The Evangelical Atheist

[spidergoat]

I'm arguing that its a dogmatic form of arrogance to believe that science has anything to say on the matter - pro OR con. I'll agree with Dawkins insofar as using Bayes theorem to justify the existence of God is ridiculous. I'm against the whole movement within Christianity to warp science into proving the existence of God (An impossiblility). But I'm equally against the movement among those within the scientific community who would warp sience in an attempt to disprove the existence of God (a more impossible impossibility).

In light of what arrogant people can accomplish on both sides of the divide, I don't think the point is trivial. It's the one piece of ground we have that both sides could stand on.

Isn't it dogmatic to say what kind of problems cannot be solved by science? Do you believe in the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria"?

Isn't it true that few things in science depend on mathematical/geometric type proof? In most cases, it is sufficient to deduce that something is likely or not. Comparisons between fossils are almost never absolutely conclusive, but depend on points of similarity or difference.

 

[Turduckin]

It's not a dogmatic form of arrogance to believe that science has quite a bit to say about some of the claims for deity advanced by theists over the years.

When theists attempt to use pseudo-science, I agree.

such as the claim that without deity nothing could have come alive or the claim that because deity is perfect the orbits of the planets must be perfect circles, or that there can only be or the claim that the order of human society and the nature of human character is specified by the desires of a deity. And such claims are the common venue of intrusions by people wielding "science" in their arguments.

Any subject that falls to the methodology of science is fair game for science.

It is a dogmatic form of arrogance, on the other hand, to say that such and such a realm of human understanding is forever off limits to any contribution by scientific methods or arguments. Tht remains to be seen - in all cases.

Agreed. When science can pull information from beyond the big bang, a black hole or the 5th dimension, groovy. And if it happens in my lifetime, I'll be delighted. But the methodology of science is self-limited by it's own construction. If it can't hypothesize and then test, it's got nothing to say. That's not arrogance. That's understanding the limits of the tool. And reason and logic are also a self-limited subset of thought.

Tell me, who make the bigger error, the one who perceives limits, or the one who limits what they perceive?

 

[spidergoat]

Why wouldn't you be able to test for a God?

 

[iceaura]

But the methodology of science is self-limited by it's own construction. If it can't hypothesize and then test, it's got nothing to say. That's not arrogance. That's understanding the limits of the tool. And reason and logic are also a self-limited subset of thought.

But recognizing taht there must be some limits there is not the same as declaring - which many do - that you know what those limits are and can identify them.

The limits of understanding acheivable through logic, reason, scientific approaches to phenomena, etc, while they must exist, are not currently known - least of all by those who declare their own arena of thought beyond them.

Tell me, who make the bigger error, the one who perceives limits, or the one who limits what they perceive?

Sounds like the same error, described two different ways - if it is an error at all.

 

[Turduckin]

Isn't it dogmatic to say what kind of problems cannot be solved by science? Do you believe in the concept of "non-overlapping magisteria"?

If I held it as an absolute non-arguable position, and ridiculed you for maintaining otherwise, then yes - it would be dogmatic. However, I take it as an arguable point of epistomology based on my layman's understanding of thinkers such as Godel and Hofstadter.

As for NOMA, I had to look it up. I like Stephen Jay Gould's take on it. And I guess I do believe something like it, but again because of my personal epistemology, not be cause the Pope said it.

Isn't it true that few things in science depend on mathematical/geometric type proof? In most cases, it is sufficient to deduce that something is likely or not. Comparisons between fossils are almost never absolutely conclusive, but depend on points of similarity or difference.

But the further you get away from mathmatical/geometric reliant sciences like Physics, the 'softer' they get, like Psychology.

 

[John99]

The solution is simple. No religious manipulation and no Atheist manipulation, let people choose what they want to think and live in complete freedom without overbearing crackpots forcing their beliefs on them. Problem solved. NEXT.

Edit: AND NO, talking about things is not overbearing. No more conversion at the tip of a sword or penalties for not wearing the right clothes. Well thats a start.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the concept of the matrix, but how does that relate?

My guess is that she was referring to the movie, "The Matrix." It's been a while since I've seen it.

To assert that something cannot exist simply because there is no evidence for its existence, is itself an absolutist position even within the sandbox of science. . . . If it escapes into the larger world of human experience, it's equivilent to any other dogma and should be dealt with as such.

I did not say that a supernatural world cannot exist because there is no evidence for it. What I said was (if not verbatim here, then on twelve other threads), "The probability of the existence of a supernatural universe, for which there is no evidence, drops every time new evidence is discovered that supports the theory that the natural universe is a closed system." This evidence has been steadily amassed for about 500 years. At this point we can say, using the language of the courtroom, "The theory that the natural universe is a closed system is 'true beyond a reasonable doubt'." This does not mean "all possible doubt." As I stated earlier, there is a fraction of a nanopercent probability that we are wrong. But to put this in perspective, there is a fraction of a nanopercent probability that a skyscraper will fall over and squash you while you're waiting for the bus. It would be foolish of you to reorganize your life to avoid ever standing in the fall radius of a skyscraper. And it would be foolish of you to reorganize your life to please a supernatural creature, especially since you have no evidence from which to guess what pleases and displeases him, except for mythologies passed down from our Stone Age ancestors.

Perhaps atheism is only percieved as evangelical because we are reacting to the imposition of religion on us. I don't see atheists standing on street corners handing out tracts.

People like Dawkins give atheists a bad name. I would never present the kinds of arguments that I post here out in social situations with my friends and coworkers, because in that context they would be regarded as evangelism. I feel free to do it here because the religionists are just as articulate, thoughtful and well educated as I am, (more so in Sam's case) and everyone comes here anticipating loud philosophical disputes. I do not pretend to speak for all atheists and at least one member has noted that. Dawkins has appointed himself our spokesman. That's bad enough, but he doesn't even get his facts straight. I haven't got enough anti-nausea medication in the house to read his book, but I've seen enough reviews to realize that some of his conclusions are simply based on incorrect data. He looks like a fool and since he gives the impression that we elected him our ambassador to the Court of Religion, we must be fools too.

When I was young and militant, carrying picket signs denouncing segregation and our participation in the Vietnamese civil war, I also evangelized for atheism. Now I know that it's worse than pointless except in very special circumstances. Like here, where I'm least likely to convert anybody but also least likely to be misunderstood. I'm serious about freedom of religion. We have to support it.

Why wouldn't you be able to test for a God?

Because the hypothesis of the existence of a god is not a scientific hypothesis, so we can't use the scientific method on it. It is not derived by logical reasoning from empirical observations of the natural world. In fact it contradicts the fundamental premise of science, which is that the natural world is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observations of its past and present behavior. It rejects the entire canon of science! We can't use our tried-and-true methods to test a hypothesis which states that our methods are invalid. But we don't have to test it. One of the other principles that comprise the scientific method is: "Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence, or we are not obligated to treat them with respect." The assertion, "Science is wrong," which is the core of the argument for a supernatural being or "god," is just about the most extraordinary assertion that can be made, since the evidence for science is overwhelming. For this assertion to be made without providing any evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence, is dismissed as "trolling" on SciForums, and as far as I'm concerned it's trolling anywhere. It's just plain stoopid.

But the further you get away from mathmatical/geometric reliant sciences like Physics, the 'softer' they get, like Psychology.

Indeed. Mathematical theories can be proven true. That's the difference between math and science. I accept the other hard sciences like biology and chemistry because their theories are based on direct observation and they can perform controlled experiments. But psychology, anthropology, even my own board, Linguistics... our theories are based on circumstantial evidence and experimentation would be either impossible or unethical.

But when we get into sub-subatomic physics with its string theory and at the other end of the scale into cosmology with its magically expanding empty space, we're not just blurring the line between scientific theories and mathematical models. I think we are blurring the line between science and philosophy.

 

[iceaura]

Dawkins has appointed himself our spokesman. That's bad enough, but he doesn't even get his facts straight. I haven't got enough anti-nausea medication in the house to read his book, but I've seen enough reviews to realize that some of his conclusions are simply based on incorrect data.

I did read the book. I suggest reading it before "realizing" anything about it. It's an easy read - conversationally written.

I have at least one serious disagreement with Dawkins (involving the relationship between theism and religion) which he finesses in the book by explicitly focussing on the Abrahamic monotheisms in all their institutional glory, and I question the wisdom of bearding theists in their dens of public rhetoric, but the book itself seems reasonable to me.

The reviews I have read seriously misrepresent the book.

There seems to be a certain shock value in having religious belief publically discussed as any other belief is discussed, in the same language (at one point Dawkins, who discusses his rhetorical decisions in the book, compares his own prose with ordinary restaurant reviews as well as the rhetoric common among the representatives of the institutions he criticises) and with the same general intent. That seems to be the source of the trouble, especially the absurdly hot negative reactions.

 

[Turduckin]

Why wouldn't you be able to test for a God?

I I have not read 'The God Delusion', but according to the wikipedia article on Gould and NOMA,

According to Dawkins, "the God Hypothesis," that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us," is a scientific hypothesis, with a definite yes or no answer, and is therefore not exempt from scientific examination.

My first impression is that Dawkins has fused science and philosophy into a corrupted mass. Scientific statements require emperical evidence which requires emperical phenomena. Philosophy is about reason and ideas. Religion is about being. If God is unseen and eternal, no emperical evidence can or will be found. That puts the burden of creating a testable hypothesis on the shoulders of anyone foolish enough to assert scientific statements about the existence of God, be they theist or atheist - and that may be part of Dawkins point.

 

[Turduckin]

But recognizing taht there must be some limits there is not the same as declaring - which many do - that you know what those limits are and can identify them.

I agree, to the extent that scientific enquiry must be free to define those limits, not be censored into them.

The limits of understanding acheivable through logic, reason, scientific approaches to phenomena, etc, while they must exist, are not currently known - least of all by those who declare their own arena of thought beyond them.

oke: Ouch, should I take that personally? Seriously, the limits may not be known, but they are currently being speculated on by people who declare nothing of the sort. I think the speculations are valid if they don't attempt to limit science. I think they are valuable if they bring some humility to the table.

Sounds like the same error, described two different ways - if it is an error at all.

I just said that because it appealed to me. Sorry.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

According to Dawkins, "the God Hypothesis," that "there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us," is a scientific hypothesis, with a definite yes or no answer, and is therefore not exempt from scientific examination.

If he really says this, it's evidence that supports my own hypothesis: that Dawkins is an idiot--or at least no scientist. Science is concerned exclusively with the natural universe, because its fundamental premise is: that's all there is. That's the reason science is expected to work: there is no unobservable, illogical, supernatural universe, so everything we need to understand our own universe is available for study right here with us inside it. Any hypothesis that postulates something supernatural is by definition not a scientific hypothesis, an assertion that is borne out by the fact that it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be falsified: a requirement for all scientific hypotheses.

My first impression is that Dawkins has fused science and philosophy into a corrupted mass. Scientific statements require empirical evidence which requires empirical phenomena. Philosophy is about reason and ideas. Religion is about being. If God is unseen and eternal, no empirical evidence can or will be found. That puts the burden of creating a testable hypothesis on the shoulders of anyone foolish enough to assert scientific statements about the existence of God, be they theist or atheist - and that may be part of Dawkins's point.

Science also embraces reason and ideas, and in fact science has been justifiably called a philosophy. But that philosophy prescribes the need for hypotheses that can be tested by empirical evidence. A "scientific statement" hypothesizing the existence of a supernatural creature cannot be tested by empirical evidence and is therefore a paradox in the laboratory and an oxymoron in speech.

 

[iceaura]

I think they are valuable if they bring some humility to the table.

I don't mind the lack of humility. I miss a sense of humor.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't think there is anything that intersects with our world that cannot be investigated with science. If God is just some immaterial thing like thought, then it can be said to exist only in thought. One vital aspect of the God hypothesis is that He interacts with our world, otherwise He would have no effects and be superfluous.

If God exists then there is a difference between a universe he affects, and a universe governed only by randomness and natural laws. This difference can be investigated.

 

[(Q)]

If he really says this, it's evidence that supports my own hypothesis: that Dawkins is an idiot--or at least no scientist.

He goes on to say:

"This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

The God Hypothesis would therefore be the position of the theist, would it not?

 

[Turduckin]

I don't mind the lack of humility. I miss a sense of humor.

Which reminds me, how did I become Turduckian? I've never been to Turducky.

 

[charles cure]

If he really says this, it's evidence that supports my own hypothesis: that Dawkins is an idiot--or at least no scientist. Science is concerned exclusively with the natural universe, because its fundamental premise is: that's all there is. That's the reason science is expected to work: there is no unobservable, illogical, supernatural universe, so everything we need to understand our own universe is available for study right here with us inside it. Any hypothesis that postulates something supernatural is by definition not a scientific hypothesis, an assertion that is borne out by the fact that it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be falsified: a requirement for all scientific hypotheses.Science also embraces reason and ideas, and in fact science has been justifiably called a philosophy. But that philosophy prescribes the need for hypotheses that can be tested by empirical evidence. A "scientific statement" hypothesizing the existence of a supernatural creature cannot be tested by empirical evidence and is therefore a paradox in the laboratory and an oxymoron in speech.

right, but having not read the book, you clearly misunderstand the context of Dawkins' argument. What he postulates is that for something to be supernatural implies that it cannot effect the natural world and that, in essence, if religion claims a god that both created and effects the natural world, then it is therefore inextricably linked with nature and not above or beyond it. in that case, his idea of the "god hypothesis" as a quantifiable, empirical, and ultimately answerable question makes perfect sense.
i think what makes people most angry about that whole idea is that Dawkins sets the terms of the hypothesis by pointing out that religion can't have it both ways; either god is supernatural and we can't understand anything about it in any real sense (let alone discern some absurd set of rules from it), or god is understandable through the same frame of reference that humanity uses to gain the best understanding of each other part of the surrounding universe: science.
in short: you can't have your god and eat it too.
you jump to a lot of weird conclusions here for someone doesn't actually appear to have read anything that Dawkins had written.

 

[S.A.M.]

right, but having not read the book, you clearly misunderstand the context of Dawkins' argument. What he postulates is that for something to be supernatural implies that it cannot effect the natural world and that, in essence, if religion claims a god that both created and effects the natural world, then it is therefore inextricably linked with nature and not above or beyond it. in that case, his idea of the "god hypothesis" as a quantifiable, empirical, and ultimately answerable question makes perfect sense.
i think what makes people most angry about that whole idea is that Dawkins sets the terms of the hypothesis by pointing out that religion can't have it both ways; either god is supernatural and we can't understand anything about it in any real sense (let alone discern some absurd set of rules from it), or god is understandable through the same frame of reference that humanity uses to gain the best understanding of each other part of the surrounding universe: science.
in short: you can't have your god and eat it too.
you jump to a lot of weird conclusions here for someone doesn't actually appear to have read anything that Dawkins had written.

So has he formulated a tool to test God, since he believes God to be a scientifically testable hypothesis?

I assume he intends to follow the scientific method.

 

[spidergoat]

You could study if prayer was effective in treating illness.

 

[charles cure]

So has he formulated a tool to test God, since he believes God to be a scientifically testable hypothesis?

I assume he intends to follow the scientific method.

Read the book, he explains his approach pretty comprehensively. I'm not going to summarize it here.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You could study if prayer was effective in treating illness.

We all know there is a correlation between religion and health. However, the most common fallacy is post hoc ergo propter hoc, in English, "correlation implies causation."

Like any other faith, such as in a doctor, a regimen, or a medicine, prayer releases endorphins. Any causative relationship between prayer and healing can be attributed to the placebo effect. It is hardly scientific "proof" of the supernatural.

As I noted earlier, science by definition deals with the natural universe and religion by definition deals with a supernatural universe. If Dawkins thinks he can test religion with science he is indeed an idiot. He has no right to speak for this atheist.