The Courtier's Reply

Remove all ads!

 

At the risk of sounding like an ignorant twat...

Huh?

 

The emperor is naked. (Sorry, lurker comment)

 

@DR: It's about Richard Dawkins refuting the proposition that God exists, to which a counterargument of "Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking since he's not a theologist" has been proposed over and over again.

 

Ok - but a little context would have been nice. I've never heard of this guy, and I doubt I'm alone.

Now that I get it - I love it.

 

The fact that Dawkins' opponents use a specious argument against him doesn't make him any less wrong.

To clarify: I don't care what Dawkins embraces as his personal beliefs. I don't think that "right" and "wrong" come into play with regard to theology. What makes Dawkins wrong in my view is his attempt to impose his view on others, and the way he belittles those who don't share his view.

I don't give a damn about what the emporer is wearing, so long as I'm comfortable in my own clothes, and I won't allow anyone to tell me that I have to care, either.

 

All I know is that Richard Dawkins' books are a great read. I love them.

 

How, exactly, has Dawkins forced his beliefs on people? He certainly has a habit of coming off as rather pompous, especially when dealing with religious folk, but that doesn't make his arguments any less credible.

 

First, Rallymama didn't use the word 'force'. She is used the word 'impose' which does not have the same connotation. A lot of people try to impose their beliefs on others which is not unusual although it can be annoying and sometimes downright offensive.


Since it is impossible to scientifically either prove or disprove the existence of God, gods, spirits, ghosts, demons etc the whole question is moot. Debating it may be fun, entertaining and educational but it is a no-win situation.

 

Nakia - do you think that even if it was possible to disprove the existence of God that the vast majority of believers would stop believing anyway?

 

Absolutely not.

As evidence, I point to the (many) sects of Christianity that have said, verbatim, 'the world will end at such and such a time'. You'll note they had no trouble continuing to prosper after the appointed date of the apocalypse came and went.

 

And the reverse, if the existence of God was proven scientifically would that mean that atheists would start believing in God?

Of course if the existence of God was proven then we would need to move on to the nature of God.

 

@ AMaster,

That's not evidence that God doesn't exist, just that they "interpreted" whatever "vision" or "revelation" incorrectly. But I agree that even the most compelling evidence will fail to sway some people. People who make their faith in God such an intrical part of their lives that they perceive it as tied to their very survival. Once the foundation is shaken on their faith, their whole world view comes crashing down - hence the denial of logical scientific evidence contrary to said world view, and the fierce defense of it.

While I certainly agree that it is impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of God, it is possible to disprove - through science, anthropology, or just plain reason - certain crucial aspects of a given faith, rendering it false to all but the most devout. In a sense, it's possible to seperate the wheat from the chaff, without denying the existance of the field - so to speak.

 

It is evidence that whatever they've been basing their faith on is, um, shaky. If ye olde messiah/priest/prophet was wrong about x, why can't he be wrong about y? And if he's wrong about x and y, how's he the messiah/priest/prophet/whatever?

That's not the right question, IMO. The right question is would they worship God.

I wouldn't. The Biblical God is, in my view, evil. If He were real, the only thing he'd get from me would be the finger.

 

Sure, but the counter-arguement I've heard often is something along the lines of "There is only one perfect being, and he died for our sins. The rest of us make mistakes," or something along those lines. It may be shaky to the casual observer, but it would hardly be enough to cast doubt in the mind of the devout.

 

God cannot be proved within the constraints of the rigorous scientific method. Dawkins and his ilk treat science as God itself. However, as has been stated many times, God cannot be DISPROVED by the rigorous scientific method, no matter how hard they try.

What aggravates me about Dawkins is his patronizing attitude toward people who don't share his conclusions. That said, though, there are plenty of people (including a whack within my own faith) who are just as patronizing, condescending and otherwise obnoxious. It's not an attractive position for ANYONE to take.

 

Sure. But my point is it really should cast doubt in the mind of the devout. Since it doesn't, I'm inclined to think even larger challenges to faith wouldn't either.

 

Aha, AMaster, you have moved on to 'What is the nature of God?'. Which is a topic in itself and one I wouldn't want to touch with the famous ten foot pole.

Of Course believing in something is not the same thing as worshipping it.

 

The theistic God has been disproved by science repeatedly over the centuries. All that happens however is that when new scientific views come along either people accept them and move on with their lives, or they pretend they arent valid and continue to hold on to their supersitious beliefs. The theistic God is a hold-over from the day in which people thought the universe revolved around the sun, even if they didnt think the earth was flat. To them it was logical, if not essential, that the universe be the centre of 'creation'. However, when Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, later Einstein, showed that we are most certainly not the centre of the universe, people still clung to their belief in a theistic God.

The domain of God has shifted considerably over time, from being on top of a mountain, to being in the sky, to being above the sky, and so on...all thats left now is beyond the universe...so whats next?

Biology has shown that it needs not mysterious creator, physics has shown the same, meterology has shown the same...so many sciences have shown that everything is natural, there is no God or Satan or whatever causing floods, famines, plagues or whatever else. Its just a natural system.

The problem with our misguided perception lays in the psychological foundation of how our minds perceive other minds, how our brain explains other brains out there. We naturally just assume that all things that move have a cause, an intelligent cause. Our ancestors anthromorpophized every single thing they encountered as a way for them to understand the world around them and to make sense of everything. This included death, and this fear of death lead to the first ever beliefs that religion has slowly built upon over time.

The belief in a theistic God means so much to so many people that its going to be hard to get rid of it, but it is essentially that which is limiting our development. There is a biological and psychological explanation for everything we do, so we need to get rid of theology because its foundation is false, same with religious belief.

Belief has two possible results...either it can be true and then lead to knowledge, or it can be false and then lead to unknowledge. A belief that is wrong from the very start, no matter how much you build propositions on top of it, will always end up with unknowledge. A belief that is right from the very start, no matter how many false propositions you put on top of it will always end up with knowledge, its just a matter of weeding out the false propositions and replacing them with true ones. Therefore, only true beliefs lead to knowledge. Religious belief never leads to knowledge, and if it did then it wouldnt be religious belief anymore...it would be religious 'knowledge'. This is why Dawkins is right, he just needs to stick to biology and leave the philosophy to the philosophers

Edit: I do actually believe in God, just not the theistic God...more the God of Spinoza, or the God of Advaita Vedanta...same as Einstein etc and most of the other great scientific minds