|
Post by Steam on Jun 6, 2008 19:36:39 GMT
You stated in your review of The God Delusion that "In his arguments against God, the sloppy thinking gets even worse. We are repeatedly assured that a universe where God existed would be very different from one where he did not. This, Dawkins claims, makes God a scientific hypothesis. But we are never told how the universe would be different if God didn’t exist, or what experiment we should do to verify his non-existence." Unfortunately you display the sloppy thinking in your paragraph. He does not need to defend the statement, because if it were not true no religion could ever make the least bit of sense in any way. If the universe would in all respects be exactly the same if God doesn't exist then there is no point in any religious action whatsoever. So in a debate about Gods existence this is a point the believer will accept instantly and obviously. Therefore there is no need to try to trope out backing for the statement. As far as an experiment to prove God's none existence. I would like to point out that although no one has suggested an expirement to disprove Thor it is unlikely you believe in him. It is the extrordinary claim that requires extrordinary proof. It is not the doubter of an incredible claim that is required to disprove it.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 7, 2008 6:41:41 GMT
Hi Steam, welcome to the forum.
Really I think the basis for any discussion about god's existance is about the interpretation of evidence, the evidence being all that we see around us, from the apparent fine tuning of the cosmos, to the mysterious world of the quantum and this mysterious conciousness we all possess which allows us to be independent beings with free will. I happen to think that Richard Dawkins has chosen the wrong starting point here. The problem with the universe is that it looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were both designed and purposeful. When you regard it as otherwise you run into problems. For example, Stephen Wienburg says that the more comprehensible the universe becomes the more it seems pointless. However, doing science means figuring out what is going on in the world - what the universe is up to, what it’s about. If it isn’t about anything there would be no good reason to embark on the scientific quest in the first place because there would be no rational basis for believing we can obtain meaningful and coherent facts about the world. To invert Weinberg’s comment the more the universe is made to appear pointless the more it is incomprehensible.
Therefore the task for the athiest is to give a convincing interpretation of the universe which shows that we live in a universe that was created at random, that our objective morality, our free will and our conciousness are all illusions and that our existance is at root, completely pointless and we are nothing more than 'blindly programmed' sex robots.
In a sense it isn't so much the 'God delusion' as the humanity delusion.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jun 7, 2008 7:39:07 GMT
If saying "God exists" is an extraordinary claim, then what is the extraordinary evidence needed to prove to you he exists? Atheists like to harp about how there is no evidence for God, but they never seem to want to give theists a concrete definition of what that evidence must be.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 7, 2008 14:53:08 GMT
Unfortunately you display the sloppy thinking in your paragraph. He does not need to defend the statement, because if it were not true no religion could ever make the least bit of sense in any way. If the universe would in all respects be exactly the same if God doesn't exist then there is no point in any religious action whatsoever. So in a debate about Gods existence this is a point the believer will accept instantly and obviously. Hi Steam, As has been said, the universe looks like we would expect it to look like if God exists. Dawkins claims it actually looks like what we'd expect it to if God does not exist so he really does have to explain what the universe ought to look like given God. Otherwise, he doesn't have an argument, just an assertion. As he things he has an argument he is being sloppy. Also, God's existence is blindingly obvious. It is atheism which is extraordinary and thus requires the extraordinary evidence. Do you have any? Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by Don Camp on Jun 28, 2008 16:26:18 GMT
Good answer to Steam, James. Re: The God DelusionMy observations are much like yours in your article. I find Dawkins' book mostly antireligion rant. He makes some sense in his criticism of specific attitudes and actions of Christians, but that does not refute the existence of God, even the God of Abraham. When he does deal with the arguments for the existence of God he is simply dismissive. He does little real thinking and, as you noted, gives little evbidence that he has seriously considered the arguments for the existence of God. Too bad, I was hoping for a more cogent treatment. I am writing a curriculum for an apologetics class for high schoolers and was looking for a reasoned defense of Atheism to interact with. (I wonder how his fellow scientists and evolutionists have taken his dismissive treatment of their thinking? Dawkins may find himself all alone in the world. )
|
|
|
Post by Seeker on Jul 11, 2008 4:07:56 GMT
I have a friend who has read "The God Delusion" many times. He agrees that Dawkins overstates his points, but is of the belief that what Dawkins is trying to say is so patently obvious (ie, that religion is superstitious mumbo jumbo) that Dawkins has to pad the book out.
