The God Delusion

[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.

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?

[crowTrobot 2]

You agreed with the statement that nothing can be considered true unless it can be scientifically proven.

you asked about dawkins, not me, but i agree that has proven to be the most practical/useful approach to truth for humanity.

However, such an assertion is not scientifically proveable

yes it absolutely is for practical purposes.

[Flack_attack 0]

yes it absolutely is for practical purposes.

So it is not self-defeating then? How is it scientifically proveable?

[DerekTah 0]

Worded differently, to find reason behind so called intelligent people buying into something so stupid. As far as Genesis literal creationists, meh. To each his own- it's not going to hurt anyone to literally believe in Genesis, or to misinterpet it to mean that say, 7 days is actually 7 days, etc. Who does that hurt exactly?

John Scopes?Seriouly, it seems to hurt those who want to teach evolution and are told that it doesn't keep with the biblical standards.

[crowTrobot 2]

So it is not self-defeating then? How is it scientifically proveable?

it's self-proving, not self-defeating. science is concerned with what is repeatably and verifyably true for practical purposes from a shared perspective. it is not concerned with proving any type of physically detached philosophical absolute truth in the sense you seem to be talking about. by definition that's pretty much irrelevant.

[copernicus 0]

main point re: hypocrisy so far is that the main thrust of his criticism of religion seems to rest on the fact that religious people suffer from group think (contrasted with atheists who, at this point, he has vaguely characterized as "independent thinkers" with literally no evidence supporting that claim) of course there is evidence supporting that claim. The vast majority of children who are born into a religion stick within that religion. It takes independent thinking and courage to break out of that. In contrast there is very little organization in atheism to instill "group think". and tend to be intolerant of people who think differently from themselves. this, it seems to me, is PRECISELY what dawkins himself is doing. in what way is he intolerant? but like i said, i've only read a chapter, so maybe he'll get less stupid later. we'll see. if that is your reaction to the first chapter dont bother reading on, you dont get it...and I suspect you are either not agnostic or extremely conflicted about the effects of your lack of belief.also, i scanned the index and he conveniently managed to allude to early philosophical defenses and articulations of god (anselm, spinoza, et al), but doesn't talk about the more nuanced and--in my book at least--persuasive accounts of religion you might find in later kantian essays and kierkegaard's writings as a whole. if he wants to talk philosophy, he'd better do it right. it's also convenient that he never mentions nietzsche, who arguably (marx, maybe, if you swing that way) composed the most vehement criticism of religion in philosophical history, yet also wrote a book in which 1/3 of the pages are spent calling people like dawkins a nihilist right alongside the conventionally religious. he is not a philosopher and the book doesnt pretend to be philosophical. He is a scientist and employs scientific principles.the biggest thing that's bugged me thus far, though, is that he makes this wonderfully convenient qualifier in the beginning: that he's not going to be dealing with religions that don't fit his little box-like definition of "supernatural" AS HE HAS DEFINED IT. faux fucking pas, dude. if i need to explain why, i will, but that's a move that will get you seriously ***-reamed in most academic disciplines, scientific, philosophical, or otherwise. defining your thesis does not in anyway negate the scientific process, it is an integral part of it. The purpose of his "definition" is to make it clear that he is discussing religion and God in the context of a "personal god", not "awe of nature" as was Einstein's belief set, or natural philosophies of the Far East that find God and transcendence in the individual, not in a bearded gray dude. the distinction needs to be made because the latter two examples are loosely talked about as being "religious beliefs" when the arent when explained more fullyand one final note: THERE ARE RELIGIONS THAT TALK EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THE MERITS OF SCIENCE. did he ever read the koran? buddhist texts? contemporary reform jewish texts? oh, right, he just doesn't know wtf he's talking about. where does he say there arent?like i said, give me a week or two to read the book in its entirety, but if it lives up to the shoddy work of the intro, you'll see a lot more of the above here.

you may want to refine your critical reading skills before you bother.

[checkymcfold 0]

you may want to refine your critical reading skills before you bother.

LOL.intuit a general theme from my criticisms: the scientific method doesn't apply to religion. go from there.also, for the record, OF COURSE his book is philosophical. saying otherwise is downright silly.one more for the record: i'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic (though i lean toward the latter), i have a degree in physics, a degree in philosophy, and an almost-graduate degree in religious studies. i know what i'm talking about, so don't tell me i don't. thanks.

