Hard News: The God Thing
116 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Even if God does exist, if he is outside nature and so outside space and time, then he does not matter.
-
WH,
Dawkins too closely resembles Ann Coulter for mine - glib, bitter, divisive, and arrogant. This isn't to say Dawkins is wrong however, even if I personally consider his doubts to be more illuminating than his certainties:
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That's God.
The choice Dawkins poses between science and religion is a false dichotomy, and not a particularly sophisticated one IMO. I think his take on religion collapses to a low quality straw man argument - even if his conclusion, that there is no God, may ultimately be the right one.
-
It's very mischievous of God not to have given Dawkins the gene for religiousness.
-
If Dawkins didn't exist, God would have to invent him.
-
Ben Austin wrote:
There are few things I find more annoying than being judged by a Bible literalist as being amoral due to my atheist position.Right back at ya, mate. There are more things I find more annoying than being judged by atheists as being a heartbeat away from burning down the nearest library once I've massacred every infidel within reach.
-
Paul said:
Even if God does exist, if he is outside nature and so outside space and time, then he does not matter.
Ah, but you see, at the same time he's outside nature, he's also micromanaging everything. Collins seems to have several sorts of God to call on, depending on the question.
It's a shame that the Time moderator didn't press him on the obvious question: how do you know it's the Biblical God? What made you pick that one? If you were going to pick a faith to cohere with known things about nature, you'd probably choose Taoism or something, not the anthropomorphic Abrahamic God.
-
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
COLLINS: That's God.
Mr Collins wants to be careful here. We don't currently know what the origins of the universe are and Mr Collins feels it can be attributed to his God. But 150 years ago we could have seen a similar conversation between a sceptic and a believer about the creation of humanity:
SCPETIC: We could owe our existence to something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
BELIEVER: That's God.
Turns out it wasn't God - it was a process called natural evolution, and the Believer is made to look a right plonker. There is no current scientific explanation of the first cause, or source of existence - but we could be only an Einstein or a Darwin away from a rational, scientific explanation and if it's anything like the blind determinism of natural selection then it will be decidedly ungodlike.
My other problem with Mr Collins beliefs is that he tries to have it both ways. In his debate with Dawkins he describes his God in (deliberately?) vague terms, and his deity seems to be a classic God of the Gaps which exists in the spaces between our current understanding of the universe. On occasion he sounds so open and unspecific in his belief that he could almost pass for an agnostic.
When he's not debating a fellow Scientist, however, Collins describes himself as 'an evangelical christian'. (Since almost all Americans who describe themselves in those terms refute the theory of evolution and believe the world is only 6000 years old this probably isn't an appropriate term for Mr Collins, but it's one of his own choosing.)
As he states in his book 'The Language of God', Collins believes in a very specific God - the Christian God, who came to earth in the form of Jesus and who's deeds and nature are documented in the Bible, which is also divine and infallible, even though it's clearly error-prone gibberish.
Yet in the debate I don't even think Collins even mentions Jesus - whom he is supposed to worship as the creator of the universe, or the Bible which is supposedly a text written by God himself. It seems to me that Francis Collins lacks the courage of his convictions.
-
"You'd probably choose Taoism..."
This is exactly the point - as time goes on, the "right" god to choose changes with the prevailing state of collective human knowledge.
Yahweh and Jesus are obviously past their sell-by dates, so pantheistic solutions arise in later times that are more palatable, and fit with our knowledge of the world.
If God exists outside of Earth, Space or even Time it just exists and cannot be described.
If you are going to believe in God, you accept that a certain flavour of revealed knowledge informs your choice, but after that you cannot change your mind.
-
Right back at ya, mate. There are more things I find more annoying than being judged by atheists as being a heartbeat away from burning down the nearest library once I've massacred every infidel within reach.
Ben does have a point there Craig, at least as regards the land Dawkins is touring at present. According to the excellent Pew surveys ...
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=386
... nearly half of all Americans believe that anyone who does not believe in God cannot be a moral person. More than half expressed an unfavourable view of atheists as a class of people.
Then of course there was George H.W. Bush's: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
That all seems fairly bigoted to me.
Personally, I try and respect people's choices and traditions where they have no untoward impact on me. I see the historical benefits of religion as a means of social cohesion, and I think spirituality has a use as a means of modeling nature. To stand in awe of the universe, and to ponder one's place in it, seems healthy to me.
I'm aware of the immense comfort that many people derive from, to take one example, the practice of Roman Catholicism. I'll happily acknowledge that Dave Dobbyn's music has been way better since he found God. (I actually often find myself thinking that if all Christians were like Dobbo it would be a better world.)
But I cannot for the life of me see how I could believe in a Biblical God. It doesn't make sense to me.
I asked you this once before, and you didn't want to answer, but it is a sincere question: why do you believe what you do?
