The Dawkins Delusion - Alister McGrath

[Boleslaw]

Just the other day I was glancing through Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-Delusion-Atheist-Fundamentalism-Denial/dp/083083446X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0591109-3972948?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183827437&sr=8-1). Rather nice, Petr will love this.


Anyways, here an outline of of the some of the book's arguments:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/

The Dawkins Delusion

By Alister McGrath, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2007.

An Oxford theologian contends that the aggressive rhetoric of Richard Dawkins' books masks a deep insecurity about the public credibility of atheism.

Alister McGrath, a biochemist and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, may be Richard Dawkins' most prominent critic. As the author of "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life," he was interviewed extensively for Dawkins' recent documentary, "The Root of All Evil." Not a frame of these interviews made it into the final edit. Below is a slightly modified version of remarks delivered by McGrath in response to Dawkins' latest book, "The God Delusion."


The God Delusion has established Dawkins as the world's most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion. He is out to convert his readers. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." Not that he thinks that this is particularly likely; after all, he suggests, "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument." Along with Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, Dawkins directs a ferocious trade of criticism against religion in general and Christianity in particular. In this article, I propose to explore two major questions. First, why this sudden outburst of aggression? Second, how reliable are Dawkins' criticisms of religion?

Let's begin by looking at the first question. Every worldview, whether religious or not, has its point of vulnerability. There is a tension between theory and experience, raising questions over the coherence and trustworthiness of the worldview itself. In the case of Christianity, many locate that point of weakness in the existence of suffering within the world. In the case of atheism, it is the persistence of belief in God, when there is supposedly no God in which to believe.

Until recently, western atheism had waited patiently, believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded, and seems set to exercise still greater influence in both the public and private spheres. The God Delusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflecting an intense distaste for religion. Yet there is something deeper here, often overlooked in the heat of debate. The anxiety is that the coherence of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected resurgence of religion persuade many that atheism itself is fatally flawed as a worldview?

That's what Dawkins is worried about. The shrill, aggressive rhetoric of his God Delusion masks a deep insecurity about the public credibility of atheism. The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers, and others seeking for truth. (Might this be because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering?) Religious believers will be dismayed by its ritual stereotyping of religion, and will find its manifest lack of fairness a significant disincentive to take its arguments and concerns seriously. Seekers after truth who would not consider themselves religious may also find themselves shocked by Dawkins' aggressive rhetoric, his substitution of personal creedal statements for objective engagement with evidence, his hectoring and bullying tone towards "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads," and his utter determination to find nothing but fault with religion of any kind.

It is this deep, unsettling anxiety about the future of atheism which explains the high degree of dogmatism and aggressive rhetorical style of this new secular fundamentalism. The dogmatism of the work has been the subject of intense criticism in the secular press, reflecting growing alarm within the secularist community about the damage that Dawkins is doing to their public reputation. Many of those who might be expected to support Dawkins are running for cover, trying to distance themselves from this embarrassment.

To give an example: The God Delusion trumpets the fact that its author was recently voted one of the world's three leading intellectuals. This survey took place among the readers of Prospect magazine in November 2005. So what did this same Prospect magazine make of the book? Its reviewer was shocked at this "incurious, dogmatic, rambling, and self-contradictory" book. The title of the review? "Dawkins the dogmatist."

But what of the arguments themselves? The God Delusion is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids, suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact, and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument. This makes dealing with its "arguments" a little problematical, in that the work frequently substitutes aggressive, bullying rhetoric for serious evidence-based argument. Dawkins often treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his preconceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalism's portrayal of atheism.

Space is limited, so let's look his two core arguments -- that religion can be explained away on scientific grounds, and that religion leads to violence. Dawkins dogmatically insists that religious belief is "blind trust," which refuses to take due account of evidence, or subject itself to examination. So why do people believe in God, when there is no God to believe in? For Dawkins, religion is simply the accidental and unnecessary outcome of biological or psychological processes. His arguments for this bold assertion are actually quite weak, and rest on an astonishingly superficial engagement with scientific studies.

[Boleslaw]

For example, consider this important argument in The God Delusion. Since belief in God is utterly irrational (one of Dawkins' core beliefs, by the way), there has to be some biological or psychological way of explaining why so many people -- in fact, by far the greater part of the world's population -- fall victim to such a delusion. One of the explanations that Dawkins offers is that believing in God is like being infected with a contagious virus, which spreads throughout entire populations. Yet the analogy -- belief in God is like a virus -- seems to then assume ontological substance. Belief in God is a virus of the mind. Yet biological viruses are not merely hypothesized; they can be identified, observed, and their structure and mode of operation determined. Yet this hypothetical "virus of the mind" is an essentially polemical construction, devised to discredit ideas that Dawkins does not like.

So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins draws an absolute distinction between rational, scientific and evidence-based ideas, and spurious, irrational notions -- such as religious beliefs. The latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But who decides what is "rational" and "scientific"? Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing that he can easily categorize such ideas, separating the sheep from the goats.

Except it all turns out to be horribly complicated, losing the simplicity and elegance that marks a great idea. For instance, every worldview -- religious or secular -- ends up falling into the category of "belief systems," precisely because it cannot be proved. That is simply the nature of worldviews, and everyone knows it. It prevents nobody from holding a worldview in the first place, and doing so with complete intellectual integrity in the second. In the end, Dawkins' idea simply implodes, falling victim to his own subjective judgement of what is rational and true. It's not an idea that is taken seriously within the scientific community, and can safely be disregarded.

The main argument of The God Delusion, however, is that religion leads to violence and oppression. Dawkins treats this as defining characteristic of religion, airbrushing out of his somewhat skimpy account of the roots of violence any suggestion that it might be the result of political fanaticism -- or even atheism. He is adamant that he himself, as a good atheist, would never, ever fly airplanes into skyscrapers, or commit any other outrageous act of violence or oppression. Good for him. Neither would I. Yet the harsh reality is that religious and anti-religious violence has happened, and is likely to continue to do so.

As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland, I know about religious violence only too well. There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it's not alone in this. The history of the twentieth century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism can equally cause violence. In Latin America, millions of people seem to have "disappeared" as a result of ruthless campaigns of violence by right wing politicians and their militias. In Cambodia, Pol Pot eliminated his millions in the name of socialism.

The rise of the Soviet Union was of particular significance. Lenin regarded the elimination of religion as central to the socialist revolution, and put in place measures designed to eradicate religious beliefs through the "protracted use of violence." One of the greatest tragedies of this dark era in human history was that those who sought to eliminate religious belief through violence and oppression believed they were justified in doing so. They were accountable to no higher authority than the state.

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is "not the smallest evidence" that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It's an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda -- the elimination of religion. This doesn't fit with Dawkins' highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

Dawkins develops a criticism that is often directed against religion in works of atheist apologetics -- namely, that it encourages the formation and maintenance of "in-groups" and "out-groups." For Dawkins, removing religion is essential if this form of social demarcation and discrimination is to be defeated. But what, many will wonder, about Jesus of Nazareth? Wasn't this a core theme of his teaching -- that the love of God transcends, and subsequently abrogates, such social divisions?

Dawkins' analysis here is unacceptable. There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that -- and here I cite Dawkin's summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality -- coupled with out-group hostility -- that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: "Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs." Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins' method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

[Boleslaw]

There is little point in arguing with such fundamentalist nonsense. It's about as worthwhile as trying to persuade a flat-earther that the world is actually round. Dawkins seems to be so deeply trapped within his own worldview that he cannot assess alternatives. Yet many readers would value a more reliable and informed response, rather than accepting Dawkins' increasingly tedious antireligious tirades. Let's look at things as they actually stand.

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to "love your neighbour" to "love your enemy" (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." As this feature of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is so well-known and distinctive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make no mention of it. Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic.

