Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously
by Richard Skinner, Ekklesia
Reposted from:
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5721
It's easy to get annoyed, but Christians really ought to listen to and take seriously what Richard Dawkins has to say. With his high profile books, articles, television programmes and general media coverage, he has become the number one scourge of religion and religious believers of all and every stripe. He is articulate, passionate, an excellent speaker and a formidable intelligence. He has made important contributions to his particular discipline of evolutionary biology, most famously with his first book The Selfish Gene, but no less impressively with the follow-up volume The Extended Phenotype, and a series of subsequent books. He is a major player in his discipline.
His book The God Delusion appeared in 2006. This isn't about evolutionary biology with a few side-swipes at religion thrown in, this is a concentrated assault on religion. He launches a series of exocet missiles at religion, at the concept of God, the 'supernatural', faith-heads (which is his term for religious believers), theology — the whole bang-shoot, in fact. Inevitably he has triggered much response. The theologian Alister McGrath, an Oxford colleague of his, who had already written one book critiquing Dawkins' views on religion, riposted rapidly with The Dawkins Delusion. Another Christian riposte has come from a more evangelical quarter in Andrew Wilson's Deluded by Dawkins? Both authors demonstrate that many of Dawkins' arguments are strewn with error and misunderstanding.
However, in response to the statement "theologians say that Dawkins is wrong" we can echo Mandy Rice-Davies: "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" It's part of their job description. Perhaps more significant, then, is the response Dawkins has drawn from non-Christian — or non-religious — quarters. Don't get me wrong: there are many who agree whole-heartedly with Dawkins. But consider the review of the book by Professor of English Terry Eagleton, a non-believer, which appeared in the London Review of Books (19 October 2006): it is a high octane demolition job.
Eagleton starts off "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be." He continues for another 3,500 words to elaborate on this.
Now I think the critics of Richard Dawkins are in the main quite right. I say 'in the main' because Dawkins does make a number of valid points, particularly relating to the role of religion, and Christianity in particular, in the life of this country; but I agree that a large proportion of his book is indeed based on error. However, I don't think it right for us to say, "Ah, well, not only theologians but even atheists have demonstrated where Dawkins has gone wrong, therefore we don't have to take his views seriously."
We do have to take his views seriously, for more than one reason. Wilson suggests, and I agree with him, that Christians should be grateful to Dawkins, because "he has gathered together all of the best arguments against God's existence in one place, with the intention of debating them publicly." Quite so, but I think there's another reason to listen to Dawkins. It's this: theological writers and others can point out at length that what Dawkins does is to set up a straw man — or rather, a straw God — and then demolish it; they can show that Dawkins has not really got to grips at all with a true understanding of God and the religious dimension; but the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship.
What Dawkins demolishes in this book may well be a misrepresentation of God, but it is a misrepresentation, an idol, that we Christians all too have often set up and espoused as the real thing. We should listen to Dawkins because doing so can help us reflect on what we claim to believe, or think we believe, or imply that we believe. His views can act as an acid to eat away the false and phoney elements of our faith.
By way of example, Dawkins refers to 'The God Hypothesis' which "suggests that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the universe and — at least in many versions of the hypothesis — maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles...." (p.81). God, in this understanding, refers to a fellow inhabitant of the universe. Earlier in the book, however, he takes a marginally more subtle line, and the hypothesis is that there is "a personal God dwelling within [the universe], or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean)" possessing a whole range of unpleasant qualities he has earlier listed (p.59).
I doubt if many of us would fall into the simplistic belief that God is just another thing who inhabits the universe, such that if we went on a tour of the universe our guide would be saying "now ladies and gentlemen, over here is the solar system, over there is the Crab Nebula, watch our for the black hole at the centre; there's a super-nova; there's God, there's a comet...." and so forth. We don't think of God like that as simply an inhabitant of the universe. But what of the suggestion that God is outside the universe? I would guess most if not all past and present members of Sunday Schools and the like have sung, 'He's got the whole world in his hands', and other hymns or choruses with similar imagery which suggests an entity external to the universe. It may be a comforting image, and it may have a lot to recommend it — but there is the danger of it being too comforting and our taking it almost literally, which doesn't do justice to the biblical understanding of God as both immanent and transcendent — God dwelling within all things, but also greater than all things — and of God as a living presence.
Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by 'God', have resorted to a different type of language, making statements such as "God is ultimate reality"; or "God is the ground of our being", or "God is the precondition that anything at all could exist", and so forth. In theological discourse, they can be very helpful concepts, but the trouble with them is that if you're not a philosopher or theologian, you feel your eyes glazing over - God has become a philosophical concept rather than a living presence.
Let's face it, it is easier for most of us to hold a clear but inaccurate image of what we think God is, rather than to live with the discomfort of not being able to pin God down precisely. Many a mystic has said, in effect, that all descriptions of God are false because they are so inadequate, but that is not a comfortable place to be in. We prefer a domesticated God that our comprehension can contain, a golden calf that we have fashioned for ourselves, and that we can see. Richard Dawkins in effect, even though he may not realise it, is pointing at a load of golden calves that we have fashioned over the millennia, and saying, "what a load of rubbish". But of course, to rubbish a golden calf is not the same thing as to rubbish the living God. Dawkins, unwittingly, can help us distinguish between the two!
So, if our understanding of God can be encapsulated in a nice, neat definition; a nice, neat God hypothesis; a nice, neat image; a nice, neat set of instructions — if, in other words, our understanding of God does approximate to a Dawkins version, then we are in danger of creating another golden calf. The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.
