god is a genesis of stupidity

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Comments

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Well, I am a 6.9 as well. Maybe a 6.8.

And so I assumed you were saying they were not atheists because, more or less, I agree with them on the likelihood of a God, as well as our human fallibility when considering it. I am in as much disagreement with the existence of God as Dawkins or Hitchens is--and yet you called me an agnostic, because I (like Dawkins and Hitchens, when you delve into them) acknowledge the metaphysical impossibility of being "sure" of virtually anything (again, aside from self-referential comments)

Dawkins (and Hitchens) have in videos I've watched quite explicitly said that the question of if religion is useful is absolutely NOT the conversation they are interested in having.

Something false can be very useful. Dawkins/Hitchens are intent on arguing about the truth (or falsehood) of the concept that God exists. Sam Harris is slightly more open to the pragmatic side of the religious experience--but Hitchens/Dawkins are frankly not very interested in that. They are happy to bring up counter-examples of the evils religion does, although that often hurts their case cause it becomes a "which pile is bigger? the pile of good or pile of evil?" debate. But Hitchens quickly points out when his religious opponent changes the argument from: "I know God exists, and here is why" to "I know God exists, look at all the good religious people do!"

Cause the former is interesting, the later is not. (IMO)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

OK. A 6.8 or a 6.9 is to me saying "I'm sure, but I'm aware that certainty is a silly thing". I think you have a level of certainty that can't be maintained without positive proof. You're not 100% because of human fallibility, not because of any of the evidence on the topic at hand. Is there anything you are 100% certain of?

Dawkins likes to pretend he's not being anti-religious when he's called on it, but if he's not interested in having the conversation, why did he make a documentary called "The Root Of All Evil" in which the premise is that humanity would be better off without religion; that's not a counter example, that's making a direct point. That right there is why I don't like the bloke (amongst many other reasons). He says one thing to one crowd, and another to another. What Dawkins you get depends on who he's speaking to. For a man who criticises religion he has a massive amount of internal cognitive dissonance.

Dawkins says he wants to have the conversation "I know God exists, and here is why", but then he's unwilling to accept any evidence that is put forward. However, when asked to put evidence forward himself he says that he doesn't have to. Well, sorry, if you're going to tell someone they are *wrong*, then you need some evidence of that. So it's not so much that he has to prove god doesn't exist, but he has to prove that people who believe god does exist are wrong. And that can not be done.

Dawkins is intolerant of other beliefs. He absolutely believes he is right (allowing for the small possibility that *everyone* is wrong). He is happy to cherry pick data, move goal posts and behave in character assassination of his opponents. He is a fundamentalist.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Quite the unsubstantiated list of flaws you've attributed to the old biologist.

The assertions he makes about evolution are well substantiated. Moreso than any ID and creationist proponent.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I don't think they're at all unsubstantiated, and I think his work on genetics and evolution is great. However, for a biologist, he makes a woeful philosopher. Here's a excellent critique (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/) of The God Delusion that every pro-Dawkins should read which I believe answers all of the claims you feel are unsubstantiated without me having to write you an essay.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I'll check it out in between jobs today or tonight.

"Scientists’ interest in religion seems to come in waves"

Evolutionary biology is one of those fields that the religious proactively attack and undermine. The tone of the first sentence seems to ignore this.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

That's true, but keep in mind the author of the article is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. That's why I turn to him as a responder to Dawkins.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I exist is about the only thing I am 100% certain of--that and the current moment how I feel. But the world could be six seconds old, and just really vivid memories are implanted.

I disagree with your assessment that I need positive proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When such evidence is lacking, it is completely justified to believe that such claims are bogus.

And no, Dawkins does *not* need to offer evidence as to why God does not exist. All he needs to do is sufficiently undermine any argument put forth that God does exist. The default for "does X exist?" is No. Until evidence is provided, it is perfectly reasonable to deny the existence of something.

I cannot imagine how you came to conclude: "Well, sorry, if you're going to tell someone they are *wrong*, then you need some evidence of that. "

That's nonsense of the worst variety. I thought you understood how the burden of proof worked. What happened?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I exist is about the only thing I am 100% certain of--that and the current moment how I feel. But the world could be six seconds old, and just really vivid memories are implanted

This implies you're absolutely certain of what consciousness is. Please elaborate as myself and 2500 years of philosophers have been wondering ;)

You're doing the same circle that Dawkins does; you're refusing to accept any proof as valid evidence of god (miracles, personal revelation, biblical texts and the like) and then saying you don't need evidence for your position. I understand perfectly how the burdon of proof works; if you want to make a knowledge claim you need to have some evidence of that. I'm quite happy for you to believe god doesn't exist (I agree with you), my problem is that you claim you know this.

You're making the classic problem of induction. There has been no evidence of god, so there is no god. All swans we have seen are white, therefore there are no non-white swans.