In the second place, many readers would point out that the familiar story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) makes it clear that the command to "love your neighbour" extends far beyond Judaism. (Indeed, this aspect of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth seems to have resulted in people suspecting Jesus of actually being a Samaritan: see John 8.48). It is certainly true that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, gave priority to the Jews as God's chosen people, but his definition of who was a "true Jew" was radically broad. It included those who had excluded themselves from Judaism by intimate collaborators with Roman occupying forces. One of the main charges levelled against Jesus by his critics within Judaism was his open acceptance of these out-groups. Indeed a substantial part of his teaching can be seen as a defence of his behaviour towards them. Jesus' welcome of marginalized groups, who inhabited an ambiguous position between "in" and "out" is also well attested in accounts of his willingness to touch those considered by his culture to be ritually unclean (for instance Matthew 8.3, Matthew 9.20-25).

So what are we to make of this shrill and petulant manifesto of atheist fundamentalism? Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins' crude stereotypes, vastly over-simplified binary oppositions ("science is good, religion is bad"), straw men, and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire, and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse commented recently: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counter-evidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades, rather than the evidence offered in its support. Dawkins' astonishingly superficial and inaccurate portrayal of Christianity will simply lead Christians to conclude that he does not know what he is talking about -- and that his atheism may therefore rest on a series of errors and misunderstandings. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that it is actually atheism itself may be a delusion about God.

[Basil Fawlty]

The latest addition to this genre of crapology is Christopher Hitchens. This dreck holds appeal ony for the uninformed.

[Boleslaw]

The latest addition to this genre of crapology is Christopher Hitchens.

This should interest you:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/

I find him to be a pompous loudmouth on any topic he discusses.

[Roland]

An interesting post.

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to "love your neighbour" to "love your enemy" (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." As this feature of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is so well-known and distinctive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make no mention of it. Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic.

This is an important point that often goes unnoticed by critics of Christianity. When critics do recognize the universality of Christianity, they cite the political history of Christianity as proof that it is empty rhetoric. In reality, however, Christianity does not dissolve politics.

Carl Schmitt points out that Matthew uses Platonic language in 5:44; Matthew writes "diligite inimicos vestros...and not diligite hostes vestros" where inimicos signifies the private, and hostes the public, enemy. Indeed, Christian people can be at war with Saracens and Jews without adjudging them enemies of humanity; Saracens and Jews are possible converts and are therefore afforded the benefits of Christian universality. At the same time, however, they can be political enemies of Christians:
"The enemy in the political sense need not be hated personally, and in the private sphere only does it make sense to love one's enemy, i.e., one's adversary."
The banal dialectic of ingroup-outgroup employed by modern sociology and sociobiology misses the dynamic possible within concrete human groupings.

[Petr]

Carl Schmitt points out that Matthew uses Platonic language in 5:44; Matthew writes "diligite inimicos vestros...and not diligite hostes vestros" where inimicos signifies the private, and hostes the public, enemy.
Interesting - do you know Greek equivalents for these words?


Petr

[Ixtab]

I just bought The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I highly recommend this book. It is a good refutation of the God hypothesis.

[Roland]

Interesting - do you know Greek equivalents for these words?


Petr
From Schmitt, Concept of the Political:

"The enemy is hostis, not inimicus in the broader sense; πολέμιος , not εχθρός."

Schmitt follows with an interesting footnote on Plato's explicit differentiation between the two concepts; on the one hand there were private enemies, and then there were the barbars.

A few years ago when Fade was reading Schmitt, I recall him interpreting this passage in a different light. He indicated that the Jews were the perpetual public enemy (hostes perpetui) of medieval Christianity, which is true, but the conclusions he drew from Schmitt's insight don't follow. The Jews were public enemies, but also possible friends.

[Basil Fawlty]

Interesting - do you know Greek equivalents for these words?


Petr
Hostis = polemios
Inimicos = echthros

[Boleslaw]

So Petr, what do you think about McGrath's arguments against Dawkins?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Western atheists deal in flawed thinking from the git-go because they always start with limited, hackneyed definitions of God. To anyone who has studied religion more widely, and seen more sophisticated definitions of God, the very premises of western atheists always seem ridiculous, and their ensuing arguments, juvenile.

It's a kick to see this guy psychoanalyzing atheists. Entertaining to see that powerful Jewish trick used against a sufferin' Jewish atheist and his church.

One has to go seriously looking for God, for a good long while, before he is qualified to report on Him. Dawkins never seriously mounted that search, and therefore he is ridiculous. He's merely a negative, bitter cynic with no experience. Atheists are simply timid bores who never ventured beyond their limited cultural confines, usually neurotically obsessive about past experiences with a few heavy handed or shallow religionists in their childhood. Atheists are simply inexperienced. As Jimi Hendrix said, are you experienced? This pic is dedicated to Mr. (if he deserves that title, which he doesn't) Dawkins:

http://julianlee.com/images/JimiHendrix2.jpg

Does this pic seem ridiculous? That's why I put it up. It goes perfectly well with Mr. Dawkins.

[Zubenelgenubi]

Richard Dawkins is not a Jew.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Sorry, I mixed him up with Sam Harris who's champing at the bit for "The End of Faith."

[Macrobius]

Sounds like Dawkins is tapping into a Calvinist ethos with Total Depravity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Religion of Man being his central doctrine. Should give him some mileage with any of his target audience who are into Christianity for the thrill of hatred and the politics and want to do a quick reversal ideologically. I've seen neocon wingers become socialist overnight and the opposite happens too. Happens all the time and he can probably pick up any number of 'converts' that way.

[Ixtab]

Western atheists deal in flawed thinking from the git-go because they always start with limited, hackneyed definitions of God.Dawkins decries supernaturalism in all its forms. He does not attack the specific qualifies of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or Zeus. Instead he defines the God idea as follows: "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence Who deliberately designed and created the universe." He advocates an alternative perspective: "Any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it." (The God Delusion, page 31).

To anyone who has studied religion more widely, and seen more sophisticated definitions of God, the very premises of western atheists always seem ridiculous, and their ensuing arguments, juvenile.A non-supernatural definition of God is meaningless.

One has to go seriously looking for God, for a good long while, before he is qualified to report on Him. Dawkins never seriously mounted that search, and therefore he is ridiculous.Does one have to go seriously looking for Thor or the Tooth Fairy before one is qualified to say they exist or do not exist?

He's merely a negative, bitter cynic with no experience.What is bitter and cynical about atheism? How does the supernatural enrich our perception of the universe? Do I have to believe there are fairies swimming around underneath my garden to appreciate its beauty?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Dawkins decries supernaturalism in all its forms.
Bliss, along with "Being" and "Consciousness" is one of the most serviceable and widespread definitions of God. (And there are other great ones, such as "the sense of 'I'" used by the Advaitists.) "Bliss" here is meant to include the state of deep, dreamless sleep** and some of the lower dream states, as well as bliss occurring in the waking state.

Is bliss supernatural?

**Some of these philosophies hold, incidentally, that the entire world disappears and is unmanifest during sleep, and is re-projected each morning on waking, by the power of consciousness. If some one says "I was awake, you were sleeping, and the world was still here Joe," that's because you expect that and have conditioning that supports the idea of a continuous world during sleep. But it actually isn't there any more when you sleep, and when you die. The state of deep dreamless sleep is the "Shiva" state, the pure consciousness, which projects worlds. In that state there is the sense of 'I' alone, and no manifestation.
A non-supernatural definition of God is meaningless.
Only if you have a limited exposure to religious ideas. Native Americans defined God in some naturalistic ways. Some of the Indian systems state that the material world is itself God in his female nature. But again, is bliss supernatural? You've not experienced it?
Does one have to go seriously looking for Thor or the Tooth Fairy before one is qualified to say they exist or do not exist?
What's with "Tooth Faries"? Again, you don't believe bliss exists? (Or the "sense of I'", or "consciousness")? Some others define God as an inner sound called "Aum." Never heard it? That's cuz you never tried. I have. Yes, it's as good as God to me and it's blissful and it gives power to the mind and is full of vision.
What is bitter and cynical about atheism?
They want to destroy the things that give happiness to others, and they themselves miss out on so much, thus their bitterness. The cynicism and bitterness of humorless atheists is patent the minute they open their mouths.

Belief systems are constantly evolving and growing because the mind and perceptions are always growing. Nobody should disturb the belief system of another if it is giving him some need stability, security, comfort, or happiness. To do so is to be an ignorant bully. Atheists function as ignorant mind bullies and nothing more.
How does the supernatural enrich our perception of the universe?
Never had any dreams at night? Never experienced there things and feelings that are "supernatural" compared to your drab days? Felt your perceptions strangely increased? Experienced a sense of enriched life so that you regretted waking up?

However, no need for the supernatural yet in this discussion. Without bliss human beings have no motivation for living. Without bliss we associate with outer things, they have no attractiveness.
Do I have to believe there are fairies swimming around underneath my garden to appreciate its beauty?
You already did this one. Again, you've never experienced bliss? To me, bliss is God, and I certainly know that it exists.

Meanwhile, if you analyze yourself, your appreciation of your garden comes from your own consciousness, and things that it evokes in YOU, within. In other words, that enjoyment is a facet of your own consciousness. (And as stated, "consciousness" is one of the better God definitions.) As proof of that, you can enjoy a garden in the same way in the dream state, and even a better garden. Yet there is no physical garden. In both cases, the capacity to enjoy is within you. That very capacity to enjoy, coming from consciousness, is of the nature of God in some systems. Meanwhile, the garden itself -- just like the dream garden -- actually came from you; arose from consciousness. That is why "consciousness" is a very serviceable definition of God. It creates.

Everything you appreciate outside, you appreciate only because of something that it evokes in you. That evocation or awareness within is God by some reckonings. Another definition of God is "the Self," which is within you or your actual true self, the original 'I'. Some religionists state that we appreciate outer things only because they remind us, in fleeting glances, of "the Self." For the same reason we can't wait to get to sleep each night even though we have experienced a day loaded with music, parties, beautiful women and scenes. The "Self" is superior and we retire to that at night. In some systems of belief we experience God or "the Self" in sleep, are regenerated and heartened by it, and that is why we sleep.

So you have to get out more. Your ideas of religion and your definitions of God are hackneyed and narrow, so your conversation is not very engaging. Thus it is with all atheists. They are incredibly shallow just on the intellectual level. They have done no homework.

The main problem with atheists is that they are unimaginative and boring. Oh yeah, some systems basically define God as the power of imagination (the 'Pure Consciousness" of the Yoga-Vasistha). You've never experienced your own imagination? Based on your post, I guess rarely. But if you've experienced imagination only a little, according to some religions, you've experienced God.

Atheists are way out of their depth.

[Macrobius]

A non-supernatural definition of God is meaningless.



I don't believe this is defensible. See Kant's CPR, B659 ff. for example. There he distinguishes transcendental theology (Deism), from belief in a supreme intelligence (Theism) -- these being the standard definitions of these terms in the post-Kantian world -- yet neither is *logically* inconsistent or meaningless when interpreted in the framework of Naturalism.

If your statement follows, it follows only a fortiori on the ground that God can have no definition at all. However, I don't believe that you mean your statement that way. Though one could distinguish God and Dawkin's 'God Hypothesis' I suppose.

[Ixtab]

Bliss, along with "Being" and "Consciousness" is one of the most serviceable and widespread definitions of God.Atheists believe in consciousness; they just don't call it God. Defining God as consciousness is de facto atheism. You don't believe in God but you invoke the name of God. You might just as reasonably have defined God as a teapot and conclude that God exists because teapots exist.

Native Americans defined God in some naturalistic ways. Some of the Indian systems state that the material world is itself God in his female nature.This is to use the word 'God' as a non-supernatural synonym for nature or some other not-godly thing. If by God you mean something of this nature, then clearly there is such a God, and every atheist believes in such a God, but this is just a play on words. Like any word, 'God' can be given any meaning we choose to give it. If the word is not to be entirely meaningless, it must refer to a supernatural First Mover, as it is generally understood to mean.

They want to destroy the things that give happiness to others, and they themselves miss out on so much, thus their bitterness. The cynicism and bitterness of humorless atheists is patent the minute they open their mouths.

Belief systems are constantly evolving and growing because the mind and perceptions are always growing. Nobody should disturb the belief system of another if it is giving him some need stability, security, comfort, or happiness. To do so is to be an ignorant bully. Atheists function as ignorant mind bullies and nothing more.As Douglas Adams expressed it,

"If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.

"Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the universe ... no, that's holy?"

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Atheists believe in consciousness; they just don't call it God.
That would be because atheists don't understand what consciousness is, or it's creating power. Like I said, they are shallow people and not terribly thoughtful.
Defining God as consciousness is de facto atheism.
Not at all. Many varieties of Hindu see "consciousness" as one of the central attributes of God, yet don't consider themselves at all atheist. Neither do I. This looks like an atheist trying to appropriate religious ideas that he deems to be sufficiently foreign (comfortably divorced from your neurotic seedbed, and from the things that alienated you from religion in childhood) to upholster his barren philosophy. :) But sorry. Religion has already laid claim to this understanding of God as "consciousness." Atheists missed that gold claim a long time ago.
You might just as reasonably have defined God as a teapot and conclude that God exists because teapots exist.
No. A teapot doesn't create. Consciousness creates. (We experience that very directly in dreams, plus in waking life.) Teapots are creations of consciousness. Not the other way around. And here I thought you were so smart. (You think the word "consciousness" means the same thing as the word "teapot"?)

Folks, observe here the typical atheist irritation when you start going beyond his Smallsville God definitions. He starts accusing you of making up new definitions for God. But these are very old and come from venerable religious traditions. Poor atheists. :nopity:
...but this is just a play on words.
No, this is ancient religious philosophy.

But anyway, you need words to play this game. We can't discuss this without words, but you must play smart. Atheists deny "God" by playing with words and play mental bully with words. (They play with words, and play mean. But they are just small town bullies.) To begin we must have definitions. And the fact is, religions define God in a number of ways both naturalistic and supernatural. That's why it's stupid for an atheist to run around saying "there is no God" when he doesn't even specify which definition of "god" he's meaning to defame. (There's no such thing as consciousness? Bliss? The 'sense of I'?) And it's also dumb to say that all concepts of God are supernatural. One other conception I didn't mention is the Hindu conception that "the guru is god." There is he, sitting right in front of you at the ashram.
Like any word, 'God' can be given any meaning we choose to give it.
But this is not what I did; I wasn't playing with you. I was citing venerable religious traditions defining God. You can have your teapot, but nobody's interested unless the meaning makes some sense and has some profound utility in explaining phenomena and giving comfort. That's why your teapot definition doesn't rank. It's like I said: Atheists are just people lacking in imagination. I put "consciousness" on the table and all you can come up with is "teapot." :confused: (And after first greedily grabbing for "consciousness" as part of your own atheist lexicon, you next tell me that "consciousness" means nothing different than "teapot.")
If the word is not to be entirely meaningless, it must refer to a supernatural First Mover, as it is generally understood to mean.
Aah, but I thought that to you atheists, the idea of a Supernatural First Mover was meaningless in the first place. What's this meaningfulness? You seem confused. I guess you just want us dummies to say "it's meaningful" so that you bullies can say "no it's not."

But seriously, Supernatural First Mover is a good definition of God. And "super" in natural just means it's a natural principle that is higher or more rarefied than principles understood in everyday life. A "supernatural" thing is just a principle that is not well understood yet. One man's "supernatural" theory may be another man's everyday device or pleasant engagement.

