Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Farmer Geddon

Rosh Hashanah: Science v's Religion.

Anybody gonna be watching the debate on the BBC tonight between Sacks and Dawkins?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01mqvmv
Shaker

I've read most of what Dawkins has to say and I've read something of what Sachs has to say. To that extent I've seen an advance screening of the programme.

SPOILER ALERT: religion loses  
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
I've read most of what Dawkins has to say and I've read something of what Sachs has to say. To that extent I've seen an advance screening of the programme.

SPOILER ALERT: religion loses  


How was it scored?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
I've read most of what Dawkins has to say and I've read something of what Sachs has to say. To that extent I've seen an advance screening of the programme.

SPOILER ALERT: religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  


That's amazing!!

What repeatable testable evidence is there for Dawkins' claim that there is no God?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
I've read most of what Dawkins has to say and I've read something of what Sachs has to say. To that extent I've seen an advance screening of the programme.

SPOILER ALERT: religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  


But what was the scoring methodology that delivered such a clear result?
Who scored it and how?
Was it it like the scoring system that they use in boxing or something else?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  


That's amazing!!

What repeatable testable evidence is there for Dawkins' claim that there is no God?

I haven't seen him make such a claim. You'll have to point me in the direction of where I can find it.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  


That's amazing!!

What repeatable testable evidence is there for Dawkins' claim that there is no God?

I haven't seen him make such a claim. You'll have to point me in the direction of where I can find it.


Not in so many words. But he has expressed the view that belief in God is a delusion, which is tantamount to declaring that it does not exist.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
religion loses  


How was it scored?

On the basis of credible, testable, repeatable evidence advanced for each team's claims  


That's amazing!!

What repeatable testable evidence is there for Dawkins' claim that there is no God?

I haven't seen him make such a claim. You'll have to point me in the direction of where I can find it.


Not in so many words.

Ah. So he hasn't actually said what you stated he has said, then.  

Quote:
But he has expressed the view that belief in God is a delusion, which is tantamount to declaring that it does not exist.

If you say so.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Not in so many words.

Ah. So he hasn't actually said what you stated he has said, then.


That is correct.

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
But he has expressed the view that belief in God is a delusion, which is tantamount to declaring that it does not exist.

If you say so.


hmm - almost into Turing territory there.

I do say so.

So, now we have cleared that up - where is the repeatable evidence that belief in God is delusional?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Not in so many words.

Ah. So he hasn't actually said what you stated he has said, then.


That is correct.

Oh dear. Not the best of starts ...

cyberman wrote:
But he has expressed the view that belief in God is a delusion, which is tantamount to declaring that it does not exist.

Shaker wrote:
If you say so.


cyberman wrote:
hmm - almost into Turing territory there.

I do say so.

So, now we have cleared that up - where is the repeatable evidence that belief in God is delusional?

What you're committing there is what's known in the trade as the negative proof fallacy (or something very close to it), which skims neatly and lightly right over a number of rather basic questions that need to be answered first.

Firstly, what's this 'God' thing supposed to be? Defining the terms you use is considered rather good form, by and large. In the absence of any such definition, 'discussion' (for want of a far better word) becomes mere noise.

Secondly, what would count as compelling evidence that such a thing exists?

Thirdly, is belief in such a thing defeasible - in other words, what would disprove the existence of such a thing; what would count against it and lead any reasonable and rational (and there's the rub, I suppose: so many people are not ...) individual to conclude that on the balance of probabilities such a thing does not exist?

And so forth.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Not in so many words.

Ah. So he hasn't actually said what you stated he has said, then.


That is correct.

Oh dear. Not the best of starts ...

cyberman wrote:
But he has expressed the view that belief in God is a delusion, which is tantamount to declaring that it does not exist.

Shaker wrote:
If you say so.


cyberman wrote:
hmm - almost into Turing territory there.

I do say so.

So, now we have cleared that up - where is the repeatable evidence that belief in God is delusional?

What you're committing there is what's known in the trade as the negative proof fallacy (or something very close to it), which skims neatly and lightly right over a number of rather basic questions that need to be answered first.

Firstly, what's this 'God' thing supposed to be? Defining the terms you use is considered rather good form, by and large. In the absence of any such definition, 'discussion' (for want of a far better word) becomes mere noise.

Secondly, what would count as compelling evidence that such a thing exists?

Thirdly, is belief in such a thing defeasible - in other words, what would disprove the existence of such a thing; what would count against it and lead any reasonable and rational (and there's the rub, I suppose: so many people are not ...) individual to conclude that on the balance of probabilities such a thing does not exist?

And so forth.


You would need to ask Dawkins what he meant by the word "God" when he declared that belief in same was delusional.

You have stated that his claims are supported by evidence. You made this claim without knowing what I think counts as evidence, or what I think God means. Can you back up your claim about his claim?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
You would need to ask Dawkins what he meant by the word "God" when he declared that belief in same was delusional.

Surely that's what The God Delusion was for?

Quote:
You have stated that his claims are supported by evidence. You made this claim without knowing what I think counts as evidence

Feel free to say, but as a scientist I doubt if Dawkins's views on what passes muster as serious evidence worthy of attention are much in dispute, so we can pretty much take it as read as to what the good Professor regards as counting as acceptable evidence.
Quote:
or what I think God means.

Ditto. Were you to do so you would have a significant advantage on somebody like The Boyg, for example, who gives every appearance of perferring to be flayed alive rather than nail his colours to any particular mast and actually state what it is he claims to believe in.
Quote:
Can you back up your claim about his claim?

Do you mean his claim that a belief in the sort of God he defines in The God Delusion - arguably more or less the same sort of deity adhered to by the majority of the world's theists - is delusional? That claim? Or any other?

I want to be absolutely sure because you didn't get off to a shining start when you claimed that Dawkins had said something that he has in fact never actually said, so one of us at least needs to be clear and accurate.
cyberman

Yes that claim, Shaker.

(a) Dawkins has claimed that belief in God is delusional. (Dawkins knew what he meant by God so you don't need to ask me).

(b) You have said that his claims are supported by repeatable testable etc evidence. (You know what you meant by evidence so you don't need to ask me).

I am asking you what evidence (see 'b') supports Dawkins' claim (see 'a').
Shaker

Rather than homing in on whatever specific and concrete claims that one individual (Richard Dawkins) may have made, my first post on this thread was referring to a much, much broader category: the claims, if that's quite the right word (and I don't think it is, but we'll let it pass for now) made by science generally - all science, science in the round. Last night's programme was after all called Rosh Hashanah: Science vs. Religion and not Rosh Hashanah: 71 year old retired zoologist and ethologist Richard Dawkins vs. Religion. Insuperable as the temptation may be to make this all about Prof. Dawkins and his anti-religious views yet again, there are other atheistic scientists (plenty of them, in fact) and two of them were also on the programme last night, though for some reason nobody has seen fit to mention Baroness Greenfield or Jim Al-Khalili.

These claims could, for example, be represented by the work of the American physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger. Stenger (as does Dawkins in fact, but Stenger makes much more of it in his various books) holds that if 'classical' theism with its traditionally omnimax deity were true, we should expect the universe to look and behave a certain way. We would expect the world to be other than it actually is if this traditional god existed. The fact that it neither looks nor behaves in this expected way but a great deal of the time looks and behaves the exact opposite doesn't disprove classical theism (which is not the job of science: proof, as we're always being told, is the remit of formal logic and the distilling industry) but lends very strong support to the view that it is false. Moreover, classical theism - again, Dawkins says this but Stenger develops the point much more fully, as do some other atheists - inescapably makes testable putative truth claims about the nature of the world. (If it didn't it wouldn't be theism but deism, or something as near as dammit). It makes putative claims about the nature of reality which are, in principle and in at least some cases actually in practice, empirically testable. One such example is intercessory prayer, which as I'm sure we all know has been empirically tested and has been found wanting to say the least.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
 One such example is intercessory prayer, which as I'm sure we all know has been empirically tested and has been found wanting to say the least.


Ah, but that doesn't mean he isn't there! It just shows that the frequency of positive/negative answers happens to coincide with what they would be in his absence.    
Shaker



On a serious note, though, Leonard, that's exactly the point. One of the elements of a scientific idea, for example, is that it's defeasible - you're supposed to know beforehand what would count as evidence against it: you're meant to be able to state what disproves your hypothesis. That's orthodox science, but we - well, most of us - use exactly analogous reasoning in everyday life.

Unfortunately, some religionists are in the habit of rendering their beliefs indefeasible. They paint their beliefs as compatible with literally absolutely any and every conceivable state of affairs: nothing, but nothing, no kind of evidence ever counts to them as disconfirming their beliefs. Prayer is a good (or bad) example of this: if a prayer for X (some particular state of affairs - the recovery of a seriously ill person, for example) is made and the person recovers, that counts to the prayee as 'evidence' that God has heard the prayer. If the person dies, then that too is taken as 'evidence' that God knows better and wanted the person to 'recover' by dying. Literally nothing will counts as contrary evidence to such an individual's beliefs. A belief or a hypothesis which is so amorphous, so fluid that it can be made to be consistent with everything no matter what serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever: as Wolfgang Pauli observed once in a different context, such a belief isn't even wrong.
Leonard James

Yes, Steve, I' m afraid that is the way things are!

You have only to watch them arguing among themselves about the meaning of Bible verses to be aware that they can assimilate "God's word" to mean whatever interpretation suits them most ... and they all believe that they are right.

Such a 'God' can't lose because no matter what situation arises, it is his will. The sorry state of affairs that exists in some parts of the world are the result of his will to allow humans to do as they like, no matter how much harm they do to one another. And his devotees still see him as a loving father!

It is impossible to reason with such blinkered people.
Shaker



Leonard James

Shaker wrote:




That's one of those phrases I wish I had thought of!
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
That's one of those phrases I wish I had thought of!


Yes, I'm sure you do. It fits well with all the other unevidenced platitudes that you regularly trot out as a consequence of your bigotry against the religious.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
That's one of those phrases I wish I had thought of!


Yes, I'm sure you do. It fits well with all the other unevidenced platitudes that you regularly trot out as a consequence of your bigotry against the religious.

Try not to be idiotic, man! I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.

People can believe in as many gods as they like as far as I am concerned, but that does not mean I won't point out the daftness of what they believe.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.


If you insist so then it must be true!  

In spite of all the bigoted comments that you make about religious people.  
Shaker

Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.


If you insist so then it must be true!  

In spite of all the bigoted comments that you make about religious people.  

Thank you for your apology. Just be a little more careful in your use of English in future.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.


If you insist so then it must be true!  

In spite of all the bigoted comments that you make about religious people.  

Thank you for your apology.


I know that you tend to get confused, but there was no apology.
Leonard James

The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.


If you insist so then it must be true!  

In spite of all the bigoted comments that you make about religious people.  

Thank you for your apology.


I know that you tend to get confused, but there was no apology.


Look up 'irony' and expand your vocabulary.  
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
I am not in the least bigoted about religion. I am the height of tolerance.


If you insist so then it must be true!  

In spite of all the bigoted comments that you make about religious people.  

Thank you for your apology.


I know that you tend to get confused, but there was no apology.


Look up 'irony' and expand your vocabulary.  


Likewise.  

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum