Presumably you haven't experienced God as Colin has, or you wouldn't be bothering to write this.

Presumably you haven't experienced God as Colin has, or you wouldn't be bothering to write this. — Punshhh

In my experience many have had epic experiences (including me). :)

I can't tell what colin's experiences were, though.

And I continue to experience them, even this afternoon at church. I was so overwhelmed by what I was experiencing I had to fight back tears throughout. — colin

This is a feeling I can't really put into words — colin

I think it's quite simply magic. — colin

Except, strongly emotional it seems.

I'm happy for you Colin, if you're still reading the thread, although that might not be a good idea. — Punshhh

What was it that Brainglitch said? Ah yes, "one of the most common ways to deal with cognitive dissonance is to ignore questions that cause it".

Or perhaps actually it affirms your new discovery. — Punshhh

Why, or how, would reading this thread affirm his "discovery"? That just doesn't follow.

Presumably you haven't experienced God as Colin has, or you wouldn't be bothering to write this. — Punshhh

And, pray tell, how do you know that Colin has experienced God? :-}

Because he said so? Because you have as well? Pffft! And I see dead people. Are you happy for me?

@Hanover, since you seem a staunch proponent of the cosmological argument, I hereby invite you to partake in the discussion:

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/487/the-kalamcosmological-argument-pros-and-cons/

But, as I've already noted, one of Dawkins' primary targets is Biblical creationism. His book is titled "The Blind Watchmaker," remember? — "BrainGlitch

Of course I agree that creationism ought not to be taught as science, but neither should the science be presented as 'proving' anything about the existence or otherwise of God. 'There is a separation between Church and state, but none between science and state', observed Paul Feyerabend.

If I was to teach evolutionary biology or paleontology I would never have reason to even discuss religious beliefs about the issue, but if it came up, I would make it clear that the accounts operate on different levels; that the religious accounts are intended to convey moral and existential truths about life, which are not dependent on them being literally true, in the way the scientific account is. If the students can't understand that, they've got problems, but the science classroom would not be a place to address them.

Are you saying that the empirical evidence (fom biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, geology, climate science, oceanography, radioactive dating, paleontology, anthropology, molecular biology, etc.) is insufficient to warrant subscription to the theory of evolution as the best explanation of species, or are you saying that they do not "prove" evolution in some absolutist sense? — BrainGlitch

Here's my personal background in this debate. Grew up in the 1960's in Australia, on a solid digest of Time Life books about nature. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs, fossils, 'cave men' and evolution. It never occured to me for a single second that Bible stories were literally true. I didn't hear of the existence of 'creationism' until I was an adult, and just thought it was idiotic, and also pathetic. My first reaction was, how sad it is that people have to believe in the literal truth of those ancient myths and that they must have a very insecure faith.

It wasn't until people like Dawkins started tub-thumping that I paid any attention to the issue, as it has never been prominent in Australia. (Ken Ham, the notorious young-earth creationist, is from Australia, but notice he had to re-locate to Kentucky to find an audience.) But my reaction to Dawkins is that he is just about as silly as the creationists. If you understand that 'creation mythology' is just that - mythology - then the fact that it didn't literally occur has practically zero bearing on the religious account.

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but the early Church fathers were dismissive of biblical literalism. Origen said there were three levels of meaning in the texts, Augustine was scathing in his dismissal of anything like 'creation science' - and that was in 400 A.D. But of course this is all invisible to those who see the whole thing as the titanic battle of Enlightened Science vs Supersitious Religion.

If you understand that 'creation mythology' is just that - mythology - then the fact that it didn't literally occur has practically zero bearing on the religious account. — Wayfarer

Sure, but it does have impact.

• ‘He had to die,’ accused mother tells police in son’s killing
• Coverage of the Kimberly Lucas case
• Pastor's wife dressed her three daughters in white 'before stabbing two so they could meet Jesus for the end of the world'
• Mom kills son believing boy would be better off in heaven

But why take the lives of innocent children?
[...]
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives. — William Lane Craig

• Source: Slaughter of the Canaanites (Reasonable Faith; Aug 2007)

A doctrinal problem with Christianity and Islam?

1. killing an infant should give the infant safe passage to heaven
2. so the killer would be doing a major self sacrifice ("thou shall not kill"), for the sake of the infant
3. the killer did a selfless act to save someone else
4. the killer did good (we can assume the infant was at no time in pain)
5. you ought kill infants, sending them off to eternal bliss, saved (might even be a win-win)

The dark side of Pascal's Wager? You know, just a matter of being on the safe side?

And this is just one class of examples.

You guys are like a room full of puppys. It's quite simple. You see that Colin has had mental health issues, so he must be delusional. This does not follow.

I never care much for Craig (even despite it being my mother's maiden name!) I think the Catholics have a much better set of arguments for natural theology. But this kind of legalistic nit-plcking, which attempts to put 'theology in the dock' by proving it's contribution to the action of various deranged individuals, is not a salutary undertaking, in my opinion. Those inclined towards religion will continue to defend it, those against it will regard it as grist for the mill.

Where did we see that?

Of course I agree that creationism ought not to be taught as science, but neither should the science be presented as 'proving' anything about the existence or otherwise of God. 'There is a separation between Church and state, but none between science and state', observed Paul Feyerabend.

If I was to teach evolutionary biology or paleontology I would never have reason to even discuss religious beliefs about the issue, but if it came up, I would make it clear that the accounts operate on different levels; that the religious accounts are intended to convey moral and existential truths about life, which are not dependent on them being literally true, in the way the scientific account is. If the students can't understand that, they've got problems, but the science classroom would not be a place to address them. — Wayfarer

Again I refer you to the context in the U.S., where evolution is a hot-button political issue in which creationists are numerous, sometimes the majority, and wield power and influence. Besides what I've already noted about the incessant parade of creationist publications, sermons, and media presentations, there are uncounted public schools in the U.S. where to avoid conflict, the teachers minimize or entirely avoid teahing evolution. In fact, it is not unheard of that science teachers disparage evolution and express sympathy for creationism in some places. It is not uncommon for college students in some parts of the country to walk out of class at the very mention of evolution. Politicians roitinely waffle on, or deny belief in evolution. Past President G.W. Bush is on record as saying: "Atheists should not be considered citizens." No admitted atheist holds an elected high office in the national government. No admitted atheist would be nominated by a president or approved by Ccngress for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

Since Dawkins was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science, it was his job to push back against the popular ignorance of creationism.

One of the issues The New Atheists repeatedly speak to is epistemological--the problem of justification for belief without evidence. Religion both explicitly and tacitly teaches people to accept authority, claims of spontaneous revelation, and faith, rather than evidence. Dawkins and company see this epistemic failure, and it's attendant distrust and repression of science, as one of the world's great evils, with innumerable negative consequences for society.

Well, I think Dawkins and his ilk are wrong in their approach, wrong in their understanding of the issues, and wrong in the remedy of them, as do the many scientists who say that Dawkins misrepresents science.

Here's my personal background in this debate. Grew up in the 1960's in Australia, on a solid digest of Time Life books about nature. I was always fascinated by dinosaurs, fossils, 'cave men' and evolution. It never occured to me for a single second that Bible stories were literally true. I didn't hear of the existence of 'creationism' until I was an adult, and just thought it was idiotic, and also pathetic. My first reaction was, how sad it is that people have to believe in the literal truth of those ancient myths and that they must have a very insecure faith.

It wasn't until people like Dawkins started tub-thumping that I paid any attention to the issue, as it has never been prominent in Australia. (Ken Ham, the notorious young-earth creationist, is from Australia, but notice he had to re-locate to Kentucky to find an audience.) But my reaction to Dawkins is that he is just about as silly as the creationists. If you understand that 'creation mythology' is just that - mythology - then the fact that it didn't literally occur has practically zero bearing on the religious account.

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but the early Church fathers were dismissive of biblical literalism. Origen said there were three levels of meaning in the texts, Augustine was scathing in his dismissal of anything like 'creation science' - and that was in 400 A.D. But of course this is all invisible to those who see the whole thing as the titanic battle of Enlightened Science vs Supersitious Religion. — Wayfarer

This does not even address the question I asked in response to your assertion that Dawkins et al are "making false claims that the empirical evidence proves the case one way or the other."

I said that I don't believe that creationism is true, so all the arguments about what the science of evolution proves or doesn't prove in respect of creationism, are immaterial to the question of God's existence. In other words, it's not an empirical question.

I said that on the one side, 'intelligent design' arguments attempt to use empirical arguments to justify belief in God. On the other side, 'scientific materialist' arguments attempt to use empirical arguments against belief in God. But if the nature of God is transcendent, then it's a misapplication of empirical arguments. It is all based on a literal intepretation of Genesis. If you interpret texts such as Genesis allegorically, then they can still be regarded as meaningful, and not 'faux science'.

Have a look at Aquinas vs Intelligent Designers for an example of an argument which recognises this. It explains how Catholic philosophy differs with Intelligent Design philosophy. Also see these citations in another thread on this forum.

Well, I think Dawkins and his ilk are wrong in their approach, wrong in their understanding of the issues, and wrong in the remedy of them, as do the many scientists who say that Dawkins misrepresents science. — Wayfarer

Oh, please. I've already responded to this baloney (for your convenience, I repeat it, below, since you apparently didn't read it the first time, or just ignored it). Please at least do the intellectually honest thing and respond to my criticism instead of just repeating your confirmation bias error.

That summary is very misleading. From the article (bolding mine):

"The Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study includes a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries.In the United Kingdom, 1,581 randomly sampled scientists participated in the survey, and 137 of them also participated in in-depth interviews.
Although the researchers did not ask questions about Dawkins, 48 scientists mentioned him during in-depth interviews without prompting, and nearly 80 percent of those scientists believe that he misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public engagements. This group included 23 nonreligious scientists and 15 religious scientists. Approximately 20 percent of scientists interviewed – 10 scientists all identifying as nonreligious – said that he plays an important role in asserting the cultural authority of science in the public sphere. One biologist surveyed said Dawkins has “quite an important place in society” in his criticism of creationism and intelligent design."

So, in other words, of 1,581 surveyed scientists (in the UK), 137 participated in in-depth interviews, 48 of whom mentioned Dawkins without prompting, 80% of whom held a negative view of him. So, of 1,581 surveyed UK scientists, <drum roll> a whopping 38 of them (15 of whom are religious themselves) badmouth Dawkins (for mostly spurious reasons, as judged by the article), and from this the authors of the study and the summary (and yourself) conclude that "Dawkins Misrepresents Science." Cherry-pick much?

I didn't pick the article for statistical significance, but for the tenor of the remarks:

...some scientists, independent of their religious beliefs, do not view Dawkins as a good representative because they believe he conveys “the wrong impression about the borders of scientific inquiry.”

“Scientists differ in their view of where such borders rest,” said David Johnson, an assistant professor at the University of Nevada in Reno and the paper’s lead author. “And they may even view belief in a deity as irrational, but they do not view questions related to the existence of deities or ‘the sacred’ as within the scope of science.”

“Some people like Richard Dawkins,” said a nonreligious professor of biology. “He’s a fundamental atheist. He feels compelled to take the evidence way beyond that which other scientists would regard as possible. … I want [students] to develop [science] in their own lives. And I think it’s necessary to understand what science does address directly.”

A nonreligious physicist said, “He’s much too strong about the way he denies religion. … As a scientist, you’ve got to be very open, and I’m open to people’s belief in religion. … I don’t think we’re in a position to deny anything unless it’s something which is within the scope of science to deny. … I think as a scientist you should be open to it. … It doesn’t end up encroaching for me because I think there’s quite a space between the two.”

Dawkins has “gone on a crusade, basically,” another professor of biology said. “Although there is a lot of truth behind what he says, he does it in a way that I think is deliberately designed to alienate religious people.”

The other philosophical point that is interesting is this: in what other sphere of debate, would the argument that 'something arises by chance', be regarded as a scientific hypothesis'?

I didn't pick the article for statistical significance, but for the tenor of the remarks: — Wayfarer

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Hardly three posts ago, you (again) linked to this article as evidence that "many scientists" believe that Dawkins misrepresents science (vis a vis its relationship to religion). And lo and behold, 38 scientists in the UK have made negative comments about Dawkins, in a survey which wasn't even about his views. If you agree with some of the criticisms of Dawkins (which, IMO are quite poor, and are just more of the special pleading afforded only to religious belief), that's fine, but please don't inaccurately represent this as some sort of representative sample of scientists (in the UK or certainly worldwide) who dislike Dawkins's work.

The other philosophical point that is interesting is this: in what other sphere of debate, would the argument that 'something arises by chance', be regarded as a scientific hypothesis'? — Wayfarer

Uh, what? Stochasticity and randomness are hugely important concepts in all of the sciences, including biology. (You do realize that, in statistical hypothesis testing, chance is the null hypothesis, which is only rejected if the results meet a certain threshold of statistical significance, as determined by p-values or some other measure?)

Arkady No, what Dawkins should do, is realise that whether God exists or not, is not a matter for science. It's really very simple. — Wayfarer

Isn't that what apologists try to do?

I think the Catholics have a much better set of arguments for natural theology. — Wayfarer

Quoting your Catholics link, underline emphasis mine:

Fr. Spitzer is a Catholic Priest in the Jesuit order (Society of Jesus) and is currently the President of the Magis Center and the Spitzer Center. Magis Center produces documentaries, books, high school curricula, adult-education curricula, and new media materials to show the close connection between faith and reason in contemporary astrophysics, philosophy, and the historical study of the New Testament. Magis Center provides rational responses to false, but popular, secular myths.

Some theologians seems to be trying to marry up science.

OK, not 'many'! I will readily concede that. Here you go, a public acknowledgement: several posts ago I said 'survey paper shows many scientists critical of Dawkins intolerance for religion. It is not 'many scientists' but a relatively small number of scientists. OK now?

Yes, I'm reading a history of quantum physics at the moment, and am just up to all the debates about statistical analysis of molecular motion and what was behind 'the quantum leap', about which Einstein said, 'I refuse to believe God plays dice'.

But in the case of the process of evolution, 'chance' is assigned a different kind of role, namely, as an alternative to the presumed 'intentionality' of divine creation. So, whereas in classical Western thought, there was a presumption that life was in a sense purposeful or intentional, the widespread view arising from the discoveries of 20th Century science is that 'life arose by chance', i.e. as the 'outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms'.

That is the sense in which I'm saying that 'chance' is being provided as an explanatory hypothesis.

How dare they! There ought to be an inquisition!

OK, not 'many'! I will readily concede that. Here you go a public acknowledgement: several posts ago I said 'survey paper shows many scientists critical of Dawkins intolerance for religion. It is not 'many scientists' but a relatively small number of scientists. OK now? — Wayfarer

Ok now.

But in the case of the process of evolution, 'chance' is assigned a different kind of role, namely, as an alternative to the presumed 'intentionality' of divine creation. So, whereas in classical Western thought, there was a presumption that life was in a sense purposeful or intentional, the widespread view arising from the discoveries of 20th Century science is that 'life arose by chance', i.e. as the 'outcome of the accidental collocation of atoms'. — Wayfarer

But virtually any naturalistic phenomenon could be termed an "alternative to the presumed intentionality of divine creation," wouldn't you say? (Hippocrates, for instance, complained that people believed epilepsy to be divine, merely because they didn't understand it. We now understand epilepsy differently.)

Dawkins has just replaced the biblical creation story/Genesis with the theory of evolution. When the two are in completely different domains. When you start talking about 'believing' in evolution you have gone way past the limit and function of science. Dawkins is a fundamentalist atheist, he literally thinks the theory of evolution acts in the same way as the biblical creation story. As in, he believes evolution literally happened in the past before us, and this is how the world and ourselves came to be. He sees no difference in kind between the biblical account of the past and how we came to be, and the scientific account.

But scientific theories do not claim to be true nor false, rather, they are tools. Tools can't be true or false, rather they have degrees of usefulness under differing conditions. Discussing whether the theories are true or not is not the function or task of science, it's philosophy. Compare Newtonian with Quantum physics, is one theory more 'true' than the other? No. Each is a tool which has differing predictive value under different conditions. We don't use Newtonian physics when engineering a bridge, because it's literally a true description of an external world. Rather we use it in that situation because it's a more useful tool than quantum physics in achieving the goal of the engineer (eg, building a bridge which doesn't collapse). It is not the task of science to talk about whether Newtonian physics corresponds to an external world or not. Of course you can do this, but you'd be doing philosophy - discussing and describing the nature of reality. When you start saying eg, quantum physics is a more accurate (i.e. true) description of the physical world, you're doing ontology. Which is beyond the scope and task of science. People often think that because a scientific theory has predictive value, it *therefore* must be an accurate description of reality. Theory of evolution has an astonishing predictive value, but so say that because it's so useful in making predictions (and explaining our various observations) it *therefore* must be a highly accurate/true description of reality, is to extend beyond science and into philosophy (to cross domains). This may or may not be the case but regardless it's not science. At that point you're doing philosophy - you're making claims about the nature of the world.

I do not literally believe evolution happened in the past, in the same way a Christian believes the account in Genesis is a true account of the past. The theory of evolution is a tool used in the scientific method to produce predictions about future observations, and to weave a cohesive narrative around our various present observations (of fossils, genetics, biodiversity, etc) in order to make sense of them. Whether this narrative corresponds to an external world or not is beyond the scope of science. Dawkins doesn't grasp this. He thinks evolution should be taught to our children in the same way a Christian teaches his son the account in genesis. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. People commonly make the same mistake with the big bang theory, or plate tectonics, treating these *tools* which have uses in particular contexts, as if they operate in the same manner as a religious creation account.

At least that's my understanding of science. You can be a biblical literalist and still use the theory of evolution to explain scientific observations. Because the facticity of that explanation is beyond the scope of science. Whether truth value even applies to scientific explanations is a philosophical issue.

How dare they! There ought to be an inquisition! — Wayfarer

By Jove, no. Already had some. Big mistake. :)
Apologists are busy trying to marrying science and religion; some theists are busy trying to deny evolution (and whatever else they don't like) when they find it incompatible with their theism.

You guys are like a room full of puppy's. — Punshhh

"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder!" :)

It's quite simple. You see that Colin has had mental health issues, so he must be delusional. — Punshhh

No, not (necessarily) delusional; I personally know people of a whole variety of outlooks, that are just ordinary folks.
Conversely, I'm not going to lie, or encourage/reinforce any.

I would like to try and put it more in the context of Western philosophical analysis.

Scientific laws themselves, which arise from the observation of regularities and their translation into principles, are not themselves explainable by science. Science assumes the existence of such lawful regularities, indeed can't do otherwise. But it doesn't explain them.

At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. — Wittgenstein

TLP 6:371

Now what is beyond scientific laws is in some sense un-knowable. That is why conjecture about an ultimate origin is just that - it's conjecture. That's also why I don't buy inteligent design arguments insofar as they purport to prove some extra-scientific conclusion. I think they're interesting and suggestive, philosophically - but we really don't know, and as a consequence, they're not scientific arguments, per se. But that might simply be a consequence of the limits of science, which Dawkins is now saying is also a limit in reality.

That's why evolutionary biology has to leave some space - it really has nothing to say about why life exists in the philosophical sense. When Dawkins is asked something like that, he doesn't understand the question. 'You're playing with words', he will say. He doesn't get it - basically his entire philosophical attitude is that of positivism.

But anyway, what I've said above is quite in keeping with Kant. His whole project was demonstrating the limits to knowledge, what presuppositions there must be for us to be able to say 'I know that'. And as Kant says, things beyond that are conjectural. If both ID and materialism understood that, the whole problem would go away (not that they ever will).

, by all means, fill in the blanks, take a ride down the indefinite path of the diallelus.

I am quite sure that at least Harris, whom I've heard speak to the issue, and the others are not so benighted as not to understand that science theories are simply our best current constructs and models consistent with the data, and subject to revision.

Scientific laws themselves, which arise from the observation of regularities and their translation into principles, are not themselves explainable by science. Science assumes the existence of such lawful regularities, indeed can't do otherwise. But it doesn't explain them. — Wayfarer

What do you think "explain" entails beyond reliable and predictive descriptions of observed regularities and properties and interactions?

Yeah, Sam had some sweet acid trips for awhile until they started getting good (weren't fun anymore), and then stopped. He also advocates the LSD use to his children, lol.

Now more jarringly he advocates killing people for thought crime, talks of "moral geniuses", and tells us that science can tell use what to do.

He also recounts this one time, he was in a hotel with his fiance or wife or whatever, and they're just enjoying the view when they both realize (not just him, surely!), that they're so relaxed when they could be suicide bombed at any moment! That's a thing now, you know.

His arguments tend to be that there is clearly a difference between pleasure and suffering, things being good for you, bad for you, sickness and health, and demonstrates this be pointing out extreme cases of either, but then says nothing for their subtleties, or where the difficulties actually lie.

The only thing he has on the other guys, is that he knows that believing stuff usually indicates that you do stuff about it.

He sees no difference in kind between the biblical account of the past and how we came to be, and the scientific account. — dukkha

Ehm...

Suppose I was to proudly proclaim "there was snow on the peak of Mount Everest last Wednesday localtime". What, then, would it take for my claim to hold? Why that would be existence of snow up there back then of course, regardless of what you or I may (or may not) think.

Certainty and knowledge are not the same. (For some proposition, p, certainty that p means you'd also have to know that you know p, ad infinitum.) The hard part of epistemology is justification. And with all the problems (induction, the diallelus, biases, etc) a strong methodology/standard is required.

Science is fallible model → evidence convergence; empirical, self-critical, bias-minimizing. The convergence methodologies are commonly inductive, but deductive reasoning is of course used.

Does your relativization of science also extend to medicine (and your family doctor)?

Lol, there is no problem of justification. There's a problem of getting everyone to believe us. I hold "truth" to be identical to "honesty", and falsity to be identical to "deception".

I long ago left my house in search of home (it sounds cool when I say it like that, but I'm pretty young).

What I'm saying is that scientific analysis doesn't extend beyond its domain into such questions as whether or not the Universe is meaningful, or whether there is a 'first cause'. Such questions are by definition not amenable to scientific analysis. So, for the materialists, the bad news is, they can't appeal to science to prove that there is no God; but the good news is, the other side can't appeal to it to prove the opposite.

Theistic evolution differs from 'intelligent design' in that it doesn't appeal to a God as part of a scientific hypothesis. Believers obviously accept that God is the reason that there is a world in the first place but that itself is not something that can be proven or disproven by science. That is why, contrary to all the bitter new atheists polemics, it is possible to be both a religious believer and a natural scientist. Only fundamentalists cannot accept that.

What I'm saying is that scientific analysis doesn't extend beyond its domain into such questions as whether or not the Universe is meaningful, or whether there is a 'first cause'. Such questions are by definition not amenable to scientific analysis. So, for the materialists, the bad news is, they can't appeal to science to prove that there is no God; but the good news is, the other side can't appeal to it to prove the opposite.

Theistic evolution differs from 'intelligent design' in that it doesn't appeal to a God as part of a scientific hypothesis. Believers obviously accept that God is the reason that there is a world in the first place but that itself is not something that can be proven or disproven by science. That is why, contrary to all the bitter new atheists polemics, it is possible to be both a religious believer and a natural scientist. Only fundamentalists cannot accept that. — Wayfarer

Of course, it is possible to be a religious believer and a scientist.

The question is: Is it epistemically consistent to be a believer and a scientist?