Without God

[geoff332]

That marks you out as someone who either a) didn't actually read The god delusion or b) didn't pay attention when you read it.

Or as someone who read it from a different perspective than yours - as one of the already converted.

Do you know what 'self-righteous' means?

Yes.

...I'm sure he'll list those flaws for us.

I already did. An argument only requires one flaw to be seriously flawed.

[Barry Shnikov]

There are several arguments advanced in TGD; the argument (badly) paraphrased by G332 is only one of them.

The main and essential argument of the book is that god is no longer a necessary hypothesis. There are two strands: first, scientific study has revealed most of what makes the world tick. Humans no longer need to placate a capricious entity by sacrificing a goat when crop rotation, insecticide and herbicide, and weather forecasts are more certain paths to a successful crop. The seasons and the tides and eclipses are explained by the mechanics of the solar system, blah blah.

The second strand is evolution by natural selection. Even with all the other scientific advances, there are still these fantastically complicated, fantastically successful, fantastically varied things that exist on this planet. Living things. Accounting for their existence was a major obstacle to scientific progress. What could possibly explain them, except a superpowerful, suber-being?

Well, the answer of course is millions of years and gradual improvements, and the fact that there isn’t enough food to go around for everyone.

So, while the concept of god might be something that people don’t want to give up, it is now intellectually possible to do so; but this has only been true for 130 odd years.
That is the main argument of TGD.

Having established – pretty conclusively – that god is not a necessary condition for the existence of the universe, the book goes on to explore the question of whether religion is a necessary condition for the existence of man and then whether it is an advisable condition. Finally, the book considers the question of whether it is safe simply to ignore religion and faith or whether it is acceptable or desirable to attack it when appropriate.

I noted in the article that opened this thread it was stated that Plato:

“was so horrified at the attempt of Democritus and Leucippus to explain nature in terms of atoms without reference to the gods…that…he urged five years of solitary confinement for those who deny that the gods exist or that they care about humans, with death to follow if the prisoner is not reformed.”

It's almost reassuring to learn that the practice of punishing people with enquiring minds and won't believe in god is so venerable and ancient. Death to follow, mind you.

And even now there are people who would – unlike King Canute, who was trying to prove that you cannot hold back something as elemental as the sea – hold their hand up in the face of scientific progress and say ‘Thus far, and no further. We have to believe in what we are told to believe, whether or not it is externally justifiable. If you disagree I’m gonna kill yew.’ And if you agree, you may die of ignorance anyway.

It’s perfectly acceptable to consider that there aren’t enough of such people to get worried about them, that they aren’t in sufficient positions of power, that taken as a percentage of the 6 billion people on earth their impact is negligible and so forth.
But TGD’s thesis is that there are still an alarming number of these people; that the effect these individuals have can be highly toxic on the people immediately around them and the cumulative effect of all these people can be pretty toxic on people who ought not to be affected by them at all.

I think it is arguable that faith can be left alone, that the faithful should be allowed to keep their security blankets without being challenged. (TGD is not, nor am I, advocating the prohibition of religion, for my part since that is the surest and speediest way to spread it.) That the benefit of having hundreds of millions of people believing in a god and a right way to live outweighs the damage done by the extremists to the few. I’ve never seen it convincingly argued, but I conceive that it could be.

TGD asserts that the magical thinking amongst the majority of believers provides the fertile ground in which religious lunacy and extremism can thrive. How can a committed believer argue that another committed believer is wrong? – in the end, they are forced to agree to disagree since both of them have no reason other than personal preference for their belief.

“I’m a catholic and I say you pentacostals are NUTS; you believe in all that insane ‘speaking-in-tongues rubbish.”

“Hey, you should talk – you think the wine turns to blood and the wafers turn to flesh. How disgusting is that?”

Any atheist is, of course, free to disagree with TGD’s arguments and conclusions. To decide that it is more important to ‘respect’ the beliefs and prejudices of the faithful. But to characterise what is - as even Professor Dawkins’ detractors acknowledge – well written and restrained, though forceful, prose ‘ranting’ is unfair. It’s a polemic, sure; but the points are made scathingly yet without hysteria.

I just remembered another important element of TGD which I couldn't work into the above without running out of time.

TGD demonstrates quite effectively that modern morality, modern ethics, whatever you will, is not derived from biblical commands. At least, not directly. He shows that we are, literally, making it up as we go along. Just for example: homosexuality and gender reassignment. In a society still strictly governed by biblical principles - oo, say, islam, or to take another example, US evangelicals - these people are vilified and pilloried and even subject to fear of death and have been murdered.

I think on this forum, at least, if not in Britain more widely, these attitudes are fast becoming a thing of history. Why? Because we have decided, regardless of what the churches tell us, that these people are just schmos, like you and me, struggling to make sense of the whole damn mess, and suffering and exulting by turns just like us. I've known several homosexuals very well, and I have liked them, and lauged with them, and teased them and been teased by them. I see no reason why I should disapprove of them or what they do.

It seems likely to me that over the next 20 years there will be increasing acceptance of these things in what we are pleased to call 'the civilised world'.

If the catholic church still had the unfettered power it had before the Reformation to mandate the way in which homosexuals are to be treated, I have no doubt that things would be very different.

[Barry Shnikov]

Or as someone who read it from a different perspective than yours - as one of the already converted.

See above, where I have set out what the main arguments of the book actually are.

Anyone who has carefully read (and understood, I suppose) the book will know that you are mistaken or mischievous. All I can do is say that any forumite who wants to know whether I am right or you are, can read the book for his or herself.

Yes.

Do tell. Have you heard of the people I cited? Do you know anything of their writings and what they say? I'd be very grateful if you could point me to those places in the writing of Professor Dawkins where he has claimed to be excessively virtuous.

I already did. An argument only requires one flaw to be seriously flawed.

Well, that's patently nonsense. Clearly an argument requires a serious flaw, to be seriously flawed, otherwise it's only a flawed argument. Good grief.
Furthermore, you didn't list any flaws. You set up a shining example of a straw man argument: i) grossly mischaracterising one of TGD's arguments; ii) asserting that it was the only or main argument; and then iii) condescendingly asserting that the argument doesn't hold water. Did you learn those techniques in your 'cursory introduction' to philosophy?

NB I've just re-read the thread and noticed that you wrote this:

Much the same as I'd steer away from the discovery institute if I wanted to educate someone on the debate between evolution and creationism.

I'd like to think you didn't really mean that, and I'd certainly want to give you the opportunity to withdraw it.

But if you claim there is any debate whatsoever between evolution and creationism then you are an - hmm. I promised myself not to use invective. 5 letter word beginning in 'i'.

Such a debate cannot exist because the different basic principles are totally incongruent, in the same way that you cannot use a basketball to win a chess game.

What does exist is a debate as to whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools. I'm hoping that's what you were referring to.

[geoff332]

Barry, I'm not going to argue with you: I never argue with zealots. And you are as zealous in your hatred of religion as anyone religious is in their defence of their beliefs. As a zealot, you do not accept any positions that does not agree with your own.

I will pick up on a single point, to highlight precisely what I mean.

But if you claim there is any debate whatsoever between evolution and creationism then you are an - hmm. I promised myself not to use invective. 5 letter word beginning in 'i'.

There is a debate between evolution and creationism. Whether or not you believe the debate is well founded, that debate exists. Whether or not you like the debate, it does exist. To deny it exists is a simple case of ignorance. To call anyone who recognises that it exists an idiot, is pure arrogance. It's the sort of argument I used to only hear from people trying to convince me to believe in God. Now I hear it from atheists.

This particular debate exists because some people do not believe the same as you: some people believe that creationism and its bastard child of intelligent design are in some way comparable with evolution science. As a result, there are people debating directly the relative merits of creationism vs evolution. This doesn't mean that creationism and evolutionary science are comparable; it just means that some people thing they are. While closely related, it is quite separate from the debate on whether creationism should be taught in schools.

I should thank you, however, because you have perfectly illustrated the sort of bad atheistic argument that I so dislike. Instead of saying, "why are people having this debate?" you say, "there isn't a debate and anyone who believes that there is is an [idiot]!!". This sentiment trails through everything you post on religion. It is a destructive line of argument that achieves nothing.

Would I prefer if there were no debate between creationism and evolutionary science? That everyone recognised that they are fundamentally different things? That people had a sufficient comprehension of science to understand that intelligent design isn't science? Of course I would. But that just isn't the case.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Barry, I'm not going to argue with you: I never argue with zealots.

