201. Comment #170807 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:29 am

Quetz: The key word there is "if". Of course, the problem is that you are assuming that the many authors of the Bible weren't simply talking crap.

At the end I assumed he was simply referring to the bible as a work of fiction. Within the fictional "universe" created by the bible, the Yahweh character is indeed all good, as he said, by definition.
But it's really all made up isn't it?

No one could really say that Yahweh was all good could they?
(for the common usage meaning of good Bizarro, not this yahweh=good thing you tried to export from a work of fiction)

Other Comments by riandouglas

202. Comment #170811 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

Riandouglas-

this is the point I was getting at with my question to Bizarro. If God can commit atrocities and they are somehow still "good", then if he tells someone to commit similar atrocities, then they would also have to be "good", by virtue of the fact that an all-loving, perfect being is giving the orders.

Of course how an all-loving, perfect being can truly be called such if he allows things such as natural disasters to occur, is a different point, and may be stretching the definitions somewhat.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

203. Comment #170812 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 3:46 am

Quetz, I bow down before your mighty visage and far superior erudition!

EDIT: Should I have gone for fearsome visage?

Other Comments by riandouglas

204. Comment #170813 by irate_atheist on April 28, 2008 at 3:48 am

202. Comment #170811 by Quetzalcoatl -

Surely god is trying to bring about about a world without turmoil, strife or internicine warfare etc. A world with no nations (or only one), where the people are one, and all worship the great leader. One country, one people, one leader. Or, in German, 'Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer.' A nice bloke, deep down. Just misunderstood by those that don't know him.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

205. Comment #170815 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 3:56 am

Riandouglas-

either is acceptable.

Irate-

You're right. It's so strange that so many people do not agree with this vision of "One World Order". Obviously they are corrupt, and should be purged from God's Kingdom.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

206. Comment #170818 by irate_atheist on April 28, 2008 at 4:09 am

205. Comment #170815 by Quetzalcoatl -

Do you mean, a kind of Final Solution?

It's strange how these theists never come up with such a thing, isn't it?

Oh, one of them did, did he? Hmm...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

207. Comment #170819 by phil rimmer on April 28, 2008 at 4:10 am

Flying goose.

I don't believe that human beings invented the gods to explain things.

Indeed that hugely underplays the cleverness of it all. The idea developed and survived because it was useful in many different ways to different types of people.

Gods helped keep old folk alive after they had passed their sell by date. Knowledge even spurious, invented meta-knowledge could be traded for food and respect. Gods endorsed the power base of the Alpha male, the tribal chief, in a quid pro quo with the shaman. Gods licensed "unreasonable" demands by the chief and made bold adventures possible. They made super-tribes possible, when our amygdalas said we shouldn't be getting so close to the other fellow. They brought us together for the first proto-cities and created opportunities for divisions of labour. They motivated and consoled. Their narratives even embedded real wisdom and formed a substrate for ideas about justice.

Bloomin' genius!

However, Gods have never existed for me. Nor does your belief in anyway help me to find one. Now a scintilla of EVIDENCE from you would be much more interesting.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

208. Comment #170820 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:10 am

Quetz: You're right. It's so strange that so many people do not agree with this vision of "One World Order". Obviously they are corrupt, and should be purged from God's Kingdom.

Yahweh|Jesus would obviously be the leader right?
I assume he'll be talking through some kind of intermediary, as I'm not worthy to receive his message directly.

Other Comments by riandouglas

209. Comment #170821 by scooternyc on April 28, 2008 at 4:11 am

Personal experience of anything negates all discussion of science and objectivity.

While personal experience might be an interesting tale it does not further a discussion about any or all things science; it is a manipulation of emotion to elicite shared emotion.

"Belief" itself is a subjective connotation, personal to the individual, thereby rendering it useless in discussions of science.

It's why values and morals are purely subjective to the individual.

A plethora of individuals who agree on any one value does not credential it as value it only reveals that a group of people agree on a particular idea. To which we say, "so what?".

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens

Other Comments by scooternyc

210. Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 4:14 am

Irate-

yes, but his was no good. When our Benevolent Leader returns, all the Corrupt will be dispatched to Hell immediately, where they will burn for eternity. Much quicker and more efficient.

