Richard dawkins

Castiel said:
Well in fact it is not a 'myth' that a man named Jesus existed and that he was indeed crucified at the given time.

Tacitus, the Roman Senator and Historian wrote in his Annals about Pontius Pilate and the crucifixion, it is among the first secular historical works to mention Christ by name.

Josephus a Jewish Historian also wrote about Christ and affirms he was crucified by Pilate.

There are various mentions of him throughout the first and second centuries and it is mainstream thought that Jesus as a historical figure existed. Whether he was the Son of God however is something entirely different.
Click to expand...

The only surviving copy of that, was created in the 11th century. hardly proof

Von- I think were all guilty of not reading every reply in this thread, but I did say not long ago that I do not believe nor do I think Dawkins does in seeking a truth, or that science is the truth. The truth is a pointless word, and no help to anyone.
Science is a tool for the culmination of the information around us, so that people can create testable, changeable theories that benefit man. Anything otherwise is pointless.
Can we not agree on that, as its seems to have derailed the thread onto the same old usual topic of just because science is better does mean its the truth.

If you want we can debate the philosphy of truth, whether anything can actually be true. In my opinion that goes so very deep, that its easier to just know that when things are undenieable based on the facts in front of you and they point very much in favour then its can be a "truth" in the broadest sense, until the time that the evidence sways in another direction.
 
Last edited:
ChroniC said:
The only surviving copy of that, was created in the 11th century. hardly proof
Click to expand...

What proof is there that the universe adopts the simplest mechanism? It's a fundamental assumption of science, but it is taken a priori...
 
ChroniC said:
The only surviving copy of that, was created in the 11th century. hardly proof.
Click to expand...

This is one of the things that stymies the debate - there's proof available, whether it is proof that you (or even I) would accept as being worthy of any weight being put on it is a different matter.

The term proof is used in a number of different ways and very few people think to agree it before they start the debate - a mathematical proof is very different to proof as advanced in a court of law and that differs from the term proof as a layman would use it. It appears you mean proof as in "something that proves XXX beyond a reasonable doubt" but then there is the problem that your standard of what may still constitute a reasonable doubt can differ from mine or anyone elses.
 
ChroniC said:
The only surviving copy of that, was created in the 11th century. hardly proof.
Click to expand...

Mainstream scholarly thinking accepts Jesus as an historical figure. As a huge number of other accepted figures have no verifiable existing written proof either it is a pointless argument.

Where any of the biblical characters real, did any have any basis in fact. The evidence would strongly suggest they did in one form or another, Jesus is no different.

Besides it isn't about whether Jesus existed at all, it is about whether he was the son of God.
 
TipTop said:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

Great read. :)
Click to expand...

He did not say that at all. What he said in a co-authored paper is that M-theory may in the future explain how the universe was created after the big bang. There was a debate on last night. Basically even if it is proven, they say many lifetimes away (even Hawking agrees we are a long way from proving this) the question remains of who or what created the conditions for Gravity? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
What proof is there that the universe adopts the simplest mechanism? It's a fundamental assumption of science, but it is taken a priori...
Click to expand...

Does that matter when you can base a whole science on it. This is going a little over my head for 11.30 at night, but regardless you obviously have to assume the universe does, via mathematics and workable models, and the fact that these are testable and provide the same result. Even though, if by some odd manner the universe is playing a trick on you, and it doesnt work the way you think, as long as it provides the same result everytime it can be used.
However why would you assume your wrong if it keeps concluding the same result, and then that conclusion also creates other fundemental theories, that intern create conclusions that prove your original mechanism.

Would be a massively confusing world to think that the universe doesnt work in that way.
I hope that make sense. I got lost myself in the middle.

Castiel said:
Mainstream scholarly thinking accepts Jesus as an historical figure. As a huge number of other accepted figures have no verifiable existing written proof either it is a pointless argument.

Where any of the biblical characters real, did any have any basis in fact. The evidence would strongly suggest they did in one form or another, Jesus is no different.

Besides it isn't about whether Jesus existed at all, it is about whether he was the son of God.
Click to expand...

