TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

For those of you interested in the whole God & science topic:

I finished Dawkins' book several weeks ago. My interest was piqued largely by what Dawkins was calling his "Ultimate 747 Argument against God's Existence", where he claims to have shown that that God's existence is highly improbable. I came away from the book, and from that argument in particular, being very disappointed and honestly a slight bit offended. I was disappointed in the argument he gave as it struck me as one of the most incoherent arguments either for or against theism that I've ever heard. The offense was not because my religious sensibilities were attacked (I have little of that so there's nothing to offend) but because Dawkins thinks that the question of God's existence is one that can be resolved by scientific inquiry. The statement that somehow this question could be resolved by science sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.

In any case, I wrote a rather lengthy critique of the argument and identified at least three separate problems. Three weeks after I finished the argument, a 'flame war' over it continues on Dawkins board and also on the infidels.org board (someone found my argument, attacked me, and I started replying).

If you're interested in this kind of stuff here are the relevant links (fyi: I am 'hxPersei' and 'ic348')
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum...opic.php?t=2739
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=188275
and it's discussed here as well:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=188156

Re: My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Kenosis Dawkins thinks that the question of God's existence is one that can be resolved by scientific inquiry. The statement that somehow this question could be resolved by science sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.

Are you being serious? I thought Dawkins was suppost to be a pretty intelligent guy? Or did you paraphrase something he said? Because that's probably the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Apprently Dawkins isn't terribly familiar with the 'description' of God (atleast) in the holy books of the three monotheistic faiths. Or he's doesn't understand the term Science very well. How do you even begin to prove or disprove the existance of something that human language doesn't have the capacity to define?

Re: Re: My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Are you being serious? I thought Dawkins was suppost to be a pretty intelligent guy? Or did you paraphrase something he said? Because that's probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in a while. Apprently Dawkins isn't terribly familiar with the 'description' of God (atleast) in the holy books of the three monotheistic faiths. Or he's doesn't understand the term Science very well. How do you even begin to prove or disprove the existance of something that human language doesn't have the capacity to define?

shaolin_Z, I am 100%, absolutely, positively serious.

From page 48 where he's basically saying that the permanent agnostic position is a copout:
"The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. *It is a scientific question* (emphasis mine); one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability".

Page 50:
"Contrary to Huxley, i shall sugest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis *like any other* (again, my emphasis). Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs to the same TAP or temporary agnosticisim box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctinos. God's existenceor non-existence is a *scientific fact about the universe*, discoverable in principle if not in practice."


I'm not making this stuff up.

Re: Re: Re: My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Kenosis shaolin_Z, I am 100%, absolutely, positively serious. From page 48 where he's basically saying that the permanent agnostic position is a copout: "The view that I shall defend is very different: agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. *It is a scientific question* (emphasis mine); one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability". Page 50: "Contrary to Huxley, i shall sugest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis *like any other* (again, my emphasis). Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs to the same TAP or temporary agnosticisim box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctinos. God's existenceor non-existence is a *scientific fact about the universe*, discoverable in principle if not in practice."

If im not wrong, you just missed shaolin's sarcasm (I'm hoping). If you can not turn the question of the existence of god into a 'scientific' question, i.e. a question that can be examined by looking at evidence with objective methods, then how would you propose the question be examined at all? If you look at the question without objective measures any results you obtain will be only of personal use, and worthless to the rest of us.

Re: Re: Re: Re: My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If im not wrong, you just missed shaolin's sarcasm (I'm hoping). If you can not turn the question of the existence of god into a 'scientific' question, i.e. a question that can be examined by looking at evidence with objective methods, then how would you propose the question be examined at all? If you look at the question without objective measures any results you obtain will be only of personal use, and worthless to the rest of us.

Well, I actually don't really think you can conclusively resolve the question with *scientific* measures at all. I think I gave a pretty good argument that even if our symbolic understanding of God is good enough to at least frame the question of what we're trying to know exists/doesn't exist, it's still not a scientific question. In terms of any 'objective measures' used to address the question, the first thing you can do is first see if there's a Bayesian inference you can draw from the universe itself that makes the existence of God very likely or very unlikely. While the standard 'proofs' for the existence of God don't fare very well, neither do many of the atheistic arguments, except some sort of theodicy argument. I've found that you basically end up where you started from.