[Petr]

It's a kick to see this guy psychoanalyzing atheists. Entertaining to see that powerful Jewish trick used against a sufferin' Jewish atheist and his church.
Have you see this thread of mine? It might please you as well:


Sociobiological analysis of atheism, or atheism as elitist meme-virus

Evolutionary psychologists’ disinterest in the evolutionary origins of their own ideology is remarkable. Why do evolutionary psychologists exempt their own ideology from evolutionary deconstruction? Perhaps we would learn that atheistic materialism is, like belief in God, an evolutionary spandrel, or merely a survival tactic to secure group cohesion.

But atheistic materialism is where the evolutionary stories end. Why are evolutionary psychologists so reluctant to apply their own science to their own beliefs?

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19242&highlight=draper


Petr

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Do not be fooled into believing that there exists a thing denoted by 'consciousness.' Consciousness is a property. Animals have consciousness, mental states have consciousness(perhaps in two different senses). I see posters speaking of consciousness as if it is the sort of thing that an apple is or that a chair is. It is not. It is like goodness or redness.
Obviously. Consciousness is an intangible. And God, in most cases, is meant to be understood as an intangible also. Just like "courage," or "love." We can't stack those things on a shelf, or put them in a bottle and hand it to someone. Yet we know that they exist. (By their manifestations, fruits, results, signs. In the same way we infer some kind cause from a creation, and as with the intangible cause we call "courage," we call that "God.") The discussion of God is always a discussion of intangibles, and that is why so many atheists are so grossly unqualified to be debating it. They want to impugn a set of sophisticated intangible concepts (God) in one instance, while they know that intangibles do exist (courage, fear, contentment, etc.) Brute minds are unqualified for such discussions. So are bullies and guys who base their whole posture toward religion/God on a Sunday School teacher who was a jerk, a mom who was a confused fanatic, etc.

Nobody's gonna fool you, Helios.

[xmotor]

I merely substitute the term "fairy" for "God" which puts the entire "God" question into the proper perspective.

[Helios Panoptes]

The problem with the Dawkins crowd is that they are little more that the status quo spiffied up a little bit, so you might not notice if you're not paying attention. All these 'secular humanists' want is to eliminate religious practice and there seems to be a general trend toward making social mores more lax because many of these are supposedly antediluvian relics. However, they tend not to pick on more foundational, more widely accepted aspects of popular morality. No, they want all of that to remain almost precisely as it is. They're not interested in radical changes, such as a eugenics program. Rather, they are content merely to pick around the edges of the edifice, making sure not to disturb anything towards the center.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

I merely substitute the term "fairy" for "God" which puts the entire "God" question into the proper perspective.
Fairies suffice only for yourself.

[Hartmann von Aue]

There are no "things" to talk about without our being conscious of them.

To say 'consciousness" is not a "thing" is to play a stultifying semantic game and call it philosophy.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Not only is consciousness a "Thing, it is actually the only real and reliable "Thing" (according to certain venerable traditions), and all ephemeral things arise and fall in it. The outer things, those transient things that materialists consider most real, arise from consciousness only. Think of something often enough in consciousness, and soon it arises as a "thing" in your outer world. (The outer world; the world that actually affects us less than our inner world.)

Interestingly, that inner thing actually ranked as a materialist's "thing" as soon as you thought of it, because it could affect you and others, as for example an idea affects you and others. So even the gross materialist's "things" do not need a gross material manifestation in order to exist for him. Same with particles, forms of energy etc. which one day we have no awareness of, and the next are "discovered" to exist.

Once you point out to atheists that A) There are many definitions for God, and B) The definitions they joust with are usually Small Town, kindergarten definitions, and C) That many venerable religions define God as "consciousness" (or "Being-Consciousness-Bliss," etc.) you basically have taken a big stick and stuck it in the craw of the atheism lizard. They can't deal with it. Philosophically, atheists are like children and very easy to confound.

[Helios Panoptes]

Not only is consciousness a "Thing, it is actually the only real and reliable "Thing" (according to certain venerable traditions), and all ephemeral things arise and fall in it. Think of something often enough in consciousness, and soon it arises as a "thing" in your outer world. (The world that actually affects us less than our inner world.) It was already became a thing once you even started thinking of it. One that can affect you and others, for example, as an idea affects you and others...

It is terribly difficult to debate the existence of the external world because there seems to be no way of demonstrating, for certain, that the objects of thought are really out there. What I will say is that it makes better sense to say that they are. Why? Because, if I say to you 'go to the following location and report what you find. I will write on a piece of paper what is located there and put in the safe.' After you go and have a look and we pull out the piece of paper, we will find that we both found basically the same thing at the location. There was no expectation on your part. I gave no hint of what might be there. Your report did not influence me, either, because I wrote down what was there before you went you to see. It is very convenient to conclude that observed consistency is explained by an independent reality which we interact with and which is, itself, fairly consistent.

Once you point out to atheists that A) There are many definitions for God, and B) The definitions they joust with are usually Small Town, kindergarten definitions, and C) That many venerable religions define God as "consciousness" (or "Being-Consciousness-Bliss," etc.) you basically have taken a big stick and stuck it in the craw of the atheism lizard. They can't deal with it. Philosophically, atheists are like children.

I'm actually going to have to agree with Ixabert earlier. Not that I think that defining God in naturalistic terms is meaningless(it is not), but your definitions are not consonant with our intuitions about what God would be, if he existed. If you want to define God as being conscious, or feeling bliss, so be it, but I would recognize both of those phenomena, and deny that they are God.

[Julian Curtis Lee]

It is terribly difficult to debate the existence of the external world because there seems to be no way of demonstrating, for certain, that the objects of thought are really out there...
One of the most intelligent things ever said on Phora, I'd say.
What I will say is that it makes better sense to say that they are. Why? Because, if I say to you 'go to the following location and report what you find. I will write on a piece of paper what is located there and put in the safe.' After you go and have a look and we pull out the piece of paper, we will find that we both found basically the same thing at the location. There was no expectation on your part. I gave no hint of what might be there. Your report did not influence me, either, because I wrote down what was there before you went you to see. It is very convenient to conclude that observed consistency is explained by an independent reality which we interact with and which is, itself, fairly consistent.
O.K., so you have lots of buddies around "independently confirming" your "outer reality" for you, big deal. Dream buddies might confirm "facts" for you in the dream world, too. But your "agreeing buddies" are all just you; all just your idea. You expected that, you visualized it somewhere down the line, it happened, you repeated it, and you conditioned yourself for that.

Having "other" to share our experience with us is another fabrication of the mind and a facet of will, imagination, and conditioning. You will come to times, however, when this doesn't always hold for you; when you experience things personally that no one can confirm for you. Comes a time when you actually have to figure out what your own mind is what it's doing.

Also, even though you say the two "found the same thing" at the location they really didn't. They each experienced it differently. The thing had different associations for them. One might have perceived other items giving different meaning or import to that thing. One might have a different history and set of associations with that thing. They were even standing at different angles to it, unable to occupy the space of the other in the same moment in time. So nobody is really experiencing the same thing. We filter all our perceptions through unique karmic heritages/lenses. However, if you visualize "I-Thou" enough; visualize shared moments and companionship enough -- Valentine's Day -- you will definitely occasionally manifest moments of agreement with others. At least for a time, you can create scenes in which an "other" is saying "I see it your way." It does happen now and then. Sometimes for years. The Pure Consciousness always manufactures every possible scenario. Then next week the friend is saying, "actually Helios, I actually saw it differently than you."

Periods of agreement with "others," whether lasting for a moment, a week, or a century; and whether involving two, or ten, or whole peoples -- are all manifestations of the creative mind, or consciousness. It visualizes stability, agreement order, relationship. And it visualizes chaos, disagreement, disorder, and solitude. Through conditioning, some relative stability appears. But even that is morphing. Consciousness plays, and does whatever it likes. That's the only law.

"However the mind conceives 'the order' to be, the order becomes." -- Yoga-Vasistha

[Dolophine]

Does pinning the label of God on things as diverse as consciousness, quantum reality, cosmological notions, bliss, harmony, etc, serve any purpose or explicate any truth? Most of these phenomena can be explained in material terms (as can religiosity itself--see neurotheology), yet even if not scientifically accounted for, there would not seem to be any reason to simply ascribe its function to supernatural phenomena or entities. If, however, we start labeling natural phenomenon 'god', what point does doing such a thing make? Where does the boundary between 'religious wisdom' and pretentiousness begin?

