Huff Post: Dawkins - "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
READ MORE: New York Times, Intelligent Design, George W. Bush, Evolution

America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his new short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull's-eye as usual:


Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don't know, but would anyone be surprised?

My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency. Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education - and hence the whole future of science in this country - is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the 'breathtaking inanity' (Judge John Jones's immortal phrase) of 'intelligent design' continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.

- snip -

The Chamberlain tactic of snuggling up to 'sensible' religion, in order to present a united front against ('intelligent design') creationists, is fine if your central concern is the battle for evolution. That is a valid central concern, and I salute those who press it, such as Eugenie Scott in Evolution versus Creationism. But if you are concerned with the stupendous scientific question of whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not, the lines are drawn completely differently. On this larger issue, fundamentalists are united with 'moderate' religion on one side, and I find myself on the other.

MORE

:nodding:

when he talks about god, it's like a baby playing with toy blocks

...with something more substantial than a bad analogy borne of emotional kneejerk response?

Its the religious people who, when they talk about the universe, are like baby's playing with toy blocks. They have no real understanding of the universe, and think that they are going to find answers by talking to a fictional being residing in nothing but their own mind.

There are thousands of scientists who can compartmentalize the two. Yes, the god(s) in question remain extremely likely to exist solely within their cerebral cortex (which raises an interesting observation - when people die, their gods die), but these scientists usually seem to go with evidence when it comes to the science (IDers are not scientists when they assert, without evidence, that gods do this or that).

Just wanted to point that out.

with scientists (I am a grad student in biology and have lots of interactions), I have found out one thing....most, if not all good biologists, are atheist or agnostic. Some 80 percent if my estimates are right. The only person in our department who I KNOW is a christian is the dumbest grad student in the place. His lab mates keep complaining that he ruins their experiments. Even if their are other christians in our department, they do NOT use their religion at all to come up with studies, which is the point. Being christian and being a brilliant scientist or person are not mutually exclusive...but if you think religion can be used to make factual statements about the world or universe, your making a mistake.

One cannot be a scientist by making shit up.

atheists, but you are way over the line now.

Come on, that's drastic. You may disagree with someone, but you don't have to stick your fingers in your ears.

Perhaps his point is insensitive to theists, but telling him/her why in a reasoned tone does a lot more good than never talking to him/her again (or even seeing what he/she posts).

Also, recall that the offending post was in response to an offending post about atheists. Good natured, reasoned discussion on both sides will help us all understand one another much better.

There was no "offending post about atheists", it was a post about Dawkins, not atheists in general:

2. dawkins is a child
when he talks about god, it's like a baby playing with toy blocks


Evoman's response was offensive to all religious people:

7. No, Dawkins is an intellectual adult.
Its the religious people who, when they talk about the universe, are like baby's playing with toy blocks. They have no real understanding of the universe, and think that they are going to find answers by talking to a fictional being residing in nothing but their own mind.


So someone wrote a post about one person, the topic of the OP, and Evoman decided to insult all religious people. These threads always devolve into flame wars and should dumped into R/T.

These threads DO always evolve into flame wars and that is a crying shame.

wasn't an attack on the concept atheism? You don't think that was REALLY a statement about how atheists are acting like babies when they talk about god? I know, I know, the meanings of the individual words is not aimed at anyone but Dawkins, but, come on, metaphor and allegory aren't dead, are they?

"I regarded you as one of the reasonable atheists"

Ha...you go ahead and put me on ignore, because if this is how you see me, I do not need your attention. Why am I any more reasonable than the other atheists here....what makes them unreasonable? Because they don't tell you what you want to hear? If "unreasonable" was the basis for ignore, I would be ignoring half the people in RT (and not the atheists, by the way).

The thing is, I did make a heated remark...and when I look at it, I actually do believe I stepped over the line of reasonable discourse. I would have apologized to you if you had been offended...and guess what, I still do. But your response tells me a lot about you...please keep me on ignore.

I'd consider it an honor.

...that Dawkins isn't as "enlightened" or "mature enough" in his interpretation of what gods are claimed to be, that gods are actually way grander in concept and yadda yadda.

Well, if so, that would be based on your interpretation of what gods are...and of course, you have nothing but your asserted belief to back up your version. So who's right?

Wow. You take the cake.

He's arrogant, western-centric and a gallingly simplistic thinker. His books are really worth a few chuckles, though.

Compared to whom? Have you read any of his stuff other than the snippets on here? Maybe you didn't get them? He is pretty thought provoking unless you dismiss what he says as a knee-jerk reaction to him disliking religion.

These are the same reactions he gets from the conservatives in the "moral" majority.

You can't reason with somebody whose god has just been dissed by one of the most intelligent scientists alive today.

I think it's the spiritual equivalent of dissing Yo Momma.

folks whose delusions are destroying the farbic of our country.

I usually find myself sitting out these fights, but I must say that your statement is a rather broad brush painting of all religious people. It is not a fair representation of those who are theists.

Yes, I agree 100% that certain religious sects are destructive. I see fundamentalism of any stripe as being a danger to societies. However, I do think that my theist friends on the left side of the religious equation actually help strengthen the fabric of society.

Let's take progressive Christians for example. For the most part, progressive Christians try to live a life of love and embrace social justice. They scream for justice in issue of taxation, health care, wages, child care, and sexual liberation. They fight right alongside me and you for pro-choice issues, anti-war issues, fair housing, stem cell research, scientific integrity, and environmental health. The only difference between me and my progressive Christian brethren is that they have a belief in a supreme being. I can live with that. That doesn't hurt me or my children.

These progressive Christians would never push their views on my family. They would fight with me to keep my children free of indoctrination in schools. They would hold signs with me outside the courthouse protesting the display of the ten commandments, and they would weep with me when 600,000 Iraqis are slaughtered by US "liberation".

Instead of me saying that they are fools for believing in a god, I should say, "Thank you for believing in social justice".

Instead of me ridiculing their practices, I should say, "Thank you for your commitment to world peace."

Instead of me telling them to get a clue, I should say, "I appreciate the way your beliefs support a better environment for me and my family."

These people are not dangerous. They are our allies. They believe in science and they believe in reason. They just happen to have faith in something that I don't have faith in.

I have come to the conclusion that if I condemn them for their beliefs, I am no better than the fundamentalists who condemn me for mine.

Shouldn't we end this pointless fight and take up the important struggles together?

...but there IS an issue of concern, and I'm not certain how it plays out.

That concern is that these wonderful people believe in things for which there are no evidence. What's to stop them from believing in something that will impact us very badly, if they already have the capacity to assert the existence of things that have no corroborating evidence?

I've seen otherwise-good liberals support the war - usually at the beginning, but even then we knew they were lying about the threat; these people believed the threat, again with no evidence to support such a belief.

Or how about abortion? Some liberal believers think, based on their faith, that abortion is wrong, and some of those want to ban it. Yet their objection is based on their holy book and its god's objection to it (as they interpret it) - how do you combat that?

Does it come down to the individual? I suspect this is the case, as religious belief in no way imparts morality - if you're a good person without Jesus, you're probably a good person with him, and maybe your conscience simply won't allow for the acceptance of wrongs and lies that you likewise wouldn't accept if you were without belief.

At least, that's my hope, because that's the only bulwark against supporting policies pushed by the religious, that have no basis for being demanded except religious belief, that I can see.

(I hope that came out as I intended.)

and that when they have power to do so, they adversely impact the US?

John Ashcroft, ALberto Gonzales, George Bush - three prime examples of people who lead with their faith as a sword, not a shield. And whose decisions have damaged us all.

Dawkins is one of thefinest scientific minds on the planet. Ask not who the idiot may be, for the idiot may be thee.

Try again.

Dawkins makes the mistake of confusing religion with god.

Religions are made by humans, not god.

He says that god, if he has any effect on the real world, should be measurable by science. Also, that evolution takes away any need for god at all in the origin of human beings.

Did you even read the book?

If they're "love" or "all" or whatever, taking out the concept of god changes nothing, one would think. So why worship the allness of everythingity, when there's no evidence it exists, knows, or cares?

I don't understand these "gods are some huge vague unending whatever" notions. How does it make a god any different from nature? (And on a random note - how could, say, the Christian god BE nature while at the same time 'dictating' the 'living word' into the bible, while getting wrong simple facts like 'rabbits don't have cloven hooves and chew cud"?)

Anyway, no offense intended, it just puzzles me when people assert that a deity, which is generally understood to be some sort of supernatural being, is transfigured metaphorically into something like the concept of love. I don't mean anything by it.

posted it here once or twice...

