1. Comment #170010 by John Desclin on April 27, 2008 at 9:03 am

As it is worded, this question makes no sense to me. I shall first take the time to read the answers of those who feel there is some sense to it.
Why should a belief based on no evidence at all be obsolete or not?

Other Comments by John Desclin

2. Comment #170012 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #170010 by John Desclin

Why should a belief based on no evidence at all be obsolete or not?

People believe there is evidence:

The requirement for a creator.
The appearance of design.
Conversations with internal voices.

and so on.

As science can probably deal completely with all those cases, what gap does it leave for gods?

My view is that yes, science does make belief in gods obsolete. The reasons why people have believed in gods for millenia have been just about conclusively shown to be mistaken.

Theologists may attempt to push gods into the background, beyond whatever reach science currently has, but I would say that makes belief obsolete.

The term "obsolete" is a good one, as it does not mean the existence of gods has to be conclusively disproved; simply shown to be not reasonable, and not useful in an understanding of the world.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

3. Comment #170013 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

Steve Zara: As science can probably deal completely with all those cases, what gap does it leave for gods?

I've got a gap in my teeth, will they fit there?

serious answer delayed due to time constraints

Other Comments by riandouglas

4. Comment #170014 by debaser71 on April 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

what an oddly phrased question...purposefully so IMO

Other Comments by debaser71

5. Comment #170016 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:14 am

Comment #170013 by riandouglas

According to Terry Pratchett, yes, as there are Small Gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Gods

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #170017 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

This is where Shermer gets it right and Dawkins gets it wrong

On the matter of God's existence, the answer to the question slides toward a yes, depending on how far we extend the sphere of science into the space of theology. If we apply the methods of science to understanding all of nature, where would God be and how would we detect Him or His actions? That's the rub. God is described by most Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent, the creator of all things visible and invisible, an Intelligent Designer capable of constructing the universe, Earth, life, and us. If scientists go in search of such a being�"as Intelligent Design (ID) creationists claim to be doing�"how could we possibly distinguish an omnipotent and omniscient God from an extremely powerful and really smart Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI)? I call this problem Shermer's Last Law (pace Arthur C. Clarke): any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence would be indistinguishable from God.

Here is how the problem breaks down. Biological evolution is glacially slow compared to cultural evolution. Because of this, and the fact that the cosmos is very big and the space between the stars is vast, the probability of making contact with an ETI that is technologically equal to or only slightly more advanced than us is virtually nil. If we ever do encounter the representatives of an ETI, they will be so far ahead of us technologically that they will appear as gods to us. Consider something as relatively simple as DNA. We can already engineer genes after only 50 years of genetic science. An ETI that was, say, only 50,000 years ahead of us would surely be able to construct entire genomes, cells, multi-cellular life, and complex ecosystems. The design of life is, after all, just a technical problem in molecular manipulation. To our bronze-age ancestors who created the great monotheistic religions, the ability to create life was God-like. To our not-so-distant descendents, or to an ETI we might encounter, the ability to create life will be simply a matter of technological skill.

By pursuing a course of scientific inquiry to its natural extension of examining the nature of God, what we will find, if we find anything, is an alien being capable of engineering cells, complex organisms, planets, stars, galaxies, and perhaps even universes. If today we can engineer genes, clone mammals, and manipulate stem cells with science and technologies developed in only the last half century, think of what an ETI could do with 100,000 years of equivalent powers of progress in science and technology. For an ETI who is a million years more advanced than we are, engineering the creation of planets and stars may be entirely possible. And if universes are created out of collapsing black holes�"which some cosmologists think is probable�"it is not inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced ETI could even create a universe.

What would we call an intelligent being capable of engineering a universe, stars, planets, and life? If we knew the underlying science and technology used to do the engineering, we would call it Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence; if we did not know the underlying science and technology, we would call it God.

Dawkins Gods and Earthlings argument does not obviate God in a sense that would effect a religious person's belief in God in any way.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

7. Comment #170019 by terradea on April 27, 2008 at 9:18 am

The Christian religion is based on faith. Faith! I don't understand Christians who strive to "prove" this or that ... if they actually did prove anything, faith would no longer be required and the entire religion would be obsolete.

Science, if anything, should make true Christians even stronger because it would force them to have more faith! Think of it: if science absolutely proved that God never existed, the faith required to believe in God would root out the luke-warm believers. Christians, if they really wanted to strengthen their faith and religion, would welcome, even promote science.

The fact that Christians fight science only proves that they have no faith at all.

Other Comments by terradea

8. Comment #170020 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:20 am

Shermer via ThoutsonCommonToad: What would we call an intelligent being capable of engineering a universe, stars, planets, and life? If we knew the underlying science and technology used to do the engineering, we would call it Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence; if we did not know the underlying science and technology, we would call it God.

