|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think the only reason for the "Dawkins' Scale" is to compile statistics in order to pour scorn on people of Faith. Instead of giving him the answers he wants, why don't we turn it back on him - why? What is he trying to prove? Is he hoping to use his findings to remove privilidges for religious people and promote his secular (anti-religeous) agenda?
Yes, every single thing Dawkins says or does must have some terrible ulterior motive, no doubt related to bringing about an Atheist New World Order and sending all the Theist Sheeple to concentration camps. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
He's describing belief in slightly more detail that "I believe" or "I don't believe" - that's it. But if it bothers you so much, you can read all about it near the beginning of The God Delusion. If you can pick the book up without it burning you.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It matters like hell to me, which is perhaps why I ask it of myself.
eta - answer to Angloid.
[ 26. September 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I don't mind the scale so much as I do my not being able to explain myself very well... Dawkins, poor fellow, at least helps us by causing us to think once in a while...
ETA: thread's moving fast, Answered to Aumbry way back there...
[ 26. September 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I know philosophers differ about this (and I'm not one either), but it has been said that 'God exists' is a meaningless expression whether one believes in God or not.
I tend to be fairly ignostic myself, but I don't have any difficulty answering the question based on the concepts of God I'm familiar with. I'd have thought on a board like this there would be a general consensus about what we mean by "God", even if it's rather tricky to pin down in watertight legalese.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, these are some of the ideas which Prof. Dawkins has brushed aside, as he has a rather hubristic sense that as a scientist, he should be able to dispose of a few philosophical arguments in double quick time.
This. He has the same flaw that Carl Sagan had: he is a brilliant scientist who thinks he is a brilliant, and yet he is actually a mediocre, philosopher.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The scale is meaningless because the word God is not defined. As Dawkins is a keen Darwinian is he using God as shorthand for creator? But does the creator have to be a god?
I don't see any need for Dawkins to define the word 'god'. But I'm surprised that no contributor here seems to have considered it necessary to define their own understanding of what sort of god they believe in.
If I have to answer I would want to specify as follows:
Some unimaginable, unknowable force, way beyond human understanding: I would say I'm somewhere between 4 and 5.
A particular named god: somewhere between 6 and 7.
In other words, since I can't explain how the universe came about, I obviously must consider the possibility of a creator of some kind. But I find it pretty impossible to believe that such a creator is even remotely similar to any personal god.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think the only reason for the "Dawkins' Scale" is to compile statistics in order to pour scorn on people of Faith. Instead of giving him the answers he wants, why don't we turn it back on him - why? What is he trying to prove? Is he hoping to use his findings to remove privilidges for religious people and promote his secular (anti-religeous) agenda?
Yes, every single thing Dawkins says or does must have some terrible ulterior motive, no doubt related to bringing about an Atheist New World Order and sending all the Theist Sheeple to concentration camps.
He's describing belief in slightly more detail that "I believe" or "I don't believe" - that's it. But if it bothers you so much, you can read all about it near the beginning of The God Delusion. If you can pick the book up without it burning you.
Well, it's in that book that you see the full glory of Dawkins' confusion between naturalistic science and philosophy.
He keeps using terms such as 'complexity', 'probability', 'hypothesis', which presumably he is using in a naturalistic or scientific sense, and then he applies them to God.
Hang on. If we take the scientific hypothesis idea - such hypotheses are framed against a background of methodological naturalism. Well, if they are not, perhaps he needs to specify what background he is using.
But how can you offer to investigate God against such a background, since God is usually described (outside Mormonism), as something non-natural, supernatural, trans-natural, immaterial, or whatever.
So it seems to me, he is asking, 'Given naturalism, how likely is God?' Or if you like, 'Given materialism, how likely is the immaterial?'
This just seems very mixed up.
And I think he is confused about probability, which I suspect he is muddling up with credulity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]You could be anywhere on the scale. It's asking what I thought was a very simple question - "how sure are you that God actually is real?". To put it in terms Puddleglum might understand, "yes, that's very noble, and I get your point, but how sure are you that Aslan is real, and how much do you just hope he is because a world with him in it seems better than one without him in it?"
I am, in all honesty, amazed how many people are expressing difficulty with that question. I can understand not thinking it's the most important question, but surely it's one we all ponder? Isn't it?
Okay, if I must try to fit myself into the scheme, today I'm 1.5. Two days ago I was probably a 3. Two weeks ago I was at 5. I'm all over the place. Sometimes even in the course of one day It might be much easier to be at 6 or 7 all the time. I also wonder if God believes in me
Dawkins' scheme is crisp and comforting to the intellect but fails with emotions and life experiences. IMHO.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The scale is meaningless because the word God is not defined. As Dawkins is a keen Darwinian is he using God as shorthand for creator? But does the creator have to be a god?
He's talking about a God. Any God. As opposed to gods, in general, not existing at all.
Now are you going to tell me why you mangled my name to include "Backstabber" in the caravans thread?
Merely a malapropism - don't take it personally.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'd have thought on a board like this there would be a general consensus about what we mean by "God", even if it's rather tricky to pin down in watertight legalese.
As I said, I'm not a philosopher. But as I understand it, the problem is not with definitions of 'God', but the word 'exist'. A thing can exist, a person can exist, a supernatural being can exist. But God is existence itself; God does not 'exist'.
But my brain hurts.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I'm a 1 on the existence of God, and a 2 on the existence of the Christian God.
I indeed know that God exists, since this can and has been proven by philosophical argument beyond reasonable doubt (in my judgement). Whereas my still fairly firm belief in the Christian God is a rather complicated and personal matter, which I can "reason out" only to a certain degree.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just a further point about probability - in 'The God Delusion', Prof Dawkins makes this point:
'My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit'. (p. 137, Black Swan).
Thus, Prof Dawkins himself cites statistics in his definition of improbability.
As far as I can see, he does not demonstrate this, and I think there are good reasons, as I outlined above, that God is not a natural phenomenon, and therefore cannot be computed as a probable or improbable naturalistic outcome.
I think therefore that there is an equivocation on the words 'probable' and 'improbable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I've been reading this academic paper (pdf) about church leaders who no longer believe what-their-parishioners-think-they-believe. There is an interesting overlap with this concept of a continuum between belief and unbelief.
I suppose my question is about the point at which unbelief become untenable - particularly for clergy/leaders.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The scale is meaningless because the word God is not defined. As Dawkins is a keen Darwinian is he using God as shorthand for creator? But does the creator have to be a god?
He's talking about a God. Any God. As opposed to gods, in general, not existing at all.
Now are you going to tell me why you mangled my name to include "Backstabber" in the caravans thread?
Merely a malapropism - don't take it personally.
Thanks. I can be a little sensitive over some of the things that made me leave last time.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thanks. I can be a little sensitive over some of the things that made me leave last time.
Don't go, Karl. It's good to have you back!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think the only reason for the "Dawkins' Scale" is to compile statistics in order to pour scorn on people of Faith. Instead of giving him the answers he wants, why don't we turn it back on him - why? What is he trying to prove? Is he hoping to use his findings to remove privilidges for religious people and promote his secular (anti-religeous) agenda?
Yes, every single thing Dawkins says or does must have some terrible ulterior motive, no doubt related to bringing about an Atheist New World Order and sending all the Theist Sheeple to concentration camps.
I think there's more truth in that statement than you'd like to believe, even though you've tried your damnest to make it sound as potty as you can.
quote:
He's describing belief in slightly more detail that "I believe" or "I don't believe" - that's it. But if it bothers you so much, you can read all about it near the beginning of The God Delusion. If you can pick the book up without it burning you.
No, I don't think so. I have a pretty good idea where your friend is coming from, so I'll find more profitable things to read.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@ quetzalcoatl
Regarding the probability thing - surely there's a significant strand in Christian Apologetics - the Evidentialist variety - that uses this approach. Throwing out a scientific(ish), empirical form of reasoning in the sphere of religion means you're disregarding a long line back from Richard Swinburne through to Joseph Butler by way of William Paley and many more.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm interested in the 1s. I just can't imagine never thinking "this really could just be a load of cobblers I'm emotionally attached to because it seems better than a godless universe with oblivion at the end of life."
quote:
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself. Years of agnostic Christianity weigh heavily, but I cannot, from where I stand, see an intellectually honest alternative.
I'm a 1, but I suspect that we're coming from such different places that I'm not sure how I could explain it. I personally find G-d terrifying, not comforting, so it's difficult to identify with the feeling that maybe it's all so much wish-fulfillment that I'm emotionally attached to. I do, however, understand what people are getting at by saying that the terms of the question/scale are all wrong - I'm as sure that G-d exists as I am that reality exists and I'm not just a brain in a vat or fuel for the matrix.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
God: 2 to 2.5
Reality: 5
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I do, however, understand what people are getting at by saying that the terms of the question/scale are all wrong - I'm as sure that G-d exists as I am that reality exists and I'm not just a brain in a vat or fuel for the matrix.
