WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

[lp1988]

Also many of these "beliefs" are not related to any theology but may refer to your favoured football team, your favoured cookie or item as well as ideas like your own ego. Especially ones self image lives high on this tendency to refuse to change ones beliefs and again is a trait of every "normal" human.

[mucgoo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19997789

[Nexxo]

I wish they'd invite some cognitive psychologists to these gigs.

[GMC]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I wish they'd invite some cognitive psychologists to these gigs.

Now I'd like to read that transcript, though I suspect the other participants may need some therapy afterwards...

[VipersGratitude]

Note the debate is also available on iTunes in the new Cambridge Union Society channel: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/...ty/id597801008

Is Religion compatible with 21st Century life? How can it be made to fit with modern laws and values? Even if it might be compatible, does it actually do more harm than good?

PROPOSITION:
01:54 Andrew Copson - Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association and former director of the European Humanist Federation.

29:42 Prof. Richard Dawkins - A distinguished evoultionary biologist and ardent critic of religion, Dawkins is also Vice-President of the British Humanist Association and author of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene.

1:10:30 Arif Ahmed - Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge since October 2011.

OPPOSITION:
13:33 Rowan Williams - Outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury and now the Master of Magdalene College, Rowan Williams studied Theology at Cambridge and has written inumerable books on the subject of Christianity.

42:28 Prof. Tariq Ramadan - Known as 'The Muslim Martin Luther', Ramadan is a renowned writer and Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. He is also President of the European Muslim Network.

1:22:25 Douglas Murray - Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society and founder of the Centre for Social Cohesion, Murray is also a commentator on issues of religion, immigration and extremism.

Enjoy...

[zatanna]

thanks, i love a well-articulated debate! i've added it to my "gotta watch" list.

[lp1988]

Originally Posted by mucgoo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19997789

They really have to stop quoting or asking people about things they have no understanding of, case in point:

John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford, is also a self-declared Christian. He thinks the very fact that human beings can do science is evidence for God.

"If the atheists are right the mind that does science... is the end product of a mindless unguided process.

Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it.

So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science."

All he made clear is that he has no idea as to how evolution works.

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

Enjoy...

Took me some time before I could sit down and see it all the way through but a very good debate, and Dawkins is as always both spot on an interesting in his way of speaking.

[boiled_elephant]

Is the design argument really still doing the rounds?

REALLY?

During my degree I never once heard an RS professor seriously employ the design argument, other than when describing its history and fall from popularity. Its basic fallacy - that complex, organised structures require an intelligent designer - has been undone over and over again by plain evidence and scientific reasoning. (The U.S. far-right young-earth folk seem to have missed this, but they miss an awful lot.)

I know religious people for whom it's still an underlying element of their faith, but it's in a subtler, vaguer capacity - a general feeling of awe and admiration for the natural world, not a serious logical argument from the complexity of organisms to a divine engineer. When pressed to actually defend their beliefs, they never bother employing it. I think it's well understood now to be little more than an emotional, poetic response.

So to hear a high-standing academic recite the watchmaker analogy is pretty depressing...almost gives you the feeling that no progress is achieved through academic discourse at all.

[Nexxo]

For those who believe no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible. Perhaps we should leave it at that.

Faith is faith, not rationale, not fact, not certainty. It works that way for a reason. Science is logic and fact, not belief, not opinion, not hope. It works that way for a reason too. The two are complementary, not in some sort of childish one-upmanship competition.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by boiled_elephant

Is the design argument really still doing the rounds?

REALLY?

During my degree I never once heard an RS professor seriously employ the design argument, other than when describing its history and fall from popularity. Its basic fallacy - that complex, organised structures require an intelligent designer - has been undone over and over again by plain evidence and scientific reasoning. (The U.S. far-right young-earth folk seem to have missed this, but they miss an awful lot.)

I know religious people for whom it's still an underlying element of their faith, but it's in a subtler, vaguer capacity - a general feeling of awe and admiration for the natural world, not a serious logical argument from the complexity of organisms to a divine engineer. When pressed to actually defend their beliefs, they never bother employing it. I think it's well understood now to be little more than an emotional, poetic response.

So to hear a high-standing academic recite the watchmaker analogy is pretty depressing...almost gives you the feeling that no progress is achieved through academic discourse at all.

