The Ontological Necessity of a God Thread?: Religion II

[TrueMetis]

It just doesn't seem clear to me what separates the claims of IDers from the varied speculative claims of other scientists.

I'd say the separation comes from that for the multiple world hypothesis we have no evidence for or against it. And generally the people advocating it admit that there's no evidence it is just what you say speculation. But IDers claim it's truth and the evidence goes against it.

[Rorshach]

Ah, good point. I guess what I wonder about is you see Christian Apologist videos on Youtube that take an idea like the Idealist interpretation of QM and try to make it proof of a very particular kind of God.

I'm not familiar with these, so this will be mostly speculation. If it misses, you know why!

My understanding is that a lot of apologists are taking short cuts - lots of them. For the very simple reason that they really don't know their source material (the science!-stuff), but they have grown up or converted to some version of "The Bible is literaly true"-christianity. Because of the latter, they feel constantly under pressure from society, who don't really have much to fear from science (except the odd atomic bomb, but that's not this discussion). So they'll be vocal in opposition.

Those christians who don't see the need of a literal reading of the Bible aren't going to feel as threatened, because their picture of God isn't a designer/god-of-the-gaps type. So they don't really care too much for the debate.

[Sci-2]

I'd say the separation comes from that for the multiple world hypothesis we have no evidence for or against it. And generally the people advocating it admit that there's no evidence it is just what you say speculation. But IDers claim it's truth and the evidence goes against it.

I don't know, seems to me Tegmark is pretty confident all reality arises from mathematics. But I don't think having intuitive confidence in a conclusion definitively means one is going to do bad science or philosophy. There seem to be just as many people convinced that there is no God or souls and, like Dawkins, are willing to publicly proclaim it.

That said, I do think religious apologists overreach in trying to cram a deity in accordance with their scripture into every missing piece of evidence in the fossil record or particular Measurement Problem interpretation.

I'm not familiar with these, so this will be mostly speculation. If it misses, you know why!

My understanding is that a lot of apologists are taking short cuts - lots of them. For the very simple reason that they really don't know their source material (the science!-stuff), but they have grown up or converted to some version of "The Bible is literaly true"-christianity. Because of the latter, they feel constantly under pressure from society, who don't really have much to fear from science (except the odd atomic bomb, but that's not this discussion). So they'll be vocal in opposition.

Those christians who don't see the need of a literal reading of the Bible aren't going to feel as threatened, because their picture of God isn't a designer/god-of-the-gaps type. So they don't really care too much for the debate.

That makes sense. I do think there's a certain smell of desperation around some apologists, but I agree this seems to arise from wanting the whole literalist cake.

[Mazigh]

Checkmate atheists

[TrueMetis]

Checkmate atheists

Yes gospel music really is that annoying.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Yes gospel music really is that annoying.

What's worse, gospel music or dubstep?

[Mazigh]

What's worse, gospel music or dubstep?

Gospel dubstep

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Gospel dubstep

Nightmares for a month.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Nightmares for a month.

I thought it was ok until the screeching part set in

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

I thought it was ok until the screeching part set in

The scream of the damned*

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

That's exactly why I prefer gospel metal.

[Gears of the Beast]

Checkmate atheists

Haha

[Sci-2]

Bill Hicks on religious cults - exclusive video - In this previously unseen footage from the Hicks family archive, filmed at the Comedy Corner in Florida in October 1993, Bill Hicks riffs on 'people who snap and think they are Jesus'

A Viable, Contemporary Neopaganism

For years a student of comparative religion and of scholarly esoterica, I myself find Neopaganism to be a viable prospect, especially in Europe, while Traditionalism of the sort advocated by René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Titus Burckhardt, Julius Evola and other 20^th century Traditionalists seems realistically untenable. In other words, despite my good will, I find praying to, say, Mercury, or Odin, or Mithras bordering on the impractical, if not on the silly. On the other hand, many of the deities belonging to Greco-Roman mythology were de facto incorporated into the Roman Catholic religion. The latter, despite its claims to the opposite, is thoroughly polytheistic, owing to its belief in the Trilogy; in an overabundance of male and female saints; and in the Holy Virgin, worshipped through a multitude of apparitions in different countries and even regions within the same country. It couldn’t be otherwise, given the inescapable influence of the mythology Roman Catholicism eventually supplanted.