Basically suggesting that the universe is God, or as close to it as we're going to find, and that we, as the only intelligent beings of which we're aware, have an obligation to act like we have a responsibility toward everything else. To learn, to protect, and, yes, to love.

So, God is what we believe it is. For those of us who believe God is love, it is.

Hmmm. So gods don't really exist as actual beings, but as concepts held by humans?

If true, why do people base anything on it? Surely we're capable as a species of understanding that beings we think exist in our mind can't have bearing on others' lives.

know there is a God, so it is logical for the atheist to not worship God.

What is sad is the demand for "more logic" and more "proof" on this topic - much like the blind demanding proof that those with sight can see can see stars at night.

One does not want to pity the blind, and one does not want to pity those like Dawkins, but anger is wrong, and to say you are tolerant makes them angry as they think they are "correct" and you have no reason to call upon your tolerance with them.

Dawkins acts like a pre-school age children about this topic, just because he can't "see" the why, but we love him. Besides, he is a very good scientist.

Unfortunately he has not learned yet that science does not have the tools to prove or disprove God, and to pretend otherwise is to only show ignorance of both God and religion.

Ahhh. The "God has no interactions with the universe" so he must exist
argument.

Let's see: If God actually had any interactions with the universe, then
the existence of God could be proven. And it isn't a question of the
blind not seeing. Humans can't see Ultraviolet, or Infrared, or Gamma
rays, X-rays, or radio waves, we're blind to all of those, but we've
built devices that can see these for us.

But God in your philosophy apparently has no interactions with the
universe so cannot be proven. And so you believe deeply.

Have you considered believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn instead?
(Blessed be her hoofprints)

Tesha

The existence of religion itself destroys it - Christians believe that their holy book is 'inspired by god', which of course means what? INTERACTION WITH THE UNIVERSE.

Logical proofs were devised which "proved" the existence of the Christian God. This was due in most part to an inheritance of Greek Thought. These were abandoned by most only recently due to the Romantic Age and the raising of emotion/will over intellect and as the study of history, science, philosophy began to unearth inconsistencies with the biblical account, expand the range of human power and knowledge and diminish the status of Humans to less than a tiny speck in the Cosmos.

For example:
St. Anselm created the ontological argument for the existence of God. which briefly is: God is the greatest possible object of thought. If an object of thought does not exist another which does exist is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist.

St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristole's Argument of the Unmoved Mover. As well as the Argument of the First Cause. Also that because we see perfections in the known world this leads to the conclusion that something perfect created them.

Lebinez and Spinoza both offered arguments about Eternal Truths. And from Augustine to Descartes reason and logic were thought good techniques to prove the existence of God.

Of course, these are the thoughts of Ancient/Medieval theologians and thinkers. "Modern thought" concerning God has reverted to a more emotional understanding. And so that's where the problems come about. Dawkins has examined the arguments, rejected them and come to the conclusion that God does not exist.

I ask this question, and I never get an answer. What makes you think you know better than he? Does god talk to you? Does god show himself to you? What right does any religous person have to call Dawkins a child? If a man who studies the universe, and knows so much more about natural processes than you, does not see god, and we call him a child, what does that makes a person who sits around and reads a 2000 year old book and talks to the air?

Honestly, you have no more proof or reason to believe in god, than Dawkins does to NOT believe in god. The only difference between you and him, is that he has a lot more scientific knowledge than you. The only other difference is that he, uses probablity to take the reasonable position. Belief without evidence is neither rational nor reasonable. I've said this before: NOBODY can prove a negative. NEVER. IMPOSSIBLE. NO ONE WILL EVER PROVE GOD DOESNT EXIST. That said, if you take the position that god exists, when there is no evidence, than NOBODY can ever change your mind. I have little doubt that Dawkins would change his mind in a second if god either showed himself or gave proof of his existence. And that is why his position is reasonable...when you do not have evidence either way, you have to take the position that allows for your mind to change.

I would also be interested to know what YOU think makes him (or me, or any atheist)a child and you an adult. What special training do you have? I've read the entire bible. I've listened to preachers. I've "thought and reflected" on the universe. Because its a hobby of mine, I've also read countless readings from theist and atheist both (including Philip Johnsons book...bah, that left a bad taste in my mouth). I still agree completely with Dawkins. What makes me a child?

I know (heh) that I will never convince you of the truth of this, of course; you're not intellectually honest enough to admit you don't know.

Ironically, this atheist can: "I don't know there are no gods. But, since there's no evidence for them outside of believers' minds, I can't buy into them."

This will be my sole reply to you on this thread, as I've seen how you 'debate'. Just wanted to voice some facts and move on. Good day to you!

Atheists are like the blind, i.e. handicapped or somehow less than the theists. Can you see how that might be insulting?

Your post only leads to the next question: HOW do you know there is a god? Saying you just know is a crock. But, really, I am fine with you thinking that (NOT with your basic unsaid assumption that atheists are somehow LESS than theists--the old "god-shaped hole in our heart" BS) as long as your particular unproven thoughts about some god that you just know exists doesn't impact me like it is in the current political system.

and it's common for Atheists to say "if god is everything then why use that word at all and just say universe".

God is indeed everything INCLUDING CONSCIOUSNESS or Spirit which is the word used by the Ancients.

The words Universe or Nature, in their common usage, historically don't imply or designate Consciousness as part of the One Thing.

Atheists totally refuse to accept the role of Consciousness/Spirit in Reality.

Theists insist on projecting their own sense of limited selfhood/personality
onto this Consciousness and come up with a Creator.

Seriously, when you admit to believing that nonsense is science, I think it's safe to conclude I don't need to waste time on your opinion.

Light cares neither for love nor hate. Actually, light doesn't care about anything. Light just is. Light is everywhere and in everything and we certainly wouldn't exist without it. But to attribute human consciousness to it is rather silly.

I think that Dawkins is well aware of that distinction. He, unlike you, does not believe that there is a god and therefore sees BOTH religion AND god as human constructs.

Secularism works.

It's been the single driving force for positive, progressive, healthy growth of societies.

It allows for those with religions, the believers, and those with none, the atheists.

With it firmly in place, the question of "are there gods?" remains safely in the realm of philosophy, and all are invited to get involved in the discussion, or not, as they so choose.

Secularism works.

that is precisely right.

I just love how people who miss Dawkins' whole point start spewing their delusional stuff, and when asked for proof, they jump to "faith."

Secularism works because it provides a framework that allows people to have their own understanding of the universe without coercion.

believed in G-d.

Start with:
Copernicus
Galileo
Newton
Darwin
Einstein

among others.

Further, the Founders were also deeply religious and firm believers in the (not "a") Deity.

They did not accept that one sect, tenet, church or whatever had a monoply on truth or that that sect's rituals had any inherent superiority to another's.

They all saw Creation, physical and moral, as an expression and mainfestation of the Divine. To them, G-d is found in the mathematical harmony of the cosmos and as well as the goodness and kindness of humanity. And even those that did not pray regularly or formally did not dismiss the value of worship.

Secularism led to Soviet Russa. It works no better than any other ideology.

Those interested in the intersection between science and religion, from the perspective of a practicing physicist who rejects most formalizations of religion, should read The Physics of Immortality.

Paine, Jefferson, and Washington were examples of Deists. Secularism, in the context of their views, meant that the government took no side in the religious quarrels of the era, and it isn't supposed to today. I, too, hold views very much in line with Deism.

That's a pathetic argument, and you should be ashamed of it. Secularism has been present in many western countries, without a soviet revolution. Russia, on the other hand, had a strong religion very intertwined in the state. If anything, the confusing of the church and state led to Soviet Russia.

As for your claims that those scientists were deeply religious - that's highly contested for some of them. Darwin was most certainly not deeply religious - see, for instance, the quotes from his autobiography. He just said that a god could exist.

Einstein sometimes expressed a vague pantheism - that the universe is wonderful. But he never said 'God' was something to do with "the goodness and kindness of humanity". And looking at the scientists you name, there's a general progression to less belief in anything divine, as real knowledge of the universe becomes more and more apparent.

Newton was quite religious - and rather a freak. I don't think you can say the same about the rest, and particularly not Einstein.

Einstein was NOT a member of any religion; he stated as such on more than one occasion.

This:

"They did not accept that one sect, tenet, church or whatever had a monoply on truth or that that sect's rituals had any inherent superiority to another's."

actually led to secularism being written into our Constitution; it's called the First Amendment. Somehow, this never became the Soviet Union (indeed, the Soviet Union became as it did due to Stalinism, not secularism).

I stand by my words.