Challenges to our image of God is not new. Back in 1963, the then Bishop of Woolwich John Robinson published Honest to God. After an extract was published in The Observer newspaper under the heading 'Our Image of God Must Go' the book became a surprise bestseller and triggered off a major rumpus. Robinson was urging us to jettison old images of God - uncontentious in theological circles, but a shock to the person in the pew. Commenting on it twenty years later, Ken Leech had this to say: "The 'god' whose image must go might well have been a caricature of the Christian God, but it was a caricature which corresponded with a widely held view, a view which effectively prevented any real engagement with God as a living reality. Robinson did not create this situation: he merely laid bare the reality of existing confusion and unbelief" (True God Sheldon Press, 1985 p.6). I think Richard Dawkins — though he may well not sanction my saying this — is performing a similar challenging function to that of Robinson
Curious perhaps to compare Richard Dawkins to John Robinson, but whether such attacks on our images of God come from within the church or from outside it, it is no bad thing regularly to be reminded that all images of God fall far short of the reality encountered and witnessed to by Moses and the prophets, and by Jesus and the apostles. We should listen to Richard Dawkins. His understanding might be full of errors, but they are often our errors of understanding too.
---------
© Richard Skinner. The author is a poet, writer, qualified therapist and performer. He is currently undertaking doctoral research in the area of spirituality and evolutionary psychology. He is author of Invocations: calling on the God in all (Wild Goose Publishing, Iona). This article was originally given as an address at St Stephen's Anglican Church, Exeter.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5721
It's easy to get annoyed, but Christians really ought to listen to and take seriously what Richard Dawkins has to say. With his high profile books, articles, television programmes and general media coverage, he has become the number one scourge of religion and religious believers of all and every stripe. He is articulate, passionate, an excellent speaker and a formidable intelligence. He has made important contributions to his particular discipline of evolutionary biology, most famously with his first book The Selfish Gene, but no less impressively with the follow-up volume The Extended Phenotype, and a series of subsequent books. He is a major player in his discipline.
His book The God Delusion appeared in 2006. This isn't about evolutionary biology with a few side-swipes at religion thrown in, this is a concentrated assault on religion. He launches a series of exocet missiles at religion, at the concept of God, the 'supernatural', faith-heads (which is his term for religious believers), theology — the whole bang-shoot, in fact. Inevitably he has triggered much response. The theologian Alister McGrath, an Oxford colleague of his, who had already written one book critiquing Dawkins' views on religion, riposted rapidly with The Dawkins Delusion. Another Christian riposte has come from a more evangelical quarter in Andrew Wilson's Deluded by Dawkins? Both authors demonstrate that many of Dawkins' arguments are strewn with error and misunderstanding.
However, in response to the statement "theologians say that Dawkins is wrong" we can echo Mandy Rice-Davies: "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" It's part of their job description. Perhaps more significant, then, is the response Dawkins has drawn from non-Christian — or non-religious — quarters. Don't get me wrong: there are many who agree whole-heartedly with Dawkins. But consider the review of the book by Professor of English Terry Eagleton, a non-believer, which appeared in the London Review of Books (19 October 2006): it is a high octane demolition job.
Eagleton starts off "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be." He continues for another 3,500 words to elaborate on this.
Now I think the critics of Richard Dawkins are in the main quite right. I say 'in the main' because Dawkins does make a number of valid points, particularly relating to the role of religion, and Christianity in particular, in the life of this country; but I agree that a large proportion of his book is indeed based on error. However, I don't think it right for us to say, "Ah, well, not only theologians but even atheists have demonstrated where Dawkins has gone wrong, therefore we don't have to take his views seriously."
We do have to take his views seriously, for more than one reason. Wilson suggests, and I agree with him, that Christians should be grateful to Dawkins, because "he has gathered together all of the best arguments against God's existence in one place, with the intention of debating them publicly." Quite so, but I think there's another reason to listen to Dawkins. It's this: theological writers and others can point out at length that what Dawkins does is to set up a straw man — or rather, a straw God — and then demolish it; they can show that Dawkins has not really got to grips at all with a true understanding of God and the religious dimension; but the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship.
What Dawkins demolishes in this book may well be a misrepresentation of God, but it is a misrepresentation, an idol, that we Christians all too have often set up and espoused as the real thing. We should listen to Dawkins because doing so can help us reflect on what we claim to believe, or think we believe, or imply that we believe. His views can act as an acid to eat away the false and phoney elements of our faith.
By way of example, Dawkins refers to 'The God Hypothesis' which "suggests that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the universe and — at least in many versions of the hypothesis — maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles...." (p.81). God, in this understanding, refers to a fellow inhabitant of the universe. Earlier in the book, however, he takes a marginally more subtle line, and the hypothesis is that there is "a personal God dwelling within [the universe], or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean)" possessing a whole range of unpleasant qualities he has earlier listed (p.59).
I doubt if many of us would fall into the simplistic belief that God is just another thing who inhabits the universe, such that if we went on a tour of the universe our guide would be saying "now ladies and gentlemen, over here is the solar system, over there is the Crab Nebula, watch our for the black hole at the centre; there's a super-nova; there's God, there's a comet...." and so forth. We don't think of God like that as simply an inhabitant of the universe. But what of the suggestion that God is outside the universe? I would guess most if not all past and present members of Sunday Schools and the like have sung, 'He's got the whole world in his hands', and other hymns or choruses with similar imagery which suggests an entity external to the universe. It may be a comforting image, and it may have a lot to recommend it — but there is the danger of it being too comforting and our taking it almost literally, which doesn't do justice to the biblical understanding of God as both immanent and transcendent — God dwelling within all things, but also greater than all things — and of God as a living presence.
Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, grappling with what is meant by 'God', have resorted to a different type of language, making statements such as "God is ultimate reality"; or "God is the ground of our being", or "God is the precondition that anything at all could exist", and so forth. In theological discourse, they can be very helpful concepts, but the trouble with them is that if you're not a philosopher or theologian, you feel your eyes glazing over - God has become a philosophical concept rather than a living presence.
Let's face it, it is easier for most of us to hold a clear but inaccurate image of what we think God is, rather than to live with the discomfort of not being able to pin God down precisely. Many a mystic has said, in effect, that all descriptions of God are false because they are so inadequate, but that is not a comfortable place to be in. We prefer a domesticated God that our comprehension can contain, a golden calf that we have fashioned for ourselves, and that we can see. Richard Dawkins in effect, even though he may not realise it, is pointing at a load of golden calves that we have fashioned over the millennia, and saying, "what a load of rubbish". But of course, to rubbish a golden calf is not the same thing as to rubbish the living God. Dawkins, unwittingly, can help us distinguish between the two!
So, if our understanding of God can be encapsulated in a nice, neat definition; a nice, neat God hypothesis; a nice, neat image; a nice, neat set of instructions — if, in other words, our understanding of God does approximate to a Dawkins version, then we are in danger of creating another golden calf. The alternative, the non-golden-calf route, is to sit light to definitions, hypotheses and images, and allow God to be God.
Challenges to our image of God is not new. Back in 1963, the then Bishop of Woolwich John Robinson published Honest to God. After an extract was published in The Observer newspaper under the heading 'Our Image of God Must Go' the book became a surprise bestseller and triggered off a major rumpus. Robinson was urging us to jettison old images of God - uncontentious in theological circles, but a shock to the person in the pew. Commenting on it twenty years later, Ken Leech had this to say: "The 'god' whose image must go might well have been a caricature of the Christian God, but it was a caricature which corresponded with a widely held view, a view which effectively prevented any real engagement with God as a living reality. Robinson did not create this situation: he merely laid bare the reality of existing confusion and unbelief" (True God Sheldon Press, 1985 p.6). I think Richard Dawkins — though he may well not sanction my saying this — is performing a similar challenging function to that of Robinson
Curious perhaps to compare Richard Dawkins to John Robinson, but whether such attacks on our images of God come from within the church or from outside it, it is no bad thing regularly to be reminded that all images of God fall far short of the reality encountered and witnessed to by Moses and the prophets, and by Jesus and the apostles. We should listen to Richard Dawkins. His understanding might be full of errors, but they are often our errors of understanding too.
---------
© Richard Skinner. The author is a poet, writer, qualified therapist and performer. He is currently undertaking doctoral research in the area of spirituality and evolutionary psychology. He is author of Invocations: calling on the God in all (Wild Goose Publishing, Iona). This article was originally given as an address at St Stephen's Anglican Church, Exeter.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2007 | PermalinkComments 501 - 550 of 604 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers502. Comment #77477 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 am
steve99:Frequency of occurrence is not always a good guide to complexity.Yes. My tiny analogy was concerned with the probability of a state arising in comparison to other possible states which might arise. Prevalence of any state is a function of more factors than mere incidence. Incidence is a better indicator of complexity than prevalence.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
503. Comment #77498 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Peacebeuponme (post 495, or #77430):No. You see from "The falsity of A does not imply that B is true" is not equivalent to "The falsity of A implies that B is false". My point is that if you study at depth monistic naturalism you'll find that it is a deeply problematic ontology. But even if one decides that monistic naturalism is not viable (as for example David Chalmers did) it does not mean that one must therefore embrace theism, for there are alternatives to both monistic naturalism and theism (David Chalmers adopted dualistic naturalism). Arguably there are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, even though it's not clear to me how a Buddhist would answer the question of whether the universe is designed or not. But as far as I am concerned monistic naturalism (or to be precise so-called scientific realism) is simply non-viable so to abandon it is certainly a step in the right direction. My argument in the McGrath thread was that if one compares one to one naturalism's and theism's (or rather idealistic theism's) ontology the latter works better than the former under all criteria I can think of and that therefore to believe in the latter is more reasonable than to believe in the former. But there may be other ontologies that work even better than idealistic theism, I just don't know any. Maybe I should study some Buddhism :-)Well I agree that the falsity of naturalism does not imply the truth of full-blown Christianity, of course not.At least we agree that Christians and all other religions should abandon all of their truth claims then, such as they are.
The deep metaphysics being discussed here have nothing to do with the everyday impact of religion.Probably true, but we must distinguish between the truth of religious claims and the effects of religion on society, I am sure you agree on that. For example no educated person questions the truth of science but some question the effects of science on society.
McGrath still believes the resurrection to be true, which is irrational - Maybe he can start there.Well I probably disagree with McGrath's belief about the resurrection (I understand that he like most theists believe that the physical universe is objectively real), but I question your saying that McGraths belief is not only false but irrational. If reality is like McGrath believes then you and I may be wrong in our belief that the physical remains of Jesus of Nazareth are still around somewhere and may in fact be found.
If one chooses to believe such a fantastic claim, I agree that Christians should therefore abandon the doctrine of the trinity.I discussed the idea that all persons have a Trinitarian nature in the McGrath thread and it's not fantastic at all – actually I find it trivially true.
Religion is a cultural position, but this means it can exist without making truth claims and indoctrination.I agree about the "indoctrination" bit, but you understand that what amounts to indoctrination is a matter of subjective opinion. Some people (and these are maybe ignorant but not crazy people) would say that to teach natural evolution at schools amounts to indoctrination; some would say that to teach a nationalist interpretation of one's country's history amounts to indoctrination, and so on. My ideas about this matter are as follows: Society should teach their young the best of knowledge there is in each field. Ontology (i.e. how objective reality is) may not be a field that is critical for becoming a usefully working member of society (knowledge about phenomenal reality is sufficient for that), but is obviously a very important subject matter nonetheless. And one cannot teach ontology without touching on two of the dominant theories about it, namely naturalism and theism. I think that all young people should be taught about the best thinking on both naturalism and theism and be allowed to judge for themselves which ontology is more reasonable. To put it plainly: religious beliefs play a huge role in society at large and in many peoples' personal life. To simply avoid discussing religion at school cannot possibly do any good, for ignorance is never good. If a naturalist thinks that naturalism really works better than theism then they can't possibly object to both naturalism and theism being taught at schools (at an age where young people can think for themselves); and the same goes for the theist who thinks that theism works better. Incidentally teaching the best thought on religion has nothing to do with science for only the most naive religion makes scientific claims.
