is a theist (apologies if I am remembering wrong, Yorke).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And checky, being fairly new to these discussions, Yorke is a theist (apologies if I am remembering wrong, Yorke).

Actually, I'm not. Oh well.

[copernicus 0]

Actually, I'm not. Oh well.

My bad...I was trying to figure out how you could be so articulate as one, lol! (Though checky is a breath of fresh air)

[crowTrobot 2]

My bad...I was trying to figure out how you could be so articulate as one, lol! (Though checky is a breath of fresh air)

checky isn't a theist either

[copernicus 0]

checky isn't a theist either

Then he's not a breath of fresh air!

[checkymcfold 0]

ah, ok, i get it now, lol.here's what i don't think is logical unless defined as such relatively arbitrarily:that a statement becomes "more true" or "nearer to truth" or whatever based on the number of times it can be repeated. useful, as in creating medicines, building bridges, etc., maybe, but to say that such things have some sort of necessary connection to truth or reality is logically absurd. indeed, over the course of history, the "right" thing, whether true or morally right or whatever, has often been the most difficult and countercultural thing in the world to side with. for me, for nietzsche, and for kierkegaard (though the latter two undoubtedly hold more clout, since they both went bonkers ) the ultimate arbiter of truth isn't repeatablility but rather something like "the force with which a claim reaches us." for nietzsche, this was largely a political (this term i use loosely--i mean only to say that it comes about as an enacted and lived human phenomenon for him) thing achieved through rhetoric. for kierkegaard, it did have more to do with what he called "the religious" which was capable of making a person act against all formal and scientific (important adjectives) logic, something that he admits is otherwise very difficult to do.i'm not alluding to these philosophers to sound well-read, i really think that they had a superb way of looking at this type of situation, and i'd be glad to embellish upon the above statements if necessary. neither one precludes the possibility of repeatability influencing what one believes to be "true," but the important thing--at least in my view--is that neither assumes that one thing can ultimately determine how anyone deems anything "true" or "untrue" with any certainty. for nietzsche, that's merely the rhetorical matter of convincing others to some sort of agreement or concord, since "truth" itself has no meaning for him except as an entirely social phenomenon which depends on human agreement as acted out in some sort of vaguely political realm. for kierkegaard, it's a bit more complicated, since he understood human beings to be capable of acting under different logical frameworks at different moments. his book fear and trembling is a meditation on the story of genesis (22? i think that chapter, not sure off the top of my head) in which abraham is told with such force and clarity by god to kill his own son isaac that it throws him into an obvious fit of internal torture: "do i give up my god or my son?" after really going nuts over this for a while, abraham draws the knife on his son, and it is thus that kierkegaard deems him the father of faith. not the sort of faith that makes one a not-scientist generally, but rather the kind that allows one to think differently when his/her god speaks to him/her in specific situations, just as abraham's did to him in genesis [22].so what i mean, really, is that i find it uncomfortably and intolerantly limiting to think of human relation to truth as defined solely by observability and repeatability (and, as i said before, similarly with fundamentalism in the religious sense). while i wouldn't refer to myself as a relativist and open myself up to all the nihilistic connotations that go along with it thereby, i'm certainly not someone who thinks that any rigid understanding of truth is in any way healthy on either the individual or societal level. when i say that dawkins is being hypocritical, it's not that i'm saying he's being religious--it's that i'm saying that he's being too rigid in his understanding of truth and how we get to it, indeed in a way i find quite similar to the people that he deems scourges upon society. it's really not especially different than nietzsche's argument concerning the forms of the ascetic ideal (in on the genealogy of morality).and yorke, as for the geometry metaphor, meh. it probably wasn't the best way of explaining what i meant. i think i just did better above.happy holidays, ****ers.

[checkymcfold 0]

one more thing about logic:science works from a logical framework which verifies statements as consistent with a repeatable process. that's fine. the fact of the matter is that in order to do science you have to locate yourself within that realm of logic. that's also fine.faith, at least as kierkegaard used the term (others can and are welcome to do so differently), is defined by a different sort of logic in which statements are verified not through repeatability and experimentation, but rather through the source of the statement's content, be it god, the bible, a prophet, whatever. that's also fine. in order to "do faith" you can't be a scientist all the time since you have to locate yourself within a different sort of logical process.but that is NOT TO SAY that to be religious is to be illogical, or stupid, or anything like that, nor is it to say something similar about science or atheism. that's where you get into the realm of what i'd call intolerance, and that's why i'm an agnostic when it comes down to it.

[Loismustdie 0]

one more thing about logic:science works from a logical framework which verifies statements as consistent with a repeatable process. that's fine. the fact of the matter is that in order to do science you have to locate yourself within that realm of logic. that's also fine.faith, at least as kierkegaard used the term (others can and are welcome to do so differently), is defined by a different sort of logic in which statements are verified not through repeatability and experimentation, but rather through the source of the statement's content, be it god, the bible, a prophet, whatever. that's also fine. in order to "do faith" you can't be a scientist all the time since you have to locate yourself within a different sort of logical process.but that is NOT TO SAY that to be religious is to be illogical, or stupid, or anything like that, nor is it to say something similar about science or atheism. that's where you get into the realm of what i'd call intolerance, and that's why i'm an agnostic when it comes down to it.

Well put.

[crowTrobot 2]

but that is NOT TO SAY that to be religious is to be illogical, or stupid, or anything like that, nor is it to say something similar about science or atheism. that's where you get into the realm of what i'd call intolerance

as york pointed out, whether they claim to or not the vast majority of religious people do not in actuality hold their beliefs because they've found them through a philosophical search for truth. their beliefs and underlying systems on which they are founded are based on events in the physical realm, held as true only through traditional assumptions that go unchallenged for cultural reasons. dawkins main points in the book are that *it's ok* to challenge those empirical assumptions, and that they don't hold up on empirical grounds when you do.again, dawkins is most interested in attacking fundamentalists who's aim is to impose their beliefs on others (which includes rigidly indoctrinating children). i don't recall anywhere in the book where he's intollerant of a generalized philosophical approach to truth.

[checkymcfold 0]

as york pointed out, whether they claim to or not the vast majority of religious people do not in actuality hold their beliefs because they've found them through a philosophical search for truth. their beliefs and underlying systems on which they are founded are based on events in the physical realm, held as true only through traditional assumptions that go unchallenged for cultural reasons. dawkins main points in the book are that *it's ok* to challenge those empirical assumptions, and that they don't hold up on empirical grounds when you do.again, dawkins is most interested in attacking fundamentalists who's aim is to impose their beliefs on others (which includes rigidly indoctrinating children). i don't recall anywhere in the book where he's intollerant of a generalized philosophical approach to truth. depending on how rigid your definitions are you could say dawkins is agnostic, too. he's just practical about it.

to be honest, i think you're saying this stuff, not dawkins. but that's a good thing for you, lol.here's some of the stuff that dawkins is just flat out wrong about in chapter 2:"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." (58).this statement is repeated numerous times in different forms even through just the first 2 chapters (i've chosen the clearest formulation)--never with any "evidence" to support it as he likes to define the term--but as i hope i've shown, religious questions refer to a different sort of evidence that just doesn't meet the criteria required by science. that's fine, as i said before, but it doesn't seem to be for dawkins. this is a very important underlying assumption upon which his whole argument stands, and unless he gives me some sort of justification for it soon, i'm willing to dismiss his book entirely because the statement strikes me as entirely wrongheaded.dawkins also holds that agnostics either think that there's not enough evidence now to decide the god thing (TAP) or that the nature of the god question is such that the matter will never be decided (PAP) (46-48). quickly, i'm an agnostic that just doesn't think that metaphysical questions about religious matters are important ones relative to my life or my interaction with the world around me, at least not until i'm crushing the big game and the world hunger, aids, etc. problems are all taken care of. i don't fit on his little % scale of "how agnostic are you?" that he offers on pp 50-51, although i do appreciate his effort to tell me what i believe. thanks, ricky.third, i taught a college class on science and religion in which there were a lot more models of the interaction between the spheres presented beyond gould's nonoverlapping magesteria idea. while i agree with dawkins that scientists often feel obligated to distance themselves from "questions that ought to be left to the chaplain," etc., i don't think that that's the only model of interaction that can be offered, nor is it the best one in my view. a lot of smart people have argued that science and religion are mortal enemies, not absolutely separated, for one, and there have also been a lot of smart people who have argued that science and religion both benefit when interacting in some sort of symbiotic relationship (the degree to which this is true depends on the author). personally, i think that the political clout held by religious figures can be used for some great scientific purposes (other than that silly prayer study, for example), but the fact that the two "sides" are often so antagonistic toward one another is counterproductive toward the aims of each individually. but that's a bit off topic, so i won't say much more about it for now. the point is just that he acts as though that's the only way science and religion act together, and that just ain't true today nor has it been over the course of history.also, his bit about the trinity in more orthodox sects of christianity is academic garbage, honestly. OF COURSE catholics, et al are aware of the logical problems presented by a triune god in their religion. why the hell do you think they talk about it so damn much? not because it's some frivolous endeavor for fun, but because catholics too are logical people, even in the scientific sense thereof, and they reason through logical problems just like any scientist. you think quantum mechanics didn't seem illogical to scientists when it was in its nascent stage? i remember some guy named einstein thinking it was garbage, i think, lol.and the arian controversy of consubstantiality (dawkins talks about this on p 33) is handled with such inferior academic rigor that i honestly laughed out loud upon reading it for the first time. as i said above, the problem of the essential nature of god and his forms was of profound importance for a catholicism that was, during the fourth century (shouldn't he use CE instead of AD, btw, if he's so against the idea of religion?), still trying to work out--indeed, REASON through--the substantial status of god. if dawkins had done his homework, he would have known that "essence" was hardly a vapid term during the period. philosophers, religious figures, and even people engaged in things more properly "scientific" were using that term with a high degree of frequency pretty much until we discovered the atom.finally, and most importantly, god is not a "celestial teapot" in the model of russell. i've never tried, but i'd imagine that it's a bit difficult to interact on a personal level with a teapot or to glean any moral guidance from any such interaction.dawkins still strikes me as the kind of guy that would offer some formula on "how to make the perfect painting" or "how to write the perfect poem." i really hope he has something to say about art later on or elsewhere, because i think his criticisms of religion thus far apply just as well to artistic endeavors. art is extremely political (or can be, at least), but doesn't have to defend its arguments in scientific terms or with scientific kinds of evidence. does this mean it's a bad thing too?