Oh, there'll be something about whether their names are written in the Book of Life, but that's just a formality. Angels were the first bureaucrats.

Then the Benevolent Leader will alter the minds of all the Pure, so that they no longer remember that the Corrupt ever existed, so won't be upset by their eternal torment. Then everyone will be happy.

Except the Corrupt, obviously.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

211. Comment #170826 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

Quetz: Except the Corrupt, obviously.

I'm afraid you're wrong. I've been reliably informed that it is what would have been chosen by the "Corrupt" as you term them.
Something about getting what you wanted (yay! I'll get a bunny!), doors being locked from the inside.

Other Comments by riandouglas

212. Comment #170827 by irate_atheist on April 28, 2008 at 4:21 am

210. Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl -

Do you mean he wasn't ambitious enough?

Tsk tsk. No wonder theists disown him, he just doesn't come up to their god's level of competence vis a vis mass slaughter. He was merely an impudent upstart.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

213. Comment #170831 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #170823 by Quetzalcoatl

Of course how an all-loving, perfect being can truly be called such if he allows things such as natural disasters to occur, is a different point, and may be stretching the definitions somewhat.

As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

214. Comment #170835 by Sargeist on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 am

Talking to a Catholic yesterday, I was struck by the thought that there might not actually be *anything* that could occur that would make her question whether her god was perfectly good or not. It doesn't matter if it's earthquakes, tsunamis or plane crashes, nothing rocked her belief that god was basically wonderful.

When I mentioned the Big Flood she said: "Well, he did promise never to do that again". And when I mentioned the recent tsunami she said, "Well, not as many were killed that time."

Other Comments by Sargeist

215. Comment #170838 by Sargeist on April 28, 2008 at 5:01 am

Could someone enlighten me as to when the idea that God is perfectly good arose? It seems that in the OT God is simply a very powerful being that wants to do whatever he wants (and he really is a "he"), and there is no real concept of being good or bad, just powerful and desirous of being obeyed. Very much like the Greek pantheon, even down to not knowing everything (such as not knowing Adam and Eve would disobey, and not knowing where Adam was in the garden one day.)

Other Comments by Sargeist

216. Comment #170840 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 5:02 am

Steve Zara: As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

Surely that's not justification. More like wishful thinking, given the evidence?
Abusive relationship - "He says he didn't mean it. He says he's sorry. He says he'll never do it again" *BAM* Tsunami!
EDIT: "He says he still loves me"

Other Comments by riandouglas

217. Comment #170847 by phil rimmer on April 28, 2008 at 5:09 am

Steve

As far as I can tell, the only justification for believing that God is good is that we are really screwed if he isn't.

Funny how the captives always come to side with their captor.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

218. Comment #170941 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 6:56 am

Donald,

We surely agree on theism and all that. However, I do not subscribe to the somewhat widespread notion stating that what is currently untestable is therefore compatible with science. That, to me, represents a leap of logic which could have had some merit back in the 18th century and no longer should, even with the added caveats of plausibility and credibility.

The concept of deity, according to nearly all flavours of deism, has a supernatural connotation and requires infinite complexity to work properly according to its own premises.
The example of the alien simulation, by contrast, is surely popular, since I heard a lot of people who should know better making it, but it is not pertinent because it doesn't postulate the supernatural, just a sort of keyed-up "hyper-nature"- for lack of a definition- that would encompass also our virtual universe. In that scenario there would still be no need to hypothesise extreme complexity springing out of nowhere and creating universes by magic.

A better example, in my opinion, would have been M Theory, which truly is compatible with science even though untestable. The crucial difference being that, contrary to deism, M theory at least has the math to stand on.

After two and a half centuries of hard-nosed investigation of the universe we have no reason to doubt the principle of parsimony, nor to suspect the laws of physics of not being homogeneous everywhere. I don't see a good reason why we should forget all that in order to accommodate deism. Oh yes, the pandering thing. No, thanks

Other Comments by decius

219. Comment #171038 by konquererz on April 28, 2008 at 9:02 am

I don't think science has made god obsolete at all. I think writings attributed to god make god obsolete. In other words, god doesn't need science to make him obsolete, religion does a great job on its own! :D

Other Comments by konquererz

220. Comment #171059 by flying goose on April 28, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment 207 Phil Rimmer

Are you assuming that I am a theist?

