To those who use science as their ledge for not believing in GOd

[Phil Hellmuth]

Thomas Nagel "Fear of Religion" displays the holes and flaws in the well renown book from Richard Dawkins "the God delusion". this is a blog commentary but gives a good summary. this is not the actual "fear of religion, which i encourage all atheists to read it tho)

this is from a blog regarding the essay:

Following up on my last post, Thomas Nagel has an excellent review in The New Republic of Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion (subscription required). He describes the book as "a very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument." While Nagel is not a religious person himself, he finds Dawkins' arguments for the non-existence of God unconvincing (incredibly, the book contains a chapter entitled "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God". Well, then I guess we'd better cancel church this Sunday). According to Nagel, the primary flaw in Dawkins's thinking is a lack of imagination, in that he can only conceive of two grand explanations: a "physicalist naturalism" and "the God Hypothesis" (read, crude theism). But these "stark alternatives may not exhaust the possibilities". Moreover, Nagel points out that both perspectives require faith, notwithstanding Dawkin's outlandish claims for science:

"All explanations come to an end somewhere. The real opposition between Dawkins's physicalist naturalism and the God hypothesis is a disagreement over whether this end point is physical, extensional, and purposeless, or mental, intentional, and purposive. On either view, the ultimate explanation is not itself explained. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics."


Dawkins is clearly perplexed and angry that, 400 years since the dawn of the Enlightenment, so many people continue believe in God. So why aren't people satisfied with a purely scientific understanding of the world? Are they deluded? Dawkins certainly thinks so. But for Nagel, the explanation lies in the fact that the reductionist worldview offered by modern science simply doesn't do justice to reality as experienced by actual humans:

Dawkins, like many of his contemporaries, is hobbled by the assumption that the only alternative to religion is to insist that the ultimate explanation of everything must lie in particle physics, string theory, or whatever purely extensional laws govern the elements of which the material world is composed.

This reductionist dream is nourished by the extraordinary success of the physical sciences in our time, not least in their recent application to the understanding of life through molecular biology. It is natural to try to take any successful intellectual method as far as it will go. Yet the impulse to find an explanation of everything in physics has over the last fifty years gotten out of control. The concepts of physical science provide a very special, and partial, description of the world that experience reveals to us. It is the world with all subjective consciousness, sensory appearances, thought, value, purpose, and will left out. What remains is the mathematically describable order of things and events in space and time.

That conceptual purification launched the extraordinary development of physics and chemistry that has taken place since the seventeenth century. But reductive physicalism turns this description into an exclusive ontology. The reductionist project usually tries to reclaim some of the originally excluded aspects of the world, by analyzing them in physical--that is, behavioral or neurophysiological--terms; but it denies reality to what cannot be so reduced. I believe the project is doomed--that conscious experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even though they cannot be identified with physical facts.


Dawkins fails to realize that science will never be able to provide an adequate basis for a complete understanding of human existence. It can only give us abstractions which, however useful they may be, are not the substance of life. What Johann Hamann says of historical events is also true of scientific theories and the law of nature; they "are like that wide valley full of dry bones - and lo, they were very dry. No one but a prophet could presage that veins and flesh would grow on these bones and that skin would cover them. As yet there is no breath in them, until the prophet prophesies unto the wind and the word of the Lord speaks..."

[Mr. Peabody]

Dawkins is clearly perplexed and angry that, 400 years since the dawn of the Enlightenment, so many people continue believe in God. So why aren't people satisfied with a purely scientific understanding of the world? Are they deluded? Dawkins certainly thinks so. But for Nagel, the explanation lies in the fact that the reductionist worldview offered by modern science simply doesn't do justice to reality as experienced by actual humans:

Dawkins, like many of his contemporaries, is hobbled by the assumption that the only alternative to religion is to insist that the ultimate explanation of everything must lie in particle physics, string theory, or whatever purely extensional laws govern the elements of which the material world is composed.

This reductionist dream is nourished by the extraordinary success of the physical sciences in our time, not least in their recent application to the understanding of life through molecular biology. It is natural to try to take any successful intellectual method as far as it will go. Yet the impulse to find an explanation of everything in physics has over the last fifty years gotten out of control. The concepts of physical science provide a very special, and partial, description of the world that experience reveals to us. It is the world with all subjective consciousness, sensory appearances, thought, value, purpose, and will left out. What remains is the mathematically describable order of things and events in space and time.

