The God Delusion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
...and thus you are never going to be arguing in the same terms as the atheists. It's why these arguments end up so futile...no one can persuade anyone else of anything. I know which side of the argument I think is right though...

I am not trying to prove to you, however, proof of God's existence. In fact, I claim that no such scientific experiment has been proposed.

And yes, I consider the harder the better. Sociological studies of whether there is something there or not I look at with suspicion.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
In science, when one tries to establish whether something exists, one predicts what one would expect to observe if that something exists, or does not exist, and then makes observations, from which one estimates the likelihood of that something existing.

"Gods exist" isn't a scientifically addressable question, because the notion of "gods" is so amorphous that one cannot say what observable consequences it should have.

So your claim is that what would be observed is so different, that it could not even be probed by a similiar experiment? I don't know how anything could be said either way on that. There just is not enough (scientific) information.

Note that I can not think of, nor has anyone else been able to, a (Scientific) experiment to prove (or disprove) the existence of one god, or several. I really don't see where your statement added anything to the discussion. You disliked me responding to Whaleboy in his own language. Fine, I admit that if it was up to me to start this discussion, I would have said things differently. However, the point is still true (even if worded in Whaleboy's words).

One way to put the question is "Is there anything out there?". The possible answers to this are yes or no. What is out there, is details (this does not even address if different experiments would be needed to determine different things, or the like).

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Not scientific evidence.

JM

Not scientific, but an important historical/sociological background on the origin of religion...

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, and that is a whole different discussion, where both sides have evidence.

The one nice thing about science, is that what is evidence/etc has all these nice properties, and as such is something (that if one assumes and shares certain core philosophies) different people can agree on.

Going into nonscientific evidence, while it can be interesting (and this is where PHs, TLCs, Whaleboy's and others discussion actually come from) it in the end is entirely dependent on the individual person. Like do you accept the claim that this woman at church saw angels, if you did, you would say that was evidence of something being out there, if you didn't, well it wouldn't be evidence of such, would it?

JM

[Provost Harrison]

No, and should never be treated as such...again it comes down to probabilities - what is the probability of it being angels which have occurred as the result of a Judeo-Christian deity, or some form of hallucination?

[Jon Miller]

?

I think a persons answer to that is dependent on what biases they have.

JM

[Provost Harrison]

Well that is why you need proof - I am confident a neurological analysis during her 'vision' would reveal what I would expect to be revealed...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


So your claim is that what would be observed is so different, that it could not even be probed by a similiar experiment?

Yup. We can be pretty confident that Quetzalcoatl won't be returning from the East, but we can't possibly prove or disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Back to odds, as Kuci says, it simply doesn't make sense to assign probabilities in the absence of any information. If responding in Whaleboy's language requires being nonsensical, that's a pretty good hint that speaking cetopuerian isn't worth it.

[aneeshm]

When atheists write things like "They're in denial , so they will not see the light of atheism" , I am reminded of Mohammed's injunction about the unbelievers , "They have their hearts turned towards evil , and they will not believe" , and the fanatacism and evil that such injunctions unleashed upon the world .

A request to atheists : stop action so superior . Humans are humans , and that won't change even if you convert from a religion to atheism . A refusal to see the good things which religion has enabled man to achieve blinds you , as much as you think the denial of the believers blinds them . I see religion as a force capable of immense , unbelievable positivity when implemented right , and I see no corresponding potential in atheism . Atheism is inherently neither constructive or destructive , it simply leaves that to other ideas , whereas religion is inherently constructive . Only a very small subset of humanity - the intellectualls - can retain their constructive and positive view of the world and still be atheists . That is why I say that religion is necessary , and , when it does not impose its associated culture , a very good thing .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I must confess I haven't seen that. It sounds to me more like a measure of frustration at the lack of sense and reason of some people, rather than a statement of intent. Correct me if I'm wrong here, I ahven't seen the interview.

A picture-perfect example of what I was talking about . The assumption here by the author is that if you disagree with him , you lack sense and reason . Why else would be be frustrated ? The guy sounds precisely like Mohammed to me , when Mohammed is lamenting ( as he does repeatedly in the Quran ) the lack of sense people show in not embracing Islam .

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I have no insecurity whatsoever about it. I just think these people have not been equipped with the necessary intellectual tools to decide - lack of education, indoctrination from an early age, etc. There are many lovely people who are inspired by their belief, but I think their belief has been misplaced.

Another great example .

"Everyone who does not think like me must be either :

a) Uneducated
b) Indoctrinated
c) Some other option which prevents them from using their brian , for surely , if they used their brain , they would be one of us !"


Can't it enter your head that there can be people who , after fully seeing the facts , do not choose the path you have chosen ?

I'm an agnostic myself , but I don't claim superiority on that basis . I don't say that my opponents "don't know any better" . I don't claim that thery are uneducated or indoctrinated or anything of the sort . I treat them as people who have full use of their intellectual faculties , and have , making the best use they could of them , chosed whatever they have chosed . I don't say that their intellectual abilities are any less because of the choice they make . I do , however , reserve the right to say , "I am of the opinion that you are wrong." .

I've been on both sides of the fence , and it is only when I became an agnostic Hindu that I realised what an arrogant ****** I had become when I had gone through my atheist phase . And that wasn't the fault of atheism , but the fact that that was how I saw most atheists behving .

Now I possess respect for both sides , theists as well as atheists , and I don't try to denigrate either by claiming that they are misguided or anything of the sort .

[Provost Harrison]

How can one respect someone who believes in fairy tales? I wouldn't lend any respect to an adult who believes in Father Christmas. Numerical superiority does not make it any better...

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by GePap


There being no evidence of such a thing as a soul, that is an opinion at best.

The day somebody proves that consciousness can be made from matter is the day I leave my agnosticism and become an atheist . My current belief is that the brain is an interface between a corporeal body and a non-corporeal entity which is conscious , which , for lack of a better term , I call the soul .

I invite you to try to prove that consciousness is corporeal . I know can't be done . But you're free to try anyway .

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
How can one respect someone who believes in fairy tales?

I find it easier to respect believers who quietly get on with it than fellow atheists who become zealots filled with harsh contempt for billions of humans.

[Provost Harrison]

Not answered though, why should I respect someone more for religion than someone who believes in fairy tales?