Other Comments by flying goose

221. Comment #171069 by Scep on April 28, 2008 at 9:40 am

If we accept the overwhelming evidence that complexity evolved from simplicity, anything godlike that may exist in our "Multiverse" must have evolved through the same "mechanism".

In another "Multiverse" the basic laws of nature may be different, permitting a different "mechanism"?

Not much room left for a supernatural God! Except s/he may have given us the laws of nature. So we are back to Spinoza's, Einstein's and Sagan's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Let's jump off that merry-go-round and enjoy and awe what really exists and read Richard's "Unweaving the Rainbow".

By the way Richard, that tape recorder you want with you when you finally throw in the towel may not be enough to prove that you did not have a deathbed conversion. Hopefully you will be about 500 years old when you "go" and your brilliant mind may not be so brilliant anymore and could be manipulated.

My children know that if I happen to die mumbling something about seeing the doors to paradise, they will have to chalk it up to an old, malfunctioning brain.

Other Comments by Scep

222. Comment #171099 by phil rimmer on April 28, 2008 at 10:07 am

flying goose

Are you assuming that I am a theist?

Oh, bugger!

Mea maxima culpa.

I got that EXACTLY wrong. Sorry.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

223. Comment #171130 by flying goose on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Phil Rimmer

Time for me to come clean,

so first my own 'Mea maxima culpa' I am in process of transition, not that we ever not in transition. I was a theist, but now perhaps I am not a theist, if by theist, one means a belief in a personnal God. I think that theism might be a kind of idolatry. I think I am coming to the position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that humanity must come of age and act as if there were no personal Gods. I do not want to abandon the idea of the sacred though. Sorry if my question mislead you.

Other Comments by flying goose

224. Comment #171143 by Donald on April 28, 2008 at 10:32 am

Decius,

We agree about the undesirability of pandering to myths. But in dealing with the avalanche of misinformation and misperceptions surging through human society, a certain amount of triage is vital. We both see it as more important to tackle theism and leave deism alone for now.

Regarding the terminology, or philosophy of science if you prefer:

I say that untestability places things outside science, because I regard testable predictions as being essential to science. However, I also would say that plausibility/credibility can be judged even in the absence of testability, so that unscientific beliefs, such as the existence of fairies, the existence of a larger universe in which our universe is but a simulation, the existence of a deity who created the universe specifically for humans, the existence of teapots inside black holes, etc, can be judged as implausible/incredible (or credible in some cases).

If something is outside science, I am willing to say it is compatible, and restrict my criticism to the implausibility.
Your comment "I do not subscribe to the notion that what is currently untestable is therefore compatible with science" seems to be suggesting either:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their lack of testability
or perhaps:
that untestable speculations are incompatible with science, because of their implausibility

I'm not sure we have any essential difference in our view of the world and of science, but perhaps we have slightly different associations, and hence shades of meaning, in our use of words such as "science", "compatible", "testable", etc.

Other Comments by Donald

225. Comment #171207 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 11:15 am

Donald,

Thanks for the clarification, to which I think I agree completely. Also, English isn't my native tongue and I tend to garble my syntax, forgive me if I lacked clarity in my previous post. What I meant is that certain untestable speculations are scarcely scientific -such as those rooted in the supernatural- because of their inherent implausibility at the light of existing sound science. I suppose we slightly differ on the semantics of the term "compatible" or its application, as you cleverly pointed out.

Other Comments by decius

226. Comment #171212 by designsoda on April 28, 2008 at 11:20 am

Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one.

This statement by Prof. Phillips gives me a headache. NOMA just won't go away.

There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. "She sings beautifully." "He is a good man." "I love you." These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value.

I'm amazed Prof. Phillips thinks "God exists" is a non-scientific statement that is as "valuable" as "I love you." or "He is a good man." It's funny seeing a brilliant mind in mid-contortion.

Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.

And so religion and the notion of a supernatural creator follows??? Whah?

Other Comments by designsoda

227. Comment #171255 by Enlightenme.. on April 28, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comment #170772 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008

"Enlightenme... did you get dizzy?"

