Hal, here’s a bit of the book for you, so that you can get started on confirming your prediction.

Pages 54-5

Summarizing: the theologian Alister McGrath offers “the undeniable but ignominiously weak point that you cannot disprove the existence of God.” Dawkins says McGrath quotes Gould on NOMA; Dawkins quotes Gould himself: “We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” Dawkins comments on this, “Despite the confident, almost bullying tone of Gould’s assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it?” Then he notes that “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?”

Page 58

[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...The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unquivocally a scientific question, even if it is not in practice - or not yet - a decided one. So also is the truth or falsehood of every one of the miracle stories that religions rely upon to impress multitudes of the faithful.

The subject is the god who is in the universe, not the one who is outside it.

You still - if I understand you correctly - want us to accept that god can both be outside the universe and be active inside it. In other words you want us to accept a flat contradiction. You have yet to make one even slightly convincing argument to support the idea of a god that is a contradiction. You could just as well insist that we accept a god that is P and not-P.

Hal Helms - 10 May 2008 01:04 PM

I understand that Dawkins is talking about the god of monotheists such as Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Early on I stated that at least some Christians maintain that God is both outside the universe and able to act upon it. You objected that such a thing is impossible. That, of course, is something we can’t determine.

There are limits to human knowledge gained through science. That is, I hope, indisputable. Again, I refer to he uncertainty principle that shows us that even about things in our own world, we cannot have full knowledge. How much more so is that true if there is some other realm than the natural world?

This is also a straw man. No one has suggested that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. What we have said is that such a god is not transcendant, but descendent by definition, it descends from the transcendental realm to interact with ours, either personally or through an agent (such as an angel). A god that acts upon the universe is a god whose actions can be examined by science. So it is perfectly legitimate to question whether such a god is acting upon the universe.

Since there isn’t any evidence that a god has acted, there is no reason to believe that such a being exists. Since there is no reason to believe that such a god exists, there is no reason why we should treat the claim that such a being exists with any seriousness. We are justified in thinking that such a being probably does not exist, and the more specific the claim of existence, the less likely it becomes.

No one has suggested that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. What we have said is that such a god is not transcendant, but descendent by definition, it descends from the transcendental realm to interact with ours, either personally or through an agent (such as an angel). A god that acts upon the universe is a god whose actions can be examined by science. So it is perfectly legitimate to question whether such a god is acting upon the universe.

seth, I suggested - indeed claimed - that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. I meant what you go on to say, but I did claim it is impossible for a god to be both outside the universe and inside it. I take the claim that god is outside the universe to mean that it is outside and beyond and entirely separate - not that it is outside the way one may be outside a house but still able to throw rocks at it. I assume the former is what Hal means by outside the universe, because if he meant god is outside the universe but nearby and able to do the equivalent of throwing rocks at it - then (as you say) it would no longer be true that such a god is beyond detection by science. My claim is that it’s impossible for god to be radically separate from the universe and thus beyond any possible scientific inquiry, and still able to act on it.

One joker who commented on my website said that there could be a miracle, but I think that’s not a valid escape from the contradiction.

jholt - 10 May 2008 04:21 PM

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 02:28 PM

I would agree that is dangerously close to playing the Hitler card, but the argument itself is the one being used by Hal and it is a lousy one, and it is one that is constantly in use by people who want to maintain this “non-overlapping magisteria” nonsense as applies to a supposedly transcendent deity who none-the-less is interactive.

What I don’t accept is the idea is simply nonsense. The loud mouths and violent wacko that can be found on the side of unreason don’t dictate to me when and how I will confront them.

I didn’t say that it was. I said that it was nonsense in the context of the existence of a deity that interacts with the real world. Now what Gould said was this:

The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

Is this nonsense? Of course it is. No justification exists for the arbitrary assignment of moral meaning and value to religion. Skepticism and science have as much to say about ethical questions as does any other way of knowing. And I would argue that religion has little of value to say on the topic of morals. Religions have held every position possible on every moral question known to man, and has never been shown, empirically, to act as any sort of safeguard on human behavior.