And if you stand by yours - what do you see as being better for society than secularism?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Albert Einstein
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

Albert Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

Albert Einstein
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

Albert Einstein
God is subtle but he is not malicious.

Sufficient, I think, to prove that Einstein was religious - he believed in G-d and had an almost mystical appreciation for creation. The number of hours spent in a building does not determine how religious you are.

Secularism was not written into the Constitution. Just the opposite: Religious freedom was written into the Constitution. There's a prepositional misunderstanding, I think. Freedom "of" religion does not mean freedom "from" religion; but neither does freedom "of" religion deny or proscribe freedom "from" religion.

Perhaps we understand secularism differently; but Stalinism was, in its hatred of religion, at least a form of secularism - perhaps a grotesque form (though perhaps not so grotesque), but a type of secularism nontheless.

And to answer your question, as an observant Jew, I would say the seven universal laws, with their branches and implications, are better for society:
1. Don't worship idols
2. Don't blaspheme
(both of which presume thereby a recognition of G-d)
3. Don't murder
4. Don't steal
5. Don't be sexually immoral
6. Set up a system of justice (courts)
7. Don't be cruel to animals/exploit the environment

Why do many theists have to take things out of context to prove things. Einstein was simply using metaphor for the universe....Einstein did not believe in god. Stephen Hawkings doesn't believe in god...but he uses the word god often, to wax poetic. "I want to know the mind of god".

Pyscists really need to stop using the word god (in an artistic way) because some of these damn believers always misconstrue words.

OK, class, what's the fallacy?

Why do many <fill in the blank> have to take things out of context to prove things?
(Also, note, the proper punctuation mark: a question mark, not a period.)

Einstein, one more time:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.19
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Spelling quiz: How do you spell "physicist"?

Interesting. I have not said you must believe, and I have not said you will be damned if you don't. But, pray tell, (if one is allowed to use the word "pray"), can you damn someone if you don't believe?

(No response need, because I'm out of this thread.)

They always try to make Carl Sagan a pantheist too.

I'm not sure why they keep doing this with great scientists, is it because they have none to cite who believed in gods?

Or is it because they are supremacists and can't believe that so many great minds didn't drink the koolaid?

1. Don't worship idols
2. Don't blaspheme
(both of which presume thereby a recognition of G-d)

Both of which arrogantly assume a particular type of god - by usage of the word one who gets offended if you write the full thing down.

I fail to see how either of these things are universal or 'better' for society.

Did I say I was offended by your orthographic choice? I didn't, because I'm not. Just as I'm not offended if someone writes God.

And if you'll pay attention (yeah, that was a bit arrogant, but, hey, I wouldn't want to disappoint you :)), neither prescribes worship or, for that matter, belief.

Universal in that the seven apply to everyone, as opposed to say, eating kosher, which applies only to Jews.

Better for society because as a consequence, someone, if consistent, will acknowledge a) the spiritual equality of all humanity; b) that personal significance emerges from self-transcendence (best shorthand I could think of); that civilization, the responsibility and goal of all, requires the negation of fragmentation, arrogance (fancy that!) and etc. c) that goodness and kindness flow from spiritual dependence and human interdependence.

th-th-th-that's all, folks. Outta here.

"secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations"

The separation of church and state is what a secular government is all about. Don't confuse secularism with atheism.

Galileo fought the church...in fact, I wouldn't doubt if he was an atheist, but pretended to be a christian so...well...I don't know....HE WOULDNT BE FUCKING KILLED!

Darwin did not believe in god.

Einstein did not believe in god.

Most scientists are NOT deeply religious, and many scientists were only religous, because they HAD to be. In the present day, most of the brilliant scientists are atheists or agnostics. And most of the religious ones are only marginally religious, not "DEEPLY RELIGIOUS" whatever that means.

Copernicus and Galileo? Everyone was religious in their time - or at least they appeared to be or face torture and execution at the hands of the church. The Church threatened Galileo with torture unless he recounted his refutation of the geocentric theory.

Darwin and Einstein were not religious at all, though they did reference "god". Quotes from them love to be trotted out by theists, but the fact of the matter is that their god was not a personal god or a metaphysical force. God, in the sense they used it, was allegory for the mystery of the universe and natural forces. Dawkins actually discusses this in his book, should you want to actually read it.

this I agree with 100%.

There was a great article in the NY Times about two years ago about this very concept. It went a little further to stipulate that secularism made religious belief more profound in that, since our government didn't uphold a particular religion, we are free to pursue our own path and embrace it on its own merits. So, those of us who embrace Wicca, Catholicism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Baptism, Islam, Judaism, etc. do so on the power of the philosophy/theology over the general pressure of society.

Of course, that is the ideal of our society, and I realize even that range of religious belief isn't perfect. Many of us are influenced by our families and/or communities to follow a particular path. But, I do posit that having the government OUT of the religion business only adds to the freedom of its citizenry to follow the philosophically correct path for them.

This doesn't mean that I'm sure God does or does not exist. I can't say.

But I'm pretty damn sure no religion or faith has any kind of monopoly on Truth.

Science has a much better chance of understanding the nature of the universe, in my opinion.

Science will gather a clearer understanding of the nature of God than dogmatic faith will, yes?

Eventually.

Carl Sagan, in his book Contact, put forth the idea that mankind (or all intelligent life) exists to someday explain the universe to itself. Makes sense to me.

My dad thinks that God created mankind (or all intelligent life) to someday be a companion to Him. My dad's theology is really screwy. Part Christian, part Native American, and part Buddhist. He refers to my pagan friends as "Earth People." <g>

But "revealed" religions are, essentially, myth.

That doesn't mean they don't hold value; it does mean they can't be assumed to be true depictions of reality when there's absolutely no corroborating evidence to support them.

Maybe that 'god' is a mechanism that really is as large as this universe, then
likely highly unconcerned with the whiles of a degenerate fungus colony on petri-dish earth.

Then that mechanism has in it enlightenment and the pursuit of truth, and your free will
to make of that what you can; the truth really can set you free.

Sadly, people want to discuss the immaculate indescribable in puerile terms.

We would be a more peaceful species when not believing there is an after life.

Edited to add:
Without an after life, why the need for a god?

Those who hunger for power will use whatever means they must in order to reach their objective. While it is true that religion has been used as a tool by destructive people to start wars, I don't necessarily believe that we'd be a more peaceful world without religion.

I'd like to add, too, that I do believe that our government should be secular and religious practice, private.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil--that takes religion. -- Steven Weinberg

You have to admit, though, that the various popular
theologies that claim you can behave as badly as you
like during life, but still gain entry into paradise
if you believe the magic idea* have a tendency to allow
people to behave rather badly during life.

Tesha

*Or, for one sect, repent your sins on your deathbed.

And hate those who were different, crave power, etc.

A fascinating concept - wars where injuries are the higest price paid.

:crazy:

because it comes in quite handy when one wants to wage war.

Perhaps not. I don't think we'll ever know. However, I do think there would be many fewer wars if martyrdom and paradise in the afterlife were no longer motivators for people's bloodthirsty and barbaric behavior.

What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education - and hence the whole future of science in this country - is under threat.
--------------
Look at the way MSM and Bushco have responded to scientific studies like Freeman's and others re exit polls, Princeton's study on Diebold machines or the Lancet study. Then add the pope and his assinine assault on reason and you know our planet is in grave trouble.

Most troubling is the silence from Yale University.

in both Reality AND Science is basically like Men who not only insist on dominance but fall off into the deep end into misogyny.

There's a reason why Art and Symbolism use Male and Females as allegories for Reason and Intuition.

Most people who appreciate Dawkins and his intellectually stunted peers simply have little capacity for seeing the Big Picture and need to engage in
Dualism and Zero-Sum philosphies where THEY end up on top.

when social philosophers try to talk about real scientist.

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

is moving in the direction that leads away from Materialism and towards teh exploration of Consciousness, I'm not really sure what you mean.

Let us know when you hit real science.

Don't hold your breath.

I always love to pull apart the threads of an idealist worldview.

:rofl:

Its embarrasing enough to believe in ID, without you having to shout it from the rooftops.

Credibility goes a long way, and when one believes in ID (Infinite Dumbassery) as science, it shows one has no credibility in talking about science, because one clearly don't understand the basic concepts of science (Rule 1: science is not magic).

I think reminding people that a poster ranting wrongly about how science works is a believer in unscientific bullshit is doing the debate a service, by not allowing it to be dragged down by nonsense based on asserted beliefs with absolutely zero evidence to support it.

