Thoughts on The God Delusion

[Humphrey]

Quoting Haunted from 15:26, 23rd Jul 2008
The only close thing to an example of such dodging I can think of is this (almost famous) clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Though it's obvious he dodged the question to show her how silly a thing it is to ask.

This was my favourite debate on Richard Dawkins.net, if only because all the guests in the 'religious contingent' are stark raving mad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpisFulU ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4GYgEDK ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaObPSPNgWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xinofCFL ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk0AlJFa ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHeqg0bt ... re=related

There was a great nutter at the end of his Inverness appearance as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOKGOOkEIjs&feature=user

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[munchingfoo]

Yeah - and thats not really dodging, he answered the question by putting it into perspective.

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[d_24]

Quoting munchingfoo from 15:07, 23rd Jul 2008

Quoting Mehmsy from 14:36, 23rd Jul 2008
My dislike for Dawkins comes from the fact that in most of his public appearances (ones I've seen) his Q&A sessions involve him outrightly dodging clever questions posed to him by religious people in lieu of personally attacking the fact that they believe in whatever God they believe in.

Do you have a video source I could watch for an example of this? Generally I find Dawkins only avoids answering a question when it is so stupid that in answering it he'd be dropping to the level of the questioners.

I haven't heard of a single "clever question" asked of an athiest by a theist. Perhaps you can also quote one of these? (by this I am not implying that they are all stupid question, merely that they are normal, average questions)

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

I was about to respond in a similar vein. Well said sir.

[hr]

Before Bauer...There Was House

[VideoProof]

Quoting munchingfoo from 15:07, 23rd Jul 2008

Generally I find Dawkins only avoids answering a question when it is so stupid that in answering it he'd be dropping to the level of the questioners.

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

Do you have any video source of this?

[out_stanley_fishing]

I recently found these essays by Stanley Fish, the literary critic, who essentially ends up arguing against Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris basically because he thinks that their arguments are really rather weak. What do you think?

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/the-three-atheists/

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/atheism-and-evidence/

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/is-religion-man-made/

[Haunted]

Fish is another would-be theologian employing clever sophistry who just can't comprehend what those three authors are actually saying. Instead of taking issue with their arguements he goes for examples of questions that theology has been asking for centuries, when the point being made is that theology is just made up nonsense*.

The Courtiers reply is the best response to these types of "rebuttals".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php

Oh and I also notice he's comparing belief in evolution to belief in god, how quaint.


*Theologians that deal with history and culture are arguably not theologians at all but historians and there is no nonsense in studying that.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[munchingfoo]

Quoting VideoProof from 15:39, 23rd Jul 2008
Do you have any video source of this?

I don't need a video source to make a claim of a personal finding, the fact that I say it makes it true.

Examples:

I find blue soothing.
In general I find that most plants are green.
I think all dogs are black.
Generally I find dawkins only avoids questions when they are stupid.

Examples which require proof:

Blue is soothing.
Most plants are green.
All dogs are black.
Dawkin avoids all "clever questions" posed to him.

But if you insist - the clip posted between my post and yours is an example.



[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Haunted]

Quoting VideoProof from 15:39, 23rd Jul 2008
Do you have any video source of this?

Also, one cannot prove a negative.

"Dawkins does A" needs proof of Dawkins doing A.
"Dawkins does not do A" cannot have proof only a lack of it but can easily be disproved by providing evidence that he does indeed do A. Perhaps a complete video recording of his entire life could be proof of the negative though.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[out_stanley_fishing]

I thought that Fish did agree that theology is made up, but that this does not in itself disprove the existence of God. Also, he is not a theologian or even a "would-be-theologian", and after having read some of his works on literary criticism, I am not entirely sure that he in not an atheist. The reason that he quotes the Bible so extensively is that he is a scholar of Seventeenth century English literature, and Christianity was the language of the times. A scholar in this area cannot escape that.

Also, one of the great conundrums of this whole science vs. faith argument is that neither can be proved or disproved. This is problematic for either side. I thought that he made a quite nice point of showing that the words Dawkins uses to describe he belief in how ethics would be explained by science are the same words used by the Bible to explain faith in God.

I really believe that we need to get away from the idea that faith is a dirty word. We cannot know everything exhaustively, so at a certain point we must weigh what we do know and make a decision about the things which we do not or cannot know. This is the only reasonable response. This then means that we have to place faith in the knowledge that we do have and believe that it is sufficient criteria for the assertions that we make based upon it. The problem is really blind faith vs. well reason faith.

Dawkins believes that there is no god. He is an athiest. He has weighed his scientific knowledge and come to the belief that this shows there is no god. He cannot prove it, but he considers arguments to be valid and ultimately damning of the belief in God. This is an act of belief and ultimately an act of faith. A reasoned act of faith, but an act of faith non the less.

Quoting Haunted from 17:22, 23rd Jul 2008
Fish is another would-be theologian employing clever sophistry who just can't comprehend what those three authors are actually saying. Instead of taking issue with their arguements he goes for examples of questions that theology has been asking for centuries, when the point being made is that theology is just made up nonsense*.

