Richard Dawkins Debates John Lennox
 

You all know who the first guy is, the second guy is John Lennox, who is Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford.


(Today, October 3, 2007) MBN will present a debate sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation on what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The decision one makes regarding this question has implications that reverberate throughout eternity to be sure, but it also affects temporal existence from government policy to the individual. Historically, man’s belief in the transcendent has served as a restraint on his conduct and provided hope for his future. Now, it is argued, “God is dead”, and man can do very well without him.

The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.


To learn more about the debate, go here:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article...pits-/3255.htm

Finally someone with half a brain to debate Dawkins.

Finally someone realizes that Dawkins only has half a brain.

Ugh. What I mean is that they usually pair him up with a priest or something, which just reinforced the apples and oranges arguments you can see reflected here on TFP.

Also, Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest people alive today. Saying he has half a brain ignores his incredible acomplishments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...nd_recognition

All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass

it's hard being smarter than most of your fellow race and not gain a sense of superiority. I'm sure you've encountered stupid people before, it makes you very irritable.

Hes a complete asshole, but I've come to appreciate it, even in areas I don't agree with him.

Saying that priests or 'something :confused: ' only have half a brain is flamebait at its finest.

Usually it's college students asking him "What if you're wrong?!" instead of asking a real question. Those are the half brains. They aren't listening to Dawkins at all. They're just there to be smart asses. I didn't intend to suggest that the priests were half brains.

As for the priests, they're just not arguing the same things at all. The priest argues faith, then Dawkins argues logic. They both stare at each other for a minute, then repeat. This is probably followed by tea, but I can't be sure because the YouTube video usually ends before that point.

What's there to debate? The existence of god is unprovable, therefore any assertions for or against are axiomatic, and as such, they aren't really debatable on their own. Logic never enters the picture- axioms are outside the scope of logic.

Here's a perfectly valid, and logically unassailable proof that god exists:

The universe is too complex to have come about on its own, therefore some manner of god exists. QED

I'm not saying it's that interesting, or even that i find it convincing. It is still a valid proof, as far as logical rigor goes. You can't invalidate the logic there, because if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the logic of that simple proof is bullet proof, like as in IT'S CRIME FIGHTING TIME.

The point where the notion of proof came into matters of pure philosophy was the exact point where people who don't understand what it means to prove something- or even how meaningless a proof can be- got involved.

Once you can get past the need to prove axioms, you can get to the more important and interesting things, like what those axioms actually mean. This is where the real debate should lie, but it's also where shit gets messy and everybody gets pissy for a while and then eventually agrees to disagree, or implicitly agrees to disagree.

Any being that could create the universe would be more complex than the universe, therefore saying it was created by god creates a bigger problem than it solves.

The existence of god is possible, but not probable.

then there is always the question of "where, who, or what" lead up to the existance of this "god"

did we think him into existence, or did he come from an even higher power?

The nature of a diety might be such that a universe in which it exists would be less complex than a universe in which it did not.

But it really depends on what you mean by complex.

Also, the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 1764.

That's absolutely true, but being an ass doesn't make him any less correct.

I'm picking up a copy of The God Delusion.

It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Much of it was preaching to the choir to me, but the part on the Darwinian evolution I found very enlightening as to the question 'why religion'.

Well, the book shop around the corner didn't have a copy of the The God Delusion, so I bought The End of Faith by Sam Harris instead. Apparently it's along the same lines.

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of. Soon they'll be going door to door passing out pamphlets of Dawkins delusional musings. God help us all......

What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness???
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.:)

Now they have a reason.......

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I read the bible. It's also an interesting read. If someone is capable, they'll naturally become an atheist. I just answer questions if people ask.

Oh, please do elaborate.

But your view of the Bible is solely based on your fundamentalist upbringing. Taken in its proper context, taking into account when and who it was written by, considering many parts are allegorical if not mythical and should not be taken literally, seeing it as a whole, a story leading up to a defining moment in human history, it ain't half bad.:)

I still love you will, you atheist bastard.:wave:

Interesting that you say this. One of Lennox's points that he made in the debate was that atheism is a religion, or faith. Dawkins disagreed.

I am not sure yet if the debate is up online. I think it will be soon. When it does I'll post a link. I've read a post debate play by play and I think it sounded very interesting.

Does he have to???

Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.

Honestly I thought that Hitchens book was far more recommendable. It suffered the same flaws, but to a far lesser extent.

Can you say more about your surprise? It only seems natural to me that atheists would be as motivated (if not more) than religious folks to spread their views. I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion though - in that it lacks faith as a component that would seem to be a sloppy classification. In fact, I think one would be missing the point of atheism if they only consider it to be a negative classification - the absence of religious belief. I think of atheists (and myself) as being devoted to the observable universe and rationalism. That's a positive classification (here I mean negative and positive in their classification orientation, not qualitative senses).