Both you and Nexxo have claimed unequivocally that ID theory has been soundly debunked, but I'm not seeing it anywhere. I think that there is a degree of obfuscation regarding what ID theory actually is (science or philosophy, or both) and what it stipulates, and that's why we are seeing sweeping generalisations that are not entirely true. The common objections cannot apply universally to all persuasions of ID theory; ID theory as a philosophy does not stand in opposition to human evolution nor does it claim empirical verifiability, therefore plain evidence and scientific reasoning (yes, these delightfully vague atheist trump cards!) can't do anything to it, far less undo it again and again, as you claim. Show me the repeated undoing of ID theory in this light, and I'll gladly step down.

I have no problem with the objection that a particular flavour of ID theory attempts to empirically verify supernatural causes, but to say that any appeal to intelligent design is "not a seious logical argument" is criminally short-sighted - in its fullness, intelligent design is a serious logical argument and it is wielded by many of today's frontline Christian apologists, most notably Oxford Professor John Lennox:

We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters" - the longest "word" yet discovered?

Lennox does not commit the fallacy of attempting to empirically verify an intelligent designer; he simply raises the (perfectly valid) question that is begged by the unfathomable complexity of life as we know it, and answers with a logically tenable perhaps.

[KayinBlack]

In the realm of faith, why does it matter? I know no tenet of how to live that hinges upon how we got here-the point is how do we treat each other, and how do we view the world. I don't need to know where I came from to appreciate that God made a beautiful world for us. Faith's question is not how did I get here, but where am I going.

I still enjoy reading the articles that pop up from time to time about how science really still doesn't know how life started. The abiogenesis page from Wikipedia presents many wildly different scenarios, which kind of points to the idea that we really don't have a clue. Personally, I don't believe it possible to crack the case, and furthermore, we as humans are simply not responsible enough to give us that kind of information anyway. We can't even figure out how to treat the creatures we have here now, let alone making up new ones.

[jrs77]

Someone just has to read up on physics, chemistry, biology and astrophysics. Combined they pretty much proof the theory of evolution. What they don't answer so far however is the question of what happened allmost 14 billion years ago, so maybe god initiated the big bang.

Believing in something outthere is a good thing actually, as it can help through tough times, but religion was never a good thing and allways restrictive.

As Marx said: Religion is opium for the people. And after having studied and written my A-levels in religion, I'm pretty much on the side of Feuerbach and Marx here.

Look around, and you'll see that religion is and was one of the major reasons for conflict in the world.

[SuicideNeil]

ID is a pile of poop because:

1) There is nothing intelligent about creating a specifies which questions your existence & actively denounces it.
2) Evolutionary history in our genes- hence why embryos have tails; explain that one away, I dare you.
3) There is nothing intelligent about the breathing pipe being shared with the food pipe ( = chocking ), and/or the waste pipe being shared with the reproductive pipe ( = nasty diseases ).

It's just wishful thinking & yet more evidence of religions desperate attempts to make its ideology & dogma seem more plausible. Which any right minded, sensible & logical person can see as clear as day & dismisses thusly. More to the point, ID is an interpretation of the old testament, which is almost universally accepted as nothing more than poetic mythology- one not founded in reality ( apart from in Amercia where all the crazy 7th day adventists think it's literal truth & the world is only ~4000 years old )...

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Both you and Nexxo have claimed unequivocally that ID theory has been soundly debunked, but I'm not seeing it anywhere. I think that there is a degree of obfuscation regarding what ID theory actually is (science or philosophy, or both) and what it stipulates, and that's why we are seeing sweeping generalisations that are not entirely true. The common objections cannot apply universally to all persuasions of ID theory; ID theory as a philosophy does not stand in opposition to human evolution nor does it claim empirical verifiability, therefore plain evidence and scientific reasoning (yes, these delightfully vague atheist trump cards!) can't do anything to it, far less undo it again and again, as you claim. Show me the repeated undoing of ID theory in this light, and I'll gladly step down.