God perhaps. Certainly not Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, Thor etc.

Maybe Quetz?

Other Comments by riandouglas

9. Comment #170021 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:22 am

Comment #170017 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

I see no difference between Dawkins and Shermer on this matter.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #170022 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:23 am

terradea: Science, if anything, should make true Christians even stronger because it would force them to have more faith! Think of it: if science absolutely proved that God never existed, the faith required to believe in God would root out the luke-warm believers. Christians, if they really wanted to strengthen their faith and religion, would welcome, even promote science.

Could that argument be an explanation for a rise in the number of religious whackjobs fundamentalists in the US specifically, and the world in general?

Other Comments by riandouglas

11. Comment #170024 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

Dawkin's argument:

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

There is no contradiction whatsoever. Complexity is ruled out as the ultimate first cause Yes, but he seems to not be able to take his own argument that one step further, as Shermer has done, and incidentally I did. It seems strange because it is so obvious. It almost makes a mockery of the whole argument.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

12. Comment #170025 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

Pinker from the link: Start with the origin of the world. Today no honest and informed person can maintain that the universe came into being a few thousand years ago and assumed its current form in six days

But i've talked with many of these people. They claim to be honest. They claim they're informed. Yet they still go for the 6 day creation.
Wait, misinformed is quite different to informed isnt it?
My mistake, carry on all.

Other Comments by riandouglas

13. Comment #170026 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:28 am

ThoughtOnCommonToad, Shermer is ascribing possible universe creating abilities to his aliens. In this regard, his argument would seem to converge with Dawkins'

Other Comments by riandouglas

14. Comment #170029 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:33 am

I think that's where Shermer and Dawkins are using different definitions of "god". Shermer is taking the "creative ability" as the defining characteristic, Dawkins the "uncreated" status. I must say I think Dawkins is closer to what we in the West at least generally think of as the defining characteristic of a god, but it's pretty much a pointless semantic argument anyway.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

15. Comment #170032 by mordacious1 on April 27, 2008 at 9:37 am

Something bothers me about all this. Yes, I enjoyed reading most of the essays, but it seems to be an attempt by the big TF to give their opinions and the opinions of theologians and god-believing scientists more credibility by matching up their essays with scientists who are in the game for pure scientific reasoning.

Other Comments by mordacious1

16. Comment #170036 by Border Collie on April 27, 2008 at 9:43 am

Although I don't have "the" answer, our questions seems inadequate to the current situation. I think our questions must become more intelligent, larger or we just need to stop attempts at answering. So many of these simplistic questions beg simplistic answers and there aren't any simplistic answers. We've let ourselves fall into the trap of attempting to answer these simplistic, legalistic type questions with the same type answers. This Q & A type intercourse is designed only to create contention and sell soap on TV. It isn't designed for rational conversation, debate, whatever. Everytime I get one of those "When did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Smith?" sort of questions, I simply tell the questioner that I'll have to think about it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

17. Comment #170040 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

I didn't notice this was a Templeton Foundation piece at first. Hmm, I smell bias too now - if only because they'll all have to pack up and go home if they come to the correct answer - which is yes.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

18. Comment #170041 by steveroot on April 27, 2008 at 9:54 am

3. Comment #170013 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

I've got a gap in my teeth, will they fit there?

If you get a poppy seed stuck there, you'll have *two* gaps! A new field is born: "dental theology" :-)
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

19. Comment #170042 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:54 am

Comment #170036 by Border Collie

So many of these simplistic questions beg simplistic answers and there aren't any simplistic answers.

I tend to think that there are, and most of the answers are "No":

Do we need gods to explain consciousness: No.
Do we need god as a "necessary being" to explain creation: No.
Do we need god to explain the origin of life: No.
Do we need god to explain how complex life appeared: No.
Do we need god to explain why people feel in contact with god: No.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #170043 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 9:56 am

Comment #170020 by riandouglas

I would say that gods need that extra bit of magic to earn the title: No proven supernatural nature, you don't get to call yourself the big "G".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #170046 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:04 am

I would say that gods need that extra bit of magic to earn the title: No proven supernatural nature, you don't get to call yourself the big "G".

Supernatural? A power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. An alien could conceivably hear prayers and interfere in our universe. Doesn't have to be supernatural to do the things god is supposed to do.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

22. Comment #170048 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:08 am

Supernatural? A power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. An alien could conceivably hear prayers and interfere in our universe. Doesn't have to be supernatural to do the things god is supposed to do.

I would say that supernatural is about a power that does violate or go beyond natural forces.

I consider that pretty hard to demonstrate, if not impossible.