[Julian Curtis Lee]

Does pinning the label of God on things as diverse as consciousness, quantum reality, cosmological notions, bliss, harmony, etc, serve any purpose or explicate any truth?
Of course it does. If you understand that truth is a many-faceted diamond and not a one-dimensional stone.

With any logic you would understand that, in attempting to comprehend a transcendental principle that appears to give rise to limitless diversity -- and given varied peoples and capacities -- people would come up with a variety of concepts to explain it, a number of viewpoints on it, and a sophisticated lexicon. You dislike sophisticated discussion? Wrong place!

Another fact is that some conceptions of the Divine state that, in it's intelligence and omnipotence, it can take on any form, any form necessary for various beings, with varied capacities, to relate to and conceive of. So there, I just explicated a truth relative to the diverse labels you don't like.

One can view the Creative mystery in a very simplistic way if one wants; or a very complex way. It can all be done, according to the predilection of one's mind. The point was that atheists start with very limited definitions, and that point stands. If you want me to settle on one simple idea, I'll choose "consciousness." If you can handle something with more dimension, I'll offer "Being-Consciousness-Bliss." That's elegant yet tidy. I would point out that if you favor Christian metaphysics, generally they are more complex and unwieldy than that just mentioned. If you prefer the simplistic, let me recommend Darth Vader and Company: "The Force." That's a ham-handed, clunker of a concept which may mollify you. (Or maybe you can find some similar concept current among the scientists. But good luck. They are always changing their theories and concocting a bewildering lexicon themselves!)
Most of these phenomena can be explained in material terms...
By science? Science only describes secondary causes. They never shed any light on first causes, except to spin "big bang" theories (that are full of holes), etc. Scientists can't even figure out a friggin' bee or how it gives perfect directions to the hive in pitch dark. That's because consciousness created it, and consciousness is unlimited.
...(as can religiosity itself--see neurotheology)...
More secondary causes. Religion comes from consciousness too. And neurons.
yet even if not scientifically accounted for, there would not seem to be any reason to simply ascribe its function to supernatural phenomena or entities.
"Supernatural" is a word for whatever laws we don't understand yet. So it's a necessary catch-all term for "the mystery," probably invented by the scientific-minded themselves to refer to their unexplainables. So since "the supernatural" means "the things you don't understand yet," you are stuck ascribing things to it, because there is so much you and your scientists don't know.

But I have not spoken here about supernatural phenomena or entities. I have talked about "consciousness." "Consciousness" is something we all experience in the same way that fish experience water. We swim in it; we are it. I've also talked about "Bliss." Many of the best religions define God these two ways. "Bliss" is something we all experience, too.
If, however, we start labeling natural phenomenon 'god', what point does doing such a thing make?
First off, "God" is deemed to be a natural phenomenon, the penultimate natural phenomenon and the father of all natural phenomena. That's how it is that, in logic, nature would come from God. ("God" being nomeclature for the Creative Mystery and First Cause.) And that's how it is that the naming of a higher natural phenomenon, and the naming of God, would sometimes correspond.

However, in naming God, we must name something that has the capacity to generate all natural phenomena and it's diversity. "Thunder" and "electricity" won't do. I posit that "consciousness" has that capacity. And you experience this power and that diversity nightly in the dream state, so there is nothing especially "supernatural" about it. (Unless you figure out that everything is supernatural, actually.)

Meanwhile, what point does it make if we start labeling divine things "natural phenomena"? Besides making the world seem boring, profane, and essenceless?
Where does the boundary between 'religious wisdom' and pretentiousness begin?
I see that you put religous wisdom in quotes, so you believe in pretentiousness, but not religious wisdom. You must have had limited associations.

Religious wisdom comes from experience. Pretentiousness is when you talk about something you have not personally experienced as though you have. Or, in the case of atheists, when you pretend there are only one or two juvenile definitions of God in this world.

Pretentiousness also begins when you say that materialists/scientists have succeeded in explaining how diverse life and phenomena arise. Such as in your second paragraph above. Scientists swim in unexplainables all day long. They never alter the fundamental problem of life -- duality -- by one iota, yet pretend to be the authorities in life and function as modern priests. That's pretentiousness.

[Dolophine]

Of course it does. If you understand that truth is a many-faceted diamond and not a one-dimensional stone.

With any logic you would understand that, in attempting to comprehend a transcendental principle that appears to give rise to limitless diversity -- and given varied peoples and capacities -- people would come up with a variety of concepts to explain it, a number of viewpoints on it, and a sophisticated lexicon.

In some ways, this is true--but the 'truths' found in such a way are usually contingent (to some degree) upon opinion, for example philosophies and political ideologies. However, when speaking strictly of material reality, 'truth' cannot be so liberally applied. The opinions of a tribal medicine man and Western physician are not equal in regards to the underlying cause of disease.

So there, I just explicated a truth relative to the diverse labels you don't like.

It's not that I "don't like" these labels, or that I was trying to only pin down one label on the divine. My point I will elaborate on further down..

One can view the Creative mystery in a very simplistic way if one wants; or a very complex way. It can all be done, according to the predilection of one's mind. The point was that atheists start with very limited definitions, and that point stands. If you want me to settle on one simple idea, I'll choose "consciousness." If you can handle something with more dimension, I'll offer "Being-Consciousness-Bliss." That's elegant yet tidy. I would point out that if you favor Christian metaphysics, generally they are more complex and unwieldy than that just mentioned. If you prefer the simplistic, let me recommend Darth Vader and Company: "The Force." That's a ham-handed, clunker of a concept which may mollify you.

What exactly is the point of viewing the 'mystery' of Creation in such a manner, though? It seems to be, not so much of a truth (in the real sense), but a way of building superfluous conceptual layers upon one's reason. I don't see this as necessarily good or bad, just superfluous, and obviously not a material-truth, but only true in the sense that the components of these conceptual layers are coherent/non-contradictory.

By science? Science only describes secondary causes. They never shed any light on first causes, except to spin "big bang" theories (that are full of holes), etc. Scientists can't even figure out a friggin' bee or how it gives perfect directions to the hive in pitch dark. That's because consciousness created it, and consciousness is unlimited.

While it's true that science doesn't have 'all the answers' as of yet, the dynamics of science are always revealing more about how the universe operates. Whereas science willingly updates its theories and throws out that which is found to be false, religion by comparison has no method that makes it possible to validate hypotheses put forth by its practitioners.

"Supernatural" is a word for whatever laws we don't understand yet. So it's a necessary catch-all term for "the mystery," probably invented by the scientific-minded themselves to refer to their unexplainables. So since "the supernatural" means "the things you don't understand yet," you are stuck ascribing things to it, because there is so much you and your scientists don't know.

From a historical perspective, this is true. For example, we know now that the brain is the seat of cognition, not some immaterial element (eg, the soul). However, just because we were ignorant of this in the past does not make the brain a supernatural entity. Because we may be ignorant of some process now does not mean that it's above material reality (ie, supernatural, immaterial, spiritual etc).

First off, "God" is deemed to be a natural phenomenon, the penultimate natural phenomenon and the father of all natural phenomena. That's how it is that, in logic, nature would come from God. ("God" being nomeclature for the Creative Mystery and First Cause.) And that's how it is that the naming of a higher natural phenomenon, and the naming of God, would sometimes correspond.

Yet there's no reason to call the "first cause" God or ascribe to it a spiritual element. Scientists may be ignorant of the First Cause as of now, but that's no reason to jump the gun and call it a God. As the common gutter atheist argument goes, if God is eternal, why cannot the universe/nature/material reality be eternal also? It's speculation.