I'll never apologize for helping advance truth over the made-up-outta-whole-cloth stuff. :)

I was scolded by another poster when I "accused" her of being an IDer even though she happily admits it herself.

Fact is, she never misses an opportunity to malign science, scientists, skeptics, atheists and those poor deluded evolutionists, so why should we refrain from telling the truth?

And she isn't the only IDer on DU. You'll probably see the other one in here shortly criticizing the dumb science worshipers and mean old atheists.

People who disagree with Dawkins' atheism (you and many others on this thread) refer to him as some form of your "intellectually stunted." I mean for fuck's sake, Dawkins is one of the most brilliant and highly accomplished scientists in the world today. You can disagree with him about religion, but to call him stupid is either you completely using an ad hom to futher a point you can't make otherwise, or you are just stunningly obtuse.

Wasn't he absolutely sure not too long ago?
Wasn't he a big strong atheist?
Now he's talking like a puny weak atheist.

strong atheism as it is called on DU and a few other places somehow not based on faith - is not a religion?

But aren't discussions of that point best left to the Atheist Forum that is mislabeled, perhaps, as "Religion". Perhaps not since atheist dumps on religion occur in every forum - in this case I believe this is currently posted in General Discussion.

Not that I object to atheist posts everywhere - heck I once objected to atheist posts in science since science could not disprove God (and the "don't need to prove a negative" boys missed the fact that this is metaphysics and follows the rules of that topic), and the mods banned me from the Science forum on DU for causing a disturbance - :-) - LOL - You've gota love it!

In any case I just hope folks also read some of Dawkins writings on topics he actually knows something about. He is quite an interesting writer on occasion.

Thank you for finally understanding the different flavors of atheism, and the difference between 'strong' atheism and 'weak' atheism.

The rest of your post is not worth responding to, but I must give credit where it is due - you've learned something, and that's worthy of note.

obviously no one can conlusively know there is no god. What a person can do, is examine the origin of the idea, show it has no merit, and make the rational conclusion that man invented the concept of god.

Its the same with me making up that there is a big ball of cotton hiding behind the moon. You could logically conclude that I made up the idea as an example, and its "almost certainly" not true. You can't prove its not there, but you would conclude its not.

The reason one can't speak with absolute certainty is that
there are certain thresholds of information beyond which
we still have no reach.

For example, one could postulate that "God" (or "the gods")
were immensely powerful beings who set in motion the events
that led up to The Big Bang (and have had no particular
interaction with our universe since that singular moment).
Since we have no scientific visibility (at least as of now)
to look back "beyond" The Big Bang, this postulate can neither
be proven nor disproven at this time.

For an interesting speculation on this exact concept, see
Isaac Asimov's novel The Gods Themselves.

Tesha

:)

Seriously, though - if he's moving toward so-called weak atheism, he's moving toward more intellectual honesty, in that he wouldn't be claiming (as believers do) to have certain knowledge of the state of existence of gods without any evidence to back it up.

There are 70 trillian stars in this universe. That's just counting the visible stars. And, there may well be unknown trillions of other universes.

Yet "God" is, according to Middle Eastern religions, alleged to concern himself with each of the 6 billion members of one species that inhabit one planet that circles an insignificant sun on the outskirts of an equally insignificant galaxy among billions/trillions of other galaxies. And, this magnificent being is supposed to get so upset with our doings, our individual beliefs, deeds, or thoughts, that he occasionally weeps and punishes us like a kid having a tantrum.

The very idea that there is some sort of deity fretting about every doing of a bunch of pipsqueeks on a speck in the universe proves only that we have egos large enough to believe it.

We're the center of our universe, so we must be the center of God's. It's not very flattering to what is supposed to be an immortal, omnipotent entity responsible for all creation and destruction, all being and nonbeing.

---------------
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

-The Galaxy Song, Monty Python

NT!

be able to get back to rationality in this country.

Once the safeguards are in place to ensure no one's life is being unwillingly impacted by anyone's religion (or lack thereof), the debate can take taken up without real danger.

I think trends show religion is phasing out, evolutionarily-speaking. When people are able to live their lives without the impact of religion except on a personal self-imposed level, they will be freer (due to the lack of social pressure, which increases as religion in government increases) to consider the arguments, and I think more will step away from organized religion and possibly faith in things unseen altogether.

