God belongs in Ye Olde Curiosity Shoppe.

It's simple confusion to say science can't explain certain things; therefore, we have to be religious. To equate that kind of religiousness with belief in a personal, intelligent being, that's confusion.

The first (small) step in in even considering the possibility of a supernatural God is, "Do I believe that the supernatural even exists? Do I believe in the notion that things exist which can not be proven?" If no, then you're done. If yes, move on to the next question.

I've never heard a religious person say, "Science can't explain certain things; therefore, we have to be religious."

You're kidding, right? That's the entire point of the central argument for religion and intelligent design. There's "gaps" in science -- flock to church.

It's entirely illogical. That's Dawkins' point. But it's not that he's being illogical; he's simply showcasing that illogical view from others.

Oh, yeah, forgot a helpful link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-of-the-Gaps

No, I wasn't kidding. I've never heard someone actually say that. And the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry directly supports the point I was making: The concept of the God of the gaps contrasts religious explanations of nature with those derived from science. It refers to a theistic position that anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature.

It does not say that people become theists due to the gaps, it says theists claim that their belief exists in the gaps. It claims belief in God first, and then puts forth that God's role & domain must exist in science's 'gaps'.

Science has fully explained the formation of our planet, and a good solid theory of evolution. There is no gap there, yet people reject that science because it conflicts with their faith. The reason the Intelligent Design crowd is so ridiculed is precisely because there is no gap, and they have to (try to) manufacture gaps for their version of God to exist.

Dawkins tried to argue that the very act of questioning science's limits implied making a case for religion. I was arguing that he's coming at it backwards. Rational people don't question the limits of science, and then afterward (should they determine science has limits) suggest religion is all that must remain. Rational people who are already considering religion check to see whether or not science allows for those beliefs.

Upon re-reading I suppose you could take it another way: - The religious person whose mind is already made up who asks the question 'Is there a limit to science?' may indeed be preparing to make the argument Dawkins responded to. - The person whose mind is open who asks the question 'Is there a limit to science?' is more likely coming at it from the direction I specified (testing a hypotheses).

Dawkins' usually tends phrase his responses as if he's arguing with the religious fundamentalist (who he's never gonna convert) rather than to the open minded person considering religion (who he actually stands a chance at influencing).

This is why Dawkins' bugs me. Half the time I'm thinking, "I could make a better argument for atheism than this guy." He's obviously brilliant, and yet he always seems to overreach in his arguments.

Dawkins isn't the one accusing people of making the argument of the sort (science is limited) -> (religion is true)

That was implied in the interviewer's question. As I read it, Dawkins was just trying to say that the fact that science has limits does not necessitate religion or god. That is, insofar as the insight that science has limits is meant as a critique of his position, it's a misguided argument.

It's interesting that you invert the direction of implication, making religion the premise and scientific gaps the conclusion. I wonder if that's a fundamental source of confusion in our discussions. I will gladly agree that if you begin with the assumption that god exists, before you say anything else about the world, then no amount of argument can come to the opposite conclusion.

In fact, I think my argument could be stated as follows: the only way to get god is to assume it as a first principle.

A first principle though, by definition, need not, and indeed cannot have evidence for it.

The major problem is if you define your believe as science without following the scientific method. I don't care if people can't accept "We don't know that yet" as an answer and have to invent dragons and fairies to fill the gaps for themselves.

It's troubling however when those people proclaim their kludges to be the truth. These guys are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam to prove their point, i.e. basically run around saying it's science to proclaim "You cannot prove Darwin (or anything for that matter) without doubt, therefore God exists".

The sad thing is that more and more people fall for that, even here in Europe. Science is the only thing that will save us in the next 100 years, that's why we have to defend it. If you feel you can do a better job than Dawkins, step up!

At least I don't see Jesus solving Global Warming and Peak Oil or just ending the whole thing for an eternal harp concert as a realistic alternative.

i think dawkins has it backwards.

it seems to me that a lot of religion is aimed at doing away with mystery, i dont see science doing that at all, despite what dawkins says (ie "The scientist's way is to see it [mystery] as a challenge, something they've got to work on, we're really going to try to crack it."). it is the religious who say they know all the answers (and all the unanswered questions you arent allowed to ask, you have to be satisfied with not asking certain questions, you just have to have "faith"). some forms of religion have no room for doubt, how could there be doubt if god is talking directly to your leader?

i dont really see science as embracing mystery as a challenge that needs to be solved. its more of an inspiration for curiosity than an actual attempt to catalog all possible information in the universe. more information just makes you more curious.

or maybe that is what science is aimed at. if so, theyre doomed to fail so i wont lose sleep over it.

id rather both sides embrace mystery as a curiosity, something to play with, rather than something to conquer (dawkins), or something that has already been conquered (religion).

im not a professional in either field, so tell me if im wrong, if they are seen as attempts to conquer mystery.

I don't think that Dawkins is speaking to a religious fundamentalist. I think he has to respond to the harsh critic in the strongest way possible otherwise any educated person would point out the flaws in his argument. His argument must aply to the most extreme case otherwise they don't have any ground to stand on. Appealing to the indecisive may sway listeners but I don't think that Dawkins is attempting to start his own cult of aetheists.

