Does God Exist?

[chica]

Our design is undoubtedly imperfect. The problem for Bible literalists is that this must therefore disprove either God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence or both. That's where fundamentalism starts to look stupid.

So you don't think God is omnipotent? Would you be so kind to answer some/all of my questions from the opening post?

Dawkins is a brilliant biologist, but a pretty shoddy philosopher. The God Delusion, although by far the most popular, is the weakest of his books from an academic perspective. He is at his best when discussing genetics (The Selfish Gene) or the nitty-gritty of natural selection (The Blind Watchmaker), but with the advancement of time and the retreat of his hairline, he seems perfectly content to eek out an existence as the fringe lunatic of serious atheism. Basically, he is to atheism what Fred Phelps is to Christianity.

Coiff.

I have a problem with evolution, more precisely the way it explains psychological mechanisms. But maybe I'll read some of those books.

And what serious atheist reading do you recommend?

Also - I should have added one more option: "I'm above answering this question." You know who you are

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

So you don't think God is omnipotent? Would you be so kind to answer some/all of my questions from the opening post?

If you believe in the concept of free will, that is to say that we are independent of God in making choices which will ultimately affect our existence, then it is still possible to reconcile some idea of omnipotence. God can remain omniscient, in that he knows what we are going to do in advance of our doing it. He can also remain omnipotent, in that there exists the possibilty of intervention, but ultimately he gives us the power to do as we choose, regardless of the consequences. For a lengthier discussion of this issue and more, see Summa Theologica by T. Aquinas - now available in paperback!

I have a problem with evolution, more precisely the way it explains psychological mechanisms. But maybe I'll read some of those books.

And what serious atheist reading do you recommend?

Also - I should have added one more option: "I'm above answering this question." You know who you are

For a concise but detailed and accurate summary of atheism, it's hard to beat philosopher Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

For a reasonable, level-headed and accesible read on the subject - After Atheism: Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life.

Best of all is anything by Daniel Dennett, a wonderful American (not often I get to write that ) biologist and philosopher. Unlike Dawkins, he covers both areas in equal amounts of detail, though his agenda is quite clearly an atheistic one. Darwin's Dangerous Idea reveals some interesting and original lines of thought, and if you're interested in the psychological side of evolution, Consciousness Explained should answer all your questions.

Hope that helps.

Coiff.

[Theo]

Why is this compatibility not acceptable? Is it because it's easier for your argument to assume that all Christians, Muslims, Jews are raving evolution-deniers? Einstein said that “science without religion is handicapped, and religion without science is blind.” That seems entirely rational to me.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: “[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." AND: “For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

Funny that Coiffer didn't mention that quote. But raving Christians, Jews, and Muslims can keep pretending Einstein was on their side.

As far as Dawkins, I found his book excellent and notice that all Coiffer does is make substance-free personal attacks on him.

Here's Dawkins from a Salon interview addressing a couple issues brought up in this thread, just so some of Dawkins' own words exist here in addition to the personal attacks on him.

Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

When you're talking about God, are you really talking about the God of the Bible -- Yahweh of the Old Testament?

Well, as it happens, I am because I have an eye to the audience who's likely to be reading my book. Nobody believes in Thor and Apollo anymore so I don't bother to address the book to them. So, in practice, it's addressed to believers in the Abrahamic God.

***

Now, there are an awful lot of people who call themselves religious -- or some people prefer to use the word "spiritual" -- even though they don't go to church. They aren't part of any organized religion. They don't believe in a personal God. Some don't even like the word "God" because there's so much baggage attached to that word. But they still have some powerful feeling that there is a transcendent reality. And they often engage in some spiritual practice in their own lives. Would you call these people "religious"?

That's a difficult question. I probably would call them religious. It depends on exactly what they do believe. The first chapter of "The God Delusion" talks about Einstein, who often used the word "God." Einstein clearly was an atheist in the sense that he didn't believe in any sort of personal God. He used the word "God" as a metaphoric name for that which we don't yet understand, for the deep mysteries at the foundation of the universe.

But I think most people would call Einstein a deist. He suggested that God may have created the laws of nature, the laws of physics, to get the universe started.

Some people have maintained that position. My judgment, reading what Einstein said, is that he was not a deist. He certainly believed in some sort of deep mystery, as do I. And it is possible to use the word "religious" to describe such a person. On that basis, one could even say that I am a religious person or Carl Sagan was a religious person. But for me, the divide comes with whether you believe there is some kind of a supernatural, personal being. And I think deists, as well as theists, believe that. By that criterion, I don't think Einstein was a deist. He certainly wasn't a theist, although the language he used might lead you to think he was. I think it's misleading to use a word like "God" in the way Einstein did. I'm sorry that Einstein did. I think he was asking for trouble, and he certainly was misunderstood.

Your definition of religious belief seems to involve a personal being. I think a lot of people would disagree. They may consider themselves strongly religious, but they would regard the whole idea of a personal God to be an outdated notion of what religion is.

Well, then I would want to know what they did mean by it. I would take my stand on whether the god or the being -- whatever we're talking about -- is complicated and improbable and has those attributes of a person -- intelligence, creativity, something of that sort. If you believe that the universe was created by a designing intelligence, whether you call that personal or not, that seems to me to be a good definition of God. That's what I don't believe in. And that's what Einstein did not believe in.

Once you get past the biblical literalists, I think most people assume that science and religion are actually quite compatible. Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that they were "non-overlapping magisteria": Science covers the empirical realm of facts and theories about the observable universe, and religion deals with ultimate meaning and moral value. But you're very critical of this argument, right?

Yes, I think religious belief is a scientific belief, in the sense that it makes claims about the universe which are essentially scientific claims. If you believe the universe was created and inhabited by a supreme being, that would be a very different kind of universe from the sort of universe that wasn't created and does not house a creative intelligence. That is a scientific difference. Miracles. If you believe in miracles, that is clearly a scientific claim, and scientific methods would be used to evaluate any miracle that somebody claimed evidence for.

Suppose, hypothetically, that forensic archaeologists, in an unlikely series of events, gained evidence -- perhaps from some discovered DNA -- which showed that Jesus did not really have an earthly father, that he really was born of a virgin. Can you imagine any theologian taking refuge behind Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria and saying, "Nope, DNA evidence is completely irrelevant. Wrong magisterium. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. They just peacefully coexist." Of course they wouldn't say that. If any such evidence were discovered, the DNA evidence would be trumpeted to the skies.

Read the whole thing: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/...ins/print.html

[Dave]

ALBERT EINSTEIN: “[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." AND: “For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

Funny that Coiffer didn't mention that quote. But raving Christians, Jews, and Muslims can keep pretending Einstein was on their side.

As far as Dawkins, I found his book excellent and notice that all Coiffer does is make substance-free personal attacks on him.

Here's Dawkins from a Salon interview addressing a couple issues brought up in this thread, just so some of Dawkins' own words exist here in addition to the personal attacks on him.




Read the whole thing: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/...ins/print.html

I fail to see how this guy sold a book except that atheists are desperate for someone to articulate their viewpoints. In the first place I'm not sure how important it is what Einstein believed personally, outside of his work. He is a symbol of science, though, and so many people would think that his beliefs were authoritative. Still, Einstein did use the term God, and for this guy to magically determine what he meant by that, and for it to coincidentally fit in with the viewpoint of the book he is trying to sell, is pretty funny. Again, it's a mirror of the way fundamentalist religion works. Interpret the world to fit your book, and then say, "See?!" Of course it follows from there that your book is an authoritative guide to the mysteries of the universe.

I find many atheists that need to make a point of their atheism to be boring, dull, and just as blinkered as any fundamentalist of any other religion.

[chica]

If you believe in the concept of free will, that is to say that we are independent of God in making choices which will ultimately affect our existence, then it is still possible to reconcile some idea of omnipotence. God can remain omniscient, in that he knows what we are going to do in advance of our doing it. He can also remain omnipotent, in that there exists the possibilty of intervention, but ultimately he gives us the power to do as we choose, regardless of the consequences. For a lengthier discussion of this issue and more, see Summa Theologica by T. Aquinas - now available in paperback!



For a concise but detailed and accurate summary of atheism, it's hard to beat philosopher Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

For a reasonable, level-headed and accesible read on the subject - After Atheism: Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life.

Best of all is anything by Daniel Dennett, a wonderful American (not often I get to write that ) biologist and philosopher. Unlike Dawkins, he covers both areas in equal amounts of detail, though his agenda is quite clearly an atheistic one. Darwin's Dangerous Idea reveals some interesting and original lines of thought, and if you're interested in the psychological side of evolution, Consciousness Explained should answer all your questions.

Hope that helps.

Coiff.

Thanks! Daniel Dennett seems to be a very interesting person.

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

There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.[12]

Dennett later posed the idea during his presentation at the Atheist Alliance International '07 convention that "super" may serve well as a positive title for those who believe in the supernatural.

[Anaesthesine]

If people choose to corrupt religion to reap political goals, that is not suffiecient reason to disqualify religion as lunacy. If religion wasn't there, then something else would be used as an alternative excuse - it is simply a vehicle on which to achieve political power. It works because so many people believe in it.

I just got back from a civil union ceremony - a minister from the United Church of Christ officiated.

We had a long talk about the nature of the divine, politics, media, independent thought, love, and social justice. We were in perfect agreement on every single issue (although we were interrupted just when we were getting to the actual god part). As a matter of fact, we were more sympathetic to each other's views than an awful lot of people who share our belief/disbelief.

I agree, religion is not necessarily the problem - it could even be part of the solution, but it is as fallible and corrupt a system as any other human endeavor, and it is not above reproach - aspects of it are sheer lunacy.

Still, it's good to be reminded that rationality and a belief in god are not mutually exclusive - if there is wisdom, compassion and sophistication of thought, anything is possible.

[nogodsnomasters85]

Why? Because that's what your hero Dawkins told you?

He's not my hero, I just like some of his work.

It is perfectly rational to have both faith in science and faith in some form of theistic being.

No it isn't. This is a complete fallacy. It is to be taken for granted we do not currently understand the mysteries of the universe IN ENTIRETY, it is most certainly NOT rational to answer these unknowns by just assuming or inventing a conceptual magical being because it's convenient. You see, thats' the OPPOSITE OF REASON, as I was saying. Reason is thinking critically, working with observable data, and sometimes ACCEPTING unknowns. Theres' no other way to see it.

The principle of non-overlapping magisterial authority shows that science and religion cover hugely different fields of human understanding. The realm of science describes the factual make-up of the Universe and why it functions in the way it does.

Finally, a sentence I can agree with.

The realm of theism describes morality and a purposive existence.

Heres' where you go off the deep end. First of all, religion deals with a lot more than that. it also has to do with the origin of the cosmos, and all sorts of other concepts like an afterlife, the existence of a soul, miracles, etc. This partly depends on how religious one is, the most extreme christians believing the world is only 6,000 years old and other such nonsense. Also, WHY do you think it's necessary to invent mythological beings to define morality, or to have a purposeful existence? For the former, one can point to numerous philosophers, the British Empiricists for example JS Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, or Immanuel Kant, etc. You don't need religion to have morals. And anybody who can't find a purpose in life without religion has only themselves to blame.

These two realms, however radically different they may appear and however much you would like them to, do not overlap and do not conflict.

Again, COMPLETELY wrong. They MUST conflict, because religious thinking and the scientific method are INCOMPATIBLE. If you apply the scientific method to any degree of Christianity or any other religion, it fails the test, because religion is not based on empirical observation and that is what reason and science demand.

Why is this compatibility not acceptable? Is it because it's easier for your argument to assume that all Christians, Muslims, Jews are raving evolution-deniers?

I never said they were ALL raving evolution deniers, just off base. How can anybody who says the universe was created by a magical being of which no proof exists, created the universe in a process that cannot be explained or proven, and call themselves completely rational? Thats' why one is called faith, the other is called reason.

Einstein said that “science without religion is handicapped, and religion without science is blind.” That seems entirely rational to me.

Of course I disagree. Also, I would guess, if you took a census of the scientific community, people with letters after they're names, REAL scientists, and asked them about religion, those that actually professed to believe it would be classified as barely religious, believing in perhaps some force behind it all, or maybe they even believe in jesus christ, but not much else. Theres' a very good reason for this.

[neonmad]

I think there may be an unseen, intelligent force at work in the universe... because it is fucking with me.

[Amy]

I hope there's air conditioning down there.


Coiff.

Hahah, well I doubt you'll ever have the chance to find out my friend, because we're stalking different paths to the same God

How is the Uni stuff going???

It's probably marketed under a different name over there.

I can't access the link from the college network, it's banned apparently. Will someone describe it to me?



Mwhahahaha I can access it now!!!!

[virtually dead]

I found out yesterday (in a very silly book, suitable named 'Do Ants Have Arseholes?', wasn't mine) that Adam and Eve couldn't have commited incest because Eve was made from Adam's rib, so the worst it could be was a form of masturbation.
However, what I wanted to know what, how could the human race continue when Eve only had two sons? Unless she lept with one of her sons and I'm sure that must be damned somewhere in the Bible.

[nugz]

I found out yesterday (in a very silly book, suitable named 'Do Ants Have Arseholes?', wasn't mine) that Adam and Eve couldn't have commited incest because Eve was made from Adam's rib, so the worst it could be was a form of masturbation.
However, what I wanted to know what, how could the human race continue when Eve only had two sons? Unless she lept with one of her sons and I'm sure that must be damned somewhere in the Bible.

Adam and Eve had lots of children, but Cain and Abel were the only ones who got starring roles in the Bible.

[virtually dead]

Adam and Eve had lots of children, but Cain and Abel were the only ones who got starring roles in the Bible.

Oh right. Still, they must have had sex either with their parent or their siblings. But I suppose, Mary was a virgin and she had a child, it doesn't need to make sense...
Good thing I don't believe in this stuff, it baffles my head.

[nugz]

Oh right. Still, they must have had sex either with their parent or their siblings. But I suppose, Mary was a virgin and she had a child, it doesn't need to make sense...
Good thing I don't believe in this stuff, it baffles my head.

well, yes. Im gonna assume the brothers and sisters slept together, but as there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure God had to let it slide since it was the only way to continue the human race at that point.

[Worm]

I found out yesterday (in a very silly book, suitable named 'Do Ants Have Arseholes?', wasn't mine) that Adam and Eve couldn't have commited incest because Eve was made from Adam's rib, so the worst it could be was a form of masturbation.
However, what I wanted to know what, how could the human race continue when Eve only had two sons? Unless she lept with one of her sons and I'm sure that must be damned somewhere in the Bible.

If Morrissey was imprisoned for murder in 1989 while trying to impress Reg and Ronnie Kray, how did he record "Kill Uncle"?

Literalism: bringing banana peels to heels since Moses first came down from the mountain.

[virtually dead]

well, yes. Im gonna assume the brothers and sisters slept together, but as there are exceptions to every rule, I'm sure God had to let it slide since it was the only way to continue the human race at that point.

By God, I think you've cracked it.
He/she could have just conjured up a few more, seeing as he/she created the world before light, and therefore did quite a bit of hard graft in the dark, he/she's obviously a very clever man/woman.

[Busy Clippers]

If Morrissey was imprisoned for murder in 1989 while trying to impress Reg and Ronnie Kray, how did he record "Kill Uncle"?

Literalism: bringing banana peels to heels since Moses first came down from the mountain.

Are you trying to say that his teen angst had a body count?

[Worm]

Are you trying to say that his teen angst had a body count?

Well, he did mention Perrier in 1987...

[chica]

I've been depressed ever since I became an atheist a couple of days ago. Nothing we do makes a difference in the grand scheme of things... Earth is just a tiny rock in the vast universe, which is going to die eventually despite its vastness, and regardless of what we miserably unimportant humans do during our laughably short lives

[Worm]

I've been depressed ever since I became an atheist a couple of days ago. Nothing we do makes a difference in the grand scheme of things... Earth is just a tiny rock in the vast universe, which is going to die eventually despite its vastness, and regardless of what we miserably unimportant humans do during our laughably short lives

Well, there's still vodka.

[chica]

...and I assume you've just had some?