That conceptual purification launched the extraordinary development of physics and chemistry that has taken place since the seventeenth century. But reductive physicalism turns this description into an exclusive ontology. The reductionist project usually tries to reclaim some of the originally excluded aspects of the world, by analyzing them in physical--that is, behavioral or neurophysiological--terms; but it denies reality to what cannot be so reduced. I believe the project is doomed--that conscious experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even though they cannot be identified with physical facts.


Dawkins fails to realize that science will never be able to provide an adequate basis for a complete understanding of human existence. It can only give us abstractions which, however useful they may be, are not the substance of life. What Johann Hamann says of historical events is also true of scientific theories and the law of nature; they "are like that wide valley full of dry bones - and lo, they were very dry. No one but a prophet could presage that veins and flesh would grow on these bones and that skin would cover them. As yet there is no breath in them, until the prophet prophesies unto the wind and the word of the Lord speaks..."

I read the passage and I don't see anything in it that points to inconsistencies or flaws in in Dawkins' arguments. The only thing the article even attempts to establish is the reason that people prefer a belief in God to a purely natural or mechanical explanation of the universe.

I agree that many people prefer one explanation over another, but that says nothing about the validity of either.

[Phil Hellmuth]

it boils down to this and since dawkins is a newbie to philosophy he runs into this problem:

"Physics is ultimately about quantities—quantities that are calculated through equations or quantities that are measured with instruments. However, from matter in motion through space and time, and from the equations that describe it, such things as consciousness and sensory experience cannot arise. So, as Nagel says, the project of “physicalist reductionism” is “doomed.”

if you can't explain why I have consciousness, beliefs, and other mental phenomena by physicalist reductionism science, then how can you use it as a premise to dispute a phenomena (supreme being)

[Spurminator]

The God Delusion is an athiest manifesto for dummies. It's written in the 21st-century style of provocation over substance, providing self-gratification for people who are already athiests and pissing off Christians; enough to attract attention and drive sales, but enlightening to no one.

Anything that attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God through scientific or philosophical means can be immediately dismissed. I don't care how educated the author is. If there is a God, He will make it known to the world in His own time. If not, then there will continue to be believers and unbelievers until mankind destroys itself. Either way, it's incredibly vain to believe we can figure it out on our own.

[Phenomanul]

Richard Deem has a similar critique of Dawkin's book.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.php

[Mr. Peabody]

it boils down to this and since dawkins is a newbie to philosophy he runs into this problem:

"Physics is ultimately about quantities—quantities that are calculated through equations or quantities that are measured with instruments. However, from matter in motion through space and time, and from the equations that describe it, such things as consciousness and sensory experience cannot arise. So, as Nagel says, the project of “physicalist reductionism” is “doomed.”

if you can't explain why I have consciousness, beliefs, and other mental phenomena by physicalist reductionism science, then how can you use it as a premise to dispute a phenomena (supreme being)

I do agree that Dawkins tries to take on too much in The God Delusion. He devotes mere paragraphs to arguments that would take volumes to fully develop (e.g., the cosmological argument, recent discoveries in physics, etc.).

The funny things is that I don't think he needs to disprove anything to support his position as an atheist. He must feel some need to do this, however, as he does attempt to solve philosophical dilemmas that existed for hundreds, if a couple of thousand, of years.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The God Delusion is an athiest manifesto for dummies. It's written in the 21st-century style of provocation over substance, providing self-gratification for people who are already athiests and pissing off Christians; enough to attract attention and drive sales, but enlightening to no one.

Anything that attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God through scientific or philosophical means can be immediately dismissed. I don't care how educated the author is. If there is a God, He will make it known to the world in His own time. If not, then there will continue to be believers and unbelievers until mankind destroys itself. Either way, it's incredibly vain to believe we can figure it out on our own.


hyeah but The Selfish Gene should be an interesting read to athiets and theists alike.

[Mr. Peabody]

Anything that attempts to prove or disprove the existence of God through scientific or philosophical means can be immediately dismissed. I don't care how educated the author is.

That's a pretty bold statement considering that many people believe that recent discoveries in biology lend credence to the notion of a creator.

[BradLohaus]

The God Delusion is an athiest manifesto for dummies. It's written in the 21st-century style of provocation over substance, providing self-gratification for people who are already athiests and pissing off Christians; enough to attract attention and drive sales, but enlightening to no one.

I haven't read the book but from his posts on the HuffPo what you said sounds about right. He just seems like an arrogant and angry man who has a personal vendetta against religion and blames it for all of history's problems. He should focus his anger on government; it's caused much more problems for humanity than religion ever will.

As far as I can tell, there are only 3 possible explanations for the existence of the universe:
1.) An atom always existed in some way we can't explain and then exploded in the big bang.
2.) There was nothing, then an atom appeared somehow and exploded in the big bang.
3.) God has always existed in some way we can't explain and He created the universe.

All of these explanations are illogical. They are all belief systems. No one should think anyone is that stupid for believing any of them, because you must believe in one of the three.

[Extra Stout]

That's a pretty bold statement considering that many people believe that recent discoveries in biology lend credence to the notion of a creator.
"Lend credence" =/= scientific proof.

[Mr. Peabody]

"Lend credence" =/= scientific proof.

However, according to your statement, even if there were scientific proof, it would be completely irrelevant and should be "immediately dismissed," correct?

[Extra Stout]

However, according to your statement, even if there were scientific proof, it would be completely irrelevant and should be "immediately dismissed," correct?
I'm not Spurminator.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm not Spurminator.

Ha. Sorry for that.

[Spurminator]

However, according to your statement, even if there were scientific proof, it would be completely irrelevant and should be "immediately dismissed," correct?


There can't be scientific proof of a creator.

[leemajors]

I guess I didn't know the ledge.

[Mr. Peabody]

There can't be scientific proof of a creator.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. Maybe, if you're saying that we cannot have proof in the sense that science doesn't "prove" anything, but I think it is possible to find evidence that would make the existence of a creator highly probable. For example, what if one day while studying a subatomic particle, scientists notice an inscription on the particle that reads "Designed by God, Copyright 13 billion BCE"? That would be pretty good evidence.

[Extra Stout]

I don't know if that's necessarily true.
Propose an experiment.

[Spurminator]

Well, that's probably too definitive. Who knows where science will take us in the centuries to come...

I just think God falls outside the scope of Science. Ultimately, you have to rely on interpretation.

[Mr. Peabody]

Propose an experiment.

Are you going to give me funding? :spin

[Mr. Peabody]

Well, that's probably too definitive. Who knows where science will take us in the centuries to come...

I just think God falls outside the scope of Science. Ultimately, you have to rely on interpretation.

You might be right. Maybe God does fall outside the scope of science. But I would think that if he could act on the universe then that's something we could measure or detect. Of course that's assuming that he chooses to act on the universe and does so while we are observing. I don't know.

[DoubtingThomas]

Sometimes seeing is believing.

[Spurminator]

Of course that's assuming that he chooses to act on the universe and does so while we are observing.

True, perhaps that is how He would choose to eventually reveal Himself. But I have a hard time imagining a scenario that couldn't/wouldn't be dismissed as a scientific anomaly.

[Extra Stout]

You might be right. Maybe God does fall outside the scope of science. But I would think that if he could act on the universe then that's something we could measure or detect. Of course that's assuming that he chooses to act on the universe and does so while we are observing. I don't know.
That depends upon one's conception of God. In order to measure and detect God acting on the universe, he would have to do so in a way outside of natural laws, i.e. miraculously. Improbable happenstances, unprovoked acts of generosity, religious experiences, and other occurrences typically attributed to God either can be explained within the existing framework, or cannot be reduced to merely physical data.

However, even in the event of an alleged miracle, how would the scientist determine that the observed data were in fact due to the action of God, as opposed to a yet-unexplained physical phenomena? In other words, how do you try to detect the existence of God without falling into the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy?

