Leave Dawkins and his tribe of sceptics and atheists alone for Heaven's sake or Heaven will get a bad name from all those stupid priests and theologians who claim to know all about God and spiritual values. He has the braking effect on Church control over minds. It's time the silly hats brigade came to learn they and their wares have had their time and only then will Heaven be free of idiots.
Long live Dawkins Hichens et al.

socratease

A fascinating article.

“Nonetheless, as scientists we must also promote more realistically our ongoing struggle to understand and explain what it means to be scientific.”

You have hit the nail on the head.

On the one hand, as Kuhn has shown, the progress of science is an anthropological phenomenon. But on the other hand, science holds out the prospect of discovering universal propositions of fact which do not depend on historical categories. But ‘the devil’s in the detail’. The closer we get to saying what the method of discovery actually *is*, the slipperier it seems to get.

“Yet Hume himself showed science to be inherently irrational because it relies, in part, on assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe. Dawkins expresses concern that: “Irrationality is woven into the fabric of modern life,” whereas, as Hume long ago demonstrated, irrationality is woven into the fabric of science.”

This paragraph is critical, but unclear. What do you mean by “relies on assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe?”

It seems that no matter how further afield we go from pure logic, such as into Newtonian physics, the question must keep coming back to, how do we know what we know in logic? These truths are not empirically discovered. You don’t figure out whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 by empirical research on cases where two things were added to two other things, and doing a probability analysis of the result. 2 plus 2 equals four by definition.

Now take Pythagoras, clever if somewhat nutty old Greek that he was. You don’t find out whether Pythagoras theorem applies to right-angle triangles by probabilistic empirical research on right-angle triangles. Do you? If the triangle is a right-angle triangle, it applies. And if it doesn’t apply, it’s not a right-angle triangle.

This is the nature of the universal truths from logic which are then applied in scientific methods further removed. But are such logical propositions “assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe?” If not, then there is no necessary irrationality in scientific method.

This seems to be asking scientists to dumb-down their mathematics to the point where non-specialists ("the public") can understand and evaluate them?
Folks, when you dumb-down science to the point where it becomes comprehendable to people with no maths and no background knowledge, it is not science you are explaining but "lies to children": ie. A simple, understandable and *wrong* idea! This is how most of the myths of science have come about.
Those that have no expertise seem to have problems with this concept: You cannot understand complexity by removing the complexity!
Real science is hard work and has more rigour than most people can comprehend. To really understand it you need maths at a pretty high level and you need to stop reaching for simplistic explanations and delve into details. Once the details are understood you can see what the "lies to children" mean. Starting from the simple wrong version and omitting details will surely lead to misunderstandings. This why peer review is essential.
Dawkins is to be applauded for straight talking and calling it as it is. Religious apologists should really be applying the standards they are asking of science to their own dogma and "leaders"...but that would undermine "faith" wouldn't it?
Science is the only truly humble enterprise humans partake in: the universe is primary, all else is subject to change . This is part of the problem religion has with it. The other part is: science gets it right and makes religion look silly.

Andrew Baker once again trys to dredge up a philosopher from the 1700s to show that science is not rational.

The pretext for this that "it relies, in part, on assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe".

This would be irrational only if the theory was held to be absolute. Science and scientific methodology has evolved significantly in the past 250 years, partly due to the philosophy of Hume.

In fact today much of the advancement of science hinges around finding the cracks and weaknesses in existing theories so that these can be torn down and replaced with something more resembling reality.

If this logic is turned around and focused on religion, which "relies almost exclusively on assumed theories that must reach beyond what we can ever observe", and with the additional rider that religion holds these theories to be absolute, the inescapable conclusion is that religion is irrational and irredeemably flawed.

Which is roughly what Dawkins was trying to say in the first place.

Andrew - some hard examples of what you meant would have been useful but you basically misunderstood what Dawkins said and have misread current trends.
Assessments of arguments in general are switching to "evidence based" models. So one hears of evidence based medicine where treatments have to be given full double-blind trials, and only used if they actually work. (Surprisingly, this was not fully adopted until recently.) Then there is evidence based aid (as in helping the needy) programs. Don't start a poverty-relief program in Africa until it has been properly assessed. Reason rules.
What Dawkins probably meant was that the theory can be applied to stuff we don't know about it (and we'll apply it when we have some idea of the new area), or that the theory can be applied to areas well outside biology, which it is.. in fact evolutionary theory is always popping up. even in physics.
Scientists should definitely keep to the scientific method, and I wish they would do so more ofte

Richard Dawkins is precluded from behaving as a rational scientist and commentator, by his bloated ego. Like the socalled climate scientists of IPCC ilk, he substitutes assertion for scientific fact. If he is so sure of himself, why cannot he quote irrefutable scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolution? Why cannot he come up with irrefutable scientific evidence that God does not exist? Indeed, why has he not come up with irrefutable scientific evidence that Jesus Christ did not exist?

*Why cannot he come up with irrefutable scientific evidence that God does not exist?*

Raycom, you cannot prove a negative, so for the same reasons that
you cannot prove that the toothfairy and Santa do not exist.

Try it, you will fail.

Yabby: "the toothfairy and Santa do not exist."

THEY DON'T?

Well that's just screwed my entire day.

Seriously, what is the point of this article? It fails to achieve what it is asking scientists to do; present science in a palatable form so that even religious fundamentalists can understand it. At the same time Andrew Baker takes a swipe at Dawkins who has probably done more to promote science and rational thought than Baker has in his entire life. Therefore, I find a personal attack on Dawkins by Baker as suspicious.

Is Dawkins egotistical? Who knows? Who cares? Character flaws do not prove that Dawkins is irrelevant. Nor does reading his publications mean that science will stagnate, as the author claims. Only if science is prevented from searching for truth and knowledge, for evidence and the constant revision of interpretation will it cease to flourish. Such as happened to science in the past due to superstition and religious dogma.

I would tend to agree with Ozandy albeit with a slightly different emphasis.
I would suggest that simplifying science for the uninitiated is a worthwhile activity. However there are simplifications and plain misleading simplifications. The latter seems to be largely the province of those with an axe to grind. i.e. the journo with no science back ground is given an assignment to write on something as complex as AGW. The journo is also under editorial pressure to sex it up to grab attention. Hence the grossly simplified title. Often they take professional qualifiers and turn them into absolutes...therefore giving the average mug punter a distorted perspective of both the topic and its import.

Dawkins tends to overstate his position as a campaign for atheism by allowing his topic to be overwhelmed by saleable evangelistic zeal/controversy. His books tend to both tunnel visioned and myopic seemingly ignoring his topic's rightful place in the wider human context. Thus leading us to almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses.

Conversely the Human CONTEXT allows for complexity well beyond our comprehension.
Every new discovery adds another layer of complexity(questions) to be answered.

As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs.
I do share his concern that religion dressed as science has no place in public education and governance.

Ultimately what isn't clearly conveyed to the public is the true place of individual issues firstly in the context of individual scientific discipline then in the overall multi discipline Context. e.g. A geologist's failure to find evidence of AGW or a lack of definitive predictions do not out weigh the overall balance of probability gleaned from many disciplines.

I am suggesting that it is most often commercial motives that dominate over objective scientific discussions. The latter don't sell as well as controversy and sensation..

The number of publisher that will take on such unemotional discussions are limited and shrinking fast.

Examinator

I think that Dawkins makes an important contribution to our understanding of the human condition. I don't think his is the final word, but I would place him way above the likes of Andrew Bolt (who fits the description of the journalist you made above).

If anything, Dawkins provides a good starting point. Are we just the sum of chemicals, responses (and bacteria)? Or are we greater than the sum of our parts? I found Dawkins' book, "The Selfish Gene" rather dispiriting, maybe I want to think that there is something more than just blind life. However, articles like this one are regressive rather than generative. Dawkins has made significant inroads into our self-perception and I am sure that he is the last person to say that scientific thought ends with him.

"However, the picture-perfect science that Dawkins portrays ... "

where does dawkins portray science as picture-perfect? why pick on dawkins? are you really suggesting dawkins is wrong to distingish ID from evolutionary biology on the basis of reasoning and evidence? if not, then what the hell is your point?

it never ends. some smug twerp reads a bit of kuhn and feyerabend, and we have to put up with the resulting silly sermon of false egalitarianism.

Here is an interesting essay which, among other things, describes the effort to encircle, and thus control every one and every thing, via the reductionist method of both exoteric religion (theology), and scientism (hunter-gatherer behaviour and motivation)

1. http://www.dabase.org/s-atruth.htm (scroll town for the essay url)

Hey, listen up, you guys.

As long as Dawkins and his ilk are pontificating on the physicality of man as a physical reality they may well be on the right track. Good luck to them and all power.I happen to believe that there is a gtowth called evolutionary spirituality that goes beyond the paradigms that circumscribe their labours and which they do not understand so that is why they reject it.

When they intrude into territory they are ill-equipped to talk about they can be ignored.

socratease

The idiotic fairytale evolution explanation of origins could only strengthen the faith of any believer or thinking person. IT is the Dawkins kind of 'science' that makes so many scientist look silly. The man's dogmas will soon be replaced by the next round of god hating dogmas. You can be sure there will be no true science attached.

"As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs."

I would once have thought so, too, examinator - until hundreds of people were murdered because of a handful of fairly mediocre cartoons.

Dawkins says he was "radicalized" by 9/11; I was personally radicalized by the Jyllands-Posten controversy. That was when I realised that religious faith ipso facto leads its believers to attack the personal beliefs of anyone who does not agree with their particular religion.

Oftentimes the "attack" is no more violent than a couple of pimply Mormons knocking on the door, or a televangelist exhorting us to repent and be saved, but the fact remains that implicit in religious faith is that the believer is right and non-believers are wrong.

While, as I said, most believers are non-violent, it is inescapable that there are many who are prepared to use violence, often appalling violence, to establish the supremacy of their worldview.

For good people to do bad things, it takes religion, indeed.

I'm more with you on the "almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses." However, I don't think Dawkin's scientific-rationalist view necessarily leads to nihilism. For myself, I think rather as (I think) Brett Whiteley said: "there's birth and then there's death, and in between there's art".

It's the art of living that makes us human.

From the article:

<<In recent books and programs he [Dawkins] argues that resurgent movements like “intelligent design” and “astrology” masquerade as reason, debilitate scientific method and restrict science teaching.>>

And Dawkins would be right.

<<However...>>

Uh oh... I smell a Creationist...

Am I right?

<<...the picture-perfect science that Dawkins portrays is long outdated and needs serious correction to embrace science’s rich...>>

Wait for it...

<<...complexity.>>

Oooo... Yes, it looks like I might have been right after all!

<<...scientists should celebrate the success of science as Dawkins encourages. Nonetheless, as scientists we must also promote more realistically our ongoing struggle to understand and explain what it means to be scientific.>>

Considering Dawkins himself admits that discounting the supernatural entirely and stating that Gods absolutely do not exist would be unscientific, I hardly see what the Author is trying to say here.

The problem is though, that up until this date, Creationists have absolutely nothing to support their arguments.

<<...in disregarding its [science’s] limitations in the fashion of Dawkins we assure only that science stagnates without hope of improvement. >>

Aside from the fact that this author has completely misrepresented Dawkins from the word “go”, has the current method ever failed us?

In other words: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Mr Baker makes it sound like we’ve hit a dead end in science and the only way to overcome it is to introduce the possibility of the supernatural.

Examinator,

<< Dawkins tends to overstate his position as a campaign for atheism by allowing his topic to be overwhelmed by saleable evangelistic zeal/controversy. >>

And for good reason too: Consciousness raising.

<<Thus leading us to almost nihilist/deterministic conclusion i.e. that we are the sum total of our electo-chemical responses. >>

Since, on a scientific level, that’s all we can rationally conclude our conciousness to be, what’s wrong with that?

It doesn’t mean that we, as individuals, can’t find a “spiritual” side to life or find meaning. Dawkins, presents himself, first and foremost, as a scientist and rationalist.

Continued...

...Continued

He doesn’t pretend to try to give a deeper meaning to the lives of those who read his books.

<< Conversely the Human CONTEXT allows for complexity well beyond our comprehension.
Every new discovery adds another layer of complexity(questions) to be answered. >>

I may be reading you wrong here, but I don’t think that’s the “complexity” Mr Baker was (secretly) referring to. If it was, then he is making a lot of baseless assumptions about Dawkins.

Remember, since the crushing defeat Creationists suffered at the Dover trial, they’ve been increasingly quiet and sneaky about the way they introduce religion into the science classroom.

Their new tactic is to cry “Academic Freedom”. Heck, they’re now trying to get laws passed in the US so that if a student answers a question on a science test that adheres to their religious beliefs, then the teacher needs to mark it right.

I’m possibly being too presumptuous, but I grew suspicious of Mr Baker when I looked through his past articles and read this remark...

“It’s through flexibility and diversity, not blind adherence to rules, that we can best ensure educational freedom in today’s students and open-mindedness in tomorrow’s leaders.”

Educational freedom?

Sorry, but the guy is a creationist in disguise.

I wondered where you partial support for the author came from, then I read this...

<< As a secular humanist I am often disquieted by his unnecessary attack on people's personal beliefs. >>

Ahhhh... That’s where!

Sorry, but as Dawkins has said before, religion has had a free ride for too long.

It’s time religion was out in its place considering the damage it’s caused, the religious (moderate or not) need to understand that their beliefs are no longer immune from criticism. Not to mention the out-dated tax-free status that religions enjoy for no good reason.

Moderate religious believers are often beautiful people, but their passive support is what keeps the loonies on the streets and in power, and the claim that we can’t question or criticize their faith simply because it’s their faith is reckless.

<<Copernicus and Galileo needed to step outside the confines of logic to bolster support for their theories within the science community.>>

Yes, the imagination is needed to examine possibilities and probabilities in order to test them, that is all part of science. Where is Andrew suggesting they go when they “step outside”?

<< as scientists we must also promote more realistically our ongoing struggle to understand and explain what it means to be scientific>>, otherwise we run the risk of science stagnating << without hope of improvement.>>.

It is to be hoped that scientists do know what it is to be scientists, why should they need an explanation? unless of course, Andrew actually means his own “alternative explanation”.

<<“Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists”. However, a theory like evolution may be composed of facts but it must always extend beyond logical boundaries into the unknown - such are the “facts” of logic on which science rests.>>

What is this “unknown” into which science must extend? Surely that is where imagination already meets proof?

<< we need to engage face-to-face with the general public in genuine dialogue about the nature and processes of science so that they can make informed judgments on the issues raised by protagonists like Dawkins.>>

Why? I don’t need to be involved or “shown the light” on Boeings’ 787 Dreamliner. I am willing to rely on engineers to prove their design. I would not however, fly in one if they used “scientific consensus” or “theology” to build it.

If Andrew Baker is willing to accept that his brain is not the product an evolutionary process, I hope he has a “lemon law warranty” on the one he has.

This is another tricky piece that seeks to soften and control science by attaching “theological attributes” that can be influenced by mystics. Theology it seems, is still seeking to influence scientists and to label them as heretics. How pathetic.

“Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists”. However, a theory like evolution may be composed of facts but it must always extend beyond logical boundaries into the unknown - such are the 'facts' of logic on which science rests"

This is called 'making predictions'. It is followed by another step called 'testing predictions'. If the predictions match the results -- and so far they do for Evolution, every time -- then we keep the theory. If not then we try and find a better theory.

I'm not sure what Baker's alternative to science is supposed to be -- though the article does have the smell of closet Creationism -- but if it doesn't verify its results then I'm not going to trust it one inch.

A J Philips, Fractelle

I think maybe "we have a failure to communicate".
I was NOT agreeing in any way with “Intelligent design” (sic) nor was I saying what Dawkins is saying is a waste of space. ( given I have most of his books and find them interesting/informative) I was making a simply rational critique of what in my mind is a flawed and unnecessary aggressive style.
I remember his TV show where he on a number occasions he took an unnecessarily confrontatous stance with others why? AJ , Was this conciousness raising? Was he trying to show the people up or get an on camera conversion? All that came across was that he was a bombast. Surely a more fact finding approach might have revealed more.

EVERYTHING has a context without which they are merely data. Look at it this way, a lock of hair is just that. However, give it provenance(context) i.e. it belonged to Elvis it becomes valuable.
As I've said to Yabby genetics doesn't totally explain humans (the determinist/ nihilist approach) . We are more than the sum total of our electro chemical reactions.

NB. This does NOT mean “intelligent design/religion” is science or is any more than a discretionary activity like Upper Volga Vampyre hunting or (yuk) footy. I reject them taught as science in schools or the basis for governance either!
Likewise, I defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs”, Dawkins clearly doesn't.

In reality Dawkins books sell to two kinds of people.....Those who basically believe what he says anyway but find the facts either informative (me) or conformational.
I would suggest it is to this audience he writes. His style is to differentiate him in this...marketing environment.
Or: those who want to find flaw in order to bolster a rival belief i.e. “ID”. Clearly a minority therefore, I reject the 'raising consciousness' argument.

I was making the point to Andrew that while agreeing that the style was IMO is unnecessarily shrill/pugnacious , this doesn't discredit the fact that “ID” isn't science

There is only one conclusion when you look at the 25,000 genes that make up the human genetic code - humans evolved gradually over many millions of years just like every other DNA based life form. If you cannot grasp that fact then you are either a moron, or you are brainwashed by the literal interpretation of your ancient monotheistic text. A text which originated in the mind of Bronze Age man and no more valid than ancient Greek stories about Aphrodite, Paris, Helen, Achilles, and the war for Troy. There may be a God of some description but his name is most definitely not Jehovah or Allah. Jehovah and Allah are 'logical impossibilities' and cannot exist by definition.

This is the thrust of Dawkins argument - and he is 100% correct

*We are more than the sum total of our electro chemical reactions.*

Nobody claimed that we were, Examinator. But there are no "ghosts"
in there either, so to speak.

See it more as an interaction of the product of our genes, with our
environment.

Now hopefully we have finally put your stupid "sum" argument to
bed for once and for all.

Examinator,

<<I was NOT agreeing in any way with “Intelligent design” (sic)...>>

I realise that, Examinator. Please be aware though, that my responses often start out between 1500-2000 words, before I prune them to fit into 700 words over two posts. So I apologise if it sounded like I was accusing you of supporting ID. My posts don’t always condense as well as I’d like them to.

<<I remember his TV show where he on a number occasions he took an unnecessarily confrontatous stance with others why? AJ , Was this conciousness raising?>>

I don’t know. You would have to link me to the video, or give me more detail as to what this stance was.

I’m not sure what “confrontatous” means, but if you meant “confrontational”, then yes, it probably was consciousness raising.

<<...I defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs”...>>

So do I.

<<...Dawkins clearly doesn't.>>

Dawkins’ doesn’t overtly “defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs””, but that doesn’t mean he rejects them.

All Dawkins is saying is that “enough is enough”. Why should the beliefs of the religious be considered virtuous, or a subject that is too taboo, or a “no go zone”? But why put the word “belief” in quotation marks? What do you mean by “beliefs” then?

Considering the damage religious belief has caused throughout the ages, and the shear lack of evidence for any of it, Theists should consider themselves lucky that most of us still value their right to believe in it.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...those who want to find flaw in order to bolster a rival belief i.e. “ID”. Clearly a minority therefore, I reject the 'raising consciousness' argument.>>

In the scientific community, yes, they are an extreme minority. In the general public? Not so much.

Why?

Firstly, because there are many religious people out there, and secondly, because the noisy Creation “Scientist” minority out there have done a good job of creating a sense of confusion and propagated the false idea that the Creation Vs. Evolution issue still hasn’t been resolved - when it has.

But ID is just one of many facets of Dawkins' consciousness raising. One other that I could mention is his claim that indoctrination is child abuse. Most of us who grew up in a religious household don't feel abused, but the term is used for the sake of consciousness raising and in many ways, is quite accurate too.

That being said, you are wrong to reject the “consciousness raising” argument. Creationists may be a minority, but I wouldn't be so sure about the amount of parents (whether they be Creationists or not) that indoctrinate their children by scaring them with the threat of eteranal damnation.

But while we are on the topic of your heart-warming tolerance this repugnant behaviour, would you feel just as comfortable with our Prime Minister declaring his faith in the Greek Gods?

I’d doubt it.

The only reason you’re so comfortable with the three main monotheistic religions is because they’re everywhere and you’ve been conditioned to think that their existence is normal.

Think about that...

<< The only reason you’re (examinator) so comfortable with the three main monotheistic religions is because they’re everywhere and you’ve been conditioned to think that their existence is normal. >>

Well said Aj Phillips.

I agree with your point vis a vis our PM believing in Greek Gods - would we pay him the same level of respect we accord to the Abrahamic religions. I think not.

If you, Examinator, find Dawkins shrill, many don't. Many are tired of the walking-on-eggshells deference to religion, the tax-breaks. For myself, as it was with Dawkins, was the 9/11 attacks and the denial of reason as displayed by the furphy of I.D.: Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims creating misery in the developed world.

I am sure we all agree that Science does not have all the answers, if it did it would no longer be science, but dogma.

I posit you have been successfully manipulated by Baker - instead of questioning his agenda in the full frontal attack on Dawkins - you are now playing Baker's game - which is a very subtle 'god-of-gaps' attempt to place a supernatural element into areas of the natural world/universe which are simply unknown.

Are you planning on campaigning for I.D. to be taught in classrooms?

As for being greater than the sum of our parts, we all are, but so is my computer.

If Dawkins comes across as confrontational, it's only because his opponents are either so mendacious or stupid, or usually both, that they would try the patience of a saint.

How else is one to react to someone like Ted Haggard, or the Imam who tells Dawkins that "we" allow "our" women to dress like whores?

And as Dawkins points out, these are not extremists either; in their context (i.e. the U.S., with regards to Haggard), they're depressingly mainstream.

TR speaks with typical unintelligent authority of an evollutionist. He/she writes
'There is only one conclusion when you look at the 25,000 genes that make up the human genetic code - humans evolved gradually over many millions of years just like every other DNA based life form. If you cannot grasp that fact then you are either a moron '

It is this kind of perverted scientific conclusion that makes the blind conclusions of evolutionist look so stupid. Next he will be trying to convince his people that his/her little fairytale is not faith based.

the patience of a saint[saint dorkkins sounds about right]

you decieved by the THEORY of evolution..are using blinkered thinking.but being decieved into faith in science shall fall under its long term adgenda[eugenics...in that only the supiriour genes [held by the elites/saint/chosen survive their enactment

research has found weakneses in the genome of the negro[specific to blackies]...and are installing these other genes into our food/medicine..to cause death to those these dorkins/darwinian god heads deem selected[naturally]because of their melinine pigment

you mindless collection of dolts have been suckerd in by the new religion replacement...you by the dorks holy texts...to learn the answers...but get fed a promise maybe next time...name names dickk dorkins...name what evolved into what

reveal the actual mutations..on what dna strand number mutated at which cycle that made this chance occurance of mutations..into the mindless richard crainium[of the dorkins]theory of evolution[its not coincidental that he has the same name as the wheel chair dawkins[a true sciientist,the other prat uses to sling his deception under[to the..his intrhinking athiest follower...needing a god free theory for their faith

lacking the science to judge the facts for them selves the sheep feed the dorkins wolf via deceptions/and faulse god heads just like religion

Runner and oneundergod,

If you take Genesis or the Koran literally then humanity is little more than a 'hey presto' event involving a bit of clay. God is therefore reduced to a tawdry magician at a kiddies birthday party.

If you take the view that an omnipotent God (somehow) manipulates DNA directly then you have to to explain Congenital Blindness, Beta thalassaemia, Klinefelter Syndrome, Prader-Willi Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis. For God to overlook these DNA cock-ups you would have to say that he is ither an incomptent genetic engineer(and therefore not omnipotent) or sadistic (and therefore not merciful or benevolent).

TR writes

;For God to overlook these DNA cock-ups you would have to say that he is ither an incomptent genetic engineer(and therefore not omnipotent) or sadistic (and therefore not merciful or benevolent).'

No simply to have arrogant people like you sprouting your pseudo science is clear evidence of sin, a devil and its consequence.

TR...[QUOTE...putting out distractions..<<If you take the view that an omnipotent God..(somehow) manipulates DNA directly then you have to to explain Congenital Blindness, Beta thalassaemia, Klinefelter Syndrome, Prader-Willi Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Syndrome, and Neurofibromatosis.>>

COUNTER ARGUMENT..clearly your delusions extend to non life making life...please make this small achievment before claiming science delusion..as science fact...are any of these malformation/error/sports and proof of evolution of genus...or species specific

such a clever man such as you...shoul/could/can might...lol..name this first life once and for all...would will/could..can//'lol/..no doudt validate..at least one of these evolutions into new genus

[funny how all the 'evolutionist faithfull/nuttersbelievers not priest[nor scientisyt...yet hold their words holy...lol..claim are all intra genus..where/as..like mutates into like...not evolves out of species into new genus...

name a complete evolution..[beginning..one species.genus.. to end..neo[new] genus new species..its simply NEVER HAPPEND..but you claim millions..prove JUST ONE]

dont claim science..has answers sonny...state them..stop ya speculation..present your fact...there is none..

you lot traded a living god sustaining..all life..for dead science wrought from lies and deceptions...and new science high priests that say trust science...take our poisen..let us do your math..we will prove things next year...lol

<<For God to overlook these DNA cock-ups>>>...science method rejoices in these so caled cockup...its that one experiment that goes wroing that has a higher teaching..than the 999 that were the same[but you got no science mind..thus swallow the dork's gibberish speculations]...buy the books but dontr comprehend them so quote themn to be clever in faith...smart aAARESES...LIKE DUMB SHEEP...FOLLOWING THE DORK-IN[GOD HEAD]

your presumptions..are revealing your own hopeless delusion....<<..''you would have to say that he is ither an incomptent genetic engineer''>>>..i will presume..either a genetic engeneer has to be an idiot...yet only an idiot would disqualify gene engeneering ability..as proof of not-impotance...lol..<<''(and therefore not omnipotent'')>>

<<or sadistic..(and therefore not merciful or benevolent)>>>

you believers in science should wisper ypur faith in science...see its the same mindless idocracy in a lab coat...not a black dress...with the same sharlitons running the same book sales to the faithfull and mind-dull.

For the last few centuries, after the humilation of the church following the trial of Gallileo, the church has been forced to give up control over scientific research.

However, the church's power still enabled it to claim authority over the spiritual and moral areas of human endeavour. This enabled it to continue to flex its muscles and interfere in the lives of believers and non believers alike, by controlling funding etc:

- Stem cell research
- Reproductive research
- Contraception / sex education
- Termination of unwanted pregnancies

Dawkins is one of the first scientists to openly break this unwritten truce, and claim that the churches claim to moral authority is flawed and illogical, and that humanity is perfectly capable of finding its own ethical compass without the church's corrosive influence.

The reason that his views have been so actively opposed is because the church can see that the athiests and agnostics who have in the past been content to accept the status quo, have now seen that they don't have to. The church sees its future as junior partner in society, which is tolerated rather than referred to.

Copernicus and Galileo were men of their times and influenced of course by prevailing thought. Of course they stepped outside the bounds of logic to bolster support for their theories. The prevailing view at the time was that the Earth stood still and all the objects in the sky orbited the earth. Copernicus and Galileo produced an alternative theory because a sun-centered solar system was more mathematically appealing and explained more observations than an Earth-centered one. Even though the scientific method had not been fully promulgated then, Copernicus and Galileo used three key planks: observation; hypothesis development that explained observations; and predictions arising from the hypothesis that could be tested. Included with this were cultural hangovers – as should be expected.

The scientific method has served mankind well in explaining the universe around them for a couple of hundred years. It will continue to do so into the future. The continual testing of predictions will refine hypotheses to more and more accurately reflect the real world rather than the imagined one. One day humans will understand that they are not at the center of any universe except in their own imagination.

This is after all the point of Dawkin's writings.

Note that neither runner nor OUG made any attempt to answer TR's question, and responded with abuse and condemnation instead.

That, in a nutshell, is why we're a secular nation. "Believe what I say, without evidence, or you'll go to hell" can't compete with a body of reliable, demonstrated knowledge.

And we can all play the tiny question game, OUG. Tell me what Jesus Christ ate for lunch on November 14, 23AD. Obviously, if you can't provide that simple detail, Christ didn't exist and your religion is a lie.

Inherited (genetic) diseases are a 'Clear evidence of sin'??

Runner, I didn't know you believed in Larmarckism. If moral conduct conveys genetic inheritence then you may as well admit that a giraffe stretching its neck to reach the top of trees also conveys genetic inheritence and increases the length of the neck for future generations of giraffe. I really think you should pick up a text book on Mendelian genetics.

As for the Devil causing diseases like Tay-Sachs disease, well that is just plain laughable. You would have to argue that the Devil is also a genetic engineer like God and able to directly manipulate DNA. Also, implicating the Devil doesn't make God any less culpable. Being both omnipotent and merciful he could easily overide the Devils handy-work in order to alleviate human suffering. Because God does nothing we can only assume that he is sadistic like the Devil, or not omnipotent after all.

It is not necessary to explain inherited (genetic) diseases by evoking sin, the Devil, or the monotheistic God. I'm sure Dawkins would agree.

It really doesnt matter what atheists agnostics and theists have to say about God. There is only one reality. God just keeps coming into being, developing, becoming.Evolution is only just one manifestation. God didnt make the world.He cant make anything.He is everything. Every thing that went wrong and goes wrong in evolution, every war, every act of goodness are but developments that go on all the time. Dawkins's denial, and that of every atheist or whoever is merely the single aspect of God's introspection or self-awareness. The so-called Big Bang if ever there was one or not was notthe beginnimng of it all. Such temporat concepts are the assessments of finite cognitive exercises. When the planetary system implodes as it must the transformation goes on in other spheres. Constellations are being born and dying all the time ....as can be seen by radio telescopes at any observatory. It's like the various cells ofthe human body dying and being replaced. It's all a process.
I can understaand humans talking about God using language that is symbolical, metaphorical metaphysical mathematical and scientific...how else can we ever talk about somethingso vital about our reality. Language was never devised to contain God. God can only ever be experienced...in love,hate,fear or whatever..
Process theology has been criticised as being too abstract and reducing God to merely energy or evolutionary processes. Whatr else can God be? I actually hate the use of the word "GOD"...it has caused enough death and destruction.

socratease

Even though..Jesus' last supper..is one of the most frequently portrayed religious events[in history],..no one..is absolutely sure..what was eaten at that meal.. Although it is impossible to know precisely..what dishes were served,..both the New Testament and historical records..give us many clues.

According to the New/Testament..(Matthew 26 and Mark 14),..the meal was..intended to..celebrate Passover,..and both accounts agree that two of Jesus' disciples..had come to Jerusalem in order to find a home..in which Jesus could enjoy the Seder...

There is no reason to believe..that the meal upon which Jesus dined would have been different..than that enjoyed by other Judean's at the onset of this first millennium...

Thus,..matzot..(unleavened bread),..a pitcher of wine,..salted water and a small bowl of marror..(bitter herbs)..would have been on the table...Because in Jesus' time..the holiday also marked the time of the early spring harvest,..the table may have been decorated with fresh fruit,..green almonds and walnuts..as well as sprigs of freshly picked herbs such as thyme,..rosemary..hemp and coriander.

Between the 1st and 3rd centuries,..it was traditional in all homes to start with a simple vegetable soup...The contents of the second course,..however, were determined largely by the economic status of the host...Because Jesus was an honored guest,the owner of the home in which this particular meal was served..would have been sure to have prepared roast lamb,..the most highly-valued of dishes.

It was not traditional to serve a dessert course,..but celebratory meals such as this came to an end..after the guests ate the fresh fruit and nuts..that had been put on the table for decorations....the complete meal rituals wopuld have taken arround 4 hours

Deut 8:8,..here is a list of the agricultural products that they grew...You also find another list of foods in Genesis 43:11...Ezekiel 16:13 has an example of the kinds of food the nobility ate.

From the Manual of discipline..found in a cave by the Dead Sea..we learn they rose early,..about 4 o'clock[am]..and went to sleep early.

Many families ate together sort of communal meals...Families lived close to one another..and meals were prepared communally,..so there was a fixed time..for everybody to eat..which was early in the evening

Right. So now the absolute lack of evidence of god is evidence of god.

Tell us, Socratease, exactly what have you seen or experienced which suggests a god?

I'm sure Ashkenazi jews would be very interested to hear your conjecture on why their narrow genetic grouping is susceptible to Tay-Sachs disease.

Sancho,speculates were all decended from a warm blood fish,darwind speculates mammels..[some unnamed cow creature]..returned to the waters...and fails to see how these amasing incidents prove a god...he asks..<<So now the absolute lack of evidence of god is evidence of god.>>

he askes<<..Tell us,Socratease,exactly what have you seen or experienced which suggests a god?>>.because he dont want to admit he got no evidence..[nor science]..to how it all went down...thus speculates with endless questions..[in lue of pressenting his science fact based faith...lol...anyhow he continues

<<I'm sure Ashkenazi jews would be very interested to hear your conjecture on why their narrow genetic grouping is susceptible to Tay-Sachs disease.>>clearly he lacks the science nounce to distinguish a negative ressesive..from this preceedance usage of species and genus...clearly concepts the evolutioaryu faithfull never comprehended[along with simple mendalic inheritors]

these science faithfull...never really attempt to study their science...i think they just take the easiest to believe[no reading faith going...and put their faith in white dresses[in lue of black ones ...just as they ignore..the bountyfull proofs god has left for those seeking to know him...

they simply..ignore any one giving them the lengthy detail to their 'lol'...killer questions...oh ye of the simple faithlessness..it is as it is..[but thats not all that it is]

"research has found weakneses in the genome of the negro[specific to blackies]...and are installing these other genes into our food/medicine..to cause death to those these dorkins/darwinian god heads deem selected[naturally]because of their melinine pigment"

No doubt some wicked plot by Obama-funded scientists to turn us all into soul brothers.

I can sense a truly hilarious retro-70s Blaxploitation movie lurking in there, somewhere. Daman Wyans take not.

Sancho
do you really believe that in a chat room there is ample time and space to explain what would take volumes of work which you may not be equipped to cope with nor have i the strength and knowledge to fully express. Honestly, pal, do we know everything about quantam mechanics and biology and the inter-related disciplines? With all modesty we have to answer inthe negative.


Science cannot answer the dead-ends it runs across.There are vast areas that scientists leave to abstract probability about what they call "singularities". There is no proof for any of these opinions,or interpretations because that's all they are. If we accede this privilege, and rightly so we should, then why should the theologian be regarded with suspicion and some degree of contempt for believing in what he cant prove but needs to have faith in the probability that points him to his truths? Let's be quite fairabout it.

The scientist has his way of approaching what he conceives as his Truths andthe philosopher/theologian has another route. It is interesting that in recent years the two different routes are approaching a confluence.

I'll end witha quote from Hans Kung's "The Beginnings Of All Things":

" Yet ofcourse,as an informed theologian, I too regard the standard model as well foundedand at the same time hopethat informed scientists ( and you too, friend Sancho!) will not understand the ' beginning' of all things as a random beginning: the Big Bang is no random beginning. After all what we have here is not just an individual first moment, the first 100th of a second withina series of many comparable moments of the beginning of a history of the world. What we have here is what makes a history oof the world possible at all: not justy a temporal beginning but the beginning of time. That means that it is not a relative but an absolute first beginning, which cannot be a beginning in world-time or time-world. Indeed,without it world-time or time-world cannot be explained at all." The singularity of the "beginning" is something fundamentally different."

socratease

To all my scientist friends,
there are many approaches to the same subject.

Consider this:

The police have a dossier on a subject "X". They know his date of birth,height, weight, color of his eyes, his birth mark, color of his hair and his hair style.They know where all the moles on his body are. The Forensic scientist has given them a detailed report of his inner structures and workings, his blood group etc et al. They "know" all about "X" from the elaborate sense real data in their dossier.

"X"'s mother on the other hand knows only one or two of the above details but she claims that she really knows her son in a way no amount of physical details will ever contain. She comes about this intelligence through a unique existential way of "knowing". Who can say she doesnt know him?

There are more ways to understanding what we are observing and each way has a certain validity. Use whatever detail you must but dont claim 100% superior knowledge about the subject,please.

socratease

The mother can 'know' her son because he is something that can be properly described by her. Also, her son's facial image is well known to the part of her brain that performs the function of 'facial recogition'. So, 'knowing' a person feels inductive, but really it is highly rational and mathmatical at the neurological level.

Now contrast the womens son with God. God cannot be properly described or defined with any satisfactory noun. God can only be described using a string of verbs or adjectives such as loving, merciful, and big.

And so,the question: "What would a merciful look like if it walked in the room?" is a meaningless question consisting of nonsense. But that is what the theologian attempts to answer. What a waste of time. You may as well speculate the miraculous strength of Superman, and why kryptonite weakens it.

It is surpising that anyone takes Dawkins seriously anymore after the tragedy that was The God Delusion, because according to a lot of people he lost his credibility a long time ago. I haven’t read the book myself (one flick through in a library was enough to convince me that it wasn’t worth wasting my time on), but pretty much everyone says his arguments range from weak to laughable, and that it was an incredibly poorly researched piece of work. The ironic thing is that he wrote a book that railed against fundamentalism and fundamentalists, and in the process revealed himself to be a fundamentalist of the most vitriolic kind. And it’s not just Christians who have been saying this, it’s atheists too- Dawkins has been criticized from numerous high profile atheists like Thomas Nagel, Michael Ruse, Julian Baggini etc etc.

But anyway enough on Dawkins. This article was interesting and I always enjoy discussions around the philosophy of science and the meaning of science

trav,

1) baker's article was on dawkin's view of science, not religion. as to why baker chose dawkins? because, like you, he seems to presume dawkins is on the nose. thus, choosing dawkins as (what he thinks is) an easy target, is a step up for baker's own nonsense ponderings.

it would be nice if someone actually returned to baker's actual topic.

2) i won't enter here into the religious debate. it is true that dawkins has some prominent atheist critics. it is also true that dawkins has many defenders, including myself. some attack his arguments, some attack his style. i have no great problem with either. your suggestion that there is some quasi-universal condemnation of dawkins is simply false.

and your appeal to authority is just silly. for what it's worth, the last piece i read by michael ruse was pure garbage. i don't; care how big such people are: if they write crap, they write crap.

Hi Trav,

If you want to understand Dawkins impact on popular culture then I highly recommend, 'Richard Dawkins. How a Scientist Changed the Way we Think.' The book is a collection of essays by various scientists, writers, and philosophers. Most of the essays are a critique on Dawkins most influential work, 'The Selfish Gene.' A personal favourite is, 'What the Whale Wondered: Evolution, Existentialism, and the Search for Meaning.' by David Barash. It's brilliant.

Dawkins would stand up as a great research scientist in his own right. However, his real genius is centred on his ability to extract groundbreaking philosophical conclusions from the reality of biological evolution. And so, the shear (philosophical) logic of works like 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' remains ironclad to this day despite numerous attacks by opponents. Why is the (philosophical) logic ironclad? Because it is founded on hard scientific evidence.

TR says that God cannot be described and he is perfectly right because we believe that God in inscrutable.He cannot be contained in human language.Language is a cultural construct.

It is popularly believed that God is out there somewhere,he is king and loving,he is all-powerful and so on.It is the practice of all religions to portray God with the highest and best and noblest of human virtues.They overlook the likelihood that God is also cruel,kills millions of people,is not all loving and noble.I say this to be consistent with what I said earlier,that language cannot contain God and as TR rightly said that we cannot imagine or describe God.
There is a widespread tendency to see God as Coming into being,a process,and human beings play little or no part in this process.There are 400 million galaxies with their own suns and planets.We are situated at the outer edge of the galaxy known as the Milky Way.rom any observatory you can see entire constellations dying in a blaze of colors and you can also see the birth of new GALAXIES AND CONSTELLATIONS BEING CREATED, CREATED BY no one, BUT JUST AS A PROCESS. If pressed to give some idea of what comes neartest to describing God I'd have to say "evolution" which is a process of coming into being,developing. This makes God very vulnerable to decay andre- forming.There is no such thing as death,but only into transforming,Coming Into being.

socratease

I have no problem with your version of God socratease. If you want assign gravity (the most important force in the Universe) some kind of divine status with creative powers then that's fine by me. The trouble is I don't see the point. A God that doesn't know I'm here and doesn't impact me directly is of no consequence. I have more interesting things to contemplate.

As for your comment - 'There is no such thing as death, but only into transforming, Coming Into being.'- well that sounds like a load of religio-speak bollocks. I will bet my house that you have not the slightest idea what 'Coming into being' means or how it is acheived.

On the other hand. I do know that once I die, and the atoms in my body become scattered back into the biosphere, I become nothing. I return to the same state I was in before I was born. For individual atoms without order cannot think.

TR,in any mature discussion one should never have recourse to invective when dealing with counter propositions.I remind you that respect for the other perspective is the mark of integrity and maturity.
Let me offer you a passage from a more superior intellect than yours or mine:
Hans Kung says in his "The Beginning Of All Things":
"Thus if science is to remain faithful to its own method it may not extend its judgement beyond the horizon of its own experiences."

"Scientists should reflect that subject and object, method and object, are interwoven,and thus a distinction must be drawn between the phenomena that can be grasped by scence and reality as a whole.No method however certain,no scheme however adequate, no theory however precise may be made absolute.The perspectivity and variableity even of mathematical scientific methods in particular require us to be constantly aware of their limits in respect of their limits of reality as a whole, which is always greater. Arent there perhaps entities , events and reciprocal effects in our universe that do not take place in the physical sphere, and that therefore a priori evade the possibility of scientific knowledge?"

Please note the absence of any term such as "bollocks" that does not give your view point any justice or credibility.Ofcourse we shall listen politely to what you have to say.The least you can do is to reciprocate. Is that too much to ask?

socrateas

TR quote<<<..On the other hand.I do know that once I die, and the atoms in my body become scattered back into the biosphere,>>...ahhh but what of the energu that traveled allong those atoms...as nerves/muscle...thought etc

ENERGY CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED...thus the energy that allowed your body to function...that joined into the synaps connections of your mind thinkin g its you...that energy went elsewhere..clothed in your soul body/astral body...into the unseen

much in life is unseen..airs radiation ..electric flow..dont think science can validate the energy destroyed itself...just as the wiords form the book...your life essence cant be destroyed

<<I become nothing...I return to the same state I was in before I was born.>>>ok here energy WASNT CREATED,,,you were a living sperm..that occupied your mothers ovum into living...the eneregy has gotten much bigger..but wasnt created at your conception...it was before thus remains after

<<For individual atoms..without order cannot think>>...but in being in motion..still have affect...thus must have a cause...

see nature/natural/autoniomous..dosnt begin to describe the true cause..who may only be knowable via the affect[us/nature/they reflect the living cause...life comes from living..full stop..science has NEVER..made life..from non life

Yes Socratease, I agree with Hans Kung's paragraph. And there is much to admire in the statement 'no theory however precise may be made absolute'.

However, this statement works AGAINST God, not for him. If a coherent theory about God cannot be constructed then don't do it. It is far better to admit that somethings are just beyond human reasoning and not go off on some ill defined tangent.

But this is not what religious people do. The religious moderates sprout a load of non-sensical religio-speak pretending that it is "deep and meaningful", and the fundamentalists are so absolutely "sure" of their Koranic/Biblical fairy tales that they are prepared to start wars over them, or invade my privacy on a Saturday morning when I'm trying read the newspaper.

But such is the rampant double standards and hyprocracy that most religious people delude themselves into. At least Richard Dawkins is completely honest if nothing else.

(BTW I still like the biting humour of the word 'bollocks'. It conveys a precise meaning that can't be reached by using other words. But since it offends you I will refrain from using it.

Under one god, please learn to construct a proper sentence with a coherent argument in it. You currently come across as someone really stupid.)

TR, let me tell you something about myself.
I began my education in a ultra-conservative school run by the London Missionary Society which was a coterie of Baptist and Methodist fundamentalists. .
Afterwards I attended Teachers' College in Allahabad,India, I was taught by German Roman Catholic nuns who made no attempt to convert me. I was drawn to the solemnity and beauty of the ritual drama of their Mass. I loved all the Gregorian chanting and smell of incense. My views of God began a syncretic ensemble but very tentatively. I made a conscious decision to emigrate to Australia where i taught for over 40 yrs till ill health forced my retirement. I then began to attend theology courses at Murdoch University where my eyes were opened in sheeer amazement. The old concepts of God were being seriously challenged. I couldnt believe it. I was excited and very angry because every Sunday I heard the same boring sermons that could have been written over 100 years ago.The Anglican Church held back on its duty to conform to emerging truths. I walked out of the Church for which today i have nothing but contempt because they lack credibility.All the currents priests have been through the same courses and will privately agree with you about the recent developments.
I read up a lot of modern books on science and spirituality by writers like Hans Kung who was sacked by the arch Conservitive Roman catholic Church for his open and modern visions of Reality.
Today, TR,no thinking and honest Christian really believes in the Old God of the Old testament nor the New Testament. The theistic God of the past has run his/her/its course and is dead as a dodo. I now belong to a rationalist Christian group ( we dont use the word "church" any more!) called Unitarians. We dont have any creeds or dogmas. All we have are questions. We believe that the truth is evolultioary and keeps coming into existence. Maybe that is the only manifestation of God we may lay claim to, in a way.

socratease.

*,>>...ahhh but what of the energu that traveled allong those atoms...as nerves/muscle...thought etc*

Quite simple OUG, all that energy in your body will become energy
for wormfood, when you fall off the old perch, as we all do eventually.

You will be recycled!

BTW, Dawkins has just published a new book, 480 pages bringing
together all the evidence for evolution theory. It should make
interesting bedtime reading for you, but I doubt if you will
bother to read it and inform yourself.

The excerpt is that in which Richard Dawkins responds to the

dorkind..quotes<<..If you were able to teach every person,..what would you want people to believe?

I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to;..I would want them to look at the evidence,..judge it on its merits,..not accept things because of internal revelation or faith,..but purely on the basis of evidence.>>>so i simply ask the question that twice has stumped the doork

..<<question,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?’,...a question that he was asked on two separate occasions on the day>>

...EXPECTING YOU TO PROVIDE THE REPLY,..he cannot give...

ie..<<..give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?’


PLEASE GIVE ANSWER TR

...so i let YOU.. reply the question

anyhow to reply his<<..judge it..on its merits,..not accept things because of internal revelation..or faith,..but purely on the basis of evidence.....

this is still your godhead[dorkins]talking>>..Not everybody can evaluate all evidence;..we..can't evaluate the evidence..for quantum physics...So it does..have to be..a certain amount of taking things on trust.>>....LOL

MORE BULL FROM YOUR GOD-HEAD..QUESTION<<..A lot of people think that evolution...is all about random chance.

That's ludicrous.

That's ridiculous.>>...LOL THEN GOES ON TO SAY THIS CCCRAPPP

<<..Mutation is random...>>>lol

continue dorks..quote<<..in the sense>>...lol...<<that it's not anticipatory...of what's needed.>>lol

#THEN...lol..<<..Natural selection is anything but random.>>>lol

then..<<Natural selection is a guided process,>>>lol
<<guided not by any higher power>>> boy the end is going to explain the science ....right?...lol...nope i think not

<<but simply by which genes survive..and which genes don't survive.>>>ie.... random chance...lol..very scientific...lol

lol...<<That's a non-random process>>...lol
from
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx

socratease,
>>I read up a lot of modern books on science and spirituality by writers like Hans Kung who was sacked by the arch Conservitive Roman catholic Church for his open and modern visions of Reality.<<
If you mean the Roman Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), Küng was not “sacked”, only had his licence to teach Catholic theology withdrawn, for the same reason as any organisation would withdraw the licence to speak on its behalf if it contradicted, or even just confused, its official position. Küng continued to teach “ecumenical theology“ at Tübingen until his retirement in 1996, and his priestly faculties were never revoked.

There was never a serious disagreement between Vatican and Küng concerning science and religion, only on specific Catholic matters like interpretation of the Scriptures, and discipline. In 2005 he presented to Benedict XVI the original of the book you quoted from during their meeting (unclear as to who initiated it). Actually, topics of science and religion, Küng’s concept of World-ethos (Weltethos), were the most discussed, no apparent disagreements here, although Küng himself later stated that he did not request that Benedict XVI restore his license to teach Catholic theology.

As to the book itself, I own and have read only the original, so I cannot quote from it, although your quote is very much to the point, and certainly no educated Christian, including the Pope, could disagree with it. I liked the book as well, however Küng is not a (natural) scientist (neither is the Pope), so in some sense I find the writings of scientist-theologians that I often mention here (Barbour, Peacocke, Polkinghorne) more insightful.

As to Küng, I personally prefer his earlier, though much more voluminous, book “Does God Exist?” (Collins 1980) where he comes through as a specialist in humanities and social sciences and the fact, that he e.g. does not understand much mathematics needed for the understanding of contemporary models of the physical world, is irrelevant.

socratease,
I agree with you that one should not use “bollocks” in discussions like this. But neither should one use statements like “no thinking and honest Christian really believes in the Old God of the Old testament nor the New Testament” when refering to other people’s world-views, just because they accepts that “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and “God of philosophers and scientists” are two manifestations of the same God (in the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature respectively, to use Galileo’s insight).

As a mathematician, I would not expect to learn deep new insights from a lecture aimed at a non-specialist audience, though I accept that if properly presented such popular lectures are necessary and useful. For the same reasons, or even more so, I do not expect to gain world-shattering philosophical and theological insights from a sermon to “ordinary” folks of whatever denomination.

Had the Bible been written in a language reflecting our contemporary scientific understanding of the material world, had the dogmas been formulated as laws referring to reality (objective as well as subjective) as some of us understand them today - even here there is no common agreement - you might have found them, and sermons based on them, more acceptable. However, in a couple of centuries, or even millennia, into the future, they would be as outdated and naive as are literal interpretations of the Scripture and dogmas today. So why not stick to them as they are and keep their exact wording and time-dependent interpretations interrelated but separate.

By George,you're a scream,pal!!
Do you have any idea just how many priest-teachers and scientists nolonger bother with their former participation in Catholic Churches? Whatever happened to people like Matthew Fox, Karen Armstrong to name just two better known authorities who refgused to sell their consciences to the Vatican.
So there was never any serious disagreement between the Vat and Kung concerning science and religion??I dont suppose you would call belief in the theistic divine a serious matter. The ramifications of sciences cut right across RC theological positions. You went on to say "he did not ask B16 to restore his licence to teach Catholic theology" Hello! "Restore" means that it was revoked once before in order to have it restored. For God's sake,Georgie old boy, make up your mind. Either he was sacked or he was not, but dont prevaricate and contradict yourself. And stop trying to bluff everyone.It doesnt work any longer.
For years the Vat has been burning questioning minds at the stake, torturing them into silence (dont say this hasnt been happening, Georgie!) we all know our history better than that to believe otherwise. What has the record been like in the South American Catholic states like Nicaragua to hame just one example. No serious disagreement, indeed. Your choice of euphemisms is amusing. The Vat is a great silencer of dissent.The trouble with you apologists is that you all seem to labour under the delusion the world hasnt caught upwith the multiple exposures of this kind ...or you wish we havent. The Vat's hold on people's consciences through the fear of excommunications no longer has dissenter quivering in fear.
socratease

'TR, let me tell you something about myself.......'

Then you should know better socratease. So why don't you be honest with yourself, admit finding God is like locating the end of a rainbow, and become an atheist. You know it makes perfect sense.

Well to all the Dawkin's critics you will be pleased to note the release of a new book by David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300111903

Just the early bits gleaned from the book in terms of the positive impact of Christianity and its role in shaping the world as we know and understand it. This argument - if the book follows this line of debate - still falls into the same trap of talking about impact as though this concept in itself is proof of the existence of God.

I will read it though before saying too much. Maybe a few of us can read the book and start another thread at a later date to discuss it in further detail.

Pelican
cant wait to hear from you re.- david Hart's book.Thanks for alertingme to it. I find him eminently readable even when i cannot always accept his pov.
Thanks again or should I say mouth full of good fish as a blessing!
LOL!!
Sorry.

socratease

socratease,
I just wanted to expand on your reference to Hans Küng, but apparently I took you too seriously when you wrote that

“in any mature discussion one should never have recourse to invective when dealing with counter propositions. I remind you that respect for the other perspective is the mark of integrity and maturity!”.

So I apologise for having outlined to you my “other perspective” that made you react in a way that you yourself so succinctly described in the above quote.

pelican,
The book by Hart is one of many responses to Dawkins’ book about his God Delusion. The author is an (Orthodox) theologian, apparently also with qualifications as a historian, though I do not think also of those of a (natural) scientist, the position Dawkins is writing from. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to read your comments about the book before I decide to eventually buy it myself.