Plain evidence and scientific reasoning must obviously have enough substance for you to feel that you have to step outside the scientific domain to maintain your belief in ID. Sorry, but changing the rules of the game does not constitute winning. You are basically arguing that ID is not a scientific theory, but a philosophy (which is another way of saying: a belief), and therefore cannot be scientifically disproved. That's fine, but that means that --efforts of many ID proponents notwithstanding-- it cannot be scientifically proved either.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

I have no problem with the objection that a particular flavour of ID theory attempts to empirically verify supernatural causes, but to say that any appeal to intelligent design is "not a seious logical argument" is criminally short-sighted - in its fullness, intelligent design is a serious logical argument and it is wielded by many of today's frontline Christian apologists, most notably Oxford Professor John Lennox:

Lennox does not commit the fallacy of attempting to empirically verify an intelligent designer; he simply raises the (perfectly valid) question that is begged by the unfathomable complexity of life as we know it, and answers with a logically tenable perhaps.

People once thought the Giant Causeway was built by giants. I mean, those symmetrical hexagonal structures couldn't have come about by natural causes, no?

I don't see the logic at all. We all know by now that chaos can spontaneously give rise to complex structures and patterns (and that when you look deeper, there are actually simple rules underpinning it). To resort for explanation to something that you can neither prove nor disprove, not understand but must take on faith, is not an explanation at all.

And as Kayin says: it doesn't matter. Faith is not about pointing at things and saying: "Ah! Proof!", is it? Wouldn't be faith then, and it would totally miss the point. A belief in the divine is a belief that there is something more meaningful about our lives than our puny, brief material existence on a tiny speck circling a tiny star in a vast, cold indifferent universe. You don't find that by pointing at stuff in the physical world around you; you find that by pointing at something inside yourself. Be the divine that you want to see in the world. The rest is just wanting to be right.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by KayinBlack

In the realm of faith, why does it matter?

It doesn't matter in the sense that it is not a prerequisite of belief, but it matters because it is both relevant to faith and logically tenable, which is specifically why I'm defending it against claims that it has been undone. I'm not explaining my personal beliefs; I'm merely addressing a common misunderstanding and challenging that which merits challenge. Like I've said time and time again in this thread, even accepting the possibility of intelligent design would be an enormous (and unthinkable) step for many of the fundamentalist atheists here. I couldn't care less that ID theory can be proven scientifically; what matters is that it is a logical possibility that is outrightly rejected because it is not scientific, which is erroneous thinking.

Originally Posted by KayinBlack

Faith's question is not how did I get here, but where am I going.

Actually it's both - progression may be something that is a focus for you, but the question of origin and causality is equally relevant as it provides a necessary foundation for any derivative philosophy. Many metanarratives fall down precisely because they lack such a foundation; the very essence of theism is its foundation.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

You are basically arguing that ID is not a scientific theory, but a philosophy (which is another way of saying: a belief), and therefore cannot be scientifically disproved. That's fine, but that means that --efforts of many ID proponents notwithstanding-- it cannot be scientifically proved either.

Yes, but I'm not attempting to prove anything, so telling me I can't prove ID theory is pointless. On the contrary, by presenting ID theory as a philosophy I am showing simply that it is a valid and logical belief, contrary to how it is regarded by many here.

As I've said before, I agree that faith is not about proof, but once again that's not what i'm trying to demonstrate, so I understand why you don't see the logic in it (there isn't any). But to say that unprovable hypotheses (such as ID theory) are not explanations is not true - they may not be scientific explanations but they are still explanations and their viability will be accepted by any open mind. Once again, it's a matter of possibility and probability rather than the tired "science says this, case closed" taradiddle.

[lp1988]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

It doesn't matter in the sense that it is not a prerequisite of belief, but it matters because it is both relevant to faith and logically tenable, which is specifically why I'm defending it against claims that it has been undone. I'm not explaining my personal beliefs; I'm merely addressing a common misunderstanding and challenging that which merits challenge. Like I've said time and time again in this thread, even accepting the possibility of intelligent design would be an enormous (and unthinkable) step for many of the fundamentalist atheists here. I couldn't care less that ID theory can be proven scientifically; what matters is that it is a logical possibility that is outrightly rejected because it is not scientific, which is erroneous thinking.

I would accept ID as a possibility if it did not rely on the terribly flawed concept of irreducible complexity. And since you have admitted that ID is NOT a scientific theory please don't use that word it causes confusion, people might actually think there is something to it I may be a bit of a douche here

For that matter let us just use the original word for ID, creationism, and don't take my word for it even the US courts came to the same conclusion that ID was a front for creationism and that it was merely an attempt by creationists to allow the teaching of religious dogma in public schools.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Yes, but I'm not attempting to prove anything, so telling me I can't prove ID theory is pointless. On the contrary, by presenting ID theory as a philosophy I am showing simply that it is a valid and logical belief, contrary to how it is regarded by many here.