However, in naming God, we must name something that has the capacity to generate all natural phenomena and it's diversity. "Thunder" and "electricity" won't do. I posit that "consciousness" has that capacity. And you experience this power and that diversity nightly in the dream state, so there is nothing especially "supernatural" about it. (Unless you figure out that everything is supernatural, actually.)

Why must natural phenomena have a genesis? Is it not equally possible that all natural phenomena just "are" and have no need for the superfluous addition of a spiritual being?

Meanwhile, what point does it make if we start labeling divine things "natural phenomena"? Besides making the world seem boring, profane, and essenceless?

Even if religious belief and practice do enrich culture it doesn't mean they're true.

I see that you put religous wisdom in quotes, so you believe in pretentiousness, but not religious wisdom. You must have had a limited life.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion; I was merely remarking that one might easily venture into pretentiousness when talking about mystical "Being-Consciousness" hypotheticals and such, disconnected as such ideas are from material reality, and only beholden to the imaginations of their originating sage/mystic types.

Religious wisdom comes from experience. Pretentiousness is when you talk about something you have not personally experienced. Or, in the case of atheists, when you pretend there are only one or two juvenile definitions of God in this world.

Well, that would be the dividing line between spirituality and science, would it not? Science requires something to be observable, falsifiable, and repeatable in order to be considered for inclusion in a hypothesis. That is the only way humans are able to perceive reality--through reason--and that's what science is--organized reason. Once we get into the realm of relying on the personal experiences of individuals, it's really "anything goes" in terms of truth.

Pretentiousness also begins when you say that materialists/scientists have suceeded in explaining how diverse life and phenomena arise. Such as in your second paragraph above. Scientists swim in unexplainables all day long. They never alter the fundamental problem of life -- duality -- by one iota, yet pretend to be the authorities in life and function as modern priests. That's pretentiousness.

I never meant to give the impression that I think science has figured everything out. That's why I said that even if science has not explained some phenomenon, that doesn't mean we have this liberty with truth to go on ascribing its causes/mechanics to spiritual entities, like God. Scientists act nothing like priests.. priests are accountable only to dogma (revelation, holy men, prophets, and so forth), scientists have the task of utilizing their collective reason in explaining reality, and, unfortunately, humans have imperfect reason so it takes some reworking of ideas to get things right (a process which science affords and is built upon).

[Macrobius]

NOTE: Some discussion formerly above was moved here: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26477

As a parenthesis for some of the younger readers who may not have encountered this metaphor before (any of the philosophy hands will have) -- here is what I mean that an atheist's animal is even more like a *designed* machine than a non-atheists.

First, think about what it means to be non-natural, or artificially designed. The classic example is a bed. Imagine a bed, with an iron metal frame, and a mattress. It is composed of various natural materials, all of which change (evolve if you like) according to their own internal principles. For example, the iron might rust, eventually causing the bed to cease being useful as a bed. That is, what distinguishes the natural from the artificial is that when the artificial decays, it does so precisely *as* an aggregate of natural materials, each of which progresses according to its own physical law. Thus, of the four 'causes' -- material (made of iron, cloth, stuffing), formal (shaped like a bed), efficient (manufactured in Tacoma), and final (designed by the company to be useful as a bed, this purpose or teleology determining the overall design) -- the last three are intimately related to the notion of design and to the designer, not to mention the efficient Creator who made it.

In the natural world, Creation and Design means that animals *have a purpose* -- and even if that purpose were 'to survive', their design would be *providentially created* so that they could do so. A *materialist* explanation will leave only the matter part intact, and the form, though of course present, will be more or less random, accidental, and not predictable. This comes about precisely because the animals are now spontaneously arising machines. In order to exist, they must be capable of reproduction and actual survival -- but this dynamical principle has no predictive power whatsoever, in a scientific sense. The 'path' is one which, after the fact, can be described (like Brownian motion), but not predicted precisely, as a future trajectory, for any component. There is no 'providence' because there is no way to know that the animal about to be born is particularly fitted for anything. Past survival brings no such providential guarantee. Thus, all patterns and regularity actually observed are (1) not the result of a design process [have no providential fitting of means to ends] and (2) are at every point in the path governed by chance.

Such regularities and laws as become evident are observations about the transient and contingent relation of genes to environment, similar to the habit of growth of a crystal. Only the operation of the matter itself (in this case, biochemical cells capable of self-reproduction), posited to arise spontaneously from the operation of non-biological laws -- viz., Chemistry -- survives as a 'cause' of anything. Form is non-predictable, except in an extremely localised sense. Large scale structure is entirely a matter of larger (environmental) influences. For example, changes in climate might favour large or small animals generally. That sort of thing.

This pattern -- local laws are predictable and material [quasi-static environment implies fitted for survival]; large scale laws relate to environmental factors [predictable die-off]; mid-scale has no law at all only description -- this is precisely the sort of explanation (or non-explanation) we are left with. Most of science, including the knowledge of what each animal is best at in the economy of nature, is gutted.

I do note that this view leaves open a sort of role for Astrology. *Really* large scale astronomical phenomena, such as long-period changes to the sun's brightness or comet periodicities, can have large macro-scale *influences* will have vast influences -- Age of Fire, Age of Water, and so on. This is one of the few areas of regularity [cause-effect prediction in the large] left for Science, since Divine Providence in the mesoscale animal world is gutted, in this view, though the long time scale may make prediction and confirmation difficult. Of course, there will be a preconceived tendency to prefer hypotheses that are 'physically reasonable' such as sunspots or asteroids to more traditional ones like rare conjunctions in Scorpio. However, the methodological basis for this preference is not clear.

What we must understand is that this 'pushing of meaning to small and large scales' with consequent poverty of the mesoscale is a exactly the result of material causes taking the lead role. Material causation is, among natural explanations, *most like* describing artificial machines -- in the case of animals, programmable ones. The entire focus of the methodology must be one dragging the material explanation back into the natural world, where it is most difficult to maintain. That is, explaining away the evident design and purpose (providential or foresighted fitting of creature to environment).

[Macrobius]

What exactly is the point of viewing the 'mystery' of Creation in such a manner, though? It seems to be, not so much of a truth (in the real sense), but a way of building superfluous conceptual layers upon one's reason. I don't see this as necessarily good or bad, just superfluous, and obviously not a material-truth, but only true in the sense that the components of these conceptual layers are coherent/non-contradictory.


Any Science needs to have a critique of its limitations. Those limitations arise from the nature of language and the human mind (to name two obvious issues), as well as limitations of methodology, size and time scales, and complexity we haven't thought of. You have to have, somewhere, a theory about what you *don't* know, and that ends up tucked away somewhere as metaphysics, with some concept or other coordinate with God.

Modern Science is both weak on this critique, and rife with concepts that work very much like God, only aren't, in its theory. It is by no means clear this is a wise or good trade, on scientific grounds. On religious grounds, we *know* it is not a good trade.


While it's true that science doesn't have 'all the answers' as of yet, the dynamics of science are always revealing more about how the universe operates. Whereas science willingly updates its theories and throws out that which is found to be false, religion by comparison has no method that makes it possible to validate hypotheses put forth by its practitioners.


Reaching this unwarranted conclusion (bolded) requires assuming it implicitly, however, so I wouldn't place great store by it. Parts of Science are *less* revealing than Revelation, as Science has some big blind spots, and Science assumes certain things are false, contrary to evidence that they are not, and throws them out of scope without warrant. Religion, by contrast, doesn't posit hypotheses. That is proper to certain aspects of the Scientific method (and controversial even there, by the way).


From a historical perspective, this is true. For example, we know now that the brain is the seat of cognition, not some immaterial element (eg, the soul).


Actually, we don't know that. What we know is the material basis for some portion of some types of cognition. The material basis of something may not be the most interesting part, and some things are not known at all, mis-classified, etc.


However, just because we were ignorant of this in the past does not make the brain a supernatural entity. Because we may be ignorant of some process now does not mean that it's above material reality (ie, supernatural, immaterial, spiritual etc).