Religion has always begun where science ended. Ancient peoples couldn't explain most natural phenomena, so they invented gods -- a god for thunder, a god for flooding, so forth. The more we understand about the universe, the more sophisticated and remote our gods become. Do we have to wait until we figure out the Big Bang or how life began before we can completely abandon the idea of god?

Dawkins bugs me because of his sheer disdain for any mode of thought except scientific rationalism. And I have a PhD in astrophysics.

This idea that pure mechanical determinism can explain all of human existence tosses out thousands of years of philosophical and religious thought and equates it with belief in the Easter Bunny. It's as though all we need to know in the universe is the how... the why, the search for universal truth outside of a few physical laws, doesn't matter.

And so you are an atheist. So what?? You don't need faith in your life, that's great. But millions of others do, and recieve great comfort and strength from their faith. Norm says he "tolerates" religion but doesn't "respect" it. And many on this board seem to agree with that statement. Which means you don't respect the vast majority of your fellow human beings, no matter what kind of lives they lead or what they bring to their families, communities, and the world.

A Ph.D. writes:

Norm says he "tolerates" religion but doesn't "respect" it. And many on this board seem to agree with that statement. Which means you don't respect the vast majority of your fellow human beings, no matter what kind of lives they lead or what they bring to their families, communities, and the world.

No it doesn't mean that. I don't respect your religious belief and the more fundamentalist those beliefs are the more disdain I feel for them. I'm sure there are many things about you that I would respect. Certainly you're not saying that if I don't respect all your beliefs that I don't respect you. I respect your right to hold the belief, I tolerate it, but I sure as hell don't respect the belief. Do you understand now?

Rational people don't question the limits of science, and then afterward (should they determine science has limits) suggest religion is all that must remain.

What rational person believes in intelligent design? Again, that is the entire argument for intelligence design, a blatantly new-age polished form of Creationism. They look for any single instance where science says "We're working on it now" and then say "No, that's fine, we'll stop here because God did it."

Of course it does not make sense. Again, that is Dawkins' entire point. It's completely illogical to assume that just because science cannot explain something ~now~ that it can't ever do it, or that just because science can't explain it that God is the only answer.

Yet that again is exactly what the entire concept of intelligent design is in a nutshell. See something you can't explain, stop, and say "God did it." The end.

No, Norm, I don't understand.

What exactly is it about my belief that you don't respect? The fact that I came to it through some process other than rationalism? The fact that it leads me to want to make the world a better place? The fact that I attend Quaker meetings on Sundays?

The life I lead is influenced by both rationalism and spiritual belief. Do you respect those decisions I reach through a purely rationalist approach and disdain those that are informed by my religion? How can you tell the difference??

Since the discussion on this post is in the context of the Dawkins interview about his book, a book that is addressed to believers in the Abrahamic God my statement should be understood in that context. I'm talking about religion in terms of belief in the supernatural. I don't respect belief in the supernatural. If that is not the nature of your religion, you'll need to define it more specifically. Define spirituality in the terms you understand it and explain the connection to belief in a god. You have an obligation to define terms if they differ from the context in which the discussion is taking place. Failure to do so is intellectually dishonest.
You might also provide examples of decisions that are informed by your religion and how they are different than decisions informed by reason.

The fact that I came to it through some process other than rationalism?

This means you came to your decision by irrational means. Personally I don't respect decision made without reason.

The fact that it leads me to want to make the world a better place?

Religion is not solely responsible for people's desire to make the world a better place. There are religious people who care little for making the world a better place as well as people with no religious beliefs so I see no correlation between the two.

The fact that I attend Quaker meetings on Sundays?

That is a social function, I don't see what that has to do with anything.

cursed typekey. the comment above posted at 2:58 A.M. was from me.

Quakers are usually considered Christians, Norm, although I've been told by one fundamentalist student that I'm a pagan.

I oppose the death penalty. I can list a number of reasons to oppose the death penaly on rational grounds. Supporters of the death penalty can list a number of reasons to enforce it on equally rational grounds. My ultimate opposition to the death penatly is based on my faith, that it is wrong to kill another human being. There is no rational argument for the very general statement "it is wrong to kill."

My faith is experiencial, that there is an inner light that connects us all, which is greater than the physical laws that govern the universe. My upbringing is Christian, so I tend to apply Christian metaphors to explain this inner light. I don't need to believe in a literal virgin birth or resurrection to find meaning in the life and teachings of Jesus. Nor do I need to believe in the transcendence of Siddhartha under that Bhoda tree to find meaning in the teachings of Buddha. I can also find inspiration in the writings of Kant, Kierkegaard, and Locke. I don't limit my worldview to one mode of thinkings, that everything has a scientific rational.

"Personally I don't respect decision made without reason."

A decision informed by faith is not necessarily made without reason.

And how, praytell, do you judge which of my beliefs are informed by faith (and therefore open to your disdain) and which are purely derived from reason? Whether or not we agree?

"...I see no correlation between the two."

Of course faith is not the only motivation behind altruism. I know atheists who do little or nothing to make the world a better place, so I see no correlation between reason and altruism, either.

Attending Meeting is an expression of my faith. I was asking Norm which of those expressions he could not respect.

"Personally I don't respect decision made wihtout reason."

I hope you never fall in love, then.

TMH

You offer an atypical view of what religious faith is, and then accuse us of not respecting your faith. I still don't have a clue how it is you apply the part of your decision making process as it relates to faith. You discuss the death penalty pointing out that there are arguments for both sides and saying you let your faith decide it. You obviously find the arguments against the death penalty as more persausive than those for it. The statement that your faith is the deciding factors is misleading. I think what you're saying is that you view the evidence and then use some sort of fact based intuition or the empathy we feel for others like ourselves that seems to come from our biology to decide, and call that faith. Dawkins defines what he is talking about when he discusses faith by referring to it as unquestioned faith. I've further defined it as belief lacking any credible evidence. Failing to define what you mean by faith and then asking others to respect it is the problem. Do you want me to respect Christian's faith in a virgin birth, in a resurrection, in other beliefs in the supernatural? When you defend faith without explaining what you mean you provide cover to those whose faith is that described by Dawkins or most of those that comment here. Your claim that because we don't respect religious faith, our definition, that we don't respect the good things you do in this world is simply crap.

A decision informed by faith is not necessarily made without reason.

And how, praytell, do you judge which of my beliefs are informed by faith (and therefore open to your disdain) and which are purely derived from reason? Whether or not we agree?

Tangible evidence to support your belief is how to tell. From your responses it seems you don't understand what Dawkins is talking about.

Just like your "Inner Light" comment earlier. You have nothing to back it up just irrational faith. It can't be proven or tested so there is no way to prove it.

Personally I don't care what fairy tales people choose to believe in until it influences the society I live in. At that point your fairy tale just influenced my reality which is what I take issue with.

In Dawkins own example, he seems to suggest that any faith is dangerous because it can lead to fundamentalist/unquestioned faith. ("moderate, sensible religous people make the world safe for extremism." and "they have no right to be appalled (at extremism) because ... they brought it on the world by teaching people the virtues of unquestioned faith.") What rubbish.

I question his premise: Moderate peole of faith do not hold unquestioning faith. Faith is hard, it requires constant questioning.

And I question the conclusion based on his premise: One does not need a Holy Book or unquestioned faith to perpetuate evil. I am no more responsible for radical Islam (or Christianity) than an atheist is for Pol Pot.

So no, I don't think that Dawkins is just attacking fundamentalism (having read some of his other essays as well), but faith in general. And I do understand what he is talking about, but I reject his premise.

You both discount experience as basis for belief (credible evidence). What is "fact-based intuition?" You're defining my experience in terms of your own system of beliefs, with prejudice. We're at an impasse, since you won't accept my premise that empiricism goes hand-in-hand with rationalism, and I won't accept your premise that rationalism alone can answer all of our questions.

As for your insistence that "irrational faith" can't be proven or tested, how do you prove that "Guernica" is great art?

Dawkins to religious moderates and religious liberals: "You're either with us or you're against us"?

I don't think it's true that I have no right to be appalled if I accept that it is sometimes legitimate to make ethical decisions based on faith. The decision process is not all that is subject to evaluation in an action. Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. That's just about the opposite of the idea that "God told him to do it, who cares what the consequences are". I can be appalled that some people's faith leads them to do things that almost any decent person would be horrified by.

I don't discount experience, understanding that it can sometimes be unreliable.

How do you prove that Guernica is great art. You define what you mean by great art.

TMH,

I think it's important that we make a distinction between the kinds of propositions that are capable of having objective truth or falsity (e.g. "God exists"), and those that don't (e.g. "Guernica is great art", "it is wrong to kill")

Science and reasoning cannot have anything to say about the latter category, except within the confines of operational definitions (e.g. "By premise, something is Great Art if it possesses the properties A, B and C; I've empirically demonstrated that Guernica has the properties A, B and C; therefore Guernica is Great Art.")

Whether God exists, however, does not seem to be of that category. It is a proposition that, in principle at least, probably has an underlying truth or falsehood. At least, if you define God in a particular way. As the question presumably has an answer, it is, as they say, "an empirical question", and thus subject to evidence.

Now it may well be that the right sort of evidence will never come along. This in fact seems highly likely. But until it does, it does not make sense to have unquestioned faith in the existence of God. One can at most be agnostic. In other threads I've made the case that given certain principles of logic, the most defensible position is to operate under the assumption that there is no God. But whether or not you buy that argument, the one here still stands, provided you grant that the proposition "God exists", where God is defined in a particular way, is either true or false, whether or not we are capable of knowing it.

If you want to make a case that God neither exists or does not exist (perhaps we adopt a Berkeleyan stance that the entire universe is constructed out of our perception), then that is fine by me. But that isn't usually what religious people do.

Why just god? Not godesses? Gods? Spirits?

Kes,

The same logic would apply to any proposed deity / supernatural force.

That is, it may exist (and is equally likely to any traditional conception of God), but we should at least adopt an agnostic stance, and perhaps even assume they don't exist until we have some explicit, motivated reason to believe they do.