Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.

We search for more so that we can FIND a better answer!

I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it."

I think you've got it backwards. The theists claim that something bad happens as a part of God's plan, and all you can do is pray that God will spare you (though why He would want to spare you and destroy his plan is beyond me.) Science says, "WHY did this happen? HOW did this happen? How can we prevent it from happening again?"

You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.

Not at all. If you know a way to figure it out, please, show us the way. Just provide evidence!

Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine?

If you want it to be a contest, then my only response is, "Show your work." Scientists create models which MIGHT explain the origin of the universe, then show the evidence which that model explains. They make predictions of evidence which they should be able to find if that model is correct. If evidence turns up which contradicts the model, or they are unable to find the evidence they predict, the model is falsified.

The Christian says that God created the universe. They show no evidence to back their claim, except that the Bible says it's so. And how do they know the Bible is correct? Why simple! The Bible SAYS it's the Word of God! QED. They base their entire world view on a book of stories cobbled together from mystics and shamans, priests and rabbis, all carefully selected by the Council of Nicea some 1700 years ago. A book which frequently misrepresents events which we KNOW happened differently. A book which contradicts itself over and over again. And you claim that this approach is valid?

You don't trust the Pope.

Do you?

Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)?

That was not my intent at all, as I'm quite sure you know. The point was that scientists can keep falsifying the claims of the theists, but they will never be satisfied because they can always dream up another claim for the scientist to falsify.

Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised?

Which just illustrates my point. The initial claim of the theist in my parable was that a miracle had occurred so that only the head sides of the coins were showing. Now, when the scientist shows that this was the ONLY possible result, you change the claim to "God made the coins that way!" And if the scientist proves that the coins were minted in Denver, what will you claim then?

Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.

That's not a scientific explanation. It's a misunderstanding of the Uncertainty Principle.

Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be

That's because the fundamental ones, as you yourself have stated, are based upon the supernatural and are beyond the purview of science. It's only when the supernatural is claimed to have acted upon the natural world that science can investigate.

These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.

Philosophy is not an analytical subject. You cannot weigh and measure ideas. I am, or try to be, an analytical type person. I am not interested in building castles in the sky and devising fantastical explanations for them. I don't deny that philosophy has its place in the world, even in science to a degree. But not in an analytical, testable sense. And I don't claim to be the arbiter of what's real.

That's a moot point.

It's the WHOLE point!

But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe.

The existence of leprechauns hasn't been disproved, either. Nor unicorns, nor fairies, nor ghosts. It is scientifically impossible to prove a negative. All scientists can do is show that the likelihood for such an existence is extremely remote. So again I ask, how many times do we have to falsify the claims of believers before we can say there is virtually no likelihood for the existence of gods?

But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.

I never said that science COULD deny gods. It can only claim that there is no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. That does NOT say you cannot believe. It only says that you cannot claim that belief to be scientific!

If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?

Who am I to disallow such disagreements? But remember, scientists are generally arguing over interpretations of testable, verifiable evidence. Religious scholars are arguing over interpretations of untestable, unprovable claims.

There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.

A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.

Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?

No, they are ALL scientific claims. They all make predictions which can be tested through observation and experimentation. That doesn't mean they are all RIGHT, of course. I believe the Steady State Theory has been pretty much set aside. Too many discrepancies between the theory and the evidence. The others, as far as I know, are accepted as POSSIBLE explanations for the universe, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm them yet. But again, the fact that we may not have a real, viable, PROBABLE explanation does not mean someone can make up any claim he wishes without ANY evidence.

I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.

Do you still believe in the actual existence of Santa Claus/Kris Kringle/Father Christmas? (If you say yes then I have serious doubts about your veracity or your sanity.) Most children who once believed in Santa Claus eventually come to the realization that he's not real, just a made-up story to entertain children. It's not a case of "emptying" themselves of an idea, just coming to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I don't claim that my own evolution from theist to non-theist was smooth or without back-sliding. When you've been taught something your whole life it can be quite traumatic to realize that you've been, basically, lied to. I didn't empty myself of the idea of God. I simply came to realize that there was nothing there in which to believe. The idea of an invisible being who watches over you to make sure you behave and gives you presents when you're good, whether the present is heaven or an electric train set, just stopped being relevant. God, like Santa Claus, is just a story created to keep the children in line. (That last is my personal opinion. My "belief", if you will. It is not a scientific claim.)

I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.

I don't have to justify my change in belief of God any more than YOU have to justify your change in belief of Father Christmas!

I leave it to den to deal with this.

God, no! Not that!

[MMI]

A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.

No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did. I ask you to remember that I spoke of two girls originally; it was you who linked them to your grandchildren. My point was that they had life, although lumps of meat and bone did not, and I suggested that the believers' claims that god gave the girls life was better than any explanation modern science can come up with.

Let's back up ... right to the beginning, because we're getting nowhere here.

You say you do not believe in god(s) because there is no satisfactory evidence to convince you. That's fine. I too am unconvinced about it.

You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence. It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings. I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?

If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.

Then I look at Bush ...

[Thorne]

No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did.

I was not offended, so don't feel bad. You are right, I did put them into this discussion.

You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence.

Actually, I don't care if believers cannot provide evidence. Their faith is their own concern. It's only when they try to push their religions into the public arena, such as government and science classrooms, that I demand evidence. Especially in science classrooms, because the theists try to intimate that their "theory" of God is just as valid as any other theory of creation. But the scientific explanations are based upon an immense body of data and evidence, while the theists theories are based on nothing but holy books and wishful thinking. If they could provide evidence, then they could claim some kind of parity with science in the classroom.

Oh, and I will also ask for evidence when someone asks me to provide proof AGAINST the existence of something. If they can't prove it exists in the first place, how can I hope to prove it doesn't? All I can do is provide enough evidence to make such an existence highly unlikely. I've done that, to a degree. Scientists have done it a hell of a lot more effectively.

It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings.

That would be fine if we could find any evidence for the existence of this higher plane. We cannot, or at least we have not. But in my opinion, this is just a case of moving the target. Theists have always claimed that God interacts with the world on a physical level, creating storms, floods, plagues, all those Biblical catastrophes we've heard about. Science comes along and provides thoroughly natural explanations for such disasters, and have been able to provide pretty accurate predictions about them, all without relying on the existence of gods. So now the theists want to say that God exists in a higher plane? And what happens if, someday, science finds a way to tap into this higher plane, and there is still no God? Will the theists admit they were wrong? Or will they simply explain that God is in an even higher plane?

I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?

I've been trying to do this all along, I think. I'm a little more crude about it, comparing such beliefs to myths and fairy tales, and I've been lambasted for it. Creationists, many of them, will claim that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, and is to be taken verbatim. But when you point out the discrepancies within the Bible, they will claim that "this passage is allegorical", or "that law was nailed to the Cross." The frustrating part is that it is THEY who determine which parts of the Bible must be taken literally and which parts not. Without any justification.

If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.

This is almost exactly the kind of thing I've been arguing all along. The evidence shows that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah CANNOT exist as He is defined in the Bible/Qur'an/Torah. It is unreasonable to believe in such a god. He has been relegated to the same limbo as the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc., etc., etc. gods. He is irrelevant. Or should be.

For those who are interested, there are two books I have read in the past year which deal with this exact problem. One is "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Stenger. The second is "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. Dawkins, especially, is far more blunt and intolerant than I, and there are some things in both books which I disagree with, at least in part, but overall they explain very well what I've been fumbling to explain.