It was sort of like watching one of Reverend Dark's 'accomplishments' undergoing coriolis effect as it slips away to oblivion.

Biz: discourseframe: god=morality source:scripture
Player2: dicourseframe: evidencesource:invalid
All your base are belong to us. Gameover.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

228. Comment #171386 by ZekeCDN on April 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Abhishek wrote:

I'm currently in med school and I have the biggest exam of my life (boards) coming up in a few weeks, and I totally wasted last weekend glued to the laptop catching up on every comment ever made :)

Sounds pretty familiar if you substitute "final semester of law school" for "med school" and "last few weeks" for "weekend". Good luck with your boards!

Back on topic: that was a brilliant (and possibly brave) essay by Pervez Hoodbhoy. It can't be easy being chair of a physics department in Islamabad. I need to check out his book; anyone here read it yet?

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

229. Comment #171451 by Stafford Gordon on April 28, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Hitchens is a hell of a writer. The drains are up when he's around; but I for one find the stink invigorating!

However, apropos of Iraq he's either ignorant or deluded.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

230. Comment #171453 by phil rimmer on April 28, 2008 at 1:50 pm

flying goose

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought I was coming over all Aspi again. Though a life-long atheist, I tend to wax so lyrical about the universe that I am often mistaken in daily conversation for a Deist or soft Theist.

I think I am coming to the position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, that humanity must come of age and act as if there were no personal Gods.

Exactly. Surely it is the only MORAL position for anyone to take? Ideas of God or even a book of detailed instructions from Her can never make it clear how to behave in our day to day lives. The better moral path is the one that leads to less net harm, but the moral calculus to discern that is a daunting task for anyone, book or no book.

To not take full responsibility for our actions is to be less moral than we could be. To try to underwrite our decisions by claiming a Divine "Ought" rule as endorsement is to show we are not prepared to put in the effort ourselves.

Proving or disproving the existence of God is going to keep people happily occupied probably for ever, and is irrelevant to how we should live our lives. Best of luck finding your way forward!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

231. Comment #172015 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 6:22 am

BTW, could somebody more familiar with modern physics (than I am, me a poor biologist) tell me what this (theologian) Keith Ward refers to when he mentions "non-physical entities" that are not ruled out by modern physics? Never heard a physicist talk of them :-(

Other Comments by John Desclin

232. Comment #172018 by Jayday on April 29, 2008 at 6:35 am

Long posts and haven't read them all but wanted to throw this into the mix.

I attended a skeptics society lecture last sunday at Cal Tech in Pasadena. Michael Shermer who is head of the organization hosted the event. Before introducing the lecture speaker, (whos topic was about the brains and similar social behaviors of dolphins and chipmanzees) he showed the crowd this Templeton article. Shermer announced that he was approached by the Templeton Foundation to edit and organize this question. He agreed to do so only if he could also be a contributor.

If my memory serves, Dr. Dawkins doesn't have good words to say about the Templeton foundation because one of its focuses is to connect science and religion, trying to legitimize religion. Even the monetary prize offered by the Templeton foundation is larger than the Nobel prize.

Jayday

Other Comments by Jayday

233. Comment #172071 by John Desclin on April 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

I think one of my previous post got lost in cyberspace... On this lost post, I reminded that science endeavors answering HOW questions, whereas belief in god(s) is a WHY question. Both type of questions are said to be "BIG" questions by the Templeton Foundation members, but they should not be mixed. Beliefs may be answered by asking WHY questions, but they are a personal matter and should stay personal. These personal "answers" are not arrived at through science, nor should science be mixed up with them. The Templeton Foundation phrasing of the question also leads to confusing deism à la Voltaire, which does not entail moral consequences nor any religious consequences, with theism (a personal god that was created by man in his human image), which leads to religions and arbitrary rules of morals. Putting the question in such way is the sure means to muddy the issue. Answers given in the PDF files accompanying the post on the Templeton website are testimony to that.

Other Comments by John Desclin

234. Comment #172434 by phil rimmer on April 29, 2008 at 2:53 pm

These personal "answers" are not arrived at through science

I am increasingly frustrated by this opposition of religion and (just) science. What about philosophy, politics, art etc.

