tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7289823997759610962..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Dawkins vs Lennox: Has Science Buried God?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14986575035736804332013-04-09T14:37:58.646-04:002013-04-09T14:37:58.646-04:00Though Dawkins made one or two successful defenses...Though Dawkins made one or two successful defenses in the two debates, IMO he lost overall.<br /><br />1. Lennox convincingly made the case for *a Creator*, not a specific god - which was accepted by Dawkins.<br /><br />2. Lennox successfully defended against Dawkin's charge that miracles are unscientific. He explained that the whole point of miracles was for God to do something that was not ordinary, and that this was consistent with what a Creator of the universe could do. This does not mean that miracles are normal, or that when you do an experiment a miracle could randomly happen. <br /><br />3. Lennox then used the historical account of Jesus to tie the general god to the specific Christian God. His points were two-fold: 1) Historians believe that Jesus did exist (as a man). 2) The people of that age testify that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by doing miracles. Together with the explosive growth of Christianity that followed, and a worldview that explains why morality is important and that justice is guaranteed, these provide sufficient evidences (not proofs) for a Christian scientist to accept this worldview.<br /><br />4. Dawkins was not able to defend against Lennox's charge that atheism lacks Ultimate Justice. Dawkins did rightly protest that this does not make theism true. But he thus lost on the morality/justice point.<br /><br />5. Lennox not only successfully defended, but counter-attacked Dawkins when he claimed that the world would be better off without religion. He showed the objective, undisputed record of atheistic governments to be worse than the excesses of religion. Dawkins did attempt to counter by saying that the Atheist leaders did not commit their crimes because of their atheistic beliefs, but that was a failed defense, since the obvious response was that the Atheist leaders committed their crimes because they believed that the universe lacked Ultimate Justice (already pointed out by Lennox). This is, in fact, what Atheists believe - that the universe lacks any final justice, and death is the end.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07608684938545640015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7581804753850587712013-02-11T07:41:14.387-05:002013-02-11T07:41:14.387-05:00I can accept that well enough. God is not the prob...I can accept that well enough. God is not the problem. It is the belief by some that they know things about this god (which I would loosely call regligion) that is the problem. I suppose the difficulty lies in believing in god while accepting you can know nothing about this god, even whether it actually exists. The normal course of events is that belief in god is automatically attended by false knowledge about this god, including its curiously human-like motivations.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63196715913361604402013-02-11T05:11:31.955-05:002013-02-11T05:11:31.955-05:00Belief in god is not a determining factor in any s...Belief in god is not a determining factor in any specific action because for every person that believes and does X there are billions that believe and do Y; X and Y between incompatible or contradictory.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59307559206662838752013-02-10T21:22:04.137-05:002013-02-10T21:22:04.137-05:00Flying a plane into a building is an action that i...<i>Flying a plane into a building is an action that in all likelihood maximizes unhappiness.</i> <br /><br />Yes. But here you are happy to temporarily forget the role of belief. While beliefs are not the only motivators of action, they are substantial ones. <br /> <br />We might suspect that neither a bad mood nor habit (for purely physical reasons) are major motivating factors toward atomization of self and others. What do such individuals believe will happen next? And what was their evidence? Does it matter if their was none? Might they have attained maximal happiness? <br />Let the terminal hermit or last person on earth maximize what they wish, but encountering one other being (human or otherwise) should change all that. <br /> SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86242628966364799622013-02-10T12:16:21.776-05:002013-02-10T12:16:21.776-05:00Proclaiming something is an action not a belief. V...Proclaiming something is an action not a belief. Voting, campaiging, preaching... all actions. Beliefs are emotional realtions between minds and ideas.<br /><br />The fact that belief in god does not imply specific courses of action is easily shown by two opposing courses of action are usually chosen by two different persons, both of whom believe in god.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36292791873051065152013-02-10T12:02:33.003-05:002013-02-10T12:02:33.003-05:00There is no confusion as "belief in god"...There is no confusion as "belief in god" necessarily entails "act[ing] in certain ways".<br /><br />If godbots did not allow their beliefs to inform their actions then there would be no discussion, for the same reason that we don't typically engage in discussions about people who believe in leprechauns or that Elvis still walks among us, namely their beliefs are not translated into any meaningful sorts of actions in the public sphere and as long as they don't inject their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas then I don't care what their beliefs are.<br /><br />Sadly this is not the case when it comes to religion, for some reason batshit crazy godbots are considered to be exempt from the criticism that would be levelled at any other Obama birther, 9/11 conspiracy theorist or AGW denier.<br /><br />Would you make the same case for someone who publicly proclaimed that global warming was a lie ? <br /><br />As long as it makes them happy then what is the harm ?<br /><br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8721527349897912872013-02-10T10:58:14.497-05:002013-02-10T10:58:14.497-05:00Steve oberski, please don't confuse the statem...Steve oberski, please don't confuse the statement that belief in god is justified because it maximizes happines in a particular beliver with the very different statement that some people believe they will be happier in the distant future if they act in certain ways. Their actions have nothing to do with belief in god. There are believers who are pro-abortion and believers who are against. Belief in god is unrelated to their position on abortion.<br /><br />I will entreat you for the last time: either answer my actual arguments or else start your own discussion. If you don't known what maximization of happiness means, please look it up.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38453464339581561742013-02-10T08:40:13.474-05:002013-02-10T08:40:13.474-05:00That is obvious nonsense.
People fly planes into ...That is obvious nonsense.<br /><br />People fly planes into buildings, bomb abortion clinics, stone women to death, deny homosexuals equal treatment under the law precisely because they believe that their happiness will be maximized in some sort of un-evidenced afterlife as promulgated via fairy tales and that socially sanctioned form of child abuse called religious education.steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55342812151805576822013-02-10T08:07:15.960-05:002013-02-10T08:07:15.960-05:00"Your problem is that view maximum happiness ..."Your problem is that view maximum happiness as all flowers and bluebirds singing. But for some it is exterminating whole populations and flying planes into buildings. When truth is abandoned, pretty flowers are made just for you and fireballs are the will of god."<br /><br />You should distinguish between beliefs that maximize happiness and don't affect anything else (like belief in god) and actions that affect other people. <br /><br />Actions are sometimes affected by beliefs, but to a very small degree (other psychological factors like volition, habit, mood, etc, play a much larger role). <br /><br />Flying a plane into a building is an action that in all likelihood maximizes unhappiness. This action in particular is completely unrelated to belief in god, as seem by the fact that all but some few dozen of believers (out of billions) ever pursued such an action.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82084259750225735972013-02-10T07:52:19.980-05:002013-02-10T07:52:19.980-05:00@Miller
The point is that the implications don'...@Miller<br />The point is that the implications don't really exist, so it's not that they don't have those implications for me, it's that they don't have those implications full stop. Thus when Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking etc, are making their pseudoscientific pronouncements - you know the ones, they're the ones that have never been peer-reviewed - they're talking out their religio-political arse and even people who share their religio-political views should have the balls to tell them to stop.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82984410855992588982013-02-10T07:20:00.738-05:002013-02-10T07:20:00.738-05:00My point was that science doesn't actually hav...<i>My point was that science doesn't actually have the implications crackpots like you think it does, so to say some people find science's implications uncomfortable is simply to assume that science has those implications when it patently doesn't.</i><br /><br />Science did not lead me to atheism, so the connection is not particularly strong prima facie. But <i>clearly</i> some people find those implications uncomfortable. The anti-evolutionary cackle-fest is led almost entirely by the religious, so I can't help but encounter that connection everywhere I go. If the science doesn't have those implications for you ... brilliant! Nothing to moan about, then. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-721287585971201072013-02-10T07:17:02.165-05:002013-02-10T07:17:02.165-05:00Allan, 'nary a peep' from me? C'mon, o...Allan, 'nary a peep' from me? C'mon, on this site do you think there are not already plenty of people ready to jump on Luther's comments? ;)<br /> It just isn't my nature to join pile-ons. I agree with some of what Luther writes, certainly not all. Some of what nearly everyone here writes, hardly all. And I know that there are some here who dislike nearly everything I post here. I don't care; I have my own reasons for posting here, and that is hardly to make friends, and even less so to join a rah-rah crowd. But I am extremely pleased that there are a few fine fellows here, such as yourself, who I can have very civil discourse with.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16587058019267269352013-02-10T07:09:02.836-05:002013-02-10T07:09:02.836-05:00@Miller
Just because you agree with science and yo...@Miller<br />Just because you agree with science and you think God doesn't exist doesn't mean you need illicitly connect the two. For example, you may very well agree with science and you may very well support the Baltimore Ravens but you shouldn't pretend that science says people should support the Ravens. And even if you are stupid enough to think that, there should be enough scientists who are not that stupid and who are brave enough to call you on it. Otherwise, if you keep it up, and nobody within the scientific community has the balls to speak out, then, imo, science will continue to suffer. Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86456569453081907572013-02-10T07:00:54.441-05:002013-02-10T07:00:54.441-05:00@Andy
That's exactly what I was referring to. ...@Andy<br />That's exactly what I was referring to. A good example being Krauss' ridiculous claim that we're all just pollution. The argument, if one can call it that, seeming to be that because stuff only makes up a small percentage of the total, it is pollution. That would be like saying people's brains pollute their bodies, or the ink Shakespeare used polluted the paper he wrote on. Obvious nonsense, and yet very few scientists will stand up and admit he's talking out his arse.<br /><br />@Miller<br />My point was that science doesn't actually have the implications crackpots like you think it does, so to say some people find science's implications uncomfortable is simply to assume that science has those implications when it patently doesn't.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75859751122178065702013-02-10T06:50:07.409-05:002013-02-10T06:50:07.409-05:00Andy, just to note, we cross-posted; I wasn't ...Andy, just to note, we cross-posted; I wasn't aware of your response when I hit 'publish'. <br /><br />But ... I can only speak for myself. You want people to rise up and 'shush' the militants, despite the fact that we may agree with them on<br />a) the science <br />b) the no-God thing. <br /><br />So what's to attack? Tone?