My friend has agreed to read one book that answers the "brights"; can someone suggest a single work that best addresses the issues and perspective presented by Dawkins from a Christian point of view? (A book that is available as an audio book would be for the best.)
Bede, your web site has been invaluable to me many times both in my own reflections and as I attempt to talk to those "brights" whom I encounter. Your ministry is a blessing.
Is anyone familiar with Barr's "Modern Physics, Ancient Faith"? Is it worth a read?
Thank you.
Seeker
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jul 11, 2008 4:26:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Jul 11, 2008 16:35:20 GMT
Berlinski's book was a bit of a disappointment to me. He raises a few good points, and is very entertaining to read. However, some of his phrasing is unclear/confusing, and he also is an Intelligent Design adherent who engages in quote-mining. Barr's book is outstanding. On physics, the field of his expertise, Barr shines. He says that it's not about proof of God but about credibility -- and he shows how literally incredible atheism really is, based on what we know about the laws of physics and their apparent fine-tuning. I also found his treatment of human rationality excellent, with his observation that there is no computer program that can reflect upon itself; this as a counterargument to the notion that the mind is just a glorified computer made of meat. The only minor quibble is that he unnecessarily flags the issues of natural selection and an origin of life by natural causes, as also James points out in his review: www.bede.org.uk/barr.htm (In recent writings, Barr has opened up more to the science of evolution. Pointing this out, and keeping in mind that those are minor issues in the book, should convince an open-minded atheist (oh boy, that seems a hard-to-find species) that it is worth reading over these issues which are a very minor part of the book, just 2 or 3 out of +200 pages.) I think the two following critical reviews of The God Delusion are useful: www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.htmlwww.nybooks.com/articles/19775The first one, by Alvin Plantinga, is pretty devastating in its logical-philosophical argumentation (again, atheists with whom I have discussed don't think so, for questionable reasons), and the second one is interesting since it comes from an atheist or agnostic and points out Dawkins's unforgivably sloppy thinking on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Seeker on Jul 15, 2008 0:24:48 GMT
Thank you all for your replies. If anyone comes across any additional references that address some of the claims and arguments made by Dawkins, Hitchens, or their fellow brights, I'd appreciate your recommendations.
|
|
|
Post by steam on Sept 22, 2008 16:19:12 GMT
Humphrey, my post said that Dawkins is not using sloppy reasoning when he says the universe would be different without God than with one. You countered with "the universe is exactly the way it would be if there were a God. Basically saying you agree that it would be different without a God, every believer in God believes that the universe would be different without one, otherwise there would be clearly ZERO evidence for his existence and those who believe in God do not believe that. The fact almost everyone's comments reflect there lack of ability to understand this point which a four year old could grasp in a second, shows the low intellectual capacity of the commenters.
|
|
|
Post by Dan OHara on Sept 22, 2008 18:25:27 GMT
What would the universe look like if there were no God? This begs the question that the Universe could even exist without God. What would your toes look like if you had no feet?
|
|
|
Post by wleeds on Sept 22, 2008 20:03:15 GMT
Hello steam,
I’ve been a lurker on this forum for some time but have never posted. However, I remember being puzzled by your question when I first read it in June and never took the time to look into it further.
Forgive me, but I can’t seem to wrap my head around your concern over James’ review. If Professor Dawkins does assert that the universe would be quite different if God did exist, should he not substantiate this claim? It seems as though this should not be a difficult task for someone as confident in his beliefs as Professor Dawkins. If you could explain a little further it would be appreciated.
Also to all those who post on this forum (and in particular the bloggers), I wanted to say how much I have enjoyed this site. Sadly, it has taken me a long time to find an internet forum where the discussion is both intellectually rigorous and civil, and I have quite enjoyed it.
Take care.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 22, 2008 22:20:29 GMT
Basically saying you agree that it would be different without a God, every believer in God believes that the universe would be different without one, otherwise there would be clearly ZERO evidence for his existence and those who believe in God do not believe that. The fact almost everyone's comments reflect there lack of ability to understand this point which a four year old could grasp in a second, shows the low intellectual capacity of the commenters. Hiya steam, I think you are right about one thing, but I disagree about the other. I disagree with your statement, in your original past, that "It is the extrordinary claim that requires extrordinary proof. It is not the doubter of an incredible claim that is required to disprove it." While I don't agree with James that God's existence is "blindingly obvious", your statement that that belief in God is an "incredible claim" has actually pre-judged the question. Before we look at the evidence, I don't see how you can say that. When philosophers develop arguments, every proposition has to be justified, whether it is a negative statement or a positive one. If I say God exists, I should be able to justify that. If someone else says God doesn't exist, they should be able to justify that. The only person who can wriggle out without making a statement, and call on their opponent to make all the running, is not an atheist (who is making a very definite statement), but an agnostic (who is genuinely making no statement beyond "I don't know"). But I agree with you that we believers should be able to state how the universe is different because God exists, and here is a brief summary of my conclusions: - If there was no God, I'd expect nothing to exist, because in our experience, nothing ever comes out of nothing. But if a God existed, I'd think it possible that a universe existed. And it does.