-
What fun! All that is unexplained in the universe, all that is unknowable. All the little scientists scurrying to prove or disprove. All the theologians/people with religion rushing to counter. All very existential and interesting except for one thing. The very definition of spirit/gods/God/the unbearable lightness of being is that it is not material therefore not tangible therefore not explicable. Doncha love it? What we believe or do not believe is not arguable. What we feel or do not feel is not arguable. Neither is it able to be proven or not. That is the point. It just is.
-
Oh, I should point out that there's one group: I think should be mercilessly mocked: Satanists.
They're hilarious.
Or am I being unfair?
-
Satanism may be ridiculous but it is the only opportunity that IT engineers have to get sex, at least without having to dress up as furry animals.
-
Satanism may be ridiculous but it is the only opportunity that IT engineers have to get sex, at least without having to dress up as furry animals.
Hmmm. I guess naff sex is better than no sex at all ...
-
I believe in the Greenhouse theory. I have carried out a certain amount of research into atmospheric forcings, and can see the correlation between an anthropogenic increase in CO2 and various measures of increasing temperature.
But I am not expert, so my major interaction with the theory is a relationship of trust with people who use methods I don't understand to tell me something that I must take as gospel truth.
From what I can tell, the experts are almost united in direction - that increasing CO2 will lead to increasing 'temperature', but are not at all united in outcome. What will have happened by 2100 if we don't curb our CO2 outputs? When will the ice caps melt? How will increasing cloud cover caused by increasing sea temperature effect the over-all gain? What happens if the Gulf Stream is disrupted? What major volcanic eruption will occur in this century, and how will they contribute? There are a multitude of plausible answers to these questions, but they are not yet scientific certainty in the sense that E=mc2, or that cyanide will kill you.
We don't know if Auckland's median temperature in summer 2100 will be 35degrees or 28, or whether the sea level will be 5 meters higher or 5cm. However there are compelling reasons to act on the basis of what we believe will happen. Action now is a matter of faith.
Faith is a mechanism by which you anticipate knowledge. It's never rational, but it's not always unreasonable.
-
Dawkins too closely resembles Ann Coulter for mine - glib, bitter, divisive, and arrogant.
Can we kindly quit with the comparison to Coulter every time we dislike someone, unless they have literally called for the wholesale extermination of anyone who won't submit to the forced conversion to a religion of the speaker's choice? It is both cheap and loathsome, and is little better than calling a police officer a Nazi because he gives you a speeding ticket.
Personally I find Dawkins to mostly be a refereshingly straight shooter for the most part. The fact some people feel that their imaginary friends should be given a "respect" and treated with a seriousness - even protected by law - ought not to be the problem of broader society.
And if you think Dawkins is bitter, I can only assume you haven't actually bothered reading most of his work. I finished The Ancestors Tale, and it is not merely fascinating and informative, but positively uplifting; that uplift is created by Dawkin's genuine love of his work and sense of wonder at the universe.
-
What we believe or do not believe is not arguable. What we feel or do not feel is not arguable. Neither is it able to be proven or not. That is the point. It just is.
But why we believe it and feel it and whether it is reasonable to feel and believe it are arguable. That is the point here.
And Russell has already said it better than me but I've never accused all religious people of being intolerant (which is patently and demonstrably untrue) but some religious people do believe that religion is the basis of all morality (which is equally untrue).
Russell's issue about religion making people feel better about themselves/the world etc and therefore being ok is an interesting one. Dawkins presumably thinks that lying to yourself (or making yourself believe an untruth) to make yourself feel better is not ok, Russell (and my Mum) say otherwise. As I get older I tend to think that the latter argument makes sense but I've never felt envious of people with strong faith because of their moral certainty etc.
In terms of Satanists, I have no time for them. I like to mock Hare Krishnas however.
-
“Dawkins too closely resembles Ann Coulter for mine - glib, bitter, divisive, and arrogant. This isn't to say Dawkins is wrong however, even if I personally consider his doubts to be more illuminating than his certainties”
That’s my problem with Dawkins also.. whilst I agree completely with skewering the irrationality of most conventional religion, Dawkins tries to present science and rationality as the ultimate solution to life, the universe and everything.
I’m very grateful to science and fond of rationality, but there are a number of areas where science has little of substance to contribute. Morality is one. One-off or non-repetitive events that are unsuitable for generalisation are another. Irrational processes including creativity are a third.
Most people I know like to opt out of living life according to strict rationality sometimes (maybe get good and pissed once in a while). Some of them prefer to navigate their lives as much by feeling as by strict rationality. My partner is a practicing Catholic and despite the fact I find most of the doctrine ridiculous, there’s no doubt in my mind it adds richness and value to her life.
So fine, when religious fundies tread on science’s home turf eg how/when was the planet created, see it off. But a bit of humility as to science’s limitations and outright fuck-ups would go a long way too. -
"And if you think Dawkins is bitter, I can only assume you haven't actually bothered reading most of his work"
that's a fair call.. all I've read has been snipperts and it's entirely possible (likely) that the axe being ground is the quoter's rather than his.
