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.

No, that’s not what he said. You can’t quote accurately even when the quotation is right in front of you? No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions. (You did answer one, which helped. But answering more would have helped more.) Dawkins didn’t say a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god in the passage I quoted. He said “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.” Do you really think that is “supported by neither science nor logic”?

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 03:05 AM

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?

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. 

The fact that there are 10,000 religions is evidence that none are convincing.

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.

An example of convincing evidence would be to occasionally smite bad people in a way which is convincing.  Like those bad people collecting wood on the Sabbath…

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 08:55 AM

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.

No, that’s not what he said. You can’t quote accurately even when the quotation is right in front of you? No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions. (You did answer one, which helped. But answering more would have helped more.) Dawkins didn’t say a universe with a god would be a very different kind of universe from one without a god in the passage I quoted. He said “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without.” Do you really think that is “supported by neither science nor logic”?

Well it wasn’t a quote so much as a paraphrase, but my apologies if you thought I was misrepresenting Hawkins. I assumed, given the subject of the book, that he was speaking of “God”, but given the congenial, tolerant atmosphere of our discussions, I shouldn’t take such liberties.

No wonder it’s so difficult to get you to acknowledge any points or answer direct questions.

.

Nice. I can feel the tolerance. It’s funny, but I get the same sort of “tolerance” when attempting to engage fundies about their sacred oxen as well. Now, it may be that I’m too stupid to answer these points, or too evil (and thus cherry-pick ones I think easy to refute), or it may be that when arguing with half a dozen people simultaneously, some points are bound to be lost.

But to your question, yes, I do think it supported neither by science nor logic. But if you’d care to explain either (a) how Hawkins answers these obvious objections (if he does) or (b) how one might know such a thing as this, I promise to marshall my limited mental resources and strive to keep my wickedness in check at least long enough to discuss this.

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. 
.

Careful, Jackson, the quotation police are out in force.

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.

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.

Ophelia Benson - 10 May 2008 04:26 PM

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.

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Oh, come on, Hal, don’t start with the victim whine. Nobody’s done anything to you, nobody’s been mean to you, nobody’s bullied you.

What kind of “tolerance” do you want? You want me to go along with your changing the terms? Well I can’t, because Dawkins’s claim (his name is Dawkins, by the way, Dawkins with a D) is different from the one you objected to. Differences in wording do make a difference. Paraphrase won’t do when the result is to change the wording of exactly the claim that is in dispute. I could have refrained from pointing out that you do that a lot, but the fact is that you do do that a lot; you keep shifting your ground and evading questions and objections, and I think if you were more consistent and if you did answer questions, you would see some merit in what other people are saying. It’s not “intolerant” to point that out. I don’t think you’re evil - but I do think you’re not listening.

Okay, you think “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without” is supported neither by science nor logic. Very well; just for one thing, there is an immense amount of redundancy in nature, along with a lot of bad “design.” This is consistent with an evolution that is a blind process of variation, selection, and reproduction; it’s not consistent with a creative superintendent (unless you think the creative superintendent deliberately wasted time, material, and effort, and produced a lot of systems that don’t work well, that break down easily, etc etc).

Suppose you were going to be dropped from a helicopter in some remote part of the earth. You have two choices. You can just drop somewhere at random, or you can drop near a house built for you by a team of engineers and designers, with every possible comfort provided. You see the difference between the two choices, right? So it’s fair to say that “a drop point with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of drop point from one without,” isn’t it? The two universes would be different because design is different from no design. Detectably different.

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:44 AM

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:44 AM

We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave?

How does this relate to your claim that there can be something that alters nature, and yet not even in principle be detectable by natural means?

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’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Let me get this straight. We’ve all agreed that we know nothing about the god that’s way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe who doesn’t do anything to it. You want us to agree that we know nothing about a god that is way way outside the universe but does do things to it, and that that is now not a matter of logic but one of science. You want us to agree that it’s an empirical question whether or not there is a transcendent god way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe that can nevertheless do things to it - but it’s an empirical question that we know nothing about - so we shouldn’t make premature judgments about it, including the judgment that it’s very damn improbable (and a contradiction in logic but that’s beside the point because you’ve now decided that it’s not a matter of logic). That’s some flexible reasoning - also pretty much the opposite of what you were saying on page 1. Whatever.

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 10:56 AM

Well I can’t, because Dawkins’s claim (his name is Dawkins, by the way, Dawkins with a D) is different from the one you objected to. Differences in wording do make a difference. Paraphrase won’t do when the result is to change the wording of exactly the claim that is in dispute. I could have refrained from pointing out that you do that a lot, but the fact is that you do do that a lot; you keep shifting your ground and evading questions and objections, and I think if you were more consistent and if you did answer questions, you would see some merit in what other people are saying. It’s not “intolerant” to point that out. I don’t think you’re evil - but I do think you’re not listening.

Re: Dawkins v. “Hawkins”, my bad. I stand corrected.

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.

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 10:56 AM

Okay, you think “a universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without” is supported neither by science nor logic. Very well; just for one thing, there is an immense amount of redundancy in nature, along with a lot of bad “design.” This is consistent with an evolution that is a blind process of variation, selection, and reproduction; it’s not consistent with a creative superintendent (unless you think the creative superintendent deliberately wasted time, material, and effort, and produced a lot of systems that don’t work well, that break down easily, etc etc).

It seems to me that such a statement only makes sense if you believe, as the Christian fundies do, that God was busy in the six days of creation, rolling up his sleeves and individually making things. But many Christians (and other monotheists) think that the process by which the world came into being is a scientific question, not a philosophical or theological one. 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.

Riley - 11 May 2008 11:02 AM

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:44 AM

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

Well, Riley, you apparently know a great deal more than I do about “God”. Sheesh, this constant sniping is getting quite tiresome. Is that, perhaps, the point?

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 11:10 AM

“[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..”

If the universe were designed by an intelligence, then we would expect to see evidence of design. It does not show any signs of being designed, instead everywhere we look, the universe shows all the signs of being evolved from simplest elements. So yes, it’s different than we would expect.  Is it possible that is was designed to look like it was not designed? Sure, it’s possible, but again, scientific evidence has a role to play in the question.

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 11:19 AM

Riley - 11 May 2008 11:02 AM

Hal Helms - 11 May 2008 10:44 AM

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments.

Straw man fallacy argument. We’re not talking about something we know nothing about. We’re talking about “God”.

Well, Riley, you apparently know a great deal more than I do about “God”.

The “God” claim is a claim to knowledge about something.

Ophelia Benson - 11 May 2008 11:10 AM

I’m suggesting that when dealing with something that we know nothing about, it might be wise to not make premature judgments. We know that even in the natural world, there are some very curious things that we still don’t fully understand. Is light a particle or a wave? That certainly sounds like a P or ~P situation which can’t possibly be—except that it certainly seems that it is. Science differs from logic in that we ask questions of nature rather than inferring “facts” from general principles held to be universally true.

Let me get this straight. We’ve all agreed that we know nothing about the god that’s way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe who doesn’t do anything to it. You want us to agree that we know nothing about a god that is way way outside the universe but does do things to it, and that that is now not a matter of logic but one of science. You want us to agree that it’s an empirical question whether or not there is a transcendent god way way outside the universe with no point of contact with the universe that can nevertheless do things to it - but it’s an empirical question that we know nothing about - so we shouldn’t make premature judgments about it, including the judgment that it’s very damn improbable (and a contradiction in logic but that’s beside the point because you’ve now decided that it’s not a matter of logic). That’s some flexible reasoning - also pretty much the opposite of what you were saying on page 1. Whatever.

No, Ophelia, that’s not what I’m saying. 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.