"The God Delusion" discussion thread

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

As it happens I don’t agree with the claim that science is the best method for finding out about the world. I think that humans have many channels for experiencing the world. Besides the scientific, there’s the personal, the moral, the ethical, the artistic, and the spiritual or transcendent. To say that one is better than the other is to misunderstand what these channels are and how they stand in relationship to each other.

[/quote]

I would argue that science is indeed the best method for finding out the truth about the world. The other ways that you describe may be important on a personal level, but they don’t say much about how the universe actually works.
I would like to point out that this in no way diminishes the value of these other ways, ethical and moralin particular, it’s just that they don’t really EXPLAIN much.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

To his credit, Dawkins never precisely says ‘science uber alles’, yet the entire book gives the impression that he leans in that direction. One point that really stood out for me was when he dismisses the argument that the existence of God is outside the realm of science. He asks why theology should be able to answer the question, and why science should not. The answers seems straightforward to me: it is a question within the area of expertise of theologians, but not of scientists.

There’s also a broader answer though, which is that God includes attributes in all realms of being, not just the scientific. Thus a scientific approach to the question of whether God exists can’t fully address the question. As a metaphor, consider a scientific approach to analyzing a symphony. Science might tell us the rate at which the violin strings vibrate, but it can’t tell us anything about the artistic merit of the sympony.
[/QUOTE]

The question of the existence of god is perhaps the area of expertise of theologians, as you say, but that doesn’t mean that they have really proven anything about the existence of god throughout the centuries.

As for your symphony metaphor, it is true that science might not be able to explain the artistic merit of the symphony, but it can say that the symphony EXISTS.
In his book Dawkins isn’t arguing the quality of the symphony (to continue the metaphor), he is arguing that since noone has ever played it, or even heard it, it probably doesn’t even exist.
(as always when debating in english i feel that I can’t express myself as clearly as I would have liked to. Hopefully I’m not being too confusing here.) :slight_smile:

22

[QUOTE=JThunder]
No, it isn’t. For one thing, I said no such thing. I did not say “that for those who do not see particular evidence,* no* evidence will ever be able to convince them.” I merely allowed for the possibility that some people would never be convinced no matter what the evidence, which is an entirely different claim.
[/QUOTE]
But that’s not an explanation, that’s an excuse for not presenting evidence after making the claim that it exists. “Of course I’ve got evidence, but I’m not going to show it to you because you’d only dismiss it.” Before you make the claim you’ve made above, it would help if you could give us an example of someone who has dismissed evidence, and what evidence was dismissed thusly. Was it evidence that would normally convince the average person, or was it evidence that would only be accepted by someone that was already religious?

23

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
But that’s not an explanation, that’s an excuse for not presenting evidence after making the claim that it exists. “Of course I’ve got evidence, but I’m not going to show it to you because you’d only dismiss it.” Before you make the claim you’ve made above, it would help if you could give us an example of someone who has dismissed evidence, and what evidence was dismissed thusly.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. You don’t have to show that such a person actually exists to point out the false dilemma.

A false dilemma exists when somebody insists “It’s either A or B!” when there may be other possibilities as well (C, D, E, whatever). You don’t have to actually demonstrate that C, D, or E exist in order to point out that there’s a false dilemma. You merely have to show that the other person has failed to take those possibilities into account.

Let’s put it another way. Suppose you find a knife at a murder scene. One might loudly declare, “Either this was the murder weapon, or it was planted here!” That would be another false dilemma, though. What if the weapon had been innocently dropped there? Or what if it had been there all along, possibly because the murder victim was using it? One does not have to demonstrate those scenarios to be true in order to see that they are possible, and that a false dilemma has been presented.

And that’s what happens whenever someone says “Either God doesn’t exist, or he has hidden all evidence of his existence from people who don’t believe in him.” This perspective fails to consider other options, such as the possibility that some people simply don’t care (don’t we all know such people?), or that they’ve seen the evidence but arrived at different conclusions. Or, to use the example that we’ve been arguing over, the possibility that some people would be unconvinced no matter what. One could say, “Prove it! Prove to me that such people exist, or shut up!” but that would be a poor application of logic. It would be demanding that somebody prove that these scenarios are true, whereas the false dilemma merely requires that they be possible.

Besides, don’t we all know people who are often unswayed by evidence? Or who simply don’t care one way or another? Anyone who understands human nature is familiar with such people. Why is it so difficult to believe that certain people would be unconvinced of God’s existence, no matter what? Heck, in this very thread, we’ve seen somebody accuse theists of believing despite a complete lack of evidence on their part (an inaccurate claim, IMO). Why should we now assume that every atheist would firmly root his or her beliefs on the solid foundations of logic and evidence? That’s simply not human nature.

24

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Theologians have always insisted that God is eternal. And that God is outside nature (having created it). Deny that, and you’re just changing the rules to make your own argument easier. If you’re proceding under the assumption that God isn’t eternal, then you mean something different than what I understand as God, so your argument is irrelevant to my God.
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t read the book, but I’d like to hear more about what you (or others) think about this.

I’ve always felt that if you remove a being (concept/deity/whatever) from nature and time, then there is nothing that a scientist can ever say about that being, as by nature it is beyond the realm of the natural.

If God is outside nature, then not only is God’s origin unexplainable, but his existence and interaction with the universe also must be unexplainable. So, if you accept that God is beyond science, how can you ever discover anything about him, or take anything you think you know about him at face value?

25

I listened to it on tape, does that count?

I liked it. While there were a few points I would have liked to hear more on, he gave good sound arguments for what he did talk about. I really liked how he reversed the ‘747’ argument, turning it around on creationists trying to use it.

26

[QUOTE=JThunder]
No, it isn’t. For one thing, I said no such thing. I did not say “that for those who do not see particular evidence,* no* evidence will ever be able to convince them.” I merely allowed for the possibility that some people would never be convinced no matter what the evidence, which is an entirely different claim.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, then I apologise. I thought you were discounting the idea that there were some people who could be convinced by evidence, just not the current evidence.

27

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]

More generally, a problem with looking for God with science is that God (as Christians, Jews, etc. understand God) is capable of hiding or revealing himself however and to whomever he chooses. Any scientific experiment aimed at proving/disproving/revealing God would have to have God’s cooperation.
[/QUOTE]

I just got the book and started reading it yesterday. I doubt that God would have any interest in hiding anything from anyone. It’s seek and you will find. I think the problem has been touched on here is that if God exists outside of time and space *as science measures it * science will not be able to measure or falsify something like that.
We’d have to admit that a supposition like that doesn’t count for anything like evidence for the believers side. It’s simply a theory or possibility.
Someone mentioned in another thread that although we might not be able to measure God or spirituality we might expect to be able to examine the effects of God on the physical realm. This seems reasonable to me but again I’m not sure how we might study it in a way that meets scientific standards.

I do think it is imperative to include scientific evidence in any serious search for truth. Whatever the truth is about God and man and their relationship, there will ultimately be no conflict between that and what science reveals about the universe. IMHO serious seekers of truth must look at scientific data and use it to help them sift the truth from tradition and superstition.

More after I read more

28

Before we consider the possibility that an all-powerful god exists outside space and time, I think we have to establish that there is an “outside of space and time” in the first place. Explaining one seeming impossibility by introducing another seeming impossibility is no explanation at all.

29

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
I’ve always felt that if you remove a being (concept/deity/whatever) from nature and time, then there is nothing that a scientist can ever say about that being, as by nature it is beyond the realm of the natural.
[/QUOTE]

But that is exactly the point. By putting God outside of everything else, he becomes immune to any form of reason that might disprove him. Science can’t touch him.

Does anyone have evidence that this line of reasoning that Thudlow Boink put forth pre-dates science’s challenges to God in any way? Has it always been accepted that God is immune to detection, or has that only arisen since we started trying to detect him?

30

[QUOTE=MrFantsyPants]
But that is exactly the point. By putting God outside of everything else, he becomes immune to any form of reason that might disprove him. Science can’t touch him.

Does anyone have evidence that this line of reasoning that Thudlow Boink put forth pre-dates science’s challenges to God in any way? Has it always been accepted that God is immune to detection, or has that only arisen since we started trying to detect him?
[/QUOTE]
If science manages to find a way to examine what exists “outside space and time”(whatever that means) and doesn’t find evidence of a god there, where else is there for him to hide?

31

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Before we consider the possibility that an all-powerful god exists outside space and time, I think we have to establish that there is an “outside of space and time” in the first place. Explaining one seeming impossibility by introducing another seeming impossibility is no explanation at all.
[/QUOTE]

I guess it depends on what you’re trying to explain.

I admit it’s pure conjecture. People who have some sort of transcendent experience they can’t explain are right to ask, “What was that all about?” correct? If they look at spirituality or religion for a possible explanation they find others who speak of similar experiences. How much of an explanation do they need to have when they find that path works for them?