[Mr. Peabody]

However, even in the event of an alleged miracle, how would the scientist determine that the observed data were in fact due to the action of God, as opposed to a yet-unexplained physical phenomena? In other words, how do you try to detect the existence of God without falling into the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy?

That's a very good point that I hadn't considered.

[clambake]

If science could hunt and track down the creator, IMO, it would be a huge disappointment to millions. Kind of like following the yellow brick road that led to Oz.

[smeagol]

Some time ago, a scientist published his explanation of how Jesus walked on water (he claimed he was walking on ice, or something).

Unbelievers will always try to explain miracles away, no matter how stupid they look (the scientists, not the miracles).

It is very difficult to prove God trough His miracles. Sceptics will always be sceptics. I know them pretty well. My dad is the biggest sceptic I know.

[clambake]

Difficult or impossible?

[Yonivore]

"Jesus said to [Thomas], 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'”
-- Gospel of John 20:19-29

It's not the miracles recorded in scripture that have convinced me Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah who died for my sins, was ressurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty.

Nope, I was a skeptic as well. Until I started reading the extra-biblical and non-canonical writings of the period such as those by Josephus (a non-Jewish and non-Christian historian of Jesus' period) that recorded the fates of some of Christ's followers.

The disciples were, until Pentecost, a bunch of rag-tag, cowering, ne'er-do-wells, who had trouble believing themselves. Just look at "Doubting" Thomas. But, after Pentecost, almost to a man, they were willing to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ even though -- many times -- it resulted in their horrible deaths. Peter -- the man who denied he even knew Jesus on the night he was captured and tried -- was crucified just like Christ. Yet, he requested they hang him upside down because he wasn't worthy to die in the manner.

No, something turned these men around after Christ's crucifixion. the only thing that explains it -- in my mind -- is that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus in that upper room 2,000 years ago.

Otherwise, you'd have to believe these men, cowards just a few days before, decided to band together and die for a lie.

[clambake]

Why does anyone have to look back to believe in God's existence?

[Phenomanul]

If God Created Everything, Who Created God?
by Rich Deem

Introduction
Who created God? It is an age-old question that has plagued all those who like to think about the big questions. Having grown up as an agnostic non-Christian, it provided me with a potential reason why there might not be any god. Various religions tend to solve the problem in different ways. The LDS church (Mormonism) says that the God to whom we are accountable (Elohim) had a father god, then grew up on a planet as a man, and progressed to become a god himself. Many other religions have claimed that gods beget other gods. Of course the problem with this idea is who is the first god and how did he get here?

Christianity's answer
Christianity answers the question of who created God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

This verse tells us that God was acting before time when He created the universe. Many other verses from the New Testament tells us that God was acting before time began, and so, He created time, along with the other dimensions of our universe:

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9)

The hope of eternal life, which God... promised before the beginning of time (Titus 1:2)

To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:25)

God exists in timeless eternity
How does this get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have existed from eternity. Therefore, God created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us.

God exists in multiple dimension of time
The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimension of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimension of time can travel anywhere in time and never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal?
The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" to attempt to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters. Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

Conclusion
God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of a plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist only ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

[clambake]

Thanks for clearing that up. This certainly removes all doubt.

[Phenomanul]

Thanks for clearing that up. This certainly removes all doubt.

GOD cannot be defined by our logic.

The above article simply suggests other viewpoints about GOD's origin (or lack thereof) that many fail to consider.

[clambake]

Then, where is the logic to all the preaching?

[Duff McCartney]

I think that god is different for many people. One of my philosophy teachers at school stated that he used to believe that it was just one god and one form, but now he believes that it's one god and many forms.

He was a minister and grew up in a very conservative church, but I think that if god does exist, he is not jesus christ, he is not mohammad, he is not Moishe...I think these people saw the light...as did the Buddha. I never believe and the more I read scripture of The Bible, and the more I read the Koran, it leads me even further away from god and religion.

But I think if he does exist...then he is like Hinduism...in that Brahman is everything. Looking at a tree is looking at Brahman...looking at the ground is looking at Brahman.

[Phenomanul]

Then, where is the logic to all the preaching?


'defined' was the operative word - not 'logic'.

As in we can't fathom the completeness, perfection and massiveness of GOD. His nature is not bound by the confines of our logic.