- If there was no God, and yet, against all expectation, a universe also existed, I'd expect it to be chaotic and short-lived. But if a God existed who created the universe, I'd expect it might be more likely to have structure, universal and consistent laws, and well designed. It is in fact like the latter, and cosmologists say the values of various cosmic numbers are extremely fine-tuned, thus presenting a major argument for the existence of a God.
- If there was no God, and intelligent life evolved on earth, I'd expect such life to lack freewill (our brains would be subject to physical laws and totally determined), be inconsistently rational (they are the result of natural selection which optimises for survival, not for abstract reasoning) and to have no objective ethics ( again, behaviour would have been optimised for survival, and there would be no source of objective, true ethics). But if there was a God, who was rational, and ethical, I'd think it quite possible that he would set things up so humanity had freedom and rationality and true ethics (if only we'd follow them!).
So I suggest to you that a good argument can be put forward that the God hypothesis explains the facts far better than the alternative. Which is what Humphrey was saying, but in a slightly different form. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Sept 23, 2008 9:38:47 GMT
Also to all those who post on this forum (and in particular the bloggers), I wanted to say how much I have enjoyed this site. Sadly, it has taken me a long time to find an internet forum where the discussion is both intellectually rigorous and civil, and I have quite enjoyed it. Thank you for the vote of confidence. I also think the three new bloggers are doing a fantastic job and have been a huge improvement on my solo musings. I am also confused by Steam's objection, as I said before. However, I think unklee has explained why we should think this universe looks like one for which God exists. Perhaps Steam could carry out a similar exercise as to what he thinks this universe lacks. I'm assuming it'll be the problem of evil. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Sept 23, 2008 10:00:02 GMT
Humphrey, my post said that Dawkins is not using sloppy reasoning when he says the universe would be different without God than with one. You countered with "the universe is exactly the way it would be if there were a God. Basically saying you agree that it would be different without a God, every believer in God believes that the universe would be different without one, otherwise there would be clearly ZERO evidence for his existence and those who believe in God do not believe that. The fact almost everyone's comments reflect there lack of ability to understand this point which a four year old could grasp in a second, shows the low intellectual capacity of the commenters. Hello again As Unklee has pointed out, the universe has certain properties which point to a guiding intelligence, the high degree of order, the bio-phillic nature of the physical constants, the fact that matter appears to obey mathematical laws and the fact that we, as products of the universe and the evolutionary process, are non-deterministic intelligent beings with free will who are able to have discussions about this. What would the universe look like with no God?. Well, to take one point, we wouldn't expect a vast preponderance of order. No order means no life and no us to have this conversation. In the naturalistic multi verse scenario what we are basically doing is trying to demonstrate how a universe which looks like a god has fine tuned it, can develop naturally; and to do so you need to postulate an infinity of universes because our type of universe is so staggeringly unlikely. If our universe didn’t look like a God had fine tuned it, there would be no need to postulate a multiverse. I would go further and say that the vast majority of people live their lives as if a God did exist, for instance Richard Dawkins is piggy backing off a culturally inherited Judeo-Christian system of ethics which is a sham according to scientific naturalism. He is claiming that religion is evil, despite the fact that good and evil do not exist objectively in a non-theistic universe. We are happy to see ourselves as free agents despite the fact that in a naturalistic world-view, our conciousness is really just an illusion created by a series of interlinking modules in the brain. If our existence as persons is really an illusion then why are we bothering to have this conversation?. If you take God as the starting point in your description of the universe you end up with the universe we have with only the problem of evil to deal with (at least in a theistic rather than a deistic picture). If you take no God as the starting point you end up with a caricature of the universe we have with all the parts of humanity we most treasure airbrushed out. Furthermore our existence becomes an unbelievable cosmic fluke which is only explicable if everything that can exist does exist. Was the ‘four year old’ comment really necessary?
|
|