This is why I hold the perhaps controversial view that the existence of gods is impossible to demonstrate. It could always be a really clever alien lying.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #170049 by agn on April 27, 2008 at 10:09 am

The strangest contortions are made in order to save religion's actuality:

Sapolsky, for example, thinks that religion makes good ecstasy while science does not.


He could instead have said that people should have more sex.

Other Comments by agn

24. Comment #170055 by Machinus on April 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Fuck templeton. They only ask the most misleading questions.

Belief in god is obsolete A PRIORI. An intelligent person should completely reject stupid and ridiculous ideas regardless of the presence of good ones. Science makes belief in God LAUGHABLE.

Other Comments by Machinus

25. Comment #170056 by Corylus on April 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

In the words of the great philosopher, Vicky Pollard,

Yeah but, no but, yeah but..

Other Comments by Corylus

26. Comment #170058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 am

This is why I hold the perhaps controversial view that the existence of gods is impossible to demonstrate. It could always be a really clever alien lying.

You assuming God is supernatural. What human religions have conceived of God don't have to be supernatural. An incredible alien could answer prayers create universes etc. Why would this not satisfy you as being a god or gods.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

27. Comment #170064 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #170058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

You assuming God is supernatural.

People tell me he is.

What human religions have conceived of God don't have to be supernatural.

Indeed.

An incredible alien could answer prayers create universes etc.

Sure.

Why would this not satisfy you as being a god or gods.

Because people have told me gods are supernatural. If there are things that seem to be gods, but aren't supernatural, then they don't fit the definition.

I'm not going to worship just anyone.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #170069 by infidel_michael on April 27, 2008 at 10:34 am

Does science make (insert anything unverifiable) obsolete?

Of course not, there will be always a "room for faith" -> for any nonsense people like to believe.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

29. Comment #170073 by Rational_G on April 27, 2008 at 10:38 am

Science has destroyed the notion of God. It was on flimsy footing to begin with and science has finished the job. There is no need to postulate the supernatural.

Oh yeah, and screw Templeton and his religious soft sell.

Other Comments by Rational_G

30. Comment #170074 by AmericanGodless on April 27, 2008 at 10:39 am

Shermer: "[I]f we did not know the underlying science and technology, we would call it God."
Dawkins: "Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable."
ThoughtsonCommonToad: "[Dawkins] seems to not be able to take his own argument that one step further, as Shermer has done, and incidentally I did."

I must confess that I don't understand the "extra step" that Toad sees. Shermer is saying that if we see a creative force new to us, and inexplicable within our current knowledge, we would (should?) call it God. Dawkins is saying* that our experience with similar past human beliefs about such forces, and the record of science in finding natural explanations, should caution us against our concluding that it is a "skyhook" before thoroughly investigating the possiblility (probability) that it has actually been produced by evolution or some other natural "crane" (to use Dennett's metaphor).

Toad is right that Dawkins' argument does not obviate God in a sense that would effect a religious person's belief, as they have never learned the deep lesson of evolution. But "Shermer's Last Law" (any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence would be indistinguishable from God), in my opinion, sounds like "if you don't see a natural explanation at first, don't expect that you ever will." Unless I am missing something, the extra step is to forget everything we have learned, abandon science, and retreat into worship.

* Edit: (By pointing to the statistical improbability of the new "god", and thus suggesting that, if it exists, it is highly probable that it came to existence by a naturally probable pathway, not a miraculous pathway.)

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

31. Comment #170076 by Layla Nasreddin on April 27, 2008 at 10:41 am

Wow, major props to Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy for saying this kind of thing in Pakistan!

Not necessarily.
But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

32. Comment #170080 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

I can see how an ET god could make it pretty rough on you, but could one send you to hell for all eternity?

Other Comments by Quine

33. Comment #170081 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

Steve Z.

What do you mean, "The requirement for a creator" serves as evidence for god/gods?

Not criticizing, just curious...

Other Comments by lostpoet

34. Comment #170082 by nother person on April 27, 2008 at 10:51 am

Obsolete for what? Comment #2 (steve) seems to indicate obsolete as an explanation for a certain category of evidence. We are all familiar with at least one other utility argument, that religion is necessary to underpin social morality. These are just two different possible utility functions of religion. In order to answer the question as posed in the affirmative, one would need to identify every possible utility function of religion (here's another oneâ€"it makes me feel good to believe it) and refute them all. Thus the TF has set an impossible task for those who wish to argue in the affirmative. As soon as you refute all the utility functions you can think of, someone will claim at least one you didn't cover. The ever moving goalposts are built right into the question.

Other Comments by nother person

35. Comment #170084 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #170081 by lostpoet

All the business about god as "necessary beings" required to somehow think the universe into existence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #170085 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Steve Zara

I'm not going to worship just anyone.

Brilliant line I loved that.

AmericanGodless

I must confess that I don't understand the "extra step" that Toad sees.

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

Shermer shows how this contradiction is nonsense, as I would have thought it was easy to see.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

37. Comment #170087 by Logicel on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Hoodbhoy wrote a very interesting piece. Quantum physics will allow for a scientific God if I understand his points. But will such a God allow for Sapolsky's indispensable ecstasy factor? Perhaps such a quantum God could support Idealistic Theism (Dianelos' brand of subdued religious ecstasy). Sapolsky seems to fall mostly in the belief in belief is good for the masses atheist category.

If you are a masochist, I encourage you strongly to take time from your busy day and devourer the offerings by Midgeley and Schonborn.

Other Comments by Logicel

38. Comment #170088 by MrPickwick on April 27, 2008 at 11:00 am

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Belief in God, obsolete or not, "Big" questions... yes, yes, very nice but, is it TRUE, does God REALLY exist? I always find it very intriguing and revealing when the TRUTH is considered a side issue.
[P.S: I guess that's the Templeton trademark.]

Other Comments by MrPickwick

39. Comment #170089 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 11:02 am

Steve Z.

Thanks. Ahhhh, yes...the "orginal causal agent" requirement.

Funny how people treat metatheoretical assumptions as "evidence."

Other Comments by lostpoet

40. Comment #170090 by Mitchell Gilks on April 27, 2008 at 11:05 am

I think Pinker nails it in the first sentence. If you take science to not just mean the discoveries and knowledge aquired by it, but also take it to mean the secular methodology of science, then yes it does.

If you adopt how science works, and it's methods as your epistemic criteria for knowledge, and evidence, then it very much kills off superstition, and makes believe in god a violation of the methodology.

So, I completely agree with Pinker, but supposing they just mean our current scientific knowledge, then of course not. Our current knowledge doesn't kill of fairies, and ghosts, let alone gods.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

41. Comment #170093 by Steve Zara on April 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

Comment #170089 by lostpoet

We exist... so that is supposed to be evidence for an "original causal agent".

Theology can be little more than word games that give the illusion of deep truth.

"First cause" probably makes no sense within the Planck Time interval.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #170094 by mordacious1 on April 27, 2008 at 11:21 am

Religion, I suppose, is not obsolete. It is needed by people who are not qualified to do much, in able to preach and make millions of dollars. It is also a good place to go if you like molesting children. As long as it provides these two functions, and there are gullible people, then it will exist and do well.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #170096 by lostpoet on April 27, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dr. William Phillips writes, "On the first question: a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter."

Stunning!! He merely "took the matter off the table." Reminds me of the line from the Godfather movies: "It's not personal, it's business."

Compartmentalized thinking like this really takes my breath away.

Other Comments by lostpoet

44. Comment #170098 by Quetzalcoatl on April 27, 2008 at 11:26 am

More from William Phillips' answer:

I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Blech.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

45. Comment #170099 by Enlightenme.. on April 27, 2008 at 11:27 am

"The term "obsolete" is a good one, as it does not mean the existence of gods has to be conclusively disproved; simply shown to be not reasonable, and not useful in an understanding of the world."

That is a very big task though, as collective feigning of belief in the 10-commandment-giver is still reasonable and useful to lots of people.
Ah, nother person beat me to it (#34)

I like Shermer's short answer, and can feel people bristling already!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

46. Comment #170100 by alan baylis on April 27, 2008 at 11:28 am

31. Comment #170076 by Lela Nasreddin
(Wow, major props to Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy for saying this kind of thing in Pakistan!)


My thoughts exactly.


I think this is a very good little essay, and witty too.


Alan.

Other Comments by alan baylis

47. Comment #170101 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

Can somebody please tell me what Kenneth Miller is on about.
He basically describes a pantheist view but is a Christian. It baffles me I don't think he really believes what the title of Christian suggests at all. I think he's a coward actually.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

48. Comment #170104 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:35 am

I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Ok fine that's just semantics. Why are you a methodist? You at no point describe the Christian view merely some bullshit.

The more I read the apologetics the more I think. No you don't believe what you are saying. You at best self-deceptive and more likely just someone who doesn't want the label atheist when that's exactly what you are.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

49. Comment #170105 by RickM on April 27, 2008 at 11:35 am

I clicked the link and there's articles by Pinker, Hitchens, et alia. So I'll probably take a look.

However, the question pisses me off.

"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.

Other Comments by RickM

50. Comment #170107 by mordacious1 on April 27, 2008 at 11:40 am

Hi, my name is Rob (Hi Rob) I am a Richarddawkins.net-aholic. I have neglected my wife, my kids, work. It has affected my sleeping patterns and how much exercise I get. It has affecting my relationships, especially with fundies. I tend to make them very upset. There must be better alternatives but I can't find one. Thanks for listening.

Other Comments by mordacious1