Cultural diversity should be celebrated, but only to the extent that women are not oppressed, homosexuals are not persecuted, unelected bishops do not get a say over my life, doctors are not hindered in healing the sick, children are not mutilated, and all the other things that anger so many on this site.Couldn't agree more. And the same goes for many much worse things that happen, things that are fairly unrelated to religion but are mostly driven by religion-opposing greed and are sometimes facilitated by scientists, such as the destruction of the environment, the social injustice, the nationalism, the failure to offer good education, the still existing threat of nuclear annihilation, and so on. There are a lot of problems out there, and the only effective solution on the long run, it seems to me, is better education: Teach the best ideas to the greatest number of people possible. And in this context, unfortunately, TGD has a negative effect – not because it argues that God does not exist which is a serious ontological stand, but because it trivializes the issues beyond recognition, uses fallacious logic to an embarrassing degree, uses selective evidence to a degree that can only be called demagogic, and has some hate mongering in it to boot.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
504. Comment #77505 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Arguably there are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, even though it's not clear to me how a Buddhist would answer the question of whether the universe is designed or not.
Well, firstly, most Buddhists assume that the Universe always was, so attempt to bypass the question like that.
Of course, the true Buddhish response is... "it doesn't matter"... does happiness and peace of mind depend knowledge of this? If not.. no need to worry about it.
Other Comments by steve99
505. Comment #77506 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Dianelos:Ontology (i.e. how objective reality is) may not be a field that is critical for becoming a usefully working member of society (knowledge about phenomenal reality is sufficient for that), but is obviously a very important subject matter nonetheless. And one cannot teach ontology without touching on two of the dominant theories about it, namely naturalism and theism.False dichotomy.
Some evidence can be corroborated; some can't be corroborated.
Some hypotheses have been proven false; some have survived repeated tests.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
506. Comment #77512 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Probably true, but we must distinguish between the truth of religious claims and the effects of religion on society - Dianelos
Claims and theories based on the occult, i.e., "religious claims," can be and have been for eons conjured and put forth to explain the universe and its contents and events. The track record, however, hasn't demonstrably been all that accurate. Lots of utterly unverifiable "truth," though. You're simply carrying on the tradition. Why? Why should we believe in your hypotheses, Dianelos?
Other Comments by Lauregon
507. Comment #77518 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Teach the best ideas to the greatest number of people possible. - Dianelos
If you really believe that, you'd be far wiser to be working to upgrade the theist beliefs that already exist among millions upon millions of dedicated theists. If you get that house up to what you'd consider the proper standard, then would be plenty time enough to try to convert non-believers. First things first.
Other Comments by Lauregon
508. Comment #77524 by Peacebeuponme on October 9, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Dianelos:Well I agree that the falsity of naturalism does not imply the truth of full-blown Christianity, of course not.But you were agreeing that you would not be able to provide a strong argument in favour of "full-blown" religious claims? It comes down to evidence and plausibility. I think zombies, virgin births and miracles are extremely implausible and that its irrational to think otherwise, based on my life experiences. The evidence seems to support me here. As far as McGrath's magic Jesus goes, James Randi will write a million dollar cheque to the first zombie to phone him up.At least we agree that Christians and all other religions should abandon all of their truth claims then, such as they are.No. You see from "The falsity of A does not imply that B is true" is not equivalent to "The falsity of A implies that B is false
Even if I could somehow accept that there could be something "supernatural" as distinct from a "natural" world that we can attempt to investigate with science, this would not make me any more a Christian, and why should it?
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
509. Comment #77609 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Here are some theists for you to educate, Dianelos:Rapture Ready
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30_Zz7tHYs%0D
;)
Other Comments by Lauregon
510. Comment #77727 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 10:18 am
Steve99 (post 499, or #77460):Dawkins is NOT talking about what you are trying to claim he is talking about, which is Kolmogorov complexity.Actually I was claiming the opposite, but never mind.
And as just about everything that used to be explained by God no longer requires him, then many intelligent and educated people realise that He has no explanatory power.Or maybe many educated people commit a series of logical fallacies, for example to think that "blind natural evolution can produce the species" implies "blind natural evolution has produced the species" which implies "God has not produced the species". Or to commit the fallacy to think that "the God hypothesis is not necessary for scientific understanding" implies "the God hypothesis is not necessary for ontological understanding". The good thing with truth is that fallacious thinking has an expiration date.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
511. Comment #77732 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 10:40 am
Comment #77727 by Dianelos Georgoudis
Or maybe many educated people commit a series of logical fallacies, for example to think that "blind natural evolution can produce the species" implies "blind natural evolution has produced the species" which implies "God has not produced the species".
Yes, that would be wrong, you shouldn't really convert a conditional like this. In a similar vein one shouldn't convert "Science, or methodological naturalism, can't currently explain this, therefore it will never explain this, which means that that it is a failure, which means that there must be another explanation, which is god"
Or to commit the fallacy to think that "the God hypothesis is not necessary for scientific understanding" implies "the God hypothesis is not necessary for ontological understanding".
Assuming that science doesn't attempt ontological understanding of course.
Other Comments by epeeist
512. Comment #77737 by Lauregon on October 10, 2007 at 11:13 am
which implies "God has not produced the species". - Dianelos
...a statement which assumes by faith that there's a supernatural "God" person who could be believed to have produced the species.
Other Comments by Lauregon
513. Comment #77741 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:27 am
Peacebeuponme (post 500, or #77461):Well, a good place to start is to read "God? A debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. That's a written debate, so both professors of philosophy had plenty of time to think before suggesting their best arguments and attacking the other side's best arguments. This is an easy read too, and it's interesting to judge for oneself the merits of the individual arguments and how they are countered. Other authors I recommend are naturalist Mackie (for example his "the Miracle of Theism") and theist Plantinga. Incidentally you don't have to read theists for learning about theology, reading knowledgeable naturalist philosophers who write on theology works very well too.But the fact remains that there are already several serious theological arguments why the God hypothesis is the better explanationI'm genuinely interested in hearing some. McGrath bangs on about "serious theology" a lot, but forgot to include any decent arguments in his books.
Now, for me the best arguments for God are the argument from morality (which is included in the above debate) and the argument from consciousness (which isn't). You can find a very short exposition of the latter argument here:
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000901.html
Your discussions with Steve99 and Dr Benway have got to around 2,000 posts I think, but this site hasn't seen the light yet.Yes – shocking ;-)
Anyway I think there is a better way to justify theism than stating the arguments for it. The better way is to compare one the two completing ontological worldviews (at least in the West), namely theism and naturalism. This is a better way because naturalists consistently attack theism on grounds their own naturalism fails, which is irrational of course, because what goes for the goose goes for the gander. Here is a remarkable example: Surely you must have heard the mantra that there is no objective evidence for theism - that's probably the single most repeated argument against theism. Well, it turns out that there is no objective evidence for naturalism either (and arguably there is some objective evidence against naturalism, but never mind). Similarly it's true that the God hypothesis is not necessary for science, but then again naturalism's hypothesis is not necessary for science either. And so on.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
514. Comment #77742 by Bonzai on October 10, 2007 at 11:28 am
I wonder why you guys even bother. All of Dianelos arguments are just meaningless word games. It all boils down to this: since God is a magic man everything and anything is possible, so whatever argument you come up with he always have this escape clause: God may choose not to reveal himself, God may live inside the quarks, God may be lurking inside the cracks of what we call logic.. The possibilities are endless. In other words, an infinitely ad hoc God which doesn't serve any purpose and no definitive attribute except it "feels real" for Dianelos so he must exist and his existence is an axiom.This is just stupid. I think he should be flagged for spamming (not that I am going to do that so in case he is flagged it is not me)
Other Comments by Bonzai
515. Comment #77749 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 am
Comment #77742 by Bonzai
I wonder why you guys even bother. All of Dianelos arguments are just meaningless word games. It all boils down to this: since God is a magic man everything and anything is possible, so whatever argument you come up with he always have this escape clause: God may choose not to reveal himself, God may live inside the quarks, God may be lurking inside the cracks of what we call logic.. The possibilities are endless.
To paraphrase Marian Moore, a word game which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt.
Other Comments by epeeist
516. Comment #77752 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:50 am
Steve99 (post 504, or #77505):Well, I understand what you are saying, but object to it on the following grounds: We humans are curious persons. Whether we are the product of blind nature or of intentional God does not matter: the fact remains we want to understand. Now all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that there is a transcendental meaning in our life here, a meaning that affects our afterlife and indeed affects the whole of reality. So we are by nature curious to know where that meaning came from (to use Dawkins's phrase). And as meaning is normally imparted intentionally it's difficult in my mind to reconcile a reality that is fundamentally meaningful but not fundamentally intentional. But then again the Buddhist may respond that to be curious about such matters does not increase happiness or peace of mind either :-)Arguably there are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, even though it's not clear to me how a Buddhist would answer the question of whether the universe is designed or not.Well, firstly, most Buddhists assume that the Universe always was, so attempt to bypass the question like that.
Of course, the true Buddhish response is... "it doesn't matter"... does happiness and peace of mind depend knowledge of this? If not.. no need to worry about it.
Well, for me it does – there is nothing like the happiness and peace of mind that come with understanding.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
517. Comment #77755 by steveroot on October 10, 2007 at 11:58 am
516. Comment #77752 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:50 am
But then again the Buddhist may respond that to be curious about such matters does not increase happiness or peace of mind either :-)
Well, for me it does – there is nothing like the happiness and peace of mind that come with understanding.
At the risk of provoking another 1500 word post, I wonder what it is that we've understood here. Perhaps the word ("understanding") is being used in a sense I'm not familiar with. ;-)
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
518. Comment #77756 by Dr Benway on October 10, 2007 at 11:58 am
Dianelos:Surely you must have heard the mantra that there is no objective evidence for theism - that's probably the single most repeated argument against theism. Well, it turns out that there is no objective evidence for naturalism either (and arguably there is some objective evidence against naturalism, but never mind). Similarly it's true that the God hypothesis is not necessary for science, but then again naturalism's hypothesis is not necessary for science either. And so on.False dichotomy.
Some evidence can be corroborated; some can't be corroborated.
Some hypotheses have been proven false; some have survived repeated tests.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
519. Comment #77757 by Bonzai on October 10, 2007 at 12:00 pm
516. Comment #77752 by Dianelos GeorgoudisIf the world is ruled by Karma as some Buddhist believe there is no need for God. In many ancient religions some abstract, impersonal principle existed before and above the gods and the gods were secondary creations. For example the Greek gods. Even the ancients knew that was no logical or intuitive reason why a human like "intelligent agent" had to be postulated to "explain" primordial order, indeed they leaned towards the opposite, it was the existence of complicated beings and agencies such as gods that needed explaining.
Your insistence that a God,--wilful agency,-- must be postulated above nature is just a prejudice and idiosyncrasy of the Abrahamic faiths , it is neither logically nor intuitively persuasive and indeed it runs counter to ancient intuitions as well as modern rational science.
Other Comments by Bonzai
520. Comment #77761 by Lauregon on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Well, for me it does – there is nothing like the happiness and peace of mind that come with understanding. - Dianelos
It would be inaccurate, Dianelos, to suggest that what you "understand" is something other than the convoluted speculation you've engaged in as the means of supporting your religious beliefs.
