Maybe a more helpful spectrum would deal with how you conceptualize God.

1. God is Santa Claus and lives in the sky.

2. God is a mysterious all-powerful force (Jedi-style)

3. God is a verb.

4. There is no God.

2. God is a mysterious all-powerful force (Jedi-style)

Yes, but you see the Jedi had solid empirical evidence to support their belief in the Force. Until you can stand on your head and lift rocks using said Force, you've got to do better.

Yes it would help if you defined what you meant by God, because there are an awful lot of of people who want to believe in something that cannot be explained rationally, but certainly not what their parent's church believes in, so they decide to believe in something and call it "God". The "something" is more or less up to the believer in question, but occaisionally they'll write a book about it or start a cult.

I think an average atheist's journey starts from somewhere between 3 & 4,and ends at 7.

Like norm i too consider myself as someone between 6 and 7.....but rapidly moving towards 7.

:)

I'm always perplexed about these sorts of belief spectra. I find that I myself, as a scientist, don't fit comfortably on any point along this continuum. The mere question of the existence of god seems a bit preposterous to even ask without any positive evidence to believe such a thing. This certainly doesn't constitute disbelief, as there is no evidence to be had one way or another. It is more similar to absence of belief rather than the atheism mentioned in the post. The various shades of agnosticism seem to be concerned with weighing the amount of belief to mix with disbelief, both of which are positions that require evidence. How is someone to define themselves when they see a clear lack of evidence?

Norm, no offense. Such terms are still too stereotypical or restrictive as some of us can identify with different categories at different times depending on our moods or circumstances.

Yes, I have commented against the basis of the Christian God, especially the notion of an exclusive God. Because of the insistence that God is a personal being, such discussions often become too personal…

However, I lean towards an impersonal, supranatural entity that is responsible for the moral impulse in each and every one of us.

I hesitate to use the word God which comes from the Old English word for Good, if I am not mistaken, as there are Gods for both good and evil throughout human history.

To assign a moral quality to a god can be quite subjective as God may not identify with how we see things i.e. My ways are not your ways i.e. Isiah 55.

=====

I think Western and Middle East religions which extol a Supreme Being of Good that is exclusive are on the wrong track as a supreme being wouldn't need to exclude himself or herself from anything because his or her faithful wants him or her to do so for self-righteous or zealous reasons.

Case in point, the goodness in man can be found in all human beings, regardless of race, religion and nationality. However the choice to abide with it is an individual one.

I'm sorry for not being able to identify with the categories here but I really feel that they are more divisive here, rather than being to identify the schisms among the people who prefer to think or those who prefer to believe.

At different points of our life, we can even swing from one mindset to another.

oh, sure why not. i'll bite.

i am a seven. so what.

Depends on how god is defined. If we are talking the Christian/Jewish/Islamic (Abrahamic) god (all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving) then I am a 7. Such a god is logically impossible (see tsunamis, earthquakes, genetic diseases etc.). But if it is a hands off god, who created the universe and doesn't give a toss, I'm a 6.

I can accept Dawson’s points but I am sceptical of his approach i.e. that the understanding of faith and atheism can be crouched within a pseudo scientific-sounding framework.

It really brings to mind Karl Marx’s ideology, which along with other economic doctrines became revered as science, when economics itself does not have the credentials to fall under a scientific discipline.

The problem with this was that it gives such pseudo-scientific opinions a larger than life deterministic quality as if it is a natural law that will continue to move on to certain stages or an eventual goal, regardless of our sentiments or actions.

If I was debating Dawson, I won’t debate within his framework.

My questions will try to outline how limited his premises and definitions are when it comes to answering issues of faith such as:

Can human beings be moral without laws?

[Taking in view that Dawson said that morality has other sources beyond religion such as laws]

Can faith in secular ideologies be as problematic as faith in religious ones?

[Such as faith in the ideals and universal appeal of Western democracy]

Any examples of a secular society at any point of time that is a great moral example?

How do we accept death without the aid of faith?

Is there conclusive proof that life ends on planet earth in this lifetime?

Does worship of people for the exemplary life they led as veritable gods wrong in itself

[such as the Buddha or Guan-yu who was honoured during his lifetime and after for his strong sense of loyalty that the Chinese mafia and police even worship him at their HQs]

I really feel that even with his knowledge of evolution, Dawson cannot adequately address the esoteric nature of faith without delving into history and philosophy.

You insensitive clod! Of which single "God" do you speak, you multiple-atheist?My Gods are all missing from your neat list... I believe with absolute certainty in Thor, Zeus, Anubis, Apollo & Shiva. And the basis of my faith/knowledge is as good as anyone elses.

That's a nice spectrum -- it seems to capture fairly well the range of beliefs on a particular dimension. It seems to need to be defined with respect to a particular conception of god though, which is totally fine, it's just a matter of defining the debate.

I'd say I'm squarely within the 6 camp.

Kes's point that one's position on the spectrum can vary with time, mood, etc. is perfectly valid, but doesn't undermine the usefulness of the spectrum for what it is, I don't think.

I'd question the particular assertion that economics does not count as a scientific discipline... I think it does, but it is more colored by politics than perhaps other disciplines (say physics). Though other disciplines have their own internal politics.

As another aside, I find it an amusing coincidence that Kes refers to Dawkins as Dawson, which is actually my name :-)

"I lean towards an impersonal, supranatural entity that is responsible for the moral impulse in each and every one of us."

This seems to place human behavior outside the realm of evolution, which is an odd thing to do. I suppose unless you want to take the tack that the initial conditions were set up by God just so that evolution would proceed in the way that it has... This seems to require a strong deterministic assumption (only one possible universe from start to finish) however.

Can human beings be moral without laws?

I would say most certainly human beings as individuals could and would be moral without laws... as a result of biologically and culturally evolved standards of morality that go beyond fear of punishment. The problem would be that society as a whole as we know it would not function without laws, since there would no longer be a force in place to keep in check those most likely to deviate from societally accepted moral standards. I don't see any of this having anything to do with faith, except insofar as it is one of many cultural forces that people refer to.

Can faith in secular ideologies be as problematic as faith in religious ones?

Yes, of course. Dawkins himself has acknowledged this repeatedly. As he says in the recent interview posted here, the problem is not the theistic nature of religion, but the faith in ideologies that are by axiom not subject to evidence.

Of course there will always be assumptions about principles (e.g. egalitarianism) whose value are not exactly determined by evidence, though they can be related to other principles via evidence (e.g. "egalitarianism promotes peace within a society" -- I don't know whether this is true but it's the kind of thing that could be argued and supported by evidence)

Any examples of a secular society at any point of time that is a great moral example?

Well, asking any society to be a truly great moral example is a high standard, but it seems to me that several of the European societies that are largely secular are doing pretty well, at least morally.

How do we accept death without the aid of faith?

This is a dilemma for many people, and is probably one of the biggest reasons there is religion at all. But each individual will have a different answer to this question. I, for one, and several others I know who also do not believe in any god, do not have a problem accepting death. Granted I'm quite young, but still. Whether or not religion aids in accepting death has no impact on whether its assumptions are true or justified, however. That's entirely backwards.

I think it's important to make a distinction between faith and a sense of mysticism. To have the former is to possess a belief that (something), where the something can in principle have a truth or falsehood value (e.g. "there is a God"). It is this truth or falsehood possibility that makes the framework of logical reasoning relevant to the problem, at least to the extent of forming some sense of the probability of truth of the proposition.

Having a sense of mysticism on the other hand, which I suspect is what you're really trying to get at, is entirely outside the realm of science, as it does not deal in explanations, truths or falsehoods. For instance, I have a sense of mysticism about the universe, and believe that many aspects of it are beautiful. This is entirely subjective and aesthetic, however, and science has nothing to say about it. Though it can have something to say about why humans have a sense of beauty in the first place, what is going on in my brain when I perceive beauty, and so forth, it cannot evaluate my perception of beauty as valid or not.

Is there conclusive proof that life ends on planet earth in this lifetime?

Of course not, nor could there ever be, but there's not a shred of evidence that it doesn't. I'd rather not posit things for which there's no evidence; but at best the issue of an afterlife doesn't bear one way or another on assessing the probability of the existence of a god.

Does worship of people for the exemplary life they led as veritable gods wrong in itself

I don't see why it would be, or why Dawkins would argue that it would be. Though in the case of actual people, it is their exemplary quality that we are inclined to worship, no?

I really feel that even with his knowledge of evolution, Dawson cannot adequately address the esoteric nature of faith without delving into history and philosophy.

To be sure history and philosophy are relevant in understanding faith. But as disciplines they too roughly conform to the most general principles of science; for one, in the case of history the use of evidence, and in the case of philosophy the use of logic.

PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle) these "are appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. The other agnosticism he calls TAP (Temporary Agnosticism in Practice) and argues that the existence of a God is of the TAP variety. "Gods existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.

Wouldn't the most common definition of God fall in the PAP camp? Putting it in the TAP camp seems to imply that God is bound by the universe and its laws, and that if we had the technology, we could prove God's existence. Most theists I know believe in a Supernatural God, who would be less than all-powerful if he could be proven to exist via any natural laws (even in principle).

I'm probably a 3. The scale as phrased seems a bit uneven in the moderate camps. The distance between 2-3 or 5-6 seems a lot greater than between 1-2, 3-4-5 or 6-7. Or is that just me? Maybe I'm a 2.9?

Does Dawkins rank himself?

Of course, I really don't care where people are on the scale (though it's really hard for me to see things from a 1 or 7 perspective). What I really care about is how much they care where I am on the scale.

(Argh... definitely delete the first copy of this comment. Somehow I got signed out between the time I started and finished it.)

That's a nice spectrum -- it seems to capture fairly well the range of beliefs on a particular dimension. It seems to need to be defined with respect to a particular conception of god though, which is totally fine, it's just a matter of defining the debate.

I'd say I'm squarely within the 6 camp.

Kes's point that one's position on the spectrum can vary with time, mood, etc. is perfectly valid, but doesn't undermine the usefulness of the spectrum for what it is, I don't think.

I'd question the particular assertion that economics does not count as a scientific discipline... I think it does, but it is more colored by politics than perhaps other disciplines (say physics). Though other disciplines have their own internal politics.

As another aside, I find it an amusing coincidence that Kes refers to Dawkins as Dawson, which is actually my name :-)

"I lean towards an impersonal, supranatural entity that is responsible for the moral impulse in each and every one of us."

This seems to place human behavior outside the realm of evolution, which is an odd thing to do. I suppose unless you want to take the tack that the initial conditions were set up by God just so that evolution would proceed in the way that it has... This seems to require a strong deterministic assumption (only one possible universe from start to finish) however.

Can human beings be moral without laws?

I would say most certainly human beings as individuals could and would be moral without laws... as a result of biologically and culturally evolved standards of morality that go beyond fear of punishment. The problem would be that society as a whole as we know it would not function without laws, since there would no longer be a force in place to keep in check those most likely to deviate from societally accepted moral standards. I don't see any of this having anything to do with faith, except insofar as it is one of many cultural forces that people refer to.

Can faith in secular ideologies be as problematic as faith in religious ones?

Yes, of course. Dawkins himself has acknowledged this repeatedly. As he says in the recent interview posted here, the problem is not the theistic nature of religion, but the faith in ideologies that are by axiom not subject to evidence.

Of course there will always be assumptions about principles (e.g. egalitarianism) whose value are not exactly determined by evidence, though they can be related to other principles via evidence (e.g. "egalitarianism promotes peace within a society" -- I don't know whether this is true but it's the kind of thing that could be argued and supported by evidence)

Any examples of a secular society at any point of time that is a great moral example?

Well, asking any society to be a truly great moral example is a high standard, but it seems to me that several of the European societies that are largely secular are doing pretty well, at least morally.

How do we accept death without the aid of faith?

This is a dilemma for many people, and is probably one of the biggest reasons there is religion at all. But each individual will have a different answer to this question. I, for one, and several others I know who also do not believe in any god, do not have a problem accepting death. Granted I'm quite young, but still. Whether or not religion aids in accepting death has no impact on whether its assumptions are true or justified, however. That's entirely backwards.

I think it's important to make a distinction between faith and a sense of mysticism. To have the former is to possess a belief that (something), where the something can in principle have a truth or falsehood value (e.g. "there is a God"). It is this truth or falsehood possibility that makes the framework of logical reasoning relevant to the problem, at least to the extent of forming some sense of the probability of truth of the proposition.

Having a sense of mysticism on the other hand, which I suspect is what you're really trying to get at, is entirely outside the realm of science, as it does not deal in explanations, truths or falsehoods. For instance, I have a sense of mysticism about the universe, and believe that many aspects of it are beautiful. This is entirely subjective and aesthetic, however, and science has nothing to say about it. Though it can have something to say about why humans have a sense of beauty in the first place, what is going on in my brain when I perceive beauty, and so forth, it cannot evaluate my perception of beauty as valid or not.

Is there conclusive proof that life ends on planet earth in this lifetime?

Of course not, nor could there ever be, but there's not a shred of evidence that it doesn't. I'd rather not posit things for which there's no evidence; but at best the issue of an afterlife doesn't bear one way or another on assessing the probability of the existence of a god.

Does worship of people for the exemplary life they led as veritable gods wrong in itself

I don't see why it would be, or why Dawkins would argue that it would be. Though in the case of actual people, it is their exemplary quality that we are inclined to worship, no?

I really feel that even with his knowledge of evolution, Dawson cannot adequately address the esoteric nature of faith without delving into history and philosophy.

To be sure history and philosophy are relevant in understanding faith. But as disciplines they too roughly conform to the most general principles of science; for one, in the case of history the use of evidence, and in the case of philosophy the use of logic.

To be sure history and philosophy are relevant in understanding faith. But as disciplines they too roughly conform to the most general principles of science; for one, in the case of history the use of evidence, and in the case of philosophy the use of logic.

Of course, religion is filled with examples of historical evidence of God - it's just all anecdotal. We more readily accept a lot of other history based solely on the accounts of the people who lived through it.

I don't mind saying God can't be proven. But to say there is no evidence of God is misleading. To do so is to positively assert that every historical (or modern) account of an individual who claimed interaction with God is false, and that those individuals were liars, madmen, or deluded.

Personally, I don't think that's an irrational position to hold, but it is different than saying "There's no more evidence of God than of the Easter Bunny or Flying Spaghetti Monster".

I sometimes might think I'm (3), but time and again I am caught off guard and find I'm really (2). Believing doesn't seem easy but I realize that I don't even know what real through and through unbelief is like.

I think that few true atheists and few true theists really live a probability of God's existence. They basically live a certainty. They may admit that the alternative is possible, but they don't live or think that way. Their consciousness is full of God or conspicuously absent of any God. Only the indifferent or "agnostic" as they call themselves seem to live a probability. "Maybe god is there, maybe not, who knows. Whatever."

I think there is a meeting place between true theism and true atheism. Perhaps that place is sort of like a battleground. But it's still a meeting place. There isn't a meeting place between theism and agnosticism, except where the latter turns into the former.

"We more readily accept a lot of other history based solely on the accounts of the people who lived through it."

Correct, because said history does not require invoking supernatural forces.

"Personally, I don't think that's an irrational position to hold, but it is different than saying "There's no more evidence of God than of the Easter Bunny or Flying Spaghetti Monster."

It is irrational exactly because there is not any evidence that supports the existence of a god or gods, that is why god can be lumped in with the Easter Bunny, FSM, etc.

I think we all know he was referring to the God of the Bible during his delineation. Like others have said that is insufficient because it presupposes that everyone's reference point is Christianity or some other major religion. My reference point is that all religion is non-sense but that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. The other two questions are 1) Does that God care what we do and 2) Is that God all powerful?. However the first question is based on human concepts of morality. If God is neutral then it doesn't care whether we are well or sick. If it isn't omniscient then it probably can't do anything to help us. Maybe all it could do was set everything in motion. That seems much more likely to me than a sadistic God that created us knowing full well what each us would do and which of us would go to hell for eternity. That isn't even an experiment because God would know the results ahead of time. There is no point to our existence if God is all powerful. Think about it. It must be flawed in some way because we are. A perfect God could only create perfect things. Or maybe the perfect God chose to create imperfection to watch us reach perfection through evolution. But again that would be sadistic, which assumes also that God would care about being sadistic. See the problem here?

Matthew, I think you misunderstood my point. I was saying that taking the position that God can no more be proven than the Easter Bunny or FSM is not irrational, but to claim there is no more evidence is a false statement. A more accurate statement might be, 'There is no more scientifically indisputable evidence...', but that statement could also be applied to much of what comes out of your average history book.

I point this out as some atheists frequently make a poor comparison between God and the Easter Bunny, as the number of historical accounts from individuals claiming interaction with those two entities are drastically different. Personal accounts are not scientific fact, but they are a form of evidence. The atheist chooses to believe that those accounts are incorrect. Most theists believe that at least some of them are correct.

But to say there is no difference of note between the idea of God and FSM is obviously false. One is an idea that's been in existence throughout recorded history, with thousands of personal accounts from people claiming direct interaction, a tremendous influence on virtually all world cultures, etc. The other is a fun & clever illustration (originally) designed to make a specific point against creationism.

Yes, they have the same ability to be scientifically proven (zero). But they are hardly equal propositions.

Think about it. It must be flawed in some way because we are. A perfect God could only create perfect things. Or maybe the perfect God chose to create imperfection to watch us reach perfection through evolution. But again that would be sadistic, which assumes also that God would care about being sadistic. See the problem here?

Yes, the problem is your logic is incredibly flawed. - God must be flawed in some way because we are. Why? - A perfect God could only create perfect things. Why? - But again that would be sadistic... Why?

I challenge you to examine some of your assumptions.

Why would you assume a perfect God can't create something imperfect (by design)? For that matter, what makes you think the universe isn't perfect? If humans are flawed, why do you believe you're even capable of properly evaluating the very idea of perfection? If you aren't fully aware of the ultimate goal of God's design, how can you evaluate how well the universe is meeting that goal? Why would you assume (as a flawed human being) that you could fully comprehend the methods of a perfect God? How could you ascribe sadism to him under those circumstances?

The philosophical exercise of psychoanalyzing God is all well and good, but it is ultimately just an exercise. It's foolish to believe that (presupposing an omnipotent God exists) we would have either the capacity or data to fully explain him, anymore than a 2 year old should be able to fully explain & understand the mind of an adult.

I am a strong atheist in the exact same manner as I am strong aleprachaunist. To elevate the god concept to anything more than another vacuous and baseless claim is showing personal bias.

I'm a seven - 100% probability there is no god(s) - there simply is no evidence otherwise.

I don't mind saying God can't be proven. But to say there is no evidence of God is misleading. To do so is to positively assert that every historical (or modern) account of an individual who claimed interaction with God is false, and that those individuals were liars, madmen, or deluded.

A person does not necessarily need to be a madman or liar to make a claim of supernatural contact. They could merely be ignorant and/or primitive and firmly believe whatever they experienced to be of the divine.

The notion that agnostisim falls somewhere between theism and atheism on some sort of spectrum is false. Gnostism is a statement about knowledge where theism is a statement of belief. If I were to ask you, "do you BELIEVE in god" and you answwered, "I don't KNOW." then you haven't answered the question of belief, you've anaswered the question of knowledge.

I'd recommend searching for Colin McGinn and Arthur Miller on google video for more on what it means to believe.

(sorry about putting this in two posts, please combine them if there's any issue)

Concerning this subject, Sartre had an amazing insight into human nature. He said (and I'm paraphrasing): "Even if the sky were to open up and the existence of god were proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, people would still reserve their choice not to believe." There is a concrete side to our thinking that is real, yet not empirical -- that is the realm of the subjective. Arguments over what is good or bad have no scientific quality. You cannot give physical evidence to support a claim that “that person is a good person’” “that painting is a good painting,” “that song really rocks,” etc. Beyond a subjective analysis of statistics (of which the data itself is subject to subjectivity). If you have ever read Clement Greenberg’s formal analysis of painting you can see how he can SHOW you reasons why “It’s a good painting,” but as a conclusive argument it is nothing short of ridiculous. If there is no way to say, empirically, that there are good paintings, does it not follow that “good paintings” must not exist? The God Question is definitively a subjective question. Saying that, whether you thump your bible or shake your physics textbook, it all sounds like the proclamations of Pangloss. The will not to accept what is in front of you has also put us in airplanes, not just kept us under rocks, cowering at the thunder of the gods.

6.9. I know there is not a God with as much certainty as I know anything, but I maintain that only a fool adopts any position with such fervor as to be impervious to revision upon further evidence.

…One is an idea that's been in existence throughout recorded history, with thousands of personal accounts from people claiming direct interaction, a tremendous influence on virtually all world cultures, etc.

People disgrace the sacredness of mythology by believing it true. - w.

Kevin,

"Personal accounts are not scientific fact, but they are a form of evidence. The atheist chooses to believe that those accounts are incorrect. Most theists believe that at least some of them are correct."

"Evidence" proves or disproves something. There are lots of people throughout history that have believed lots of things, and left records of their beliefs. The only "evidence" that these accounts provide is that their authors had particular beliefs, however, that says nothing about whether said beliefs were true or not. There is not any evidence for a god, or gods, or the Easter Bunny, or FSM (though this is pretty darn convincing: http://mysite.verizon.net/sportinlife/postimages/fsm-manifest.jpg ).

People have believed in lots of incorrect things for a long time (flat earth, heliocentrism, etc.), that doesn't mean that their always correct.

7 and 4. There is no deity as defined by any organized religion, but there might be a creative force(s) in the universe.

6. because gnosticism is about 'knowing' and theism is about 'believing'. I do not have strong, reliable evidence for me to accept the notion of God, therefore I reject the notion. I do not believe in God for the sole purpose that a belief does not produce knowledge about the physical universe. A belief, by definition, lies outside of evidence. I hold no beliefs. The burden of proof lies with the person that makes the claim. If you don't know about something and you submit it to nothing but belief, it will likely prove false; if you know about something, then you don't need to believe it, because you know it. Between ignorance and knowledge you have the uncertainties about the world, and the best way to handle uncertainties involves thinking in terms of probabilities. Absolutes are something not even in principle testable for mortal humans.

Futhermore, why brand yourself with variable meaning words like atheist, or the limited-to-theology term, non-theist instead of the descriptive term non-believer? Non-belief covers not only, non-theism, but all other beliefs for which most of us hold no beliefs in (toothfairies, lochness monsters, unicorns, UFOs, etc.)

Anonymous: What is wrong with not taking something into evidence based solely upon someone's word? It would seem foolish to do otherwise actually. Here-say is not even allowed in a court of law, or shouldn't be and for a very good reason.

Nothing is wrong with not taking something as evidence based solely upon someone's word. But there are also cases where I'd argue it's acceptable. First-hand accounts are not hearsay. Hearsay is second-hand information ("My friend told me that his friend met God"). Personal testimony is completely valid evidence (and used in courts of law every day), but does require the listener to evaluate the reliability of the witness in question.

Again, I wasn't arguing that everyone should believe in God because a bunch of people throughout history claimed to interact with him. I was arguing that people should be careful about saying "There's no more evidence for God than the Easter Bunny" which is (inarguably) a false statement. What people should probably say instead is, "There is no more testable scientific evidence for God than for the Easter Bunny."

debaser71: The notion that agnostisim falls somewhere between theism and atheism on some sort of spectrum is false. Gnostism is a statement about knowledge where theism is a statement of belief. If I were to ask you, "do you BELIEVE in god" and you answwered, "I don't KNOW." then you haven't answered the question of belief, you've anaswered the question of knowledge.

You're arguing semantics. Most people use the word 'agnostic' to refer to a lack of belief in either the existence or non-existance of God. Relatively few people in this world (theist, atheist, or agnostic) ever respond to that question with "I KNOW there is/isn't...". As I said before, the world can be largely divided into three camps: Those who believe in a God, those who believe there is no God, and those who do not hold either belief. The number of people who claim factual knowledge on this question is a small minority.

will: The time span and diversity of superstitous belief is as much evidence against as it is for the supernatural. Today world-wide the belief in god(s) is waning quicker than ever before in recorded history, by your logic this would be evidence that god does not exist.

The belief in God is relatively unique in recorded history, and unlike any other single superstition in history by virtue of its longevity and pervasiveness. If it is 'waning quicker than ever before in recorded history' that does not (by my logic) provide evidence that God does not exist. It is (from a sociological perspective) an interesting (young) statistic. If the current trend continues for the next thousand years, then it will lend significant weight to the notion that the God concept is just the most stubborn of a long history of superstitions.

matthew: There are lots of people throughout history that have believed lots of things, and left records of their beliefs. The only "evidence" that these accounts provide is that their authors had particular beliefs, however, that says nothing about whether said beliefs were true or not....People have believed in lots of incorrect things for a long time (flat earth, heliocentrism, etc.), that doesn't mean that their always correct.

I'm not talking about people who recorded they believed in God. I'm talking about people who claimed God spoke to them, or had a 'divine' experience or whatever. And again, I'm not arguing that the existence of personal testimonies throughout history is proof of God. I'm arguing that to completely dismiss thousands of years of such testimonies is not something that should be done without clearly recognizing the implications. One of which is that that act sets God in a different class than the Easter Bunny.

Erick: I hold no beliefs....Futhermore, why brand yourself with variable meaning words like atheist, or the limited-to-theology term, non-theist instead of the descriptive term non-believer?

I'm always interested when someone claims to hold no beliefs. When you say you hold no beliefs, do you mean it literally, or is it more along the lines of, "I endeavor not to hold beliefs." Because I'm not even sure it's humanly possible, though as a philosophy to strive for I can understand it. A computer holds no beliefs. Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm honestly curious if people believe it's possible.

I loved this, it kept me interested. I love religion and I agree very much with this artical, I already knew I was Atheist. But now I may just be a 6 borderline 7 lol.

Kevin:

"I'm arguing that to completely dismiss thousands of years of such testimonies is not something that should be done without clearly recognizing the implications."

Why? What implications? I personally believe that the search for the truth is paramount.

I have no personal reason to belive in a god. Furthermore, "There is no more testable scientific evidence for God than for the Easter Bunny" -- one more reason why #7 best describes how I feel.

Kevin,

Why do you believe in a God?

Hi all, there's a lot of good points made and I will like to add to some of them.

Hi Kevin, on the issue of personal accounts, historians and students of history do not see them as evidence i.e. merely secondary resources that can only be used to bolster the cases of primary resources, which can be a text dating back to the corresponding time period.

Personal accounts, like everything else, can be misinterpretated or even faked as we have no idea what were the ultimate intentions of these recorders nor the context of their times.

The fact that the Christian account of human history is not backed by non-religious sources or sources from other civilisations is a case in point.

It is a human trait to wish to influence others by trying to convince them of what you believe in, regardless or not that it is the truth.

Which is why history people normally get the short end of the stick when they remind people that they are misrepresenting history.

For example, the first historian in China was imprisioned and castrated by the Emperor for portraying an objective account of history.

People who are not trained in basic principles of scholatism are more often than not far more inclined to embellish the truth, up-sell their beliefs without the rigours effort to justify and back up their points.

Case in point, the New Testament Gospels were only a few out of the 300 so-called eye-witness accounts of the teachings of Christ where all appeared decades after the death of Christ.

While sharing some common themes, they are quite different in tone and manner as well as the messages they disseminated.

And there is no objective to determine which one is more accurate than another.

In this situation, no historian will use them as evidence because there is no way to verify them.

We will actually try to seek a more credible source as a primary source in neighbouring civilisation to find the reference points and from their examine these Christian writings as a possible secondary source.

Simply put, if I am studying maritime history, I would be studying the port or custom records firs and foremost, rather than the personal diary of a ship's captain.

Hi Dawson/anonymous, Thanks for taking the time to answer my points. Here is what I want to add.

You hit the nail on the head with this statement: “This seems to place human behavior outside the realm of evolution, which is an odd thing to do.”

Indeed, much of human behaviour can be said to fall outside of evolution but Richard Dawkins seems to be trying to explain all of our behaviour, with faith as his notable example, as the natural outgrowth of evolution.

He can offer conjectures to this claim but no real proof. What goes on within the human mind is infinitely more complex compared to how organisms interact and evolve with their surroundings.

For example, I remember a time when he commented that religion grew in the past as a useful way to consolidate power as the population grew. However, it is interesting to note that nomadic barbarian civilisations were far more powerful than the more sophisticated religious-social order of the people in town and cities practising agriculture. These barbarians, be it those who bedevilled the Roman Empire in Europe or the Chinese civilisation in East Asia, had a very primitive religion which did not serve to consolidate power into the hand of the few. Thus each tribe were free to range over vast territories to maintain huge herds of livestock while coming together to launch attacks on civilisations with sophisticated cultures and religions.

As a student of history, I truly felt that these so-called sophisticated cultures were not able to adapt themselves adequately to the barbarian threats when much of their culture and religions were holding them back in their transformation to a more militant way of organising people. Hence they remained the sheep to the wolves of the barbarian threat.

My point is that religion is not the best way to organise people and in fact is an inferior way to do so, given the overwhelming strength of barbarian nomadic culture with its minimal religious aspect since time immemorial until the end of the Mongolian conquests. My point is that Dawkins paints an erroneous view of how human behaviour seems to have progressed in an orderly fashion by claiming that religion was an effective way to organise the people. If I were to use the natural law of selection or the principle of survival of the fittest, religion is not the type of behaviour I will choose to perpetuate my culture or civilisation, given the success of nomadic barbarian cultures in most of human history.

My point here is that Dawkins is making a mistake by using purely evolution concepts to examine domains that are much better covered by disciplines in history, philosophy, sociology and economics.

His mode of analysis for human history and civilisation is not just too restrictive but way too narrow-minded for my liking.

There are hundreds of other examples why people continue to use less effective ways to organise hearts and minds in history to refute his campaign for evolutionary determinism in human behaviour.

7 going on 10, based a lot on the bad arguments people give for believing there is such a thing as a deity.

It's just more cultural baggage.

Kevin, let me just reiterate that I appreciate your presence in these discussions. You are one of the most articulate and reasonable 3's (or less) I've encountered. :-)

On the subject of personal accounts, Kes makes some good points; I'd also like to explore the general notion of attribution. First, should thousands of years of belief in god really be "counted" as several instances of belief, or really just one that propagated well? I'm not sure we can really lend extra credence to the tradition by virtue of its prevalence and longevity. I touched on this in my e-mails to you a while back, but I don't think it was ever really completed. It's not really as if several billion people independently came to believe in a god; at some point a few did, and then they passed that belief on. I don't know enough about anthropology to say whether there was more than one independent instance of religion being created, or whether religion is so old as to have its roots in pre-diaspora human culture.

Do you agree, Kevin, that if it is in fact the case that religion was really only invented once and then modified in several different ways, that that drastically weakens your argument about the abundance of anecdotal evidence for a deity? The same piece of evidence over and over again doesn't really help, if the reason it keeps appearing is that it's very good at propagation.

While it's possible that the reason a general belief in some sort of deity is so prevalent is that it's true, it seems quite easily demonstrable that if it were untrue but very good at propagating, it would also be extremely prevalent.

As you've pointed out, it's also possible that it's both true and good at propagating. However, since the two situations (a true, propagating belief and a false, propagating belief) are equally likely to result in the belief being widely held, the fact that it is widely held cannot constitute evidence in favor of (or against) its truth.

Now I recognize that what we're talking about now is a bit different than widely held belief -- it's frequent reports of encounters. But, given a particular belief, experiences are going to be interpreted in the context of that belief. For example, a hallucinatory experience might be interpreted as a message from God if the experiencer believes in God, but as a direct consequence of a neural firing pattern (not caused by God) by a non-believer. So I'd argue that reports of interaction with God are likely to reflect experiences interpreted in the context of belief, rather than being any kind of evidence in favor of God. Again, they could be caused by both, but if we can attribute them to something we can explain, there's no need to invoke God.

Again, none of this is proof of the absence of God, but I'm suggesting that the kinds of things you suggest are evidence for God really aren't, since they can be attributed to other things that can be explained in terms that we do have evidence for.

Hope that was comprehensible and not too redundant with our earlier discussion.

2] I still think that human beings cannot be moral without laws. As you said that society cannot function without laws, I like to point out society as a whole is made up of human beings. Confucius has said once before that while laws and punishment may make people fearful of committing crimes, only their conscience can make them be ashamed of it.

It does say something that even in a world where the survival of the fittest is a dominant theme that aesthetic ways like putting community above self can still influence each and all of us. Especially when doing the best for oneself often conflicts with doing the best for others.

My point here is that I really find it hard to accept that morality in its myriad forms such as altruism could have “evolved” in human beings or be adopted into human psyche as a pragmatic mechanism as a result of interactions with the physical environment.

My personal inclination is that we are all born with a sense of morality. And that to me is the most important proof of a supranatural power, although I don’t think it is an exclusive personal God of a religion that is founded on a lot of misleading claims and wishful thinking.

Hi Colin and Kevin, just to add on to your points, the belief that the world is flat that propagated well over hundreds, if not thousands of years.

But is there a kernel of truth in it?

2] I still think that human beings cannot be moral without laws. As you said that society cannot function without laws, I like to point out society as a whole is made up of human beings. Confucius has said once before that while laws and punishment may make people fearful of committing crimes, only their conscience can make them be ashamed of it.

It does say something that even in a world where the survival of the fittest is a dominant theme that aesthetic ways like putting community above self can still influence each and all of us. Especially when doing the best for oneself often conflicts with doing the best for others.

My point here is that I really find it hard to accept that morality in its myriad forms such as altruism could have biologically “evolved” in human beings or be adopted into human psyche as a pragmatic mechanism as a result of interactions with the physical environment. The idea that morality can be culturally evolved is misleading with schools of thoughts such the Epicurean school of materialism insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life. The morality can be strangely absent even in cultural norms. So far there is no real proof that “human beings as individuals could and would be moral without laws... as a result of biologically and culturally evolved standards of morality that go beyond fear of punishment.” If there is, capital punishment would have gone the way of the dodo.

My personal inclination is that we are all born with a sense of morality. And that to me is the most important proof of a supranatural power, although I don’t think it is an exclusive personal God of a religion that is founded on a lot of misleading claims and wishful thinking.

Hi Dawson, you have not directly answered my question: How do we accept death without the aid of faith? All of us will have to come to terms with death sooner or later, be it our impending deaths or the deaths of those we care about. Grief is often the only way to help us accept it.

What I want to point out is an implication that Dawkins avoids in his interviews and writings i.e. that we have only oblivion waiting for us when we die with the repudiation of faith.

It is this connotation that makes Dawkin’s thesis so hard to accept because even the people are looking for a better answer, not just a repudiation of the sad state of affairs in religion. And it is a thesis that he cannot prove unless he can provide conclusive proof that there is no life after death, which is an area dominated by matters of faith.

It is the proof that he needs since he is the one proposing this thesis if he is to claim that life on earth is meant to be secular and all matters of faith, religion and superstition are unnecessary ingredients that we human beings throw into the melting pot of human history.

======

Hi Dawson, I have left the rest of your points unanswered as I mostly agree with them.

If you noticed, I used history as a way of answering the first point as a deeper and more insightful way of analysing human behaviour in history, compared to evolution.

I tried to use philosophy to shed more insights on the nature of morality, which is better discussed outside of evolution.

There are other disciplines that can better explain or illuminate the issues raised by Dawkins in his recent writings.

I will like to suggest that we also question Dawkins’ thoughts and writings as much as we question the religious writings of others

Our cynicism is better served if we do not give Dawkins a free pass as he comes with his own set of biases, opinions, and as I clearly pointed out, inadequacies in his knowledge and the claims he makes.

After all, the thing that unites us free thinkers is our ability to question, not our ability to blindly worship or believe what others say.

However, I do think that Dawkins play an important role in waking believers out of their complacency with their assumptions, blind faith and unquestioning beliefs, which have in the past caused great bloodshed and suffering for untold numbers of people.

matthew: Why? What implications? I personally believe that the search for the truth is paramount.

Jo Ann: "There is no more testable scientific evidence for God than for the Easter Bunny" -- one more reason why #7 best describes how I feel. Kevin, Why do you believe in a God?

Why do I believe in a God? Ultimately it's for a lot of little reasons that are probably too long to go into in this post. I'm quite open to the idea that God might not exist. But there are a number of areas in philosophy, in science, and in life in general that the idea of God fits neatly into. I'd kinda expect more difficulty fitting God into certain aspects of life if it was a completely artificial creation. That said, I recognize some people can't reconcile ideas like a God who lets bad things happen, which has never been a problem for me.

kes: on the issue of personal accounts, historians and students of history do not see them as evidence i.e. merely secondary resources that can only be used to bolster the cases of primary resources, which can be a text dating back to the corresponding time period

kes: Personal accounts, like everything else, can be misinterpretated or even faked as we have no idea what were the ultimate intentions of these recorders nor the context of their times.

kes: The fact that the Christian account of human history is not backed by non-religious sources or sources from other civilisations is a case in point.

kes: Case in point, the New Testament Gospels were only a few out of the 300 so-called eye-witness accounts of the teachings of Christ where all appeared decades after the death of Christ...In this situation, no historian will use them as evidence because there is no way to verify them.

kes: Simply put, if I am studying maritime history, I would be studying the port or custom records firs and foremost, rather than the personal diary of a ship's captain.

kes: the belief that the world is flat that propagated well over hundreds, if not thousands of years...But is there a kernel of truth in it?

Colin: Do you agree, Kevin, that if it is in fact the case that religion was really only invented once and then modified in several different ways, that that drastically weakens your argument about the abundance of anecdotal evidence for a deity?

Colin: Again, none of this is proof of the absence of God, but I'm suggesting that the kinds of things you suggest are evidence for God really aren't, since they can be attributed to other things that can be explained in terms that we do have evidence for.

By the way, thanks for the kind opening words. The feeling is mutual.

First, just to clear this up, "Dawson" is me. It's my last name, so you should use "Colin" to address me. I suppose if you decide to treat what I say as a text you could cite me as "Dawson"... :-)

I'll address some other things later, but just quickly:

an alternate explanation for evidence doesn't cause it to stop being evidence, though it certainly weakens it

not in and of itself, no. But if there is an alternate explanation that fits neatly within an established framework, where the framework is supported by firm scientific evidence (as I'm arguing is the case here), then the explanation that makes reference to something outside a confirmed frame of reference ought to be deprioritized, especially if it doesn't add to the explanatory power of the "scientific" explanation.

In short, don't invoke causes that are wholly outside the tested, evidence supported paradigm when there is a cause available that lies wholly within it.

Again, this is an argument of parsimony and does not in any way constitute an argument against the possibility of God, but it does undermine the notion that the phenomenon in question constitutes evidence for the unparsimonious cause.

An example: I observe that I have memories. It could be that I have them because I have lived for a while and accumulated changes in my brain. Alternatively it could be that I sprung into existence in this very moment with the memories I have. In fact, a combination could be true: I have lived for a while and accumulated memories, but a moment ago my brain was manipulated so as to possess exactly the memories I have now. It could even be the case that, by coincidence, those memories are veridical, though had I had different memories before this moment they would have been replaced by the memories I have now.

What should we assume, given that there is no way of empirically differentiating the two hypotheses?

We should assume that the memories are veridical, and that they were not implanted in my brain a moment ago, because our knowledge of the universe includes knowledge about how experiences translate into memories -- it does not include knowledge about how a set of internally consistent memories can suddenly spring into existence. Still, we might be wrong, and they might have sprung suddenly into existence. It would be very odd of us to assume that, however.

A somewhat different example: A person reports that they see ghosts, and that the ghosts have told them that they only appeared to that one person. Perhaps they are really there. Perhaps they are hallucinating. We cannot test whether the ghosts are really there, since by axiom no one else can see them or detect them in any way. We can, in principle, test the person's brain to find out whether its activity is like other hallucinations we know about.

There could actually be ghosts there that have exactly the properties the person reports (by coincidence), but the person could nonetheless be hallucinating.

If we test the hypothesis that the person is hallucinating and find that they are, that is not actually inconsistent with the hypothesis that there are actually ghosts there. We wouldn't assume that there are, however. What initially seemed like evidence for there being ghosts (the person's perception of them) is no longer evidence for such.

In fact, even before we test the hypothesis that the person is hallucinating, we should prefer it to the ghost hypothesis, since we know hallucinations happen, but we do not know whether ghosts exist.

So much for briefly. :-)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/08/MNGNELI3IO1.DTL

Hi Kevin, thanks for the comments. I will elaborate on the points that you raised.

1] The difference between a (secondary) written personal account and a (primary) text dating back to the corresponding time period is that a primary source can be verified i.e. its contents mirror those in other texts or records of that time that come without obvious biases such as the agendas of religious documents.

For example the Merneptah Stele (writing on a stone pillar dating to that time) is one such primary evidence beyond religious sources that first referred to the term Israel. Its historical accounts are in accord with the other writings dating to that time and after that time.

2] The majority of humankind through recorded history has believed in GODS and SPIRITS. That's the data you need to weigh, not those pertaining to the minority view of a singular, personal and exclusive God.

3] Most historians believed that there is a Jesus of Nazareth but not Jesus Christ. Secular records do not say whether he is the same person as Jesus Christ. I’ve touched on this topic at this thread:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/05/thesimpsonsan.html

Nor is there necessarily only one Jesus in Nazareth. Many of the names used in Old Testament and Christian writings apply to more than 1 person. For example, Zimri ("praiseworthy") is a name shared by two characters in the Hebrew Bible i.e. Prince of the Tribe of Simeon during the time of the Israelites in the desert and as a much later usurper king of Israel who ruled for just seven days before getting his just desserts. That there should be 2 Nimrod is clear when you study the contradictions between Biblical and Jewish accounts of the character called Nimrod, who was the son of Noah and yet was to have recorded to have fought with Abraham who was 10 genrations removed from Noah. In religious writings, there was also 2 Hoshea, one who was the last king of Israel, and another who was named Joshua by Moses who led Israel into the Promised Land. 4] I stated clearly that if I am studying maritime history, I would be studying the port or custom records “first and foremost”, rather than the personal diary of a ship's captain.

I did not say that I won’t read the diary. But I would read it only to support the analysis that I have drawn after my reading of primary sources, which is far more objective and impersonal. The issue here is objectivity and veracity as I can compare facts and figures from the customs records with other writings such as income receivables from the account books and figures published by commercial bodies at that time. I can’t do that as effectively with the diary which comes with its own set of preferences and biases that may not be factual as it is ultimately a personal account.

5] I disagree. Long standing beliefs should be given as much consideration as randomly made-up statements as these beliefs could have started out as such statements such as the completely erroneous view that the world was flat which was passionately believed in for hundreds if not thousands of years. That’s my point.

Kevin, I’ll stop here on my views on sources and evidence. Sorry, I have a penchant for a proper use of sources based on a misspent education in history. Actually, I’m in advertising.

I'm a 2 in that I strongly believe in God, but the word probability in this context doesn't seem quite right. I couldn't say that there's probably a God or probably not a God because:

1. how would one estimate the probability of something like that, and
2. just because I believe doesn't mean I'm right!

====

I saw Julia Sweeney's show last year. At one point she describes her first moves toward atheism: she said that one day she took off her "God-tinted glasses" for a little bit, just to see how it felt. And then she did it again, keeping the God-tinted glasses off longer, until one day she realized she didn't believe anymore and she left them off entirely.

I love that phrase: God-tinted glasses.

I was very taken with that idea, so the next day I tried it. I walked around and tried taking off the God-tinted glasses, walked around looking at things and thinking there is no God, all this just happened by itself. It was a little weird and a little scary and I found myself thinking things like Please help me to believe that you don't exist, God and please help me through this experience, God. Those sorts of things, things that were nonsensical right after I thought them but that I couldn't help thinking.

So I can't turn my belief in God off, I don't think. I don't think I can see a world where there isn't a God. It's not like I'm always aware of God, but there's always the idea of God behind everything. And this doesn't seem to be under my control.

But: if that idea is somehow part of me, and I can't turn it off, then how can I expect that someone who doesn't believe in God can just turn it on?!? Belief in God isn't like a spigot you can just turn on or off, I don't think. So how can anyone be faulted for being an atheist?!?

====

Norm, I'm glad you asked the question. It's interesting to know where everyone stands. I just wish most people weren't so opinionated about the answers! Oskar, you wrote:

i am a seven. so what.

I love that answer, Oskar. I'm a two, and so what indeed!

Hi Colin, I'll call you that, instead of Dawson.

Your example is interesting. Do try to skim through Xun Zhi's writing that is roughly translated as "Wanderings of a butterfly", which is about his thoughts that he may be a butterfly that is dreaming of the man called Xunzhi.

He elaborates on a lot of the points in your last post, Colin.

Btw, nice article on out-of-body experiences, Norm:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/08/MNGNELI3IO1.DTL

for most pervasive ideas, it's hard to prove if they were or weren't developed independently. For a really old idea (like religion) it's impossible. So, I don't know that I'd say that weakens an argument for religion, so much as it might lend extra weight to an idea you could prove actually developed simultaneously/independently all over the world.

As I admitted, I'm not an anthropologist and so I don't have the evidence at my fingertips to argue convincingly about whether religion originated once or several times. Though the older religion is, the more likely it was only fundamentally invented once, since the longer ago it sprung up, the fewer and more concentrated geographically humans would have been. Maybe someone with some expertise in this area could chime in?

In any case, my point still stands as a hypothetical. If it was invented only once, that decreases whatever force of evidence its prevalence may have had. Whether the premise is true doesn't affect the validity of the implication.

I was trying to point out that there's a difference between a theory which has little to no evidence to support it, and a theory which has a lot of (inconclusive) evidence to support it.

At first, yes. But once the inconclusive evidence is reattributed, there's no evidence left for the theory.

If the truth or falsity of the statement "there is a God" doesn't affect the likelihood that lots of people will believe there is a God (compared to what would happen if an alternative explanation were true), then the fact that lots of people hold the belief does not constitute evidence one way or the other about the existence of God.

Obviously it matters in what order you consider the explanations. I argued above that the naturalistic explanation should be considered first. If it is and it is borne out, the failure of adding an extra explanation to increase the probability that you would see the phenomenon eliminates the usefulness of the extra explanation.

Here is the way I see his spectrum, oversimplified.

1. Religious certainty
2. Religious faith
3. Religious doubt
4. Undecided
5. Irreligious doubt
6. Irreligious faith
7. Irreligious certainty

(As you can see 1-3 are religious, but 5-7 I want to call atheism for now.)

Dawkin's scale seems oversimplified especially in regards to agnosticism. I do agree with those people who say that atheists and the religious have a lot in common, both groups relying on a form of faith or knowledge that must be 'believed'.

I do not accept that the existence of god is knowable through science, reasoning or history. In my opinion all religious and spiritual experiences can be explained scientifically. 'Spiritual' experiences can be artificially created by stimulating a specific region of the brain or using particular chemicals that effect the brain. Humans are born naturally curious and creative. I would not be surprised if that for nearly as long as humans have existed we explained natural phenomena by invoking 'gods' or spirits - a lot longer than we have been doing science. Without a strong science education you can hardly put a dent in our religious or superstitious leanings. Every child invents stories and in teaching science these preconceived beliefs can be very powerful and difficult or impossible to replace. How many people learned the science of the rainbow without learning at least a little superstition. Even without the superstition coming from someone else the child would invent his or her own explanation.

Religion and/or gods can be explained by evolutionary principles especially with regard to the structure of the brain and basic characteristics of what it means to be intelligent. If you can accept that intelligence is subject to evolutionary principles I cannot see why anyone has trouble seeing how everything humans do is not also explainable evolutionarily. That is not to say the making of the movie "Star Wars" can be explained evolutionarily but storytelling can.

As an agnostic I also wish there were a god who cared for and protected us and I am sure some would consider that idea a personal weakness but where would that fit on this scale.

If I made a scale with agnosticism in mind it would have a separate path for agnosticism. Dawkins knows atheism but I often get the feeling that he doesn't quite as well represent agnosticism, but what do I know, talking about agnosticism is still pretty new to me.

Hi Colin, I can't give you an answer to your irst point from the view of anthropology but I can give you one from linguistic studies.

There are 2 schools of thought to examining whether all languages came from 1 language or whether the sources of all language were more than one i.e. polyglot as in several sources appeared at different times.

There isn't much proof for the monolinguistic source of language, which means the same for a singular source for all religions.

After all if there was only religion in the beginning, it makes perfect sense that there was a single language to preach about this singular source of all religion. You can't have one without the other.

In this point of view, I do think Dawkins has a point in viewing religion within an evolutionary framework but in this fashion.

Christianity was an outgrowth of Judaism, which was rejected by the Jews. Thus to survive, its leaders have to open up the religion to people of other ethnicities and races to the point of putting words in Jesus' mouth i.e. Jesus came to save us all when Jesus said he was sent for the Jews, not the Gentiles or non-Jews.

So Colin, I see that Christianity was a religion that was not invented once but is in a continual state of reinventing itself for its own needs.

FYI.

From my particular framework, I can tell you about you an interesting use i.e. in the region between North and South America, it is found that thousands of years ago the natives used a form of ideograph language that closely resembles the ideograph language used in China during the Shang Dynasty 3000 years ago.

Most Chinese scholars are shocked in that there was no way Chinese culture could be imported over the Pacific Ocean to Americas at that point of time as sea travel was not advanced enough.

According to some people, the only possible explanation was that there was a big land mass between China and Americas, which would then make sea travel between the 2 plausible.

Yes, I'm talking about a lost continent i.e. Lemuria or Atlantis.

Kevin,

"I'm arguing that to completely dismiss thousands of years of such testimonies is not something that should be done without clearly recognizing the implications."

Again, I ask, "what implications?" If there is sufficient evidence to dismiss such testimonies (or no evidence to support them), then why not dismiss them as fairy tales?

"Simple point: Easter Bunny ≠ God."

Why not? There is no evidence for either, so both are equally unlikely.

Yes, I exist. And, being Who I Am, Am totally indifferent to your belief or non-belief in Me. Wherever you got such a palpably erroneous idea (that I do, or could care whether or not you believe in Me), do not trust that source. I could not care less. And even though one of My 99 Names is "Algebra:" al-Jabar, use Calculus to figure out how infinitesimally small My interest in your beliefs about Me really is.

I'm either a 5 or a 6 or somewhere in between.

The whole aregument about agnosticism is STUPID. Does some how saying agnosticism as being better than atheism some how make God more likely. WHY DO YOU GUYS CARE?

I look at it this way. I don't believe in a spaghetti monster anymore than I believe in a God. I call myself an atheist.That is good enough by me. Pardon my french but WHO GIVES A fu**, whether I can prove or not prove for a fact there is a spaghetti monster or not. The whole question is a stupid one to me.

Kevin: I was trying to point out that there's a difference between a theory which has little to no evidence to support it, and a theory which has a lot of (inconclusive) evidence to support it.

Colin: At first, yes. But once the inconclusive evidence is reattributed, there's no evidence left for the theory.

I continue to evaluate and consider both, though I'll lean in the direction of the explanation that seems more plausible. In this case, however, even the determination of which is more plausible is arguably a subjective one.

(I'm still waiting on your next email, btw) :)

matthew: Again, I ask, "what implications?" If there is sufficient evidence to dismiss such testimonies (or no evidence to support them), then why not dismiss them as fairy tales?

The implications should (I would think) be clear. Consciousness can not be proven to exist (philosophers have spent years arguing this one). Neither can the Easter Bunny. I'm just suggesting people might not want to treat them equally lightly. They may eventually arrive to the same conclusion about both, but I'd consider someone ignorant if they flippantly suggested that they were 'equal' except in certain narrowly-defined ways.

Again, I'm not arguing that God should be considered more likely than the Easter Bunny. I was commenting on the fact that some atheists like to lump the two together rather casually as if to suggest anyone who gives more consideration to one than the other is an idiot. They are not 'equal' propositions, though they do have equal amounts of testable evidence for their existence (none).

To summarize: Good: "There is no more scientific proof of the existence of God than of the Easter Bunny" Poor: "There's no more evidence of God than of the Easter Bunny." Bad: "Belief in God is no different than belief in the Easter Bunny."

Sorry, but since so many atheists claim to be logical and scientifically-minded, it bugs me when they can't make a dispassionate statement. I expect gross exaggeration and misleading statements from Christian fundamentalists. I prefer my atheists demonstrate the ability to do better.

"I expect gross exaggeration and misleading statements from Christian fundamentalists. I prefer my atheists demonstrate the ability to do better." hear, hear. all in favor say "aye". kevin, i have followed your discussion here with colin with interest. i've come to the conclusion that, in an ideal world, you and he would serve as the brain trust for the jon stewart presidency.

"I expect gross exaggeration and misleading statements from Christian fundamentalists. I prefer my atheists demonstrate the ability to do better." hear, hear. all in favor say "aye". kevin, i have followed your discussion here with colin with interest. i've come to the conclusion that, in an ideal world, you and he would serve as the brain trust for the jon stewart presidency.

You seem to advocate the position that as soon an alternative explanation is provided which is (arguably) more plausible, any previous explanations should be 100% discarded.

It's not the plausibility of the explanation per se that I'm emphasizing, but the frame of reference. On the one hand you have the set of explanations that are subject to evidence and falsification (religion serves an evolutionary function and is prevalent because of its ability to propagate; memories got there through experience with the world; seeing ghosts is the result of anomalous neural firing). On the other, you have explanations that posit entirely new kinds of phenomena, and which lie entirely outside of the realm where explanation is possible (lots of people believe in a god because such a thing exists; my memories were implanted moments ago; a person sees ghosts because there are ghosts).

Plausibility is a measure that can be used within each of those domains, perhaps, but it's hard to make it stretch between them.