32

Ok, reading it.

Chapter 2 - The God Hypothesis

Just as thing to start off, I think “The God Delusion” as a title is needlessly insulting. Dawkins does go on to give definitions of “delusion”, one of which seems reasonable, another of which seems pretty insulting. He makes a point early on that religion has a level of respect which it possibly doesn’t earn, and i’m not so certain i’m with him on that. Firstly he compares religion to politics and the like; the problem is that religious people are genuinely comitted to their particular beliefs. It’s not just a matter of “Oh, yeah, I think this is so. Next!”, it’s a matter of loving beings up there. In that way I like a comparison I saw a while back (I think it was Liberal who brought it up); I wouldn’t find it odd for a person to be offended if I treated their mother with disrespect. Merely because I do not personally love a god, doesn’t mean I can’t recognise that they do, and that there’s going to be a level of understandable reverence there.

The other problem is that saying there’s too much respect is a reason to treat religion like any other set of beliefs. But not worse. I wouldn’t expect a “The Democrat Delusion”, or “Why Republicans are all Wrong” book to be especially attractive to those groups. I can sympathise with Dawkins’ feeling that he can be rude about religion if he wants to be, but I think he’s crossed the line into needlessly disrespectful. Anyway.

He plays the “American Founding Fathers were secularists” card, but really I honestly don’t mind one way or the other. I don’t believe that what the founders of a country want is any more worthy of respect because it came from them; what they wanted should stand or sit on it’s own. And regardless, it’s long ago enough now that I don’t think we can say “Oh, were they here, they would have wanted this”. Theists, deists, athiests, for me it’s a matter of history and not current importance.

He has a go at agnosticism, and I get where he’s coming from on that but disagree. He suggests the existence of God will, eventually, be discovered, whether right or wrong. I don’t see any reason why. I can see science providing more reason and explanations and theories that mean God isn’t required; we might even get to a point some day where we’re effectively at that power level ourselves. But even then I don’t believe we can ever say yes or no to all gods for certain. I am essentially an agnostic for most gods and an atheist for some gods. To use his scale, i’m at 4 for most gods, and 6 for some.

The whole “I just disbelieve in on god more” is a poor argument but i’ve said why I think that before so I won’t go into it here.

The ability of science to study God; I think it can. No matter the extent to which God is of the immaterial, if he influences the material, he can be studied. If his influences are nonexistent, then we don’t need to worry about him at all. If they exist, but take the form of apparently unsupernatural events, then again, there is nothing we can do to examine him specifically and we don’t need to worry about him. If, on the other hand, it is claimed that he does in fact influence the material, and influence the material in ways which the material does not or could not, then that may be studied. In some cases it’s just a matter of providing alternatives - God has made the world and all in it, here are theories of abiogenesis and evolution and the like. Only really refuting if the claim is only God could have done those things, but that’s still useful information about him.

The idea that scientific thoughts on God will only work if God allows himself to be so examined is true. But even that is useful information; That God may not be apparent in scientific testing gives us not only information in that regard but also in theological terms. The Great Prayer Experiment leads us to conclusions; either perhaps there is no God, or he was not heeding (for whatever reason), or he heeded but helped all anyway. Again, we get information we can use theologically; if it is thought he exists and heeds to prayer, then we can say that it would seem he has priorities over and above listening to our prayers and/or proving his existence.

33

[QUOTE=MrFantsyPants]
But that is exactly the point. By putting God outside of everything else, he becomes immune to any form of reason that might disprove him. Science can’t touch him.

[/QUOTE]

Right, but I guess my question is that, let’s say I was a deist of some sort and argued that God was beyond nature/time/space/etc, and that there was no way for science, which is based purely in existence (of which we’ve defined God as not being a part of), then haven’t I argued myself into a wall? Not only can Science not touch him, but neither, really, can I. Any experience I have with God, or evidence I imagine I might have of him just reduces into, “it makes me feel good or right to believe this, though because of God’s unknowability, I really can’t know whether my belief is truly real,” since our experience with God would have to be filtered through detectable, real-world-based methods?

