Your explanation sounds like fan-wanking to me. Getting meat then dipping it in a well and claiming it’s fish really is not taking the proscription seriously. I mean, would you consider someone to be really a vegetarian if they gave their bacon a a shower before eating it?
The ‘no meat on Saturdays, Sundays, Wednesdays, and holy days’ rule was put in place in the middle ages in Western Europe mainly to support the fishing industries, and wasn’t a big deal for a long time when the bulk of the populace couldn’t afford meat as often as that anyway. It was never in the Bible. And it’s now not a rule in any of the mainstream Christian sects. It’s a very good example of people picking and choosing which rules to follow.
Not really: if I were Hanson and read this thread, I’d be thinking, “Does nobody think my contributions to military history worth debating? Why does Dawkins get all the limelight, and not a real scholar like me.”
In discussions like this, I’m frequently amazed to hear of all the things Dawkins has said. Eapecially since I’ve actually read most all his books. I must have gotten some weird edition of The God Delusion.
I also find the idea of theological scholars interesting. I mean, I get the idea that it may take years of study to know who wrote what when, to understand the lineage of ideas and schools of thought. That’s not controversial. Diogenes, for instance was great to have around since he could so easily refute assertions about those sorts of things.
What seems really stupid to me is the idea that years of study might improve one’s insight into applied theology, or the mechanics underlying religion. There is no science to understand. There are no tests to evaluate hypotheses. There are no paradigm shifts as new evidence emerges. From that standpoint, Dawkins is as much of an expert on religion as anyone.
But that’s not my argument here. What I’m saying is that to assume that the existence or non-existence of God has to be resolvable as a scientific theory is “scientism”.
If we’re operating on the basis of a rational-materialist epistemology, we certainly can, and certainly should.
However, that doesn’t prove the validity of rational-materialist epistemology itself. Under a different sort of epistemology, one can assume the existence of unknown and unknowable things. Just because a lot of us find that sort of epistemology much less satisfying and constructive than rational materialism doesn’t mean that it cannot possibly be valid.
There’s absolutely no rational-materialist reason why we should. However, as you note, there is also no way to prove definitively that it doesn’t exist.
Exactly my point. But to assume that the only possible form that reality can take must be one that our minds can rationally interpret as meaningful is what I’m referring to as “scientism”.
Exactly, again, my point. There is no a priori way to know that reality actually IS something that we can meaningfully understand.
Now, I totally understand why many people (myself included) espouse and practice a rational-materialist epistemology for understanding the universe. I’m just noting that it’s a philosophical choice, and we are not being honest if we pretend that we have somehow proved that no other choice is possible.
It’s not hard to see the problems with religion, and I think that’s what Dawkins tries to illuminate.
The tough part is when people are shown the evidence but intentionally choose to disregard it so that they can hold onto their scripture/religion. That is the psychological phenomenon I think is far more interesting to rectify.
Well, come on, really. It’s like me starting a thread and saying, "I want to talk about two controversial topics: beliefs behind the anti-vaccination movement, and the proposed changes for defining Oppositional Defiant Disorder in the DSM-V.
…
Hey, wait, why isn’t anyone talking about the proposed changes for Oppositional Defiant Disorder?
That’s a point, but not much of one. I don’t know if you read Spencer books, by Robert B. Parker. However, frequently, Spencer will encounter two bits of evidence, and wonder if they’re having arisen was coincidental. From an investigatorial standpoint, his approach is that he could either assume that their association was mere coincidence, and do nothing about it, or assume that it was not, and use that as a point of investigation.
You can either mentally wave this away by saying we cannot know, or you can start by making an assumption that we can. You may disagree with the latter, but if you take the former position, then what?
Not only is it not a very interesting position, it would make for a very boring and short book. More to my concerns however is that such a position provides no complementary line of reasoning to offer any contrast to the assertion that not only can we know, but I do know, and I tell you that you cannot eat red meat on Wednesdays or green beans on Sundays.
Blessed are the cheesemakers? Well, it’s not meant to be taken literally…
I mean, why should I sit around and not say anything just because we cannot know one way or the other? The world is full of people making very important decisions and acting in harmful ways towards other people based on the premise that we can very well know such things. I should sit on my hands and not say anything while they do because they’re acting on a false a priori assumption? Because I don’t want to hurt their feelings?
To the best of my recollection Dawkins never discusses the deistic type of god so beloved by wishy washy religionists - the kind of god who never does anything. He considers the god that most people actually believe in, who has interacted with the world - and those claims can be evaluated scientifically.
Sure you can’t scientifically disprove god in general, but you can’t really disprove anything in science - only show it is unlikely to be true. Remember his bus slogan was about it being pretty certain that there is no god.
Do you accept at least that we can say with good certainty that the God defined as one who created the world 6,000 odd years ago does not exist - or is this in doubt for you also?
We are natural humans in a natural world, and we’re bound by certain epistemological limitations as a result of that. There’s a reason why many atheists are also agnostic: The question of God’s existence may be unknowable. Atheists/scientists don’t rule God out, but they don’t rule him in unless there’s a good reason to.
It’s not like scientists are arbitrarily “choosing” naturalism/materialism as “one approach that’s equally valid as any another,” so therefore you can dismiss them as preachers of “scientism.” That’s totally wrong. The problem is that when you start talking about the “supernatural,” you’re talking about something for which, by extension of its definition, we don’t have direct access to or proof for. Therefore anything you say about it is just arbitrary speculation, and it distorts the meaning of what is true or false or what it means for something to exist or not exist. It’s not meaningful.
No scientist is saying that God has to be resolvable as a scientific theory. They say “Sure, show me the evidence if you’ve got any.” Until then, we have no reason to believe in something that is without evidence.
All you’re saying is that “we should” without giving a good reason why.
Saying that you can assume the existence of unknown and unknowable things, again, makes the very concept of truth meaningless. This is basically the tired, old ontological argument.
Again, I’ll repeat: There may very well be things that exist outside our natural world. They may be just as real in their own right as this table is before me. But if there’s absolutely no way we can know about it, we can’t say anything about it. It could exist, but it also could not. If we can’t know about it, what meaning does it have to us? Again, what’s the difference between an invisible dragon and no dragon at all?
So? There are an **infinite **number of things that could exist that currently have zero evidence. Why bother with any of them until evidence rolls in?
And you’d be describing an “ism” that few-to-no atheists/scientists would be guilty of.
Um… Yes, yes it is. It’s circular logic. It’s fallacious reasoning. It’s theological handwaving of the most egregious sort.
God cannot be a Trinity, because a Trinity is not a “logical necessity”; only a single deity is. See how easily I’ve just smashed standard Christian theology? Pure handwaving.
Well, sure. I was just making a joke. Although since Hanson was a minor but significant cheerleader for the Iraq fiasco I’d think he’d get a little more hate. Also I’m still peeved that his bombastic intro got substituted for Fussel’s learned compassionate intro to Sledge’s book, With the Old Breed.
The main point here against Dawkins is that necessary and contingent existence are well recognized categories used in both atheist and religious philosophy. Dawkins, in questioning who created God seems to be completely ignorant of the possibility of God being logically necessary. It is of course fine to argue that God cannot be logically necessary, but Dawkins gives no impression that he has even considered this position. Since it is the dominant position amongst theologians, then I think the charge of theological ignorance against Dawkins still stands.
Logical necessity means that God has an explanation for his existence in his own nature, not that he merely exists without explanation. If God just existed contingently then that would be without explanation. If God’s nature is such that it is impossible for it to not exist, then that explains why it is there.
With your application of Occam’s razor if you assume that the universe just exists without explanation, then why not assume anything can just exist without explanation? Arguing that the universe is fundamentally inexplicable is IMHO just giving up on doing serious metaphysics. If things can just come into existence without explanation then that would effectively kill all of science. Science rests on the assumption that there is ultimately explanations as to why events happen that can be discovered empirically. If you are willing to grant that some things simply have no explanation then trying to find explanations of them through science seems pointless.
I think here you mis-state the real issue. The fundamental issue is not so much why does existence exist, but why does this existence exist rather than any other possible existence or no existence at all. Why something exists rather than nothing is a fairly fundamental question for a worldview to answer, and if atheism cannot provide any real insight into this question then I think that atheism is a rather poor worldview.
I think you give the game away in describing the “t=0” point. Past eternal universes have no t=0 point, as there is no starting point for such a universe. Even if something physical existed before the Big Bang, how did that transform into the current universe that we have. If that thing existed outside of time, the only way I can see that thing bring the universe (and with it time) into existence is if that thing before the universe is a mind that willed the universe into existence.
But anyway on a deeper level you should look into the work in cosmology of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin. They have a shown that if the universe is on average expanding in the past then it cannot be past eternal. This covers most of the serious cosmological models, as well as multiverse theories. It may be possible to get around these limitations with some other cosmological model, but that is looking increasingly unlikely. The statement that there haven’t been recent advances in cosmology that show the universe cannot be past eternal is in this case simply wrong.
Just to be clear, I think that explanations, in order to be valid, do not require a valid explanation of the explanation. Explanations stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether they themselves can also be explained.