The Templeton Foundation ran a double full page in the NYT earlier this week on the Big Questions, an array of (partial) essays (in full at the website) by a range of scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc., on the question of whether or not there is purpose in the universe. There was no consensus among those presenting their ideas. The answers were diverse: Yes, no, maybe, not sure, etc.. Surely, Dianelos, you don't presume to upstage this notable group by suggesting that YOU, more understanding than those surveyed by the Templeton Foundation, have THE answer. ;)
http://templeton.org/purpose
Other Comments by Lauregon
521. Comment #77762 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Epeeist (post 511, or #77732):In a similar vein one shouldn't convert "Science, or methodological naturalism, can't currently explain this, therefore it will never explain this, which means that that it is a failure, which means that there must be another explanation, which is god"Right, that's the God of the gaps fallacy. My personal belief is that the scientific method can, at least in principle, explain all objectively observable phenomena.
The big question though is how to explain the whole of our condition (i.e. how it is like to be a human being) – which is not an objectively observable phenomenon.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
522. Comment #77769 by epeeist on October 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Comment #77762 by Dianelos Georgoudis
Epeeist (post 511, or #77732):
In a similar vein one shouldn't convert "Science, or methodological naturalism, can't currently explain this, therefore it will never explain this, which means that that it is a failure, which means that there must be another explanation, which is god"
You might want to follow this link:
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=searchresults&freesearch=irony&branch=&textsearchtype=exact
Other Comments by epeeist
523. Comment #77775 by walk on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Dianelos, you said:Now all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that there is a transcendental meaning in our life here, a meaning that affects our afterlife and indeed affects the whole of reality. So we are by nature curious to know where that meaning came from (...)
I believe this was covered weeks ago. Simply teaching these concepts doesn't make them true. Here you are simply ASSUMING that there is a IS a transcendental meaning to life, and ASSUMING there IS an afterlife, and basing everything that follows on those two improbable assumptions. This is NOT a given. It's fairly easy to see that in his fear and arrogance man has INVENTED these concepts.
Other Comments by walk
524. Comment #77786 by Peacebeuponme on October 10, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Dianelos:Now, for me the best arguments for God are the argument from morality (which is included in the above debate) and the argument from consciousness (which isn't). You can find a very short exposition of the latter argument here:Argument from consciousness: I'll have a look at that article, but I assume runs something along the lines of "consciousness is a difficult concept that has us scratching our heads, therefore God." As for morality, I find that basically a God of the gaps argument and find evolutionary arguments more plausible.
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000901.html
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
525. Comment #77788 by Goldy on October 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Now all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that there is a transcendental meaning in our life here
I believe a lot of them teach a sense of superiority over the other religion too - that make them right?
Other Comments by Goldy
526. Comment #77797 by SharonMcT on October 10, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu...does that mean there is a god?;)
Seriously...again, I admire the patience of the people who continue to "discuss" anything with DG. But please remember that even if you stop, he still hasn't "won".
steve99, honestly, if you want to stop now, the previous posts are all still there and anyone can go back over them and read them as I have and understand that his claims only make sense to him and his idol plantinga.
As well, if everyone stops, then he may just write his own book. Personally I think he is just finding ways to procrastinate. Write your own book, DG, or are you afraid of getting some bad reviews?
Other Comments by SharonMcT
527. Comment #77806 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 4:17 pm
steve99, honestly, if you want to stop now, the previous posts are all still there and anyone can go back over them and read them as I have and understand that his claims only make sense to him and his idol plantinga.
What does troubles me is DG's pseudo-science. Just to give an example, he goes on and on about complexity, but it was not the complexity Dawkins mentions. Dianelos is attempting to pervert rationality and science. He gives explanations for his views which seem logical and rational, but it really does take degree-level understanding to realise that what DG discusses is actually total nonsense.
The problem is that he presents this level of nonsense in so many areas - philosophy, logic, physics, mathematics... in all these disciplines Dianelos has learned enough to confuse the casual reader.
I have dealt with Dianelos enough to think that he is either a seriously self-deluded nutcase, or a deliberate fraud. But either way, I think he is a problem, as he can be convincing. He can damage debates and discussions.
So how do we deal with this?
(Personally, I think Dianelos is in the 'self-deluted nutcase' category. This is clear in the effort he has recently put into to try and smear Dawkins, rather than support his own views, which have been repeatedly shown to be both inconsistent philosophy and ignorant science)
The fact that these inane exchanges continue only means that there are verbal w***ers on both sides of the debate.
How wonderfully relativist. Someone is trying to post theist nonsense under the cover of pseudo-science, and you insult those who work hard to try and counter this nonsense?
Other Comments by steve99
528. Comment #77809 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I think you have your answer in the two previous posts. Ignore him. He'll go away.
No, he doesn't. He comes onto other threads, and posts more pseudo-science. If you don't like what he posts, then complain, mark him troll, or help show he is wrong. Insulting those who are trying to contradict him in rational debate is no way to proceed.
Other Comments by steve99
529. Comment #77812 by BAEOZ on October 10, 2007 at 4:50 pm
If you feed a troll, he'll return. Operant conditioning (B.F. Skinner and all that). Danielos thrives on the argument. He doesn't need an answer, he just wants engagement. I suggest we ignore the troll no matter what thread he pops up in. If this can be done, he'll get no more reward (continued pointless debate) and go.... Other Comments by BAEOZ
530. Comment #77815 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 5:07 pm
BAEOZ: Having been on internet discussion groups since they started, I think you may be wrong in this case. Dianelos posts pseudo-science that is potentially very convincing - it really is at least 99% correct. Furthermore, he is posting them on different threads. Perhaps if we could set up some kind of FAQ to counter his claims, I would be satisfied. But he is no troll, publishing trivial nonsense. If I am really wasting space here, I will shut up, and cease posting on this thread, but my impression is that many who have no idea what Dianelos is talking about don't realise that he could cause a lot of harm if not dealt with through reason. But that is just my view.However, perhaps not responding to him for a while may have some effect.... I am prepared to give it a try. The problem is seeing such scientific gibberish in Dianelos' comments is positively painful..