Ophelia Benson - 10 May 2008 04:51 PM

seth, I suggested - indeed claimed - that it is impossible for a god who is outside the universe to act upon it. I meant what you go on to say, but I did claim it is impossible for a god to be both outside the universe and inside it.

Outside and inside are imprecise terms here, I agree. I took you to mean outside of as in entirely separated from, whereas the Christians mean more like at a distance from.

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 04:56 PM

That’s a reasonable point… god can’t be both outside and inside. Sort of like the invisible pink unicorn, it can be either invisible <or> pink, but not both at the same time.

I thought that we were through this before.  The unicorn’s butt could be invisible while its head is pink.  Likewise, God’s butt could be outside of the universe while his head is inside.  And he says “peek-a-boo” to the theists but not to me and you.

The last post could be inside the universe and then “poof”, it’s outside.  But I got evidence!

.

jholt - 10 May 2008 05:07 PM

seth manapio - 10 May 2008 04:51 PM

The net of science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value.

Is this nonsense? Of course it is. No justification exists for the arbitrary assignment of moral meaning and value to religion. Skepticism and science have as much to say about ethical questions as does any other way of knowing. And I would argue that religion has little of value to say on the topic of morals. Religions have held every position possible on every moral question known to man, and has never been shown, empirically, to act as any sort of safeguard on human behavior.

That’s the short version, but it will do. First, the net of religion is assigned to moral meaning and value, that’s it, they don’t get to play in science’s yard. This does not say a scientist can not be religious (should go without saying). This does not say they get it right or a free ride, they can take what is learned through science with regards to morals, but they can’t claim it, even as they try.  Second, That is the whole of science, this does not mean we do not glean from science useful information to inform our moral discourse and behaviors. We are not giving morals and meaning to the religionist, only forcing them to accept that’s as far as the domain goes (this also does not speak to utility of history). We all get to use what is learned from science. We are going to disagree on moral questions, as my quote of Gould from NOMA shows, and so far the evidence is we can be moral without religion or a belief in a God and we can argue them to the mat on almost any issue. Ours is the grandeur view of life.

Ha, I did put this in a short form.

But why should religion even get moral meaning or value? What have they done to earn it? What religion has shown that it has something substantive to contribute to our understanding in those areas?

.

Since Hal and others keep misunderstanding what the position is of what Hal has labeled: the “strong atheists”, I’ll try once more to sum it up in the most succinct fashion possible:

Science is the study of detectable phenomena in our cosmos.

If something is believed to impact our cosmos, then it is within the purview of science to study that claim and weigh in on the probability of that something existing.

Therefore, a claim that there is something (e.g. “God” or a god) interrupting the normal mechanics of nature (for example, by communicating with people) is a claim within the purview of science.

If someone claims that there exists something that DOES NOT impact our cosmos, then that something is NOT within the purview of science to study.

Does this sum it up?

Yes.

It’s either outside in the sense of having no effect - or it’s not.

1) Way way way outside; no effect. Nobody knows. No interest; nothing to say.

2) Outside but nearby and able to pop in at will. Detectable (at least in principle if not in practice) to science. A scientific question, not some fancy other kind that only theologians can touch.

Outside and inside are imprecise terms here, I agree. I took you to mean outside of as in entirely separated from, whereas the Christians mean more like at a distance from.

See, this is interesting (even with the pink unicorn gazing fondly over our shoulders) because I thought Hal meant outside of as in entirely separated from; I thought that was the whole point. If Christians do mean more like at a distance from - then where do they get off saying science can’t touch it? Is it all just a brazen con game? I knew it was a con game, but I didn’t realize it was as brazen as that.