Uhh... well... just to clarify what Science is:

quote:

Science From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. Scientific method From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].

How does one 'observe' God? And how exactly do you 'quantify' an infinite and omnipotent being? Especially given the fact that humans are limited, finite beings, and human language doesn't have the capacity to define God?

If someone discovered "God" in a lab, "it" would seize to what the Bible, Torah, and Quran describe, yes?

I guess I should add there a reason why it's called "faith" and not knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I guess I should add there a reason why it's called "faith" and not knowledge.

I agree...
though, hardly a day goes by without some evangelical (and a few catholics) claiming 'to know' things by faith. You don't 'know' anything by 'faith': you believe it.

The most interesting thing I find about people like Dawkins is how he preaches his belief (and probably think the world would be a better place with out religion and God) the same way a Preacher does. Neighter one of them can prove their claim, but yet are obsessed with having others share it. I think it makes even less sense for an athiest.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The most interesting thing I find about people like Dawkins is how he preaches his belief (and probably think the world would be a better place with out religion and God) the same way a Preacher does. Neighter one of them can prove their claim, but yet are obsessed with having others share it. I think it makes even less sense for an athiest.

Seriously. Have you read "The God Delusion"? The whole thing feels like ...well, a sermon.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Kenosis Seriously. Have you read "The God Delusion"? The whole thing feels like ...well, a sermon.

That's rather ironic. No, I've only heard some of Dawkins lectures, seen some apprearances on TV, and a documentary someone posted here a while ago.

Re: Re: Re: Re: My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

quote:

Originally posted by venomX If im not wrong, you just missed shaolin's sarcasm (I'm hoping). If you can not turn the question of the existence of god into a 'scientific' question, i.e. a question that can be examined by looking at evidence with objective methods, then how would you propose the question be examined at all? If you look at the question without objective measures any results you obtain will be only of personal use, and worthless to the rest of us.

Agreed.

You are correct that "God" (in a general sense) can't be disproven using the scientific method. This is precisely because theists will always simply resort to moving the goalposts and define/re-define their "God" as being "outside of" or "transcending" whatever scientific methodology is used or proposed.

Nevermind the fact that this generally involves ascribing characteristics to "God" that no human being could justifiably claim to have an adequate frame of reference to rationally consider. I suppose that if they weren't prone to self-deception then they wouldn't be theists, so it's to be expected.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You are correct that "God" (in a general sense) can't be disproven using the scientific method. This is precisely because theists will always simply resort to moving the goalposts and define/re-define their "God" as being "outside of" or "transcending" whatever scientific methodology is used or proposed.

Apparently you didn't read what I said. I find it rather interesting that my post, which I fail to see as being offensive, provoced this reaction from you, since you're so obsessed with "rationalism."

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Nevermind the fact that this generally involves ascribing characteristics to "God" that no human being could justifiably claim to have an adequate frame of reference to rationally consider. I suppose that if they weren't prone to self-deception then they wouldn't be theists, so it's to be expected.

You're right, in the most strict sense (rationalism, i.e. deductive reasoning appealing soley to the intellect), it's not rational. Also, I never personally ascribed any such charactestics. I'm don't recall claiming to be a prophet anywhere in my post. Abductive reasoning (which is still considered rational btw) doesn't fall under the definition of 'rationalism' eigther. So speaking of rationality in that restricted context, morality is completely irrational too. There's no deductive line of reasoning proving the validity of a single moral or ethical principle. That makes it kind of hard to deduce any system of morality or even a set of principles. A will to exist isn't rational eigther. Neighter is experiencing any type of emotion a rational act. I guess that makes you a pretty irrational person too then.

By universal and absolute applicaton of that standard, NOTHING is rational, since all deductive proofs are based on assumptions. If you've formally studied logic, you should be well aware that no assumption has any more validity over another in a logical framework.