That doesn't mean the scale's wrong; it just means that you're a 1 on it, as you correctly identified.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
6
Because I cannot discover any effective reason to believe that “supernature” and/or god(s) exists – but am aware that my being unable to discern something does not mean that it does not exist.
Of course, if it does exist and doesn’t/can’t interact with “the natural world” it is irrelevant and might as well not exist.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid
As I said, I'm not a philosopher. But as I understand it, the problem is not with definitions of 'God', but the word 'exist'. A thing can exist, a person can exist, a supernatural being can exist. But God is existence itself; God does not 'exist'.
Are you suggesting that 'existence' can exist by itself, independently of any thing, person or supernatural being? If so, I find that inconceivable. What could bare existence possibly be like?
'Existence' is essential to anything which is real, and cannot be an accidental property. Therefore God's existence is part of his essence.
The only way that God's existence is not essential is if 'God' includes the mere 'idea of God', which can exist independently of the reality to which it refers.
This however raises an interesting question in both ontology and epistemology. Can certain ideas only exist if they reflect the reality to which they refer? In other words, if God did not actually exist, could we ever conceive of such a being? Why did such an idea ever enter the human mind (or should I say, brain) within a godless universe?
Of course, the philosophical naturalist will concoct some kind of convoluted explanation that tries to construct God as a projection of various relationships and desires among homo whatevers in the great scheme of evolution. This, of course, is pure speculation, for which there is not the slightest scrap of historical and documentary evidence.
But, as I intimated in an earlier post on this thread, nature is restricted in the kinds of ideas that it can generate (if it is capable of generating any ideas at all), due to the fact that ideas have to arise for a utilitarian reason. Ideas cannot be divorced from the process of natural selection, if that is seen as the only means of human development. Natural selection is, of course, entirely utilitarian. It seems remarkably strange and implausible (and therefore highly improbable) that a grand machine (which is what the closed system of nature is within a godless universe) could produce components that are unhappy with being entirely part of that machine. These components somehow develop ideas - which must have originated deterministically from the machine - that make them feel that there is more to their being than the factors which brought them into being. Such dissatisfaction with the way things are suggests the influence of something from outside the machine. But why would a reality (the closed system of nature) cause effects (certain ideas in the human brain) that bear no relation whatsoever to any characteristic of that reality? Such a possibility is clearly a contradiction, and I suggest that naturalists tend to explain this by question begging: "these ideas have come into being, so that shows that nature had a way of doing it."
It is far more plausible and probable that the idea of God actually reflects an objective reality that has influenced the human mind. (In fact, I would suggest that merely "influenced" is rather a weak term in this context.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@ quetzalcoatl
Regarding the probability thing - surely there's a significant strand in Christian Apologetics - the Evidentialist variety - that uses this approach. Throwing out a scientific(ish), empirical form of reasoning in the sphere of religion means you're disregarding a long line back from Richard Swinburne through to Joseph Butler by way of William Paley and many more.
So you think that a naturalistic 'theory of God' is possible? Well, obviously it is - it's called Mormonism. But the standard Christian view has been that God is 'without body, parts, or passions'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
I've been on every point in that scale at one time or another, including within the past 24 hours.
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The question is whether God is part of reality, not whether reality exists.
As Angloid has said previously, God is reality. God is not part of reality.
And you're STILL begging the question! If God exists, then he is reality. If he doesn't, then he isn't. You cannot use your conclusion "God is reality" to answer the question "Does God exist?"
I reverse the statements. If reality exists, then God exists. Reality could not exist without God.
I can't conceive how it could.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The question is whether God is part of reality, not whether reality exists.
As Angloid has said previously, God is reality. God is not part of reality.
Isn't that Pantheism? You're doing well Evensong - that's two heresies in one week! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (the other was Nestorianism)
No sweetcheeks, that's not pantheism. It would be if God is only reality.
And no, the other wasn't Nestorianism unless two different natures in one hypostasis is what you call Nestorianism.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
1, but with fairly frequent does of 5, although fewer than formerly.
What's also interesting is, if we are a 1 or whatever, how we behave (I'd be prone to behaving as if I were a 6, again less so now).
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, the philosophical naturalist will concoct some kind of convoluted explanation that tries to construct God as a projection of various relationships and desires among homo whatevers in the great scheme of evolution. This, of course, is pure speculation, for which there is not the slightest scrap of historical and documentary evidence.
Maybe so, but it's also perfectly possible.
