Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[Ruprect]

militant agnosticism - I don't know, and neither do you.

...but accept the possibility of progress based on proof and the scientific method.

[minestrone]

I don't think that's *quite* true; most scientists don't discount the possibility of a god, just work on the basis of probability and accept there most probably isn't one. Dawkins talks about scales of agnosticism rather than atheism, but just so far to one end of the scale that it is often mistaken for atheism.

Science is about proof with experiment to prove the proof, belief should never come into findings, you may very well research towards and with a belief but without proof it is not science.

Most Christians agree with Dawkins that evolution took place, probably about 99% do, 1.2 billion Catholics do, I do not see why he is given so much credence in attacking a group 99% agree with him in.

Anything to sell books I suppose.

[xoggoth]

Actually, I never managed to find the theory of evolution that convincing. Bit embarassing for an atheist.

[Zippy]

Actually, you try to disprove your hypothesis.

I know Dawkins book (assume we are talking about The God Delusion?) is aimed at discrediting some of the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians but I think the arguments laid out should be food for thought for all of us.

[minestrone]

Actually, you try to disprove your hypothesis.

I know Dawkins book (assume we are talking about The God Delusion?) is aimed at discrediting some of the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians but I think the arguments laid out should be food for thought for all of us.

Humour me, what are his 'arguments'?

[d000hg]

Aw that's lovely. You've changed my mind, there must be a God, not plate tectonics and light refraction.

[edit] those nasty little children must have been sinners [/edit]

Showing pictures of poor wee bairns to tug at the heart strings is the other side of the same coin. "Look at the <good/bad> things, there <must/mustn't> be a god". My picture is a deliberately vacuous argument.

[d000hg]

But seriously, pictures aside, if the scientific community cannot find a proof that God does not exist but still argues that god does not exist then it can hardly find call itself a scientific community.

Decent scientist tend to put the whole issue aside and honestly say "I don't know but nothing I understand points to there being a god". That is something to respect because even for those who know the most about the universe, faith is still just that, faith. Christians who become scientists often find more and more things to amaze them the more they learn, just as atheists can use the same knowledge to support their viewpoint. There's apparently no point where knowing about the universe enough tips the balance either way.

As an aside, Dawkins is a biologist and uses creationism as his main grinding point towards religion

He does seem especially to have a bee in his bonnet about evolution. I've never seen a trailer for one of his TV shows where he doesn't manage to shoe-horn in a phrase like "the process of natural selection", I know of no other nature documentaries which feel the need to shout it in your face.

Most Christians agree with Dawkins that evolution took place

Actually, I never managed to find the theory of evolution that convincing. Bit embarassing for an atheist.

It's a beautiful theory. Regardless of my faith (I've no problem with evolutionary processes if they are inspired by God) I am dubious the details fit the big picture though; calling "natural selection" glosses over a mind-boggling amount of complexity.

[Spacecadet]

He does seem especially to have a bee in his bonnet about evolution.

He is an evolutionary biologist

[Zippy]

Humour me, what are his 'arguments'?

In a nutshell - you need evidence to back up your claims. So God probably does not because there is no evidence to suggest he/she/it does.
For me the book says more about our understanding of the scientific method than it does about the existence of the big G.

To be fair he does shoot himself in the foot a few tmes by using terms like 'I believe'.

[d000hg]

Dawkin's describes it as a side effect of our biology.

I think it's a fundamental part of the human condition and being acutely aware of ones own existence and reconciling that with our place in the world.

I feel very uncomfortable at the modern theories of social darwinism and other things which seem in my eyes to be put in so the theories give the right answer, more than because of some underlying argument (which is why I find physics so much more elegant, a decent theory has to explain what we see AND predict new things). I'll admit I only know bits of pop culture on these, but they don't seem to have the same strength as Darwin's ideas - which do at least have the virtue of being elegant and simple. Explaining conscience and ethics through these tools always seems more contrived to me than that it's something we are inherently 'made with' (whether by God or some other source).