The GOD Delusion: Dawkins' Atheist Handbook

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said, it is nothing but philosophy. That what he claims can't be proven, and that it's not science because of this, was redundant, of course.

What I said was entirely correct.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ockham's Razor.

This would be an improper application of ochams razor, actually. More crackpottery? Also, that is not a scientific principle.

 

[Moridin]

That only makes the probability of its existence exceedingly low, Cyrus.

How do you KNOW that you didn't receive a subconscious thought signal from the entity in question that inspired you to "make up" the entity falsely assuming you were the original source of the idea?

Technically, the false version of the entity would still be false. The real entity would be "false version + modified ad hoc". So basically, we are talking about two different entities. If that makes sense?

Can astrology be disproven by science? Can dowsing be disproven by science? Remember that both of these are claimed to be supernatural.

 

[arildno]

As I said, it is nothing but philosophy. That what he claims can't be proven, and that it's not science because of this, was redundant, of course.

What I said was entirely correct.

And what do you think he's saying?
Clearly, you haven't read the book..

 

[Cyrus]

This would be an improper application of ochams razor, actually. More crackpottery? Also, that is not a scientific principle.

How so? I am responding to arildnos question. He proposed a very complicated alternative for unicorns. My answer is that there are no unicorns, as it is the simplest answer. His answer, is much too complicated to explain the same problem.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am basing my statements on yours and Cyrus's, and what I read in his blog.

 

[arildno]

Technically, the false version of the entity would still be false. The real entity would be "false version + modified ad hoc". So basically, we are talking about two different entities. If that makes sense?

Well, but if we to our "false" entity add "it surely has many properties we don't know about", then our true entity is fully compatible with our mental image of it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How so? I am responding to arildnos question. He proposed a very complicated alternative for unicorns. My answer is that there are no unicorns, as it is the simplest answer. His answer, is much too complicated to explain the same problem.

That is not a proof. It is a guide. It cannot be used to rule out alternatives; it is used at most to deteremine the most likely to be correct. But this can't be used as a point of logic to argue against something like the existence of God.

 

[Moridin]

Well, but if we to our "false" entity add "it surely has many properties we don't know about", then our true entity is fully compatible with our mental image of it.

Indeed, but it does not correspond precisely to it.

 

[arildno]

Again, IvanSeeking, proofs have basically no place in science.

Rather, science concerns itself with probabilities.

It is maths and philosophy that concern themselves with proofs.

 

[arildno]

Indeed, but it does not correspond precisely to it.

But compatibility of our ideas to an as yet not wholly known reality is the best we can hope for, even in the sciences..

 

[Moridin]

Again, IvanSeeking, proofs have basically no place in science.

Rather, science concerns itself with probabilities.

It is maths and philosophy that concern themselves with proofs.

Science could technically mount disproofs by modus tollens, but the lay terminology is usually used as the false analogy of "disprove A is the same as prove ~A", which need not necessarily be true.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I want to add here that although I don't believe in God-the-trickster, it is completely consistent with religious teaching going all the way back to the old testament. It is a central theme in most religions that faith is constantly under attack and being tested. This is how fundamentalists can so easily dismiss science.

 

[Moridin]

But compatibility of our ideas to an as yet not wholly known reality is the best we can hope for, even in the sciences..

Indeed, but falsifications do take place in that way. The thought experiment rested on the premise that we actually know that the specific ad hoc entity existed (here we knew the reality), which of course doesn't translate to that area (since we do not get know the unknown scientific reality). So in other words, my analogy was a bit misleading, so ignore it

 

[arildno]

I want to add here that although I don't believe in God-the-trickster, it is completely consistent with religious teaching going all the way back to the old testament. It is a central theme in most religions that faith is constantly under attack and being tested. This is how fundamentalists can so easily dismiss science.

Which merely represents a celebration of the degeneration of the intellect in how it operates otherwise.

Religiosity is a deeply anti-intellectual, and hence at its very root, anti-human, stance.

As somebody said, it poisons everything.

 

[jostpuur]

Cyrus, I was just thinking that the thread is getting locked anyway, and it wouldn't matter what I say (concerning the locking), so I might as well just get my word out. Perhaps a little irresponsible, but there's no point hiding it, since it seems I already got some infraction points out of it, hehheh...

But I can be strictly logical and appropriate too, when I decide to! So, let's see... hmhmhm... So the question about the existence of the God is forbidden, but the question about the conflict between religion and science is not.

Ivan Seeking, I think you are ignoring examples like this:

Here are two claims:

"God exists"

"God protects you in traffic if you pray"

The first one is beyond the reach of science, but the second one is not. It suffices to study statistics and see that people who pray die and get injured in traffic accidents just like people who don't pray. I've understood that these are the kind of things that Dawkins is talking about.