The Courtiers reply is the best response to these types of "rebuttals".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php

Oh and I also notice he's comparing belief in evolution to belief in god, how quaint.


*Theologians that deal with history and culture are arguably not theologians at all but historians and there is no nonsense in studying that.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[munchingfoo]

Quoting out_stanley_fishing from 17:47, 23rd Jul 2008
Dawkins believes that there is no god. He is an athiest. He has weighed his scientific knowledge and come to the belief that this shows there is no god. He cannot prove it, but he considers arguments to be valid and ultimately damning of the belief in God. This is an act of belief and ultimately an act of faith. A reasoned act of faith, but an act of faith non the less.

Atheism is not a belief. Its a lack of belief. Just in the same way that not believing in the FSM or the CT is not a belief, its a lack of belief.


[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[out_stanley_fishing]

Perhaps it is in the way you define atheism. If you say, I do not believe in god, then it is a non-belief. However, if you say I believe there is no god, the it is a belief. But this is just semantics, because both arrive at the same place.

A belief in a non-existence in still a belief. Because it is the same thing as a lack of belief in an existence. It is a belief defining itself against another belief.

Belief is not synonymous with religion. So do not worry. I am not branding atheists as being religious. However the attempt to claim atheism as a lack of belief vs. a belief seems a little absurd to me.

[munchingfoo]

Its got nothing to do with definition, its to do with fact.

Using your definition people would have an (almost) infinite amount of beliefs.

I don't believe in flying pigs.
I don't believe there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter.
I don' believe that we were created by the flying spagetti monster.

You cannot define a lack of belief as a belief, unless there is evidence to suggest either sides of an argument but not enough to prove either way. In this case you get to choose which argument you believe.

If there exists no evidence at all on either side then the person who believes in an object has belief in it, the person who doesn't-doesn't have belief not in it. (nice bit of grammar there), they just think the other person is mental.

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Haunted]

Quoting out_stanley_fishing from 17:47, 23rd Jul 2008
I thought that Fish did agree that theology is made up, but that this does not in itself disprove the existence of God. Also, he is not a theologian or even a "would-be-theologian"

I used the term would-be because his arguements are from theology.

Also, one of the great conundrums of this whole science vs. faith argument is that neither can be proved or disproved.

Crudely worded here. Science and faith both obviously exist so proof of them is easy to come by. I assume you are argueing that belief in the invisible cannot be proved or disproved? True.

This is problematic for either side. I thought that he made a quite nice point of showing that the words Dawkins uses to describe he belief in how ethics would be explained by science are the same words used by the Bible to explain faith in God.

Ethics are being explained by science. There are a myriad of papers out there on biological explanations for empathy and morality

I really believe that we need to get away from the idea that faith is a dirty word. We cannot know everything exhaustively, so at a certain point we must weigh what we do know and make a decision about the things which we do not or cannot know.

To live as a materialist (as I do) you need only assume that your senses work some of time (not all of the time). It's an assumption true, but it is an assumption everyone must necessarily make. If you want to call that faith then you are entitled since it is impossible to objectively verify reality. It would be over zealous to then exclaim that belief in anything is perfectly ok.

This then means that we have to place faith in the knowledge that we do have and believe that it is sufficient criteria for the assertions that we make based upon it. The problem is really blind faith vs. well reason faith.

Dawkins readily admits there are interesting arguements for loosely definied deism (though he is not swayed by them). Though this does in no way allow one to proceed to the very specific claims by the, say, christianity on the nature of reality.

Dawkins believes that there is no god.

To be exact, he claims to be a defacto atheist. He would readily believe in any god were sufficient evidence of that gods existence produced.

He has weighed his scientific knowledge and come to the belief that this shows there is no god. He cannot prove it, but he considers arguments to be valid and ultimately damning of the belief in God.

As you have done with Thor, Apollo, Mithras, Ra, Osiris, Venus, Mars... I could go on.

This is an act of belief and ultimately an act of faith. A reasoned act of faith, but an act of faith non the less.

A lack of belief is not a belief. Do you consider your lack of belief in my divinity to be a belief? Do you therefore refer to your self as an A-divinehauntedist?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[out_stanley_fishing]

Quoting munchingfoo from 19:40, 23rd Jul 2008
Its got nothing to do with definition, its to do with fact.

Using your definition people would have an (almost) infinite amount of beliefs.

I don't believe in flying pigs.
I don't believe there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter.
I don' believe that we were created by the flying spagetti monster.

You cannot define a lack of belief as a belief, unless there is evidence to suggest either sides of an argument but not enough to prove either way. In this case you get to choose which argument you believe.

If there exists no evidence at all on either side then the person who believes in an object has belief in it, the person who doesn't-doesn't have belief not in it. (nice bit of grammar there), they just think the other person is mental.

I think that your definition of belief is too small. Of course people have an almost infinite amount of beliefs. Belief has nothing to do with fact or evidence, this is why there are such absurd beliefs out there. A person can believe in anything. There are almost no limits to belief.

How about this for an illustration? A person looks at the world and says "Based upon all I know and see, I believe there is a god." Another person says "Based upon all I know and see, I believe that there isn't a god." A third person says "Based upon all I know and see, I have no idea whether or not there is a god." It is agnosticism which is the non-belief, not atheism or theism. Because atheism and theism make absolute statements concerning an issue.

Your thoughts and arguments seem to be mired in a prejudice against the word belief to the point that you define belief in such a way that you do not have to actually believe in anything, rather facts determine what you will say one way or another, but this just betrays a belief you have in the facts you use.

The only way to have a lack of belief is to not take sides on any issue. It is only the person who says "I don't know," who has a lack of belief. All who say "I know," believe in what they say.

[Ragamuffin_artist]

As the first cause of this thread, I feel obligated to chime in.

Quoting Haunted from 14:31, 22nd Jul 2008


What happened before the big bang? What's north of the north pole?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

I’m actually not sure this question is as nonsensical as it might sound. As I see it, it is just as legit as asking a deist/creationist “what caused your First Cause?” Is the general consensus that there was both energy and matter prior to the big bang? If so, what was this energy and matter doing and how did it get there?

On a final note, I will gladly admit that entropy is far more complex (and indeed more interesting) than I originally thought. Haunted, I’m afraid I’ll have to research quite a bit just to understand what you’re even saying.

[munchingfoo]

I was interested in this so I looked around the internet for a bit. It seems there is a process where by matter and antimatter can spontaneously appear in a vacuum. (I can't remember the process, or the link, buit I am sure someone will find it for me)

Basically matter and energy are linked in the same way that antimatter and antienergy are linked, but both sets cancel the other out. If you were to create matter without energy, then you would have something from nothing, but instead if at the same time you create its equal and opposite matter, antimatter then the energy used to create the matter causes the antienergy which is used to create the antimatter.

Its a bit of a head fuck and I think I found it on wikipedia, so I'm not sure how this theory is rated. Perhaps someone else could jump in here? Haunted, Mr "I'm in optics magazine"?

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Humphrey]

Quoting munchingfoo from 08:11, 24th Jul 2008
I was interested in this so I looked around the internet for a bit. It seems there is a process where by matter and antimatter can spontaneously appear in a vacuum. (I can't remember the process, or the link, buit I am sure someone will find it for me)

Basically matter and energy are linked in the same way that antimatter and antienergy are linked, but both sets cancel the other out. If you were to create matter without energy, then you would have something from nothing, but instead if at the same time you create its equal and opposite matter, antimatter then the energy used to create the matter causes the antienergy which is used to create the antimatter.

Its a bit of a head fuck and I think I found it on wikipedia, so I'm not sure how this theory is rated. Perhaps someone else could jump in here? Haunted, Mr "I'm in optics magazine"?

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

At this stage where there is so much we don’t know about the universe, statements about “before the big bang” are inevitably conjectural and/or metaphysical speculation. What conclusion you reach is largely a matter of personal taste. I'm not even sure if there is any good meaning to the statement 'what came before' since time appears to be an emergent property.

One ultimate cause which is proposed by physicists like Stenger is a quantum vacuum fluctuation. Here the universe can appear because Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal allows it to pop into existence. On current formulations, the positive and negative energies seem to balance out arithmetically which is very interesting indeed. However, given the great uncertainty of the nature and identity of the Dark Energy and Dark Matter that seem to be the major components of the Universe, that cannot be regarded as conclusive. Especially since only 4% of the matter and energy in the Universe is made of what we understand as matter, and most of the universe seems, on current understandings, to be “dark matter” and “dark energy” about which we know nearly nothing, and no-one knows how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.

It’s also worth pointing out that this doesn’t entirely solve the ‘something from nothing conundrum as the Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” but an incredibly rich structure, teeming with possibilities and energy. It is also hard to see how we can use the laws of physics to describe something happening before the laws of physics existed. Unless we are proposing that the laws of physics have always existed. It is important to emphasise in these discussions that the universe is not simply a bunch of rocks hanging hopelessly in a void, its a highly complex structure which needs to be ‘fine tuned’ in certain ways to give rise to anything interesting at all. This is why the multiverse explanation is so much in vogue at the moment.


[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Haunted]

Quoting ragamuffin_artist from 04:17, 24th Jul 2008
As the first cause of this thread, I feel obligated to chime in.

Cause and effect is more of a philosophical idea than it is a scientific one. Quantum physics allows for some very counter intuitive phenomena such as spontaneous generation of matter of energy without any prior cause.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Humphrey from 09:17, 24th Jul 2008
its a highly complex structure which needs to be ‘fine tuned’ in certain ways to give rise to anything interesting at all.

That the fundamental constants can be anything else than what they are is an assumption. There is no reason why they should be anything else (nor why they shouldn't be other than we observe them to be constant).

and no-one knows how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.

My money is heavily on general relativity being wrong.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting out_stanley_fishing from 20:26, 23rd Jul 2008
The only way to have a lack of belief is to not take sides on any issue. It is only the person who says "I don't know," who has a lack of belief. All who say "I know," believe in what they say.

But I am saying 'I don't know'. I never claimed to know whether there is a god or not (and even then which one?), I simply claimed not to believe in any. It is a belief to claim "there is no god", but it is not a belief to say "I do not believe in one".

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn