talkmagic.co.uk

themagicwand wrote:What would Dawkins do if he woke up one morning with a really bad feeling about a flight he was taking that day?

That's a very interesting question indeed, but outside of Dawkins, were only speculating, so, In all seriousness, why not email him and ask.

Tomo wrote:That's a very interesting question indeed, but outside of Dawkins, were only speculating, so, In all seriousness, why not email him and ask.

Oh no, I'm only having a larf. I was just thinking about a programme on Radio 4 where they were joking about what would happen if Dawkins woke up one morning and had developed psychic ability.

I guess that behind the humour is the thought that someone so absolutely 100% convinced in their own view point can leave themselves open to fate playing a cosmic joke on them every now and again...if you know what I mean.

But anyway, no - just joking, and of course Mr. Dawkins is very probably completely correct. But what would happen if... [/i]

themagicwand wrote:Oh no, I'm only having a larf. I was just thinking about a programme on Radio 4 where they were joking about what would happen if Dawkins woke up one morning and had developed psychic ability.

Now, THAT'S funny!

I'm really tickled by the mental image of him nudging wife Lalla Ward awake (ex-Dr Who assistant, whom he met at a party held by Douglas Adams, the lucky thing) and asking "Did you hear what the cat just said about me?"

Oh no, I'm only having a larf. I was just thinking about a programme on Radio 4 where they were joking about what would happen if Dawkins woke up one morning and had developed psychic ability.

well if he did and he proved it to himself scientificly it would be sience fact and therfore no longer mumbo jumbo.

just the same way mri's became science fact from aura readings.

greedoniz wrote:I thought it was a fascinating documentry and I for one couldn't agree with Dawkins enough.
I think he overplayed the attack on science a bit too much but he is right that if people reject their rationality for faith or beleif in an unfounded system then it undermines what makes humans so successful as a species. As he said in the documentry that all the things that have made a practical difference to our lives have been a result of science.

My problem with this Greedoniz is the assumption that to be "rational" something has to be proven by our scientific methods at whatever period of history we happen to be at. We "knew" about bacteria long before we could see them through a microscope, yet how was this (correct) theory deduced? By observing natural processes and coming to the best conclusion we could... "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth." People then acted on the theory of these imaginary air-borne bugs... and revolutionised life from agriculture to medicine.
My faith is totally rational - I look around the world and see how humans behave, and feel that despite a lack of scientific evidence, the existence of God explains it the best. My method of thinking is just as scientific as the next man. When I put that into practice and see others doing so too, following what it says in the Bible, I see our lives improving - not necessarily in "quantifiable" terms, hey, life's not one big beach party whatever you believe, but in the way we relate to the world and to each other. Observation - hypothesis - testing the hypothesis - success. Just because it can't be written in a Cochrane Review doesn't mean it's invalid, im my opinion anyway.

greedoniz wrote:I think nameless above misunderstood when he states that Dawkins beleives that all scientists are good. My slant on whaty he said was actually a comment on the core principle of science itself. This is to explore, come up with a hypothesis, test it repetitively to DISprove it and then publish the results to be reviewed by anyone who wishes to. They can then repeat the experiment to see if they get the results and in time a hypothesis which has been proven to work then becomes part of science itself.

Again, the assumption is that something is only worth a damn if it can be quantified by *our* methods, but that's just so short sighted when dealing with something that is not necessarily physical. For a long time, psychologists used Freud's approach to psycho-analysis - in fact he has been called the father of psycho-analysis. But now we are moving towards "cognitive behavioural therapy", so what has changed? Have we proved somehow that Freud was wrong and CBT is correct? Not exactly, and some of Freud's theories are still used (to my consternation), but it seems to fit better. But we have no proof that Freud was "wrong", anymore than whoever designed CBT is "right".

You could well come back with the argument that once Creationism seemed correct, now we have evolution so why can't religious people update their model? Well, indeed - and I am not a "Creationist", of the type that insists on a literal 7 day creation - but I believe God created the world, and maybe one day we'll find out how he did it. But it becomes more difficult because part of the Christian belief is that it is a valid and active faith throughout time, and again, for me this is based on the observation that Christianity and it's principles have come under attack from many angles throughout the ages, yet to me it has always been a valid faith. I was listening to a Pastor's talk on my iPod in the car this morning and as a quick aside to his enlightening talk, he made this very point - how impressive that whilst we use or trust very few "facts of science" from 2000 years ago, something that was scratched on parchment all that time ago was offering incredibly wise and specific advice on a question about marriage that someone had emailed to him in the year 2007. So forgive me for not throwing that book in the bin just because nowadays we "really are sure" how life began, because that says nothing to me about the topics which are actually much more important to my life.

One final crude analogy - a vacuum is basically an absence of particles. Hence, you cannot "see" a vacuum (as far as I know), however powerful your microscope, even if you could see down to a sub-atomic level. Yet vacuums help us all the time in everyday life. To me, saying "God does not exist because there is no scientific proof" is like saying "vacuum's do not exist because it has not shown up on our high-power microscope." Science is designed to explain and discover things using principles and measurements we are already familiar with - you cannot "test" something without a benchmark - but the flip side of that is that it is effectively designed not to see things it cannot measure. If God exists, he most certainly is not limited and obliged to show up on our radars, under our magnifying glasses or wriggle when we poke him with our science sticks.

We are all Athiests when it comes to Thor, Raah, Woden, Amun, Zeus, Mithras and the vast majority of the 3000-ish Gods that the human race has created in the absence of science in order to explain the universe around us.
Each person who has Faith in any one religion will tell you that they are praising the right one and everyone else has got it wrong. It is the rationality of scientist that will say "I can not be 100% certain but the evidence as it stands point towards this". At least you have the power to change you mind with the gathering evidence. With religion as it stands today one has to take guidence from books that were written a long time ago that generally contain good ideas but also contain much hatred towards minority groups and opposing opinions.
Due to this the moderates then cherry pick which bits are still valid and which bits are analogies in order to fit in with their own moral code and the advances in scientific knowledge.....

I'm gonna stop as I'm starting to rant I feel

Too late

greedoniz wrote:We are all Athiests when it comes to Thor

But Thor is really cool. He saved the world many times, and he really was the backbone of the original Avengers until Captain America rolled up.

I see what you mean, but I think to function, we have to hold convictions about some things. It's nice to think that all the scientists out there live their lives the same way they do their research - "I'll act in this way, with one foot out the door incase things change" - but realistically they don't, we don't. I have weighed up the evidence as presented by the natural world and by the history of mankind as far as I can see it, and decided one way, as have many - you have decided another, and that is absolutely your perogative. But again, the subject is at odds with your desired reaction to it - if there is a real, personal God, the idea of approaching him/her/it/whoever and saying "I'm going to pray to you, but only to the point at which evidence suggests it might work" or "I'm going to worship you, until better evidence comes along" is a practical impossibility, because it immediately places you in a higher position than God.
If you have got to the stage where you think "I think it's more likely there is a God than there isn't", or even "Ok, I believe there is a God", acting on that involves humbling yourself enough to accept that if that is the case, he may know more than you about life, the universe and everything. When you are little, there may be one incident that causes you to place great trust in your own father. Does that mean that as time passes you request your father prove his trustworthiness in each specific situation, time and time again? No, you remember that specific time or few times and think "he's never let me down before, I'll trust him here too", and if you do so, and he doesn't let you down, that is further evidence to you that your father is trustworthy, whatever anyone else might say.

As for "cherry-picking", I don't deny that this is an issue. Study is the best way to combat this. When the Bible was written, it was the case that students of the scripture would have it memorised, would think on it day and night. That brought it's own problems with people becoming legalistic, but an issue faced today is that because "the Bible is for everyone" (which it absolutely is), people think you can get guidance from God by throwing it open on your bed and reading the first paragraph you see. Actually, the majority of the New Testament can be taken at face value, but the more you learn about the context in which it was written, the more you learn how to apply it to your life. The Old Testament is an incredible piece of historical text, but can be a little more cryptic, as can one or two parts of the NT - they are still very valuable, but quite often take a greater knowledge of the surrounding history before they can be really appreciated. Unfortunately, this is something Dawkins seems unwilling to do, he casually dismisses this argument by effectively saying "if I don't believe in God, what's the point in reading all that rubbish?" - an attitude which is not particularly in line with values of broad-mindedness and learning. If I can pick up "The God Delusion", knowing full well he means to convert me from my faith, it would seem fair he grant me the same courtesy - but no, and to be honest, his ignorance shows itself regularly.

Unfortunately, this is something Dawkins seems unwilling to do, he casually dismisses this argument by effectively saying "if I don't believe in God, what's the point in reading all that rubbish?"

Farlsborough, if you do pick up a copy of "The God Delusion" you will find the Dawkins has indeed read and researched the wonders of the bible, an attitude which is in line with values of broad-mindedness and learning. Read it, you'll see what I mean.

Whilst on a Dawkins thread, can I just ask if many here have read 'The God Delusion'? I have recommended it to a number of theist friends (not out of mischief but simply because it is so accessible and informative), almost without exception they have declined to read it.

I would have thought that a committed theist would have relished the opportunity to understand (and rebut) some of Dawkins's ideas and arguments, yet they often seem unable to bring themselves to even open the book! Perhaps they see it as sacriligeous to read the ideas of an (almost*) atheist or perhaps they are largely motivated by fear that it might just make a bit too much sense. As one reviewer in The Economist put it: 'theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith.'.



* Dawkins says in the book that on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is 100% belief in a god and 7 is 100% belief that there is no god, he is at level 6.

to quote randy newman..."let's drop the big one, and see what happens.."

we'll have our answer then...

the best thing about fences is, you can stand either side, or sit on 'em...
Any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster. ...
i've always been slightly concerned why followers have to praise him all the time, as technically he doesnt lay out any kind of fate for us, as we gained "free will"...so what does he do or contribute?
i find Farlsborough's beliefs very interesting, knowing how the body works medically, but still having his own personal beliefs...fair play to him, it makes him what he is to a certain extent...and i personally believe people want to train as medics/doctors/nurses cos they do genuinely care about others...not for ego or anything...

I have read the God Delusion as did my girlfriend who was a Pentacostal christian, who has since become an athiest (not fully because of the book I might add).
What made me quite angry however was the reaction from 2 of the ministers that did surmons at my girlfriends church (one in Coventry one in London) that told their congragation not to read it as it was evil and sort to cast doubt in their minds. Surely if one holds the truth you fear no questioning?

i must admit though, i dont like the rabid chasing of the believers some of us atheist do...just let believe what they want...

its not as if its ever been used for wars, invasions, banning of books, to gain a divorce or....oh....hang on....

nah, the only serious thing i'll say about religion is, not that you would, but if you did as an experiment, if you raised a child up to adulthood with no knowledge or influence, would it be inevitable that it would believe in a god of some sort?

by that i mean, is it not down to influence and experience of others around you that ultimately make you believe in a god?

can anyone prove that god does not exist? in clear scientific terms? and what are these terms?

can anyone prove that god does not exist? in clear scientific terms? and what are these terms?

I caught a few minutes of a ben stiller film the other day about these really bad (as in not very good) super heroes. One guy called himself mr invisible. Though he could only become invisible when no one was looking at him, not even himself. Can you prove him wrong?

I've always been slightly concerned why followers have to praise him all the time

Thats always confused me. It seems a bit big headed for someone who preaches to be humble.