I've found that some people are predisposition to religion and some are predisposition to atheism. It's not an ultimate deciding factor as to their perception, but it can play a strong role. My step brother was studying to be a monk when we first met but was interested in learning about my outlook. He asked a ton of questions of me and decided after a lot of thinking that he was essentially atheist (he reads a lot of Meister Eckhart). I didn't convert him, he converted himself because his though processes found atheism to be a better fit.
It's really not. I enjoy reading the bible just as much as I enjoy reading about Zeus or Anasi. They're fascinating and not only provide cultural context but also insight into humanity itself.

Dawkins is shrill in God Delusion, but I've read stuff by people I don't agree with before (John Perkins, for example, tends to exaggerate pretty badly) and the tone really doesn't make a difference to me. If people get pissed at Dawkins, then put it down. God Delusion is still an amazing book. Some of Dawkins' inferences and the directions he takes are really interesting.

I didn't say I was surprised, only fascinated. I think that eventually atheism will be classified as a religion. All you need is an outspoken leader, which they have, and a group of people willing to follow. I could also see this splitting into separate camps much as Christianity or other religions have. Its the nature of many to stick to their beliefs, never giving on inch, arguing over idiotic details, inventing more dogma for lost souls to absorb into their pitiful empty lives, which in the end only results in more conflict and strife.

Repeating my belief that life is more than logic & rationalism is beginning to get very redundant. I think I'll change my sig.......:)

I know that this is a discussion that's already been had, but i seem to have forgotten. How is atheism lacking in faith?

I know it lacks a faith in a diety, but the idea that an atheist is a person without faith doesn't make sense to me in light of the fact that even the smallest balloon of a notion requires a little faith to blow it up.

I think therefore i am? That's circular logic. I think because i think is a clearer way of saying the same thing.

This atheism thing isn't as cut and dry as some would like to make it seem.

You know I don't think it was written to convince anyone who was religious to become an atheist. The, tone, the examples, the condescending nature would rise the already often hair trigger hackles of the religious mind and close any avenue of persuasion.

I think it was targeted more at the agnostic leading toward atheist. Someone who wouldn't take offense at the scathing criticisms and was just looking for a way to articulate what they already felt.

Like I said much of what he said was preaching to the choir (and an ironic metaphor that is) and I found myself skimming early on, plus he had a unfortunate habit of interjecting his political views where they really added nothing to the topic, I don't think Dawkins knows what a libertarian is for one thing. While he didn't change my opinion on anything he did give me a bit more resolve in questioning the status quo.

Why do we accept faith and religious beliefs as untouchable? Why must we turn off our brains when the subject comes up? Why is the question of religion one that just must never be discussed? Prior to my exposure to Dawkins I'd be a lot more passive in the debate, but I think he has a very good point that its time to be willing to look at the whole thing with a cold hard analytical eye.

Dawkins has been pretty clear that he was targeting Agnostics with his book and his pitch.

It is cut and dry. There's weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism, which describes the vast majority of atheists, understands that there is a near impossible chance that god exists, simply because one cannot prove a negative. Strong atheism is the absolute belief that god doesn't exist without even the smallest concession that one cannot prove a negative.

Well even by Dawkins own admitting he would be a weak atheist then.

Yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not even really a concession, though. Just the same as a weak atheist will admit that the JudeoChristian god may exist, the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster may exist (as I suspect you, UsTwo, agree). Because one cannot definitively disprove something in a vacuum of evidence is hardly proof of it's existence. The important part, though, is in admitting that believing in something despite a lack of evidence is plainly wrong. Just as I would be wrong to state with certainty that the flying spaghetti monster is real, a theist is wrong for saying definitively that god exists.

I should mention that the definitions of strong and weak atheism change depending on who you ask. I'm just trying to describe the position of a vast majority of self described atheists.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing here, but...

Either position is requires faith, even if one were to completely sidestep the whole subject of atheism. Belief in anything requires faith, either directly or indirectly. Driving across a freeway bridge is an act of faith. Riding a bicycle is an act of faith. Believing that the only things that are worth believing are those that pass some sort of ultimately arbitrary standard is definitely an act of faith.

Do strong atheists believe in their own existence? How can they? It's not like it's something anyone can prove in any kind of nontrivial way, it's not even something you can say is likely, because the notion of probability in this context doesn't really apply.

Will, ya know that the ignominious flying spaghetti monster reference, only invokes the power of total logical thinking, relying on an absolute faith in the power of scientific reasoning, logic, & rationalism, which is fine if you base your life on a purely Vulcan point of view. Some humans always try to suppress their emotions, bury them deep inside, and try to forget about the purely emotional, completely liberating, & absolutely mind empowering, view that God actually exists. I prefer to exist in a state that is open to all possibilities, ready and willing to consider new trains of thought, and willing to accept the fact that humans really don't now shit about the true nature of the universe, let alone the nature of themselves.

I think I'll check out the titty board now, and leave the existential postulation to the experts. Live Long & Prosper Will......:wave:

I am open to possibilities but find the likelihood that there is a god to be so completely unlikely that I would rather spend my time and energy thinking about other things.

Understanding the perceptions from our five senses and building up understandings of systems based on our perceptions and deductive reasoning is not faith, it's understanding. There's a huge difference. Faith happens despite evidence. Understanding happens because of evidence.

There is evidence that I, being my physical self (bones, nervous system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, etc.), exist.
Vulcans aren't just logical, they suppress their feelings. Atheists don't suppress our feelings. God has nothing to do with emotions. Yeesh.

I'm right there with you, charlie.

Faith doesn't happen despite evidence, it happens when evidence is inconclusive. Understanding is always limited. The world that is is much more robust than the world that we are capable of understanding.

We're not talking about some sort of grand macro perspective on all the knowledge humanity has accumulated. We're talking about the awareness and understanding of a single person. There's no way that you, or anyone else, can possibly understand the significance, explanation and meaning of everything that they come across.

So you did some sort of experiment and determined that you existed. What was your control? Is there a wilravel that doesn't exist, and if so, why couldn't it be the willravel that you are? I know it sounds simple, but it's a pretty fundamental thing, proving that you exist, you should think about it.

Actually... Willravel doesn't exist 'cuz I've never seen him :D

So we make it up if we don't understand it? That is the part of faith in the supernatural that flies in the face of reason. Reasonable: if you don't know something, study it. Unreasonable: if you don't understand it, make it up.
I can try without giving up and saying "it's god". That's the difference.
I understand most of the biology of the systems that make up my body. It's not philosophical, it's scientific.

That reminds me of a funny vid I saw on Youtube:

I've seen that video before.

I don't think that you're understanding what i am saying. Think about crossing a bridge. You don't understand the mechanics of it, you don't understand the different factors that went into the design process, the choice of materials, even if you did know all these things, you still don't even know for certain that the bridge won't collapse while you are on it. You still cross bridges, right? That's faith right there. Theism is just one example of how faith can come into play when information is lacking.

If you think a theist can't than you don't understand what it means to be a theist.

Biology has nothing to do with whether you exist- things that lack biology still exist. It's not science, it's axiomatic.

I see a car cross the bridge first. Bam. Evidence that it's safe. I've never been the first to cross a bridge. If I were to be the first to cross a bridge, I'd probably check it out first. You're reaching here.
It's not like I was a theist for the first 17 years of my life, or like my dad is a pastor or anything. Oh... wait...
Are you talking about "self" and all that spiritual stuff? Then no, there's absolutely no evidence. Things that have no evidence that they exist tend not to exist.

You know the 35w bridge had about 140,000 people cross it every day and was 40 years old and was also undergoing fairly regular inspection. Bam, indeed. I thought you were a disciple of science here, that's not a very scientific strategy. One might even call it irrational, though i wouldn't.

You're reaching here if you can't acknowledge that you don't have any way to know whether a bridge will collapse while you are on it. Why do you cross bridges, will? Are you really that careless with your life? Don't you have a family? ;)

There's a difference between having experience as a theist and thinking that the experience that you had as a theist is functionally equivalent to the experience of every other theist ever. You went to church for 17 years. So what? That doesn't mean that you're qualified to claim that every theist automatically looks to god before anything else when they come into contact with uncertainty, which is what it seemed like you were trying to claim up above in #40.

No, i'm talking about you, existing. Anything existing. Nothing spiritual. Prove it. Use science. GO!

Nope, things that don't exist tend not to exist. Things whose existence is unsubstantiated tend to either remain unsubstantiated, or somehow get "evidenced" into acceptance. C'mon man, if you're going to try to champion science, at least try and be a bit scientific about things.

And what are the odds of a bridge collapsing while I'm under it? 58 out of all major bridges in the world have ever collapsed. That's it. Statistically speaking, I'm safe. I have every way to know based on precedence.
Likewise.
You're asking a vague question. What do you mean by existing?
If we're talking about quantum physics, then matter tends to exist. What I'm talking about is way more basic. No real evidence exists to suggest that the JudeoChristian god exists, yet people say he's real. That's no logical or reasonable. Reason dictates that if something exists, in order to demonstrate or prove it's existence there is evidence. I exist from your perspective because there are words being typed in argument against your points. Since words don't come from nowhere, and even complex computers can't formulate arguments like this, reason dictates that you're arguing with at least someone. If you were ever in the area and we bumped into each other, your eyes would provide evidence that I was real. You must understand that you can trust your eyes, otherwise how can you believe what they read in the bible?

Isn't the difference between faith and expectation in the observations and repeatability of predictions? That's what science is all about. That's why crossing a bridge is different from believing all the stuff in the bible.

Theoretically, i think, the answer is yes. In practice, such things are less certain. Not everything is testable, most things are not. The farther i get in my engineering education the more i come to understand how much of an approximation everything is. In actual reality, you can only make educated guesses as to whether the bridge is going to collapse, because as 35w showed, the fact that you can get some experts to sign off on the safety of a bridge doesn't make it safe.


I'm sure everybody who happens to be on a collapsing bridge absolutely knew that it was safe (except for the tacoma narrows bridge). Right? I mean, 58 out of all major bridges in the world have collapsed, so what are the odds of both a bridge collapsing, and that a specific person, out of the billions on this planet, would happen to be on it? They've got to be astronomical. I'm starting to convince myself it never happened- how could it, the odds are against it?

Likewise? I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're getting at here.

It's not vague, its impossible. We know nothing of nonexistence, how can we prove that we exist when we can't even prove that there is a single specific thing that doesn't exist?

Reason dictates? Why? Why would reason dictate anything? You're putting the cart before the horse here; you're reasoning that it is unreasonable for something to exist for which there is no evidence. What sort of evidence can you possibly have to make such a bold claim? What kinds of assumptions are you making about the nature of existence and what sort of rigorous justification can you offer in their defense?

No real evidence exists to suggest that the JudeoChristian god exists, that's true. No real evidence exists to suggest that we exist either because all of the evidence that we could ever hope to gather is based on the assumption that we exist- i think, therefore i am. Just like all the evidence one could gather to support the notion that there is a god is based on the assumption that there is a god(at least it is as long as god continues this curious vow of silence ;)). Nobody can prove that we exist, and if you really think about it you can see that it functionally doesn't even matter if we really exist or not. If somehow it was shown that we don't actually exist, absolutely nothing would change about anything that we do.

I don't know that i can always trusts my senses. I know people who've gone crazy- they're pretty fucking convinced about some pretty, well, crazy, shit.

So you are saying having faith in god is like having faith in union bridge contractors?

I'd say one is an assumption, you assume the bridge is safe or it would have had a problem prior to you using it. One is faith. You have faith there is an invisible sky god that reads your minds, has issues with how you use your genitals, and well send you to eternal torment if you dare question him with your logic.

Assumptions are based on past data. They can be wrong.

Faith is based on, well nothing.

You're confusing statistical improbability with impossibility. No one prepares for an impossibility at all, but when one decides to prepare for an improbability one must consider the reasonability of said preparation. It's statistically improbable that I'll be killed by a deer, therefor I don't prepare for it. It's much more likely I'll get in a car accident, so I buckle up and I drive a car wit airbags. I prioritize my preparedness based on estimated probability of danger. That, of course, doesn't mean that the improbable things won't happen, but to chastise someone for being a statistic makes no sense.
Assuming you're right and my extensive experiences in being a theist doesn't give me enough to make statements about the faithful, the same can be said of you, no? So when you post here, you're not posting for all theists.
Your question isn't impossible, it's vague. I can answer what I am guessing you're asking, but there's a chance I'm not guessing the correct interpretation of the question. Prove I exist? I can see my body, and I trust my eyes because I understand how they work. There. Boom. Answered.
This is getting really boring. If you're going to go that far back, then the conversation is too disconnected from reality to work. "How can you trust reason and your senses? it's clearly faith!"
Faith: belief that is not based on proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Evidence is only verifiable based on deductive reasoning and precedence based on perceptions. If you can't assume perceptions are correct, then how can we have a basis of anything? You've gone way past "faith". Faith is something that happens outside of or in spite of evidence. Evidence is something based on perception, therefore it's still completely different. I don't know how to make this more clear.
Without the basis of trusting the perception, there is no understanding. But that's completely different than belief without evidence. Evidence comes after accepting perception. Conclusions come after accepting evidence. Faith is separate from all of that because it works 'outside' of the system. It says "Yeah, that perception, evidence, proof stuff is great, and trust it... except when it comes to this old book".

Nope. I'm saying that faith is a implicit in everybody's life. Whether you choose to have faith in a higher power is just another form of that.

Why would you assume that the bridge is safe because it hasn't failed before? Do you assume that everything that hasn't failed is safe?

Nope, i'm not. You're confusing statistical improbability with reality. I know the odds that i get struck by lightning are pretty small. This fact is of little consolation if i ever get struck by lightning. It's statistically improbable that you get killed by a deer, sure. Is that fact going to matter if you get killed by a deer? No.

I know i'm not posting for all theists, and unlike you, i wasn't trying to speak on behalf of all of them. All i was alluding to is that there are many diverse perspectives that fall into the category of theism. You were saying that all theists automatically defer to god whenever they come across uncertainty. You said all theists were the same, i said they weren't.

Here's a hint: first you would have to offer some sort of evidence (experimental, because, you know, if it isn't how can we be sure of its consistency) of existence, then you would have to show that you meet the criteria.

I know, it's stupid, but it works.

I'm trying to show you that if you go far enough, the concepts of proof or evidence break down. The impression i get from you is that you think that there ain't no problem that science can't shed light on. To me, this flies in the face of everything that i know about science.

All that i'm saying is that accepting perception implicitly requires belief without evidence.

We are about 2 posts from a Matrix discussion and that would be bad.

I'm assuming the contractors did their job properly.
I'm assuming the inspectors did theirs.
I'm assuming no one has sabotaged the bridge.
I'm assuming there won't be a natural disaster while I'm crossing it like an earthquake.

I have 'faith' in none of these things though. I am assuming that the penalties for not doing a proper job such as legal action and even jail time is motivation enough to do the proper job. The only faith I have is in probability. Its far more probable that everything was up to spec due to the safeguards put in the system than that the bridge will collapse do to shoddy work. Its quite possible it was sabotaged and will collapse but again not probable. Its possible again that an earthquake or even a meteor may hit the bridge as I'm crossing but again not probable. The faith there is the faith in low numbers.

I see the probability of god lower than the probability of the universe without a god, therefore again my faith is in the numbers. Even Dawkins rates himself as almost but not quite an absolute atheist. He and I may well be wrong but its a low probability.

i think things are getting tangled up here, so i decided to drop in.
trying to write this kind of thing out in a messageboard is always an interesting little exercise.
no doubt they usually are a bit dicey in terms of coherence and certainly have no relation to completeness at all....but tant pis, a little constraint exercise. let's go.

this business of "faith"----i see why filtherton would go here and it seems like the issue is the dismissal of the category in the name of "science" altogether.

but the fact that we call the assumption of continuity in say objects (or in phase-states) from one moment to another seems to follow from the reliance on pattern that enables perception to happen--so is more on the order of an assumption, one that requires no particular investment. like an after-image, say.

religious faith is not the same thing. it requires investment and so is an act.
you can say that continuity of objects etc. is also an act, but that'd be true only in special cases--like in the context of this thread because you are asked to think about it, or in a situation where experience is such that continuity canot be taken for granted.

actually the more i think about this the trickier it gets.

another way of looking at this: perception is the organization of information. this organization in humans typically is mediated by categories, by words.
so there's a loop implicit between the nature of the categories used and the data that these categories order.
that loop is the basis for assumptions of continuity.
and that kind of loop is central in enabling perception at all==if only because we operate in a time-flux and so are showered with data all the time and these loops enable data reduction, complexity reduction--which is a big deal--perception then is as much about data erasure/management/reduction as it is about apprehension.
so there is an intertwining of the nature of categories and information gathered from the world, the former shaping and limiting (and extending) the latter.
this seems a basic feature of coherent experience and follows from something of the nature of language mediation (something of..because for simplicity's sake, i'm only talking abut nouns)

metaphysics involves these same features of language, but the relation that frames them is basically different---if in the model above nouns enable continuity enables data reduction because nouns are the basis for our assumptions about stability of perceptual data (in general), it follows that this loop has to lean on the characteristics of nouns themselves--and so does metaphysics....so does religion---except that in the latter case, the way in which we organize the world via language is unhinged from experience at the perceptual level and projected outward onto the order of the cosmos/universe/big kfc that we all live in.

this would enable the fashioning of different orders of what i guess you'd call meta-loops.
loops that involve the organization of background conditions, say.
horizon ordering in another terminology.

it seems to me that these loops are just as powerful experientially as the immediate perception-level loops if you are inclined to not see them as mediating experience, but as elements of experience.
faith is a practice. it is the result of repetition. it is an outcome.
the curious characteristic of this outcome is that it is used to structure other variables in its terms--but then again so would any category on this order, a meta-category, a category that is about the second or third-order organization of experience, that kicks in when you move from immediate perceptual information to fitting that information into a sense of being-in-the-world. from this viewpoint, there is no difference between abstractions--no particular difference between religious faith and belief in science.
this because you can make yourself believe almost anything if you repeat it long enough.
pascal was right.
and if you repeat a frame long enough, aspects of experience that might contradict the frame would tend to be filtered out.
from this viewpoint, all perception is involved in self-confirming loops and nothing distinguishes one frame from another, so there is nothing from within the experience of a believer (in being-baptist or in being-spectator of science) that would contradict the organizating power of these meta-categories.

so you (we) make your (our) own experience non-falsifiable.


this may be little more than a long-winded repetition of filtherton's point.
but i'm having some fun trying to sort this out in a constrained space.

anyway....so there's nothing from inside experience mediated by the meta-frame of religious faith and that mediated by some abstraction called "science" and would make one more or less stupid than the other.

from this viewpoint, you could say the same thing about political viewpoints: if you assume that belief is a function of repetition, then there would be nothing from within, say, my experience and that of ustwo that would lead us to think that either of our political worldviews are stupider than the others. and this i mention simply because we are diametrically opposed on almost everything.

debates about frames happen at a different level.
you can find arguments concerning frame to be compelling, you can decide to alter yours, but it will still take a period of repetition to enact that decision.

things from here would get complicated again, so i'll shut up.
this is kinda fun tho.