The issue that I have with Dawkins is that this is not the approach that he takes to God. He seems to think that God himself needs an explanation before it is a valid explanation for anything. I think that Dawkins (because he is philosophically inept) hasn’t really stopped to think what would happen if that was adopted as a general principle for what constitutes an explanation. If pressed I think he would probably say that explanations do not require their own explanation. He only does so here because he doubts the existence of God. This is characteristic IMHO of the sloppy and at times outright fallacious reasoning that is found in the God Delusion.
You do realize don’t you that Trinitarians hold that God is a single deity, but a single deity that has three centers of personal identity? Therefore a trinitarian God can be logically necessary under your definitions.
Secondly that says nothing about Judaism, Islam or other religions that hold that God is a single deity with one center of personal identity. So even if your criticism is valid (which I don’t think it is), Dawkins should still have considered the possibility from the point of view of other faiths.
Well put. Another way to put it is “not ‘wrong’, exactly, but more a waste of time.”
I guess you could say this about lots of things we do – especially in Cafe Society, the Game Room, and (almost by definition) MPSIMS – but at least most of us are ready to acknowledge that those are simply harmless diversions, to feed our human desires for fun, stimulation, and to chill out for a bit. But few theists would admit that their beliefs belong in that category.
You’re the one who resorted to gibberish. You are missing the core idea that there is no evidence for the existence of a God. No amount of bullshit, fake profundities can overcome that very basic fact.
It’s no surprise that many theists think God is needed to explain things/requires no explanation/has always existed by itself/whatever. It’s not like Dawkins (or most people) are ignorant of this. It’s brought up all the time. So I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
Still, there’s no proof that God is logically necessary. Soooo… what’s your point? That it’s possible? Well, it’s also possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything and was logically necessary. Are you starting to see why it’s not meaningful to simply “posit that X is logically necessary”?
Yikes, you mischaracterize science at every step here. Stop the stupidity, please.
Science doesn’t technically assume that the universe just exists without explanation. Science doesn’t say anything about it yet.
Ever heard of quantum mechanics? Particles pop in and out of existence all the time in accordance to probability distributions. Last I checked, science wasn’t killed for this.
Science doesn’t rest on the assumption that there will “ultimately be explanations as to why events happen that can be discovered empircally.” We try to uncover what we can, and withhold commenting on things for which there is no evidence. We don’t assume that something necessarily has an answer we can uncover. Furthermore, scientists tend to really dislike “why” questions. To understand what I mean by that, look at this video from Feynman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
Even if I grant that some things have no explanation (i.e. logical necessity of existence without a creator), the justification for that is much stronger than the justification is for God’s “logical necessity.” More realistically, again, science doesn’t comment on that one way or another. In the words of NDT as to “why there is something rather than nothing”: “Words that make questions may not be questions at all.” Dawkins has also echoed similar sentiments in the past.
Just because you don’t like epistemological limitations doesn’t mean you can handwave them away and still be right. If science doesn’t offer any immediate insight into a particular question about our natural world/existence/etc, it doesn’t really matter if you think it’s a “poor world view.” You won’t be able to do better and still be able to claim the same truth value.
Besides, this is what the anthropic principle tries to address. It may be that we are simply one of many viable universes. Clearly, we can only exist in the types of universes that allow for our functionality.
You miss the point. I refer to the “t=0” point of our universe, for which we don’t know much about at all, let alone anything before it. Your point that modern cosmology has “ruled out past eternals” is patently false.
You’re still full of shit. People have posited all sorts of different interpretations of the data, but the problem is that we just do not know yet for certain. Dance around it all you want.
Yes, if you’re going to posit the existence of something, you need to be able to explain it. It’s not sloppy or fallacious. It upholds the value of truth and keeps garbage out.
Well, no: only the simplest “creator” could be necessary under these definitions. (Which, by the way, are far from mine! I don’t accept the principle of “logically necessary” in the first place.)
It’s like booting a computer: you only need a very, very primitive kernel. No more than that is “logically necessary.” So, every time you add a complicating factor, such as three identities, you’re violating the “logical necessity” concept.
I wasn’t really addressing Dawkins; I was only taking issue with your claim that God must exist by “logical necessity,” and that this was not “theological handwaving.” It very clearly is handwaving of the most blatant sort. It’s a circular argument, saying that God exists because God has to exist. Even if one grants this (which I do not!) it tells you nothing about God. Lovecraft’s “idiot creator,” Azathoth, fits the bill, not only as well as Jehovah, but better.
You mean to tell me that all such questions of a spiritual and/or religious nature are unprovable by empirical means and are therefore a matter of faith?
Well, I’ll be damned. When did they find this out? Must be fairly recent, they seem to be rather excited about the news.