There a bunch of other factors relevant to this entire subject (like the functionality of the human brain etc.), but I won't get into it rightnow since I don't have the time. And even if I did, it's a rather pointless discussion for obvious reasons.

EDIT: One reason I don't enjoy arguing about this is because of the hypocrisy of (some) athiests. If everything you hold to be true must be validated via deductive reasoning, then you'd literally better abandon everything. There isn't a single predicate or theory that doesn't rely on unproven assumptions. Plus the fact that people use abductive reasoning all the time, including athiets.

(I originaly made another post, but I might as well put it here)

EDIT2: I guess if you weren't prone to "self-deception," you wouldn't have posted that.

I was responding to the OP, not you shaolin.

But since you decided to interject...

quote:

You're right, in the most strict sense (rationalism, i.e. deductive reasoning), it's not rational. Also, I never personally ascribed any such charactestics. I'm don't recall claiming to be a prophet anywhere in my post. Abductive reasoning (which is still considered rational btw) doesn't fall under the definition of 'rationalism' eigther. So speaking of rationality in that restricted context, morality is completely irrational too. There's no deductive line of reasoning proving the validity of a single moral or ethical principle. That makes it kind of hard to deduce any system of morality or even a set of principles. A will to exist isn't rational eigther. Neighter is experiencing any type of emotion a rational act. I guess that makes you a pretty irrational person too then. By universal and absolute applicaton of that standard, NOTHING is rational, since all deductive proofs are based on assumptions. If you've formally studied logic, you should be well aware that no assumption has any more validity over another in a logical framework.

No. Logic is a tool for analyzing the relationships between different statements that are either true or false, it is not it's own philosophical system. A will to exist is neither rational nor irrational because it does not make any claim about the truth or fallacy of an particular statement. Experiencing emotions is even less an issue of rationality: in this case, you aren't even making an assertion of any kind, you are experiencing a biological phenomenon. A code of morality or system of ethics is as rational or irrational as the reasoning which underlies it, independent of whether or not the assumptions used to develop it are true.

Defending a belief in some entity by ascribing to that entity characteristics which make it impossible to conceive of, much less believe in, is not rational. This is because the argument being made is self-contradictory. Belief in something can't be justified by the fact that it's impossible to believe in.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I was responding to the OP, not you shaolin.

Whoops .

EDIT: I guess it's a little too late for me to take back anything I said that you may have found objectionable. I'm not fond of being dishonest eigther, especially to avoid upsetting sensitivites. I try really hard not to do that being the (relatively) sensitive prick that I am . I also personally consider that to be somewhat disrespetful in a sense, which I don't want to be towards you eigther. I guess I made a booboo .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Whoops . EDIT: I guess it's a little too late for me to take back anything I said that you may have found objectionable. I'm not fond of being dishonest eigther, especially to avoid upsetting sensitivites. I try really hard not to do that being the (relatively) sensitive prick that I am . I also personally consider that to be somewhat disrespetful in a sense, which I don't want to be towards you eigther. I guess I made a booboo .

Don't worry about it, I'm almost impossible to offend. Not too good at avoiding offending other people though.

I don't understand why spirituality (the appreciation of the complex beauty of life and the universe) has to include a heirarchy involving God.

I assume it's because our species, and our direct pre-species, were social animals who functioned on the basis of power structures, not unlike packs of wolves.

We're so used to the heirarchy, whether it be ancient plains shamans, samurai lords, your boss at work, or the president of the united states. It's in our history and maybe even our genetics, so we make the shallow mistake that the universe itself must share this same heirarchy.

I guess we like having someone else having a large degree of our own responsibility.

But yeah, I really don't see at all why a spiritual connection with ourselves and the universe needs to include any heirarchy or God. :shrug:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I don't understand why spirituality (the appreciation of the complex beauty of life and the universe) has to include a heirarchy involving God.

I don't understand why new agers and modern society views religion as necessarily discluding:

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby spirituality (the appreciation of the complex beauty of life and the universe)

and be not much more than a heirarchical system of control, domination, and filth...

That's certainly not what it means to me...

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I assume it's because our species, and our direct pre-species, were social animals who functioned on the basis of power structures, not unlike packs of wolves. We're so used to the heirarchy, whether it be ancient plains shamans, samurai lords, your boss at work, or the president of the united states. It's in our history and maybe even our genetics, so we make the shallow mistake that the universe itself must share this same heirarchy. I guess we like having someone else having a large degree of our own responsibility. But yeah, I really don't see at all why a spiritual connection with ourselves and the universe needs to include any heirarchy or God. :shrug:

Ofcourse, it can be, if people want to be sheep and not take responsibilty for themselves. But that's hardly unique to (perverted) religious ideology. Every political, philosophical, religious, and even economic doctrine is used by the few in power to control the many (eventually). Most people just don't realize the system they live under isn't. So it doesn't really come across as necessarily having any symbiotic relation with any of those ideologies per se, but more of a reflection of (the darker aspects of) human nature. Although, I think it has more to do with collective choice than human nature.

You cannot hope to understand the supernatural through natural means. There is only so far you can go before it boils down to a question of faith. Much like we can not describe the universe before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang because the current laws of physics were unified.

Remember, we are still a Level Zero Civilization, just about to transition into Level One. We still have barely made a pin-scratch into what we can possibly know. This debate will be open for centuries to come.

I'd be a lot more open to a 'god/goddess/great spirit' being up there if the followers of such things where not trying to ram it into my brain, knocking on my door when I'm trying to sleep (unknown people bashing on your door unexpectedly is not a good thing- ever) in and generally looking at me with the out to lunch, doe-eyed ferver you only usually see in two types of people.

1. People on E, who tend to be annoying and stupid.
2. People who are 'crazy' and not in a funny or harmless type of crazy, the cut up people and put them in pickle jars unless youre with them type of crazy.

If I'm really lucky, I'll get the reformed crack/smack/meth addict who found god on a street corner with their milk crate telling people how god saved their lives by getting them off the junk with love.
I'm sure god will really forgive you for stealing my car stereo last year when you where in DT's and needed a hit.
However, myself and anyone else who's been a part of your 'victimless' crimes thinks youre just a filthy arsehole, god loves you, great, I think youre an arsehole.
(that and you've probably got Hepatitis or some other hideously contagious disease so just keep the hell away from me)

Then theres the guys who just arent really trying at all... and you know who you are. The Scientologists and the Mormons, seriously, take a step back for a minute and listen to what youre shoveling.
Its a cult, made up by some modern day charismatic lunatics who are akin to the christian version of salmon John West rejects and something made up by a sci-fi author as a bit of a joke.
Kind of like uncle AJ Crowley and Gardner when they decided to make up Wicca after drinking too much and taking a lot of really WooHOO! narcotics for a few years. Best laugh of modern times that one!
Except some people think its 'real' where it slips from funny to just plain weird.

If I'm really unlucky, I'll meet some deranged muslim who thinks I should wear a full length, body covering garment even though my culture has nothing like that in it, neither does the Koran and probably not his culture either.
Because I'll be considered a 'piece of meat'.
I'm a modern lady, who makes a lot of money, independant, doesnt really hurt anyone and would barely offend anyone with how I look most days, unless god hates dreadlocks and short people too.
Wearing something from a foreign country is not going to endear god to me and god probably has better things to do anyway that be concerned with our sense of fashion. If he really wants to endear himself to me, he can immolate kids wearing tracksuits in shopping malls with backwards baseball caps on from a foreign country, then I might be sold... you can put the guns away now.

