The god delusion... Religious debate

[Django x2]

The God Delusion! ROFL. What a load of crock. Reading it with any soft of intelligence shows that Dawkins can't prove or disprove God.

Head knowledge. That is all we, as humans, have and will ever have.

Oh and Christianity, on it's own, is not really a religion. Religion is bad.

 

[Dolph]

Can't argue with that. Largely because I can't be bothered looking up what a priori means. You're a clever sod.

So you think that science chooses the simplest model to predict reality and therefore the model probably isn't complete?

Something taken a priori is something that is taken without experience/evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori#Use_of_the_terms

The scientific method uses a variety of assumptions that are taken to be useful because they help build a predictive model. There is no actual basis for these assumptions from evidence (and recursive evidence, that is taken from the results of the scientific method, does not count).

Hence I acknowledge that science can be predictively useful without actually producing a model that replicates or describes what is actually occuring in the real world (if indeed there is such a thing). Science's value is, and always has been, the ability to predict behaviour, if we can do that, then we can build on it, and that is the basis of all our progression. Science does not know or care if it has the 'correct' or 'complete' model, only if the model is useful, and that is both it's biggest advantage (when used correctly) and it's biggest flaw (when used incorrectly).

None of this devalues science in any way for the purpose for which it was concieved, it only addresses those who treat science like a new religious text, as something that contains the answer to everything. the truth is that we don't know, and probably can never know, because we can never observe things in a mind and theory independant manner, and therefore we can never experience the truth, we can only work with our perception of it.

 

[Robosapien]

Christianity and the Bible are genuinely a load of absolute tosh. Absolutely everyone knows it, even the 'religious' people, deep down they know it. It really is the equivalent of Santa Clause for grown-ups. A few hundred years ago most people in the country were feared into believing witches were real, the sovereign had those accused hung. Today you would be committed to a mental institution for believing such nonsense. It's trully equivalent. Anyone who believes in this religious garbage is just not courageous enough to pull the bag off their heads. That's my opinion anyway. Or gut feeling, rather.

 

[Gothic Draconia]

Something taken a priori is something that is taken without experience/evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori#Use_of_the_terms

The scientific method uses a variety of assumptions that are taken to be useful because they help build a predictive model. There is no actual basis for these assumptions from evidence (and recursive evidence, that is taken from the results of the scientific method, does not count).

Hence I acknowledge that science can be predictively useful without actually producing a model that replicates or describes what is actually occuring in the real world (if indeed there is such a thing). Science's value is, and always has been, the ability to predict behaviour, if we can do that, then we can build on it, and that is the basis of all our progression. Science does not know or care if it has the 'correct' or 'complete' model, only if the model is useful, and that is both it's biggest advantage (when used correctly) and it's biggest flaw (when used incorrectly).

None of this devalues science in any way for the purpose for which it was concieved, it only addresses those who treat science like a new religious text, as something that contains the answer to everything. the truth is that we don't know, and probably can never know, because we can never observe things in a mind and theory independant manner, and therefore we can never experience the truth, we can only work with our perception of it.

So you're agnostic then as you can't prove or disprove diddly squat, as they say?

 

[Dolph]

So you're agnostic then as you can't prove or disprove diddly squat, as they say?

I don't see how anyone can be more than rationally agnostic, but I would add that I'm also irrationally (in terms of being able to explain, demonstrate and justify it to anyone else, rather than to myself, it makes sense to me but I could not prove it) faithful, but that's largely irrelevant to anyone who isn't me

 

[cosmogenesis]

Objective scientific reality or just a reality does not exist then Dolph. We only have a subjective world view regardless?

 

[Dolph]

Objective scientific reality or just a reality does not exist then Dolph. We only have a subjective world view regardless?

'objective scientific reality' doesn't really exist, as you have to build this construct of assumptions as part of the definition It's very useful within context, but worthless outside of it.

And yes, we do only have a subjective world view, there is no way we can have anything else. We can only observe the universe from our perspective, and there is no way of knowing whether our perspective is skewed or not.

 

[Robosapien]

I don't see how anyone can be more than rationally agnostic, but I would add that I'm also irrationally (in terms of being able to explain, demonstrate and justify it to anyone else, rather than to myself, it makes sense to me but I could not prove it) faithful, but that's largely irrelevant to anyone who isn't me

Is that like Shopenhauer's Reason and Will?

 

[Dolph]

Is that like Schopenhauer Reason and Will?

I had to look something up then

And sort of, but not entirely. It's more the difference between what I can prove and demonstrate, and what I cannot. I've had experiences that could have been meaningful, or simply moments of madness/lack of sleep/whatever, but I doubt the latter, but I have no way of sharing them in a convincing fashion, and even if I did, if I cannot be sure what happened, I cannot see how I can expect others to gain anything from it with only an out of context retelling of an event.

Add to that the idea that I firmly believe that everyone must find their own path in life, and that life will show them what they need to know/see/experience as part of that, and it's not my place to try and impress too much on anyone. Hence in this sort of debate, I limit my input and influence to logical and rational arguments, consideration of assumptions and their consequences, and limits of methodology, rather than trying to actually describe an answer to people, because I don't have one, and even if I did, it might not be the right one for them, just because it had been the right one for me.

Apologies if the above is a bit rambly.

 

[cosmogenesis]

Funny how science claims to be objective and indeed believes in a out there world of objective reality. Well most scientists believe that anyway or maybe that is just physicists.

 

[Nitefly]

The question, boils down to, in my book, one of the following existing:

• Some sort of force that could be labelled a god
• Infinity

I can't honestly say one makes more sense to me than the other.

EDIT - Note how I am avoiding the obvious. I actually dread discussing some things on the forum these days because I can't help but end up incredibly frustrated.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Christianity and the Bible are genuinely a load of absolute tosh. Absolutely everyone knows it, even the 'religious' people, deep down they know it. It really is the equivalent of Santa Clause for grown-ups. A few hundred years ago most people in the country were feared into believing witches were real, the sovereign had those accused hung. Today you would be committed to a mental institution for believing such nonsense. It's trully equivalent. Anyone who believes in this religious garbage is just not courageous enough to pull the bag off their heads. That's my opinion anyway. Or gut feeling, rather.

So we all know that it's garbage, but that's just your opinion.

Ballsy, man, real ballsy.

 

[Inquisitor]

Why do 90% of people think that atheism means disbelief in Christianity? Atheism is disbelief in any deity.

 

[PermaBanned]

But since most of us live in the west, the majority of the opposition we come across in such debates are Christians.

 

[*Moangroan*]

What makes this Dawkins dork think he knows whats real and what is not.....

 

[Talrinys]

What makes this Dawkins dork think he knows whats real and what is not.....

His attempt at scientific arguing mate, much more effective than calling him a dork, especially after what he has down for modern darwinism, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

 

[semi-pro waster]

EDIT - Note how I am avoiding the obvious. I actually dread discussing some things on the forum these days because I can't help but end up incredibly frustrated.

Does what you are avoiding start "ev.." and end in "..tion"?

For the original question, I've not read The God Delusion although I have read excerpts and my position is that of an apathetic agnosticist i.e. I don't really know or care whether there is or is not a god because if there is they do not appear to impact on my life in any way, I accept there could be a god of some description but because there is not enough evidence for me to make a conclusive and coherent decision I do not do so.

And before someone points it out - in saying that I don't know or care that much it doesn't mean that I won't choose to debate it on occasion.

 

[Nitefly]

Does what you are avoiding start "ev.." and end in "..tion"?

Meep, it'll all end in my tears

 

[V4NT0M]

Bananas.

That is all.

 

[JBod]

Two things I hope someone who is religious can explain for me:

1) Gay priests
2) Lightening rods on religious buildings