Religion in its infancy claimed in its texts to be pretty much capable of offering wisdom on all aspects of life. All these aspects now have fully thriving and independent disciplines.

The how / why divide between science and religion is totally false. Many categories of human endeavor other than religion offer WHY answers.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

235. Comment #172436 by sane1 on April 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm

The question is odd, indeed.

What science actually does vis-à-vis religion and god, is make belief in god (as in "god" controls any aspect of our lives or of our future) as wrong-headed as belief that sea monsters exist and may eat us, or that witches exist and may cast spells on us, or that rain dances work and may increase the chance of rain. All demonstrably wrong but widely believed in the past.

Or to quote from Neil deGrasee Tyson's rant of other demonstrably wrong notions that are widely held despite the evidence: what goes up must come down, or the sun is a yellow star, or on a dark night you can see millions of stars with the unaided eye, the North Star is the brightest star in the nighttime sky, in space there is no gravity, total solar eclipses are rare. These are all demonstrably wrong, but still widely believed in spite of the evidence. (See Death by Black Hole, Neil deGrasee Tyson, p293)

Other Comments by sane1

236. Comment #172446 by sane1 on April 29, 2008 at 3:02 pm

And as to this silly argument that religion answers WHY questions, but science doesn't, thereby somehow making it legitimate. Just because an area of thought can ask and answer the question "why are we here" doesn't make its answer right or even worthwhile. Besides, science and rational thought can answer those questions anyway. The answer just isn't anything about god. Why are we here? We are here to live, and procreate, and die. There - an answer to a WHY question NOT based on religion.

Other Comments by sane1

237. Comment #172581 by jwdink on April 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm

My Response to the Cardinal:

"Fast-forward to the present..."

I think the Cardinal has demonstrated a respectable grasp of some big philosophical and scientific concepts, but he draws all the wrong conclusions. Does this intelligibility and teleology imply an ontological existence of these things? Or that we evolved in this world, so of course we can attempt (often successfully) to understand it? That we interpret things SO THAT we can understand them, that we ASCRIBE teleology to things? I think the latter two are more likely. It's indicative that this world wasn't made for us (but we in it), when we get to those smallest scales of QM-- we can't seem to comprehend this in an orderly or sensible manner, because we didn't evolve with these capabilities. Such problems are endemic to the reality that science presents us: in what way is the second law of thermodynamics rational? In what way do we find eleven dimensions intelligible or comprehensible?

There has been a veritable litany of theistic worldviews. The Cardinal has taken the most respectable and (in hindsight) most prescient, and interpreted science so as to fit it. Many religious figures have attempted to do this: when atoms were king, Newton declared this a demonstration of God's perfection and rationality. Now, non-atoms does the same. So too (for others) with circular orbits. And elliptical ones. And now, with a (well, not really) "rational" universe.

Which theistic outlook has been fully vindicated? Cherry picking (both from science and religion) can indeed be utilized to accommodate your worldview. Perhaps we should avoid this, and attempt to be more intellectually honest. The most honest perspective on science, and the order of the universe, tells us a) we're a speck in a not-so-orderly universe created by the (random) Big Bang, b) it is untenable to call our consciousness a simple entity, not a complex emergent phenomenon. Thus, by trying to attribute to God a (fictional and anthropocentric) order, we explain something non-existent with something unhelpful.

Other Comments by jwdink

238. Comment #172586 by jwdink on April 29, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Response to Dr. Phillips.

Dr. Phillips, I think, has been a bit glib in his characterization of science. Falsifiability is indeed an essential requirement in scientific theories, and (in a sense) the scientific method isn't a method we are obligated to apply to our lives. But another essential attribute--of both science and (I think) rational thinking in general--is a commitment to evidence, and a commitment to parsimony. These are similar ideas: we can explain the world without invisible, undetectable fairies, so we don't believe in them. Fairies are both unparsimonious and unevidenced. Dr. Williams, for some reason, doesn't seem to think that this applies to a belief in God: for some reason, a lack of evidence--aside from vague numinous feelings (which is more parsimoniously explained by the relevant psychology)--is irrelevant when talking about an important aspect of Dr. Williams' life. Perhaps he can claim that the most abstract deistic concept is non-scientific, but Dr. Williams is being dishonest when a) he refuses to apply, not just science, but even rationality and rigorous thinking to his beliefs, and b) he refuses to acknowledge the eminent falsifiability of the THEISTIC creator that he professes belief in. He believes that Jesus was resurrected? This is very much a claim that could be falsified-- and even if it's not already, the dearth of evidence should be enough to dissuade him from such a belief… If he were thinking in a rigorous, scientific, and (above all) rational manner about his life. But apparently, he is not. Such compartmentalization in otherwise intelligent scientists is by no means appalling or unique (and I wouldn't call it a delusion), but it is a bit frustrating and sad.

Other Comments by jwdink

239. Comment #172589 by jwdink on April 29, 2008 at 6:55 pm

"Belief in God is not… a judgment about physical facts in the world… [but] an element [of a] worldview, the set of assumptions by which we make sense of our world as a whole."

Mrs. Midgley has put forward a vague argument resembling the easily-discredited (but at least more rigorous) apologetics of "Presuppositionalism." The idea is that everyone has a worldview-- a set of propositions that are taken on faith. In the apologetics form, this argument then proposes that the Christian God is the only valid grounds for belief in most the most essential premises: inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc.

Mrs. Midgley has decided, in an absurd expression of pretentious empirical relativism, that all worldviews are just about equally valid. Whether she knows the similarity her argument bears to the apologetics--or the lax and unscrupulous glance that one would have to take at their own presuppositions/worldview in order to make her argument seem plausible--is unclear.

But let's not fall into the trap. Human nature is such that we do indeed have presuppositions-- but we can't just choose them inchoately, unless we lie to ourselves. We have an underlying confidence in the uniformity of nature (we evolved in such a universe) and thus induction. Similar accounts can be given for deduction, and etc. Now, it's important to note that whatever these bare-bones faith-claims/ worldviews/ presuppositions are, they will be shared by all. Once one adds ADDITIONAL claims (ESPECIALLY if they could potentially conflict with these bare-bones claims) the even ground, the lax empirical relativism of Midgley, is obliterated. God is NOT an underlying and essential worldview. It is a proposition about existence within reality. Such propositions can only be explored with our rationality, and if there is no reason/evidence for them, they should not be assumed.

Scientism is indeed a plausible problem. But the solution should not be nonsense-- the solution lies in rigorous and rational philosophy.

Other Comments by jwdink

240. Comment #172591 by jwdink on April 29, 2008 at 6:58 pm

My answer to the question:

"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

Yes.

a) Belief in theism is very much a scientific question. Theistic religions makes bold proclamations about the nature of the world, of man, etc. But these sorts of questions CAN be explored with science.

b) Continuing the previous: once one realizes that theism makes such bold claims, one must examine such pseudo-scientific, as well as non-scientific, claims with a rigorous and science-like methodology. For instance, the poor/moderate historicity of the gospels, coupled with what we now know (scientifically) about eyewitness testimony and claims of the paranormal, makes religious accounts (as evidence for the divine) completely crumble.

c) Once we shift into deism, we indeed leave the realm of science. But deism is philosophical suicide. We know that consciousness is complex (see Libet experiment, for instance: consciously-willed actions are spaced out through time and neurons, so there can be no simple quiddity of mind). Yet God, an omnipotent and conscious creator of the universe, would have to be unimaginably complex, despite protestations of outdated theologians. (This is a perfect example of science improving and augmenting philosophy, which can then delve into non-scientific questions.) Either God must be complex, and he explains nothing, or we must reject our notions of simplicity/complexity/mind/etc. But once we do this, we've rejected the very notions which with we wish to appeal to a God (so as to explain), and we open the door for any other equally incomprehensible entity. Instead, we should preserve our knowledge and understanding, and admit that God is obsolete.

No.

a) I don't think everyone will ever stop believing in God.

b) I don't think it would be good if everyone immediately stopped believing in God, with nothing to replace it. I do think if we could reduce belief in God and replace it with more secular community/altruistic enterprises, that would be good. I do think if we could reduce toxic forms of religion by better religious education (cf. Dennett) that would be good.

Other Comments by jwdink

241. Comment #172728 by John Desclin on April 30, 2008 at 2:20 am

to 234 above # 172434
phil rimmer said "The how/why divide between science and religion is totally false".
Let me disagree, please. I probably was'nt clear enough. I just said that science only asks HOW questions, WHY questions make no sense in science.
(and BTW, the point here was about science, wasn't it?)
You further said: "Many categories of human endeavor other than religion offer Why answers".

I fully agree, but these categories of endeavor are not science: they offer answers about values, which science definitely does not because it can't and shouln't pretend it is able to do (whereas our monotheistic religions claim they have all answers to all questions.)

Other Comments by John Desclin

242. Comment #173128 by phil rimmer on April 30, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #172728 by John Desclin

Nor was I clear enough. My point was that it is not science that makes religion obsolete, it is that science, politics, philosophy, art etc. etc. make religion obsolete.

The question posed at the top of this thread is a religite's strawman argument based on a false opposition. That is what I most object to.

I completely agree with your points. I simply took your comment for the start of my own riff.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

243. Comment #173129 by LeeLeeOne on April 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm

The original question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Answer: Yes.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

244. Comment #173690 by John Desclin on May 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

to 236 (# 172446) by sane 1

you said "...we are here to live and procreate and die".
If you had said "we are here, we live, we procreate and we die", I would agree with you, because that's a statement of fact, and one could say that's in the realm of science. But you said "we are here to live.., etc., which is quite different: it's the answer - teological - you give to the WHY question of "why are we here?", which supposes purpose, a goal, or intentionality (possibly emanating from a "higher agency"). That's your belief, and of course you are welcome to it, but that's not an answer which can be validated by scientific means. Do you actually think that's silly?

Other Comments by John Desclin

245. Comment #174076 by BudGar on May 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm

personaly, i do think science makes the belief in God Obsolete. God was the answer to all the questions we had involving the universe before our intelligence evolved, because it was so convieniet and simple to understand. Then came along science, witch gives us the answers we naturaly crave.

Other Comments by BudGar

246. Comment #174115 by sane1 on May 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm

In reply to Desclin -

244. Comment #173690 by John Desclin on May 1, 2008 at 6:00 am.

I do think it is a silly dichotomy - the reliance on the "WHY" question as something that can not be answered scientifically - and that therefore we need religious explanations as to "WHY."

Science can answer WHY when WHY means "what is the cause or reason" for something. It can't as easily answer WHY in the sense of why did someone do something, but I think it can do this too - or will be able to do so in time. Maybe it can't answer WHY did god do something, or what is the purpose of a mountain, but that is my point - those are silly questions = because they ascribe purpose or goals to things that do not have human-style purposes or goals.

Other Comments by sane1

247. Comment #174254 by robotaholic on May 1, 2008 at 11:51 pm

This is a freakin' great post on this website totally - my rating of this piece is totally high

Other Comments by robotaholic

248. Comment #174285 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 2:11 am

to 246 #174115 by sane 1
The dichotomy is between what we know today - acquired through science - and what we believe. This distinction is, IMHO, most important and far from silly. Moreover, "Reasons" and "causes" should not be confused with each other (which I think you do).
Some people feel strongly the need to answer "WHY" questions, they need to believe in a lot of things scientists don't bother about. Religions and religionists take advantage of that. Other people don't feel that need so strongly and prefer to say "I don't know", and they find, on their own, their answers to whatever their own personal "WHY" questions may be.
Anyway, your beliefs are your own, your are entitled to them but religion should not force its beliefs upon you by pretending it is the "truth". These are ready-made beliefs for those who are too lazy to think for themselves :^)
Cheers!

Other Comments by John Desclin

249. Comment #174305 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 4:51 am

to 248 my previous post:
I should have said: "too lazy to think by and for themselves" :) That's the result of my poor english. Sorry!

Other Comments by John Desclin

250. Comment #177993 by DanDare on May 10, 2008 at 7:20 am

If god exists and can be "experienced" by people then he must be detectable. His actions must leave measurable, identifiable forensic evidence. Otherwise he can not interact with the universe.

So, where is the evidence buried, Area 51?

Other Comments by DanDare