[ 27. September 2012, 06:43: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
I think it's a decent scale (although pH would be more fun ) and works for a starting point for discussion. I'm a 1.1 for the same reason I think Dawkins identifies as 6.9. I'm pretty sure there is a God, but it's possible that my interpretation of reality is seriously wrong. On the other hand I have to have some faith that I can interpret reality accurately to get out of bed in the morning. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I agree that belief in God and living your life 'as though' there is a God are very different. For one thing the latter has to do with what kind of God you believe in. Dawkins doesn't seem aware of the many shades of understanding of God's character and how that affects how belief plays out in life. I've met someone who told me with a straight face that he believed in God, that he wasn't going to worship 'that bastard', and that when he met him in heaven he was going to give him a piece of his mind. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, the philosophical naturalist will concoct some kind of convoluted explanation that tries to construct God as a projection of various relationships and desires among homo whatevers in the great scheme of evolution. This, of course, is pure speculation, for which there is not the slightest scrap of historical and documentary evidence.
Maybe so, but it's also perfectly possible.
The trouble is, there are many just-so stories about the origin of religion. Agent detection is currently one of the favourites, but we also get social bonding, the need for the counter-intuitive, consolation over death, fear of the unknown, a by-product of cognitive faculties, a feeling of control over the environment, and so on.
They are quite entertaining, of course, as just-so stories often are.
And some anthropologists such as Scott Atran actually get their hands dirty and study religions in situ, which makes a change from the arm-chair speculations.
None the less, they remind me of the multiverse - which could be construed as a gigantic exercise in God-denial. They mostly also seem to suffer from the genetic fallacy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Where do you place Clough's "Inclines to think there is a God, Or something very like him."?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'd have thought on a board like this there would be a general consensus about what we mean by "God", even if it's rather tricky to pin down in watertight legalese.
As I said, I'm not a philosopher. But as I understand it, the problem is not with definitions of 'God', but the word 'exist'. A thing can exist, a person can exist, a supernatural being can exist. But God is existence itself; God does not 'exist'.
But my brain hurts.
But that's tied up with notions of who or what God is. By arguing that God is existence itself, you're positing a pantheist worldview. OTOH, if you regard the word "God" as signifying a loving personal creator and sustainer (or words to that effect), as I suspect everyone here would, this objection just fades away.
But I'm getting sick of arguing about this. For all these quibbles, bizarre conspiracy theories and character assassination of Dawkins, it's a very straightforward question at its heart - how sure are you that there is/isn't a God? We all understand that question, and we all know what we mean by it. If you've never said "I believe God exists" or "I believe in God" or variations on that theme, then quibble away, but I strongly suspect no one on this thread can claim such a thing.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
It seems to me that the direction of travel is possibly more important than where you are on the scale at any given moment, because belief and faith and action are different things (to some people).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I'd have thought on a board like this there would be a general consensus about what we mean by "God", even if it's rather tricky to pin down in watertight legalese.
As I said, I'm not a philosopher. But as I understand it, the problem is not with definitions of 'God', but the word 'exist'. A thing can exist, a person can exist, a supernatural being can exist. But God is existence itself; God does not 'exist'.
But my brain hurts.
But that's tied up with notions of who or what God is. By arguing that God is existence itself, you're positing a pantheist worldview. OTOH, if you regard the word "God" as signifying a loving personal creator and sustainer (or words to that effect), as I suspect everyone here would, this objection just fades away.
But I'm getting sick of arguing about this. For all these quibbles, bizarre conspiracy theories and character assassination of Dawkins, it's a very straightforward question at its heart - how sure are you that there is/isn't a God? We all understand that question, and we all know what we mean by it. If you've never said "I believe God exists" or "I believe in God" or variations on that theme, then quibble away, but I strongly suspect no one on this thread can claim such a thing.
Not sure if that's a reference to my posts. I intend no character assassination of Prof Dawkins at all. I think he is confused about the relationship between naturalism and theism, so that in TGD he covertly assumes that God is a natural phenomenon.
However, we are all confused about many things, I am sure.
Your phrase about 'quibbles' surprises me. After all, it is Prof Dawkins who in his letter to his daughter, advised that we should doubt everything, that we should not rely on authority, and that we should use reason and critical thinking to challenge all claims.
I agree with most of this (I don't think we can doubt everything though), and I feel that Prof Dawkins' own views are worthy of some critical investigation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, the philosophical naturalist will concoct some kind of convoluted explanation that tries to construct God as a projection of various relationships and desires among homo whatevers in the great scheme of evolution. This, of course, is pure speculation, for which there is not the slightest scrap of historical and documentary evidence.