Ooh cop out That's NOT an automatic win you know.

I will pick up on a single point, to highlight precisely what I mean.

There is a debate between evolution and creationism. Whether or not you believe the debate is well founded, that debate exists.

Does it really ? Certainly there is a debate between school boards and others on including Intelligent Design in the classroom, but not creationism, that was long ago shown to be biased toward one particular religion.

I dont see a debate between evolutionary scientists and creationists. I think the evolutionary scientists will think it just as bizarre as comparing an apple and a panzer tank as the tastiest fruit. There can be no debate on the merits of two things completely unrelated to each other - even if you, or some creationist, think there should be. (or indeed claim that there IS some debate). Even leaving aside the religious aspect of creationism, it purports to be an explanation of the origin of the universe and all life - evolution does not have anything to do with either.

You admit as much in your statement "Would I prefer if ...everyone recognised that they are fundamentally different things" so surely you see Barrys point and are being argumentative because of some problem over his tone (or whatever bothers you). Unless of course you saw Barrys use of debate purely as "arguing" rather than anything more formal, but even here it is a stretch - it takes 2 sides to argue, and an evolutionary scientists dismissal of a silly argument about panzer tanks doesn't count

[Barry Shnikov]

There is a debate between evolution and creationism. Whether or not you believe the debate is well founded, that debate exists. Whether or not you like the debate, it does exist. To deny it exists is a simple case of ignorance.

No, it's not. And I will allow you to demonstrate why.

Please set out the circumstances in which any creationist (or supporter of intelligent design) will accept that the evolutionists have 'won' the 'debate'.

[geoff332]

Ooh cop out That's NOT an automatic win you know.

I'm not saying it's a win - frankly, I don't care about winning. I'm saying that one cannot win against a zealot - mostly because they will never listen to anything that doesn't agree with their own perspective. If I try and argue with that sort of narrow-mindedness, then I can't win. So I don't bother. I take the same approach dealing with someone frothing at the mouth about intelligent design.

I dont see a debate between evolutionary scientists and creationists.

It's there - but limited. One clarification is important: when I say creationist, I am including intelligent design in that category. That is the simple reason that intelligent design is a theory of creationism: it is a subset of creationism (this was the legal finding of the recent Dover trial, which was about teaching intelligent design).

So, is there a debate? Well, in 2006, the Pope fired his chief astronomer for entering the "evolution debate". Think - published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy - published an argument over the fact that Biology (and science itself) is biased towards evolution and away from intelligent design. There are hundreds of public debates each year across the world. Earlier this year, the Vatican, in a rare display of good judgement, made news by excluding creationism and intelligent design from their evolution congress.

The discovery institute has always taken their arguments about intelligent design public and attempted to hold these debates in the public forum. They argue it's because ID is not given equal press in scientific journals. This tactic continues. The "teach the controversy" approach is one of their tactics, but their broad strategy is to supplant the methodological naturalism with deistic realism at the foundation of science.

In response, you have websites like www.talkorigins.com and countless books (my favourite is Daniel Dennett's...). They layout the lack of good science behind intelligent design/creationism and the basic flaws with the theory (typically, that it starts with a premise, then attempts to prove it; that it takes all evidence against evolution as evidence for design).

These debates are real and exist in the public forum. I think Barry would agree with me when I say the debate shouldn't exist: the ID/creationism side of it is a seriously flawed argument with no foundation in science. But saying it shouldn't exist doesn't change the fact that is does exist.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I'm not saying it's a win - frankly, I don't care about winning. I'm saying that one cannot win against a zealot

I'd suggest you havent tried

It's there - but limited. One clarification is important: when I say creationist, I am including intelligent design in that category.

Well you might have said before! It sounds like you are admitting the "debate" is not over creationism at all, but just ID. However, according to Stephen C Meyer (here) "Intelligent design is not creationism" he adds "Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" he should know as he is "one of the architects of the theory".

But saying it shouldn't exist doesn't change the fact that is does exist.

Well, we'll see what Barry says now that you've changed the goalposts.