What I'm arguing is first, that believing both explanations doesn't get you anything above believing one. Second, scientific explanation, if it is possible, is a desireable quality. Finally, it is just bad philosophy to make huge metaphysical assumptions without motivation to do so, particularly when the phenomena being taken into account have a perfectly viable explanation within an existing metaphysical framework.

These things can each be argued separately.

To place my argument back into context:

"There is no more scientific proof of the existence of God than of the Easter Bunny"

True. On this we agree.

"Belief in God is no different than belief in the Easter Bunny."

False. On this we agree, though probably for different reasons. Belief in God is very different than belief in the Easter Bunny, because belief in God carries with it a whole host of implications that potentially have a huge impact on one's life. Belief in the Easter Bunny isn't likely to affect one's life very much.

Metaphysically, though, the two beliefs are the same, in that neither can be derived from other principles -- they must be assumed as a first principle.

"There's no more evidence of God than of the Easter Bunny."

True, provided we penalize extravagant assumptions when modest claims are available.

To look at the whole question of whether popular belief can be counted as evidence, consider the following:

For a period of time, a clear majority of Americans believed that there were nuclear weapons being hidden in Iraq; also that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda. Now obviously this is on a very different scale than belief in God, but would you say that the fact that so many people believed those two things constitutes evidence of their being true? I mean, there are a whole host of examples throughout history where huge proportions of people believed things that turned out to be wrong. This is certainly not to say that there can't be evidence for things that are wrong, but would you take widely held belief as actual evidence by itself for these other things? If not, what makes them fundamentally different from belief in god, other than that the existence of god can in principle never be disproven? You've often said that belief in some sort of god is special because it's the only belief that every human culture has had forever. But why is that persuasive if we simply note that there's no way for a belief like that to die out?

If by "god" you mean the traditional old-man-with-a-beard-jahwe-allah-creationist-77-virgins-god I'm a seven.

If you leave the definition of "god" open I'm an exact four. Who knows, maybe spiritualism is right after all. Maybe the universe is "god". So, we'll probably never know.

Kevin,

There are no "proof(s)" in science. There are "proofs" in mathematics, but to use the phrase "scientific proofs" is misleading and inaccurate. It is simply not used. "Evidence", however, is used in science. Science uses evidence to uncover the truths behind what cannot be observed, or observed easily. The statement that "There's no more evidence of God than of the Easter Bunny" is technically true, unless your definition of "evidence" is different than the one held by scientists. On that note, I think Collin does a swell job discussing evidence in the last paragraph of his post from October 13, 2006 2:40 AM.

But honestly, we're getting into the nitty-gritty here. I understand and agree with a lot of what you are saying. I'm only still commenting on your posts because I find this discussion interesting. If I'm not commenting on some of your points, it's because I agree with them.

In my humble opinion, I think anyone who classifies themself as a 7 is as crazy as a 1.

If you're convinced you know something that you couldn't possibly know, that's faith.

The scale should go from how certain you are that there's a God to how little you care. That would really weed out the fundamentalists on all sides.

Defending where you lie on this little scale seems rather useless. Aside from this clever little scale, I think Dawkins main point is based on the fact that many of the atrocities throughout history have been a result of religious conviction and conflict. This is true, of course. What I find interesting is why educated, logical people seem to think that if everyone abandoned religion and ceased to believe in a god, everything would be a whole lot better. As if the vast majority of dumb assholes that make up our population would suddenly act like intelligent, rational beings simply by being an atheist.

Here is the deal I ask this questions. there is a life force if there is one but can you try to live your life without influence or depending of THOUGHT that it exist.

Hi Russel, I think Dawkins is just trying to imply the same thing that Voltaire said i.e. without religion, good people will do good and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, it only takes religion.

Kes, ...or money.

That's the thing that really steams me. "Good" christians attack people who have different ideas about life, sexuality and social behavior with unchecked agression. Yet they never have a problem with wealth. As long as you are not some ridiculous parody of Scrooge or a mafia boss, greed is good. I could be wrong, but I think the only time Jesus ever lost his temper was over the money changers in the temple. Jesus seemed pretty cool... it's his followers who are the jerks.

Ditto what Russell said.

I am tired of Christians ignoring Jesus. Jesus was a good guy and I really wish he had existed if he did not.

Hypocrisy, love of money and power would make Jesus weep. Jesus has nothing to do with being a Christian today. Fundies want to drag out the 10 commandments in front of the schools, courts and government buildings, but Jesus said that TO LOVE was the new commandment and he didn't mean #11. As far as I am concerned, until the majority of Christians start spreading a message that we will, shall, want to, can love one another regardless of skin, creed, social status, place on earth, whatever, everything else they say is just religion. As a former Christian I say they don't know Jesus and if they did see him on the street they would look away and ignore him.

Jesus was NOT an American either. There is NO sign of him in our government despite many people's conviction about Bush's religion.

Anyway, what Russell said really struck a nerve as an indictment of Christianity that I absolutely believe is true and significant. If you know Jesus then great I am not talking about you.

The US behaves like a beast sometimes. I wonder if we, the US, have directly or indirectly been responsible for more deaths than history's worst boogeymen.

Hypocrits suck and not in the good way. This is the end of my rant.

"Kes, ...or money."

Good point : >

I am tired of Christians ignoring Jesus. Jesus was a good guy and I really wish he had existed if he did not.

I'm guessing you haven't read the Bible. Jesus' actions are that of a con-artist, gives half-truths and then promises salvation for sacrifice. He gives wrongful information, breaks promises, lies, calls people unsavory names, orders killings, and threatens to kill children. He gave questionable advice about income, marriage, and future plans and he ended his short life in tragic suicidal death. Wow, what a role model!

Jesus, more like G sus. Boy was cold as ice. Stab a bitch just to watch em bleed.

for good people to do evil, it only takes religion

And as Freeman Dyson points out, to make this the whole truth, for bad people to do good things — that takes religion too.

sorry abracadab, what that takes is fear,which, admittedly,often comes from religion-but not always.

Hi, Jonathan.

sorry abracadab, what that takes is fear,which, admittedly,often comes from religion - but not always.

Jonathan, the conversion experience isn't based on fear. It may not be real (ie, it may be a delusion), but the people who undergo it will tell you it's based on an experience of love, not fear.

Does that mean that going from bad -> good isn't sometimes based on fear? No, of course not. Your statement about fear is absolutely true - sometimes.

But going from good -> bad is also often based on fear - sometimes. Look at the average German citizen in WWII for a single good example from many.

In other words: Dyson's reverse statement is as reductionist and general as the original. Both statements are true sometimes, and they're both often false.

abracadab, i don't disagree with anything you said there. i wasn't talking about conversion, though,and i didn't think you were either. i'm not sure where you got that, but i'd point out that,historically speaking, plenty of people have converted out of fear-"at the point of the sword",both literally and figuratively, and many of those conversions "stuck"-that is, the descendants of those converts still practice those religions today. you might say that those weren't true converts, and i might agree with you, but the point is often moot. anyway, i thought the point you were making with the dyson quote was a good one. i was only slightly irked by your (or just about anyones',to be honest)use of the term "the whole truth". peace.

Jonathan Becker wrote:

i was only slightly irked by your (or just about anyones',to be honest)use of the term "the whole truth". peace.

Hi, Jonathan. You're right, 100%. The phrase irks me too. The "whole truth" comment was actually Dyson's, but I abbreviated the quote and left that part un-italicized, so yes, it looked like I'm the one who said it. In any event, I don't like the phrase either and I missed the import of leaving it in there.

Here's the whole Dyson quote:

...the famous remark of the physicist Stephen Weinberg: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things—that takes religion." Weinberg's statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. To make it the whole truth, we must add an additional clause: "And for bad people to do good things—that takes religion."

I couldn't agree with you more. Claims to the "whole truth" are, imho, a Very Bad Thing. Thank you for catching that.