By saying "there is no god" you're making a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require justification and a lack of evidence is not evidence. I'm quite happy for you to say "it would seem likely there is no god" or "it is probable there is no god", but this whole "I'm 6.9/7" is, in my opinion, just weasel words to avoid being trapped in making absolute statements. However, I can live with that, even if I think you're being intellectually dishonest and anti-scientific.

What I don't accept, however, is telling someone who believes in god that they are wrong when you have zero evidence of that. There is a possibility that god isn't revealing itself to you because you lack faith. It's remote, sure, and there's plenty of intellectual arguments against it, but there is no *evidence* for such a claim.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

you're refusing to accept any proof as valid evidence of god (miracles, personal revelation, biblical texts and the like)

Those things are not evidence, and certainly not proof.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

They aren't to you, but for many epistemological systems they are both. If you're going to fall back on the scientific method for what counts as proof and evidence then you have to be willing to accept you have neither for your position. You're doing a Dawkins, not holding yourself up to the same standards you hold others to.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

They aren't to you, but for many epistemological systems they are both.

Those systems can't produce a working pair of glasses. Being useful is important.

you have to be willing to accept you have neither for your position.

Which is fine, since I don't need any to say that there isn't a teapot. Again, that which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you have none, then its just imagination.

You're doing a Dawkins, not holding yourself up to the same standards you hold others to.

Right. I'll just have to live with that! When someone shows me evidence of their deity, then I'll believe in it.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing that you should believe in a deity, there's no evidence for that so it would be stupid. You're making a knowledge claim about the lack of a deity, and I'm arguing that you have insufficient evidence to make that claim. One either has to say that they do not have knowledge, but a belief, or that the question is outside the realm of knowledge and therefore not a question.

If you claim you "know" there is not deity, then you have all the same problems as someone who claims they "know" there is. That is, that you are making knowledge claims without evidence.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You seem to be missing the point; I'm not arguing that you should believe in a deity, there's no evidence for that so it would be stupid.

I'll believe it when I see it.

If you claim you "know" there is not deity, then you have all the same problems as someone who claims they "know" there is. That is, that you are making knowledge claims without evidence.

I know that there is no objectively known deity. All claims to date lacked objective evidence. There is a theme.

I can dismiss without evidence that which was asserted without evidence. As soon as they get some evidence, this is no longer true. The subjective nature of our perceptions of reality demands no less. We would not be able to make a pair of glasses without accepting our vision is flawed.

"I can imagine quite a lot" - han solo

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Right, I have no problem with any of that, I just don't see how the conclusion can be reached that you know there isn't a deity. All you know is that all current knowledge claims of a deity are false. You're right to be putting the burden of proof on them, but in the meantime the question to you should be irrelevant, not something you have a knowledge claim of.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

A lot of shit has been thrown against the wall, but nothing has stuck. My conclusion is its a slippery wall.

When they attack evolution, science, healthcare, politics, etc., its difficult to see it as irrelevant.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

That's a sociological problem, not epistemological. The reality or not of their god makes no difference to their actions in the name of said god.

It's important that you realise I'm not defending the religious here.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Why is it important? What happens if I don't accept the possibility of a deity, worst case scenario?

I've acknowledged that I will accept their assertion when its accompanied by evidence. That is more than we are granted.

Defending the epistemological possibility of God seems irrelevant and likely perpetuating those sociological issues.

Catholic church came out in support of exorcisms the other day. I can't say they're epistemological wrong, right? I can only say the actions of witch burning are wrong, not the reasoning behind it?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I'm not defending the epistemological possibility of a God; I'm critiquing the epistemological flaws in your own position. This is what so many atheists don't get. Your own knowledge claims have precisely fuck all to do with the position of other people. When criticised for calling their belief "knowledge" they come back with comments about religious people. Those comments are all completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what *you* are claiming to know, and I'm saying that I don't think that you have sound reasons for claiming knowledge of a fact that cannot be even close to be proven. You have a belief, not knowledge. Claiming you have knowledge of a lack of a deity undermines all of the knowledge we have gained from the scientific method. "Evolution is just a theory", uh yeah, but you're misunderstanding the word "theory". It's the same thing.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I'm critiquing the epistemological flaws in your own position

But that's just it. I don't have a position to critique. I don't have a belief to assert. None.

I'm not claiming to know anything other than the assertion that God exists isn't supported by any demonstrable evidence and therefore not a useful assertion. Its as useful as the flying teapot, which is to say not useful. And often harmful.

I'm failing to see the harm in this position that concerns you.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

You've jumped into a conversation about whether or not atheism requires belief. I'm sorry if I've applied that to you, I didn't notice that the person I was talking to changed.

I agree with your position as stated above completely.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Cool. I'm still curious of the harm of other position. Perhaps there was an example you had in mind of what can happen. Sincerely curious.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It's pseudoscience. I'm sure you're well aware of the harm that can cause.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Ill be measuring results and suddendly Ill realize I forgot to consider that magic is real.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

My experience is that the Dawkins school of atheism usually sits more on the right than the left.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

How does that relate?