101. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68076 by Downunder on September 6, 2007 at 3:52 am

Re Dianelos' 2128; my purpose of using the word LIFE in uppercase is solely to avoid using the label God because that word brings to mind some fuzzy picture of a ghostly being, which many of us have been indoctrinated to believe-in, with supernatural powers: creating, making, breaking, controlling, directing, rewarding, punishing, etc. I have found it increasingly nonsensical.
Having a free will I am constrained in my actions by an unwritten moral code and by the local legal system but I am at liberty to think what I like. It has always struck me as stupid to blame God for disasters and diseases, as well to thank him for all the goodies. Whatever God is, he is not father Xmas. More to the point: no one has a clue what God is like. The inherent dimension of the very notion is as yet beyond science's horizon.
I have no objection to you using your extremely scientific approach in a peaceful manner and as a personal effort to maintain a God to support you and to shield behind. It adds to the variety. Observing the births of our farm animals, made me wonder where life comes from. Similarly, from watching animals die, some of them by a vet's lethal (but very humane) injection, I gradually found my solution for the "God problem": substitute the label God by another label. We have some astro-telescopes, which readily presented the label "universe" to replace "God", without any offence to whoever. But then the thought occurred about life. Where does life come from and disappear to? We live in the universe; QM and astro-physics report macro-, mini- and blackhole-sized dimensions. It seemed reasonable to use the fact that life is simply part of the universe. Documentaries have led me to believe that particulate matter penetrates everything, including our earth. Somewhere scientists are trying to count such particles by catching them in a pool of liquid deep inside a mountain. Whatever they may come up with, I find it easy to use the label LIFE for the universe's space in which all matter and non-matter exists, moves or vibrates or switches polarity or whatever we guess, measure or do not know.
My answer to your question about consciousness in LIFE is hopefully clear from the above. If I have to differentiate between life and LIFE, the former, life will have consciousness present unless a bully, an accident or an anesthetist has knocked one out, hopefully only temporarily. LIFE is the total of what makes whatever alive or leaves it dead. I must leave it to your meticulous reasoning to decide for yourself if you see any need to differentiate between life, consciousness and mind, in your very intricate thought processes.
I'm reading the posts and learning.

102. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67579 by Downunder on September 3, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Dr Benways' 2084. I know what you mean but can't resist to note that IMHO, objectively, 3 legs on the ground provide perfect stability. In our imperfect world, 4 legged tables are likely to have one leg shorter than the gradient set by the other 3. Subsequently, wobbly 4 legged tables are less perfect and could spill your amber liquid. Will you now allow me to mix-up my oughts and is-ses?

103. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67092 by Downunder on September 1, 2007 at 9:27 pm

BMMcArdle's 2049. You put that well, but is God the problem or is it the religious human indoctrination of "knowing" God's actions and directives, which is civilisation's development of mankind's instinctive deep respect for the "forces of nature"?
Dr Benway's 2050 "With God or without God, w're in the same boat". So we are, but we may use one make of GPS and others may place their trust in another brand; only a fool would tackle the oceans without any guidance. The problem in-common is: we are thrown into it and have to battle the waves. The question is why do we have a boat but no in-built guidance? What is life and, depending on science's answer, the next question is likely to be: what is the objective of life?

104. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66319 by Downunder on August 29, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Re Lauregon's 2028 "conditioned belief in God"; yes I too find that illogical of the "God believers" on this site. In the 2nd para of post 1747, I asked Dianelos to go through his posts 1736 or1739 and replace for himself the name "God" by "the universe" or something dimensionless, so that he could recognise for himself his peculiar logic. He didn't reply to that simple suggestion, probably because he wants (needs) complicated questions so that he can produce complicated answers, which he does extremely well until his reasoning fails him, then he produces his God. It seems contradictory to be so well read, show such a skilful mind and memory in his posts while at the same time applying a "God" with human traits, even to the extent of allocating both the "he/she" so as not to offend God. Strange that the believers do not wake up to the fact that God has not introduced "himself". For my own struggles with the peculiarities in our world, I have modified my ingrained religious beliefs by replacing the name "God" by "life". You can try it for yourself, e.g. whenever George Bush or some such VIP spouts forth his God excuses for standing on people's toes: it quickly eliminates any religious dribble.
I do believe that something does exist beyond our dimensions and history confirms that mankind has always been in awe of nature. To me abstracts such as: fear, beauty, pleasure but most of all life are evidence of some other dimension. Life in all living things is not just abstract but factual evidence (objective or subjective?, see post 2027), which comes at birth into whatever from wherever, and departs at death to wherever. Others on this site have rejected this by saying that life "starts by chemistry", be it at the year dot or at fertilisation, and life "disappears" at death. To me that is a simple cop-out. Science must prove what life is; similar to requiring proof of God. I am one ahead because no evidence exists of God while there is plenty of evidence of life. We have as yet not grasped the importance of life and continue killing when brainwashed by the VIP's. The newsmedia have a lot to answer for, and some scientists should stop shooting from the hip, e.g. in a TV presentation last night a local medical professor in a lecture room full of students, advocated circumcision as a necessary hygienic public measure (he admitted later to some bias, he had been circumcised). A young (pimply) mother with a (running nose) baby boy to be circumcised was produced and the operation shown in detail on TV. It then turned out that the baby had an older brother who had suffered an infection (which did not surprise me), which had been cleaned-up painfully by circumcision at age 9. The mother had therefore decided to apply the "preventive" action to her baby. The TV briefly produced a pediatrician to confront the professor but that weak attempt at a balanced presentation was completely overpowered by then presenting a young pregnant couple of which the circumcised male (a local well known TV presenter) was offering his opinion based on "like-father like-son and looking like one-of-the-mob in the footy-dressing-room". The program made me cringe, just like religious fanatics.

105. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #65364 by Downunder on August 23, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Welcome back Dianelos. We (quietly) missed you but as you saw PaulE kept the minds going nicely.
Re your 1946&1947 "....objective.....reality..."; if I walk into a powerpole which leaves a bruise on my forehead, is that adequate evidence that the powerpole is real? Not having studied ethics, nor philosophy, what can I use as common-garden reality? I am gaining the impression from this site that ethics and philosophy are used as "mind-bending" religions! You display wide knowledge with precise and detailed reasoning except when things go beyond your horizon, you then put your head in the clouds and produce God as an explanation. In post 1948 you say that the name of "...the deepest structure of reality is entirely irrelevant....", I agree but why then have you chosen for your own philosophizing to use the "God" label with its traditional ingrained connotations of mere human traits such as creating, making, breaking, directing, etc.? In your concept of God, does he have a beginning? And does a "he" or "she" apply to God?

106. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64592 by Downunder on August 20, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Re PaulE's 1903 "Downs Syndrome".
At one stage in my life I got professionally involved to clean-up the watersupply of a "retarded boys" home in the country near Melbourne. Their water comes from a local river, is pumped into an open concrete pond on top of a hill. Boys and staff suffered regular "stomach upsets" from the bacteriologically unsatisfactory supply. The problem was fixed by installing a swimming pool filter and chlorinator, cleaning and roofing the reservoir.
From that episode I will never forget that I shook the hands and looked into the eyes of many boys and I met several of the parents. The whole experience confirmed to me that while "nature" inflicts handicaps on children and parents, placing such boys (which grow into men) into institutions because their family surroundings cannot cope, is NOT the answer. It hurts the parents and the siblings, and it only supports the afflicted individuals insofar as to keep them alive and entertained (they "helped" running a dairy farm).
From such experiences I am convinced that abortion is the solution to prevent such problems where possible. To any readers who cry "murder and disrespect for life", may I suggest that you direct your energy to support the thousands who are born healthy but whose lives are readily sacrificed in man-made wars or by poverty and disease. I am convinced (until proven wrong) that any new individual does not start its own life until birth. Prior to birth a healthy fetus is alive as part of its mother. The fetus may or may not receive its own life at birth. The decision to abort should be the mother's. She may wish to receive advice and that should also be her moral decision. It only becomes a public decision if public, taxpayers funds are involved; laws are required to cover such financial situations. Our local State Parliament is currently again discussing abortion regulations; the "Right-to-Life" brigade is out in force to scream their fanatic objections and brainwash the public. They are fanatics; they believe to act on behalf of God. They are so fanatic that even the local Catholic Hierarchy has stopped supporting them, while making its own anti-abortion noises, seeking to influence any religious politicians.
Meanwhile this site's ##"s have come adrift so I changed my above quoted #, if it is wrong, my excuses.
I now saw your 1911 where you "......believe that the universe was made by God, because it seems a good explanation.......".
It seems much more logical to me to believe that the universe was not made at all but that the universe IS, WAS and EVER WILL BE. The universe itself may be God for all we know. Whatever the universe is, it certainly does not create or direct like we stupid humans do! We think that we know a lot but as yet, after 1,000's of generations, we have still not managed to even live in peace on our little planet earth. Science has explained many things, but if our universe has no boundary, micro and/or macro, we may never know it all. My morality comes from my mind. My free will was instilled at my moment of birth. The environment in which nature has placed me has molded my conscience. If a God is involved it is his responsibility. I did not ask to be born!

107. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63576 by Downunder on August 15, 2007 at 12:14 am

PualEmecz's 1823. I appreciate that that you are still stuck with that traditional God concept, which will take some generations to fade out. But surely someone with an intelligence like yours (and our site's friend Dianelos, who is having a well earned breather) can speed things up for yourself by realising that because a "God being" is beyond our dimensions, it is futile to even think about trying to reason in such dimension. Is there not enough science to pursue in our own universe; the dimensions of which we are still grappling with, enough problems to solve in our immediate environment to stop fussing about God?
I saw a TV documentary last night featuring a USA preacher Pastor Hagee who has got himself a nice little earner, a mega church in Texas. He is a fervent Bible quoter, a fanatic supporter of Israel's actions. Had his whole congregation worked up to fever pitch in support. He strikes me as "satan incarnate". May God help America. If a Muslim preacher behaved like that, the FBI would have closed the joint. Pastor Hagee is a trouble maker. Why don't the news media crucify such people while exposing them?

108. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61555 by Downunder on August 5, 2007 at 5:55 pm

DrBenway's 1753. That was a good try, but I'm not throwing away my LIFE as yet. It still suits me fine to assume that all lives come from the factual universe at birth, returning to there at death leaving behind a heap of dust from which its earthly quarters were built. The individuality reunites with LIFE, the universe, an other dimension where time & space are NA.
I'll give you another arrow to throw me off balance. The chicken and the egg. I have been led to believe that a fertile egg can be kept in the fridge for weeks if not months. When such egg is then placed in an incubator at a temperature regime, gently moved to & fro at intervals, the fertilised bit starts to multiply into the requisite parts and after a certain number of days the chick inside the shell will receive life from "God only knows where", I'll say from the universe because I can at least see some of it so I know it exists. When that chick has received life, it wants out. The submarine has an airbubble built-in to provide for the escape occasion and the chick starts hammering away until hey presto: another happy little titmouse trying out its wobbly legs.
On entering this I just read your 1759. Why are we hell-bent to think that the universe has a designer, which is a human trait? As I said hereabove, time & space do not apply to my universe, it just IS. The earth is a different matter , it may last till whenever or an asteroid may bowl us to infinity tomorrow.

109. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61370 by Downunder on August 5, 2007 at 1:20 am

DrBenway's 1748. My travels have taken me here and there but I have never followed the "hairy" track (gleaned from the odd unavoidable TV doc's) of a joey, which at some stage travels from wherever to the pouch. I assume therefrom that life insurance would have to be payable before departure from base.
I'll keep my beady eye on your titmouse to be educated about the relevant LIFE details.
BTW, did you take your fine shots from a tripod loaded with patience or do you run out and then creep up to take a stream of shots, and later sort the wheat from the chaff?

110. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61342 by Downunder on August 4, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Steve's 1738. Yes, you can believe and do what you deem logical with your free will and so can everyone else. The problem is: are you allowed to stand on other peoples "toes" when you believe their "toes" are too big? My answer is: it depends on the "toes" assessment by the rest of the society in which you have been born, have decided to live in or have moved to.

Dianelos' 1739. It is obvious from my thoughts expressed on these posts that I keep my feet on the ground, look for practical reasoning and logic, simple answers, no jargon or legal loopholes. Thus I find all that God-talk nonsensical. God is a figment of ancient traditional imagination. For a human to say that God wants this or has done that; how does that human know? The god concept has sprouted from intuition/ instinct/ conscience/ consciousness. The apparent compulsion to label God as "he/she" speaks for itself. "God only knows" what God is like; I don't and nor does anyone else on this world. Wherever I see the word God while reading your posts over all these weeks, I have been replacing "God" by the word LIFE. It instantly puts a different perspective on your reasoning. Would you please do me a favour, you can take any of your nearby posts, 1736 or 1739 will do fine. Look at any passage with the word "God" in it and replace it by "the universe" or some word to denote something that is obviously beyond our dimensions. What do you find? You instantly eliminate any human connotations and you have to apply your thoughts afresh to whatever point you were trying to make. I find it fascinating that overall I am basically with you about the God "delusion" and I find that the atheists/ agnostics appear to have a pre-mind-set with a "belief" to just exist for no reason. May be I have got it all wrong.

BAEOZ's 1742. I like your analogy about a leech, but a leech has an independent "life", it can chose to attach or not attach. As distinct from the egg, which is alive, not independent but part of the mother, before fertilisation and after fertilisation. We are led to believe that science has progressed and that the egg can be removed and kept alive, can be fertilised and grown into the embryo and may be even further. You may know more about that than I, but to my knowledge science has managed to grow embryos only to some stage outside a womb, but has (as yet?) not been able to instill life and create a new individual.

111. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60762 by Downunder on August 2, 2007 at 7:53 pm

BAEOZ's 1723. How can the placenta with the fetus not be part of the mother when it is attached to the mother and the chemical building blocks come from the mother to develop the fertilised egg?
If you have seen new born animals "revived", you'll have to judge from you own observations whether latent life had already entered, or if it entered later.
Re energy. Life and abstracts such as joy, fear, beauty, etc. we cannot hold, "bottle", because these are in a different dimension. Life, the most important concept on earth deserves more respect than writing-off a lost sock. We can not measure if life includes energy because it is beyond our measuring capacity.
Music has physical dimensions that we can measure, but what is that abstract non-measurable part which pleases some but offends others, it registers in our brain but triggers different senses to make groups of like-sensed individuals. Such likes and dislikes are the cause of human friction, within families, between neighbours, religions, leading nations into wars.
My objective here is to find ways of promoting peace. All the above I have raised only to illustrate that religion has eventuated from a "holy" respect for nature with all its peculiarities, pestilence, contrasts and conflicts. The well-read very intelligent main contributor on this site produced for himself many answers but still found to need a God to guide him; evidence of the need for religion by many, even in our sophisticated modern age. If we can be flexible with accepting and respecting a demand for both classical and pop music, why don't we accept that those who need religion can have it? Sure if the "music is too loud" we must have police to keep the order, which means on a world scale an international police force. We should force our politicians to stop wasting money on "defense" armory and use it instead to reduce famine and poverty. The fanatics of Islam or whichever can be changed by use of modern communication. For instance: the USA Forces could flood Iraq with TV sets and computers as ready access to the rest of the world which will counter fanatic teaching.
We must keep pushing. Science needs to be flexible. One may be dead tomorrow, why be so difficult?

112. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60429 by Downunder on August 1, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Re: Goldy1714 and BAEOZ1715. I could compare DNA with the memory in a computer. You switch on your computer and the memory comes alive, it loads things up but nothing will be produced until an intelligent human adds life to it and directs it by hitting the keys. It is only an analogy so let us not go further down that path. DNA does not have consciousness. (I hope Dianelos does not read this he'll drown me in meta-something). DNA is only a program to assemble the foetus until ready to be born and not until then does it receive its own life to continue the DNA path. To save you looking back to one of my earlier posts: until some one convinces me that my observations of quads of lambs being born are in error, I have seen that before birth the lambs are all fully grown. After birth the Vet lines them up side by side, they look identical but two may move and two are lifeless. The Vet manipulates the lifeless ones and (with luck) one may suddenly come to life. Before birth a foetus can be checked to be alive but it still is a part of the mother. It is as alive as my arm over which I have control, as alive as my liver over which I have no control. After birth life may or may not enter. A foetus has no life, no consciousness (I await proof of the contrary), no independent breathing or moving-about outside the womb until it receives its life after birth, which then makes it into a new individual. At death life can be seen to have disappeared in an instant. I agree with BAEOZ's "no net loss of matter or energy" but I added for myself immediately: what energy? Was the life, that has just left, not THE energy that livened up the system? What is that energy? Before nuclear science exposed nuclear energy by a chain reaction of splitting atoms, did anyone have any idea about that hidden energy? And that is only in OUR dimensions. Our intelligence does not reach into any other dimensions, and "I feel with my little toe" that there will be more dimensions than we can imagine. DrB may come out and flatten my toe. We "know" and "can do" bugger all; speaking for myself of course. We think we are smart but we cannot even keep peace between neighbours, nations and religions. To me and most of us on this site, God is a delusion, but I know, having been there, that the God concept serves a purpose. "God" is misused and religions are blamed while in fact it is the misuse of the individual's free will and brainpower. I suggest that religions be reminded to live in peace. Peace requires respect for life. We can place a man on the moon but we know not where LIFE comes from? It is not clever to just assume that life goes nowhere when we can see perfectly well that it must have gone somewhere. Life is NOT nothing; it is the driving force in anything alive from birth to death for the brief duration of a blink of the astro-eye. Life is a difficult abstract. I see it in the same dimension as beauty of music, which may thrill me but bore you, or vice versa. Science knows all about how music is produced but why does it produce such different abstract sensations? Am I wrong to believe that beauty and abstracts give a glimpse into another dimension? If all the effort (=money) spent on "defense"(spindoctored attack), were spent to concentrate on what is life, there would be peace. While awaiting science to tell us what life is, and so that we do not have to hold our breath while waiting, would it harm science to meantime assume that life comes from the universe? It should cause no problem for religions, they can use God for the universe but it may create a common ground for all.

113. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60086 by Downunder on July 31, 2007 at 11:37 pm

To all, but 1st re the 3 points in BMMcArdle's 1694. 1. Agreed there are gaps in science and worse: there are gaping holes in my knowledge but should I then just close my mind or is it up to myself to deal with the gaps, or should I, as of old, follow a religion?
2. This TGD site is evidence that we bother to critically discuss stopgaps. I am very conscious that my style of expression is nowhere near the convincing quality and intelligence of the high standard of those at the top; who I must refrain from naming in case they implode with humility.
3. Life is an abstract concept, but it does exist. The philosophy of living has been extensively discussed but life, the essence in all beings, has not received much attention on this TGD site.

This leads back to my TGD thread where almost all posters object to religions, while I see the miss-use of God as the real issue. I have asked myself for years why "my" Catholic church has kept its head in the "Cardinals" sand(pit). Rome has a long established enormous, world-wide following, with ready access to the best intelligence and to the most powerful political leaders in the world, but Rome has failed to regularly adjust its preaching and listen to its flock. The other religions have failed similarly. However there is no denying that people demonstrate an overwhelming need for religions; evident e.g. from an enormous, modern, newly established "hallelujah" church in Sydney where the talented owner draws crowds, young and old, not hiding that he wants a share of their money. He puts on popular music, works-up his audience into an arm-waving body-swaying happy trance, does so well that the news media spread the word and politicians jump on the bandwagon. This convinces me that RD's attempt to eliminate religions is futile and whether we like it or not, religions will be around for generations yet.
I too, want religions to change but I realistically concede that it will take a long-time approach. Wanting is one thing doing is another. I have therefore sought for a way of slowly changing that ingrained delusion about God. The God concept is wrong because God is NOT human and I do not believe that such a God exists. However, if we could take a head count from the total population of the earth, I "believe" that a majority of mankind, indoctrinated by religions added to its in-born respect for thunder & lightning and natural disasters, will fearfully stand on the God-side (I note that it would also demonstrate the shortcomings of democratic principles).
It was an encouraging surprise to me that Dianelos with a very complex mind, from whichever part of the world, entered this site and revealed that he too takes the bible with a grain of salt, but he has maintained human traits of God and molded the God image to suit his own reasoning. His 1304 reply to DrBenway's list of christian teaching revealed his choice to get away from the norm. Dianelos has gone to great depths in philosophy and into consciousness and if you read this Dianolos, I would like to see your ideas about what life is. To avoid any Godly implications could you restrict it to: what makes an animal alive, and a plant; same question at death and where do you think life comes from and goes back to.

To me "life" is the common denominator for cooperative discussions with the objective of promoting peace in our world. It strikes me as illogical that in times of peace a few single lives involved in abortions and capital punishment fill the news media with emotional brainwashing but when politicians fail in their duties of maintaining peace, individual lives are ignored and countless lives are sacrificed. Respect for life appears a matter of indoctrinating the population. It deepened my curiosity about life. If in the end life goes to wherever, it follows logically that life must have come from there at birth. I never dreamt that I would live long enough to see the year 2000. Only one of my 4 grandparents lived long enough for me to remember. It is now 2007 and I am still here only because our lifespan has been increased by scientific discoveries that enabled man walking on the moon and we have people living in a space station; meantime we do still not know where life goes to on death. Even the very keen and gifted DrB did only suggest that life changes into "nothing" at death. Thus not having found as yet the answer to what is life (a crucial point for The God Delusion) it must be pertinent to pursue that subject on this site. Awaiting the scientific answer, I have looked for a common thread in the posts and found that "belief", although the initiator to reach any goal, is a bad word on this site because Dianelos applies it as a stopgap. Science evolves from beliefs and assumptions. Assumptions have to be made to construct a test-rig for proving the initial belief. The instruments used to confirm observations of life still present or of life having departed are made to measure in our dimension but do not tell us anything about whatever dimension life disappears into. To find "that" dimension requires searching until someone's mind "believes" to have found a possible track for exploration. There will be numbers of scientists to whom "believing" is no problem but even they have as yet not produced the answer for: what is life?

114. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59623 by Downunder on July 30, 2007 at 12:57 am

RD and several supporting posts on this site, blame religions for wars; it is a point but it seems rather simplistic. Let me take fanatics as an example. Is it the intent of the Soccer Association that fanatic hooligans go on a rampage whenever some soccer event triggers them off? Should the game of soccer be banned? Not in my opinion because it are only some individuals whose mindset is deranged be it by pure enthusiasm of the moment or by alcohol or by anger about umpiring decisions or because they are poor losers or they just think it is good fun; and the newsmedia thrive on it rather then condemn and expose the culprits. The culprits are individuals who misuse their free will and allow their self-delusion to give them an excuse for their actions. And I note that RD etc. go even further by not just blaming religions but all the faithful supporters of religions. Does that mean that all the spectators at a sports venue are responsible for the behaviour of fanatics? I don't think so and let me add, I am not in the least interested in soccer, nor have I mentioned the nationality of the worst perpetrators! But it would be very easy to suggest that there must something wrong with a nation that allows such individuals to develop and be indoctrinated, and allows export of such hooligan behaviour.
I see the existence of religion as an instinctive human trait; banning or blaming religions is fighting windmills. Ideally scientists should educate us about their findings and make religions superfluous. The problem is that science does not have all the answers either. Science itself is on a never-ending learning curve because the universe has no limit; says I, may be I'm wrong. Science is learning, building on theories and publishing findings in the professional literature to have these scrutinised. Take the current controversy about global warming; nothing to do with God as far as I'm concerned. Some USA ex-politician jumps on the bandwagon and produces a documentary based of facts, he says. Then he trots around the globe, brainwashing all and sundry, adding insult to injury in polluting the already green-tinted minds of the younger generation. What is the truth? There are a sufficient number of scientists who try to place it all into a different perspective. Who are we to believe? I say "we" but please exclude me because global warming has a relative yardstick; how long is a piece of string? Let me add emphatically that commonsense tells me that we should indeed respect mother earth and that it is plain stupidity to foul up our own environment.
In the total picture, science is not very different to religious pursuits with the Golden Grail remaining just beyond reach, with never ending disputes about what is exactly correct but in science the verb "to believe" is forbidden fruit and raises fanatical ire.
Realistically, science is just another profession by mere humans who have been provided by nature with an above average intelligence. At that higher level they carry a higher authority but still remain gullible human beings with ideas thrown at them to create some order in the chaos and searching in the pile of jigsaw pieces for the next correct piece to fit into their corner of the puzzle of the universe. The puzzle will last ad infinitum, making our human appearance insignificant time-wise. We cannot help but believe that we are important because we have the best intelligence of life on earth. It makes us look as to why things are so. Every toddler displays such inborn inquisitiveness. Most of us develop that no further than necessary for our daily hunting and gathering but scientists pursue it as a profession. And so it is with religions. We are born in whichever environment, and placed on a track, but we have our individual intelligence to sooner or later decide for ourselves if the track suits us or if we should change. Most of us are like "sheep" and must latch onto a leader when the forces of nature overwhelm us and we instinctively run for shelter. That has created beliefs, i.e. religions from the year dot.
Religions are thus caused by nature and science is mankind looking for and learning why things are so.

115. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59619 by Downunder on July 30, 2007 at 12:23 am

RMMcArdle's 1669. I am not following intuitions or a religious path. I have made observations that provide me with facts. Science may seek the theories to fit the facts. The word "supernatural" has religious connotations, as has "imaginary". As I tried to explain about my use of the word LIFE, I want to avoid any religious tracks.
The existence of dimensions beyond our human intelligence is a fact to me, evidenced by light, the universe and commonly used abstracts (things we know and observe but can not "bottle") such as joy, etc.
LIFE can be observed to be from such other dimension; appears increasingly obvious and useful to me, the longer I visit the RD sites.

116. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59405 by Downunder on July 29, 2007 at 1:05 am

BMMcArdle's 1638; re my invention, hijacking and imagination, I can't have made myself sufficiently clear so I looked up my post 1632 and see on the record in the 2nd para, 3rd line that YOU can watch and judge for yourself to observe that "something" was there, and then it has gone. The very essence of the exercise is to eliminate pre-conceived ideas and to not be misled by beliefs nor by one's imagination! That I have used a label of upper-case "life" is purely for simplicity's sake. I had to stop myself from using the conventional religious label of "soul" because that instantly brings the confusing human image of God into it. I will add now that it is to me basic science: when I see "something", and then it goes out of my sight, it has NOT disappeared into "nothing". Something is not nothing. You say: "life exists because it can". If you will excuse me for attaching the label LIFE to that "something", I observed births of quads of lambs over the years and concluded therefrom that LIFE may, or may not, enter at birth. Similarly, from closely observing dying animals, unfortunately including several very dear pets Keeshonds, Elkhounds and Akitas which had to be put out of their agony by Vets, I concluded that LIFE can be seen to have left the seemingly still identical body, but the body in fact is suddenly only mere flesh and bones. It hurts to just dispose of it at the Council tip or dump it into a hole into the ground.
Do you agree that any living animal has a "beginning and an end" of its earthly sojourn and that to be alive (that is being able to move-about and breath independently) "something" must have first entered it and later left it? Your statement of life existing because it can, does not look like science to me but is what you believe and is similar to what I was led to believe by my religious upbringing which labeled life as an immortal soul coming from God the Creator and returning to God for eternity. But leaving the God aspect aside, where then do you believe or scientifically know, where life comes from? If I understand DrB correctly in some earlier post, he believes that the sperm and the egg have carried life forward from generation to generation since the year dot and I assume the reasoning is that it just happened to originate from a coincidental chemical and environmental reaction. I remain to be convinced and observe that "alive" and "having LIFE" are two different things. Sperm, egg, my arm, a donor's organ are all alive but have no independent mobility and no breathing, they have no LIFE.
As soon as science convinces me that a new individual animal has been produced outside a womb of an individual, which has LIFE, I'll change my concept of LIFE. Meantime I confirm your rule of thumb "the simpler the better" by my concept of LIFE, which provides me with very simple answers for the illogical variety of Gods and Holy Books.

117. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59060 by Downunder on July 27, 2007 at 5:57 am

Goldy's 1634. I was brought up to believe in God but gave up at my ripe old age; see my post 653 on page14. I explained in a later post that we had a sheep stud farm where we regularly produced quadruplets, requiring the presence of a Vet to try and save each lamb as well as the ewe. From my observations at such events it became clear to me that I had to revise my indoctrinated ideas about births and lives. I use the uppercase for LIFE to distinguish it from being alive. A lamb may be alive in the ewe but it may, or may not, get LIFE after it leaves the ewe. The Vet holds it up liveless or alive. If the Vet sees that the lamb is not alive he has a couple of procedures to try and make LIFE enter. One can simply see the moment when LIFE successfully enters. I have never timed it but thinking back it could be say 30 secs. after birth. Ever since those events I have instinctively for myself differentiated between something which is alive, such as my arm, and something that has an independent LIFE such as any alive animal which can move to where it wants. An organ may be removed from a dead body solong as the organ is still alive. Obviously the organ itself has no LIFE in it, the cells will only remain alive and available for reconnection for a limited period when with medical knowledge and a bit of luck the organ as a complete unit will become alive again in the recipient. Whenever I read the word God in the comments in these RD sites I replace it in my mind by the word LIFE to see if the context still makes sense to me. If it does not I toss out the whole context as nonsense. It has worked fine for me and makes short work of Holy Book stories

118. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59055 by Downunder on July 27, 2007 at 5:12 am

BMMcArdle's 1633. If something were smelly just before the moment of LIFE departing, and then the smell disappeared a moment later at death, you would have a olfactory sensation as well as a visual change. What proof other then once's own visual observations of an abstract concept would be more convincing?

119. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59001 by Downunder on July 26, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Thank you Corylus, I followed the link shown in your post 1613, read the debate between Harris and Sullivan of Jan'07, was impressed by their mutual respect, but less so by the 1st and the last 50 comments. I did not read those in between. It has reinforced my ideas that the various Holy Books may be of some use as fairy tales to convey moral points, but being open to interpretation they can mislead. The variety of Gods is evidence of confusion and while it is an inherent contradiction to give Gods human traits. It proves something that even in this TGD thread many contributors refer to speaking and listening to God. It shows how even these critical and alert minds have as yet not comprehended that a God with human features of speaking and listening and directing is not a God but a figment of the imagination; may be psychologically useful to yell to when stressed! If there is such a creator, ruler, judge it will inherently be beyond our range of comprehension. I am happy with my concept to use LIFE for whatever mankind senses to exist in a different dimension with a higher intelligence than ours.
There can't be any argument that LIFE exists in any living individual being, from birth to death. Where LIFE comes from and goes back to is also really obvious! All you have to do is watch something dying; one moment you can definitely see that LIFE is still present and the next moment LIFE has gone. You were there, where did LIFE go to? Did you not watch closely? Did you see someone or something carry it away? Was there any magic or hocus pocus? You may have seen earlier in this thread that I put that question to DrBenway and his answer was that LIFE just vanished! Do you find that a satisfactory scientific explanation for something that was positively there? Should we just believe DrB's fatherly answer as if we are little children? Might as well believe the Pope! Here is my answer for all to critisise: LIFE, an invisible abstract, not made of matter of our acqaintance, but being of a dimension beyond ours, slips at our death back to its own dimension which surrounds us, even in our own miniscule part of the universe. Do I believe in God? That is a silly question because the Gods I have been told about and can only judge with my mere human intelligence are responsible for all the good things and the bad things which does not make sense to me. It is my life, my individual free will, my free choice to only believe what I can see or reason out. If you read this and if you take some fanatic action because your reasoning is false, does that make me responsible for your crimes? A bit far fetched I reckon. Why then these many comments about whichever religions being the cause of atrocities? Looks like shortsighted fanatic reasoning to me. How should we behave? We must behave according to our own observations and judge from our surroundings. Should we kill fellow humans? Yes and no. Those who are positively guilty of a major offense against society should be put out of their self-caused misery promptly, without prolonged nonsensical legal procedures, and humanely which is very easy with modern science. I dare say legal nonsense because I have seen repeatedly that guilt is a matter of who has the best legal craftsman regardless of the spirit of the law.
I had an interruption. Looking back now through several comments, my eyes were drawn a couple of times to the word "moderates" of apparently whatever religion, being tarred as the promulgators of fanatics; Dawkins, Harris and some other astute-minds have said as much. I could put such accusers in the same category as the accused: inconsiderate, close-minded trouble making through unscientific opinionated extrapolation. I'll excuse the accusers for using it as a cow prod, cruel but effective.
Just read the latest comment, Sharon's1631. You are very critical there of free speech. You are free to read or not-read it! You may think what you like about Dianelos, fact is that he is making a major contribution to this thread and has drawn excellent comments of which I have learned a lot. Dianelos is not a warmonger, he is a free thinker, he has laid bare his reasoning, never lost his temper, nor his patience. It would be a better world if all our politicians behaved like that, God or no God. I am sure we would welcome your ideas for the future of our world.

120. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58002 by Downunder on July 22, 2007 at 11:17 pm

I forgot something in my just entered post. Is science already able to grow an animal artificially in an incubator (not in a surrogate mother) to a complete stage including life of a new individual animal?

121. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58000 by Downunder on July 22, 2007 at 10:46 pm

re1595BMMcArdle's. My rusty applied science mind gets readily lost in much of the pure stuff in the comments but I think to get the drift of it. What strikes me as very useful is that various trained scientific minds prod and are being prodded at this "godly" science level. I suppose we all know that proving or disproving the existence of intelligence at a higher than human level is a contradiction in itself. We can only guess about a God and history has it that believing is full of pitfalls; magicians thrive on it. Several of the comments went into orbit about consciousness and I half expected to be shot down about my possible misuse of it. I still ask my self what triggers the switch to activate and stop the individual, be it human, animal or plant. I also have a long nursed question as to why we are able to kill so easily, to push the stop button in ourselves and in others. But why has "whatever did place that ability in us", has not given us access to the start button? I am thus left with the feeling that everything comes from the dimensionless universe of which we can "see" the fact of its existence with all its mysteries, the workings of which form an endless track of scientific discoveries. And please BM note that I am not visualising a Force in the universe. Might as well call it a God then and embrace a religion. To the contrary I wonder if there is some thing beyond our imagination, beyond our dimensional concepts in the seemingly empty but filled with energy spaces between all particulate matter, miniscule and gigantic, where LIFE may readily enter from and return to. Many scientists have felt a need to close their minds about beliefs in a God for the very reasons exposed in Dianelos' comments. I can sense that beliefs can nevertheless still trick a scientist who may have an idea, a scientific inkling of why something might be so. In the single-minded pursuit of proving the idea the scientist may be just as self-deceiving as a God-believer. I therefore feel that both scientific approaches are worthwhile paths to follow. Mutual criticism is a healthy sign and that may be the reason why the intent of posts like Paul Creber's 1585 is beyond me. Paul C. has watched this site for a very long time indeed, since May 1954. I can understand that he has lost his patience; hard enough with all that bull around @utexas!

122. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57909 by Downunder on July 22, 2007 at 6:43 am

1583phil rimmer. Why do you say "If god wants us to believe......"? I have asked myself over more recent years why bring a God into it? If one is a believer it is up is up to one, but if there is a God, why give him human traits? I do not know what God is like and I do not believe that any one on earth does know. Man has been led to believe all sorts of things by hearsay. Dianelos has shown us on this site how a considerable intelligence can imagine a God to be involved. It requires belief. I feel that nature or more widely the universe has powers beyond our imagination evident from the enormous energy historically unleashed by meteorites, in our lifetime by earthquakes and lightning, and by man via nuclear science. When I look at the stars on a clear night and then magnify any piece of the sky, the more I magnify, the smaller the piece of sky. I did not expect to see more and more stars. May be God is the universe, I do not know; believing may help others but not me.
I have seen lives come and go in many animals. LIFE is the most important ingredient to me. May be I should state the obvious: if I did not have LIFE I would not be here. My body may be here but that is merely a temporary assemblage of earthly chemical matter, when left to its own devices it returns to earthly dust. What makes my body into me is LIFE. LIFE in "man" has been on this earth for 1,000's of generations but science has been so busy with other problems, and LIFE is so difficult to "bottle" that I am on safe ground with my universe. As evident on this site we may or may not believe in a God but we can still do our bit to make it a nicer world for all.

123. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57908 by Downunder on July 22, 2007 at 6:38 am

BMMcardle1568. Lightning I understand, well most of it; light itself is still a little wishy washy because it has its spectrum of frequencies which do not seem to need any carrier traveling over immense distances but I'm led to believe that science is making progress.
New poles and/or electrolyte can restore a battery's "spirit".
Consciousness, yes, that brings us on my track as an ingredient of LIFE, which departs irretrievably at death but while the body has LIFE, consciousness can be put to slumber by drugs and can be revived. I am happy to let consciousness "float" wherever in an alive body as a dimensionless "registration" centre that wirelessly controls the "telephone exchange" in our brain where joy, fear, pain, beauty, etc. tickle our senses. The tel. exch. sends the messages through our wiring system/nerves to freely control our movements and drives our organs, our metabolism by "auto" control. When LIFE leaves the body, control stops, but the body's cells remain alive for a while. The cells' chemical reactions gradually go flat just like the battery of my mobile phone. If some parts of the corpse are removed quickly and successfully transplanted, the LIFE in the recipient may "recharge the cells" just in time to make the saved part useful.
I thank you for that Wikipedia address, very helpful. I scanned through it and a couple of "life" and "death" threads. It reinforced my "feeling" that my concept of LIFE will do me while keeping my ears open to the findings of science. Meantime I assume that LIFE comes from our surrounding universe, dimensionless, involving no matter. At death it departs, or rather it returns to the totality of the universe from whence it came. I can see the universe in the little piece of space right next to my chair. Science has made me believe that I am surrounded by (polluted) air. I can only wonder what is in the spaces between the smallest particles known to man. Looking beyond my chair I contemplate about the thin air higher up and away beyond outer space in the universe. It may look empty between the stars but light is conveyed in it. It remains an open question if a GOD is involved. I do not believe that a God would behave like humans; a falsely attached human image preached by well meaning people in various ways, has been and still is, taken too literally by some individuals, made them into fanatics who are convinced to do whatever is in their frenzy. I hope that the increasing TV coverage will gradually educate everyone that a peaceful existence is possible and advisable. Our so-called civilised communities have to set the example. We have a long way to go and "tarring" all religious people with the same brush as fanatics borders on the fanatic.

124. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57753 by Downunder on July 20, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Please refer to the 1st paragraph of post 1497, naming someone and throwing-in ilk plus all moderates (most of the world, post1520). Is that nice, patronising, with "fanatic" herrings? I made my suggestion in 1508, stupid as it may be, but where are the suggestions from others? I can almost hear people say that nil suggestion is better than a stupid one, but my principle is to not criticise unless one can come up with an alternative. Also relevant is that those whose "mother tongue" is English are at an advantage.
Back to the thread of this TGD site, in my opinion it is excellent that Dawkins is stirring the religious fraternity and he is careful to admit that science has not got all the answers. However several posts have given me the impression that they already know many answers or will get all the answers. I can't help feeling here that atheists, etc. are negative or fence sitters, throwing stones from glass houses while waving rose coloured herrings of science in the process.
I have asked DrB's opinion about the origin and the destination of life, being the ultimate concept in our solar system, but the simple reply came that life emerged some billions of years ago and on death life just stops like a car. With due respect for all those with a much higher intelligence then mine and conceding my lack of knowledge in their fields of science, DrB's answer is no better than D's whose reasoning is so critically condemned. I might as well consult the Holy Books to extract whatever suits the objective. I'll therefore put my question about death to everyone, specifically to those who have been present at deaths. I put this as a fact of death: life is there and a moment later it has gone. Basic chemistry, logic if not just plain common sense tells me that life does not go nowhere. We saw that life was there; it MUST have gone somewhere! May be one is not inclined to stand back, out of sight, out of mind, of no further consequence. Dead is dead, it is the end so why worry?
I grew up with a faith and lived by its rules but have tossed it aside because I have outgrown fairy tales. I can see and accept that sincere believers would be lost without their faith. I detest fanatics of whatever colour or creed. Over the ages natural phenomena have caused mankind to develop the various God concepts to explain the natural events of their surroundings. It is just not good enough to now "preach" to millions of various believers that science has good reasons to suddenly change their inherited God concepts. It will cause havoc; the fanatics will go berserk! Don't blame them; we must blame ourselves for not using a gradual process of "missionary" conversion (a well tried and proven effective religious system), of "de-briefing", to spread the word.
To me the only common thread for all human beliefs and science research is LIFE but we seem to not even know what it is. Just brushing it aside by "emerged billions of years ago and stops at death" is not a useful answer for adult minds.

125. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57319 by Downunder on July 18, 2007 at 10:52 pm

DrBenway's 1497 re Lal Masjid. I sympathise with your anger but are you displaying an (instinctive) fanatic streak by throwing-in Dianelos and all religions with that crazy lot. I have not taken a head count but when you calm down you'll hopefully agree that it will be a small but mind bendingly powerful minority of fanatic Muslims who themselves have been indoctrinated by some deranged religious Muslim leaders. Step back a little. The problem in the Middle East is not new. The U.N. knew it. We critisise the Muslims but on our own side we did not manage to get more appropriate action from the U.N. where a lot of talk produced nothing! What has been more evil over time: religions or politicians? Take the Falkland war; objectively about an island on Argentine's front door. Surely a negotiated solution should have been found for such a trivial matter. But what does happen time and time again? Politicians fail in their self-imposed responsibilities and then from the safety of their offices arrange to put the lives of their armed forces on the line to fight it out at whatever the cost; unlimited finance is always found for wars. Why does it happen? Because WE, as voters in OUR democratic systems do not bother to appoint representatives with the appropriate negotiating skills. WE let the U.N. rep's enjoy a gravy train rather then forcing them to produce results. Big-bully oil-minded USA lost its patience went in, boots and all, and just like on a schoolground, the bullies found some supporters: Aussies & Brits. Meantime the problem has been getting worse and worse. What is your solution? Blaming religions does not help now. The religious fanatics should have been restrained by our elected politicians, not just locally but internationally. What Israel has been allowed to do should have been nipped in the bud by politicians, if not also by religions. For the long run I suggest that public education is required but that does not help us now, and it would need an overhaul of the world wide newsmedia so w'll leave that aside.
I'll give my suggestion: the 2 bullies of the USA and Russia, and the leader of China (the earth's largest population) should meet with 2 leaders of the worst 2 troubled areas, on neutral ground, let us say in Malta. Each leader to be accompanied by one offsider to keep contact with the outside world. So we have 10 people and we lock them up in a hotel room with communication facilities and we will not let them out until they have reached a peaceful solution. If they do not hurry up we reduce their food and drinks.
The news media annoy me almost every time I watch the TV news or read the local paper. My relations reckon that I am mad to ring and write notes to them pointing out that they have some fact wrong. The media don't care, their objective is to make news by feeding controversies and raising emotions; serving the bottom line. Should I, should we all just relax and let it all happen so long as we are safe and well provided for? Why am I sitting here writing this, because I believe that both sides, all of us have our delusions, but, there is a common objective between science and religions which is: looking for the truth in a calm and considerate way. In my search I have found that the ultimate truth is beyond our mere human intelligence. Therefore religions that call on, or rely on, or communicate with a God, are deluding themselves. Fairy books are nice to convey ideas and so are the various Holy Books but one should not take their stories literally.

126. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56950 by Downunder on July 18, 2007 at 12:15 am

Hello Elli, welcome to the TGD fold or should I say hold, because it is hard to let go. The entries are pre-sorted rather than rehashed. My rubbish is fresh produce from a lost indoctrinated religious mind looking for answers to it all. I find it incredible that people from all over the globe are free to hop on and from the comfort of their own chair can make their comments without being constrained by stage fright, no one to hog the floor or shout over the top of you. Apparently anyone can comment. There appears to be an endeavour to be civil in saying what one likes. I believe that we are all "seekers" of "why is it so". I must excuse some of the scientists for not having a belief, religions class them as lost souls. Only time can tell who is right, problem is how long do we have to wait?

127. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56937 by Downunder on July 17, 2007 at 11:14 pm

1435DrBenway; couldn't help observing that the titmouse has reversed to its defensive projectile launching stance!
Yes, I had seen in your previous comment your "life on earth existing for some 4 billion years" and I note that you now added the word "emerged". Whichever way, do you mean to infer that life had a beginning? In my concept of LIFE, it is dimensionless, no beginning, no end; LIFE IS.
A "piece" of LIFE enters into whatever living thing on this earth, until the creature dies and then its piece of LIFE returns to the WHOLE. In your concept you seem to give LIFE a starting point, be it billions of years ago or at conception. You appear to ignore death while it is a fact that any thing alive on this earth has a finite lifespan. We die when LIFE in us departs. Invisibly yet indisputably; one moment the body has LIFE in it, the next moment LIFE has gone, leaving behind a complete body that was functioning one moment, yet not functioning a moment later. While LIFE has departed, some of the body parts are still sufficiently alive after death for re-use by transplanting. The requisite cells of such body-parts are obviously still functioning for a limited period. I conclude from that: such parts are alive but have lost LIFE, have lost contact with the centre of consciousness. Logic has it that for LIFE to depart, it must have entered the body at some earlier stage. The body is built from earthly chemical matter with the defined starting point of the moment of conception. The building blocks are "alive" because the live sperm and the live egg set-off the chain reaction. But I consider such "alive" similar to that in the re-used body parts; alive but without LIFE. If Dianelos is not looking may be I could say that LIFE is a "consciousness" (in my context), which makes the brain function. I envisage, and I assume that you agree, that a fertilised human egg could probably be developed in an artificial womb and grown out into a fully developed foetus but I cannot imagine that science will ever be able to instill LIFE to make such foetus into a new human individual. I "believe" that nature will require a natural womb to trigger off the consciousness. Your titmouse will no doubt -hit me if I'm wrong.
If you tell me that life has simply been multiplying, it must have originated from one original multiplication. That is as fanciful, and equally as impossible to prove, as the biblical creation or a God.
If you believe that life is passed on at conception, do you then support the religions and the popular stance that abortion is murder? In my concept of LIFE, abortion is no problem, other than it being a very emotional issue for the mother who is carrying the new babe.
Just noticed your impressive 1451 summary. That titmouse must have a well-ordered brain at the front end. Is that why you had to turn it around, concentration!

128. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56687 by Downunder on July 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

1426Dianelos; well said, as you do, with a lot of detail providing ready targets to draw the flack from those who do not want to see your message, which to me is simply: let us not exagerate and blame all troubles on religions.

129. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56666 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 9:55 pm

1421DrBenway, I am obliged. I'll start at the easy end of yours. The "doors" are crystal clear to me, we agree on that one.
Now the life bits; your para starting with "nothing". Sorry but I could not help getting the impression that Benedict has been cluttering up your mind with his ingrained dogmas. Richard D. has written a book about it: Be Aware, it may be a delusion!
We can only but agree that sperm is alive and egg is alive. However, my arm is also alive, could even chop it off and it will still have some life left in it. If you and your mates are quick enough you may sew it back-on, good as new. Back to the sperm which has not sat still but met the egg and the 2 start off a growing process. Both are alive before they united, their DNA intertwined and the building phase starts to construct a new edifice. During the ensuing months the edifice gets more and more complete with built-in airconditioning and all the requisite human con's. It is all working fine, doctor has checked it regularly, heart pumps the blood around, organs function, air supply laid on from the mother's "powersupply". The time arrives for a grand opening to launch the edifice into that world of ours. But, hold on, we need to start the AC: we need LIFE, "consciousness" to liven up this brand new edifice, and.....not just for bodily functions but to "think" for itself, control its own organs and further develop into a new, unique, individual human being.
LIFE is but a label for an abstract that we cannot see with our eyes. I agree with your "nothing" insofar that nothing can be seen to enter. Nevertheless LIFE once entered is an observable, demonstrable fact. LIFE may or may not enter at birth into the hitherto alive foetus. Where that LIFE comes from is THE BIG question which Richard D. and his mates is, and have been for generations of scientists, trying to discover. And, life disappears at death leaving behind an empty yet visibly complete earthly shell.
To me LIFE is NOT the God with human traits as depicted by religions or on this site by Dianelos, such a God only serves to teach and as a memory aid. To me LIFE comes invisibly from the universe surrounding, no, not just surrounding but IN everything. LIFE has no dimension that we can comprehend; space and time do not apply. The universe is LIFE, no beginning, no end. The earth, planets, sun and all that we can observe is finite matter. LIFE is infinite, no matter involved, no reasoning involved. Science seeks to explain why, whatever we observe is the way it is. Science is in the never-ending pursuit of the "Holy Grail".
Please do tell me where you think I'm off my rocker.

130. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56479 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 1:24 am

I wished Zwartz would use his Age to get stuck into the fanatic Jews keeping-on fueling the middle east mayhem.

131. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56476 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 1:03 am

Good to see that DrB, -J-, Dianelos and others, after all their efforts still keep an eye on this kerfuffle!

132. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56474 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 12:48 am

1404Logicel, I am with you on the popular fascination about sex and explain it, like religion, witchdocters, etc as a basic instinct apparently (but I hope not prevailngly) stronger than the intellect in some of our species.

133. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56471 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 12:31 am

1403phil rimmer. I have watched the debate on this site and found for me that consciousness fits nicely in my LIFE on page14 #653; no God required.

134. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56468 by Downunder on July 16, 2007 at 12:01 am

1402steve99. I think you gave yourself a distorted picture of D; look at D's 1304 about the bible. From my seat on the philosophical sideline I observed that D's interpretation of science was of good enough quality to raise the heckles from a number of prof 'l scientific specialists who replied seriously and politely and in some detail. That in itself gave me an insight how scientists themselves (they're only human!) get dogmatic about their findings. To me D has not failed at all because he has found his reason-for-being without doing anybody any harm, he exposed his reasoning to scientific scrutiny on this site, made some concessions and adjusted his faith. Can't ask more from an honest man. All the while Dawkins is continuing his self-imposed task of stirring the global religious pot, asking others for proof while beavering away to come up with proof, like many of us who think about the big question: WHY is it so?
Your closing line "Without religion....... we have our own choices" is of course wishful thinking. If there were no religions (not a good assumption in a world lousy with superstition) we would still be subject to a "world" moral code. Can you suggest a better one than the long established much fought-over Holy Books? Let them have them, so long as they don't wave them around near me as the gospel!

135. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56461 by Downunder on July 15, 2007 at 10:28 pm

1400 PaulEmecz's; Dianelos presented his enormously detailed opinions for arriving at his concept of his God. From what D conveyed here I understand that he grew up with a clean religious slate, an open mind! I respect, no, I observe that a human being with a well-above average intelligence has found a need to search and find for himself a "god" to explain the thread of life. Dawkins etc are essentially doing the same but have chosen a different track. Problem common to all: none of us will be on this planet long enough to get the answers. Meantime we can only guess by using, whatever each of us deems "reasonable" assumptions. Your belief about injustice, equality etc holds without a "creator". I was brought up in a "just & loving God" concept and it has taken me practically all of my long life before I dared to jump the Roman ship and swim for my life risking "eternal drowning" if one believes the xtian dogmas. I found it increasingly illogical to both thank and blame God for everything and I reasoned that the common concept of God having mere human traits contradicts an almighty-ness and does not fit something that is of greater dimension than the universe. I don't blame the existence of religions; I blame their shortsighted pigheaded man-made doctrines, which have caused friction from the year dot. The various Holy Books have one thing in common, a superior being but "dressed" with human attributes as if the authors have seen God and spoken to God: pure belief. The proof of the pudding is man's religious failures. The bibles are human collections of stories with a moral slant, related to some historical facts, naturally coloured by the authors' opinions, numerous translations, etc. I was very relieved by D's 1304's answers to DrB's 1301 list of questions and added for myself as false: trinity, resurrection and Holy Spirit because that are human concepts devised to justify some religious doctrines. The fact of the existence of a variety of holy books tells me that mankind in its diversity needs guide books.
I cannot believe that an almighty, omnipotent, super-intelligent being would create an Adam&Eve knowing beforehand that they would not pass the test. Is it blasphemy to even think that God would do a thing like that or even more, that God has a son? How human can you get? How dare we have such an earthly notion of God? And...if we give God such attributes then it logically follows that we must expect God to be able to correct his mistakes without having to send his son. I don't think that there are any "God made" mistakes. God and mistakes are a contradiction. The holy books have evolved as a story to explain morals; not to be taken literally.
I support your teaching of a wide horizon and hope that whoever pays the piper will let him choose the tune to honestly suit the audience.
If I may make a suggestion, when you read for yourself anything with the word God in it, try and replace that by the word LIFE. It has answered all my questions in this beautiful world spoiled by man. See my comment 653 on page 14.

136. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56440 by Downunder on July 15, 2007 at 6:46 pm

1409teapot, a glance at the relevant site shown kindly in 1397BMcArdle's, confirmed my suspicions that (just like religions really) a "Deus ex Machina" was trotted out in the shape of the host's presumed entertainment pattern to prolong his presence on the stage. The penny dropped in sofar that it remains a fact, when confronted with 2 doors and ignoring the host, it is 50/50. OK, its only for fun and clever of DrB to provide a break in tense period of the debate. Hope springs eternal.

137. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56425 by Downunder on July 15, 2007 at 5:42 pm

1404DrBenway, You have said it well, as we have come to expect from you on this site, but I take you up on one point: while science has not as yet produced all the answers, what do we do in the mean time? As mere humans with widely varying intelligence, and having been dropped onto this planet by our parents, we must make decisions for which we need a "road code". We have to make some assumptions. I do not trust politicians, nor do I trust religions, nor one-track-minded scientists who must concentrate on their problem in hand.
BTW my 1312 is still pregnant, awaiting your scalpel when you have a moment.

138. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56155 by Downunder on July 14, 2007 at 5:41 am

1397BMMcArdle I thank you. Although it is late, I had a quick look and saw enough to gather that I am not (yet) dense, a great relief. Kind regards.

139. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56132 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 11:46 pm

46SteveN, you are so generous with your time. To me, the most astonishing thing in the rat race is the sharemarket!

140. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56128 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 11:39 pm

48Lauregon, that is answered by the existence of the TGD book. Obviously, if you believe, your God does not need proof. If you don't believe: I'll label you as illogical when you ask for proof. To me LIFE exists, needs no proof, we all agree, we can all relax and sciencists can continue their fascinating work to find explanations for: Why is it so? The rest of us just feed them, with the great expectation that it won't take too long or we'll be dead. No matter we have this instinct of producing the next generation. I wonder why that is so?

141. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56127 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 11:06 pm

40gr8hands. "Those practical suggestions......", if you add "for me" after "better", "work" & "difference", I'll agree. Religion (with all its shortcomings) has and does "offer hope....". Pleased to note that you may have excepted JSBach!

142. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56126 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 10:59 pm

38 by54321. Use your brain: man has an instinctive respect for the forces of nature. Not all of us are super-intelligent scientists. Live and let live, unless "they" stand on your toes.

143. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56125 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm

21hungarian, I agree with your 1st point. For your 2nd: no we don't but if we must be missionary we may make suggestions. I have found that uninvited advice is seldom welcome.

144. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56123 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 10:47 pm

19 gcdavis, just because you consider yourself so clever at 11, seems a childish excuse to ridicule whoever may take your fancy. Please; discuss, don't offend.

145. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56121 by Downunder on July 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm

DrBenway, although a welcome lull is now occurring after some very hectic debate on this site, I sincerely hope that you'll still have a look now and again. It provides me with the opportunity to back track and clear up some comments still hanging on my line. Your1283 Monty Hall problem produced several comments, but I still don't see that changing the choice would make any difference. I may be dense, let us see. In 1293 Jiten's reasoning, I don't agree, because once a goat door is opened, a basic 2 door set presents. In 1294 Teapot is on my wavelength. In 1295 Jiten ignores that my door holds the car. But lo&behold in1302 Dianelos produces his by now expected Deus Ex Machina: revealing the host's mind and then proves what he wants to prove. Then the subject was closed by resumption of the TGD debate. Please tell me what I can't see about these stupid doors!
In return I'll give you this one (chances are: it is old hat): 15 matches in 3 heaps of 5 each, you are allowed to take away any number but from only one heap at a time; then my turn, etc. Whoever is left to pick up the last match pays for the next drinks.
Back to the TGD. Your1303 list for Dianelos, with questions on X-tian teachings, was a masterly contribution and I was holding my breath for D's answers. I don't know about you but I was amazed that he unflinchingly gave his answers in1304. I found it interesting that he labeled as false several points that I had also ticked as false, but mine included trinity, resurrection and holy spirit. To me he was revealing his innermost thoughts, again throwing down the gauntlet. I haven't got a clue who D is or what he does for his daily crust, but if he has 3 kids including a 3-year old, one wonders how he knows and produces his input so quickly. If only every one in this world would listen and reason like he does, it would be a fine world. Hhhaaalleluujah!
And now back to my predicament. In all the comments flying back and forth you will have been concentrating on the main thread by D. It has left my1312 floating. Would you have a look there and give me your answers.

146. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55915 by Downunder on July 12, 2007 at 8:39 pm

_J _'s 1332, you mention The Force. That stuff is beyond my age and above my generation's intelligence. Is the God concept not big enough?
And to All those who expressed their disappointment with as yet not having rescued the soul of D, don't tell me you are a pack of school-bullies! LOL
Hear Ye, Hear Ye, I woke up during the night and was going to shout from the rooftops but realising that it would be an utterly wasted effort, I thought it better to plant it on this site where it will strike either fertile soil and germinate, or barren ground and wither:
THE EVOLUTION OF SCIENCE, with the science of evolution as an integral part,WILL BRING US CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE HOLY GRAIL OF L I F E.
May I borrow _ J _'s / D's roof to stop the flack?

147. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55687 by Downunder on July 12, 2007 at 1:45 am

DrBenway1167. Thou shalt not drop things on the workshop floor, it breaks, makes a mess or flattens ones toes! I am amused that you took my 'saint esprit' seriously but must not side track now; am obliged for your answers to my 1165. I've gone to this site daily but it moves soooh fast that by the time I've scanned some way to the last entry my presence is required elsewhere.
1. Starting with your "No pulse----=death". If the foetus' heart is beating OK in the womb and it stops beating at birth, can the heart then usually be started again by slapping babe's bottom or by some other more scientific application, and breathing may then also start?
2.Was your answer to my question ".....to scientifically determine the instant when functioning starts....", presented by your comment "But there is no evidence for any life substance entering the body at birth." That is an interesting relevant observation but it raises the question: What then does enter to start the new human? And.......
3. the question remains: is there often a moment-of-waiting before pronouncing that the baby is alive? And .....
4. yet to be answered: When all is well on leaving the mother, has anyone ever determined at what stage a bodily functioning foetus, does indeed have those functions completed by starting to breath and crying?
5. Can breathing be used as scientific evidence of the new arrival?
6. My unanswered question about "legal" death, I will now re-phrase. At the number of deaths you have attended, have you seen evidence then of any life substance departing? One moment life is still there, then it has gone. Something definitely left in between.

You may have discerned by now in my post1261, that your "substance" in 2 above, is of critical importance to me, because that is the stuff that I call LIFE. We cannot see it, but no matter which colour or creed, life is the substance we may all agree on as a fact, abstract as it is.
How serious can one get! Please don't feel that I am testing you. I have been seeing the same GP now for some 23 years and it has taken me several visits to get him to open up on this subject.
I am only seeking what life is all about. I have traveled a long way; have met garden-theists, garden-atheists and whatever's but my searching continues. No need to include me in your 1168 bundle to the cobbler as yet.

.

148. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55376 by Downunder on July 10, 2007 at 10:23 pm

_ J_ 1199 etc.You have a gift there, Irish blood? Although most of it goes over my head (ignoramus philosophiae?) it is fascinating and I need scanning speed to keep up with the volume. It amazes me that several of the contributors reply extensively to Dianelos, bounce back his "science" ball but D does not relent and taunts to keep them coming. That D is not giving up Proves something: when humans lean on a God it provides determination, unfortunately when it goes too far it creates fanatics and problems for others. This site is an eye-opener for me, educational and a mental-hurdle exercise. Will D sooner or later take his "God coloured glasses" off?
Your glowing floating diamond Moses Tablets made me now sidetrack from my DrB thread but that will wait. I saw in your moses diamond a possible common thread amongst all religions. I'll modify your m diamond, I remove the inscriptions leaving a glowing floating diamond that you can see but when you try to touch, it moves away. Your diamond is there but you cannot reach it. Unlike a rainbow, it does not show in a camera. Yet your sense of sight shows the fact of its presence. I do not call that diamond a proof of God because to me that is the crucial religious fallacy: to even contemplate that a God would give signs or has human attributes of making, moving, breaking. And that is where I think D is misleading himself.
I found your diamond a nice abstract for my concept of LIFE, observable by our senses to show its presence or absence, verifiable by science, the essence of living matter, the un-dimensional invisible substance which enters at birth and departs at death. While scanning through D's comments and where he trots out his God I transpose that to my concept of LIFE and it makes D's God disappear.
I lack your ability to present things more clearly and please tell me if you get the picture. LIFE is, no I must correct that, I consider that LIFE is non-dimensional. LIFE just "is; everywhere, in everything, outside everything, needs no earth, no universe it IS the universe, holes do not apply, particles do not apply, it is in the holes, in the particles. We can prove its presence or absence in live or dead matter but we cannot see it come and go. Science is destined to fathom it out, but unlikely in the near future if ever completely.
Consciousness and your material stuff fits my LIFE concept.
What gradually stopped me from going to church was the contradiction of an "almighty" God being "tainted" by religions through giving him human traits. Two examples: 1.An almighty God made Adam and Eve and, knowing full well what would happen, he gave them a free will and forbidden fruit. I find that not clever, not God-like but human-like; a religious story to explain the concept of obedience, nothing to do with a point in time of a creation. 2. Mankind was behaving so badly that God found it necessary to send his son to make some corrections. That tells me: the almighty God admitted he had made a mistake somewhere; not God-like but human-like.
D will trot out his humanised God and thereby can make himself believe any thing that suits his thread.
I liked the sound(!) of D's word "ontology". Didn't have a clue, looked it up. How did he find that? Praise to D's God to inspire D with a apt label for this TGD site!
_ J _ I'll reward you a medal for your 1235 to D.
In haste, must go to the big smoke. If DrB scans this, I'll be back to my birth "control" thread (don't jump to conclusions) but not today.

149. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55075 by Downunder on July 10, 2007 at 12:54 am

phil rimmer's 1160, well put but I must comment on a mere detail near the end of the para: "Metaphysical..........or executed to make the populace feel better....".Do you feel execution (humanely of course, no media hype) for a major crime against our society, as making us "feel" better? I would not feel better but safer. I see such execution as sending the free-will-possessing, drug-addict, deranged or whatever, but positively guilty "parcel" of misery back to "the maker" wherever that may be, because the offender by his/her own actions has indicated an extreme desire to not be in our society. I accept that there will be borderline cases, but even then, is it not better to err on the sure side than take the known risk of re-offending? It always intrigues me that some people shout out loudly, the news media "make news" by feeding emotional stuff to the public, drawing lots of letters to the papers and entertaining the radio stations, whenever capital punishment is mentioned. Let me add that cp is a misnomer. The dead culprit has gone beyond punishment; it are the surviving relatives and friends of the offender and the offended who do the suffering brought on to them by the offender. Placing such offenders in jail is cruel indeed, achieves nothing, prolongs the agony, costs a lot of money for no benefit that I am aware of, other than that the legal system thrives on it. The law is an ass so long as guilt depends on the craft of the defending council rather than on the spirit of the law. Most so called civilised societies have armies with sophisticated weaponry, killing all and sundry in war zone. Innocent lives are then not even counted. I advocate to stop wars and weeding-out the bad apples.

150. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55047 by Downunder on July 9, 2007 at 9:39 pm

DrBenway1152 "life=inspiration of air"? Can't leave out the fishies, need them to feed my stents! You must have been influenced by too many Whitsunday preachings to receive that "inspiration" from the Holy Spirit. You, or whoever was your observer may have blinked their eyes just when life entered. I thought that breathing is evidence that life has already entered. I wonder if anyone has been so bold as to add some science to the rather delicately emotional birthing atmosphere to scientifically determine the instant when the brain starts functioning in relation to the readily observable breathing? Is the brain the "spring" to be released to drive the body functions? What is the legally accepted evidence of death? Heart can stop, can be transplanted and "kick-started" ticking again; lungs can be replaced by a machine. Have not heard of a brain-transplant yet. Please enlighten me.