Other Comments by steve99
531. Comment #77818 by Quine on October 10, 2007 at 5:37 pm
If one must respond to something a troll has posted, it is often better to refer only to the post in the third person, and not to the troll. Other Comments by Quine
532. Comment #77820 by Shuggy on October 10, 2007 at 5:42 pm
30. Comment #72226 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 Anyone who prays obviously believes to some extent in an interventionist God.
I think a lot of would-be modern theists have it both ways. They believe in a non-interventionist, compatible-with-science-and-rationality, ground-of-all-being god AND they pray to Him/Her/It.
Other Comments by Shuggy
533. Comment #77824 by BAEOZ on October 10, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Steve99, I'm not knocking you man. You, and many others have far greater knowledge of science and logic than I. If you think it's necessary to counter Danielos, that's what you should do. I just put my point of view across. Other Comments by BAEOZ
534. Comment #77826 by Zamboro on October 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Whatever. So long as they dilute their concept of God and observance thereof to the point that it's hardly distinguishable from atheism, secularists still come out on top. Other Comments by Zamboro
535. Comment #77829 by BMMcArdle on October 10, 2007 at 6:47 pm
This is a clear-thinking oasis, not an imagination-gone-wild playground.Kudos to the oasis keepers.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
536. Comment #77844 by Dr Benway on October 10, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Eh? Was someone giving steve99 a hard time? Gosh, I miss all the fun.The "naturalism vs. theism" stuff Dianelos repeats is in vogue. Even wee flea is chiming in with the same refrain. Not a new argument; just a new presentation. Get used to it.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
537. Comment #77845 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Lauregon (post 509, or #77609):I am not sure what the relevance was, but this video was interesting nonetheless. Actually it was quite amazing. I suppose that's the lunatic religious right in the US. What can I say? This is one more example of the failure of education.
Incidentally the "rapture" has no foundation in Christian orthodox dogma whatsoever. From the point of view of serious Christian theology and even official Christianity, it's a joke. Not to mention that, according to a recent article I read (I believe in Time magazine), these people help Israel in order to advance the Second Coming at which the Jewish people themselves will perish – so the hypocrisy is mind-boggling. On the other hand there is little question that these loonies do exert serious political influence in the US, and arguably manage to destabilize one of the most critical places on Earth, the Middle East. I agree that all that is scary, but what can one do? Again the only solution I see is education, not least to educate the American public at large that 1) these beliefs are heretical (in this official Churches could help) and 2) that the US's one-sided help to Israel is not to the best interest of the US, nor of the world, nor, arguably, of Israel itself.
This side of the pond, nobody believes in the rapture. It's interesting to think why such harebrained ideas and fundamentalism in general find such a fertile soil in the US. Perhaps the fact that the study of religion does not form part of the curriculum at American schools might be part of the reason.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
538. Comment #77853 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Epeeist (post 511, or #77732):Assuming that science doesn't attempt ontological understanding of course.I don't see how this is possible while science is circumscribed by the scientific method. On the other hand scientists themselves are of course completely free to do ontology using their scientific knowledge to good effect. That's what great physicists Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bell and mathematician von Neumann have done, as well as more recently physicists Nick Herbert ("Quantum Reality"), David Mermin ("Boojums All The Way Through"), Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner ("Quantum Enigma"), David Deutsch ("The Fabric of Reality"), Wojciech Zurek ("Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information"), Paul Davies and John Gribbin ("The Matter Myth"), and surely many others I don't know about. I am not implying that I personally agree with the content of all these books, but in any case one can learn much more about what scientific knowledge implies about objective reality by reading any the previous books than by reading TGD.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
539. Comment #77854 by alovrin on October 10, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Lauregon (post 509, or #77609):
I am not sure what the relevance was, but this video was interesting nonetheless. Actually it was quite amazing. I suppose that's the lunatic religious right in the US. What can I say? This is one more example of the failure of education.
Priceless, that one went straight over your studious little head didnt it Dianelost ! Woooooosh.
Talk about the failure of education, where did you go to school?
Other Comments by alovrin
540. Comment #77855 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Lauregon (post 512, or #77737):Not really; that's a statement Dawkins makes all the time. And it seems to me that he makes that statement as the result of the fallacious logic I described in post 510 above.which implies "God has not produced the species". - Dianelos...a statement which assumes by faith that there's a supernatural "God" person who could be believed to have produced the species.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
541. Comment #77856 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Steveroot (post 517, or#77755):At the risk of provoking another 1500 word post, I wonder what it is that we've understood here.I wonder about that too ;-)
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
542. Comment #77857 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 10, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Bonzai (post 519, or #77757):If the world is ruled by Karma as some Buddhist believe there is no need for God.Yes, well, on the other hand Buddhists pray, and I wonder whom they pray to.
I do not pretend to understand Buddhism very well; I have only read a few books on Zen Buddhism long time ago, and a book on Buddhist ethics is waiting in my to-read stack of books. I probably should learn more about it.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
543. Comment #77860 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 12:10 am
Lauregon (post 520, or #77761):The Templeton Foundation ran a double full page in the NYT earlier this week on the Big Questions, an array of (partial) essays (in full at the website) by a range of scientists, philosophers, theologians, etc., on the question of whether or not there is purpose in the universe. There was no consensus among those presenting their ideas. The answers were diverse: Yes, no, maybe, not sure, etc..But that's exactly my point: it's not that clear that the universe does not have a purpose (and a purposeful universe implies a creator), contrary to what Dawkins tries to convince people in TGD. And, obviously, if one had asked the same group of thoughtful people if they think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden they would all have responded with a monosyllable "no". As I mentioned before, I am here to learn (including to learn how naturalists think), but if there is one thing I would like to convince people here is that it is worthwhile to study more about ontology. And if there is one thing I dislike more than the bad reasoning in TGD is the general idea it projects that the issues are settled and that further study is not necessary and may even be a ridiculous thing to do.