A philosophy is by definition not necessarily a valid or logical belief, by your definition the belief that there are superior races within the human race would also be a "valid and logical belief" a position I am sure many Neo-Nazis and KKK members would be eager to agree with you on. I freely admit that the existence of a supreme being is indeed possible, since it cannot be disproved I have to do so, regardless of the almost supernaturally small chance there is for it actually existing, ID however has been with evidence of evolution at hand been proven not just unlikely but straight out wrong.

Originally Posted by KayinBlack

I still enjoy reading the articles that pop up from time to time about how science really still doesn't know how life started. The abiogenesis page from Wikipedia presents many wildly different scenarios, which kind of points to the idea that we really don't have a clue. Personally, I don't believe it possible to crack the case, and furthermore, we as humans are simply not responsible enough to give us that kind of information anyway. We can't even figure out how to treat the creatures we have here now, let alone making up new ones.

One of the current holes in science and a question many tries to answer but some of the hypothesises mentioned really have no backing and is just someone running their mouth, but one can dream right

We by now know that life sprang from the oceans and that they most likely did so from a vent due to the high concentration of minerals some of these has, we just don't know how yet. In other words we know where and when but science as of yet do not know what chemicals were present and it has (to my knowledge) yet to reproduce life in a lab, but I am looking forward to the day they do.

By the way do you have to have two spaces after a full stop ?

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

It doesn't matter in the sense that it is not a prerequisite of belief, but it matters because it is both relevant to faith and logically tenable, which is specifically why I'm defending it against claims that it has been undone. I'm not explaining my personal beliefs; I'm merely addressing a common misunderstanding and challenging that which merits challenge. Like I've said time and time again in this thread, even accepting the possibility of intelligent design would be an enormous (and unthinkable) step for many of the fundamentalist atheists here. I couldn't care less that ID theory can be proven scientifically; what matters is that it is a logical possibility that is outrightly rejected because it is not scientific, which is erroneous thinking.

No, it is not rejected by science for the simple reason that it is not a scientific theory that can be tested and therefore accepted or rejected. It is regarded as lying outside of scientific enquiry altogether. It is basically irrelevant to science as a discipline.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Yes, but I'm not attempting to prove anything, so telling me I can't prove ID theory is pointless. On the contrary, by presenting ID theory as a philosophy I am showing simply that it is a valid and logical belief, contrary to how it is regarded by many here.

As I've said before, I agree that faith is not about proof, but once again that's not what i'm trying to demonstrate, so I understand why you don't see the logic in it (there isn't any). But to say that unprovable hypotheses (such as ID theory) are not explanations is not true - they may not be scientific explanations but they are still explanations and their viability will be accepted by any open mind. Once again, it's a matter of possibility and probability rather than the tired "science says this, case closed" taradiddle.

ID is not an explanation because it doesn't really explain anything. It's turtles all the way down, do to speak.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by lp1988

ID however has been with evidence of evolution at hand been proven not just unlikely but straight out wrong.

This sort of misunderstanding is exactly what I'm attempting to set right: the fundamental tenet of creationism is that God made; it doesn't describe the means by which he made, only that he did. With that in mind, evolution does no harm to ID; it harms only the fundamentalist idiots who shut their eyes to tried and tested science.

Originally Posted by Nexxo

No, it is not rejected by science for the simple reason that it is not a scientific theory that can be tested and therefore accepted or rejected. It is regarded as lying outside of scientific enquiry altogether. It is basically irrelevant to science as a discipline.

I don't know why you start your response with "no" because you're just reiterating exactly what I said - people who claim that science disproves ID (as boiled_elephant did) are arguing erroneously precisely because science cannot disprove ID. However, it's not irrelevant to science any more than philosophy in general is irrelevant to science. Complementary, remember?

Originally Posted by Nexxo

ID is not an explanation because it doesn't really explain anything. It's turtles all the way down, do to speak.

Just because people choose to reject an explanation doesn't preclude it from being a tangible and plausible explanation.

Regarding the problem of infinite regression, I looked into this extensively some time ago and it boils down to close-mindedness on the part of those who refuse to accept God's nature as an eternal being. If you posit a being who simply is, and therefore dispense with the problem of infinite regression altogether, the most common objection is simply that such a being cannot exist...because it's "too easy". It's a strawman objection, a refusal to accept a tenable (yet mind-blowing) possibility.