RB, and Ustwo get it.

actually, will, my position is basically an extension of what filtherton has been saying. i think his basic point is correct and that this question of "perceptual faith" is fundamental to how it is that we operate in the world.
the problem comes in the relation of "perceptual faith" to other meanings ascribed to the word "faith"--pushing them apart was the idea behind the post.

i dont know if it was successful simply because the messageboard is not good for arguments of any complexity or that require much detailed explanation. it's just like that.

As long as we stay away from the sequels we should be fine.

As far as we can tell so far, all of your assumptions very accurately describe the conditions of the 35w bridge immediately preceding the collapse. While they certainly are reasonable, they fall short when it comes to actually helping you avoid collapsing bridges.

But, it sounds like the only difference between you and a theist is that you're more conservative when it comes to taking probabilities into account. If what i am understanding is correct, i generally agree with you.

But beyond this, i don't think that there really is much that can be said about the whole of theism, or of theist people. It certainly does make sense to talk about specific examples of theism as being a catalyst of sorts for all types of unfortunate things, but the key thing here is that the individuals are to blame, not the theism. "Sorry your honor, but i was under the influence of god" is not an effective excuse for anything. So something that cannot be justified, but still occurs quite regularly, is that someone attempts to extend what is actually a relatively inconsequential difference of opinion into an overly broad denunciation of all theists.

As far as perception being an accurate measure of reality:

This can only be the case if your senses would not limit you from perceiving, either directly or indirectly, everything that exists. I don't know that this is necessarily a reasonable assumption- and i don't think there is a probability calculation on it yet- so it's kind of a take it or leave it thing. There is no reason to expect it to be true, and even if it were, there'd be no way to know. So at the very least the idea is on the same probability level as believing in god.

So you have this hypothetical form of intelligence, or say that i do. I created it, and i purposefully limited it's ability to experience certain phenomena. Now, say i limit its experiences in such a way so that it never hears anything, exists in a complete vacuum, and it can't see anything for three minutes out of every four. Now say i have a bunch of these beings, all subject to the same constraints, and let them communicate with each other. Imagine the intense philosophical discussions with various contrived explanations for their intermittent blindness that would ensue. Given the opportunity they would no doubt create the most complex and robust society possible under the constraints of their existence. They would exist in reality, and would thus be experiencing reality, but they'd be the last people you'd expect to be able speak with authority about the nature of reality in any kind of general sense.

So most of us can see and hear and experience air pressure, so aside from that what makes us different from these beings?

If it is not "reasonable" to expect that humans are able to experience everything that exists, how is it unreasonable to believe in things for which there is no evidence for or against?

The difference between the bridge and faith on god is there is evidence that the bridge will not collapse. While it may not be all variables, and is therefore not a certainty, there is a reasonable leap of assumption because there is at least some evidence upon which to base the assumption. The assumption isn't baseless. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of faith in the supernatural. No real evidence whatsoever exists to suggest that god or gods exist, therefore belief in it's existence is faith, not an assumption based on some evidence. This was already an apples and oranges comparison as we reasonably know the bridge exists, so speaking to whether it will collapse or not is already delving into the apples and oranges problem.

We've heard the same tired rhetoric before will, I understand your position but still totally disagree. I'll state my tired rhetoric again too, I don't need proof to believe in God, Its a matter a faith, and also a matter of the unlimited power of the human mind, when all doubt is erased. We're just beginning to understand (scientifically) what that power can do. The ancients had a keen sense of this, yet somewhere in the vast expanse of time this was lost and is only now been reawakened. Believe that this mountain can be moved, doubting nothing, and it will be so..........'will be so', Ha!! Thats almost funny will.....almost....:)

We agree, Dave, on the fact that belief in god is based on faith. We only disagree on the merits of faith. Filth is confusing faith and assumption. I think you'll agree that your belief in god is not based on assumption, but faith. Am I correct in thinking this?

Correct. I still have the utmost respect for you will, you weigh all the possibilities and make your choice. At least you're not wishy-washy in the slightest.

Likewise, and what a nice compliment. Thanks much.

Time for another group hug. As long as Shani & MixedMedia are involved, I will be so totally into it. If Sultana joins in, I may actually melt into the floor....:icare:

another way of looking at this is that since faith in general is an outcome of repetition and only its precondition to the extent that it gives repetition its direction, once that repetition is underway (a) the outcomes are non-falsifiable for the individual involved but (b) arguments made on that basis are wholly unconvincing to anyone who does not share the same predispositions, and so whose loop characteristics are different.

i think this has been amply demonstrated in any of the thousands of repetitions of this basic argument.

you could have an actual debate about this god character or this "science" business, but it'd have to operate at a remove from one's actual everyday beliefs and in order to subject them to perspectives that are not already conditioned by them.
the main difference between people "of faith" in a religious sense and others is that folk in the former set cannot and will not play along.
so because there is no agreement abotu procedure/relation there is never any meaningful agreement about rules or outcomes so there is never any actual debate. just two sets of people who share the view that the other is entirely, completely wrong.

so it goes.

It's amazing how much time the average atheist wastes debating the existence of a God they don't believe exists :orly:

Not really, if you subscribe to Dawkins' and Hitchens' theories, which hold that religion has not been a benign or even neutral force in human history.

That's nothing. It's amazing how many liberals talk about Bush.

While fascinating, doesn't really answer my question.

What evidence is there? Let's go over the things that aren't evidence that a bridge will not collapse: regular inspection is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that other people have crossed the bridge is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that the bridge has stood for decades is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that any number of experts have signed off on the safety of the bridge is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse. Evidence is something that is reinforced by what goes on in the real world, it isn't something we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel more comfortable in certain situations. What happened in the real world, was that despite all his evidence, the bridge still collapsed. If you were really a scientist, august 1 2007 would have marked the beginning of you starting to question your assumptions concerning the safety of bridges.

No, you're wrong. It would be nice if we lived in a world where bridge designers and bridge builders and bridge maintainers weren't human and didn't make mistakes, or didn't try to maintain them on the cheap, but we don't. All of the well supported assumptions that you consider evidence didn't amount to much of anything when the shit hit the fan. Baseless assumptions, by your own definition, are matters of faith, whether you are aware of their baselessness or not.

The average doesn't think that the assumptions on which they base their faith are baseless either.

1) The fact that cars have driven on it before.
2) The fact that most ridges do not collapse.

Each fact that acts as evidence of the bridge's reliability. Mind you, there are no certainties, but there are reasonable conclusions. Each things I've mentioned, and reason this discussion is becoming redundant. You're not reading what I'm writing, or you're ignoring it. Neither of these possibilities is acceptable if progress is desired. I'll come back if you've got something new to say or if there's evidence you've read, comprehended, and replied to my points.

People with opposing viewpoints can still discuss one another's viewpoints. While I may not believe in god, it's very simple for me to enter into a conversation regarding whether god exists, or even working within the framework of presupposing the existence of god. I'll admit the fact that people believe in this so much does set it apart from conversations about, say, Zeus, but they do run along the same vein.

You didn't ask one.

I don't think what you're talking about here could be considered evidence. You're talking about the things you tell yourself about the bridges you cross so that you feel comfortable crossing them. They are not the same thing as evidence that a bridge will not collapse.

Here's why they aren't evidence:

A reasonable assumption is that all bridges that were built for carrying cars and have collapsed have done so after cars have driven on them. The fact that a bridge can bear a load is not evidence that a bridge will not collapse, in fact, if you look up the process of metal fatigue it will become clear to you that the more cars that drive across a bridge the more likely it is, even if only theoretically, to collapse. The fact that cars have driven across a bridge is in no way whatsoever evidence that it won't collapse. I really can't make it much plainer than that. If you continue to push this point, the only supposition you will be providing evidence for is the one that states that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, i don't mean to sound like a prick, but i don't think you're right at all about this, and if there's anyone who can tell me i'm full of shit i fully encourage them to do so.

As for the fact that most bridges don't collapse being evidence that a given bridge won't collapse, come on. That's not how things work. In the parlance of probability, since apparently many atheists are probability nuts, the odds that a bridge will collapse can quite reasonably modeled be as a continuous time markov process, which is just a fancy way of saying that the odds of a bridge collapsing have pretty much nothing to do with the odds of another bridge collapsing. I think that this is a reasonable assumption, at least in the short term, because there is nothing about a bridge collapsing that necessarily has any effect on whether another bridge will collapse. This isn't necessarily the case, since apparently there are some folks who think that a collapsed bridge is a sign that we need to start spending more money on bridges, a fact which might suggest that a collapsed bridge could inspire people to actually elect leaders who place a priority on maintaining the nation's infrastructure, which would lessen the odds that another bridge will fall. Unfortunately, these people aren't in the majority, so we'll see. Another reason that a markov process also might not be a completely accurate model is that the lessons learned from one bridge collapse may inspire better bridge design, and/or better bridge maintenance. However, since bridges aren't built all that often, and given no broad, reactionary public support for infrastructure maintenance, it should make sense that the odds of an existing bridge collapsing depend not at all on whether another bridge has collapsed.