[copernicus 0]

intuit a general theme from my criticisms: the scientific method doesn't apply to religion. go from there.

It doesnt apply only because you know it can't stand up to the test. If there were the slightest indication that there were some scientific basis for the existence of god you would jump on the "see, god can be scientifically proven" bandwagon quicker than Id hit Jennifer Connelly. And for all of your education, you dont read very well, and make a lot of assumptions from scanning an index. After youve actually read the book come back and you may have something worthwhile to say other than "I know what Im talking about".

[Loismustdie 0]

It doesnt apply only because you know it can't stand up to the test. If there were the slightest indication that there were some scientific basis for the existence of god you would jump on the "see, god can be scientifically proven" bandwagon quicker than Id hit Jennifer Connelly. And for all of your education, you dont read very well, and make a lot of assumptions from scanning an index. After youve actually read the book come back and you may have something worthwhile to say other than "I know what Im talking about".

Sure. Everything just magically appeared, with no intellect behind it, because THAT'S how things are created everyday. POOF- a car. Poof- A Tree. Kick ***!! That thing came out of nowhere!! And when I say POOF I of course mean 1,000's of years of a life force of sorts trying it's damndest to make the tree. Arguments against a creator are futile and idiotic. All around us, things have a mechanism which put them there. Just because you haven't identified the mechanism yet, doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you can't find it. To each his own, though.

[copernicus 0]

Sure. Everything just magically appeared, with no intellect behind it, because THAT'S how things are created everyday. POOF- a car. Poof- A Tree. Kick ***!! That thing came out of nowhere!! And when I say POOF I of course mean 1,000's of years of a life force of sorts trying it's damndest to make the tree. Arguments against a creator are futile and idiotic. All around us, things have a mechanism which put them there. Just because you haven't identified the mechanism yet, doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you can't find it. To each his own, though.

There is no argument FOR a creator here. The mechanism of what put us here hasnt been discovered yet just as you said...but overlaying a creator doesnt answer anything, because then you have to answer "what created the creator". And your response is "he was always there", which is no response at all.And yes, things are created every day with no intellect behind it. From elementary particles to new human beings.

[Loismustdie 0]

There is no argument FOR a creator here. The mechanism of what put us here hasnt been discovered yet just as you said...but overlaying a creator doesnt answer anything, because then you have to answer "what created the creator". And your response is "he was always there", which is no response at all.And yes, things are created every day with no intellect behind it. From elementary particles to new human beings.

That last sentence is a huge leap. What's to say that you just havne't found the intellect yet? The biggest one would be human beings- which you just said you haven't discovered what put us here, yet discount us being created, therefore intellect behind it. Why? Has it been ruled out? No, and you know it- it's more basic disdain, like we talked about in the other thread.

[BWToth 0]

For the same reason you reject copernicus' argument that there is no intellect behind the creation of things (it hasn't been proven that there isn't) shouldn't you reject you're own argument that there is intellect behind the creation of things (because it also hasn't been proven that there is)???

[brvheart 1,752]

For the same reason you reject copernicus' argument that there is no intellect behind the creation of things (it hasn't been proven that there isn't) shouldn't you reject you're own argument that there is intellect behind the creation of things (because it also hasn't been proven that there is)???

Maybe God has revealed himself to LMD and not you.I also find it interesting that Copernicus is simply an ass. I used to think he just hated Christians, but nope... he's just an ass. Way to not have a civilized conversation with Checky.

[BWToth 0]

Doesn't the Bibles say that God will not return to earth until the Judgment Day, if that's the case, then any revelation of god to a human today (assuming the apocolypse is not upon us) would only be through an ulterior means, ie. sick grandpa gets better, but no direct contact with god...so there for no proof, proof entailing certainty, not faith.

[crowTrobot 2]

Sure. Everything just magically appeared, with no intellect behind it, because THAT'S how things are created everyday. POOF- a car. Poof- A Tree. Kick ***!! That thing came out of nowhere!! And when I say POOF I of course mean 1,000's of years of a life force of sorts trying it's damndest to make the tree.

seriously if you really cared you'd at least make an attempt to research and understand natural selection on a superficial level. as it is you just continue to make a fool of yourself every time you post anything about evolution.