In my experience, atheist philosophers have great trouble conceiving of a being that is itself a source, a font; they would rather believe in nothing that became something - illogically and untenably, but necessarily. One scientist has gone so far to say, astonishingly, that "...because something is physical, nothing must also be physical." Oh dear.

[jrs77]

Originally Posted by lp1988

By the way do you have to have two spaces after a full stop ?

If you learned typewriting back in time, then it was taught this way.

ID/creationism is the modern way of telling people that god did it all within 6 days. The way it is done these days sounds like science, but it is nothing else then the good old bible all over again. Everyone who tries to tell otherwise is just neglecting to accept scientific facts.

Science has proven multiple times, that the universe and everything in it are based on physics, chemistry and biology. We know allmost exactly how old the universe, our milky way, our solarsystem and our planet are and ID/creationism simply neglects these hard facts.
The only thing we can't prove is what led to the big bang some 14 billion years ago, and maybe it was god who exploded afterall...

Anyways, without sounding harsh. Everyone who believes in ID/creationism should consult a doctor, as they have a dissiocative disorder.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

I don't know why you start your response with "no" because you're just reiterating exactly what I said - people who claim that science disproves ID (as boiled_elephant did) are arguing erroneously precisely because science cannot disprove ID. However, it's not irrelevant to science any more than philosophy in general is irrelevant to science. Complementary, remember?

Science disproves ID presented as a scientific theory (e.g. irreducible complexibility arguments). It can do that, because ID as a scientific theory is playing on its turf, by its rules.

When presented as a philosophical belief, as you are doing (but a lot of ID proponents most certainly are not), science has nothing to say about it. The discipline of science is not applicable to beliefs; all it can do is see if they are falsifiable theories. That's why we need the complementary bit: to deal with the parts of the human condition that fall outside of science, like meaning and spirituality.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Just because people choose to reject an explanation doesn't preclude it from being a tangible and plausible explanation.

I wouldn't call ID a tangible explanation: beliefs are by definition not tangible. I would call it plausible only in the sense that it is possible, but there's no way to prove it. So it doesn't preclude people from rejecting it for equally plausible reasons either.

That's kind of the bit that you cannot get your head around. Imagine the drogulus: an imaginary (or is it?) animal proposed by Professor A. J. Ayer as a thought experiment. The drogulus is impossible to describe "because it's not the sort of thing you can see or touch, it has no physical effects of any kind, but it's a disembodied being.” There is literally no physical way in which you can discern its presence or not. It has absolutely no detectable influence on the physical world. So does it actually exist? More to the point: does it actually matter? If it does not have any actual physical effect on the world at all, does the question of its existence have any relevance for us at all?

That's where a lot of atheists are with God. They see no proof of His presence whatsoever (and they have some plausible reasons for that too). He's like the drogulus: a thought experiment that has no detectable influence on this world and their lives. He may well not exist. For all they know, He doesn't.

For you however His existence has enormous spiritual relevance to your life, so you perceive His influence everywhere, and you think it's kind of dumb that other people don't, and you are not alone in that. But that is all a matter of phenomenology, not of physics or biology; highly subjective and highly personal. I cannot prove that your belief in God is illogical anymore than you can prove that my lack of belief in God is illogical.

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Regarding the problem of infinite regression, I looked into this extensively some time ago and it boils down to close-mindedness on the part of those who refuse to accept God's nature as an eternal being. If you posit a being who simply is, and therefore dispense with the problem of infinite regression altogether, the most common objection is simply that such a being cannot exist...because it's "too easy". It's a strawman objection, a refusal to accept a tenable (yet mind-blowing) possibility.

In my experience, atheist philosophers have great trouble conceiving of a being that is itself a source, a font; they would rather believe in nothing that became something - illogically and untenably, but necessarily. One scientist has gone so far to say, astonishingly, that "...because something is physical, nothing must also be physical." Oh dear.

Perhaps the mind that is being blown is yours. Both 'something' (matter) and 'nothing' (absence of matter) lie in the physical domain. Think about it.

Scientists usually say "We don't know what came before, or caused the Big Bang". They are not saying: "Well, it certainly wasn't God"; nor are they saying it was. They acknowledge that we don't know, and that we may never be able to find out because we're kind of trapped in this universe and cannot peek outside of it.