The beauty of secularism is that, even if they don't and remain fervent believers, they can't use their beliefs to hurt us, and we don't feel threatened to the point of wanting to restrict them from believing (which doesn't work and is very wrong to do; we all have a right to our own mind).

It's truly a win-win.

The particular doctrines of most religions on Earth are wrong, simply because there are so many of them, and they all don't agree.
It is highly unlikely people live after death. (That is a common sense one, why call it death if you are still alive?)
Though depending on ones definition of God, Mr. Dawkins makes an assumption that cannot be shown to be true or false. Either one is quite possible; and by certain definitions of God, Mr. Dawkins is quite wrong.

Even if you believe in the "big bang" there must have been something that caused the big bang. And there must have been something caused whatever caused the big bang. And there must have been something which cause that. But at some point something without a cause, something which simply exists, is responsible for our existence. The idea of an end and a beginning are very human ideas, but they cannot probably apply to all things. Our conception of time and space must not be right, because by it, a problem has been created: an infinite number of causes. This must mean somewhere there is something without a cause, because it simply doesn't need a cause to exist. It just exists.

Even Christianity gets that part right.

So I am totally sorry, but I cannot agree with Mr. Dawkins.

It is, after all, the oldest event we have any evidence for. What makes you insist that it needs a cause, but that something else has existed that didn't need a cause?

we could be living in a universe that simply doesn't have to obey laws like that outside of its domain.

makes the critical false assumption that religious faith or science should be able to define God.

Let's go with the premise that gods are defined by their believers, which we should all agree on, I think.

Okay - so the believers define their gods. Aren't the believers' definitions religious faith?

Or are you somehow saying gods exist above the understanding of the definitions of organized religion? If so, how would you know? And wouldn't someone asserting THAT be engaging in religious faith, or at least faith along the same lines (asserted, no evidence - the definition of religious faith being 'belief in things unproven/unseen')?

interesting to me, when and how did religion get started. Pretty good imaginative mind to invent up such a great story, how did that even happen?

he actually covers a bunch of different hypothesis on its origin in The God Delusion.

Yes, fundamentalists are bad & annoying. How does this mean there's "almost certainly" no God?

... of confusing "God" with "creator".

There could very well be some sort of "cosmic intelligence" implemented in the very fabric of space rather than in neurons or silicon chips. But that intelligence, even thought it could be aware, and might even be able to exert some minimal influence on human minds, would have no power over the physical universe, and certainly would not have been the creator of that universe.

I tend to think of "God" as being a product of the universe, not the creator of the universe. Such a God might posses some of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God, but certainly not all of them.

Another possibility is that this reality is a "simulation", but not a simulation run on a computer like an online adventure game, but more like the kind of mental simulation we use to create dreams. In that case our reality is someone's dream, and the dreamer is who we call God.

There are so many alternative possibilities that it would be impossible to show convincing evidence against every one of them, and all it takes is for ONE of them to be true. In all likelyhood, there IS a God, but that God is most certainly NOT like anything we imagine a God to be. The mistake is not in saying "God is." (ending in a period) but in saying "God is..." and continuing that sentence with anything whatsoever.

To say god is anything you feel like defining, or even not defining, just makes the word meaningless. And I'm puzzled why you give a meaningless word a capital letter.

To reflect ourselves upon reality.

That's fundamentally what is common with all concepts of god.

All hail cyborgs!

:D

I am more, not less, than human.

Otherwise continue your adulation; as meaningless as it is to me that is.

That's always how Dawkins sounds to me. No grays, no in-betweens, religion bad, secularism good.

Sounds a lot like Bush, only the other side of the fence.

What do you base this on?

And it may be misrepresentative of what he actually thinks. Sam Harris, too.
What worries me is black and white thinking of any sort. You may be interested to learn that I've met atheists in local leftist circles who are as bigoted and narrow-minded as Fred Phelps -- but, without exception, they come from fundie backgrounds. Which makes me wonder, is it a cultural pattern or a remnant of childhood conditioning? Or even genetic?

why do I see so many people criticizing Dawkins and his arguments when they obviously have not examined them?

Oh, right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Were you surprised?

This happens every time somebody quotes Dawkins in The United States of Jesusland.

From what I've seen, they barely even blink in the UK.

A renowned scientist and one of the greatest minds of our time doesn't believe in my personal pet mythical deity and that makes him a child.


:rofl:

You people crack me up!

Cheers,
varkam
DU Moderator