Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:29 AM

Jackson - 11 May 2008 09:21 AM

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 
.

Is this what you take Dawkins to mean? It seemed clear to me (both from the quote Ophelia supplied and other writings of Dawkins I’ve read) that his claim is even stronger: the mere existence of a god would give us a universe different from one without such a god.

I really would like to know how he could possibly know this. Or what chain of logic leads him to this conclusion—because it’s not at all obvious to me that it is. Is that simply Dawkins’ opinion? That’s certainly fine—but it’s not much to base an argument on.

The book is out in paperback now and I would suggest buying a copy (there is always the library too).  I’m commenting from memory—I got an audio CD last year (highly recommended) and haven’t got a book yet.  Dawkins is talking primarily about the Hebrew-Christian God who has a lot of commandments [Deuteronomy, Leviticus] and cares about everyone and everything in creation.  Dawkins is not talking philosophically—he is not talking about a God who exists but by choice has no interaction with the physical world.  He means that if there were an actual God affecting the universe (like the Hebrew-Christian God) then we could study the effects of this God like other things in this natural world.  I wouldn’t get hung up on the literalness of “mere existence”.  If God “merely existed” it woud be a big deal.

Basically the point is that there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.  If there were—that would be really important.

Jackson - 11 May 2008 11:27 AM

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:29 AM

Jackson - 11 May 2008 09:21 AM

A universe with obvious or convincing evidence of God would be a different place.  There is no evidence that God is listening to our thoughts and that we can spend eternity in Heaven or Hell depending on what this God thinks is fair. 
.

Is this what you take Dawkins to mean? It seemed clear to me (both from the quote Ophelia supplied and other writings of Dawkins I’ve read) that his claim is even stronger: the mere existence of a god would give us a universe different from one without such a god.

I really would like to know how he could possibly know this. Or what chain of logic leads him to this conclusion—because it’s not at all obvious to me that it is. Is that simply Dawkins’ opinion? That’s certainly fine—but it’s not much to base an argument on.

The book is out in paperback now and I would suggest buying a copy (there is always the library too).  I’m commenting from memory—I got an audio CD last year (highly recommended) and haven’t got a book yet.  Dawkins is talking primarily about the Hebrew-Christian God who has a lot of commandments [Deuteronomy, Leviticus] and cares about everyone and everything in creation.  Dawkins is not talking philosophically—he is not talking about a God who exists but by choice has no interaction with the physical world.  He means that if there were an actual God affecting the universe (like the Hebrew-Christian God) then we could study the effects of this God like other things in this natural world.  I wouldn’t get hung up on the literalness of “mere existence”.  If God “merely existed” it woud be a big deal.

Basically the point is that there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.  If there were—that would be really important.

I absolutely agree with you: there is not any incontrovertible evidence that God exists.

And it’s so strange that there isn’t any evidence of God’s existence when one of the most important things to God is that everyone praise him all the time.

Wow.. Ego or no Ego?  Sounds like a new Howie Mandel show.

The other one I love is that Free Will is the most precious gift God gave humanity and yet that is the first thing he wants you to give up.  Indian Giver as well as misogynist?

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:36 AM

Jackson - 11 May 2008 09:21 AM

The burden is not on Dawkins to disprove the existence of a God for which there is no evidence—the burden is for the convincing evidence to be presented.

I agree with you. People who want us to believe there is a god need to present evidence. Without that evidence, we should have to say (like good skeptics) “I doubt that.” And as advocates of science, “Science knows nothing of God.”

But Dawkins asserts a positive claim of his own: belief in God is a delusion and the chance such a God might exist is exceedingly small. For that, he needs to present his own evidence. Or at least a well-reasoned argument.

The main “evidence” which is convincing to people is that other people also believe in God.  Dawkins spends some time on historical ‘proofs’ of God’s existence, and then spends time on the topic of why would people believe in something for which there is no evidence.  Dennett goes into this in his books as well. 

There are a lot of examples of superstition, and we are able to make fun in a tolerant sort of way of many of them.  Do we REALLY think the number 13 is unlucky? In China they think the number 08 is lucky and during the Olympics on 8/8/08 there will be a lot of marriages. 

Do you think that I need to present EVIDENCE that the number 13 is not unlucky, to make a well-reasoned argument?  I can turn Dawkins statement around—if it were actually true that the number 13 was unlucky, this would be a different universe than the one we assume we are living in.  Same kind of thing—as far as I can see ---

In your same post from which I paraphrased is this other quote from Dawkins:

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

Now, is Dawkins still not speaking of “God”? Another “supernaturally intelligent creator”, perhaps? To me, the insistence on such a distinction without a difference is, literally, nonsense. But I await enlightenment.

No the point is not that he’s talking about something different, the point is that the ‘creative superintendent’ spells out what is at issue and so makes the argument clearer. That’s especially true because ‘God’ means approximately six million different things; it’s a hopelessly confused term. Dawkins was being careful to narrow the focus and specify what is at stake, and I wanted the discussion to follow suit rather than to revert to the vague means-anything-you-like and emotive word ‘God.’ I’m sorry but it does make a difference what language is used. You’re simply wrong to say it’s a distinction without a difference.

This may shed some light on Hedges:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2008/03/13/chris_hedges/index.html

the term provocateur is appropriate…

I am not sure exactly what Hedges is, he may be a plain Deist.

The real points we seem to miss dovetails with the previous podcast, John Shook’s on Naturalism; is there something else besides matter/energy, is ethics and morality an independent entity/force, why are we here at all?

Please excuse my limited formal education in Philosophy, but if ethics, morality and religious beliefs are all human inventions, then the conclusions of every human are relative and equally valid as far as the individual is concerned.

The individual actions are to be judged by the Society of which the person is part of, as Zimbardo showed the capacity for evil is in all of us.

I’m saying that even in matters of legitimate scientific inquiry (such as the nature of light), deducing facts from general principles has been shown repeatedly to provide us with false answers. Now, Dawkins says that science can lead us out of the darkness of belief. If you agree with him, you need to present scientific arguments, not philosophical ones.

You’re shifting your ground again. We’ve all agreed that the god that is way way outside the universe and has no effect on it is an unknown and unknowable. Now you’re saying that’s a scientific question. Arguing with you is like wrestling an octopus. I really ought to give it up and get some work done.

I have to say, though, you’ve convinced me all over again that you’re just playing at skepticism. I think you have your mind made up beyond possibility of change.

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 11:16 AM

That “God” created a universe by means of evolution is entirely consistent with much of Christian and Jewish theology which does not intrude itself on legitimate scientific ground.

Evolution is made “entirely consistent” with their theologies only after reformed Christians and Jews bastardize the theory. “Theistic evolution” (as it is termed), holds that the mechanics of evolution are designed in order to direct the development of the universe toward the goal of creating us. Again, science can’t prove this claim to be false, but science has something to say about the probability that this religious claim may be true. The claim that evolution is directional (among other things) is in conflict with the facts as revealed by modern day evolutionary theory.

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 11:39 AM

In your same post from which I paraphrased is this other quote from Dawkins:

“[W]hatever else they may say, those scientists who subscribe to the ‘separate magisteria’ school of thought should concede that a universe with a supernaturally intelligent creator is a very different kind of universe from one without..”

Now, is Dawkins still not speaking of “God”? Another “supernaturally intelligent creator”, perhaps? To me, the insistence on such a distinction without a difference is, literally, nonsense. But I await enlightenment.

No the point is not that he’s talking about something different, the point is that the ‘creative superintendent’ spells out what is at issue and so makes the argument clearer. That’s especially true because ‘God’ means approximately six million different things; it’s a hopelessly confused term. Dawkins was being careful to narrow the focus and specify what is at stake, and I wanted the discussion to follow suit rather than to revert to the vague means-anything-you-like and emotive word ‘God.’ I’m sorry but it does make a difference what language is used. You’re simply wrong to say it’s a distinction without a difference.

Right, of course: so supernaturally intelligent creator (Dawkins’ words) is so obviously different from “God” that I was trying to change Dawkins’ argument. Don’t be coy, Ophelia. We both know what Dawkins is referring to.

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 11:45 AM

I’m saying that even in matters of legitimate scientific inquiry (such as the nature of light), deducing facts from general principles has been shown repeatedly to provide us with false answers. Now, Dawkins says that science can lead us out of the darkness of belief. If you agree with him, you need to present scientific arguments, not philosophical ones.

You’re shifting your ground again. We’ve all agreed that the god that is way way outside the universe and has no effect on it is an unknown and unknowable. Now you’re saying that’s a scientific question. Arguing with you is like wrestling an octopus. I really ought to give it up and get some work done.

I have to say, though, you’ve convinced me all over again that you’re just playing at skepticism. I think you have your mind made up beyond possibility of change.

Ah yes, the ultimate rejoinder: “you’re not a true Scotsman.” More good scientific reasoning? I can only wait to hear how Seth or Riley spins this into something positive.