[Sci-2]

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism':

"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists," Higgs said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. "Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind."

He agreed with some of Dawkins' thoughts on the unfortunate consequences that have resulted from religious belief, but he was unhappy with the evolutionary biologist's approach to dealing with believers and said he agreed with those who found Dawkins' approach "embarrassing".

[Stubby]

Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism':

In the name of balance, Dawkins has already answered this charge, as was explained in the article you linked but did not quote:

In a 2007 post on his website titled "How dare you call me a fundamentalist", Dawkins wrote: "No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may 'believe', in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."

Ken Ham - who IS a fundamentalist - proved Prof Dawkins correct earlier this year when he proudly told Bill Nye that he would NOT change his mind if presented with evidence (which already exists on that issue).

As to Higgs' other comments, he's not saying anything controversial. There are some religious believers who are scientists. Not all religious believers are fundamentalists. And, judging from Higgs' remarks, not all atheists are vocal critics of religion. Some are and some aren't. Just as there are some believers that are more vocal than others.

In my view, the story shows only that Higgs used one unfortunate word and that made for a somewhat artifical headline.

[Castel]

That article just proves that there are a bunch of atheists who want to distance themselves from people like Dawkins (and a bunch of bloggers and reporters that want to exploit this), often using arguments that seem to ignore the fact that Dawkins et. all are political beings and care more about that than going in and figuring out if you're some sort of panpsychist or some mystic who believes in some sort of quantum Mind.

Yeah, there are some non-bad scientists, there are theoretically scientists who can have mystical religious beliefs, some of them might actually not be completely opposed to the scientific understanding of the day in theory (scientific process though..who knows?). Good for you, but you clearly know what he's talking about.

EDIT: Not that Dawkins himself has denied that religious people could be good scientists. He said that HE doesn't understand how and that he suspects they do it through some sort of compartmentalization.

But I see how convenient this New Atheist category is now. Appoint Dawkins as the Pope of the "New" atheists and slam him to either appear moderate or discredit atheism and ??? profit.

[Stubby]

That article just proves that there are a bunch of atheists who want to distance themselves from people like Dawkins (and a bunch of bloggers and reporters that want to exploit this), often using arguments that seem to ignore the fact that Dawkins et. all are political beings and care more about that than going in and figuring out if you're some sort of panpsychist or some mystic who believes in some sort of quantum Mind.

Yeah, there are some non-bad scientists, there are theoretically scientists who can have mystical religious beliefs, some of them might actually not be completely opposed to the scientific understanding of the day in theory (scientific process though..who knows?). Good for you, but you clearly know what he's talking about.

EDIT: Not that Dawkins himself has denied that religious people could be good scientists. He said that HE doesn't understand how and that he suspects they do it through some sort of compartmentalization.

But I see how convenient this New Atheist category is now. Appoint Dawkins as the Pope of the "New" atheists and slam him to either appear moderate or discredit atheism and ??? profit.

There is no such thing as a "New" Atheist. Atheists are the same as they ever were in that they don't believe in god(s).

[Castel]

There is no such thing as a "New" Atheist. Atheists are the same as they ever were in that they don't believe in god(s).

That's the point?

[Sparrowyn]

There is no such thing as a "New" Atheist. Atheists are the same as they ever were in that they don't believe in god(s).

Indeed!

I don't think religious folks understand that while atheists have a common mindset, that we don't believe in a supernatural God, we are by no means all the same.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Well some atheists have the same problem with religious people, so I suppose it's just part of being human.