The God hypothesis is a scientific question, one that can, in principle at least, be answered empirically with a yes or no result. The existence of God is thus subject to legitimate scientific scrutiny, bringing to bear all we are learning in the research laboratory to a question that used to be considered one of opinion only. “The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientifically question, even if it is not in practice—not yet—a decided one,” he writes. Did Jesus have a human father? Was his mother a virgin? Did Jesus come alive again, three days after being dead? “There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is strictly a scientific answer.”
I agree, provided that we deal with Dawkins' strong, implicit scientism. The Judeo-Christian religions are historical religions whose scriptures make countless claims about history in particular, but also to some extent about biology, cosmology, psychology, anthropology, and even God's supposed interventions in the natural world. As such, this "God Hypothesis" is indeed open to critical inquiry, including scientific inquiry, and many Christian thinkers through the centuries have welcomed it and pursued it. The problem is Dawkins' view that the answer to the God Hypothesis will be a "strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter [...] would be purely and entirely scientific methods." (pp. 82-83, emphasis mine) Here Dawkins is voicing a problematic epistemology that has been called "strong scientism".
allow me to rephrase Dawkin's statement: "God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice..." through the collective efforts of human inquiry, including science, history, philosophy... and maybe even a smidge of theology. Science doesn't get to have all the facts. The sum of 2+2 wasn't discovered in a test tube, and the fundamental principle that something cannot be both A and not A governs scientific inquiry.
Last edited by troutman; 09-05-2009 at 09:37 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
That's what it sounds like to me too but because god isn't explained through physical means, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
In other words for the physical part of me that asks, does god exist, he doesn't but another part of me knows he does.
That's one of the things that many atheists do wrong. Atheism is based on scientific thinking, which does not allow for absolutes, so one must always accept the possibility of a god. To resolve this conflict, atheists assume that if their is a god, he/she/it/they are not accurately represented, due to the variety and contradictory nature of religions throughout human history. Since the intentions of this divine being are not clear, we are free to observe the material world around us and develop our own systems of morality without fear of any arbitrary divine consequences (ie - eating cheese during a full moon will not doom one to eternal damnation).
Shoot them down? More like refuse to acknowledge ridiculous tales about talking snakes and men that get swallowed by whales and seas parting and food raining from the sky and water flowing from a stone and two fish feeding 5,000 people and blind men that can suddenly see after being molested by a superhuman that can die and then come back from hell only to say hi quickly to his friends and then float up to the sky to watch your every move so you better give us money or else you'll go to hell.
Well they are stupid taken literally but I've heard a lot of atheists base their arguments against there being a god on these stories. For me, I think having faith in miracles is also stupid although it's worked for the church for years and that's another problem.
The real miracle is that I'm alive.
It may be unknowable now, but I don't see why this question can't be answered in the future, scientifically.
Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"
Interesting--I didn't know Dawkins had said that. I guess I sort of disagree--because religion is premised on the notion that there is a universe beyond the material, and science is based on the description of the material, observable universe.
This is one reason that it's so daffy when theists try to recruit science into theology--Christianity (and indeed, all religion to some extent) is based on the notion that the material, observable universe is illusory, a veil that lies over the true nature of existence. This is expressed in many different ways--the notion of an ascent from sinfulness into a state of purity, let's say--or the notion that through a cleansing process of perpetual resurrection, eventually you acquire knowledge of the universe.
But at their core, these ideas are the same: they hold that the world we can see, touch, feel, smell and measure etc. is not the true universe, but merely a doorway through which we must pass before arriving at a place where we can comprehend the non-material, non-observable, true universe.
The point is this: science is limited to the Material. God, if he exists, does not exist in the material universe. It can't be proven or disproven--indeed, to attempt to do so would be akin to using a telescope to look at microbes.
EDIT: Also, Superman would totally kick Batman's ass. Tool-belts and craftiness versus invulnerability? Please. Superman has faced worse in his sleep.
EDIT2: Just saw your edit, troutman. The second guy puts it a little better than I do...
Interesting--I didn't know Dawkins had said that. I guess I sort of disagree--because religion is premised on the notion that there is a universe beyond the material, and science is based on the description of the material, observable universe.
This is one reason that it's so daffy when theists try to recruit science into theology--Christianity (and indeed, all religion to some extent) is based on the notion that the material, observable universe is illusory, a veil that lies over the true nature of existence. This is expressed in many different ways--the notion of an ascent from sinfulness into a state of purity, let's say--or the notion that through a cleansing process of perpetual resurrection, eventually you acquire knowledge of the universe.
But at their core, these ideas are the same: they hold that the world we can see, touch, feel, smell and measure etc. is not the true universe, but merely a doorway through which we must pass before arriving at a place where we can comprehend the non-material, non-observable, true universe.
The point is this: science is limited to the Material. God, if he exists, does not exist in the material universe. It can't be proven or disproven--indeed, to attempt to do so would be akin to using a telescope to look at microbes.
EDIT2: Just saw your edit, troutman. The second guy puts it a little better than I do...
If God(s) exist outside our observable universe, we should still be able to detect actions they have made within our universe.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Interesting--I didn't know Dawkins had said that. I guess I sort of disagree--because religion is premised on the notion that there is a universe beyond the material, and science is based on the description of the material, observable universe.
This is one reason that it's so daffy when theists try to recruit science into theology--Christianity (and indeed, all religion to some extent) is based on the notion that the material, observable universe is illusory, a veil that lies over the true nature of existence. This is expressed in many different ways--the notion of an ascent from sinfulness into a state of purity, let's say--or the notion that through a cleansing process of perpetual resurrection, eventually you acquire knowledge of the universe.
But at their core, these ideas are the same: they hold that the world we can see, touch, feel, smell and measure etc. is not the true universe, but merely a doorway through which we must pass before arriving at a place where we can comprehend the non-material, non-observable, true universe.
The point is this: science is limited to the Material. God, if he exists, does not exist in the material universe. It can't be proven or disproven--indeed, to attempt to do so would be akin to using a telescope to look at microbes.
EDIT: Also, Superman would totally kick Batman's ass. Tool-belts and craftiness versus invulnerability? Please. Superman has faced worse in his sleep.
EDIT2: Just saw your edit, troutman. The second guy puts it a little better than I do...
I agree with most of what you say, but to go through this doorway and say it's non-observable wouldn't be correct as when Buddha became enlightened, and despite how others interpret this as being awakened (also true), the simplest explanation is that he saw light, so it is observable.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
If god interacts with the universe in any way, those interactions can be detected by science. So it's necessary to specify which god one is talking about, since specific claims about different gods are made.
Dawkins at one point talks about qualifying his certainty about there being no god depending on which god. Different for a deist god which doesn't interact with the universe and a specific god that claims to be actively involved with the day to day operation of the universe.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
If God(s) exist outside our observable universe, we should still be able to detect actions they have made within our universe.
Well if god exists and he is all powerful, he is everywhere so every observable action is god and looking for anomalies to prove god, is back to looking for miracles as proof.
Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
I became an atheist because of the people on this website, and because of Ricky Gervais. I'm not smart enough to be a scientist or whatever else to prove things like physics and general laws of the universe, but I put my trust in them way more than I do people who wear a robe on Sunday and preach about crap that supposedly happened 2000+ years ago.
I really have no problem with religion, because for the most part it helps those people who believe in it, but it's just a load of poppycock as far as I'm concerned. I can't believe I wasted so many years of my life actually thinking there is something beyond my life when I die.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The Following User Says Thank You to metallicat For This Useful Post:
Well if god exists and he is all powerful, he is everywhere so every observable action is god and looking for anomalies to prove god, is back to looking for miracles as proof.
Yeah, if there was an all powerful god, it would also be in control of what we observe and how we understand it.
At the same time, even if there isn't a god, it seems unlikely that an organism created out of the universe would ever be able to develop the intelligence necessary to figure out all the scientific principles that make the universe tick. From an evolutionary point of view, I don't see how it would ever be beneficial to survival to develop intelligence that high.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Batman wins every fight on the internet. Period. It's one of the pillars that holds up the series of tube. You are toying with fundamental rules here, man.
The Following User Says Thank You to TurnedTheCorner For This Useful Post:
A perfect creator created a perfectly ordered universe, and a perfectly ordered world, and filled it with tragically imperfect humans? Was he sleeping one off on whatever day it was that he formed Adam out of clay?
These little logic games - from both theists and atheists - concerning proof of the existence/non-existence of god may bolster your own opinion, but will do nothing to sway people on the other side of the fence.
Of course we're imperfect. We came from 2 people. The Earth is the Ozarks of the Universe.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zevo For This Useful Post:
I prefer to believe that God created everything to function by itself.
Which is why most things will at some point be able to be explained by physical means. Or through science.
Still doesn't mean God doesn't exist though. Or that he does either.
A non intervening God that has never had a son on earth, sent angels or performed mircles is the hardest God to argue against from my standpoint.
An intervening God performing miracles, sending hurricanes to punish us, et al.. Is very flawed and much easier to poke tons of holes, and Science as Dawkins says can and should investigate this. Especially in the case of miracles
As for our universe, perfect conditions exist in order for this universe to exist, well there's the multiverse theory and I think its quite possible our Universe is only one of infinitate ones each with differening conditions than ours.
As for our Universe being perfectly right in order to allow life on our planet, this is true in some mathimatical terms, but boy does this universe, our galaxy and our solar system really really want to kill us all.
The hostility and danger on our own planet, within our own solar system, and on the grand scale the galaxy and the universe is amazing.
This is one of my favorite things Neil Degrasse Tyson has done, explaining how hostile things really are, quite funny stuff:
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Crazy part about posting a link like this is the believers mostly wont dare read it in fear of having a second thought.
Speaking only for myself here, I believe faith is nothing if it cannot hold up to simple scrutiny (logical or otherwise). Other than the quantity of material supplied at that link, there should be nothing to fear for believers.
I often think about many of the complexities of the universe(s), the origin of the physical world as we know it, and how to live a life of purpose and significance in a world of compromise. It isn't easy, and every bit of information helps. To call it a journey is some cliche, but I'd suggest (and humbly hope) that my time on the Earth isn't nearly up yet; there's more to learn and maybe more to teach.
With specific reference to the proofs brought up by that website, T@T, I have to say that the author has done a pretty good job of consolidating many of the modern issues people have with God (and Christians) into one site. I've read or skimmed 10 or so of the proofs, and there were a few assertions I took issue with right off the bat (which is probably to be expected). There were also some points that honestly made me think. It is fair to say that there are confusing - if not outright misleading - portions of the Bible... at least, seemingly so, if only from the viewpoint of a cursory scientific analysis.
What I find interesting is that most atheists with a strong conviction to disprove Christianity to as many people as possible (usually (in my experience)) take their view of things, sprinkle in some choice quotes from extremist Christians as representation of the whole group, and use that as their basis for understanding and argument against the entirety of the "religion". I know there are a lot of viewpoints even within the scope of Christianity, but just as I might first defer to the knowledge of leading experts in the field of physics if I was looking for answers to questions about neutrinos, might I suggest that those with a serious interest in understanding matters of the Bible round out their understanding with explanations by notoriously well-researched, middle-ground theologians (or ministers/pastors/priests)? Such people do exist (honest), and they can swiftly resolve many of the common "discrepancies" within the Bible. As a Christian, there will always remains matters of faith, so if your goal is to avoid putting faith in anything abstract (aside from the ability of the scientific method to assist humanity toward the eventual end goal of absolute understanding of the origin and subsequent functioning of the world we live in), then I'm sad to say, it might not be for you.
For the most part, unfortunately, these kinds of discussions eventually turn into circular arguments about one's faith being "illogical and unprovable", versus, "but that doesn't mean it isn't grounded in something real." By definition, followers of Christ have faith because they believe in something they cannot totally know in this life. As such, we find it difficult to share "faith" in person, let alone over internet message boards, because it is so largely a personal thing. To be quite honest, my faith is founded more in the incredible power of Christ I've witnessed thru the lives of other Christians (and I'm not talking about them performing exorcisms or speaking in tongues) in and around my life than anything written on a page. The Bible is important to me and holds the basis for much of my worldview, but it's all just words until it is experienced first hand and lived out.
All that said, I'd be willing to discuss specific points from the website if you would like. I am quite content to let it exist as it is, though, because people are entitled to come to their own conclusions.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OBCT For This Useful Post:
