Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
251. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #80118 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 20, 2007 at 4:42 am
Steve 99 (post 544, or #79680):
There is at least one other option: We don't know everything yet. However, for Dianelos, "I dunno" is not good enough.No-one is claiming to know everything. But many people, including Dawkins, claim to know something about how objective reality is. I claim to know this: that idealistic theism (my theory of objective reality) works better than scientific realism (Dawkins's and virtually all naturalists' theory of objective reality) under any criterion I could think of and have tried out.
252. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #80116 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 20, 2007 at 4:16 am
Phasmagigas (post 543, or #79675):
It is you who are ADDING something that we dont accept is there so i think the onus is on you to do the first bit or proving.That's a common misunderstanding. It's not like theism = naturalism + God. Rather theism is an alternative description of reality; while naturalism considers that reality is at bottom physical and governed by mechanical laws, theism considers that reality is at bottom spiritual and governed by personal will.
if christians died and they suddenly turned into a twinkling beautiful vapour that swept upwards and muslims bloated and decayed unceremoniously like any ather animal i'd be quite certain to believe that some unknown force that christians had the right idea about was at hand, but of course it doesnt happen like that.That's not what theism or the various theistic theories are about; theism is an alternative way to understand reality. Theism describes objective reality in a fundamentally different way than naturalism. And if there were an easy way to find out by corroborative evidence whether theism's or naturalism's basic description is the correct one then we wouldn't be having all these books in pro and in contra, or all these debates between theists and naturalists (which – quite objectively speaking – naturalists are not clearly winning, to put it mildly).
DG can i suggest that before you inundate us with more arguments that you spend some time talking to fellow theists, the problem is we non believers have a hard time understanding just what part of theistic belief to accept, they all feel they have it right, as do you.Well, it's true that there are many theistic theories. One would expect that naturalism, based on science and all, would fare better and be somehow more objective and consistent in its description of objective reality, no? But if one actually studies how naturalists describe reality one finds that: a) there are several dozens of different and mutually contradictory descriptions [1], b) each one is rather bizarre and paradoxical, and, what's worse, c) there is a general tendency for the number, strangeness, and complexity of the naturalistic descriptions to increase. Actually the complexity of the latest descriptions is exploding to unimaginable levels, so if one uses Dawkins's dictum that ultimate explanations should be simple then the implications for naturalism do not look good at all. (Some posters here defend the thesis that even though the reality described by the latest naturalistic theories is extremely complex, the descriptive theory itself is simple – but then again I'm not sure that's Dawkins's meaning, because he appears to be discussing the complexity of God Him/Herself and not the complexity of God's description.) In any case and apart from the issue of complexity, if consistency or stability is the criterion you are after, theism fares much better when compared to naturalism. The impression that only theists disagree among themselves whereas naturalists basically agree is just another naturalistic myth.
[1] Why "several dozens"? Well. apart from the profound differences of the dozen or so naturalistic theories that describe alternative physical realities that would produce the quantum phenomena we observe, there is also deep disagreement about how a physical world would produce consciousness. There are at least four basic theories: 1) that consciousness is nothing more than some physical processes that happen in the brain and if it subjectively appears to us to be something altogether different it's all an illusion (the "identity" theory), 2) that consciousness is not strictly speaking a physical thing but is produced by some physical processes that happen in the brain but without having any causal agency by itself; consciousness "just happens" (the "epiphenomenal" theory), 3) that consciousness is not physical, is produced by the brain, but has causal powers that affect the brain (the "dualistic" theory), 4) that consciousness is present everywhere to some degree and not only in brains ("panpsychism"). There are several variants of these basic theories, but in any case there are at least 50 (i.e. about 12x4) combinations of deeply contradictory naturalistic theories of reality. What's remarkable is that for several decades now no naturalist has really proposed an objective test to find out which of all these theories is closer to reality, and actually there is some trouble even imagining how such a test might look like.
Here is the plain and unadorned truth: Naturalism looked good until the beginning of the 20th century but now it's a real mess and is quickly getting messier. The position of naturalists who are aware of this state of affairs appears to be: 1) science will somehow help straight things out in the future, and 2) no matter how messy or paradoxical naturalism now seems, it's still preferable from any theory that is not naturalistic. So in the end what naturalists' trust (or faith) in naturalism comes down to is either ignorance about the messiness of naturalism, or else a combination of wishful thinking and subjective taste ;-)
Incidentally and for your information, Phasmagigas, I have had long discussions with theists too in Usenet. In general liberal Christians agree with me, and conservatives argue from the Bible's authority which of course is like not arguing at all. My goal in participating here, as I have previously clarified, is not to convince anybody to adopt my ontological beliefs :-) (something especially unlikely to happen in a public forum anyway), but in general to understand how the Dawkins-type naturalists think, and more specifically how they would react to my arguments. It's been both an educational and enjoyable experience.
get back to us in a few years when you have come to a general agreed concensus with your fellow believers and then maybe we can start talking.Surely you are not saying that, by the same measure, naturalists should not defend or argue their position before they too have come to a generally agreed consensus among themselves? What about, for a start, agree about whether there is one universe or many, and if many about how many exactly?
253. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79916 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 3:06 am
Dr Benway (post 542, or #79665):
I could say I had a fried egg for breakfast and you'd quarrel with me for making such a preposterous claim.:-) It's true that philosophers often challenge people to explain both what exactly they mean and how they justify even commonplace propositions. I think that's a good exercise, for it's a fact that we can easily get astray if we are not careful with our thinking. So it's not only "preposterous" claims that require justification.
Not really. One can have a conversation with an automaton at the absence of consciousness. Try this: Go to http://www.alicebot.org/ and click on "Chat with Alice". Maybe you'd like to ask her whether she believes in God, or whether she believes that the brain produces consciousness. She is a very self-conscious robot by the way. And she knows some other robots too.As we saw there is no corroborative evidence for the belief that other people are conscious beings.We accept propositions like these as necessary for conversation to take place between us. Otherwise aovsi ti308 fja afa[ ta04g dadaf !!? hae.
254. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79902 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 1:48 am
Epeeist (post 536, or #79640):
It's no good Dianelos. As the Brasenose porter said "It's no good you making a noise, gentlemen. The Dean ain't a coming down tonight."I see. But then there is also the fable of the sour grapes to ponder.
255. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79899 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 1:43 am
Epeeist (post 523, or #79604):
I am sick of posting a rebuttal, having it ignored and then the same material posted again as though I had said nothing. Witness my simple hypothesis about the non existence of gods.Your claim that the non-existence of gods is falsifiable by science is not a rebuttal of my claim that the existence of gods is not falsifiable by science :-) And when I repeatedly tried to get your position in respect to Dawkins's basic claim in TGD that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis (and hence falsifiable by science) you consistently avoided answering. But no matter; it seems to me that you too are blowing smoke. Suit yourself.
256. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79893 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 1:35 am
Styrer (post 522, or #79600):
Though I am sorry you think my comment was not more substantial, I do recall that its source was a question to which you gave no answer. In the place of an answer, you simply supplied a non-related statement.In post 333 (#78389) I tried to give a detailed answer to a rather vague question of yours. I even asked you to let me know if I had not answered your question. Your only comment in post 344 (or #78421) what that used too many "if" clauses. And also that I had misunderstood your question, but without actually clarifying what your question was supposed to mean. Which you are still not clarifying. So my only interpretation is that you are blowing smoke.
Perhaps you would indicate - as an encouragement to brain retention - the names of those naturalists you cite who 'have in the past so often been proved wrong about their strongest beliefs about objective reality'.Maxwell who was sure that physical reality is filled with the luminiferous ether, and Einstein who was sure that physical reality is local – to mention just two famous cases. I can give you quotes where they express their certainty about their respective ontological beliefs, which have been later roundly falsified by science.
257. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79890 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 1:10 am
Alovrin (post 520, or #79592):
As I wrote the issue is complex and I did not pretend to develop a critique of Marxism here, but only to point out that both atheism and the justification of violence are central in Marxism. On the other hand I have no doubt whatsoever that Marx and many of the founders of communism were moved by their compassion for the oppressed. Indeed there are clear parallels between Marxism and Christianity as far as the ideal society goes.
Maybe your point just illustrates that Marxism is a failed doctrine as much as Christianity is.I consider neither a failed doctrine. I think that if humanity is to survive the fundamental ideas of both Christianity and Marxism are here to stay.
258. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79889 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 1:02 am
Dr Benway (post 519, or #79589):
A great many theists disagree, perhaps the majority. Which makes me sometimes wonder whether theists in general are really closer to ontological truth than non-theists.No, my basis is "it (hell) makes no sense".To you. Other believers disagree.
Maybe in Dianelosity there's no eternal barbecue. But some resurrected monkeys will get grapes; some, alas, will only get cucumbers.No, no. It's not about what you get but about what you become. But we have already discussed all that.
259. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79887 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 12:56 am
Dr Benway (post 517, or #79563):
There are no naturalists here, as you use that term.Well people here appear to resist explaining what their ontological beliefs actually are. For example I have asked both you and Steve, but have not received a direct answer, except that you are not naturalists. On the other hand it's fair to say that almost all atheists in the West do believe that objective reality is ultimately physical and mechanical, which makes them naturalists according to my use of the term.
I don't know why you bother to call yourself a Christian, Dianelos, as you reject central Christian teachings.As you know Christian teachings is a sprawling thing, and different people claim different parts as central. But Jesus himself in the gospels says what's central (see John 13:34-35) in a very concise way: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; according as I did love you, that you also love one another; in this shall all know that you are my disciples, if you may have love one to another." So, according to Jesus, even atheists can be Christians according to the central meaning of that concept :-)
260. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79884 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 12:33 am
Lauregon (post 514, or #79557):
Guess it depends upon which ethics of Jesus you'reI find the Parable of the Talents quite meaningful: it says that one should not waste one's talents (pun intended :-) That life is not a place for passive pleasure, but a place for active work. Indeed a place where it pays to take risks for doing good work. The differentiation between servants with many talents and servants with few talents is maybe meant as a recognition of the fact that peoples' capacity for doing good work is not equal to start with. And it says that all should make an effort, including those who have little capacity.
talking about. The Parable of the Talents [snip]
So, except for the disjointed bit about the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" at the very end, I find that this parable gives a very wise and relevant message indeed. I don't quite understand what's your issue with it.
261. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79883 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 12:21 am
Heathen2 (post 513, or #79553):
Jesus said, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea" (Mark 9:42 NKJV).I agree.
Pretty nasty morals and ethics in My judgment. We want to move away from this, not come closer to it.
On the other hand one can't of course make a general point based on a few bits of contrary evidence when there is much stronger evidence in favor. As many reviewers have noted, Dawkins in TGD has really gone to a fishing expedition to find out titillating bits of evidence to make religion look bad. But the use of selective evidence is not a tool of reason but of demagogy. And sadly demagogy is effective, particularly in the absence of critical thought. As far as I am concerned the popular success of TGD says something negative about the state of atheism today.
262. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79879 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 19, 2007 at 12:11 am
Phasmagigas (post 512, or #79550):
That the moral Zeitgeist has been approaching Jesus's ethics is evident on two accounts: First the moral Zeitgeist today is clearly closer to Jesus's non-violent (see the almost universal revulsion against executions) and non-caste (and hence individual rights) oriented ethics than it was 2000 years ago; and secondly there exists an universal admiration for Jesus's ethics (even somebody as anti-religion as Dawkins has expressed this sentiment in his "Atheists for Jesus" articles, see:Indeed: the moral Zeitgeist has slowly but steadily come closer to Jesus' ethics.ah, back to jesus. if the zeitgeist exactly matched jesus ethics (what are they and how would one ascertain they did match) of what significance is this?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins ).
What is the significance of this? Well, it does not imply anything for the truth of religion or the falsity of naturalism as basic ontological theories. But it does imply something for the attractiveness of religion (not only Christianity has a splendid ethical message) over naturalism. If, as some philosophers believe, the world is religiously ambiguous, and one can equally reasonably adopt either a religious or a naturalistic worldview, such attractiveness will be a factor for moving people towards religion and away of naturalism.
In fact the beauty of Christian ethics may be an important factor in the explanation of why Christianity grew so quickly in the first centuries CE, and the distance between ethical theory and practice that is evident in the lives of Christians today may be an important factor in the explanation of why so many people reject Christianity. I think it is easy to show that theism is superior to naturalism in the ethical arena, and that represents a practical problem for naturalism. But the fact that this conceptual superiority affects so weakly theists' average ethical behavior in a peaceful and organized society, to the degree that such difference is not at all evident and you need careful statistical studies to show that it actually exists, represents a problem for theism I think. The data clearly shows that ontological beliefs on average affect peoples' behavior much less than Sam Harris insists and than one would indeed have expected. I don't know why that is. Maybe there is a deep irrational undercurrent in human psychology which distances behavior from knowledge particularly over issues of short-term and superficial pleasure; see for example how many people keep smoking despite knowing perfectly well that doing so is equivalent to imbibing poison.
263. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79750 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm
BMMcArdle (post 509, or #79533):
I understand this is an attack to one argument (out of several) that Berkeley used to justify idealism. Both the argument and the attack on it look quite opaque to me. My main point lies elsewhere though: One does not need to justify idealism by itself, but only to justify it in comparison to other ontologies. So I justify my idealism by arguing that idealism works better than either monistic materialism or dualism.
If you are interested the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on Berkeley. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/
264. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79746 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Goldy (post 508, or #79520):
I understand what you mean. Now the problem is that the gospels were written and edited by many hands using various sources, and came into the state we now have many decades (maybe over a century) after Jesus' death. Therefore it's not like everything we read there must necessarily reflect Jesus' thought. So on the one hand we have Jesus in the gospels expound at length and with many parables a marvelous ethical code, including that we should not return evil, should love even our enemies and do good to them, should be perfect like God is perfect, and so on. On the other hand we have Jesus speak in a few places about hell, and about a worm burning for ever, and the gnashing of teeth, and whatnot. To me that sounds both incoherent and self-contradictory, so I assume that the latter bit was edited in by some maybe well-meaning fool.No good person (never mind perfect person) would consent to another person being eternally tortured (never mind actually send another person to eternal torture). This much is clear.Jesus? Or have a missed something?
Now I would like to make clear that I don't take my ethics from scripture; I take my ethics from some place within me, and under that light I judge what's written in scripture or anywhere else. And it is in this sense that I find the main body of Jesus' ethics as described in the gospels to be both coherent and really excellent, I mean so perfect that I cannot imagine any other ethical code being better than that. But I have found some really excellent ethical teaching outside the Christian scripture too, for example in Sufism. So it's not like I believe that ethical truth is to be found only in one place – not at all.
265. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79741 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 11:48 am
Steve99 (post 505 or #79516):
The strength of one's beliefs are very relevant in the following sense: If I (or anybody else) study what two opposing ontologies claim, and find that one makes many claims that contradict my strongly held beliefs (e.g. claims that I don't really have free will, or that no objective precepts are objective and that they only describe personal opinion and social convention, or that objective reality is not coherent, that pre-linguistic children are not conscious subjects, or that thermostats have some kind of consciousness, or that I exist in 10^100+ parallel universes in some of which I will live for ever, or that reality is eternally foaming new universes so that I will re-live my current life an infinite number of times, etc) and the other doesn't make claims that contradict my strongly held beliefs - then I will judge the latter more reasonable than the former. I submit that the fact that so many people are naturalists is explained by the fact that they have not actually studied what naturalism implies.But nobody ever thought that smelliness is an objective property; but most people including myself strongly believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective. So that's not a good analogy.The strength of your belief is irrelevant. You seem to believe that if you believe with all your might, that somehow makes things true. That reality has to fit with a slightly more evolved ape's idea of that is 'reasonable', or what 'makes sense'. The arrogance of this position is astounding.
266. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79739 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 11:31 am
Dr Benway (post 498, or #79402):
Dianelos, perhaps you could call me a corroborationist rather than a naturalist. "Corroborationist" is a term I made up to accommodate my own beliefs about reality. A corroborationist believes that:As far as I can tell the epistemology you describe there and call "corroborationism" is what philosophers call "evidentialism". Many philosophers, including Plantinga, have argued about the many problems of evidentialism. One problem is your #3 above. The choice of these axioms, or so-called "basic beliefs", is too subjective for evidentialism to remain an objective epistemology. It seems that, like in mathematics, so also in ontology it's impossible to build a formal system to proceed.