[geoff332]

I'd suggest you havent tried

Your suggestion would be wrong. Cognitive therapy talks about core beliefs: beliefs that form the core of our identity. Changing them is a very difficult and challenging process. It typically requires a strong desire to change on the part of the patient (or get shunted as the result of a trauma or some other significant life event). When someone gets zealous about something, they have incorporated that thing into their core belief structure. Barry has no desire to change on this front and I doubt it's particularly traumatic for anyone. I could give you a history of how my core beliefs have changed over time to illustrate my point - but that's stuff I don't share with anyone.

Well you might have said before! It sounds like you are admitting the "debate" is not over creationism at all, but just ID. However, according to Stephen C Meyer (here) "Intelligent design is not creationism" he adds "Contrary to media reports, ID is not a religious-based idea, but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" he should know as he is "one of the architects of the theory".

That is a part of the debate strategy - to try and conceal the religious undertones of the theory. As I said, I linked the two on the basis of a finding in the US Courts - a judge who carefully weighed up the evidence and draw his conclusion. It's not a particularly uncommon opinion. I suspect people like Dennett and Dawkins would agree with me on this one. More importantly, thisdebate is conducted in the public domain and I would happily bet that most people don't draw the fine distinction. Funnily enough, neither does the discovery institute: they consciously appeal to Christians as their natural constituents.

Well, we'll see what Barry says now that you've changed the goalposts.

Barry will post some long-winded variant on, "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm not really interested in his answer, because I already know what it will say. I suspect you do too.

[Barry Shnikov]

Barry will post some long-winded variant on, "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm not really interested in his answer, because I already know what it will say. I suspect you do too.

Long winded? Let's see. How about 20 words, and a short quote.

I note you haven't responded to my request:

Please set out the circumstances in which any creationist (or supporter of intelligent design) will accept that the evolutionists have 'won' the 'debate'.

[ducasi]

Long winded? Let's see. How about 20 words, and a short quote.

I note you haven't responded to my request:

You could ask the same question about Obama and McCain. Just because one or both sides will never concede that the other is right, doesn't make it not a debate.

[stewart38]

Barry, I'm not going to argue with you: I never argue with zealots. And you are as zealous in your hatred of religion as anyone religious is in their defence of their beliefs. As a zealot, you do not accept any positions that does not agree with your own.

Can I skip what he wrote then ? I dont have the time

[ducasi]

There are several arguments advanced in TGD; the argument (badly) paraphrased by G332 is only one of them.

The main and essential argument of the book is that god is no longer a necessary hypothesis. ...
That is the main argument of TGD.

Having established – pretty conclusively – that god is not a necessary condition for the existence of the universe, the book goes on to explore the question of whether religion is a necessary condition for the existence of man and then whether it is an advisable condition.

I nave recently determined that my old telly is not necessary. It is not necessary to my continued life, and I think it is no longer advisable to retain it as it takes up space.

Thus, I have stopped believing I have an old telly.

Many wars in my house have now ended.

[stewart38]

I nave recently determined that my old telly is not necessary. It is not necessary to my continued life, and I think it is no longer advisable to retain it as it takes up space.

Thus, I have stopped believing I have an old telly.

Many wars in my house have now ended.

However wether that old Telly still exists is the mute point

Im on the fence till after judgement day

[Gus]

What real point did you expect him to make? Its called 'the god delusion' and is mainly ranting about religious zealots I blame your poor book choice, not Richard Dawkins

Possibly. I had thought it was a book to disprove the existence of God. Having read a number of books 'proving' the existence of God I thought it was sensible to read a counter proposal. I think I need to find a better example.

BTW I've found the thing that has MOST turned me away from God to be the behaviour of Religious Zealots, e.g. Muslim bombers; Rev Ian Paisley; Child-abusing priests; The Vatican; nutters who bellow in street corners random passages form the bible etc.

The thnigs have kept me in the faith game have been the self-effacing examples of the like of MLK, Ghandi, Mother Teressa and various friends who I never realised were of the Fiath but just brought kindness to those around them without expecting anytging in return.

[geoff332]

Possibly. I had thought it was a book to disprove the existence of God. Having read a number of books 'proving' the existence of God I thought it was sensible to read a counter proposal. I think I need to find a better example.

That was one of my points: Dawkins book is a polemic and does not engage with the more rational facets of the debate. I wish Dawkins had written a book summarising why science has made god unnecessary (ie the start of the book he did write). Between that and the well established rational critiques it would've destroyed the deist position. He later argues that god is unnecessary for explaining moral behaviour in people.

Betrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian" is pretty good, although a little dated in places now (his logic is, as always, flawless). Daniel Dennett makes a far more eloquent defence of evolution in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (I think he does a better job of summarising Dawkins earlier ideas than Dawkins does).

BTW I've found the thing that has MOST turned me away from God to be the behaviour of Religious Zealots, e.g. Muslim bombers; Rev Ian Paisley; Child-abusing priests; The Vatican; nutters who bellow in street corners random passages form the bible etc.

For me, it was the creationists - because they are trying to undermine the foundations of modern society and being quite deceitful about it. The other various nutters are precisely that: slightly mad. I don't judge Christianity or religion on the behaviour of people who've used religion to validate their pathology. There are plenty of areligious nutters who've done significant harm without using religion to justify it.

I'm now getting disillusioned with the fact that atheists have adopted the same tactics as the creationists. That won't make me a believer. If anything, it makes me believe in less. But it does sadden and disappoint me.

The thnigs have kept me in the faith game have been the self-effacing examples of the like of MLK, Ghandi, Mother Teressa and various friends who I never realised were of the Fiath but just brought kindness to those around them without expecting anytging in return.

For me, that wasn't enough. Mostly because, as with the nutters, there are plenty of good and decent people who do good without using religion to guide their actions. My belief is that being good or being bad is a characteristic of humanity, not of religion (a position a lot of people will argue with - but it's one of my core beliefs, so they're wasting their time). For some people, holding religious belief helps them be a good person (or a bad person). For others, they don't find it necessary.

One of Dawkins ideas is that the belief in god is a meme - a socio-cultural concept that is learnt, preserved and evolves over generations (that meme is the god delusion). He argues that the religious meme is no longer beneficial to society, thus we should get rid of it. This is the argument that I find least convincing, mostly because he can't (or doesn't) properly separate any sort of essential humanity from the god delusion (the god meme is created by people). Thus, all the sins he attributes to the god delusion are products of being human.

[Barry Shnikov]

The thnigs have kept me in the faith game have been the self-effacing examples of the like of MLK, Ghandi, Mother Teressa and various friends who I never realised were of the Fiath but just brought kindness to those around them without expecting anytging in return.

What was Gandhi's religion, then?

[Gus]

What was Gandhi's religion, then?

Irrelevant ... he was a man of Faith who believed in a higher purpose. He believed in a 'God(s)' and do I. The important thing is that he believed and did good ....

[geoff332]

I note you haven't responded to my request:

I'd already said I wasn't going to argue with you and I've explained why. I will not respond, because I am confident that nothing I can say will change your belief. I'm not interested in exercises in futility. If a hard-core creationist was posting on this thread, they would get exactly the same response. Neither of us will convince the other and I'm not interested in creating pages of pointless discourse.

I am happy to respond to others, mostly because they demonstrate a different attitude, even those who don't necessarily agree with me (I'm looking at you, Mr Scathe). Perhaps they might learn something and I know I'm learning stuff as we go along.

[Barry Shnikov]

You could ask the same question about Obama and McCain. Just because one or both sides will never concede that the other is right, doesn't make it not a debate.

Well, I don't think that's a good comparison.

I'm going to make an assumption to start with, and that is that both candidates have the best interests at heart of the nation which one of them will lead.

Given that assumption, we can make a statement.

If one of them was able to prove, conclusively, that a policy- a policy supported by the other - would lead to unacceptable consequences for their nation, I would expect the two to reach agreement on the right policy to follow.

Now, clearly, most policy issues are so complex that proving indisputably that one policy is better is in practice virtually impossible. However, IF it were possible, one can be reasonably certain of the outcome.

As for creationists, it does not matter how many times and in how many ways the scientists of different disciplines can show that the evidence supports evolution by natural selection and in how many times and in how many ways it contradicts creationism/intelligent design, the proponents of the latter will never be swayed because they start with a fixed belief in the truth of their sacred book.

The conflict between evolution and creationism is not a debate, because it flows from utterly opposed mind-sets. The whole ethos of a debate is that the people should make up their own mind. Creationists do not want people to make up their own mind; they want people to do as they are told.