Not all claims related to God are beyond the reach of the science. And because of this, I don't agree that Dawkins would be only a philosopher. He is not applying the scientifical attitude in wrong place.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You completely fail to understand religion. No one expects that prayers are guaranteed to be answered. This is what gets me about attacks on religion: The attackers usually have no idea what they're talking about. That is what came across to me immediately when I first read Dawkin's arguments.

You can debunk the zealots, but you can't lump all people of religion together; which is another point of crackpottery that annoyed me in what I've read so far. In the end, there are as many religions as there are people.

 

[Cyrus]

Which merely represents a celebration of the degeneration of the intellect in how it operates otherwise.

Religiosity is a deeply anti-intellectual, and hence at its very root, anti-human, stance.

As somebody said, it poisons everything.

That someone was Hitchens. (My next book to read )

 

[arildno]

You completely fail to understand religion. No one expects that prayers are guaranteed to be answered. This is what gets me about attacks on religion: The attackers usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Sure. We DO understand religion a lot better than you:

It is a load of mumbo-jumbo denigrating the intellect and morality of those believing it.

 

[Cyrus]

You completely fail to understand religion. No one expects that prayers are guaranteed to be answered. This is what gets me about attacks on religion: The attackers usually have no idea what they're talking about.

Then what exactly is the point of a prayer, other than wish-thinking? Your quote is EXACTLY the same as the book scan I posted a few pages back on what the religious experts in their 'field' said, very nastily, to Einstein.


https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1562867&postcount=56

 

[arildno]

Prayers are feely-good acts of mental masturbation.
That's all there is to them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Prayers are feely-good acts of mental masturbation.
That's all there is to them.

Prove it. You are arguing by faith as much as any religious person might.

 

[jostpuur]

No one expects that prayers are guaranteed to be answered.

I understand not all prayers are expected to be answered, but are you now trying to explain, that when large number of people pray for protection, the God then protects them is such manner, that it doesn't show in the statistics at all?

 

[arildno]

That someone was Hitchens. (My next book to read )

Read also Dan Dennett's "Breaking the spell", Sam Harris' "End of faith", Michel Onfray's defence of atheism&hedonism.
All good books, with somewhat different perspectives.

 

[arildno]

Prove it. You are arguing by faith as much as any religious person might.

No, I am not.

Religionists say prayers "bring peace and contentment". Based upon those views, it is perfectly correct to say that prayers are feely-good acts of self-drugging or mental masturbation.

If you don't "like" the words I use, then call praying a strategy to achieve momentary happiness.

 

[Cyrus]

I must run off to bed, its 3:12 am. If anyone drails my thread and causes it to become locked when I wake up is a dead man.

 

[jostpuur]

Sure. We DO understand religion a lot better than you:

It is a load of mumbo-jumbo denigrating the intellect and morality of those believing it.

Holy **** arildno!

It did impress me how Cyrus started fighting for survival of his thread, after it seemed to get doomed for locking in the beginning. I started hoping that perhaps the thread survives after all, but now we are already entering the second crisis of the thread...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I understand not all prayers are expected to be answered, but are you now trying to explain, that when large number of people pray for protection, the God then protects them is such manner, that it doesn't show in the statistics at all?

How do we know? God the trickster. Also, the bible specifically says not to test God, so true believers wouldn't expect good results when we do - again, based on religious teachings. The primary premise of most christian teachings is that life is a test of faith. We are not generally allowed to have proof. It is also beleved by many that we don't want proof because then much more is expected of us.

 

[Moridin]

Well, to say that prayer only works sometimes, if the conditions are right, and you really deserve it, and god loves you, and if his ways are right and mysterious and...seems quite ad hoc to me.

Religions are brilliantly engineered to avoid questions and doubt.

Let us take a thought experiment.

A regular, double-blind, controlled prayer experiments with catholics, protestants, buddhists etc. and irreligious atheists as control group. For some reason, the people catholics pray for get better all the time, incurable diseases are cured, severed limbs regrow to full capacity and so on. The other groups do no better than chance.

There only seems to be a single conclusion we could draw from this?

Read also Dan Dennett's "Breaking the spell", Sam Harris' "End of faith", Michel Onfray's defence of atheism&hedonism.
All good books, with somewhat different perspectives.

And of course Stenger's and Carriers books that I recommend in my first post in this thread

 

[arildno]

Okay, in order for me not being murdered by Cyrus:

I won't say anything about the merits or demerits of religion any further in this thread.