Please do try to follow the conversation, though: I am not the one “saying that’s a scientific question”. I began this discussion arguing that Dawkins’ attempt to assert science as a basis for discrediting belief in God was illegitimate. I repeat: that’s Dawkins’ claim, not mine. You have agreed with him. But your P or ~P “argument” is not scientific. At best, it’s a philosophical argument. So which is it: can science (not sophomoric arguments) show us the extreme unlikeliness of the Christian god or not? Can we ask questions of nature that will lead us to this conclusion? If it’s so obviously true, why can’t you speak in scientific terms?

Right, of course: so supernaturally intelligent creator (Dawkins’ words) is so obviously different from “God” that I was trying to change Dawkins’ argument. Don’t be coy, Ophelia. We both know what Dawkins is referring to.

I’m not being coy. Don’t be dishonest, Hal. I explained what I meant. It’s not a matter of coyness or of not knowing, it’s a matter of making clear what is at stake in a particular claim. Saying ‘God’ instead of ‘creative superintendent’ simply obscures things for no good reason. I didn’t say you were trying to change Dawkins’s argument, and I didn’t think so, either; I assumed it was simply careless. You’re all over the place. Octopus. Work to do.

So which is it: can science (not sophomoric arguments) show us the extreme unlikeliness of the Christian god or not? Can we ask questions of nature that will lead us to this conclusion?

Yes, of course. I thought we’d agreed on that on about page 7. The Christian god is the subject of a whole raft of empirical claims, which science can investigate.

Hal’s claim that science has nothing to say on the question of theism hinges on the possibility that there could exist something that alters nature without being detectable, even in principle, by natural means.

Until Hal or someone else provides evidence to support in principle that it could be possible for something to alter nature without being detectable by nature, there’s no point in arguing about this any further.

No one here has ever questioned the possibility that our scientific understanding of the world could be wrong. It’s possible that Hal could be right, but there’s no evidence to support that he is right, and because what his argument requires something that is logically incompatible with itself, there is good reason to say he’s probably wrong.

Riley - 11 May 2008 11:59 AM

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 11:16 AM

That “God” created a universe by means of evolution is entirely consistent with much of Christian and Jewish theology which does not intrude itself on legitimate scientific ground.

Evolution is made “entirely consistent” with their theologies only after reformed Christians and Jews bastardize the theory. “Theistic evolution” (as it is termed), holds that the mechanics of evolution are designed in order to direct the development of the universe toward the goal of creating us. Again, science can’t prove this claim to be false, but science has something to say about the probability that this religious claim may be true. The claim that evolution is directional (among other things) is in conflict with the facts as revealed by modern day evolutionary theory.

I’ve been thinking about how we can be at such odds. (By we, I mean Riley, Seth, Ophelia, etc. v. me). Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that we are all dealing in good faith. How can we see the situation so entirely differently? Riley, your post made me wonder if a large part of the problem is that you folks are dealing with various claims from religions. So, “testing” for God, so to speak, means testing these various claims. If the claims prove to be false (or are extremely unlikely to be true), the claim can be fairly safely dismissed. If all (or almost all) such claims can be thus dismissed, the question of God is, to a large extent, settled. Is that a fair statement of how you approach this issue of whether science can shed insight into the existence of God?

I agree that most claims are highly likely to be wrong, but for me the question isn’t about claims about God, but a question of whether there is a God at all, about which claims (mostly false, I would imagine) are made. So, while I’m sure you’re right about most theologians holding that God employs evolution in order to bring about humans, I don’t much care about what they think. I agree with you that evolution does not seem to be “directed”. But that, in my mind, still leaves open the question of a God about whom/which very little if anything is known.

If this is true about the different ways we approach the issue, it would explain why we both feel that “the other side” is evading issues. It’s not that we’re so much evading them as it is that we don’t see these particular issues as central to our concerns. Do you see any likelihood that this may be true?

Riley - 11 May 2008 11:02 AM

Are you willing to acknowledge as a consequence of your position (i.e. that science has nothing to say on such matters), that if there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, such evidence would have no bearing on the question of supernatural existence?

I’ve been giving this a good deal of thought. I think such confirmation would indicate only that there is something that we don’t understand at all. I very much suspect that inferring some supernatural existence, though, would be an illegitimate conclusion. If A asserts there’s a very low probability that the dead communicate with the living and B asserts that they most certainly do—and that they live on clouds playing harps, evidence that A is wrong does not mean that we have to--or should--accept B in toto.

I think we see something like that very mistake being played out by the New Agers who skim something like quantum mechanics for the admittedly weird aspects of it, then claim that this somehow lends credence to their other weird beliefs. Your being wrong does not make me right.