34

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Right, but I guess my question is that, let’s say I was a deist of some sort and argued that God was beyond nature/time/space/etc, and that there was no way for science, which is based purely in existence (of which we’ve defined God as not being a part of), then haven’t I argued myself into a wall? Not only can Science not touch him, but neither, really, can I. Any experience I have with God, or evidence I imagine I might have of him just reduces into, “it makes me feel good or right to believe this, though because of God’s unknowability, I really can’t know whether my belief is truly real,” since our experience with God would have to be filtered through detectable, real-world-based methods?
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re right. Several religions teach that God is unknowable to humans but we are still right to seek God because the process of seeking enlightens us. We do decide what works best for us. What feels good and seems meaningful. It’s about what we truly value. We have faith that those feelings are heading us in the right direction , and we use our experiences to refine our belief.

35

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
He plays the “American Founding Fathers were secularists” card, but really I honestly don’t mind one way or the other. I don’t believe that what the founders of a country want is any more worthy of respect because it came from them; what they wanted should stand or sit on it’s own. And regardless, it’s long ago enough now that I don’t think we can say “Oh, were they here, they would have wanted this”. Theists, deists, athiests, for me it’s a matter of history and not current importance.
[/QUOTE]
I’m guessing that’s in there because he was tired of hearing how the American founding fathers were devout Christians and this was founded as a Christian nation. If anyone wants to discuss the founding fathers’ actual beliefs, that’s a whole nother thread (and one that’s already been done); I agree it’s not particularly relevant here.

36

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I think you’re right. Several religions teach that God is unknowable to humans but we are still right to seek God because the process of seeking enlightens us. We do decide what works best for us. What feels good and seems meaningful. It’s about what we truly value. We have faith that those feelings are heading us in the right direction , and we use our experiences to refine our belief.
[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with just seeking out what is right and meaningful, and just leaving out the “god” middle-man?

37

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
I’m guessing that’s in there because he was tired of hearing how the American founding fathers were devout Christians and this was founded as a Christian nation. If anyone wants to discuss the founding fathers’ actual beliefs, that’s a whole nother thread (and one that’s already been done); I agree it’s not particularly relevant here.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I know it’s a common argument (used by both sides, with apparent equal certainty). I’m just saying it’s not really an argument i’m all that invested in.

38

[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Right, but I guess my question is that, let’s say I was a deist of some sort and argued that God was beyond nature/time/space/etc, and that there was no way for science, which is based purely in existence (of which we’ve defined God as not being a part of), then haven’t I argued myself into a wall? Not only can Science not touch him, but neither, really, can I. Any experience I have with God, or evidence I imagine I might have of him just reduces into, “it makes me feel good or right to believe this, though because of God’s unknowability, I really can’t know whether my belief is truly real,” since our experience with God would have to be filtered through detectable, real-world-based methods?
[/QUOTE]

I suppose that you could argue that God’s presence is felt in the thousands of random events that happen all the time. ‘I showed up just in time to save Bobby from drowning! God was surely guiding me that day’, ‘I showed up just after Bobby drowned! God works in mysterious ways, but he has a plan!’.

Theists can argue that God affects the world in ways undetectable to science without much hooping jumping.

39

[QUOTE=MrFantsyPants]
But that is exactly the point. By putting God outside of everything else, he becomes immune to any form of reason that might disprove him. Science can’t touch him.

Does anyone have evidence that this line of reasoning that Thudlow Boink put forth pre-dates science’s challenges to God in any way? Has it always been accepted that God is immune to detection, or has that only arisen since we started trying to detect him?
[/QUOTE]
I could turn the question around and ask if anyone has evidence that people ever thought of God as being detectable, or having an origin? I would have thought it implicit in the idea of God as the creator of the universe that God wasn’t part of the universe which he created. But I suppose it’s possible to think of God as creator, not of the universe itself, but just of things within the universe.

If you want pre-scientific evidence that people thought of God as eternal, I could point you to the opening of John’s gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” God was there from the very beginning; God didn’t have an origin. (And the idea of God being outside time goes back at least to Augustine, though it requires some nonintuitive thinking about what Time actually is.)

People have long thought (it’s all through the Bible) that God can and does reveal himself to human beings in various ways. Maybe the difference between that and God being detectable (at least through his actions) is that the initiative comes from God, not humans? It would be possible for God to be outside space and time and yet act upon the universe, in ways detectable or undetectable (perhaps by making minor tweaks at the molecular or quantum level?). Can science decide conclusively whether something is or is not an act of God, or decide whether God exists or not? Maybe not. I don’t think science can disprove (or prove) solipsism, either.

40

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
What is wrong with just seeking out what is right and meaningful, and just leaving out the “god” middle-man?
[/QUOTE]

Nuttin’ if that works for you. What you truly value is more important than religious or non religious labels