Material reality is relative. Higher reality could be both material *and* spiritual simultaneously. 'Matter' is mostly being a subject for something higher and more formal. 'Formal' means we recognise the patterns in it -- things we don't recognise the patterns in (superclusters of galaxies before the Virgo cluster was discovered, say) are not conceivable until we conceive them. There may be layers beyond our conception -- almost certainly are.


Yet there's no reason to call the "first cause" God or ascribe to it a spiritual element.


Well, only 2000+ years of discussion discarded for no good reason, that is. The word 'God' is used when the first cause is (on the basis of philosophical metaphysics or religion) determined to be an Intelligence. This fits with the notion of an Intelligent Designer and a Creator. You can argue it is tendentious if the unmoved mover turns out to be just the outermost heavenly sphere, say. However, I think even that is just a quibble. Thoroughgoing naturalism has to argue that the Universe consists of eternal matter in eternal space or else, if it has an origin, it is a spontaneous and random one, without any factor of intelligence or design to it -- only in those cases would one be justified in *not* using the word 'God'.

The real core of naturalism, positivism, evolution, atheism, etc. is that the sensible world is all there is, there are no immaterial principles of any kind, especially including intelligent ones, and that no element of design or deliberate (willful, intelligent) creation is present. One can argue these points are 'not religious' -- but they are certainly taken in view of Religion. Indeed, it would be hard to summarise anti-Religion any better.


Why must natural phenomena have a genesis?


One can evade the question, however it is in the scope of Science (or at least natural philosophy) to ask it.


Is it not equally possible that all natural phenomena just "are" and have no need for the superfluous addition of a spiritual being?


Spiritual being is not superfluous if given in Revelation. Assuming natural phenomena 'just are' assumes many other things besides -- in fact, it sidesteps the whole argument by assuming the conclusion.


Even if religious belief and practice do enrich culture it doesn't mean they're true.


If something enriches culture, it must be because it is Good. Good implies there is some purpose. If there is a purpose, there is a highest purpose. Let's restate what you said: false religious belief and/or practice might possibly enrich culture. I believe you have a burden of proof there. You need to demonstrate an end or purpose, and a corresponding summum bonum, for false religion.


Well, that would be the dividing line between spirituality and science, would it not? Science requires something to be observable, falsifiable, and repeatable in order to be considered for inclusion in a hypothesis. That is the only way humans are able to perceive reality--through reason--and that's what science is--organized reason. Once we get into the realm of relying on the personal experiences of individuals, it's really "anything goes" in terms of truth.


This doesn't make clear the difference between the uses of Reason and Science. Should we limit Reason to positivistic Science only? That is rather putting the cart before the horse, I think.

[Dolophine]

Any Science needs to have a critique of its limitations. Those limitations arise from the nature of language and the human mind (to name two obvious issues), as well as limitations of methodology, size and time scales, and complexity we haven't thought of.
. . .
This doesn't make clear the difference between the uses of Reason and Science. Should we limit Reason to positivistic Science only? That is rather putting the cart before the horse, I think.


I will address both of these in the same breath. While it's true that science needs to be aware of its limitations, it's not clear that those things outside of its limitations even exist or can be comprehended by humans.
The traditional limitations of science are usually seen as ethics, aesthetics/ value judgment, and the supernatural. The first two of these do have a scientifically analyzable component.. ethics/morality can be analysed through the field of evolutionary biology; aesthetics can be viewed through certain mathematical concepts (eg, symmetry). Supernatural is a vague term which can mean "that which we don't understand yet" (as Julian Lee stated) or immaterial/incorporeal/spiritual and thus (as of yet atleast) irrelevant to reason.

Now, one might object to the conflating of (positivistic) science and reason, but the practice of science, as I see it atleast, is organized reason--reason streamlined with basic principles of logic that allow it to most successfully uncover the causes of phenomena.

When we allow undisciplined reason alone to be a determinant of knowledge, we run into the problem that some theories may be reason-intensive, but not rational or likely. (An obvious example would be Plato's Theory of Forms).

You have to have, somewhere, a theory about what you *don't* know, and that ends up tucked away somewhere as metaphysics, with some concept or other coordinate with God.

I don't think it's so much that we need a theory on what we don't know, but a way of streamlining reason so that it allows for its exercise in a manner which most clearly comprehends reality. Philosophy of science (utilizing the intellectual toolkit of logic) seems suited to this task and it has no obvious need of a God.

Reaching this unwarranted conclusion (bolded) requires assuming it implicitly, however, so I wouldn't place great store by it. Parts of Science are *less* revealing than Revelation, as Science has some big blind spots, and Science assumes certain things are false, contrary to evidence that they are not, and throws them out of scope without warrant.

Science is disciplined so that it can operate with coherency (among other reasons). If it wasn't, any manner of theories could be put forth which may seem true on a superficial level, but do not hold up to scrutiny. Once we venture into revelation, subjective experience (not to mention 'after-the-fact' interpretations of that experience) take precedence over any reasoned or logical argument.

Religion, by contrast, doesn't posit hypotheses.

Believers would probably not say that it does, yes, but it does posit de facto hypotheses (although not falsifiable ones). "God created " is a hypothesis which is supposed to explain the genesis of the cosmos ("the heaven and earth").

Actually, we don't know that. What we know is the material basis for some portion of some types of cognition. The material basis of something may not be the most interesting part, and some things are not known at all, mis-classified, etc.

If we list the primary elements of cognition, I think we could say that we do. By studying those with brain injuries, for example, we know what portions of the brain control aspects of learning, emotion, motor reflexes, inhibitions, and religiosity. In the 21st century, it is quite easy, rationally, to dispense with the notion of a soul for the explanation of human cognitive functioning.

Material reality is relative. Higher reality could be both material *and* spiritual simultaneously.

But is there any reason to think it is? Logic would disagree, if we define 'spirit' as immaterial.

'Matter' is mostly being a subject for something higher and more formal. 'Formal' means we recognise the patterns in it -- things we don't recognise the patterns in (superclusters of galaxies before the Virgo cluster was discovered, say) are not conceivable until we conceive them. There may be layers beyond our conception -- almost certainly are.

Again, there may be, but we don't know yet. Positing supramatter and spiritual-matter hybrids is as much of an argument from ignorance as a Norseman's conception of lightning as originating with Thor.

Well, only 2000+ years of discussion discarded for no good reason, that is. The word 'God' is used when the first cause is (on the basis of philosophical metaphysics or religion) determined to be an Intelligence. This fits with the notion of an Intelligent Designer and a Creator. You can argue it is tendentious if the unmoved mover turns out to be just the outermost heavenly sphere, say. However, I think even that is just a quibble. Thoroughgoing naturalism has to argue that the Universe consists of eternal matter in eternal space or else, if it has an origin, it is a spontaneous and random one, without any factor of intelligence or design to it -- only in those cases would one be justified in *not* using the word 'God'.

In the past 2000 years, it's unlikely that devout religionists would have conceived of God simply as the Unmoved Mover. The personal God of the Abrahamic religions is something much more. Philosophically-minded religionists would, however, conceive of that as a property of God, but not God in-and-of-itself. If the Unmoved Mover is just eternal matter of some sort, there's no reason to call it a God, as that term has always meant something more. It would be akin to defining wife as "female co-operant in child delivery."


One can evade the question, however it is in the scope of Science (or at least natural philosophy) to ask it.

Asking if such a thing is necessary isn't evading the question if the purpose of asking is to receive elaboration on something that demands explanation/evidence.

Spiritual being is not superfluous if given in Revelation. Assuming natural phenomena 'just are' assumes many other things besides -- in fact, it sidesteps the whole argument by assuming the conclusion.

If the argument is for Creation, then assuming a material Creation is just as valid as assuming a spiritual Creation, although, inductively speaking, the former is more likely as there is evidence and observation of matter (and its transformation) while no evidence (and barely a definition) of the spiritual.

If something enriches culture, it must be because it is Good. Good implies there is some purpose.

