In the StarTalk Radio podcast of July 25th, Neil DeGrasse Tyson interviews Richard Dawkins and discusses the interview with Reverend James Martin (a Jesuit priest). I was not persuaded to change my own beliefs but I really enjoyed the conversation and learned some things about the Catholic religion - or at least Reverend Martin’s religion.
I doubt the discussion will reverse anyone’s beliefs but, if you listened to the podcast, did it change your opinion of either side?
Spoiler alert…
Reverend Martin doesn’t seem to think too highly of people who do not believe in evolution.
It would depend on what subject the learned religionist is attempting to change my mind about, I guess. When it comes to the subject of the existence of a “Supreme Being” I would like to see some actual evidence, not a philosophical work-around/by-pass.
I made up my mind in my 20s and I’ll be dammed if I let facts change it now. In fact when I listen to a contrary view I’m not even really listening, I am probing for logical flaws so I can attack the message and justify my pre existing worldview. So far I’m happy with the results.
Having just listened to the podcast that was not impressive. A lot of hand waving, God of the gaps arguments and God works in mysterious ways arguments to make up for the lack of evidence and consistency.
I’m 99% sure religious people are starting with a faulty conclusion and then using deductive reasoning to support the conclusion. The problem is If the conclusion is false then you end up supporting arguments which aren’t falsifiable, or which require a lot of mystery in order to make sense.
‘God wants us to have faith’ is not a good argument for the lack of evidence of God.
I would need any solid verifiable evidence to start with to entertain the question in the first place. First things first.
edited to add: And you must state beforehand what deity the evidence is supposed to support.
I would certainly enjoy such a discussion, either as a participant or just to listen to both sides of the argument, especially if both sides were intelligent and knowledgeable. But change my mind? I doubt it, since to change my mind I’d need to see real, tangible hard evidence, which certainly doesn’t exist.
Yeah, I’ve seen a few of NDT’s shows on Science (I assume they are from his pod cast but televised instead of going out on the radio) and they have been pretty good. I haven’t seen this specific one, but it sounds like it might be interesting.
I dont think its provable. Our knowledge and our senses are too limited to get to the bottom of this issue. Science and a creator arent incompatible. Its when religion tries to explain what a creator thinks that trouble brews. This is why I think the agnostic position should be the default before belief enters the equation.
Not knowing a better word I think that your post is too humanocentric. Why would a creator care more about us than any of the other plants and creatures on the planet or in the universe?
Why does this particular goal-post moving always happen in these conversations? Did I say anything whatsoever about “proving” anything? I am asking for the merest sliver of actual solid verifiable evidence to give a reason to look at the possibility that whatever deity you may be pushing exists.
Got any?
Kind of dodges the response and context though. The question is what proof would one accept, and running coach gave some, which boils down to something that is so completely outside of physiology and biology that a miracle would be the only reasonable explanation. Having cancer go into remission is something that can happen spontaneously and doesn’t need a divine creator to enact. Spontaneous and rapid regrowth of a limb or limbs, however, is not within the normal scope of human biology, so would certainly be strong evidence that something unusual was going on and COULD mean there was such a being (though there could be other explanations such as magical fairies or advanced aliens or sooper sekrit gubbermint nano-tech).
Does not necessitate a divine god to postulation on it’s creation. It doesn’t obviate it either, so it’s sort of neutral evidence that proves nothing in and of itself.
If you are claiming that your deity created the universe, it would be nice if you could present evidence that the universe was divinely created in the first place…and bonus points if you can show that it was your particular deity that did it.
Im not arguing for a creator, merely that one is possible. Czarcasm is the flip side of a creationist, relying on faith in his opinion rather than fact. It is an unknowable question.
Since no one actually knows how the universe was created maybe that would be a starting point. There are theories, but new theories are always emerging.