BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM

"I do NOT believe I will have any residual 'consciousness' after death, and have noted many times that my big frustration is that, IF I am right, I don't get to say "I told you so!". Bill D

And if you're wrong, Bill, I expect you to say, Well, Hi, Ebbie!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:54 PM

Well, how about the glue that allows societies to become too unwieldy to hold together successfully?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:12 PM

It is the glue that holds successful societies together.

This is a far-fetched conclusion. A structure of agreements as to what constitutes right action and acceptable social conduct holds societies together. This code may be embedded in an iconography of deities, or it may be slapped into childrens' heads as "the way we do things". It my be attributed to ancestors, angels, bogeymen or innate honor. What makes such a code work has nothing to do with whether it is includes religious symbols or icons, but whether it works among humans.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 02:41 PM

"I defy you to offer any evidence at all that anyone has ever had a prayer answered."

Why, Steve! Several years ago, hurricane Isabel was threatening the East coast of the US, and in particular the area near Virgina Beach where Pat Robertson lives. He implored his followers to go out and 'pray' that it change course and, I guess, go hit someone less 'faithful'. I guess it worked, because *I* lost power for 5 days, and Pat & his gang were hardly bothered.

...silly, you say? Well, not to Pat! They took it as a sign... *wry smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM

"People get their prayers answered every day."

I defy you to offer any evidence at all that anyone has ever had a prayer answered.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:57 PM

Ooh! 800! Eat your hat out, Leadfingers!

you cannot make reproducible experiments in fields such as Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, even to some parts of psychology and biology

'Tis true. Particularly with economics and sociology, which is why their findings are taken with a fair dose of caution by the experienced. Another lot of gobshiters are those "evolutionary psychologists" who propose a gene and an evolutionary just-so story for every nuance of behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:52 PM

Again, Is it wise to dismiss the findings of billions of people?

Can matters of fact be resolved by a democratic vote?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:45 PM

"On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all of science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods."

>>>This is a completely unsupportable statement.

The above was a statement and a question. The statement is easily, easily supported. 1.2 Billion Christians in the world, a billion Muslims, hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and others. All of them being taught their faiths, all of them comparing what they have been taught to their daily lives. Compared to that, how many taught the scientific method? About 20-25% of my well-equiped, Canadian, high school if that is any indication, I'm sure that the percentage is lower in the USA where I live now and see it deliberately avoided by many.

Then there are the theologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, novelists, mythologists, Jungian psychologists, Storytellers, song writers, oral historians, who have studied religion. Then there are the scientists who have given it serious thought.

Again, Is it wise to dismiss the findings of billions of people?

The most compelling case for religion is that it works. It is the glue that holds successful societies together. Is there a "God" as defined by Moses, or Jesus, or Buddha? I agree that there is no way to test with a simple experiment. But to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of social science, it is very clear that there is a very powerful force in human society and that most human beings call that force "God" or "The Gods."

Steve,

You chose to ignore my other point. That social sciences cannot meet the burden of proof that you want to put on religion. That you cannot make reproducible experiments in fields such as Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, even to some parts of psychology and biology. I ask you again. Are you proposing that we throw Economics in the same trash can that we throw religion.

Steve,

People get their prayers answered every day. We can argue about the mechanism until the cows come home or until some philosopher can tell us exactly how many angels can dance on a pinhead. But an answered prayer, is a useful proof to those that have had a prayer answered. Just because you cannot reproduce it does not diminish that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:35 PM

Also, just because some scientists can't define consciousness is no reason to posit that it could survive the brain whence it arises. There is absolutely no earthly reason to think that could be possible. Now, to wish it, sure. But to believe it? Nah.

Anyone who would suggest that that was a valid reason would be brain-lame. There are OTHER data, though that suggest it far more strongly. Excluding such data from your thinking is also a form of bias. Such data include the large collection of reports concerning experiential OBE, NDEs, and recovered memories from previous existences which cannot be readily explained away by other means.

This is not to say such things will become subjectively apparent to someone just because they study the reports. The number of variables that make up an individual's scope of view is huge, more than I would care to go into here.

But as far as reasoning with avbailable data, it deserves looking into as to how extensive suvh reports are and what they cover.

A starting point, for example.

And another.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM

"As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low.

It follows that there remains a scientific possibility that he does exist.