There is no reason to believe that if something positively impacts a society that it is Good. Aztec human sacrifice would probably not be described as 'good' by anyone today, but the potential eugenic and socially edifying/reinforcing effect would have a positive impact. If there is a Good (ie, in the sense of 'end'), it would be human betterment in and of itself.

If there is a purpose, there is a highest purpose.
Non-sequitur. If there is a skyscraper, can we infer from that an infinitely tall skyscraper? If there are intelligent people, is there an infinitely intelligent person?

Let's restate what you said: false religious belief and/or practice might possibly enrich culture. I believe you have a burden of proof there. You need to demonstrate an end or purpose, and a corresponding [i]summum bonum, for false religion.

The end or purpose of a religion which is false would be to provide a social scaffolding on which to build institutions of art, ethics, common worldview, etc. The religion would not have to be false in a conceptual sense, in that it could simply be a collection of metaphors for natural phenomena which make them more accessible to the population at large.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

The first two of these do have a scientifically analyzable component.. ethics/morality can be analysed through the field of evolutionary biology;

Please elaborate.


aesthetics can be viewed through certain mathematical concepts (eg, symmetry).

Please elaborate.

Supernatural is a vague term which can mean "that which we don't understand yet" (as Julian Lee stated) or immaterial/incorporeal/spiritual and thus (as of yet atleast) irrelevant to reason.

Neither immaterial, incorporeal, or spiritual imply irrelevant to reason.

Now, one might object to the conflating of (positivistic) science and reason, but the practice of science, as I see it atleast, is organized reason--reason streamlined with basic principles of logic that allow it to most successfully uncover the causes of phenomena.

What leads you to believe that all reasoning must be inductive?

When we allow undisciplined reason alone to be a determinant of knowledge, we run into the problem that some theories may be reason-intensive, but not rational or likely. (An obvious example would be Plato's Theory of Forms).

The theory of forms may be unlikely, but it is not irrational.

I don't think it's so much that we need a theory on what we don't know, but a way of streamlining reason so that it allows for its exercise in a manner which most clearly comprehends reality. Philosophy of science (utilizing the intellectual toolkit of logic) seems suited to this task and it has no obvious need of a God.

What is 'a way of streamlining reason' supposed to be, and how does philosophy of science provide it?

Science is disciplined so that it can operate with coherency (among other reasons). If it wasn't, any manner of theories could be put forth which may seem true on a superficial level, but do not hold up to scrutiny. Once we venture into revelation, subjective experience (not to mention 'after-the-fact' interpretations of that experience) take precedence over any reasoned or logical argument.


How could claims of revelation, which, by their nature deal with truths that are timeless and objective, mark entry into a territory in which subjective experience reigns supreme?


There is no reason to believe that if something positively impacts a society that it is Good. Aztec human sacrifice would probably not be described as 'good' by anyone today, but the potential eugenic and socially edifying/reinforcing effect would have a positive impact.

If you are deriving your ethics from evolutionary biology (as you claim can be easily done), then a eugenic effect is necessarily good.

If there is a Good (ie, in the sense of 'end'), it would be human betterment in and of itself.

This is a tautology.


Non-sequitur. If there is a skyscraper, can we infer from that an infinitely tall skyscraper? If there are intelligent people, is there an infinitely intelligent person?

If there is a skyscraper, there must be a tallest skyscraper. If there are intelligent people, there must be a most intelligent person.

[Professor John Frink]

Neither immaterial, incorporeal, or spiritual imply irrelevant to reason.

If supernatural is that which is "not yet understood," then why are some religions trying to convince us that it was God who created Earth 6000 years ago? And why are other religions telling us a different story? That is mainly the question Dawkins concerns himself with.


If you are deriving your ethics from evolutionary biology (as you claim can be easily done), then a eugenic effect is necessarily good.

No, not necessarily. How are artificially selected traits (as a result of eugenics) guaranteed to be the most beneficial traits to survive in nature? Too stringent eugenic measures would reduce genetic diversity and natural selection acts on this diversity in order to effect adaptation and evolution.


If there is a skyscraper, there must be a tallest skyscraper. If there are intelligent people, there must be a most intelligent person.

If there is stench, there must be ultimate stench. We can call this ultimate stinker God (an analogy to God being ultimate perfection).

[Professor John Frink]

Dawkins vs Alister McGrath (70 min video):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626
Download video: http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=twAAADiTXfj9Hr3U4f5c9P1i6688VM1VNbgJISyj4luNrnsTWLRq9D9O5o4jLNEQQ2dQZjPjntL4eC3X4ZEzGroXcI9mzQGdxbDhJMD0DaYr-rzoWymp1aRh1v-WIz66lhd1YB361l_fSvYukP-G-fr5kzxUXXZUN_MvWWULP1uhkQR8O2dG0sdFTqiYlF80wCbaGfNuCk-S-AlHXSUhBKQwtf3_z-yYoKVpFZxay6yb18zL04O4o_SFl5O3p-dpor_HnQ&sigh=e93tumOE17ZlWKw_PGKdcECuQNw&begin=0&len=4205520&docid=6474278760369344626

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

If supernatural is that which is "not yet understood," then why are some religions trying to convince us that it was God who created Earth 6000 years ago? And why are other religions telling us a different story? That is mainly the question Dawkins concerns himself with.

Please do me the courtesy of refraining from attributing positions to me that i do not hold. I have never stated that 'supernatural' is 'that which is not yet understood', nor do your questions relate to the text you quoted.




No, not necessarily. How are artificially selected traits (as a result of eugenics) guaranteed to be the most beneficial traits to survive in nature? Too stringent eugenic measures would reduce genetic diversity and natural selection acts on this diversity in order to effect adaptation and evolution.

The generic definition of eugenic is simply 'pertaining to or causing improvements in the offspring produced'. If traits are maladaptive, causing them is not eugenic.

If there is stench, there must be ultimate stench. We can call this ultimate stinker God (an analogy to God being ultimate perfection).

har de har.

[Professor John Frink]

Please do me the courtesy of refraining from attributing positions to me that i do not hold. I have never stated that 'supernatural' is 'that which is not yet understood',

Fair enough.

nor do your questions relate to the text you quoted.

I thought we were talking about Dawkins's position. God means many different things to many different people. If one argues that God is merely the First Mover, then this God is responsible for infinitely fewer things than most theists attribute to him.

The generic definition of eugenic is simply 'pertaining to or causing improvements in the offspring produced'. If traits are maladaptive, causing them is not eugenic.

Perhaps if you mean it in a very generic way. How would you even define eugenic in this context?


har de har.

Shamelessly lifted from Dawkins himself, I must admit.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

Fair enough.



I thought we were talking about Dawkins's position. God means many different things to many different people. If one argues that God is merely the First Mover, then this God is responsible for infinitely fewer things than most theists attribute to him.

I was responding to the text I quoted, and assumed that you were doing the same. I have no views on Dawkins's position to share at the time. I was simply stating that 'immaterial' and its synonyms do not connote 'outside the province of reason'. Or, more simply put, that immaterial objects can have formal properties, and can therefore be reasoned about.


Perhaps if you mean it in a very generic way. How would you even define eugenic in this context?

My contention is that if one derives one's ethics from evolutionary biology, the conclusion that evolutionarily adaptive traits are necessarily good is inescapable. I am defining 'eugenic' simply as 'causing traits that are evolutionarily adaptive'.

[Professor John Frink]

My contention is that if one derives one's ethics from evolutionary biology, the conclusion that evolutionarily adaptive traits are necessarily good is inescapable. I am defining 'eugenic' simply as 'causing traits that are evolutionarily adaptive'.

I would argue that they are necessarily value-free, since they can change any time.

[Kim Jong Tha Illest]

I would argue that they are necessarily value-free, since they can change any time.

A value free ethics is like a side free triangle. If the component parts of an ethics are necessarily lacking, it is proof positive that the ethical system is ungrounded.