Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Tisme]

So what does he mean by -- against something worse?
Communism?
Islam?

.

Well you don't have the luxury of unions in communist countries, so people like Noco might find communism preferable to capitalism, which is a breeding ground of workers rights and the consequent middle class.

 

[Tisme]

Tell it to the world renowned scientist Paul Davies who proposed the idea,

Does Paul speak with a pompous rec'd accent like Dawkins too? If so it must be true.

 

[SirRumpole]

Does Paul speak with a pompous rec'd accent like Dawkins too? If so it must be true.

Paul speaks with an enlightened English accent and he definitely is not as bigoted or arrogant as Dawkins.

Here's a starter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo

He's not a God believer btw.

 

[luutzu]

Well you don't have the luxury of unions in communist countries, so people like Noco might find communism preferable to capitalism, which is a breeding ground of workers rights and the consequent middle class.

Those too are on their way out, right?

 

[bellenuit]

I believe in freedom of speech, and I think Richard Dawkins is realising he is losing it in the environment he is in.
An environment that sadly he has created.

One of the things Dawkins constantly has to confront when people react to his talks and particularly to his tweets, is this logical fallacy that is often adopted by those who oppose him:

"If I say X is better than Y, it doesn't mean I support X".

Just because he regards Christianity as more benign than Islam, doesn't mean he supports Christianity. Though he sees Christianity as having some positive values, he does not regard Christianity (or any religion) as the bulwark against suppression of free speech. He just sees Christianity as less of a culprit than some other religions.

You know what they say, you don't realise how lucky you had it until it is gone.
We won't realise how much Christianity did contribute, until it is gone.

I think most thinking people realise the contribution of Christianity in the positive and negative sense. It doesn't mean that it is overall a benefit. Dawkins certainly doesn't think that. That article is saying that he would preferable have a Christian dominated society to an Islamic one, but he publicly advocates a society based on humanism and rational thinking.

Political Correctness is closing down any attempt of people talking.
He has destroyed his own country, not just him, others too.

Political correctness doesn't come from the atheists, but mainly from the left. Dawkins denounced PC wherever he has heard or seen it and perhaps as much of 25% of his daily twitter tweets is devoted to exposing it where he sees it.

I don't agree with his beliefs, and they are beliefs, because God cannot be disproven

Nor can the tooth fairy, so that is neither here nor there.

but I did hear he stood up for Christianity in the university, and he said that if people can't cope with listening and learning, then don't come to university.
University is a place of learning.
They are losing grasp of any reality, in my view.

No. He denounced political correctness that is preventing robust discussion on social, ethical, political, religious and philosophical issues. Standing up for Christianity might be an overstatement. He believes that they ought to have their say, but he certainly wasn't standing up for Christianity in the sense of advocating it. And his denouncement of PC is not a one off particular to an issue that happened in one university. As I said he constantly denounces PC.

 

[Value Collector]

Tell it to the world renowned scientist Paul Davies who proposed the idea,

He knows the idea is crazy, he says it's crazy himself at the 1.35 mark in the linked video. He is suggesting it as a possible place an alien race may attempt to leave a message, he is not saying any such message has been found, or that he think such messages exist, just that we need to expand our search into many areas.

Also, he has copped a lot of flak for some of his crazier ideas, some of his books contain a lot of unfounded "woo".

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iob4a-R18c0[/video]

 

[SirRumpole]

Also, he has copped a lot of flak for some of his crazier ideas, some of his books contain a lot of unfounded "woo".

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iob4a-R18c0[/video]

Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.

 

[cynic]

Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.

Yes, sadly human behaviour has repeatedly demonstrated this tendency throughout history.

One of the things I find interesting about this discussion is the way in which it highlights the willingness to accept the authority of an agreeable viewpoint without question, whilst at the same time visiting any conflicting viewpoint with the utmost of scepticism.

It would be even more interesting if parties to each side of the debate were to unilaterally review their personal beliefs with the same degree of scepticism that they typically reserve for others.

True scepticism isn't defined as simply questioning the things one doesn't happen to believe, that would be more akin to prejudice or bigotry.

Is any one here willing to make a sincere endeavour to examine all sides of this debate with true scepticism?

 

[SirRumpole]

Is any one here willing to make a sincere endeavour to examine all sides of this debate with true scepticism?

What debate ? God vs no God ?

AFAIC the jury is still out. We don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other, maybe we never will.

The more we find out, the more questions seem to pop up. We still don't know what makes up 70% of the mass of the universe.

I have a feeling that the time needed to determine for certain whether a God exists or not is equal to the total lifetime of the Universe.

 

[cynic]

What debate ? God vs no God ?

AFAIC the jury is still out. We don't have the knowledge to decide one way or the other, maybe we never will.

The more we find out, the more questions seem to pop up. We still don't know what makes up 70% of the mass of the universe.

I have a feeling that the time needed to determine for certain whether a God exists or not is equal to the total lifetime of the Universe.

I more or less agree with what you're saying here.

The mere fact of our existence is as incomprehensible a mystery to me as the existence of anything.

Hence, the suggestion of a currently inexplicable creative intelligence to account for an already mysterious existence, does not seem so far fetched as to justify automatic dismissal.

Science, much as I love it, will, almost certainly, take many many human lifetimes to uncover the mysteries of our immediate environment (let alone the entirety of existence).

 

[Value Collector]

Anyone who is prepared to think out of the box is going to be attacked by those who aren't.

Not if they have valid reasoning to back up their claims.

 

[Value Collector]

I more or less agree with what you're saying here.

The mere fact of our existence is as incomprehensible a mystery to me as the existence of anything.

Hence, the suggestion of a currently inexplicable creative intelligence to account for an already mysterious existence, does not seem so far fetched as to justify automatic dismissal.

Science, much as I love it, will, almost certainly, take many many human lifetimes to uncover the mysteries of our immediate environment (let alone the entirety of existence).

The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.

Also, just because some thing is a mystery doesn't mean you should make up answers and believe them, it's best to just say I don't know.

And even though the origin of life is a mystery, it's less mysterious now than it was 200 years ago

 

[cynic]

The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.

Also, just because some thing is a mystery doesn't mean you should make up answers and believe them, it's best to just say I don't know.

And even though the origin of life is a mystery, it's less mysterious now than it was 200 years ago

It is Interesting how some dismiss certain beliefs as myths and accuse others of making up answers and believing them. These are things that sadly happen with alarming frequency with practitioners in various branches of science and devotees of same.

After having examined just a few of the so called creation myths, I've sometimes noticed the symbolic presence of knowledge.

Sadly this is often obscured by the insistence of zealots, from both sides of the debate, that the information must always be interpreted in a strictly literal sense.

As for existence being less mysterious, I would argue, that the more we discover, the more we realise how much more there is remaining undiscovered than previously thought. It seems that the expansion of scientific discovery, simply raises awareness of how precious little humanity truly knows. Previously established "facts" are sometimes found to be fallacies as science progresses in it's quest for knowledge, and it would seem that many of our açcepted facts are, at best, only subjectively proven.

 

[SirRumpole]

The origin of life may be a mystery, but that didn't mean we don't know enough to debunk the positive claims made by the religious creation myths.

Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.

We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.

So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.

 

[cynic]

Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.

We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.

So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.

Interestingly enough, the biblical passage, to which you refer, is one of the "myths" that I've examined and found to be insightful when considered from a numerically symbolic perspective.

Have you noticed how convenient (and indeed intelligent) the choice of a seven day period is for members of the earth populace?

 

[SirRumpole]

Have you noticed how convenient (and indeed intelligent) the choice of a seven day period is for members of the earth populace?

You mean seven is a lucky number ?

It seems arbitrary to me. If the Bible said it was 9 days, what difference would it make ?

 

[cynic]

You mean seven is a lucky number ?

It seems arbitrary to me. If the Bible said it was 9 days, what difference would it make ?

Quite a bit of difference if you were trying to conveniently measure a calendar year in lunar and seasonal cycles.

 

[SirRumpole]

Quite a bit of difference if you were trying to conveniently measure a calendar year in lunar and seasonal cycles.

Quite likely the Bible writers were farmers ?

 

[cynic]

Quite likely the Bible writers were farmers ?

Whilst I am unable to be certain, it does seem quite plausible.

 

[Value Collector]

Certainly the "God created the world in seven days" myth can be debunked (what is a day when the earth hadn't been created yet), but a God the rule maker theory is less easily debunked; ie something that created the Laws of Physics and the space and time for the rules to act on.

We may never find the answer to whether the universes was created this way or by some other means, and there is still the mystery of why anything should exist.

So some people should stop trying to pick the low hanging fruit of the Bible myths, that battle has been won. There are a lot deeper questions for science to answer.

There are still people on this thread that cling to those bible myths.

but either way, the time to believe in the god hypothesis is when it's proven, until then it's best to say we don't know, when there is a mystery, and we make up unproven hypothesis to explain it we normally always wrong. I don't think there is a reason to invoke a god, because that just brings up a bigger question, ie who created the creator?

And if it's possible an infinite creator could exist, why not an infinite universe.

Not too many years ago we couldn't explain the diversity of life, everything looked designed eg the human body, now we understand the theory of evolution and know it's not designed, and it's also not chance, it's evolution through natural selection, and not to many years ago we couldn't explain the origin of the elements, now nuclear chemistry is well understood, slowly things are becoming clearer.

The mystery of the universe is now pretty much where did the hydrogen and heleum come from, stars planets, diversity of life etc are pretty well explained now, and none of the older creation hypothesis came close to the right answer.