So, theres my quick, politically incorrect roundup of current religion as I see it and without mentioning all the wars over whether god has a tail or doesnt have a tail or who's got the prettier scripture.
Quintessentially, I just find a dork in a lab coat telling me in Carl Sagan monotone how the universe was made, how the stars float around up there and what keeps my two feet on the dirt, much less annoying, personally threatening and in my face.
There you go, a +1 for the nerds of the world

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith I'd be a lot more open to a 'god/goddess/great spirit' being up there if the followers of such things where not trying to ram it into my brain, knocking on my door when I'm trying to sleep (unknown people bashing on your door unexpectedly is not a good thing- ever) in and generally looking at me with the out to lunch, doe-eyed ferver you only usually see in two types of people. 1. People on E, who tend to be annoying and stupid. 2. People who are 'crazy' and not in a funny or harmless type of crazy, the cut up people and put them in pickle jars unless youre with them type of crazy. If I'm really lucky, I'll get the reformed crack/smack/meth addict who found god on a street corner with their milk crate telling people how god saved their lives by getting them off the junk with love. I'm sure god will really forgive you for stealing my car stereo last year when you where in DT's and needed a hit. However, myself and anyone else who's been a part of your 'victimless' crimes thinks youre just a filthy arsehole, god loves you, great, I think youre an arsehole. (that and you've probably got Hepatitis or some other hideously contagious disease so just keep the hell away from me) Then theres the guys who just arent really trying at all... and you know who you are. The Scientologists and the Mormons, seriously, take a step back for a minute and listen to what youre shoveling. Its a cult, made up by some modern day charismatic lunatics who are akin to the christian version of salmon John West rejects and something made up by a sci-fi author as a bit of a joke. Kind of like uncle AJ Crowley and Gardner when they decided to make up Wicca after drinking too much and taking a lot of really WooHOO! narcotics for a few years. Best laugh of modern times that one! Except some people think its 'real' where it slips from funny to just plain weird. If I'm really unlucky, I'll meet some deranged muslim who thinks I should wear a full length, body covering garment even though my culture has nothing like that in it, neither does the Koran and probably not his culture either. Because I'll be considered a 'piece of meat'. I'm a modern lady, who makes a lot of money, independant, doesnt really hurt anyone and would barely offend anyone with how I look most days, unless god hates dreadlocks and short people too. Wearing something from a foreign country is not going to endear god to me and god probably has better things to do anyway that be concerned with our sense of fashion. If he really wants to endear himself to me, he can immolate kids wearing tracksuits in shopping malls with backwards baseball caps on from a foreign country, then I might be sold... you can put the guns away now. So, theres my quick, politically incorrect roundup of current religion as I see it and without mentioning all the wars over whether god has a tail or doesnt have a tail or who's got the prettier scripture. Quintessentially, I just find a dork in a lab coat telling me in Carl Sagan monotone how the universe was made, how the stars float around up there and what keeps my two feet on the dirt, much less annoying, personally threatening and in my face. There you go, a +1 for the nerds of the world

Great post.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't understand why new agers and modern society views religion as necessarily discluding:

The problem is that the major western modern religion today, Christianity, has from its very roots been about domination, suppression, and violence. That is the history of the "faith".

From the beginning in Rome, it was a struggle to suppress and control a generally tolerant atmosphere, and did so through false martyrdom to challenge the machine of the empire, and eventual fighting (non/other believers) and in-fighting (among sects), mindwashing, force, and other mountains of bullshit that among which I can find almost no positive trait or reason for it to exist.

Can you?

It is no coincidence that technology ground to a halt and the dark ages and middle ages were one of the down points for the western world in the last several millennia; we're just barely on the outskirts of it, so I don't expect people to understand why things happened or where they're going, but I do expect that in the next few millennia a lot of these backwards systems will be rendered obsolete.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby The problem is that the major western modern religion today, Christianity, has from its very roots been about domination, suppression, and violence. That is the history of the "faith". From the beginning in Rome, it was a struggle to suppress and control a generally tolerant atmosphere, and did so through false martyrdom to challenge the machine of the empire, and eventual fighting (non/other believers) and in-fighting (among sects), mindwashing, force, and other mountains of bullshit that among which I can find almost no positive trait or reason for it to exist. Can you? It is no coincidence that technology ground to a halt and the dark ages and middle ages were one of the down points for the western world in the last several millennia; we're just barely on the outskirts of it, so I don't expect people to understand why things happened or where they're going, but I do expect that in the next few millennia a lot of these backwards systems will be rendered obsolete.

Apparently you didn't pick up on my sarcasm here:

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I don't understand why new agers and modern society views religion as necessarily discluding:

I'm well aware of the history of Christianity (not that I necessarily agree with all aspects of your view on it). You can't generalize the experience of one religion to all others. All it reflects is ignorance and poor research.

Interesting post, Kenosis.

I haven't read the God Delusion yet (got a few other books to get through first) so I can't address Dawkins' arguments specifically, but I will try to address the rebuttals you've made. I didn't read through the rest of the posts in those threads, so forgive me if I'm repeating things that have already been said.

It seems that your most major qualm here is with Dawkins' claim that "the question of God's existence is one that can be resolved by scientific inquiry". The idea that the question of God can addressed (if not necessarily "resolved") by the scientific method is a point that I've made since long before the release of the God Delusion:

quote:

Both science and religion address issues of epistemology (how we "know" what we "know"), ontology (the nature of being and beings) and human nature (our fundamental facticity, our reasons for certain behaviour, our origins etc.) and, as such, I believe, they should be held to similar logical and empirical constraints. The existence of an interventionalist God (that is, a God that is actively engaged in the workings of the world), for instance, should produce quantifiable phenomena. If we do identify quantifiable phenomena that could have only come from a being as powerful as a God, then these phenomena should be as readily addressed by science as by religion. The manifested God, under these circumstances, immediately becomes a scientific issue and the tennets of science would have to change to accomodate his existence. If God could be proven, it would change the nature of science as drastically - if not more so - as it would the nature of religion. So if science and religion - at their most fundamental levels - are asking similar questions, searching for similar truths and examining the same phenomena (or lack thereof) along the way, then they are either compatible or they are not. The notion of "faith" - which, as the article states, is merely an indefensible retreat for theists whose rational and empiricial inquiries have yielded answers that are unsatisfactory to them - doesn't change this reality and I don't think that the other traditional fallback position of "the mutual exclusivity of religion and science" has much merit either given that, as I've said, religion and science have many fields of inquiry which overlap.

(From this thread.)

In order to be considered valid, the contention that the God question can be addressed scientifically requires the satisfaction of two assumptions:

1) That such a God intervenes in the universe.
2) That the nature of this intervention is in some sense apprehensible.

If neither of these are true, then of course the argument falls flat. Nonetheless, let me put on my pragmatic hat for just a second: if the argument can be said to fail because these conditions are not met, then what sort of God are we left with? What sort of God have we failed to "disprove"? The answer is, unavoidably, a God that has no discernable influence on the universe: a God of absolutely no consequence.

I like what Arbiter said earlier:

quote:

You are correct that "God" (in a general sense) can't be disproven using the scientific method. This is precisely because theists will always simply resort to moving the goalposts and define/re-define their "God" as being "outside of" or "transcending" whatever scientific methodology is used or proposed.

In undertaking these mental calisthenics to shield their God from the criticisms levelled against it by atheists, apologists don't ever seem to stop and think exactly what sort of a God it is they are ultimately arguing for. Even if I were to accept your contention that it is "possible" that there is an existent God which transcends the scope of scientific inquiry, I would like to know what tangible consequences this "proof" holds for us. In saying that God is completely empirically inaccessible, you may invalidate the ontological atheistic arguments, but you also inadvertantly prove all the pragmatic ones: you have successfully demonstrated that there is no God of discernable consequence within the universe!

In any case, I'm still not entirely what this argument is meant to demonstrate: is the baseless belief in a god that transcends space-time any more rational than the baseless belief in a god that doesn't? That is to say, if God truly exists beyond space-time and we have no way of quantifying / qualifying his existence, how can we ever consider belief in such a God to therefore be justified?

Moving on, the Kantian space / time argument you raise is a unique one, but it fails on two levels.

The first follows from my earlier point:

quote:

God, though, is not like all the examples of phenomena, whereby we can make statements about the probability of this or that existing or this or that being a likely causal explanation. God is being outside the universe, is not a conditioned object like a proton and is not perceived in the way that protons are perceived: that is to say, not perceived at all. God is not a �scientific fact about the universe� since �scientific facts about the universe� are restricted to phenomena, objects of perception, which are conditioned realities.

Your contention that "God is a being outside the universe" is a meaningless one. You could substitute the word "God" for any other collective noun in the English language and the paragraph would remain as axiomatically true as the one you've just presented:

quote:

Elephants, though, are not like all the examples of phenomena, whereby we can make statements about the probability of this or that existing or this or that being a likely causal explanation. Elephants are beings outside the universe, are not conditioned objects like a proton and are not perceived in the way that protons are perceived: that is to say, not perceived at all. Elephants are not a �scientific fact about the universe� since �scientific facts about the universe� are restricted to phenomena, objects of perception, which are conditioned realities.

If I arbitrarily consign elephants with the property of existing outside the boundaries of space-time (as you have done with God) then the paragraph makes sense. I'm not being flippant here, either: I'm making a serious point about the "special appeals" that occur so frequently in theological debate. Apparently everything that exists does so (tautologically) within the bounds of the universe: that is, of course, with the sole exception of "God".

My point is that this argument, as with many other theological arguments, is rendered futile if we adopt it (as we should do if we are being intellectually ingenuous) as a universal maxim. If we can just invent existent beings and argue that it is reasonable to accept their existence on the grounds that they exist outside of space-time, then we are left with an epistemological quandry: how can we possibly disprove anything by this logic? How is your belief in a God which transcends space-time any more reasonable than my belief in a herd of elephants that transcend space-time? How could it be said to be reasonable to believe that either exist? Do you understand the problems that this argument raises if we allow it to be adopted as a universal, epistemological maxim?

As for the Kantian argument more specifically, you are right to point out that we are necessarily constrained by our own subjectivity, but it's not only science that you taint with this pseudo-Cartesian sophistry: all other systems that attempt to make truth claims about the world (including religion) must be thrown into doubt as well. If you don't want to go down this solipsistic path - and you accept, at least provisionally, that our senses accurately render the nature of the world - than I would ask on what grounds you would dispute the preeminence of the empirico-scientific method in illuminating the nature of phenomenal, if not noumenal reality?

You also appeal here to the Kantian synthetic a priori categories of space and time. Yhe argument you make is, I think, that because we are conditioned (inexorably) to conceptualise the world in a spatio-temporal context, that we are therefore incapable of grasping something (such as God) that exists "outside of" these categories of cognition? If so, I find that following this logic through to its conclusion actually serves more to disprove the existence of God than to prove it.

Firstly, I'm not sure if Kant ever argued that we are bound by (that is, incapable of transcending) our synthetic a priori categories of cognition, so much as he offered them as a means of overcoming the ontological rift that had occurred in philosophy between the "internal" (mental) and "external" (physical) worlds. Hume argued that there was no such thing as synthetic a priori judgements and Kant's categories of space and time - that we have "knowledge" of before encountering them in the external world - were offered as a refutation of this idea. Kant didn't say that we are epistemologically bound to our comprehension of space and time - at least not to my knowledge - and in any case, if he did then he is wrong.

Analytical a posteriori judgements (i.e. scientific ones) can be made that trascend, if not directly contradict, our a priori conceptions of space and time. We are inexorably bound to conceptualise and understand space in three dimensions, yet we can still make observations which show that the fabric of the universe curves into dimensions beyond the Z axis. We are inexorably bound to conceptualise and understand time as a linear chain of causalities, but we now know that time is dimensional and bound up in the fabric of space. Each of these "discoveries" have shattered the a priori judgements we make about space and time and yet we were still able to make them. If we cannot measure things that exist beyond our a priori conceptions of space-time, then these discoveries should not have been made. The fact that we did make these discoveries, though, raises the question as to why we should consider God to be empirically inaccessible just because he - just like the fourth dimenstion - exists beyond the a priori, Kantian conceptualisation of space-time? It is impossible to comprehend the curvature of space, yet it is still observable - why can the same not be said of God?

I've got more to add, but it's going to have to wait until later.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.