Incidentally, Lauregon, thanks for the interesting links you have been providing – it only shows that people can learn from each other while deeply disagreeing.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
544. Comment #77861 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 12:28 am
Walk (post 523, or #77775):Well, we were discussing Buddhism, and it's a factual truth that that is what Buddhism teaches. Now you say that these are all assumptions and not a given. Well all assumptions are not a given by definition. And please observe that we all make assumptions in our life. For example we assume that an objective reality exists, we assume that other people are conscious beings, we assume that the inductive method is correct, we assume (or should assume :-) the axioms of Boolean logic, and so on. The fact that we assume these things does not make us irrational, does it? Quite the contrary in fact. And these assumptions are reasonable because they are justified pragmatically, i.e. by the kind of thought and life they lead one to, and how subjectively we judge that this kind of thought and life is good. Similarly then many people "assume" that life is meaningful (or that morality is not relative, and so on).Now all major religions, including Buddhism, teach that there is a transcendental meaning in our life here, a meaning that affects our afterlife and indeed affects the whole of reality. So we are by nature curious to know where that meaning came from (...)Simply teaching these concepts doesn't make them true. Here you are simply ASSUMING that there is a IS a transcendental meaning to life, and ASSUMING there IS an afterlife, and basing everything that follows on those two improbable assumptions. This is NOT a given.
John Hick (a very important modern philosopher of religion) argued that reality is religiously ambiguous, i.e. that a reasonable person can conceptually equally well adopt either a religious or a non-religious model of reality. I don't quite agree with that, but let's assume it's true. Even then there is little doubt that to assume a religious model of reality is conducive to a better quality of life than the alternative. So if both a religious and a non-religious model of reality are reasonable only a masochist would prefer the non-religious model of a "hideous" reality (to use Dawkins's expression in his recent debate with John Lennox).
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
545. Comment #77862 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 12:45 am
Steve99 (post 530, or #77815):However, perhaps not responding to [Dianelos] for a while may have some effect.... I am prepared to give it a try.Steve, please feel completely free not to comment on my posts. But what I dislike is you being instructed by others what you should do. In-group morality is a clear sign of tribalism, and if there is one thing that nobody should compromise is one's freedom of thought and one's freedom of consciousness. I mean I may very strongly disagree with Dawkins's ideas and actions, but I have no doubt that he follows his mind and his moral sense where they lead him.
So do whatever you find best and think whatever you find best as long as it's you who is doing the thinking and the doing.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
546. Comment #77863 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 12:50 am
Shuggy (post 532, or #77820):I think a lot of would-be modern theists have it both ways. They believe in a non-interventionist, compatible-with-science-and-rationality, ground-of-all-being god AND they pray to Him/Her/It.Right. In my experience praying is a very useful thing: It's an expression of gratitude so it's ethically satisfying. It's a form of meditation so it sharpens one's insight. And finally, whether one asks for it or not, it's an ethically empowering experience.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
547. Comment #77869 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 1:03 am
Dr Benway (post 536, or #77844):The "naturalism vs. theism" stuff Dianelos repeats is in vogue. Even wee flea is chiming in with the same refrain. Not a new argument; just a new presentation. Get used to it.Even Dawkins agrees that's the main issue. After all in his recent debate with John Lennox (IRC) he calls the natural evolution versus creationism question just a "skirmish" and that the profound question is "naturalism versus supernaturalism".
See: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,n,n
But I understand that many people do not like profound questions. After all superficial thought has its attractions; for one it does not imply the need to study.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
548. Comment #77870 by Philip1978 on October 11, 2007 at 1:04 am
Dianelos, Tis not my intention to sound rude to you I promise but prayer does not work (using a rather Stephen Fry-esque sentence) in the slightest ghost of a
scintilla of an iota of a way. I have yet to see the point of asking the invisible for the highly improbable, it does not make sense to me.
Really, you have about as much chance of getting God to do what you ask as you have asking the chair that you are sitting on. Why not just meditate if you are looking for a good stress reliever and mind sharpener- I prefer tea myself but, everyone to themselves :)
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
549. Comment #77873 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 11, 2007 at 1:21 am
Phillip1978 (post 548, or #77870):You'll notice that in post 546 I am expressively talking about my experience with prayer, and that I never mention anything like asking for "highly improbable" things :-)
Now I can't really condemn those who ask for a favor while they pray, because if tragedy befell my life I would probably do the same. But I would do the same while knowing deep down that doing favors is not how God works – and that if reality is centered in God then favors is not what we need anyway.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
550. Comment #77874 by Richard Morgan on October 11, 2007 at 1:23 am
Dianelos Georgoudis - I've changed my mind again. I'm happy for you to keep posting because frankly - you are a very entertaining read!I found myself chortling with real amusement as I read your letter of consolation and encouragement to steve99.
You, of all people, advising steve99 about his moral rights and internet social behaviour!
Priceless.
I also particularly enjoyed this :
In my experience praying is a very useful thing: It's an expression of gratitude so it's ethically satisfying. It's a form of meditation so it sharpens one's insight. And finally, whether one asks for it or not, it's an ethically empowering experience."ethically satisfying"?
Er, well, yes, if you say so.....
"meditation that sharpens one's insight"?
You should be talking to a young guy called Sam Harris.
And the best of all : "ethically empowering".
I've tried to imagine what that could mean, how it could feel, if it could be compared to, say, Viagra or caipirinha or perhaps Mahler or even John Milton.
I've tried to find it in my Umberto Eco collection.
I even tried looking under my son's bed. (If you don't believe in parallel dimensions, you haven't seen my son's bedroom.)
But I give up. Go on - tell us what it is.
Please.
I think I want to feel ethically empowered.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
501. Comment #77462 by Lauregon on October 9, 2007 at 11:26 am
Always the magic stuff. Sigh.
So, Dianelos, yet again, non-theists should rethink their non-theism and embrace your new and improved, yet-still-hypothetical version of "God" for WHAT reason? Truly, truly, you're laboring overtime-plus to sell a product here for which you've failed to establish any kind of need. Until you're willing to address these points, you're simply spinning your wheels in mud of your own making.
Other Comments by Lauregon