[crowTrobot 2]

intuit a general theme from my criticisms: the scientific method doesn't apply to religion.

it certainly applies to any physically-connected claims religion makes, non of which have ever been supported by evidence. also the human benefit/detriment of religion is ultimately a scientific topic.

also, for the record, OF COURSE his book is philosophical. saying otherwise is downright silly.

wrong - there is necessarily a mix at times, but his overall approach is much more scientific than philsophical.

one more for the record: i'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic (though i lean toward the latter), i have a degree in physics, a degree in philosophy, and an almost-graduate degree in religious studies. i know what i'm talking about, so don't tell me i don't. thanks.

maybe you know too much to academically dissect a book like this that's meant for the general public without seeing stuff that's not there.

[Flack_attack 0]

There is no argument FOR a creator here. The mechanism of what put us here hasnt been discovered yet just as you said...but overlaying a creator doesnt answer anything, because then you have to answer "what created the creator". And your response is "he was always there", which is no response at all.

Why isn't that a response? In fact, your right, it's not really a response. It's a definition, the definition of God. I understand your logic behind it but will someone please tell me how stuff appeared.

[brvheart 1,752]

because then you have to answer "what created the creator".

Doesn't evolution also have to answer this question? If the big bang created matter, what created the big bang?

[crowTrobot 2]

Doesn't evolution also have to answer this question? If the big bang created matter, what created the big bang?

science is actively trying to answer that - it is not ignoring or invalidating the question like religious philsophers typically do when asked "who made god?".by "matter" i assume you mean the matter of our visible universe and not necessarily "all that exists", since there is no evidence that our visible universe is all there is.

[crowTrobot 2]

I understand your logic behind it but will someone please tell me how stuff appeared.

maybe "stuff" was always here. whatever exists (including stuff external to our local spacetime) might always have existed.

[checkymcfold 0]

It doesnt apply only because you know it can't stand up to the test. If there were the slightest indication that there were some scientific basis for the existence of god you would jump on the "see, god can be scientifically proven" bandwagon quicker than Id hit Jennifer Connelly. And for all of your education, you dont read very well, and make a lot of assumptions from scanning an index. After youve actually read the book come back and you may have something worthwhile to say other than "I know what Im talking about".

what i'm saying is that the test doesn't apply in any proper sense. so no, i would actually be pretty skeptical of someone saying, "look! i found god and can prove his existence scientifically!" and consider such claims relatively harmful to what a lot of people hold to be the seat of religion.i'm still not sure as to how i "don't read very well." can you turn that into some sort of substantive argument to which i might actually respond?

[checkymcfold 0]

There is no argument FOR a creator here. The mechanism of what put us here hasnt been discovered yet just as you said...but overlaying a creator doesnt answer anything, because then you have to answer "what created the creator". And your response is "he was always there", which is no response at all.And yes, things are created every day with no intellect behind it. From elementary particles to new human beings.

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.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. 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'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.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.

[checkymcfold 0]

it certainly applies to any physically-connected claims religion makes, non of which have ever been supported by evidence. also the human benefit/detriment of religion is ultimately a scientific topic.

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

wrong - there is necessarily a mix at times, but his overall approach is much more scientific than philsophical.

then it's applying scientific logic to a situation which may have no ultimate connection to science, even by scientific logic's own standards. when i called his work philosophical, i was giving him a compliment, btw.

maybe you know too much to academically dissect a book like this that's meant for the general public without seeing stuff that's not there.

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.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

"So just be gentle with me(I'm not as young as I was)And I'll be gentle with youI'm not as brave as I thought'Cause my heart gets broken so easily.So just be gentle, be gentle with me."I'm gonna hop into this discussion pretty soon, but I just noticed that CheckyMcFold had been listening to some "Boy Least Likely To..." and decided to preface any of my discussion with an appropriate lyric.

[checkymcfold 0]

"So just be gentle with me(I'm not as young as I was)And I'll be gentle with youI'm not as brave as I thought'Cause my heart gets broken so easily.So just be gentle, be gentle with me."I'm gonna hop into this discussion pretty soon, but I just noticed that CheckyMcFold had been listening to some "Boy Least Likely To..." and decided to preface any of my discussion with an appropriate lyric.

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.