-
I don't think why you believe something IS arguable, Nick. There are far cleverer people than me, some of them here, who have tried over thousands of years to argue the toss, but I'm firmly convinced that you can't intellectualise spiritual belief. Believe me, I've been having this discussion for 30 years with various people, and I've yet to convince anyone that their idea of "God" as an old man with a white beard who lives in the sky, is ridiculous. I used to have arguments with all sorts of characters from the time I was 14. I pronounced myself an atheist at that age. My prounouncements amused people. Never got me nowhere, but interesting discourse was had, by one and all. Now, I'm older and more tolerant, and if people want to believe whatever it is that floats their boat, then that's up to them. I'll still have the discussion with them, but now it's in the recognition that we're sharing what may be opposing viewpoints, not arguing to convince the other he/she is wrong/right. Personally, I have no truck with organised religion. Large groups of people can only be a bad thing, in the long run.Although I can see that the sense of community that is often missing in our lives, some find in churches and such. Not for me, all that - but then, each person's beliefs are very much about making sense of the world around them in whatever form that may take. You cannot change the belief systems of people, nor should you. What you can do is accept that it's interesting and valuable when we're able to discuss our beliefs and find the commonalities without killing each other. But then that's just my view of the world........
-
Dawkins tries to present science and rationality as the ultimate solution to life, the universe and everything
...and if we happen to agree?
-
I appreciate Dawkins' stated ability to accept that there are certain aspects of life he and his colleagues are unable to explain with the scientific method. He will NOT accept glib answers to those questions under an umbrella god, simply because it has not been "figured out" yet. Fair enough.
I am concerned with his own zealotry in combating what has been described as the "threat of religion". Feeling threatened by what others believe, rational or not, is the first step on a very slippery slope of intolerance and division in our societies and cultures. What is he afraid of? Someone might come up with an answer he hasn't? It isn't about answers, it is about understanding.
Personally, I don't believe religion has much value in social cohesion Russell, actually, quite the opposite. Faith perhaps, or belief systems, but religion has a lot of baggage with those doctrines, and one only has to look at the history of warfare to figure out it has been instrumental in dividing peoples since the beginning of time.
I believe there is a difference between knowledge and understanding. It is called direct experience. There is also a difference between the essence of spirituality (our oneness with the universe) and religion (the business of selling stories as truths).
Science is fascinating. And limited. Like everything else within the current scope of understanding, we are subject to the confines of our own minds.
-
I mentioned earlier that there was a Ted Haggard and Richard Dawkins interview. You can see it here:
-
Religion can breed intolerance and lots of rather unpleasant behavior. But so have other types of creeds. Communism managed to provide people on the Left with the excuse to kill more people than the Right did last century.
It seems to me that Communism played a psychological role very similar to the one that religion has played at particular times.
As for evolution, religion has not been the only antagonist. Sociobiology and its successor evolutionary psychology have come under attack from secularists for challenging the belief that the mind is a social construct.
-
oga,
I find such discussions interesting, but what always makes them ultimately pointless is that neither participant has truly had an experience that convinces them beyond doubt of the existence of God. I don't mean the Christian God or the whatever God, but that most subtle of essences. Such things are truly unspeakable. They must be experienced and known this way. God is not repeatable, therefore God cannot be known by the rational, scientific mind. So quit, already! Now, lets see if this quantum physics jag can actually bring us closer to doing something useful with zero-point or electromagnetic fields.
-
I believe there is a difference between knowledge and understanding. It is called direct experience. There is also a difference between the essence of spirituality (our oneness with the universe) and religion (the business of selling stories as truths).
Nicely phrased.
Years ago, I sat next to the bed where my deceased father was laid out and told him what I thought was going to happen to him: he was being accepted back into the body of the universe (or, more prosaically, his constituent atoms were to be recycled). If consciousness is a product of nature, it's not unreasonable to wonder if it exists in some basic form throughout nature.
Apologies to hard non-believers in mind at all. Perhaps it was all that Jung I read as a lad. That or the LSD ...
Anyway, I didn't have to invent anything outside nature to say this. And it seems more profound to me than the essentially selfish idea that I'm literally going to go to Heaven and find everyone I ever knew looking like they did the last time I saw them. Surely, if you're getting to Heaven, you can choose to spend eternity as your 20 year-old self, not the ailing grandmother. Otherwise Heaven would be full of geriatrics.
You're right Michael, there would be some debate on the social cohesion question. I'd have been better to choose another advantage of religious behaviour: we seem to benefit from jumping around, singing, shouting and submerging ourselves in the whole sometimes, and from doing so as part of a community.
Some people do this in church. Personally, the Windsor Castle, The Trip, Eden Park, Glastonbury and a number of other venues have served me quite well over the years.
Now ... anyone want to have a crack at String Theory?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.