Your right in a sense that there are many people who existed but do no appear in text so its a pointless part of the arguement, but none of them ever said they were the most important human being to grace the planet, and if they were then you would infer that the evidence for them would be unimaginable large.
Maybe not in a time when records or writing was unheard of, so maybe another pointless opinion.

Im maybe not quite on the same level as dawkins. I myself dont think believing in God or Jesus matters, because I dont think it develops or enhances my life. I see it as a story, and as it has no basis in a real world and neither God or Jesus have left enough evidence to clarify it as anything other than, I think its a has been twisted to certains peoples will, and is now a hinderance.
 
Last edited:
ChroniC said:
Would be a massively confusing world to think that the universe doesnt work in that way.
I hope that make sense. I got lost myself in the middle.
Click to expand...

In many ways you're right, it really doesn't matter how the universe does what it does - provided we get predictively accurate results from science because the universe has behaved as we have observed it to previously then everything we've based on those observations holds true and it's all gravy.

However if (as is often the case) people say that MMM mechanism is the only way that result NNN occurs because it's the simplest and Occam's Razor says it must be the correct mechanism from that then we've got an issue. Science isn't concerned with absolute truth, it doesn't answer the "why", it answers the "how" i.e. how does this happen and can often come up with a plausible reason or at the least a model which fits the data - this doesn't mean that it is the way that it actually happens but for most purposes it won't matter if you can rely on it to predict accurately.
 
ChroniC said:
Does that matter when you can base a whole science on it. This is going a little over my head for 11.30 at night, but regardless you obviously have to assume the universe does, via mathematics and workable models, and the fact that these are testable and provide the same result. Even though, if by some odd manner the universe is playing a trick on you, and it doesnt work the way you think, as long as it provides the same result everytime it can be used.
However why would you assume your wrong if it keeps concluding the same result, and then that conclusion also creates other fundemental theories, that intern create conclusions that prove your original mechanism.

Would be a massively confusing world to think that the universe doesnt work in that way.
I hope that make sense. I got lost myself in the middle.
Click to expand...

What you've just described is both the best and worst part of science. Science is a controlled context, and within it's context (ie predicting what will happen), it is simply brilliant. The problems come when people try to expand it beyond that context.

Science doesn't work mechanisms through evidence, but through assumption, and that is both its in context benefit (because it enables good, predictive models to be created and explained) and a massive disadvantage (because there is no way of moving the results beyond the method into a further context).
 
Dolph said:
Prove that it isn't there.

The correct scientific stance on anything that hasn't been or can't be tested is that the result is unknown, or irrelevant, not that it's false. Anything else is an expression of faith in the a priori assumptions of the scientific method being applied incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Paraphrasing a famous quote, any claim without proof can be dismissed without proof.
 
kgi said:
Paraphrasing a famous quote, any claim without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Click to expand...

Exactly, although it cuts both ways for anyone claiming to know the status of an untested or untestable hypothesis... There is no proof of either position.

Not to mention that relying on the above assumption a priori is just another example of faith...
 
semi-pro waster said:
In many ways you're right, it really doesn't matter how the universe does what it does - provided we get predictively accurate results from science because the universe has behaved as we have observed it to previously then everything we've based on those observations holds true and it's all gravy.

However if (as is often the case) people say that MMM mechanism is the only way that result NNN occurs because it's the simplest and Occam's Razor says it must be the correct mechanism from that then we've got an issue. Science isn't concerned with absolute truth, it doesn't answer the "why", it answers the "how" i.e. how does this happen and can often come up with a plausible reason or at the least a model which fits the data - this doesn't mean that it is the way that it actually happens but for most purposes it won't matter if you can rely on it to predict accurately.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but isnt that the arguement we are having, that science does what we have both described better than religion. Isnt Dawkins himself just trying to get people to come to the same conclusion. To not believe in a single truth i.e God, but an unknown, that results in NNN occuring.
If NNN is a result and MMM is the technique that every time brings that conclusion, then its better to believe in that, then LLL causing NNN when that technique does not bring that conclusion, regardless if MMM is a "truth"

Man this is hurting my head :D
 
Last edited:
ChroniC said:
Indeed, but isnt that the arguement we are having, that science does what we have both described better than religion.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that religion doesn't attempt to do any of the same stuff as science, so it's a nonsense to say that science does things better than religion. The closest they get to crossover are the creation myths, and for those of us whose faith is strong enough to accept those as allegories without it tainting the rest of our chosen religious text, there is no interference.