<br /><br />I do cringe a bit when I see some of what is written. But I don't make it my mission to go after everyone I see taking a swipe. You side with Luther, yet he soon slips into that familiarly unpleasant mode with nary a peep from you. Tu quoque, I know, but hey. <br /><br />I cringe even more when I see some of the internet's uber-berks attempting to argue science with scientists. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7179935592843271052013-02-10T06:37:14.832-05:002013-02-10T06:37:14.832-05:00Allan, I take Luther to be referring to the look-w...Allan, I take Luther to be referring to the look-we-killed-god crowd. <br />Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, Myers, Coyne, etc. and oh, a guy who runs a blog I frequent.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40393665983455185552013-02-10T06:34:09.364-05:002013-02-10T06:34:09.364-05:00In precisely the same way I would argue that spiri...In precisely the same way I would argue that spirituality needs to be 'rescued', in a sense, from dogmatic organized religio-political groups, and all other groups or individuals that want to (mis)use it as an instrument of repression or control.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70978389548151836752013-02-10T06:33:50.295-05:002013-02-10T06:33:50.295-05:00I'd no idea people had to tiptoe around your d...I'd no idea people had to tiptoe around your delicate sensibilities in order to make science more palatable to those who find some of its implications uncomfortable. You think pseudoscience (eg: ID) a good answer to 'pseudoscientific anti-religious claims'? Takes all sorts. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55538267081120848352013-02-10T06:28:00.398-05:002013-02-10T06:28:00.398-05:00agree with Luther. Science needs to be 'rescue...agree with Luther. Science needs to be 'rescued', in a sense, from the so called 'skeptic movement', the 'gnu atheists' and all other groups or individuals that want to (mis)use it as a god-swatter.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18798070674756447872013-02-10T06:14:54.318-05:002013-02-10T06:14:54.318-05:00@Miller
It would probably help if politically/ideo...@Miller<br />It would probably help if politically/ideologically motivated scientists stopped making ludicrous pseudoscientific anti-religious claims and pretending they just fell straight out of the science. It would also help if more scientists were willing to stand up and speak out against those particular types of pronouncements. Sadly, however, while the former appears to be on the increase the latter appears to be on the decrease. That way, imo, people would be more likely to accept the baby of science while rightly throwing out the nihilistic-atheistic philosophy which many like to claim goes hand in hand with it.Luther Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387473859274935699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75059621534576677182013-02-10T06:00:50.021-05:002013-02-10T06:00:50.021-05:00Believing for yourself as a way of maximising your...Believing for yourself as a way of maximising your happiness is perfectly fine. Where it becomes downright peculiar is when people try and manipulate the outer world in order to squash the things that make that state harder to sustain - the influence of evolutionary theory, say, or big bang cosmology. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8795522749866097332013-02-10T05:49:45.581-05:002013-02-10T05:49:45.581-05:00Your problem is that view maximum happiness as all...Your problem is that view maximum happiness as all flowers and bluebirds singing. But for some it is exterminating whole populations and flying planes into buildings. When truth is abandoned, pretty flowers are made just for you and fireballs are the will of god.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64072920169815090102013-02-10T04:21:51.646-05:002013-02-10T04:21:51.646-05:00I don't need to defend it as it has already be...I don't need to defend it as it has already been established by some of the most prestigious philosophical schools in History, Utilitarianism in the UK and Pragmatism in the US.<br /><br />Notice that the point is to ignore whether they're true or false and just maximize happiness. I don't care for truthfulness at all - if you say something is false I just presume you're using a roundabout way of saying you don't like it. Well, if you don't like believing in god, then don't believe.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6906523861791712662013-02-09T22:25:35.450-05:002013-02-09T22:25:35.450-05:00Do you seriously want to defend the idea that beli...Do you seriously want to defend the idea that believing in things that are false is perfectly okay as long as it makes you happy?<br /><br />My students would love you. It would make writing exams so much easier. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18503050813652737852013-02-09T19:29:54.041-05:002013-02-09T19:29:54.041-05:00I don't care for his philosophy, his other bel...I don't care for his philosophy, his other beliefs, women rights, gays or whatever other unrelated topic you may want to discuss.<br /><br />His belief in god makes him happier. My goal is to insure that as many people as possible are as happy possible. Then, Lennox should believe in god.<br /><br />Lennox's belief in god is a feeling inside his head. It doesn't affect anyone else beside him. Demonstrably, you don't seem to have anything to say against my argument - this must be why you insist on talking about everything in the world but my actual topic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13818865144456345035noreply@blogger.com