1. we ought to place greater confidence in claims that can be corroborated rather than those that cannot be corroborated
2. we need not place any confidence in any proposition that cannot be corroborated
3. we may agree to accept certain propositions as axiomatic or as givens, if this acceptance facilitates the discovery or the communication of corroborative evidence
267. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79737 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 11:17 am
Dr Benway (post 497, or #79395):
Maybe I did not explain well enough what I meant. Once consciousness is given, of course what we are conscious about, how our consciousness is limited, and so on, correlates a lot with the state of our brain. The question is how come there is consciousness in the first place; where consciousness "comes from" to use a phrase that Dawkins likes. There is no reason to believe that the brain has something to do with the origin of consciousness, and that's why Sam Harris says that to say that the brain produces consciousness is only an article of faith (he means "faith" the way naturalists do, namely to believe something without evidence).
Let me put it in a form you like:
1. Hypothesis: The brain produces consciousness.
2. Null hypothesis: The brain does not produce consciousness.
3. Falsify the null hypothesis, but making an observation that contradicts a prediction that would follow if the null hypothesis were true.
If naturalism is true then there can't possibly be an observation that falsifies the null hypothesis. Here's why: Suppose naturalism is true, which implies that reality is at bottom physical and mechanical, which in turn implies that consciousness is produced by some physical/mechanical system. Then it's quite possible that we all exist within a computer simulation, in which case the brain that science studies does not produce consciousness. But then no scientific observation can possibly falsify the null hypothesis, because it's always possible that it is in fact true.
Interesting, no?
268. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79727 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 10:43 am
Medusasmiles (post 496, or #79379):
There is a simple explanation for human morality that does not require God. It is simply that every action has a consequence. If you abuse your neighbour then you are likely to be abused yourself, if you are good to your neighbour then they will be good to you.I see; it's all about consequences. So according to your ethically theory, if I find a loophole that allows me to legally avoid to pay taxes and have all other suckers around me carry the weight of government, is it ethical to do so? If I find a way to earn more money by making worse products for my clients, is it ethical to do so? If I see some old bum fall into a river should I risk my own life trying to save his life? I mean in all cases the right thing to do appears to be what would have the worse consequences.
269. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79723 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 10:31 am
Epeeist (post 495, or #79363):
While religion may not be the most pressing problem on the world scene it is a substantial one.Agreed. So what's the solution to this particular problem? "New atheism's" idea to actually suppress religion, somehow prohibit parents to teach religion to their children (it's a kind of child abuse you see) and so on - is beyond harebrained. The only viable solution I can think of, and I really cannot see why any religious person or naturalist of good will would object to, is to actually teach ontology and the major ontological theories at high school. I wouldn't mind if different teachers would teach this using different books written by the respective specialists. Bring the best religious and naturalist ideas to the young people who will tomorrow be voting, and let them free to make up their own minds. I really think that's a good solution.
270. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79720 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 10:18 am
Corylus (post 492, or #79344):
Sorry to butt in here, Dianelos, but I think you might be stretching the concept of 'intentionality' a bit far. At heart intentionality is merely the understanding that thoughts, beliefs, desires etc. are all 'about' things - i.e. refer to them.Yes you are quite right, and this represents a linguistic problem for me. So maybe instead of saying "intentional versus mechanical reality" I should be saying "willful versus mechanical reality". You know what I mean, so if you have a better idea please let me know.
When you start talking about 'will' then you are running the risk of using the word 'intentional' in terms of its common everyday usage (rather than its philosophical fashion) i.e. an action performed with the goal of bring about a specific end.
These are not the same thing.
271. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79713 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 9:50 am
Philip1978 (post 490, or #79339):
I really dont understand what you mean when you say Ayan Hirsi Ali had a "privileged" background. I dont call having a father in prison when you are born a privilege, I certainly dont call Female Genital Mutilation at 5 years old a privilege either, how you can say that is beyond me.Well, I think "to have a privileged background" refers to how one compares to one's peers. Ali was certainly born in the top 10% of Somali society (and probably in the top 1%) so that makes her come from a privileged background I think. Which doesn't mean that she necessarily had a happy childhood, or that she was not abused, and so on, as in fact is not the case with many children from a privileged background.
272. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79711 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 9:36 am
Steve99 (post 489, or #79336):
The truth of religion has nothing to do with how religion has been used, in the same way that the truth of science has nothing to do with how science has been used.Surely you are not saying that the historical fact that many people did bad things by disobeying Christianity implies that Christianity is bad, do you? Isn't it rather the other way around?Religions should be judged by the effect they have in reality, not the effect they are supposed to have.
Now you are free to compare theism to naturalism as far as ethics goes, but if you do that then not only in the context of the historical fact or of actual statistical studies, but also on the conceptual/logical level that Dawkins in his debate with Lennox prefers – naturalism fares much worse. I think this is pretty conclusive. The naturalist is right of course to argue that theism's superiority as far as ethics goes says nothing about the truth of theism. But, still, for a naturalist to play the ethics card is like a donkey saying to a rooster that it has big head (as the Greek saying goes).
273. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79706 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 9:20 am
Steve99 (post 487, or #79328):
Why is that irrelevant? It seems to me that when you complain how badly gays are treated at the presence of religion it's very relevant to compare how badly gays have been treated at the absence of religion.To my judgment an atheist gay man living in Britain today decrying the Aglican Church's discrimination against gays when that Church is one of the most advanced in this issue and when in atheist regimes homosexuals fared much worse – displays a classical case of cry-babyhood.You really are being incredibly dumb here. It is irrelevant how gays were treated under past atheist regimes.
What matters is that in modern societies gay people are acquiring rights in the face of opposition from mainstream religions.True, and deplorable. Also, to be fair, the opposition comes from mainstream religious organizations, not Christianity itself. There is little doubt what Christian ethics would say in this matter. Indeed one of the most memorable ethical teachings in the gospels is how Jesus reacts to the crowd's intent to stone a woman because of her sexual transgression. But even if Christian ethics in the gospels were clearly wrong in this respect it would not imply anything more than just that. I mean neither you nor I believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, so we both expect to find errors in it.
Gay people have been treated badly in both atheist and religious societies. The difference is that no-one has said 'homosexuality is wrong because there is no God', whereas they HAVE said 'homosexuality is wrong because God says so'.True, and frankly I have no idea what atheistic regimes said to justify their persecution of gay people, but what they said is surely something of comparable stupidity, but something that in turn was not said in religious societies. So what? Persecution is persecution, and the fact that it is here justified by some stupid phrase that includes the word "God" and there is justified by an equally stupid phrase that doesn't is quite irrelevant I think. In short, you don't need the concept of God to justify persecution, nor to justify the most abject crimes against humanity for that matter, as the history of the 20th century amply illustrates.
Anyway I am sorry I passed judgment on you and called you a cry-baby; I don't know you at all and maybe you have had a really hard time. But the fact remains that the rights of gay men living in the UK, one of the richest and most liberal countries in the world, and with one of the most advanced Churches in the world on top of that, does not make it to the top 100 problems that humanity faces today, and probably does not make it to the top 1000.
274. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79651 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 4:29 am
Lauregon (post 483, or #79249):
Again, in reason one is required to justify one's own ideas, not other peoples'. So if you find something amiss with my idea of God please let me know. But before you use some criterion to criticize my ontological beliefs, please check whether your ontological beliefs pass the same criterion, otherwise it would be a pointless exercise.I am here not talking of a fearsome God. You know, the ones who postulate an ontological hypothesis are the ones who define what they mean. So, again, I am not talking about your understanding of God, or of other peoples' understanding of God (there is a whole menagerie of such hypotheses as there is a whole menagerie of naturalistic hypotheses). I am defending my understanding of God. - DianelosWhat binds and has bound people to religious belief was the issue, not your idea of God.- Lauregon
Ontological arguments obsess theists, not non-theists.I'd never have guessed this after reading Dawkins's famous and self-declared unanswerable "Ultimate Boeing 747" ontological argument.
275. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79646 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 4:08 am
Lauregon (post 482, or #79241):
Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a caring, universe-directing "God" person exists,I'll do that just after you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an uncaring, universe-directing "physical" mechanism exists ;-)
276. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79645 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 3:48 am
Thirdchimpanzee (post 479, or #79147):
The problem with this assertion, which is crucial to the theists attempts to appear rational, is that it is patently untrue. Science incorporates a powerful, evidence-based approach to understanding our world that has been enormously successful. For example, in comparing two models of the origins of the Universe, a "big bang" or a variation of "steady-state" (e.g. multiverses), there are specific predictions that each model would make about our current physical Universe. We can then look at data - such as microwave background radiation - that lend support or weaken support for competing hypotheses.Competing scientific hypotheses, yes. But science speaks of models, not of the objective reality that produces the phenomena it models. Consider an ontological hypothesis as harebrained as young Earth creationism, namely the idea that God created the universe in 6 days about 6,000 years ago, complete with dinosaur fossils, prehistoric cave paintings, and microwave background radiation. Now suppose young Earth creationism is actually true. Even then scientists would be doing exactly the same science they are doing now, correct? So science has nothing positive to say about how objective reality is, for all science cares young Earth creationism may be true.
That naturalism is implied by science is just a naturalistic myth on which most naturalists' faith (i.e. trust) in naturalism rests. It's all smoke and mirrors. Science does not really care what produces the phenomena it studies, because as far as science goes it's all the same as long as the phenomena it studies are produced. So, for example, whether mass "really" bends spacetime or whether invisible angels move planets around as if it did is entirely irrelevant for the power of general relativity to model and hence predict gravitational phenomena.
The last 400 years have clearly been without precedent in human history - and had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the spread of scientific thinking and methodology.I am not sure what you mean here. It's trivially true that the unprecedented advance of science and technology in the last 400 years has lots to do with science and technology and little to do with religion (even though as Dawkins concedes in his debate with Lennox "it must be admitted that science grew out of a religious tradition"). But the last 400 years are unprecedented in other ways too: They are unprecedented in the mass murder of people; they are unprecedented in the destruction of the environment, they are unprecedented in the destructive power of armies, and, arguably, they are unprecedented in the unequal distribution of wealth.
Its the obvious success of this way of knowing - which German captures far better than English in the word Wissenschaft - that has forced religious thinkers to try and play the "evidence" game - and pretend that theism is not only a rational response to the world, but a more rational one than atheism.Theists play the "evidence" game as you put it since the fathers of the second century CE. That religious belief is about believing without evidence is just one more atheistic myth. But I will agree that only recently are theists arguing that theism is more rational than atheism, because, obviously, atheism is a recent phenomenon.
Like old-time priests, we'll judge your worth by your ability to make specific, non-obvious predictions about the world that anyone can hope to discover and verify.As we are talking of objective and not about phenomenal reality it's not easy to make predictions. But, sure, and maybe surprisingly, theism turns out to work better than naturalism in its ability to make specific and testable and highly non-obvious predictions.
I think we're all waiting for the first list of theistically derived predictions about our world.Have already done that. See post #73995 here
or the previous post 174 or #73370 in the same thread.
277. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79637 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 2:13 am
Epeeist (post 476, or #79140):
I have no idea what you are saying here. When people believe that a hypothesis is true, they do have that particular belief, don't they? What do you mean "belief is unnecessary"?When atheists say "no gods exist" they are making an ontological proposition which they believe is true.How many times do I have to write it. The hypothesis that the class of gods is empty is simply that - a contingent hypothesis. Belief is unnecessary.
Or is this another case of redefining words? In the context of philosophy "belief" always has a very clear meaning, namely what one holds to be true. So, for example, the hypothesis that the physical universe objectively exists is a belief entailed in scientific realism, but not in idealism. You seem to have some knowledge of philosophy, I can hardly imagine you ignoring this basic stuff.
278. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79634 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 2:00 am
Phasmagigas (post 474, or #79138):
True. But also irrelevant. My point above is that there are many things that exist and that one cannot see or touch, so to argue that God does not exist because one cannot see or touch Him/Her makes no sense.Many many things exist that no one has ever seen or touched, for example electrons, numbers, physical laws, time, logic, justice, beauty, other peoples' minds, your own mindbut people dont suppose that those things will send you to heaven or hell or give a person an ABSOLUTE reason for hating homosexuals.
279. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79633 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 1:56 am
Phasmagigas (post 470, or #79134):
If you study some physics you'll see that the last sentence is factually true. For example if you look around you you'll see many colorful things; but even naturalists now agree that there are no actual colorful things in reality.the obvious but by now demonstrably false idea is that objective reality is just how it looks when we look around.actually i can agree with the last sentence, if one was on LSD
280. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79631 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 1:50 am
Phasmagigas (post 468, or #79132):
actually yes, i agree that the initial motivation is the anger etc but the idea that pushes [suicide bombers] into killing action is that belief in god and the afterlife,I think that what pushes them is anger; belief in a recompensing afterlife only makes it easier for them to sacrifice their lives doing it. People clearly do not need belief in God and in the afterlife for killing action, as evidenced by all the murders committed by atheists under Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on.
281. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79629 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 1:43 am
Epeeist (post 467, or #79131):
LOL. But I actually did think about whether I could write an Internet application that simulates the argumentation of the typical naturalist. You know, something like the 1966 Eliza.
282. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79627 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 1:33 am
Phasmagigas (post 466, or #79128):
OK. Phenomenal reality is reality like it seems to you when you look around. Knowledge about phenomenal reality is quite sufficient for buying some cheese (good example :-) You go to the store, point at some piece of cheese, and the good employee there gives it to you. So far so good. Objective reality is what exists out there independently of your or mine opinion, and which produces all that: Does that person in the store actually experience you at all, or does he or she work automatically like a vendor machine does? What is it in the cheese that makes it look yellow to you? Is it possible that you are only dreaming of buying some cheese? Is there some reason why you should pay for the cheese you were just given rather than jump to your car parked in front and drive away (assuming that doing so has no negative repercussions you can see)? These are all questions that cannot be answered just by thinking about phenomenal reality; they pertain to objective reality.Theoretically one can only think about the phenomenal reality one experiences whether in this life or in the afterlife without thinking about what kind of objective reality produces it, but that's only theoretically. In the praxis we all form some idea about how objective reality is; the obvious but by now demonstrably false idea is that objective reality is just how it looks when we look around.can you or somebody else explain just what this means in laymans terms and how could it apply to me say buying a block of cheese at the store...
283. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79621 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 1:17 am
Epeeist (post 465, or 79127):
I only asked you if you agreed with one of the basic premises of TGD. You said you don't have this book at hand, so I copied for you the relevant parts. But you still don't have enough to work on. Ok then.So anyway will you now answer the simple question I asked you in post 378 and clarified in post 424 and this one?You haven't given me enough to work on.
284. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79613 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 12:48 am
Phasmagigas (post 464, or #79126):
I don't know what you mean by "heaven", so I can't answer your question. But I do believe there is an afterlife, in which we all shall continue experiencing (while keeping our own identity and character), and which will continue to be ethically challenging, so it won't be some kind of utterly comfortable place. In other words I don't believe in a static afterlife. Neither do I believe in a personally eternal afterlife. I think that our careers as individual persons will be long but not eternal; at some point we shall cease to exist individually.Hell is just such a stupid idea. I wonder how long it will take for Christianity to outgrow itbut there is a heaven yes?
And before you ask "how can you possibly know all that stuff?": Well I don't know it in the same sense that I know about things I have already experienced. But these beliefs about the future form an integral part of the only ontology that I find makes sense for explaining the whole of my experience of life, so I trust (read have "faith") that I am right in this, and that this will be what we shall all experience after death. We shall see. If I am right we shall all find out soon enough.
285. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79611 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 12:32 am
Philip1978 (post 463, or #79122):
You say "But considering how much better my theistic ontology works than any naturalistic ontology I find that very improbable"Well, all conceptions of reality are made up. Naturalists' concept that objective reality is more or less what we see around us is made up too ( and knowledgeable naturalists concede that objective reality is increasingly less like what we see around us, but never mind). Theists' concept that objective reality is more or less what we see inside of us is made up too of course.
How can you test conceptions of reality, especially the one you are making up?
Or maybe you mean that my own concept of objective reality, namely idealistic theism, is very non main-stream. If so, you are right, it isn't. On the other hand idealistic theism is not something I have personally made up, it's not really my very own discovery. Idealistic theism has a long and rather impressive history.
As for how one can test one's conception of objective reality, the one thing that's clear is that one cannot go out and perform an experiment that positively validates a particular conception of objective reality and falsifies all others. That's why there is so much discussion and so much disagreement, including among naturalists, about how objective reality is. But, as I have argued in the McGrath thread, one can compare different conceptions of objective reality one to one and under the same set of criteria, including some objective criteria, to find out which is more reasonable. I think this is a methodology that all reasonable people would accept as fair. I mean, maybe you think that there is no objective evidence for theism but that there is objective evidence for naturalism? - let's go and see if that's true. Maybe you think that theism is conducive to wicked behavior and naturalism isn't? – let's go and see if that's true. Let's directly compare different ontologies (i.e. conceptions of reality as you put it) one to the other to see which works best.
286. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79608 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 18, 2007 at 12:16 am
Dr Benway (post 459, or #79108):
If we insist upon corroborative evidence as the basis of our social policies, we limit the megalomania of our leaders. We can double-check the claims of our politicos.Sounds good, but I am afraid does not work. Here is why:
First of all in politics some important decisions must be made at the absence of corroborative evidence that is directly applicable. An example that is close to your field of expertise: should the policy of protecting the patents of drugs for AIDS be upheld or weakened? If they are upheld many people in poor countries will die; but the pharmaceutical industry argues that they must be upheld in order for it to recover the billions of dollars it risks in research. So, what corroborative evidence is there for a politician to make a decision, or for us to check whether the politician made a good decision?
Second, what happens when the corroborative evidence points to exactly the wrong direction? Suppose Hitler had corroborative evidence that the survival of the Jews would endanger and gravely harm not only Germany but the entire world. Would that justify the Holocaust? If today we had corroborative evidence that the best thing for the US would be for Israel to disappear and all Jews to leave the area; would that justify the respective US policy?
Third, in the praxis it's not possible to check the corroborative evidence governments present, maybe because it's too complex, or maybe because of reasons of secrecy and national security. The George W Bush administration famously gave some corroborative evidence for its claim that Iraq represented a clear and present danger for the US (including Iraq's nuclear program; remember the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city" imagery?). How do you actually check that super-secret corroborative evidence? Apparently not even US congressmen and senators were in a position to check it. And how do you check the enormously complex corroborative evidence about the changing climate of the Earth?
So it's not as simple as that I am afraid. The only thing we can all safely agree with is that the better the education that people get (indeed education that promotes critical thought) the better they will control their governments. But even modern democracies are failing there. And I don't only mean education at school. It's remarkable how different American media and European media present the same issues, so at least one of them is misguiding and mal-educating the respective population. The problems are deep, and trivializing the issues (religion is at the root of all evil, etc) the way the "new atheists" do is exactly what we don't need.
One of the reasons I'm annoyed that Dianelos constantly calls me a "naturalist", even over my explicit objections, is that in his mind a "naturalist" makes unfounded assertions about the ultimate nature of reality.Usually I call you "Dr Benway" ;-) It's true that I constantly compare naturalism versus theism, which you apparently disapprove of, but I never understood why.
That's not my definition [of naturlism] but it's clearly his, and his sense of the word seems to be hermetically sealed and impervious to modification.As I have often stated, by "naturalism" I mean the ontological belief that the ultimate nature of reality is physical and mechanical. I think that this represents fairly what naturalists do believe about the ultimate nature of reality, and indeed what most atheists in the West believe. I don't recall you having explained exactly what you mean by (ontological) naturalism. Nor do I recall you having explained exactly what you believe is the ultimate nature of reality. And I submit that we all hold some beliefs about how objective reality at bottom is.
We call those things "supernatural" that have no evidence in their favor and also seem to violate natural law.Well you haven't answered my question about the corroborative evidence for the belief that other people are conscious beings, so I assume you don't have any. Would you then call other peoples' mind "supernatural"? Maybe you'd say that other peoples' mind does not seem to violate natural law, but arguably via their free will it does. What's more God (as I understand the concept) does not violate natural law (even though there is an interactive relationship between Him/Her and us, so that's not a deistic God). Would that make God as I understand it not supernatural? Anyway I will agree that "supernatural" is such a vague concept that it is practically useless; I don't use it in my own thought and only use it here because naturalists like to use it so much and I oblige. My working definition of "supernatural" is "anything a naturalist thinks does not exist".
Perhaps Dianelos has no word to distinguish someone like me from his mechanistic naturalist. I define the natural world, which I might call "reality" or "the universe" or "the world" as "everything that exists." God may exist. Heaven may exist. Psi may exist. If any of these things exist, they're part of our reality.Right, but how do we find out whether they do exist? You only say that unless there is corroborative evidence we shouldn't believe that something exists. Again, this sounds good but does not work I think. As we saw there is no corroborative evidence for the belief that other people are conscious beings. There is no corroborative evidence for the belief that the physical universe forms part of reality. There is not even corroborative evidence for the belief that objective reality exists in the first place. And please consider that even though in our personal life beliefs about the people around us play a very important role, these beliefs are not ultimately based on corroborative evidence either. Beyond some point they are based on trust. (Which reminds me of Lennox asking Dawkins whether he believed that his wife was faithful – which even though somehow rude did make a good point: we don't really base beliefs about other persons just on measuring objectively visible things; it's not like that, it goes far beyond that.)
Come to think of it, it seems to me that corroborative evidence is insufficient in all aspects of our life which one may call "creative". It's the creative aspect of politics, and the creative aspect of our personal relationship with other people, that requires of us to transcend the exclusive reliance on corroborative evidence. That's simply how the world is. There comes a point that one has to have faith in order to achieve something that's valuable.
Having said all that, I do agree of course that many theists hold ontological beliefs on blind faith, so they believe any nonsense just because they read it in some holy book or because some holy figure of authority tells them they should believe it. I know that happens, and I know that some people claim that blind faith is a virtue (in fairness thought no mainstream Christian Church does so). But it's all irrelevant to the question at hand, a question I find really interesting, namely the question of how reality ultimately is: Is it ultimately intentional or mechanical, ultimately spiritual or physical, ultimately meaningful or meaningless? Is consciousness contingent on matter, or matter contingent on consciousness? Do our actions have an eternal objective significance or is it all smoke and mirrors? Is there ultimate justice or not? Is objective reality a dynamic and creative process towards a state of ever greater perfection, or is the end of reality the heat death, or the big rip, or maybe an eternally foaming multiverse in which therefore each one of us will exactly re-live this life an infinite number of times in the future? I want to know, and "I dunno" is not good enough for me. I have faith in human cognition to do better than that. And, no, I don't have corroborative evidence for that faith :-)
287. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79548 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Epeeist (post 458, or #79106):
Begging the question - if gods do not exist then why should we distinguish between their various apologists.Obviously, because we don't know whether gods exist or not. And until we actually know which ontological theory is true (and there are many theistic and many naturalistic such theories) it will be meaningful to compare one to the other and check on the evidence that justifies each one of them.
Which analogy doesn't work, as evidenced by the fact that naturalists find it necessary to strenuously postulate some really weird hypotheses (e.g. the multiverse) in order to account for the fine-tuning of physical constants without a designer.(3) The fine-tuning of physical constants points to a designer.Douglas Adams puddle analogy
That a hypothesis is now disproved does not mean that at some time scientists did not believe it was true. At least scientists do not shy away from abandoning a previous belief when a better alternative comes along. We should all emulate them in this.Scientists used to believe that the universe didn't have a beginning (eg the Steady State Theory),Scientists didn't "believe" any such thing. It was one hypothesis about the universe, since disproven.
Mward's argument is somehow vague I agree, but actually follows Dawkins's dictum that we must always ask where things "come from". If by "universe" he means "physical reality" then what he says makes sense. On the other hand I think that your cryptic hand waving adds nothing to the discussion.If the universe is eternal, then indeed there is no need to invoke creator to explain where the universe came from. If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a creator: who must, of course, be eternal - MwardThis is a non-sequitur stemming from a fallacy of bifurcation and your assumption above - Epeeist.
Ditto. I am not sure I agree with Mward's argument above, but it certainly makes sense.So, atheism has made a falsifiable prediction: the universe is eternal. Christianity also made a falsifiable prediction: the universe had a beginning. So, in Popper's philosophy of science, each of these theories are scientific. Which theory was in fact falsified? The atheist theory. So science supports Theism against Atheism here, as with the fine-tuning of physical constants and with the existence and comprehensibility of natural laws.I am sorry, the above has no sense, i.e. it is nonsense.
Now that's nonsense. Let me count the fallacies: 1. Mward does not claim anything for Jesus. 2. The followers of Vishnu are not atheists, so Mward does not claim anything about them either. 3. From the context it's clear that Mward is not referring to Buddhism either, which is a religion which believes in the afterlife in which our actions in this life are rewarded or punished, not to mention in the existence of supernatural beings, and hence can hardly be associated with what we in the West understand as "atheism". 4. The sarcasm and inflammatory language ("raping, pillaging and burning") are inconsequential, and only evidence your avoiding to answer Mward's point. Which incidentally is a point I fully agree with: There is indeed a definite link between naturalism and amorality in practice as well as theory – and this is easy to demonstrate as I have been arguing in this thread: naturalism lacks a logical path away from amoral behavior.But there is a definite link between atheism and amorality in practice as well as theory.So, without Jesus you would be out raping, pillaging and burning just like the rest of us atheists, Buddhists and followers of Vishnu?
I am sick of posting it - but have a look at what was done to the Cathars in Beziers at the instigation of the papal legate then tell me that Christianity is not responsible for violence.That's a good example of the hasty generalization fallacy. But even if you would show that there is also a definite link between Christianity and amorality in practice as well as theory, you wouldn't be falsifying Mward's proposition above.
And remember which entity was responsible for supposedly killing 99.99997% of the human population and virtually 100% of the world's animal and plant population according to your particular holy book. Stalin only managed 0.8% of the world's population in comparison.Are you serious? :-) I mean Stalin really killed these people, and one can reasonably only compare real events with real events.
It's interesting to note how when things get difficult naturalists reflexively go back to pointing out some mythological thing or other that's written in the Bible; I suppose they need to compare their story with the Bible's in order to keep the appearance that their worldview makes better sense than theism.
Your moral absolutes presumably include keeping slaves (but being nice to them) and stoning adulterers. No?See what I mean?
Then morals would seem to have changed since the time of Jesus.Indeed: the moral Zeitgeist has slowly but steadily come closer to Jesus' ethics.
288. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79517 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Dr Benway (post 457, or #79104):
Once you get rid of hell, you're a universalist. Universalists in practice are quite nearly atheists.I am very curious: how would you justify that latter proposition?
But I don't applaud your basis for rejecting hell. Your basis is "I don't like it."No, my basis is "it makes no sense". The idea of hell is incompatible with the fundamental theistic thesis that God is perfect in all respects. No good person (never mind perfect person) would consent to another person being eternally tortured (never mind actually send another person to eternal torture). This much is clear.
289. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79513 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Steve99 (post 456, or #79099):
The term 'evidence-based faith' is meaningless. There is either faith, or evidence.Dawkins in his debate with Lennox agrees with you: for him too faith implies that there is no evidence; if there were evidence one would not use the concept of "faith" he says. But in fact the meaning of "faith" need not imply anything like that. See for example all 4 alternative meanings given by Websters dictionary:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/faith
In fact the meaning of "faith" does not even necessarily entails belief (never mind belief without evidence), but may very well mean trust (alternative #2 in Websters) or loyalty (alternative #4). As Ianmac1 in post 406 points out the meaning of "faith" in the Christian scripture is "trust". "Faith in God" means "trust in God", and not "belief in God", never mind "belief in God without evidence". But naturalists are so clever they know better than theists what they mean.
Actually it's interesting to note how naturalists find necessary or at least expedient to change the meaning of words and insist that their new meaning is the correct one. So apart from "faith" meaning belief without evidence, "atheism" means to lack any belief in gods, "to exist" means to physically exist, "evidence" means objective evidence, "to reason" means to follow the scientific method, "naturalism" means rational thought about reality, "free will" means not to be externally coerced, "ethics" is subjective and means whatever people opine, "consciousness" means a class of physical processes that take place in the brain, the meaning of "God" entails a created God, and so on. The most exotic redefinition I have come across is that "number" too means a class of physical processes that take place in the brain; the particular naturalist I am thinking of insisted that the number pi did not exist before the first person thought of it.
There is plenty of good reason to think that such multiverses do exist, and a range of mechanisms by which they come into existence are known, such as quantum fluctuations or continual inflation.Can you clarify exactly what you are saying here? I know there is plenty of speculation, but to my knowledge the multiverse is not a scientific hypothesis as there is absolutely no objective evidence for it and no objective predictions based on that hypothesis whatsoever.
Modern physics tells us that it is possible that the Universe may not be eternal, but still need not have a 'beginning' as we understand the term.Hmm, maybe it's time to change the meaning of the word "beginning" too, so that the universe may be both eternal and of limited age ;-)
In countries with a higher proportion of atheism, there tends to be less amorality.Sweden in comparison to the US for example? And you think Sweden's atheism is the primary factor for that rather than, say, Sweden's better social services including high quality education for all, or fairer opportunity for all, or better distribution of wealth, and so on?
But nobody ever thought that smelliness is an objective property; but most people including myself strongly believe that at least some ethical precepts are objective. So that's not a good analogy.Without an absolute basis for good and evil, Dawkins cannot even condemn the "evils" of religion, or evil atheists.Not true. This is just word games. To paraphrase one of Dawkins' arguments, we don't need an absolute basis of scent to know that something is smelly.
290. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79360 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 3:55 am
Epeeist (post 454, or #79086):
But then where comes this motiveless anger?That's a good question. I mean if one wants to think about a solution to terrorism it's not sufficient to identify anger (and not religious beliefs) as the prime motivator or causal agency; one must also identify what causes that anger.
I think we can agree that for things like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the causes of the anger are complex and include things like nationalism, poverty, ideology, constraints on freedom and the like.Yes, but you did not mention the foreign occupation, the systematic discrimination against Palestinians (which to their merit serious Israeli organizations such as ACRI and B'Tselem, and even Knesset's project for a new Israeli constitution, explicitly recognize; incidentally much of that discrimination is written in Israeli law with the patent objective to move people out of the place they have lived for generations), and of course the completely one-sided involvement of the West in that conflict. Not to mention the non very subtle efforts of the Israeli government to fan that anger, such as when Israeli prime minister Sharon (incidentally violating one of the greatest Jewish religious taboos) visited the Temple Mount ostensibly "in the name of peace", and thus sparked the Second Intifada.
But I will agree that it's a complex problem, and one where the at best superficial and polarizing and the at worse fallacious kind of thought that characterizes "new atheism" can only make worse.
I think we could also agree that there are a number of power brokers who play the religious card.Indeed. And the most conspicuous example of this is that of one modern Western and democratic nation basically justifying its illegal and for 40 years now continuing occupation and colonizing of the West Bank on the grounds that God has promised the Jewish nation these lands in the Bible – and what's worse, major Western governments including the US's and UK's playing along with that charade, and the peoples of these nations on whose vote these governments depend on at least with their apathy playing along too. And I find it telling that neither Harris nor Dawkins in their books and talks make a major issue of that mother of all "playing the religious card" – they actually let it go fairly unnoticed; they mainly speak of the Muslim suicide bombers and how they are motivated by the promise of the virgins in paradise. Which of course makes for entertaining and self-righteous reading by Western readers, but is also grossly misleading.
But religion is at least part of the problem.True, but irrelevant. When your house is about to be destroyed by a tsunami you don't point out that there is also a problem with its piping. Religious beliefs, where religious beliefs are a problem, do not by far constitute the greatest problem facing humanity today as "The End of Faith" and TGD try to convince us. That's just nonsense, and lately their authors have changed their tune on this issue. Still, you could argue that the Israeli government while itself probably not believing in that nonsense takes advantage of religious beliefs to further its ends. If so, I agree, and here we have an example of religious beliefs being misused to do harm. But then again let's not forget that science too can be misused to do harm. Here we are not facing a failure of religion or of science – but a failure of ethics. Both the democratic governments and the people on whom these governments depend are not doing the right thing. And I suppose the former fail because of short-term political expediency and the latter because of apathy and uncritical thought.
Unfortunately books such a TGD do the opposite of teaching critical thought; rather they glorify superficial thought and are proud of it. That's why I think they will only make the problem worse. Until now we only had superficial and extremist thought on the religious side, but had some careful thought as well as tolerance and moderation characterizing the atheistic side. Not anymore. Now we have superficial, extremist and intolerant thought on the atheistic side too. And many atheists appear to be the happier for it. Great.
291. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79342 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 1:55 am
Epeeist (post 448, or #79044):
Intentionality is a human attribute, but not only a human attribute. Any conscious subject (i.e. any person) has that attribute. According to theists then reality is intentional in the sense that the fundamental cause of all change is personal will, rather than mechanical laws. The mechanical laws we discover in part of our experiential environment are themselves caused by personal will. As you see it's an entirely rational worldview and one completely compatible with science.After all we all have some beliefs about objective reality (the reality that produces our experiences on which we base all knowledge we have), and there is a great disagreement about whether that reality is at bottom material and mechanical (as naturalism has it and as virtually all atheists in the West believe) or is at bottom spiritual and intentional (as theism has it)Why can't intentionality be a human attribute, as proposed by Brentano and Husserl?
292. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79333 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 1:30 am
Alovrin (post 440, or #79004):
Well, let's think about this issue dispassionately and using our own heads. We can all read in the gospels about the ethics that the founder of Christianity taught. He taught about not returning evil, about freely sharing one's material goods, about loving and caring for everybody including our enemies, he taught about being humble and being peacemakers. He taught all-inclusiveness, and in the very caste oriented society of his time made the point of associating himself with the most despised people: Roman occupiers, tax collectors, whores, foreigners, lepers and so on. That was 2000 years ago. In the meantime many people who call themselves Christians, indeed sometimes in the name of Christianity, have done the opposite of what Jesus taught. So? Surely you are not saying that the historical fact that many people did bad things by disobeying Christianity implies that Christianity is bad, do you? Isn't it rather the other way around?So you happen to belong to one more group that was discriminated against in the past for many reasons that are fairly unrelated to religion.It's amazing how some people can just gloss over the past (shall we call them indiscretions?) of their favorite deity and s/he/it's following gaggle of humanoids
"reasons that are fairly unrelated"
WTF
Now compare this to another ethical ideology, Marxism. As Lennox notes in his debate with Dawkins, materialism and atheism are not peripheral or tangential in Marxism, but rather are essential parts of its worldview. And Marxism teaches materialistic utilitarianism and that violence is ethically justified to achieve this end. And it's a historical fact that Marxists have done huge crimes based on that ideology. I am not building a Marxist critique here; this is far too complex an issue. I am only pointing out that it is unreasonable for somebody to criticize Christianity for what people have done contrary to its ethical system, while whitewashing Marxism and its intrinsic atheism for what people have done according, or at least not contrary, to its ethical system.
293. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79326 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 17, 2007 at 12:30 am
Dr Benway (post 438, or #78976):
Yeah, steve99 is such a cry baby. Along with Ayan Hirsi Ali. And that Salman Rushdie guy.Ayan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie come both from privileged backgrounds and have both won fame and wealth and a privileged life in the West (and Ali used lies in her way in because without lying even one of the most liberal countries in the world would probably not have recognized here as a refugee requiring protection), so they are certainly not the best examples one can use to show the evils of religiously inspired discrimination. Religiously inspired discrimination is a serious matter, especially in Muslim countries and especially in the case of women, but in some sense in Christian countries too where women are not allowed to serve God in the same capacity that men can. As far as I know the Anglican Church has never consecrated a female bishop in the UK, so every single woman in the UK has more ground to decry discrimination than Steve. In any case, it seems to me that the two people you mention above while being victims of discrimination made a successful career exploiting it. Whether they can reasonably be called cry-babies I don't know, because I have not read how they have dealt with this issue. For me a cry-baby is somebody who at the face of a great number of people who are in much worse situation makes a big fuss about their own situation. To my judgment an atheist gay man living in Britain today decrying the Aglican Church's discrimination against gays when that Church is one of the most advanced in this issue and when in atheist regimes homosexuals fared much worse – displays a classical case of cry-babyhood.
And those gynecologists working at Planned Parenthood.As it happens I know IPPF pretty well (both in their NY main office as well as in several countries of the continent). They never striked me as cry-babies, they just go out and do some good work.
No. You really don't know enough about the brain. Consciousness and language are largely in the left hemisphere.Really? I thought there is not even good reason to believe that our brain produces consciousness. I have already quoted Sam Harris in his "The End of Faith": "The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it". Harris was trained in both philosophy and neurophysiology, and is a famous atheist to boot, so he speaks with some authority on this issue. And indeed there are good arguments that show that it will never be reasonable to believe that the brain produces our consciousness (let me know if you want me to elaborate on this point). Now I understand that the certainty that consciousness is produced by the brain forms a central part of naturalist mythology. As is the certainty that consciousness does not survive death. But half the expert naturalist philosophers and scientists who were asked whether consciousness survives death by Blackmore in her "Conversations on consciousness" declared their agnosticism on that issue. So, again, it's not as simple as that, and perhaps you should consider the possibility that it's you who does not know enough about these issues.
Note that Dennet says, "both will merit moral attention." Why would unconscious pain merit moral attention, if it doesn't hurt?Many things that are not conscious subjects merit moral attention, for example trees. And indeed most people would agree that even if it could be proven that animals are not conscious subjects but just automata it would not imply that that we would therefore be justified to do anything with them. As most people would agree that to destroy a lifeless planet just for the heck of it would be immoral too. Our sense of morality tells us that consciousness is primary but somehow does not reduce everything else to naught. And it's interesting to think about why that is so. (The theist answer: because everything is God's creation and therefore has a measure of intrinsic value.)
294. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79143 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 9:34 am
BMMcArdle (post 436, or #78936):
Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist.I agree that very probably no physical phenomenon requires the God hypothesis for its explanation. But this is not the same as saying that "the physical universe is no different than if God did not exist", which is a proposition I strongly disagree with and indeed find completely unsustained in reason. Theists argue that the physical universe wouldn't even exist if God didn't exist because God created it. They also argue that if the universe existed undesigned it would not have the physical constants that are necessary for the evolution of life (in other words they claim that God not only designed the universe but actually signed it). I point out that the very objective existence of the universe is not a given but only our experience of it is; and argue that if God didn't exist but only the physical universe did, then there would be no experience of it in the first place.
Now I can understand that you believe on faith in the premise that the universe would be the same whether God exists or not. But many people don't agree with this premise, and hence find vacuous the implication of that premise that therefore it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
295. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79137 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 9:17 am
Lauregon (post 434, or #78929):
Unless you can PROVE the existence of "God," that is, make undeniable and visible and important to all that which has to now been unseen and untouched, your new improved version of theism is merely one more occult authoritarianism.I bet you can't do any of these things for naturalism either: you can't PROVE it, you can't even offer one piece of objective evidence for it, and so on. So that's all irrelevant: it's irrational to ask those who hold different ontological belief than you to do things you can't do either. That's why I think it's best not to analyze ontologies individually but only in comparison to each other.
My disagreement with Dawkins, Harris, et al, is that they make the situation even more dangerous. Why? Because their simpleminded analysis misconstrues the problem and hence is apt to make eliminating that danger less probable. And because fanning anger is very rarely a good idea to solve a problem created by people who are themselves motivated by anger. Evil begets evil; haven't you seen "The Fifth Element"? ;-)Finally I think that religious beliefs are apt to become more dangerous where religion is not seriously taught as schools (as in the US) and where entirely nations are exploited or invaded or their autarchic (which must not be confused with undemocratic) regimes are supported, and their religion ridiculed (as in the Middle East). - DianelosBut not yet dangerous enough, evidently, given your disagreement with Dawkins, Harris, et al. :0
The causal basis of religious dangers is requiring belief in heavenly beings no one has ever seen or touched.Oh, come on Lauregon. Of all the fallacious naturalist mantras this must be the most trivial one. Many many things exist that no one has ever seen or touched, for example electrons, numbers, physical laws, time, logic, justice, beauty, other peoples' minds, your own mind, and so on and so forth. It seems that some naturalists (Dawkins included) imagine that the God hypothesis refers to some big physical thing, which must therefore conform to their classical intuitions about big physical things: one must be able to see or touch God, if God thinks then God must be a complex thing, and so on. Don't you see that's a very primitive way of thinking?
Those interested in thinking about "ontological truth" would be theists, not atheists,When atheists say "no gods exist" they are making an ontological proposition which they believe is true.
296. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79121 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 8:14 am
Epeeist (post 431, or #78914):
I wonder, have actually read TGD? Because if you have you know that Dawkins goes on to say that the probability if low."I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensively: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." - DawkinsI can accept this as the initial bit of an argument, providing that it goes on to say either that the class of such beings is empty or that the probability of such a being existing is low. - Epeeist
So anyway will you now answer the simple question I asked you in post 378 and clarified in post 424 and this one?
297. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79118 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 7:58 am
Lauregon (post 430, or #78912):
Utterly bogus analogy. God is feared, walls aren't. Gods have been feared for eons.Lennox in his debate made clear that he wasn't talking of a created God and he agreed that belief in any created God is a delusion; similarly I am here not talking of a fearsome God. You know, the ones who postulate an ontological hypothesis are the ones who define what they mean. So, again, I am not talking about your understanding of God, or of other peoples' understanding of God (there is a whole menagerie of such hypotheses as there is a whole menagerie of naturalistic hypotheses). I am defending my understanding of God. So feel free to argue against my ontological hypothesis, especially if you can find any argument to show that in some place it does not work as well as your ontological hypothesis, but the constant creating of strawmen is a waste of time.
Incidentally, my point above was that to let one's beliefs affect one's actions cannot be belittled as "acting out of fear"; so the analogy stands anyway.
Says I who define the ontological hypothesis I am willing to defend, especially in comparison to naturalistic ontological hypotheses. As for "factual knowledge" probably you think that naturalism is built on factual knowledge; if so please present one example of it; if not you can't criticize theism for failing to do what naturalism doesn't either.If reality is such that God exists which implies fundamental justice, if our actions in this life have consequences in the next, then for people to avoid doing bad things is as reasonable as for people to avoid bumping into walls. - Dianelos"Implies fundamental justice?" Says who, with what factual knowledge?
Where is the fundamental justice for those who are, for example, maimed and slaughtered in natural disasters, or, for another, born with hideous defects?In the afterlife of course. But if reality is such as naturalists believe, namely one where there is nothing after death, then no justice is possible.
Surely the "God" person itself is not exempt from personal consequences for cataclysms spawned by "God's" personal creation, right? - LauregonThat's a valid point I think. Some theists answer that this explains the suffering of Christ. In other words that in Christ God too suffered His/er creation. Beyond Christianity and its dogma of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ I'd like to answer thus: God is not an extra person out there somewhere; God is the whole of objective reality in which we ourselves exist. So all pain (but also all joy) we feel is felt by God too.
Sure, this deep intuition that I as well as many people share could be wrong. But considering how much better my theistic ontology works than any naturalistic ontology I find that very improbable.(And I submit that we all somehow deep down know that [justice will be] is true.) - DianelosAll things considered, of course you do, but surely that couldn't be a superstition, could it? - Lauregon
298. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79075 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 4:14 am
Phasmagigas (post 429, or #78892):
so the naturalistic belief system can lead to murder, well if what you mean is that real life generally can lead to murder then yes, we all agree on that one, murder for revenge, jealousy, gain, maybe even food but what we dont need is one EXTRA reason under a theistic belief system.In some few cases, indeed in such cases where even fundamentalists claim scripture has been misinterpreted, it is true that theistic belief can become one extra reason. But in all cases naturalism REMOVES one reason for abstaining from doing bad things. It's a fact that by far the worse crimes against humanity in the 20th century have been committed by naturalists, and even though I believe that their naturalism was not the prime motivator, I also believe that the fact that naturalism removes one reason for behaving ethically plays a significant role in explaining that historical fact. In any case a naturalist cannot on the one hand pretend that only objective evidence counts and on the other hand hand-wave away very relevant objective evidence by noting, as Dawkins does, that both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches. It's not as simple as that. Both on conceptual grounds, and as evidenced by statistical studies of individual behavior, and as evidenced by historical fact one can reasonably arrive at the conclusion that naturalism is not conducive to ethical behavior. This is a problem for naturalism. Not a problem for the truth value of naturalism, but for the attractiveness of naturalism.
299. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79071 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 3:57 am
Phasmagigas (post 428, or #78885):
Past death too. Theoretically one can only think about the phenomenal reality one experiences whether in this life or in the afterlife without thinking about what kind of objective reality produces it, but that's only theoretically. In the praxis we all form some idea about how objective reality is; the obvious but by now demonstrably false idea is that objective reality is just how it looks when we look around.Indeed, only some knowledge about phenomenal reality is quite sufficient to get one through life.but not past death eh??
Let's try to keep some sense of proportion here, as losing that sense is a sure sign of losing one's mind to fanaticism: Compare the number of people killed by religious extremists every year with the number of people killed by traffic accidents, or cigarettes, or hunger, or malaria, or cancer. Or falling in their bathtub for that matter. Terrorism is an ugly phenomenon and we should do something about it, but there are far more serious problems out there.Well, incidentally, the same people think that my soul will also suffer eternally because of my ontological beliefs. But I find such is more of a curiosity than actually annoying. I mean who cares what these people think.one would care if that somebody felt that it justified killing you (or another ) for it.
Well, my church happens to be Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and at least in its popular expression does believe that only it has gotten it right and that everybody else is going to hell. But I believe that it is dead wrong in its dogma about hell in the first place. Actually, as far as I am concerned, the dogma of hell is the single greatest mistake of traditional Christianity, one I am happy to note not all Christian denominations, and of course not all philosophers, commit. Hell is just such a stupid idea. I wonder how long it will take for Christianity to outgrow it.:-) Right, it's funny to consider all the many a theistic sects which teach that only they have gotten it right and that everybody else is going to hell.its bloody hysterical. BTW, you are in the right one yes?
300. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #79067 by Dianelos Georgoudis on October 16, 2007 at 3:16 am
Phasmagigas (post 427, or #78881):
OK, let's think about what the main motivator is for suicide bombers blowing themselves up in the midst of civilians. You bet that the main motivator is their belief in God who will reward their actions, and I bet that the main motivator is anger born out of a sense of national injustice and humiliation.Nobody has done such and thought 'this is because there is God' eitherlets get technical, maybe they didnt actually think those very particular 6 words but you can bet their belief in god was very much at the forefront of why the murder was committed. [snip] im talking about the main motivator in the psyche of the murderer IS god,
How could we find out who is right? Well, a professional psychologist who is an expert on terrorists' minds would help, only I assume we don't have any such poster in this forum. But we may try out the following thought experiment: Let's take a terrorist T who is planning to commit such an act and let's suppose that you and I can actually change T's mind and remove one or the other motivator. So T1 is the same person with all the anger still there, but with all belief of heavenly reward excised from his or her mind. Contrasted to this T2 is the same person with the same beliefs in God and in heavenly rewards for terrorist acts, but with all anger excised from his or her mind. Who do you think is more probable to commit the terrorist attack, T1 or T2?
I think the correct answer is T1, namely the person who lacks any beliefs in heavenly reward but who has still all the anger. And I don't claim this only because of my folk opinion of how human minds work, but on objective evidence too: There are many people like T2 (namely people who have the same religious beliefs as T has but not the nationalist anger) and they do not commit terrorist acts. On the other hand there are some people like T1 (namely people who lack the belief in a God who approves and will reward them but have the nationalist anger) who do commit suicide bombings, for example the Kamikazi pilots in WWII. Or people who commit terrible acts directed against civilians, such as the atheist Peruvian "Shining Path" terrorists. Or, frankly, the British pilots who firebombed German cities, or the American pilots who firebombed Japanese cities and finally dropped atomic bombs on two of them, all of them knowing that they were murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
It's common knowledge that anger can move people to do some terrible acts while feeling they are doing the right thing. Belief in some heavenly reward certainly helps, but is clearly not the main motivator behind the acts of terrorists. Anger is. And if the West were serious about winning the "war against terror" it would remove the grounds for that anger in the Middle East. Which implies that Harris and Dawkins writing best-selling books based on the trivially wrong idea that it's religious beliefs that move people to terrorism is misguided - and therefore dangerous too. Why dangerous? Because if some day terrorists do manage to get some nuclear device and explode it in some US metropolis (an unlikely but possible event) then those who misrepresented the problem out of their dislike of religion will be partially responsible too. Harris and Dawkins may not be aware of it, but they are playing into the hands of the most reactionary parts of the US government who must be happy to see that not only the Christian fundamentalist loonies but now even secular academics with a large following approve the premise that anti-American terrorism is the fault of Islam.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13