God vs. Science

Time.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2006 | DAVID VAN BIEMA

[RunningWolf]

Dawkins is riding the crest of an atheist literary wave.

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

[RunningWolf]

While I do not agree with the title of the article 'God vs. Science' (I dont see it that way) or think that he speaks for me, I think he does a good job in this article.

[Vinny]

The debate in the article was the best part. The dawkin's clan are going to have to fine tune their naturalistic explanation of morality as the IDers are going to have to fine tune their mechanism of detecting intelligent design.

All in all this should be good.

I seen Dawkin's on The Colbert Show (of all places) and he seems like a likable guy, a good ole' British chap. A better spokesman for his crowd than that arrogant ass, Stephen Harris.

BTW, i don't agree with the title either.

[Vinny]

I meant Sam Harris.

[dr_lew]

The debate in the article was the best part. The dawkin's clan are going to have to fine tune their naturalistic explanation of morality as the IDers are going to have to fine tune their mechanism of detecting intelligent design.

"It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit." - Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle, Chapter II ( Check it out )

[Getready]

Yawn. Another blob of chemicals who will
tell us he has superceded his chemical/biological
inclinations(restraints) and can comment on thoughts and
ideas beyond the western scientific model of reality.

[D-fendr]

thanks for the post. Good debate. And Collins does well.

Dawkins is such a lightweight in philosophy and metaphysics, atheists should be embarassed to have him as a standard bearer. Intelligent debators run rings around him.

I've seen his definition of the "God" he doesn't believe exist shrink over time. And he's included descriptions of "God" he does believe in. He jumps from strawman to deist.

For example his closing: "If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed." This, of course, would fit with the majority of mainstream theologian's views. That God cannot be fully described or contained in the reasoning mind. Pity is that Dawkins is so ignorant of any theology except perhaps what thought he learned in grade school.

He also paints himself into very strange corners on absolutes and good and evil. And if you really want to stump him, ask him if he has free will.

[RunningWolf]

That is so funny!! (and true)

Take Care

Wolf

[unspun]

I think that it is a scientific question.

Alex, what is "unscientific axiomatic presumption?"

[RunningWolf]

That God cannot be fully described or contained in the reasoning mind

So true. But the reasoning mind can reach to the ends of its conceptualizations, and dimly perceive the truth that lies beyond.

[Irish Rose]

Um, no. It's a philosophical/religious question. Science is what we call the study of nature - the physical world. God is not a part of the physical universe, but its Creator. God can't be quantified as if He were some natural phenomenon. God can be neither proved nor disproved by science; His existence is beyond its scope.

[Semper]

God is not a part of the physical universe, but its Creator.

Is it possible that God did NOT create the physical universe? That God, being totally spiritual in nature, created only a spiritual universe and that the physical universe comes from the same source as a flat earth - human consciousness concluding something based upon limited information and limited perception.

[RussP]

You might appreciate a little critique I wrote of his book The Blind Watchmaker at http://RussP.us/Dawkins.htm

[RunningWolf]

I agree with you, but I even go beyond that. He is beyond existence.

For me to even remotely articulate that, I will have to go back into the many readings I made years ago and use their words.

That means 'more later' lol

Wolf

[hosepipe]

The Sheep MUST be separated from the goats..
It's all quite normal.. It's whom you are not what you believe..

"You MUST be born again"- Jesus...

[RunningWolf]

It's whom you are not what you believe..

So true.

And I cant say that I will pass beyond that gateway.

Salute.

Wolf

[taxesareforever]

IDers are going to have to fine tune their mechanism of detecting intelligent design.

Ah, as long as we are capable of entering data here, is truly a sign of "intelligent design".

[Fitzcarraldo]

How much do we know about the universe? Probably next to nothing. Then how can anyone say that something cannot exist?

[aruanan]

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

He's a bit disingenuous. Science, as he and other naturalists define it, is incapable of answering this question. They then take that incapability as evidence that God does not exist. That's simply a logical error of the first order.

The truth is that the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.

The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because

1. something like that cannot happen,

2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it, (or that it was not observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?) and

3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.

The answer to the above is, of course,

1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;

2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,

3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.

The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?

[Irish Rose]

Do you mean...the only universe there is is spiritual, and the physical universe is only our delusion? Or our misconception of the real thing?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer.

I really don't see why. So many more important things to worry about.