[crowTrobot 2]

here's some of the stuff that dawkins is just flat out wrong about in chapter 2:"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." (58).

in that context he's referring to *specific* fundamentalist beliefs that have connections to the physical world - uses virgin birth as an example. that is pretty straightforward i think - religious belief based on events in the physical world is obviously subject to science, at least in principal. that goes back to what i said in the previous post. dawkins doesn't seem (to me anyway) to be concerned with invalidating a generalized philosophical search for truth like you seem to think he is - it's more about fundamentalist specifics. you seem to be reading too much into what he says.

dawkins also holds that agnostics either think that there's not enough evidence now to decide the god thing (TAP) or that the nature of the god question is such that the matter will never be decided (PAP) (46-48). quickly, i'm an agnostic that just doesn't think that metaphysical questions about religious matters are important ones relative to my life or my interaction with the world around me,

i doubt someone who just doesn't care whether god exists or not is strictly an agnostic lol. in any case this is a matter of irrelevant terminology.

also, his bit about the trinity in more orthodox sects of christianity is academic garbage, honestly. OF COURSE catholics, et al are aware of the logical problems presented by a triune god in their religion. why the hell do you think they talk about it so damn much? not because it's some frivolous endeavor for fun, but because catholics too are logical people, even in the scientific sense thereof, and they reason through logical problems just like any scientist. you think quantum mechanics didn't seem illogical to scientists when it was in its nascent stage? i remember some guy named einstein thinking it was garbage, i think, lol.and the arian controversy of consubstantiality (dawkins talks about this on p 33) is handled with such inferior academic rigor that i honestly laughed out loud upon reading it for the first time. as i said above, the problem of the essential nature of god and his forms was of profound importance for a catholicism that was, during the fourth century (shouldn't he use CE instead of AD, btw, if he's so against the idea of religion?), still trying to work out--indeed, REASON through--the substantial status of god. if dawkins had done his homework, he would have known that "essence" was hardly a vapid term during the period. philosophers, religious figures, and even people engaged in things more properly "scientific" were using that term with a high degree of frequency pretty much until we discovered the atom.

those are valid criticisms i guess, although minor

finally, and most importantly, god is not a "celestial teapot" in the model of russell. i've never tried, but i'd imagine that it's a bit difficult to interact on a personal level with a teapot or to glean any moral guidance from any such interaction

difficult with a teapot maybe, but the FSM can really give meaning to people's lives : )

awkins still strikes me as the kind of guy that would offer some formula on "how to make the perfect painting" or "how to write the perfect poem." i really hope he has something to say about art later on or elsewhere, because i think his criticisms of religion thus far apply just as well to artistic endeavors. art is extremely political (or can be, at least), but doesn't have to defend its arguments in scientific terms or with scientific kinds of evidence. does this mean it's a bad thing too?

again i think you are generalizing where dawkins is after fundamentalist specifics.

[copernicus 0]

quickly, i'm an agnostic that just doesn't think that metaphysical questions about religious matters are important ones relative to my life or my interaction with the world around me, at least not until i'm crushing the big game and the world hunger, aids, etc. problems are all taken care of. i don't fit on his little % scale of "how agnostic are you?" that he offers on pp 50-51, although i do appreciate his effort to tell me what i believe. thanks, ricky.

You are being either being self-deluding or hypocritical here. You have clearly thought about the question of god's existence, whether or not it is relevant to you. Once you have thought about the issue you have come to some position on its likelihood, and that is somewhere in the bottom half of Dawkin's scale because you declare yourself an agnostic. His scale is a continuum, the points presented are merely "stops" within the scale. If you are unable to coalesce your thoughts into a "probability", it is because you have some "Pascalian" unwillingness to commit yourself, since the other possibility..that your mind doesnt grasp the concept of probabilities ....is obviously untrue.

[Flack_attack 0]

prove what? empiricism/science is just an approach - an attempt at finding *practical* truth by using repeatable/verifyable tests. it does not claim to provide absolute truth in any philosophical sense.

Ah, yes, but according to Dawkins this "philosophical truth" does not exist, by default, because it is not based on science. So I again I beg the question, Crow, if truth can only be achieved by science, how can we scientifically prove this truth?

[jmkiser 0]

Flack attack, if you want to do the classic debate of "does 2+2 really =4 or is it just an illusion that humans have created", then we'll do it another time.We are having this discussion under the agreed assumption that what we know as humans is what we know. On another topic, we are throwing the word science around a lot in what seems like very different meanings. Some people are speaking of it in the manner of what researchers do and some are speaking of it as science = "human knowledge and discovery from the beginning till now".

[SilentSnow 1]

1.I guess my question would be: Using natural selection; what is the purpose of religion in terms of advancing the human race (it's not for more good works according to Dawkins)? If there is no purpose, then does it make more sense that an outside influence (e.g. God) is behind the fact that many people are religious?2.Nothing can be considered true, unless it is scientifically proven, will be scientifically proven, or has the potential to be scientifically proven by empirical scientific evidence.3.my point was that morality isn't understood to be something as simple as "god gave it to us" for religious believers or atheists. for each of us, there is a profound notion of struggle and difficulty tied into moral decision-making. and there are a lot of christian sects that understand the seat of morality to lie wholly within humanity4.there is no such (helpful grouping as a) thing as "christianity" or "islam." those are general terms that apply to a WIDE variety of beliefs, and there are a lot of self-identifying christians and muslims that simply don't believe what he says they do.5.can you explain how this is a truth claim of a different sort than one which posits a creator?this is what i don't understand about arguments for or against a creator: saying "A exists" and "A does not exist" only take on any force as statements when justified by an epistemological framework, which can be chosen from a pretty profound multitude of options. do you think science is the avenue toward the truth? ok, then you're probably going to make the latter statement because you chose the scientific method to be the official arbiter of truth. do you think personal experience which need not be repeatable ultimately defends what you believe? ok, then you're more likely to hold that a creator exists. science is a system of logic, just like religion, but with a different value system as a foundation. i just don't see why it's so wrong to allow people to believe whatever the **** they want as long as it doesn't lead them to go off killing people. so yeah, if dawkins really wanted to cultivate "free thinking," he wouldn't be forcing people to ascribe to the claim that the scientific method is the only way to truth, and that its value system is obviously the best one from which to work. 6.here's what i don't think is logical unless defined as such relatively arbitrarily:that a statement becomes "more true" or "nearer to truth" or whatever based on the number of times it can be repeated. useful, as in creating medicines, building bridges, etc., maybe, but to say that such things have some sort of necessary connection to truth or reality is logically absurd. indeed, over the course of history, the "right" thing, whether true or morally right or whatever, has often been the most difficult and countercultural thing in the world to side with.for me, for nietzsche, and for kierkegaard (though the latter two undoubtedly hold more clout, since they both went bonkers smile.gif ) the ultimate arbiter of truth isn't repeatablility but rather something like "the force with which a claim reaches us." for nietzsche, this was largely a political (this term i use loosely--i mean only to say that it comes about as an enacted and lived human phenomenon for him) thing achieved through rhetoric. for kierkegaard, it did have more to do with what he called "the religious" which was capable of making a person act against all formal and scientific (important adjectives) logic, something that he admits is otherwise very difficult to do.i'm not alluding to these philosophers to sound well-read, i really think that they had a superb way of looking at this type of situation, and i'd be glad to embellish upon the above statements if necessary. neither one precludes the possibility of repeatability influencing what one believes to be "true," but the important thing--at least in my view--is that neither assumes that one thing can ultimately determine how anyone deems anything "true" or "untrue" with any certainty. 7.so what i mean, really, is that i find it uncomfortably and intolerantly limiting to think of human relation to truth as defined solely by observability and repeatability (and, as i said before, similarly with fundamentalism in the religious sense). while i wouldn't refer to myself as a relativist and open myself up to all the nihilistic connotations that go along with it thereby, i'm certainly not someone who thinks that any rigid understanding of truth is in any way healthy on either the individual or societal level.8.faith, at least as kierkegaard used the term (others can and are welcome to do so differently), is defined by a different sort of logic in which statements are verified not through repeatability and experimentation, but rather through the source of the statement's content, be it god, the bible, a prophet, whatever. that's also fine. in order to "do faith" you can't be a scientist all the time since you have to locate yourself within a different sort of logical process.but that is NOT TO SAY that to be religious is to be illogical, or stupid, or anything like that, nor is it to say something similar about science or atheism. that's where you get into the realm of what i'd call intolerance, and that's why i'm an agnostic when it comes down to it.9.religious questions refer to a different sort of evidence that just doesn't meet the criteria required by science.10.here's some of the stuff that dawkins is just flat out wrong about in chapter 2:"the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question..." 11.third, i taught a college class on science and religion in which there were a lot more models of the interaction between the spheres presented beyond gould's nonoverlapping magesteria idea. finally, and most importantly, god is not a "celestial teapot" in the model of russell. i've never tried, but i'd imagine that it's a bit difficult to interact on a personal level with a teapot or to glean any moral guidance from any such interaction.dawkins still strikes me as the kind of guy that would offer some formula on "how to make the perfect painting" or "how to write the perfect poem." i really hope he has something to say about art later on or elsewhere, because i think his criticisms of religion thus far apply just as well to artistic endeavors. 12.You agreed with the statement that nothing can be considered true unless it can be scientifically proven. However, such an assertion is not scientifically proveable, ergo it cannot be considered true and is thus self-defeating, no?but according to Dawkins this "philosophical truth" does not exist, by default, because it is notbased on science. So I again I beg the question, Crow, if truth can only be achieved by science, how can we scientifically prove this truth?

1.There are a lot of reasons. Some of the most important might be group unity, external motivation to follow moral principles, and encouragement to positive action as a counter against the discouraging truths of life. Im sure there are whole books on this if you want to find out more.2.This might be the most important religious question, since to answer yes would be utterly devastating to religion as most people know it. I am going to make a separate post on this sometime soon.3.I think this shows a pretty misguided view of religion. I would say most religious fundamentalists believe it is that simple, and that there are very few christians that would accept your statement about morality. 4.Of course there are. But there is such a thing as a Christian or Muslim. You are being too nitpicky, rather than talking about the main points he is making.5.Read Longliveyorke's Dec 24 post a few times. Lately, mainstream religion has had nothing to do with a coherent system of logic, scientific or otherwise. From what I can see, there is less support from intellectuals for mainstream religions than at any point in history. They have been abandoned to opportunists, charlatans, and those who dont ask the difficult questions required to find the truth. Dawkins is explaining why they are wrong, not forcing them to believe. As much as you will object, there is only one logic, and only one way to make testable and repeatable observations. Most religions simply do not do this to nearly the degree required to take them seriously. If you disagree with this, please tell me what the religious method for finding truth is. 6.That is a horrible definition of truth. Countless people have been extremely convinced of various propositions that are demonstrably wrong. So do you believe in any religious beliefs or are you just a nihilist? You certainly seem to be making a better case for the latter. However, I would be interested in what you think Kierkegaard has to say about religion. 7.So how else can we relate to truth? You should be comforted then that most people in this world are nowhere close to a "rigid" understanding of truth. Of course, many do tend to have a rigid understanding of lies and half-truths that they pretend are truths. 8.So you are saying that faith is the logical fallacy of believing in randomly chosen authority figures that arent even true authority figures? Hardly a ringing endorsement. I suppose you might want to clarify this, but from such a terribly weak base you might just want to abandon this line of argumentation. Religion doesnt have to be illogical or stupid, but much of it in fact is.9.What evidence? From what I have seen most religious evidence I have seen falls into the "no evidence at all" category. I am not talking about the mainstream moral claims, but the less justifiable moral and metaphysical claims.10.I dont know if he is flat out wrong, but even if he is mostly wrong, I hardly think this is an important enough point to justify ignoring all of his other arguments. Also, I would like to hear why religious leaders are more qualified to answer this question than scientists. I would tend to think that no human can have a rational basis for answering this.11.I simply dont agree with gould's nonoverlapping magesteria idea. There is no legitimate sphere that you can label "religion", unless you want to refer to personal mystical experience. I think morality is determined through logic and a modified scientific method. God may not be a teapot, but I want to know why not. What religion has ever given us a reliable way to know the attributes of God?I'll probably bring up the art issue again in my scientific method post.12.Science can never "prove" anything, just tell us what is most likely. There is no such thing as absolute proofs regarding empirical events. There is no such thing as "philosophical" or absolute truth either. Philosophy is speculation about subjects that are not yet amenable to scientific inquiry. If anyone wants me to clarify something let me know.

[Big_Slick_86 0]

I thought these might be of interest...Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfUPart 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M...ted&search=DocumentaryPart 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3p51MBKMLkPart 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_aw1O6nymsPart 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussdzdnj_dEPart 4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZU111Q5ASsPart 5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgX4lSy-Mg

[Big_Slick_86 0]

Here's Stephen Layfield's sensible, well argued lecture...http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.htmlHyperlink doesn't work for some reason.Copy the address to the address bar to view.

[BWToth 0]

12.Science can never "prove" anything, just tell us what is most likely. There is no such thing as absolute proofs regarding empirical events. There is no such thing as "philosophical" or absolute truth either. Philosophy is speculation about subjects that are not yet amenable to scientific inquiry. If anyone wants me to clarify something let me know.

Aren't you making a philosphical truth my claiming 'there are no philosophical truths'? I think sooo-ooh. Just because we don't know IF there are aboslute truths, doesn't mean we can accept the idea that there ARE NOT any.

[SilentSnow 1]

Aren't you making a philosphical truth my claiming 'there are no philosophical truths'? I think sooo-ooh. Just because we don't know IF there are aboslute truths, doesn't mean we can accept the idea that there ARE NOT any.

I clarify this in my Atheism thread comments.Technically, there are 3 philosophical truths that I can think of, including the statement that "except for a handful of exceptions, there are no nondefinitional absolute truths."I said there were no philosophical or absolute truths in this thread because for practical purposes there arent any. Actually, we can accept the idea that there are not any if there is no conceivable way to ever absolutely prove any nondefinitional truth. The "we're stuck in a computer simulation" idea alone disproves just about anything we ever might be tempted to say is absolute. You even disprove the idea in your own statement. Even if an absolute truth existed, how would we know it? If we didnt absolutely recognize it then our uncertainty would make it not absolute. Except for those 3 and a couple I might have missed, we can therefore be absolutely sure that there are no absolute truths.

[BWToth 0]

I clarify this in my Atheism thread comments.Technically, there are 3 philosophical truths that I can think of, including the statement that "except for a handful of exceptions, there are no nondefinitional absolute truths."I said there were no philosophical or absolute truths in this thread because for practical purposes there arent any. Actually, we can accept the idea that there are not any if there is no conceivable way to ever absolutely prove any nondefinitional truth. The "we're stuck in a computer simulation" idea alone disproves just about anything we ever might be tempted to say is absolute. You even disprove the idea in your own statement. Even if an absolute truth existed, how would we know it? If we didnt absolutely recognize it then our uncertainty would make it not absolute. Except for those 3 and a couple I might have missed, we can therefore be absolutely sure that there are no absolute truths.

Just because we can't know something with certaintly in no way entails that it DOESN'T exist with certainty. All you're saying is if we can't know something for certain, then...we can't know something for certain.I'm not following you.

[SilentSnow 1]

Just because we can't know something with certaintly in no way entails that it DOESN'T exist with certainty. All you're saying is if we can't know something for certain, then...we can't know something for certain.I'm not following you.

Im not saying that absolute truths cant exist, just that we cant know them. In order to know a truth absolutely, absolute truth must not only exist, but you must also have an absolutely reliable way to find it. Since we dont have an absolute way to decide truth and never will then we are forced to accept that we cannot know absolute truths. I suppose it is a slight mistatement to say that absolute truths dont exist, but practically I think the two statements* amount to the same thing.*we cannot know absolute truths, absolute truths dont exist.