So when he says that "he is not certain that God doesn't exist", he is merely reflecting the existence of that very small probability."

Indeed, a scientific possibility. I couldn't agree more. But see how believers try to put God beyond scienfic investigation. It seems to me that religion would rather not have God subjected to scientific rigour, and I think I know why.   



"He does of course, observably and understandably, invest faith and belief in the reliability and soundness of scientific methodology, but I have no way of knowing if he would admit to that."

I'm sure he would cheerfully admit to that (though I can't speak for him, of course), but he'd also qualify that with lots of caveats. There's nothing perfect about scientific methodology and nothing certain about its reliability and soundness. Science is a very human endeavour, and, as such, is to be celebrated. But what you call his faith and belief (I could call it "confidence in") is predicated on a solid bedrock of scientific rigour, in which he has been immersed, as an evolutionary biologist, for decades.


"He really should not be so vociferous against those who differ from his dictates."

I wasn't aware that he was dictating anything to anyone. We atheists can safely leave the dictating and authoritarianism to dogma-wielding organised religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

"...no earthly reason ..."

*grin*...and therein lies the rub. Those who begin with the assumption of the possibility of UNearthly reasons have no trouble plowing ahead with all sorts of opinions about consciousness, past lives, etc.

I do NOT believe I will have any residual 'consciousness' after death, and have noted many times that my big frustration is that, IF I am right, I don't get to say "I told you so!".


What is interesting to me is how people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. A lot of it is buried so deep in the very language they grew up with and use daily, that they often have little awareness of their own thought processes.

When I studied Philosophy, my major concern was to be able, as much as possible, to 'step back'...or sideways...or whatever... and get a sense of what the various opinions of human thought thru the ages were and have some way of evaluating them.

I argue that:-- the more one is able to do this semi-neutral evaluation, the less one will be inclined to accept certain beliefs and arguments that require premises with little or no verification.

When *I* am voted Emperor of the Universe, I will have kids very early begin to study about HOW to think and evaluate. (You can guess that with that kind of platform, I am not likely to get many votes... ☺)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:46 AM

Sorry, I do too know that Australia exists. It isn't posited or hypothetical or even theoretical, it's a fact.

Also, just because some scientists can't define consciousness is no reason to posit that it could survive the brain whence it arises. There is absolutely no earthly reason to think that could be possible. Now, to wish it, sure. But to believe it? Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 10:41 AM

Thanks, Sugarfoot--Interesting stuff.

The mystic zeroness of whatever this spiritual stuff is called, impinged on our drunken zoo of forms, is an endless cacophonic round of strange jokes.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM

"Where does this place the reproduced data of generations of Buddhist students & masters?"

I've been quite involved in Tibetan buddhism (including receiving teachings from HH Dalai Lama on The Four Noble Truths) in the past and along with Zen buddhism I don't really regard these religions in the same way as the Church of England/Methodist/Free Church (I've done the lot) I was brought up with. The free and questioning nature of mahayana buddhism (I have not experience of theravada), it's total acceptance of science and scientific methodology make it by far the most open of 'religions'. Unlike the Abrahamic monotheistic religions it's not tied to a single text that is subject to individual interpretation or the dogma of a specific earthly authority; lamas like the Dalai Lama are guides rather than authorities in the sense the Pope is.

Buddhism is a philosophy, religion or a lifestyle choice - pick your favourite; it's quite possible to be non-religious and a buddhist. In terms of the reproducibility of the data you're correct that the western paradigm is unsuitable for assessing some of the data, but I'm sure if someone were to interview as many Lamas, tulkus and monks as possible and review the literature you'd find there is a mine of information that would stand up to rigorous western-style analysis. Having known various analysts over the years I feel sure that western techniques such as CBT (although very good) could learn a heck of lot more from a comprehensive review of Tibetan and Zen buddhist literature and teaching; they are virtually identical in places (visualisation exercises spring immediately to mind).

As for the buddhist ideal of Nirvana, to me it's one of the most interesting and profound concepts I've ever come across and whatever the state of enlightenment actually is, then it's something that if we could understand* might have profound consequences for us all.


*I realise this comment is a contradiction with regards to my earlier agreement on the western paradigm in a sense as it's a very western empirical statement; obviously buddhists do understand enlightenment but I wonder if there might be a new way of looking at the reality of the concept using scientific methodology. I also understand this might draw criticism for trying to turn everything into quantifiable data acceptable to scientists. In a sense that's a fair criticism but I would defend it by repeating that we stand on the edge of an ocean of knowledge and we can learn so much from other people's world views; as scientists we need to develop new methodologies and disciplines in order to study these new areas effectively. Exciting, isn't it!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: mauvepink
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 07:49 AM

Lox wrote "No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale."

As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low."

And that is fair enough. If he would just stick to saying that. Where my upset is with what he says is about his comments about agnostics. He needs to cut people some slack for what they wish to believe in themselves... just because he cannot be certain himself. As I have said previously, I have lost all respect for him and believe me, I used to have him on a scientific pedistal. His attacks, while not personal to any ONE person, are still offensive simply because he cannot call others for being uncertain when he shows the trait himself... unless he joins in with them in uncertainty.

There is God's word and there is Dawkins. I cannot believe either of them no more when it comes to religion and the way it is presented. As such I simply have to find my own level to deal with this and I think a great many people do likewise. He really should not be so vociferous against those who differ from his dictates.

IMHO

mp

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM

"No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale."

As far as I am aware, all Dawkins is saying, is that the scientific probability of Gods existence, based on the knowledge we currently have about the observable universe, is very low.

It follows that there remains a scientific possibility that he does exist.

So when he says that "he is not certain that God doesn't exist", he is merely reflecting the existence of that very small probability.

Beyond that, I don't think that Dawkins intends to invest any belief of his own.

He does of course, observably and understandably, invest faith and belief in the reliability and soundness of scientific methodology, but I have no way of knowing if he would admit to that. I suspect he would probably plead dispassionate objectivity as if he were some kind of vessel of scientific thinking and not a subjective human being.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:13 AM

"But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong."

No it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says he is not certain that God doesn't exist. The delusion refers to the whole world of belief, with all its ceremony and trappings and elaborate "theology", that revolves around a being whose probability of existence is vanishingly small as measured on any rational scale.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:06 AM

"If God were the god of the fundamentalists, he/she/it would be relatively easy to disprove."

Not so. No-one seriously believes in celestial teapots and most would consider their proposed existence to be a truly wacky notion, but that doesn't make it even the teensiest bit easier to "disprove" them.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:58 AM

"Or does "I" require some kind of sensory input to exist.
"I" wonder if anyone has attempted any experiments to test that or if it would be possible to design one."

There are yogic techniques called Pratyahara involving intentional forms of sensory deprivation or 'withdrawl of the senses' to achieve 'liberation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyahara

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM

"Yet Lox wants to play both ends against the middle. To him, consciousness is god"

Josep, you don't like being accused of using straw men, yet you put words in my mouth.

I haven't called consciousness God.

I've said a hell of a lot more than that.

Most skillfully neglected by you is my argument that you cannot observe or test the metaphysical in the physical world or use physical terms to prove or disprove metaphysical concepts.


Interestingly, while I haven't said what I believe, Josep has gone into great depth about what he believes.

He believes in reincarnation and in some kind of perpetual consciousness.

Fair enough.


"Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness."


This is something that can neither be proved or disproved by science as it concerns Metaphysics and not physics.

From a scientists perspective, there is as much probability that consciousness continues after death as there is that God exists.

In scientific terms = 0

Any discussion about what exists outside the observable world is philosphy.


On the subject of consciousness, this is not the ability to experience or remember, but is the thing that actually does the experiencing or remembering.

The word "I" represents the conscious mind.

"I" remember ...

"I" don't remember.

"I" know who I am.

"I" don't.

"I" disagree

"I" experience x

"I" experience something else

"I" need to find myself

"I" am here


I am in a state of timeless Nirvana transcending physical perception.



             I - [verb]



"I" am curious about "I"

"I" make the mistake of trying to understand "I" by attempting to observe it objectively.

But "I" can't observe "I" without in fact needing to imagine a false abstract construct in my imagination which "I" then observe.

"I" just have to "be" and to "do" to understand "I" better, with every fibre of my existence.

"I" [verb]

"I" wonder whether "I" could exist if "I" was deaf, dumb, mute and had no sense of touch taste or smell.

Or does "I" require some kind of sensory input to exist.

"I" wonder if anyone has attempted any experiments to test that or if it would be possible to design one.

"I" don't know, but given that "I" am, in a way, the only thing "I" have, "I" think that steve is wrong to say that "I" am arrogant for wondering about whether "I" am either a temporary blip in the universe, or whether "I" will endure beyond the death of my body.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:53 AM

EDIT: I misquoted Josep, that should read:

Which 'people'?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 03:36 AM

"Calling consciousness god is a cop out. It's NOT what people mean when they say "god.""

Who are 'most people'? Shiva for example IS described as Universal Consciousness or Mind within which matter lies dormant. Matter or 'Shakti' is a subset of Mind, a material manifestation of Universal Consciousness. Not too far off what Lox was suggesting really. Not all concepts of God feature a grumpy old geezer in the sky, some are a little more elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

Nope. Something missing in your figuring, Josep.

You say: "I posit tnat, at its base, being conscious means that one has the ability to experience events and to remember those events. This must be because if one does not remember events, one cannot have experience. If one is told by another that one was present at an event of which one has no memory of any kind--nothing at all--then what does that say about the state of one's consciousness during that event? I say, one could not have been conscious during the event or one would remember something."

Brain injury can rob one of the ability to remember recent events. I have a musician friend who, following an aneurysm some years ago, has very little 'recent' memory, even things that happened 15 minutes before. For instance, the other evening someone asked how he had gotten to the jam. He answered, I'm not sure. Maybe Bobi? (His wife). I told him that he was right, and added, Who was in the backseat?

He said, I can't tell you that. I don't know.

After some moments we established that it had been I in the car with him and his wife. He accepted it but he really didn't remember.

And yet, he was fully conscious.

There are many incidents like that in his life now. As I've said before, he can't tell you what he had for dinner- he can't even tell you if he *had* dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:50 PM

Joe is correct. Science does not know what consciousness is in full. In fact, science doesn't know what consciousness is at all. Ron Davies, who has apparently never misspelled nor misspoke in his life, is excused from this argument, we wouldn't want to bore him with our lack of education, would we?

So, with that said, we will have to agree on some basics of what it means to be conscious. I posit tnat, at its base, being conscious means that one has the ability to experience events and to remember those events. This must be because if one does not remember events, one cannot have experience. If one is told by another that one was present at an event of which one has no memory of any kind--nothing at all--then what does that say about the state of one's consciousness during that event? I say, one could not have been conscious during the event or one would remember something.

So when I speak of being unconscious, I don't mean sleep necessarily. One can dream and remember it and that is experiencing. However, a deep sleep where one falls into bed, snoozes for 8 hours and then is awoken by the alarm and swears that only a second had gone by experienced total or near total unconsciousness. One is aware of nothing, not even the passage of time. In fact, we can reduce complete unconscious to just that--missing time.

So there are degrees of consciousness and unconsciousness so let's get that out of the way. I refer here only to full adult consciousness rather than, say, baby consciousness since we can't be certain how babies experience events. And when I refer to unconsciousness, I refer to missing time. I will specify otherwise if and when necessary.

Does anyone disagree that the most fundamental trait of consciousness involves experiencing events and remembering?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:33 PM

On that point I agree fully with you, Joe. Not sure what it is but I do know that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your/their philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:11 PM

Well.....OK, Jeri. If there is no consciousness after death, it will be one of those "if a tree falls in the woods...." questions. And if such is the case at the time, I really won't care, will I?

Still, I don't think that science has a definition of consciousness that adequately defines consciousness in its fullness. Heck, scientific definitions of trees are painfully inadequate. My point is that it's clear to me that there is a dimension beyond science.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:57 PM

Joe, if your consciousness doesn't survive death, you won't know. There won't even be a chance for an "Oh well--whoops."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 10:49 PM

Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness.

No proof available on that one, either way. Now, I suppose you could "dumb down" the definition of consciousness to a purely physical perspective, and then prove that consciousness ceases with death - but is that all consciousness is, a purely physical process? I think there's more to it, but I won't know for sure until after I'm dead.

I think there are some here who would "dumb down" the definition of religious faith and of God, to make them easier to refute. If God were the god of the fundamentalists, he/she/it would be relatively easy to disprove. But that ain't the case.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

Let's start with grammar:   "who's"

A feeble grasp of grammar does not instill confidence that the person is even worth debating.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:57 PM

Someone offer me an argument that death extinguishes consciousness. Let's see whose done their homework.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:39 PM

I would feel the same way, Steve, except for some very convincing exposures I have had over the years to the more spiritual aspect of being. The keystone to the difference is the facility with which one identifies oneself with solids and elects them not just to represent you in life, but to actually be what you are.

If that identification shifts, authorship begins to assert itself and the whole question (and its concomitant can of worms) opens up in a new way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:31 PM

"...uncritically accepted".   Another brilliant straw man.

But "delusion" goes beyond this. Dictionary: delusion: a "false persistent belief"

It therefore states that anybody who believes in God is dead wrong. That is the-- needlessly inflammatory, senseless, and obviously unprovable--assertion here.

That's the problem.

Except it's not "needless" for Dawkins. He "needs" to sell books. And senseless controversy sells.

Interesting that many scientists are not willing to go as far as Dawkins.   Maybe since their highest goal is not to sell books.

They are interested in other things. Check for instance what Einstein had to say.



It's also interesting that atheists--at least some on Mudcat--have the classic 'take no prisoners' attitude that even agnostics are somehow lacking, intellectually cowardly, or otherwise flawed.

No wonder atheists are so popular.

Then of course they whine about being lumped together--while somehow finding no problem lumping all Christians together and stereotyping them by the actions of a crackpot few.   I wonder why they don't like being stereotyped by the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

But after 700 posts, I think we've seen this movie before.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:26 PM

Well, I've criticised religion's notion of afterlife for being the ultimate human conceit. We're so grand that we can't possibly be extinguished. I find the idea of reincarnation to be just the same. It won't do for me at all. I am stardust, and unto stardust I shall return, and I wouldn't want it any other way.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:20 PM

I think I may be a bit of an extremist when it comes to theology. The whole shebang is, to me, based on a completely bogus premise, that is that the existence of God, or at least the strong possibility of his existence, is presumed to be taken as read. I can't argue that many a good thought isn't thunk by theologians, all in good faith (ha!), but I can't help thinking that they could all be far more gainfully employed.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,josep
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:17 PM

Calling consciousness god is a cop out. It's NOT what people mean when they say "god." It may be your particular view and you are welcome to it but to say people who want to disprove the idea of a theistic or personal god are setting up straw men is invalid. The vast majority of people who believe in god believe in a personal, theistic type of deity and atheists have every right and indeed a duty to discredit this way of thinking.

If one believes that consciousness is god then one does not believe in a theistic, personal deity and by common sense should welcome and encourage atheists to destroy this view which serves only to hold humankind back. Yet Lox wants to play both ends against the middle. To him, consciousness is god and at the same time, atheists set up straw men by attacking belief in a theistic, personal god. This causes me to question what Lox puts forth as being a genuinely what he believes. He wants it both way and there is no reason why he should as it does not help him in the slightest. Quite the contrary.

As an atheist, I hold that the fundamental building block of the universe is consciousness not matter. Nor does science dispute this. If one thinks science does, one needs to bone up on Quantum Theory. As an atheist, I believe in reincarnation. If death extinguishes consciousness then you are not conscious right now and never were and never will be. Since you are, you will and must be for all eternity. And there's no getting off the merry-go-round--you have to keep coming back. Even if earth is destroyed, then consciousness will find somewhere else to be born. It has eternity to wait and so is in no hurry. It does not grow old, it does not change. It acts fundamentally upon matter but never is the reverse true. Consciousness is primal.

I could call it god but I find this to be as pointless as burning a Quran on September 11. It's the same as saying that I am god as are you. Well, that's a nice sentiment but it gets us exactly nowhere. Therefore, atheism performs a public service by demonstrating logically what god is not. As with Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate everything that god is not, whatever is left must be god. It should not be a matter of belief because we all believe radically different things. We need facts to grasp and we need consensus. So if we cannot agree on what god is, let us agree on what god cannot be. Carry on, atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 08:11 PM

My old banjo player received a doctorate in theology from Harvard. What are your thoughts that a school of that caliber offers such a course of study? Does it validate it in any way? Or is Harvard out of touch with the real world? I'm curious what you think about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 07:54 PM

Much human thought has gone into the study of alchemy, astrology, Copernican theory of cosmology, and superstitions of all types. I think that the study of theology is important as a way to understand societies but by no means should it be uncritically accepted. The importance comes from how people behave and think and not because of the value of what they are thinking about.

Religion and philosophy at one time were considered to be science. This turned out to
be false. I think that one can dismiss the content of theology without dismissing the study of it. The study is important but it has to be informed and critical and not blindingly accepted as truth. Comparative religion(s) is a valuable university course as part of the humanities and there are those who know a good deal about it without having to subscribe to any of its tenets. Many of these people (scholars) know more about specific religions than their practitioners. This is particularly true of Christianity and other religions as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM

"Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees. One cannot lean these mechanisms buy testing each theory upon which the theory is based. One must base one's acceptance of the theories based on the fallible work of others."

But the whole essence of science is that the fallible work of others is written down, recorded in detail for scrutiny and entirely subject to reproduction by peers. If you study the scientific literature on cell biology, for example, you will find a body of work that contains abundant corroborations and detail that you may, if you have the resources, check for yourself. Science does indeed endeavour to teach the body of accumulated knowledge about how cells work, but, crucially, it also teaches how further enquiry can be made.

"On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all opf science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods."

This is a completely unsupportable statement.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 06:00 PM

"I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny."

Its not about whether God should or shouldn't be crutinized, or whether religion and science should be kept seperate or not.

People keep making the mistake of attributing a point of view to science.

Science doesn't go looking for things to observe, it scrutinizes what it can see and it forms hypotheses to try to explain what it sees.


It follows that if Science has yet to see God, then it has yet to form a view on him.


What Dawkins is trying to do is discredit Religious belief in the metaphysical by referring to a lcak of physical evidence.

Its like taking someone to a footbal match to prove that there is no such thing as cricket.

As long as your view is limited to the confines of the football stadium while the football match is on, this, in context, is true.

But it might just be possible that there is cricket somewhere outside the stadium ... though a critic of this view would be right to point out that there could also be quidditch ... and that does indeed seem unlikely ...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:55 PM

Here in Atlanta Georgia they just had a report on the evening news about this nationwide group which seems to be active in protecting the rights of athiests. Check 'em out:


The Freedom From Religion Foundation. Org

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:21 PM

""I see no reason why the existence or not of a God shouldn't be put under this kind of scrutiny. Even though he's a human construct, he appears to be in the privileged position of being able to jump from unsupported hypothesis straight to truth, skipping all the steps between. No wonder religion wants to keep him separate from science!""

I have no problem with people wanting to keep him separate from science.

What I do have a problem with is the Christian right wing ideal of teaching creationism instead of science, in science classes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 05:02 PM

Its important to clarify a few things here.

1st, None of us, apart from those of us who are there now, "knows" that Australia is there.

What we can say is that the probability of it not being there is negligable, and it is realistic to expect it to be there based on the fact that so far, each time somebody has gone to find it, they have succeeded.

The experiment to prove that Australia is there is easily reproduced - you get on a plane or boat and fly/sail to where you predict Australia will be.

If it is there then the experiment can be said to have been a success.

If it isn't, then you check your methodology and check to make sure you didn't make any mistakes.

If you work out that your methodology was fine and that you made no mistakes, and it still isn't there, then it follows that your hypothesis was wrong and you should probably call somebody to let them know.

"Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees"

This is slightly inaccurate.

Scientific Theory is in fact an accumulation of Knowledge. The more we know, the more complex the theory gets.

A theory is not a hypothesis - this is a common mistake.


Scientific theory contains no knowledge of God. It follows that as God is not observable in the universe - insofar as Gods presence is not testable and no experiment has been formulated to test for God, nor has any other Scientific evidence of God been found - that he is not a part of the observable universe.

So, in scientific terms, if we go looking for God in the observable universe, we probably won't find him.

That is what is meant when Dawkins says "there probably isn't a God"

However, to be strictly accurate, he should say "in the context of everything that we know about the universe to date, there is probably no God".

If we accept that there is still plenty that we have yet to learn, then we must also accept that we cannot categorically say "there is no God".

In addition, most religious people would suggest that to find God you should not attempt to look for him in the observable Universe, but shuyld look for him elsewhere - in ones heart/soul - in the interactive dynamic of a group of people - as Joe says, in the sensuous quiver of a new leaf as it stretches for the springtime sun ...

There iis evidence that the universe is made of more than just impersonal physical and chemical activity operating in a beautiful cosmic dance - and it is called consciousness.

These things weren't "beautiful" until someone formed that opinion of them. They just happened. You may say "they were still beautiful, but you would be forgetting that beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so without a beholder there can be no beauty.

I am fascinated by the "I" anomaly and I am grief stricken by the possibility that "I" may well just wink out when I die, and with it the whole universe, which may as well have never existed.

We may try to pretend to be objective about it all ... but I think we would be deluding ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

Um, if it's reproduced, it's reproducible, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 03:08 PM

Don't get me wrong Steve, I am all for the teaching of scientific method and applying it where it is applicable.

I just don't see it being useful in examining religion.

As much as I love science, Mrrzy and Crow sister each have made excellent points.

Science teaches how cells work, but the theories on how they work are an accumulation of theories proven to greater or lessor degrees. One cannot lean these mechanisms buy testing each theory upon which the theory is based. One must base one's acceptance of the theories based on the fallible work of others.

On the other hand much more human thought and effort have gone into the study of religion than all opf science combined. Is it wise to dismiss all of the findings of these people because you do not understand or like the methods.

Scientific method cannot be effectively applied to the larger questions of the social sciences such as Economics and Sociology.
Simple things like the so called "Law" of supply and demand can't be consistently proved in a controlled experiment, let alone the effect of monetary policy.
Does that make these studies moot?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:49 PM

Crow SIster:

You put your finger on one of the great paradoxes of the material interpretation of scientific method. A lot of experiences are reproducible to a significant degree--such as guided meditation leading to uplifting insight among the Buddhist community, or the hemi-synch OOB experiments in Virginia run by Robert Monroe. But the degree of replicability is less, and the replication is still in the reralm of subjective reports, and therefore hard science rules go all awry trying to deal with it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:37 PM

"data that is not reproducible and open to close scrutiny is largely considered worthless."

Where does this place the reproduced data of generations of Buddhist students & masters? As I said before, those who commit to work with such systems tend to experience the fruits of their labour, rather than expect others to provide it to them.

Bearing in mind that the Western paradigm is after all, only a Western paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 02:29 PM

Steve Shaw, sorry I didn't answer you sooner.

You quoted me as saysing: "Finally, you experience that you are loved from a source beyond anything you can comprehend, and then you're hooked."

You responded: There must be hundreds of millions of people, victims of mass rapes, people who have lost their whole families in conflicts, discriminated-against and repressed minorities, those in grinding poverty or smitten by horrid disease and squalor, who might just find it a little more difficult to detect that they're loved from a source beyond... I'd like to know why, apparently, God doesn't give everyone equal opportunity to detect this love. Why he chooses to test some people in this regard far more than others.

---

Well, Steve, there are plenty of homeless mystics, and there are plenty of loveless billionaires. Study the people who are wise, serene, and loving. There are special people like that all around, not of any particular religious denomination, or perhaps having no religious faith at all. But somehow, they see a harmony and beauty that others don't have time to see.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stu
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 12:09 PM

"It also involves the students accepting as fact the observations of others."

Human collaboration for the greater good - yes, non-religious people can be altruistic too.

Don;t confuse observation with interpretation. Scientists are taught to question the data (gathered via observation) of others and apply their own interpretations. Also, data that is not reproducible and open to close scrutiny is largely considered worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:56 AM

I would hazard that the methods of gaining the data--the skills--are far more important in educating the young than the particular data and models generated therefrom.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:52 AM

[Teaching science] also involves the students accepting as fact the observations of others.
Um, as fact, the replicable and demonstrable observations of others, not their opinions or beliefs without such replicability or demonstrability. You only have to accept the facts as facts, not the opinions. For instance, I don't have to *believe* in Australia, I can know it's there even though I have never seen it.

And it involves teaching KNOWLEDGE, not so much a skill. How DO cells work? How do methylation and acetylation affect the duplicability of a strand of DNA? What elements can be used to test the age of things that are too old for Carbon-14 dating? and so on.

Not to mention the evolution of humanity, sez I, mentioning it...