Religious people who attempt to use religion to explain scientific stuff are just as bad as scientists who attempt to use science to explain religious stuff.
 
Dolph said:
and a massive disadvantage (because there is no way of moving the results beyond the method into a further context).
Click to expand...

I cant argue against or summise with you as Im not entirely sure what that part means. Why would you need a further context if the advantage is a perfectly working model?
Is this some sort of way of seeking this philosophical truth that can never be gained?

vonhelmet said:
The trouble is that religion doesn't attempt to do any of the same stuff as science, so it's a nonsense to say that science does things better than religion. The closest they get to crossover are the creation myths, and for those of us whose faith is strong enough to accept those as allegories without it tainting the rest of our chosen religious text, there is no interference.

Religious people who attempt to use religion to explain scientific stuff are just as bad as scientists who attempt to use science to explain religious stuff.
Click to expand...

I see, and this is why I have no problem with faith as such if it is kept with in the bounds of the home and deals with such subjects as praying and the afterlife or what not, but unfortunately life is to intertwinned with need to understand certain things, and this is where their paths cross, where both are trying to deal with the same question. I.e How humans became, can a man walk on water, who owns what land etc etc, and religion will always lose in these instances, and in some case where these battles occur, the framework that either is based on comes into question. I prefer and think most should, that the side with the greatest evidence has a better chance of being correct.
 
Last edited:
We are all mumbling about who can prove God does or doesn't exist.

We can't even agree on the nature of any supposed Godhead.

When you consider the extremely limited perception we have of the Universe, it is rather narrow minded to dismiss any explanation of something we have no comprehension over.

Do I believe in God?

I think the more pertinent question should be, What is God?

For all anyone knows we could simply be abstracts of some enormous universal intelligence.
 
ChroniC said:
I cant argue against or summise with you as Im not entirely sure what that part means. Why would you need a further context if the advantage is a perfectly working model?
Is this some sort of way of seeking this philosophical truth that can never be gained?
Click to expand...

The difference between science and philosophy is an example of the changes in context.

When you do science, you take, a priori, certain assumptions that are part of the scientific method, many of them without realising it. The results you obtain, and the model you create, are only valid when paired with those assumptions. (The assumptions are things such as Occam's razor, time moves forward, what we observe is accurate, absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence and so on). You can minimise or control the effect of some of the assumptions through experimental design (such as ensuring that you are capable of collecting the evidence before applying the last assumption), but others are completely unprovable, and yet they are fundamental to making science work for prediction.

The assumptions that make science brilliant for prediction become a problem when it comes to (for example) trying to use science to disprove the existence of god. At it's absolute best, science can prove that god is unnecessary, but it can never prove that god doesn't exist, because it can't prove that the mechanism presumed is what actually happens, certainly not in the sort of questions that are normally referred to (eg evolution or the big bang). Science is incapable of distinguishing between alternative mechanisms that give the same results in a great many cases, that's why the assumptions are in place, but it's that incapability that makes things sticky when you try and move into an area where those assumptions aren't just taken to be true.
 
ChroniC said:
How humans became, can a man walk on water, who owns what land etc etc, and religion will always lose in these instances, and in some case where these battles occur, the framework that either is based on comes into question.
Click to expand...

How humans came to be? God made them. Did he use evolution to get there? Fine by me. Can a man walk on water? Sure, if he has supernatural abilities which - by definition - surpass what science can explain. Who owns what land? That's not really a science question...
 
Castiel said:
Indeed. simply mentioning Prof Dawkins to illicit exactly this response.
Click to expand...

Wasn't my intention to start a big debate about all this, which seems to be mostly philosophy so far, not science! It was bound to happen though as I've seen what happens in other threads. My post was a mere acknowledgement of his work and what I've learnt from a great author!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom