|
My 'flame war' over Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Kenosis |
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 |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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? |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| 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. |
|
|
| venomX |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
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? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I guess I should add there a reason why it's called "faith" and not knowledge. |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Kenosis
Seriously. Have you read "The God Delusion"? The whole thing feels like ...well, a sermon. |
:stongue: 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