Yeah right. God is a trillion miles away from the cosmos, so science can’t investigate it - but it just so happens that god is able to make things happen to the cosmos from a trillion miles away - but the trillion miles is just a few miles too far for science to be able to detect god. Uh huh.

Ophelia Benson - 10 May 2008 04:26 PM

Hal, here’s a bit of the book for you, so that you can get started on confirming your prediction.

Pages 54-5

Summarizing: the theologian Alister McGrath offers “the undeniable but ignominiously weak point that you cannot disprove the existence of God.” Dawkins says McGrath quotes Gould on NOMA; Dawkins quotes Gould himself: “We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.” Dawkins comments on this, “Despite the confident, almost bullying tone of Gould’s assertion, what, actually, is the justification for it?” Then he notes that “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?”

So Hawkins says that a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god. How would he know? Whence does this knowledge arise? It seems to me a matter of opinion supported by neither science nor logic. But I thought Dawkins was here to deliver us from the dark ages of faith. But perhaps he answers these obvious objections?

Okay, let me see if I get this straight (and I support everyone who had something negative to say about this guy’s “superior beliefs.")

So assuming there is a God who could make a flood, then erase all evidence he did it.  This includes getting a guy to build a big boat and save all the animals (and dinosaurs.. snicker).

Hmmmm…

If he really didn’t want anyone to be able to prove later that it happened, why not just use his godly powers to kill all the evildoers, ie: smite them all, since smiting is always brought up as a way for God to punish bad people.

Oh, oops.. then he would of course have eliminated free will.  Which doesn’t make any sense since I am sure that drowning them en-masse is as good at robbing them of free will as ACCURATELY KILLING ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE REALLY BAD!

So back to the question… if he can just erase any evidence that it happened so those bad ol’ scientists can’t “prove” it did or did not happen, why not just magically “recreate” the world instantly with all the bad people removed?  If we’re going to do magical stuff, let’s just kill all the intermediate steps and cut to the chase.

Besides, isn’t “free will” kind of an oxymoron if you kill everyone who uses it before they actually die and go to God for his judgement on their life?  Was he in a hurry or something?

See, I don’t even need terrorists and Islam to show me that God is a crockload of heebee juice mixed up by lots of different people with personal axes to grind and children to frighten into being good.  When you break down the stories (cough holy scripture cough) you realize just how ignorant the people at the time it was written were about how the world works.

Personally, if I were an all-powerful God who wanted to create an interesting universe, I would implement these rules wherever intelligent life “evolved.”

Note: “People” refers to any self-conscious creature capable of reasoning that it exists seperate from its environment.

1) Any violence directed toward another person with malicious intent rebounds at the originator with twice the energy.

2) People do not die of anything but old age, which is determined by the person repeating hourly for an entire decade that they are tired and want to die.  It must be voluntary.

3) Plants and fish are not intelligent and cannot feel pain (so there PETA).

4) Animals fall into rule 1.

5) To take care of (4) making everyone vegetarians, there are Plants which grow any meat desired all year long.

So there Chris Hedges, take that and stick it in your religious doctrine!  I don’t even HAVE to live where you were for years to realize that doing bad things to others is… well… bad.

People who evoke NOMA don’t seem to realize the complete consequences of that position. If in fact science has nothing to say whatsoever about religious claims, then:

1) If there were scientific confirmation that prayer worked, theologians must reject that evidence as having any consequence to religion.

2) If there were scientific confirmation that the dead did in fact communicate with the living, theologians must reject that evidence as unconsequential to religion. different magisteria!

3) It is theologically irrelevant to argue that the universe is fine-tuned for life.  The argument has no bearing whatsoever on the possible existence of “God”.

Gould’s formulation of NOMA does more to restrict the popular notion of religion than it does restrict science.  Religion in this formulation is reduced to no more (or no less) than a moral and ethical philosophical framework. Religion in the NOMA sense, makes no claims about reality whatsoever, including the reality of a god.