But i agree, this is tedious, and only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, so be that as it may, it isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

I read the God Delusion, he makes some good points. But, overall I wasn’t particularly impressed by the book. Still he's an intersting person to listen to. Though, I’m much more of a Daniel Dennett fan. You could think of him as Richard Dawkins but without the snobby British attitude.
Part1
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd6EmF2A3uo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd6EmF2A3uo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

part 2

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HK-lz9X9h_k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HK-lz9X9h_k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

part3
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHG_20efsgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHG_20efsgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


This one is a lot longer and the part that sort of deals with atheism is towards the beginning. He makes a few points over again and it deals with other aspects of philosophy. The subtitles are annoying, but you’ll get used to them. I’ve really only included it since I like the part towards the middle and end about consciousness.

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3133438412578691486&hl=en" flashvars="&subtitle=on"> </embed>

Plus, he looks like Santy Claus.

Dogla Adams (of Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy fame) has an interesting perspective on this:

"AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all. "



http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

Do you have to be old to be an outspoken atheist?

No, but it probably helps to be articulate enough to be taken seriously, and age helps.

akh, keybard prblems

Really?

You'll notice that I have not, up to now, chimed in at all. I debate nothing. I am an atheist, and am secure in my lack of belief. Just as, I am sure, you are secure in you belief. And...that's fine. You see, I don't force my lack of beliefs upon you, and I tend to expect the same courtesy. I find it all really rather pointless, actually. Although...I will admit...it's fun to watch. :D

I have, however, noticed that theists tend to get much more emotional, in their arguments, than do atheists. I find myself wondering why. I mean, if I'm wrong...then all I have to answer to is a god that I don't believe in...right? Why do theists care so much about what I believe, or don't believe. Certainly my lack of belief takes nothing from your belief. Right? Or, perhaps I'm missing something.

Tomorrow, I shall cross the I-480 bridge, from Omaha into Iowa. I will do so, because I see it. I've crossed it before. I know that it is there. I will not try to cross the Missouri River 200 yards to the south of that bridge. I will not do so because I do not see a bridge there. Therefore, I do not believe that a bridge exists there. So, until I see a car mysteriously floating in the air, over the river, into Iowa...I'll stick to the verifiable. I'll leave it at that.

I think it probably has more to do with the casual arrogance and overstated sense of superiority that often accompanies atheist statements about atheism. It ain't in all of them, but it exists in varying degrees in many of them, you know, like equating belief in the unverifiable with a willingness to drive over bridges that don't exist.

It usually involves some sort of statement alluding to the irrationality, or folly, of believing in something that isn't verifiable, as if the person making the statement has completely verified every idea that they've ever subscribed to. It's usually nothing more than an overly complex rationalization of why the way the atheist sees the world is fundamentally superior than the way any nonatheist sees the world, in spite of the fact that cultivating a preference for a particular way of looking at the world is a decidedly arbitrary endeavor. As if standards of proof were a new and important way of competing with your fellow human being.

Some sort of variation of, "I favor verification to a greater degree than you, you are of lesser mental capabilities than i am."

At least these are the types of sentiments that annoy me. I'm not really a theist, though.

The Christians cribbed from the pagans, and now the atheists want the Christians to show their work rather than just their answers.


....I don't know what to believe anymore.

Foiled again by the English language.

I must say older people have the I don't give a crap attitude that can only come with having lived a full life. Atheism is still a somewhat radical idea. When you're making your inroads in academia I think the last thing you want to start off doing is alienating people or making enemies. So maybe there is some propensity towards being old and an outspoken atheist.

I don't know. At least here in the tfp i think that all the older atheists generally seem to stay away from the topic when it comes up.

Maybe they don't have the stamina? I can keep up discussions or arguments for months, even years. Sometimes without stopping.

Still, I'd guess Ustwo is older than I am and he chimes in.

Hey..."youngster", I'll put my stamina up against yours...any day. ;)

As far as the "great debate"...I just see no point. I really have no banner to bear, nor do I have a desire to convert. So, why bother? I'd rather eat cookies.

Yeah, it's probably a stamina thing. When i get tired of a discussion i just need, like, 24 hours off and i'm good as new. It probably gets harder when you're older. Nobody wants to give bill a heart attack.


*hopes bill hasn't had and won't have a heart attack*

Oh crap, he heard me!
I like to be right. If I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know it. I suspect others are like me in that respect. It's about learning and teaching. Discovering and being discovered. Good times, AND cookies. Can't beat that.

It took me 3 years to get tired of the 9/11 thread, btw.

Thank you Viagra! :thumbsup:

"'The God Delusion' Debate" featuring atheist Richard Dawkins (Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University) vs. Christian John Lennox (Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science,
Green College, University)
Part 1 (47:28, 13.6 MB)
Part 2 (44:01, 12.62 MB)
Part 3 (27:28, 7.87 MB)

I'm just starting on part 2, and I can already tell you this is the best Dawkins debate I've yet herd. Very interesting stuff.