He Is Dead

[Piamed]

An interesting thread!

But it's very difficult to have a sensible debate with religeous types. The doctrine just won't allow it!

I can't believe that even Aposhark would associate himself with such uninformed statements. As with Christians or other faiths, the reality is that there numerous intelligent atheists and non-believers - the two can be quite distinct groups, that are able to debate in a highly interesting and robust manner using complex data and rational interpretation. A couple of the loudest athiest voices on this thread have called for proof that God exists. Some then go on to suggest that only empirical data is valid as a proof source and cite observers, the full works of whom they have never read or understood. Had they done so, they would realise that the concepts of proof are varied and complex a la legal concepts of proof or evidence. All the time unqualified statements such as the church is in decline are made. But what is the church to which they refer? I'm uncertain. They then start talking about Catholicism. Their attention is drawn to the fact that Catholicism is no longer the church and that Charismatic and Evangelical churches are thriving at a fast rate. Any reply from the particular individuals? Absolutely, silence. They make mention of hail-Mary's and Confession. Again an attempt is made to make them aware that they are talking about Catholicism. Any response? Again, none.

All contributors to this thread should also be aware that so many people of varying backgrounds read the posts and receive a wide variety of messages that differ on an individual basis. This is because we lall have different histories, backgrounds, biases and thus perspectives. For my part, the central issue was not about trying to convert one side to another's 'correct' way of thinking. Why should it be? How dare anyone be arrogant enough to think he can and has the right to do that.

In my own case, I was really intrigued to query where a particular individual was coming from and get him to confront the weaknesses and omissions I perceived to be present in his initial and unsolicited statements. Thus, engage in a debate. I think that was achieved to some degree and the outcomes will be interpreted on an individual basis. Some like to learn about the perspective of others. One way to do that is through constructive debate. Those that like to do so participated and tried to avoid trivia and focuss on salient points. Others that do not like debate or to query these things in this manner have not done so. In my view neither is right or wrong. We are who we are.

I did not see this thread totally descend into a slanging match but I did see some misunderstandings perhaps. Anyway, I think to honest partis of this thread have run their course so I will now totally exit from further participation in this thread but would like to first comment on the following 2 points:

The beauty of science is that it is constantly challenged by new ideas and theories. If they can be backed up with empirical eveidence, then they are adopted, until a better one comes along.

Firstly, science does not force one into atheism. I myself am a scientist. You seem to think that religious theory is not advanced by continual understanding. I believe that to be patently incorrect. You have outlined an oversimplistic and inaccurate view of how theories are constructed. It is surprising how many people are unaware of anything other than positivistic evidence. Consider advanced social science theory. What about realism, Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, rationalism, etc?

But don't take my word for it. Read something by Richard Dawkins.

We really must stop quoting people in a manner that insults their original observations. Also, Dawkins et al. would hastily remind you that theirs is only considered an acceptable series of relational notions by some of their peers until something else comes along. They also write for critical consideration.

You are implicitly unaware that Stephen J. Gould, argued for the mutual co-existence of science and religion as non-overlapping magisteria while Richard Dawkins wrote that claiming that religious beliefs are outside the domain of science is intellectually dishonest.

The underlying problem with Richard Dawkins and the vast majority of other practising scientists, is that they are an ontologically empiricist. This means among many other things, that they view definition of cause as simply being a correlation between events: if you find that whenever A happens, then B follows, and that if A doesn't then B doesn't. Thus, A causes B. Oversimplistic and often wrong.

For example, if you flick a light switch the light comes on. If you don't then it won't. If this is the case then by definition the switch caused the light to come on. Richard Dawkins is quite explicit in his agreement *at least in how the concept of `cause' is used in practice:

To many, causation is a rather simple statistical concept. Operationally we can never demonstrate that a particular observed event C caused a particular result R, although it will often be judged highly likely. What some non-empiricists do in practice is to establish statistically that events of class R reliably follow events of class C... Statistical methods are designed to help us assess, to any specified level of probabilistic confidence, whether the results we obtain really indicate a causal relationship.

Observers such as Denett believe`If one finds a predictive pattern of the sort just described one has ipso facto discovered a causal power * a difference in the world that makes a subsequent difference testable by standard empirical methods of variable manipulation.'

The problem with this definition of cause is that it doesn't give us a way of looking beneath the surface appearances of events, to their underlying reality. Marx once noted that if the world worked just as it appeared to, then there would be no need for science.

Take a simple example. Most people who bought a council house during the 1980s voted Conservative in 1987; most who refused, or couldn't afford to, didn't. The empiricist must draw the conclusion that buying a council house causes voting Conservative. There is certainly an element of truth in this, but we all know that the real situation is far more complicated. A specific economic and political situation, including rising property prices, caused both house buying and Conservative voting. Therefore they were correlated. If the situation changes, for example, if falling house prices as seen today, produce negative equity, then the link between house ownership and voting intentions changes. Some would argue these days it is those trapped with big mortgages compared to their income who most want to strangle Conservatives.

The empiricist definition of cause raises a correlation between events into a real mechanism, and tends to obscure the complexities and dynamics of real life.

Religious faith is assumed by Dawkins to be unevidenced belief. But Christian faith is grounded on a combination of evidence, including that drawn from history, personal experience and the world around. The justification for such belief is in the nature of a cumulative case. Like the clues in a detective story, no single item of evidence may be totally compelling on its own, but together they may build up a convincing case, sufficient for trust and action.

Dawkins constantly assumes that, since material objects have beginnings, God would also have had to have had an origin and asks 'who designed the divine creator?' But he vehemently rejects (rightly) the similar argument from analogy that, since everyday objects have designers, the universe must have a designer.
If the universe doesn't need a designer, why should he claim that God needs one?