The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins

[fearisthekey]

Not going to church is a serious mistake, especially for poker players. By your 30's, women outnumber men in churches by 3:1, this is the only way I can compensate for the atrocious lack of females in your average live poker circuit.

Yeah but church-going women don't put out...

WRONG, so very very wrong

*what 'Flying Pig' said*

[Tragic]

Alot of people fail to remember that for all its faults, alot of the moral laws on which society and justice are based today have grown up around religion, the ten commandments are early writings of how humans should behave towards one another, etcetera. Certianly it is pretty obsolete in modern society, though people who genuinely draw happiness from it should be allowed to do so, whatever modern "atheists" think about it's dangers. I've read the End of Faith and thought it was highly thought provoking, but I think some of the views that religion must be got rid of ASAP is rather hurried and idealistic, without giving much thought to how this would happen or the consequences, pretty unusual from the school of realism. Agnostic is a far better term to use by the way, atheism is a huge profession of believing something nobody is really intelligent enough to have any idea about, nor most likely ever will be. Many facets of religion can be disproved by science, the boundaries of our science are limited and cannot explain everything, we are too ignorant. That said I'm going to read Dawkins because you've piqued my interest, it all sounds rather one sided though, try "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis for the other point of view before we all jump head first into professions of beliefs that only really succeed in undermining others. By the way this is not an attack on atheists or the views previously expressed, I would however love to know how you think you can jump to conclusions about the existence of supreme beings when using science as your basis which still falls rather short in explaining much about the universe.

[CelticGeezeer]

Faith.

[fearisthekey]

People do not so much have a desire to *know* as much as a desire to *just have answers*. While science cannot answer everything, it does not therefore follow that we can fill in the gaps with stuff we just make up.

That is a really really good post, tragic, and I will ponder on what you have said, I think much of it is true. I do not believe in the judeo-christian god, but neither do I believe in the type of 'universe' that Dawkins/Bertrand Russell ultimately believe in: a universe, without mystery or cause or goal, that is just 'there', from which life emerged certainly at random. If this IS the universe, I'd rather be deluded! Dawkins wrote a couple of books that tried to rescue his project from being perceived as 'nihilism': "the purpose of our lives is the purpose we each give them.' **** off, pal. That's no kind of purpose. You know fine well what we mean by purpose, humans of every age and civilization have had this bug in their head to extrapolate from the here and now to the Here and Now, don't try and cheapen that urge by saying we can just elastoplast it with some self-made 'purpose'. Unlike Dawkins, this gripe I have with him is the same gripe I have with modern religions: I don't reject modern religions because I reject their questions (who are We, where are we From, why are We, where are We going?), I just think they are all ultimately say 'We don't think We can ever find out, so let's drug ourselves with this incense and bullshit faith meantime'.
Actually, science (like cosmogeny and quantum physics) already hint that the universe/Universe may be far more weird than we ever imagined, so I'm pinning my hopes on there being some answers through that door....

[AndrewT]

Alot of people fail to remember that for all its faults, alot of the moral laws on which society and justice are based today have grown up around religion, the ten commandments are early writings of how humans should behave towards one another, etcetera. Certianly it is pretty obsolete in modern society, though people who genuinely draw happiness from it should be allowed to do so, whatever modern "atheists" think about it's dangers. I've read the End of Faith and thought it was highly thought provoking, but I think some of the views that religion must be got rid of ASAP is rather hurried and idealistic, without giving much thought to how this would happen or the consequences, pretty unusual from the school of realism. Agnostic is a far better term to use by the way, atheism is a huge profession of believing something nobody is really intelligent enough to have any idea about, nor most likely ever will be. Many facets of religion can be disproved by science, the boundaries of our science are limited and cannot explain everything, we are too ignorant. That said I'm going to read Dawkins because you've piqued my interest, it all sounds rather one sided though, try "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis for the other point of view before we all jump head first into professions of beliefs that only really succeed in undermining others. By the way this is not an attack on atheists or the views previously expressed, I would however love to know how you think you can jump to conclusions about the existence of supreme beings when using science as your basis which still falls rather short in explaining much about the universe.

Dawkins deals with all these points in his book - I'm not going to spoil your read by countering them here.

As for being 'one sided', well, sometimes something is completely and utterly wrong. I bet you don't read a maths textbook and say 'It seems a bit one sided with its insistence on 2+2=4. I think I'll read a book which offers a different opinion'.

[FlyingPig]

Thats a bit unfair  ,,,, 2+2=4... That will always be, but how many times has science got it wrong,,,, It is forever continually getting thigs wrong...

[AndrewT]

Thats a bit unfair  ,,,, 2+2=4... That will always be, but how many times has science got it wrong,,,, It is forever continually getting thigs wrong...

That is precisely the point. Science does gets things wrong, but admits its errors and always seeks improvement. Scientists never try to prove theories correct (as that is impossible). They try to prove that they are wrong, and if a theory continually fails to be proved wrong, then it is a good indicator that there's something to it.

When Rutherford conducted an experiment which showed that there was an internal structure to an atom, he didn't think 'All this evidence I have collected must be wrong, because Democritus said the atom was indivisible back over 2000 years ago. It says so in this book I've got in my library'.

When religion is able to be tested scientifically, it fails. An experiment was conducted to find out if praying for sick people helped them get better. It was a double-blind experiment, under strict conditions, and the results showed there was no difference between the health of someone who had been prayed for and the health of someone who hadn't.

Science doesn't offer all the answers, but religion offers none.

[fearisthekey]

Thats a bit unfair  ,,,, 2+2=4... That will always be, but how many times has science got it wrong,,,, It is forever continually getting thigs wrong...

It did get some things wrong. What alternative type of enquiry would you recommend?

[FlyingPig]

Thats a bit unfair  ,,,, 2+2=4... That will always be, but how many times has science got it wrong,,,, It is forever continually getting thigs wrong...

That is precisely the point. Science does gets things wrong, but admits its errors and always seeks improvement. Scientists never try to prove theories correct (as that is impossible). They try to prove that they are wrong, and if a theory continually fails to be proved wrong, then it is a good indicator that there's something to it.

When Rutherford conducted an experiment which showed that there was an internal structure to an atom, he didn't think 'All this evidence I have collected must be wrong, because Democritus said the atom was indivisible back over 2000 years ago. It says so in this book I've got in my library'.

When religion is able to be tested scientifically, it fails. An experiment was conducted to find out if praying for sick people helped them get better. It was a double-blind experiment, under strict conditions, and the results showed there was no difference between the health of someone who had been prayed for and the health of someone who hadn't.

Science doesn't offer all the answers, but religion offers none.

Somethings are above explanation...Somethings do not require investigation....

When science thinks it has the answers, it finds a million more questions...Science cannot defintively say there is no God....It can question the existence yes, but cannot and should not dismiss it....

[AndrewT]

Somethings are above explanation...Somethings do not require investigation....

When science thinks it has the answers, it finds a million more questions...Science cannot defintively say there is no God....It can question the existence yes, but cannot and should not dismiss it....

Continue to live in the dark ages.

[FlyingPig]

Did you get married in a church? Will you have your children Christened? Will you have your children make holy communion and confirmation?

Did you yourself go through any of these experiences?

[Tragic]

Religion does not offer no answers, because religion is not the same as science, they are not *currently* designed to achieve the same ends. You cannot argue that in many cases religion provides solace, spiritual fulfilment, call it what you will, some people find happiness in life because of religion, this is unquestionably a good thing. Science itself by its own negative nature has failed to provide any serious replacement for meeting these needs some humans have. Serious religion evolved a long time before serious science as we know it today, sadly religion is overly fixated with its roots and therefore has failed to evolve in quite the same way as science. However many enlightened religious people now appreciate evolution, and do not look to take to bible as the inerrant word of God; religion, despite in many cases being constrained by ultraconservatism, has itself evolved. I agree there may be a limit to this evolution, just as there may be to our own. Harris used this example: "Chemistry was not an "alternative" to alchemy; it was a wholesale exchange of ignorance at its most rococo for genuine knowledge. We will find that, as with alchemy, to speak of 'alternatives' to religious faith is to miss the point."
He soon goes on in his book that one day science will provide a new less obsolete way of providing spiritual fulfilment? Sounds like a modern alternative to me...
Science does not keep people happy, nobody can go to sleep at night relieved because 2+2=4 and therefore everything is O.K. Science is a structural part of human evolution, just as religion has been, while one may be becoming ever more prevalent and important, until satisfactory replacement for the benefits religion provides to many communities has been found in the realms of science, it will continue to have its uses. Science isn't exactly infallible either. Religion is not the only cause of violence in the modern world, but everyone is using explosives...

[fearisthekey]

we got a live one

 

[AndrewT]

Did you get married in a church? Will you have your children Christened? Will you have your children make holy communion and confirmation?

Did you yourself go through any of these experiences?

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

I am from a Catholic background and was christened and had communion, but I didn't really get a say in any of that. At five weeks old I wasn't able to fully weigh up whether I wanted to be baptised.

What's your point?

[AndrewT]

Tragic, religion is simply humanaity's security blanket. Something which provided comfort when we were new in the world but something which is to be discarded as we grow up.

We have now grown up.

Whilst you may use your religion as something harmless to help you sleep at night, others use it to spread hatred, subjugate women, inhibit free thought and scientific progress and further their own selfish aims.