Maybe so, but it's also perfectly possible.
You seem to have ignored the next paragraph in the post you quoted from, where I explain why I think it is not possible.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, as I intimated in an earlier post on this thread, nature is restricted in the kinds of ideas that it can generate (if it is capable of generating any ideas at all), due to the fact that ideas have to arise for a utilitarian reason.
No they don't.
quote:
Natural selection is, of course, entirely utilitarian.
No it isn't.
quote:
It seems remarkably strange and implausible (and therefore highly improbable)
Simply because you find something strange or implausible has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
Your reasoning is weak, your premises false, and your conclusions unjustified.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
My position is probably more Panentheistic than Pantheistic, but I also have problems trying to define what the verb to exist means when it has as its subject a Being that transcedes the Universe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I indeed know that God exists, since this can and has been proven by philosophical argument beyond reasonable doubt (in my judgement).
Care to share which particular philosophical argument has convinced you?
I'm interested. Seriously.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
No they don't.
...
No it isn't.
...
Simply because you find something strange or implausible has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
Your reasoning is weak, your premises false, and your conclusions unjustified.
I've looked hard, but, alas, I'm afraid I have failed to detect even the smallest smidgeon of evidence or argument to support your assertions.
Generally speaking, in a debate one is required (though it's not compulsory) to make some effort to say why you think as you do.
How about it?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I also have problems trying to define what the verb to exist means when it has as its subject a Being that transcedes the Universe.
It means "is that Being actually real?" Or to put it another way, "is there a God?"
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
No they don't.
...
No it isn't.
...
Simply because you find something strange or implausible has no bearing on whether it is true or not.
Your reasoning is weak, your premises false, and your conclusions unjustified.
I've looked hard, but, alas, I'm afraid I have failed to detect even the smallest smidgeon of evidence or argument to support your assertions.
Generally speaking, in a debate one is required (though it's not compulsory) to make some effort to say why you think as you do.
How about it?
I think Marvin may be pointing out that the statements to which he is responding are themselves unsupported assertions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I've looked hard, but, alas, I'm afraid I have failed to detect even the smallest smidgeon of evidence or argument to support your assertions.
Coming from the master of treating assertions as truths, I'll take that as a compliment
As for evidence, do you really think a peacock's tail is utilitarian?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think Marvin may be pointing out that the statements to which he is responding are themselves unsupported assertions.
Indeed.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thanks. I can be a little sensitive over some of the things that made me leave last time. [/qb]
Don't go, Karl. It's good to have you back!
Mutual.
Although, Karl, I am curious: how have you gotten past your issue of spending too much time thinking/worrying about conversations here? (IIRC paraphrasing that was a concern you had when you left... TIA)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
I think Marvin may be pointing out that the statements to which he is responding are themselves unsupported assertions.
Such as?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thanks. I can be a little sensitive over some of the things that made me leave last time.
Don't go, Karl. It's good to have you back!
Mutual.
Although, Karl, I am curious: how have you gotten past your issue of spending too much time thinking/worrying about conversations here? (IIRC paraphrasing that was a concern you had when you left... TIA) [/QB]
I'm trying to avoid the sorts of conversations that will have that effect. If you catch me arguing politics, tap me on the shoulder.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I also have problems trying to define what the verb to exist means when it has as its subject a Being that transcedes the Universe.
It means "is that Being actually real?" Or to put it another way, "is there a God?"
I'm sorry, but that doesn't help much. It just shifts the question to what the words real or to be might mean when applied to a Being that transcedes the Universe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I also have problems trying to define what the verb to exist means when it has as its subject a Being that transcedes the Universe.
It means "is that Being actually real?" Or to put it another way, "is there a God?"
I'm sorry, but that doesn't help much. It just shifts the question to what the words real or to be might mean when applied to a Being that transcedes the Universe.
They mean that there is such a being for them to be applied to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is even more problematic if instead of 'a Being', one says, 'Being itself'.
Thus, not 'does the being God exist?', but 'does God who is Being itself exist?'
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: They mean that there is such a being for them to be applied to.
You realize that you're using a circular definition here? What you're saying comes down to: "To be means that there is such a being..."
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: They mean that there is such a being for them to be applied to.
You realize that you're using a circular definition here? What you're saying comes down to: "To be means that there is such a being..."
Maybe, but the problem is that the question seems deliberately obtuse. Is it really difficult to understand the question "is there a God?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