Hart might or might not convincingly defend his view of “the positive impact of Christianity and its role in shaping the world as we know and understand it”; if he does he certainly would not be the first or only one. However, even without reading the book I am pretty sure he does not offer a “proof of the existence of God”- no reasonable person in 21st century will offer that. And as far as compatibility of a belief in God with the findings of contemporary e.g. physics and cosmology are concerned, I would rather recommend e.g. the other book advertised on the same webside: John Polkinghorne’s “Faith, Science & Understanding“, SPCK 2000, since the author is both an accomplished quantum physicist, a theologian and prolific writer on these matters.

Or, if you want to read specialist counter-arguments to Dawkins’ evolutionary theory of religion, I would recommend David Sloan Wilson (c.f. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04), a fellow evolutionary biologist and fellow atheist, the author of Darwin’s Cathedral - Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society, UCP 2002.

George
No one can offer proof of God's existence.If this were to happen it would reduce God to something equal to or less than the human intellect. God remains inscrutable because we are all part of God and the part can never subsume the whole. Language is a human invention culturally derived.Words may well form the narrative by pointing the way to the Reality that hovers in our consciousness covertly.
I deplore statements like "Creator" of "God created" or God's creation"
These are expressions of theism that are still to be found in the works of even Polkinghorne and Spong and liberated thinkers like them. Hart to a lesser degree. We have to look to Westar for the closest we can get to non-theistic post-modern constructions of God talk.'No matter how progressive and liberal they may like to think they are. There is a latent residue of theistic undertones lurking below their level of consciousness.

Surely it is time to recoignise the value of evolutionary or process theology that tells us that God is.Everything that was, is or will be does so in God.There is only God who is in all of us and we are part of God. Someone once said (can't recall exactly who!) "It is at it is but it is not all as it is."

socratease

George wrote: “However, even without reading the book I am pretty sure he [Hart] does not offer a “proof of the existence of God”- no reasonable person in 21st century will offer that.”

If David Bentley Hart has written a book in response the Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, that doesn’t try to prove the existence of God, then I would be interested in reading it.

Many Christians (even those who accept evolution) try to prove God by using the fallacious Ontological argument - which no matter how deeply one goes into, or how convoluted and lengthy they make their explanation - ends up essentially saying: “I can conceive God, therefore he exists”. I was pleasantly surprised to see that George doesn’t buy into this nonsense.

Speaking of the Ontological argument though, there is an excellent televised debate at the following two links between Matt Dillahunty (President of the Atheist’s Community of Austin, and the main host of the show The Atheist Experience on a cable channel in the US) and Matt Slick (from http://www.carm.org/ - Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry).

I think many here on this thread would be fascinated to watch the debate. Needless to say, Matt Dillahunty completely wipes-out the Christian apologist and his Ontological argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v02HM_-Dz2g (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7DHRswzJ0&feature=response_watch (Part 2)

George,

If you were to read The God Delusion, I think you would be pleasantly surprised by how much you agree with Dawkins. You don’t go very deep into what you believe God to be, but from what I gather, and in my experience, you are in a small minority when it comes to the question of what God is. So I don’t think it’s very necessary to mention what you refer to as Dawkins’ own God Delusion, as this “delusion” that Dawkins’ speaks of refers to not just his own idea of God, but the idea of what the majority of Theists consider God to be.

As far as I can tell, the only comment I could imagine Dawkins making about the God you believe in is that it’s a pretty benign God.

I meant to respond to one of your interesting posts earlier but didnt find the time but now I can.It was the one posted on the 12th sept at 6.46:14 pm
You were talking about the use of language and text to express truths which,you said, in a millenis or so would be outdated and naive so "why not stick to them (language? texts?) and keep their exact wording and time-dependent interpretations inter-related but separate"

Unfortunately history shows us that we have moved into the post-modern period where serious users of language are guided by Derridean and Wittgensteinish paradigms that reveal the multifacted applicatioins of language that depend on all sorts of liberal ambivalences based on multiple contextual matrices. Languages that are imprisoned in time die.That has really always been the case. Its just that weve been brought back to a more rigid aplication of it,language. Things arent all that they are made out to be - "Oils arent oils" any more!!
Take the bible for example.Today churches interpret the NT in a way that suits their doctrines and world views forgetting that the ancient Jews didnt have English in the back of their minds when they wrote.They wrote in Aramaic using the Jewish midrash rubric. We have no idea what they understood Jesus to have meant by his teachings.They were Jews writing for Jews of the time and place. We have made up his meanings for ourselves.

socratease

socratease,
>>God remains inscrutable <<
Which does not mean people of different religions, cultures, cannot have models or images expressed in myths, sacred books etc. of the Inscrutable. Like quantum gravity (and the mathematics behind it) is “inscrutable” for many people, nevertheless they have their own notion about e.g. the Big Bang.

>> I deplore statements like "Creator" of "God created" or God's creation" <<
That is your good right (even though what you refer to are expressions/symbols, not statements). Other people might “deplore” other language, other expressions, including the ones you prefer, and that is their good right as well.

>> These are expressions of theism that are still to be found in the works of even Polkinghorne<<
Which is rather obvious since they are expressions/symbols normally used in Christian theology and he is also a Christian theologian.

As to your later excursion into hermeneutics, by the terse “their exact wording” I meant the text of the original or of the authorised (by this or that theological authority) into this or that language. Everybody is free to offer his/her own interpretation as long as it is not confused with the authorised texts. I enjoy reading sci-fi stories but treat them differently from writings by professional e.g. physicists or cosmologists, even when on a popularising level.

AJ Philips,
There is a difference between proving something, and offering an argument in support of something. I can prove that Canberra is the capital of Australia, whereas I can only offer you arguments in support of my belief that ALP (or the Coalition) is better suited to govern Australia. Anselm’s argument remains indeed just an argument, (especially after Russell debunked it), the same about Aquinas’ “five ways” (often erroneously referred to as “proofs”). - ctd

-ctd-
You are right, I have not read “The God Delusion” and probably will not, since I do not think I could learn anything from it, judging by the non sequiturs in his “Blind Watchmaker” going outside his domain of evolutionary biology (where he is a master in explaining things to non-experts).

This seems to be also Hart’s impression since his recent book - in the meantime I have looked at some reviews of the book in amazon.com - is indeed mostly a defence of “the positive impact of Christianity and its role” as pelican put it, rather than a philosophical argument. As far as I know, Dawkins in his book attacks (criticises, if you like) religion and belief in God in general, and Christianity’s role in our culture in particular. Hart seems to address only this second part.

>> you are in a small minority when it comes to the question of what God is <<
Not only that, as a mathematician I am probably also in a small minority when it comes to mathematics. Nevertheless, I do not see my understanding of mathematics in conflict with the understanding of a high school, or even primary school, student; I only had an inclination and opportunity to learn and think more about it.

Speaking of arguments, what can you offer to support your belief that I “don’t go very deep into what I believe God to be”? Yes, I believe He is “benign” (and not malignant), although Christians prefer a different adjective for this.

My understanding of quantum gravity also does not go very deep, nevertheless, I am glad it goes as far as it does. The same about my theological understanding.

The reality that God is supposed to be is much more inscrutable (to use socrateaese’s expression) than the physical reality of space, time and matter, nevertheless people try to understand them as far as they can. In case of God you need a predilection briefly called faith, in case of physical reality you need a “predilection” called mathematics.

evolution is unproven,” the problem with calling evolution “a theory” is that scientists use the word differently from laymen.

A “theory” in science//means a well-substantiated explanation of data...The evolution conjecture should not be called a..“theory,” because this gives it unwarranted respectability..by association

with the Theory of Relativity,..Newton’s Theory of Gravity,..the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes,..etc.

All these theories have strong experimental support ..although Newton’s theory has been augmented by Einstein’s)...

In contrast,..evolution of life..from non-living matter..and from one basic type of organism..to a different type..has not the slightest experimental/observational support.


The genetic code is not a universal cosmic code...The problem with any theory that claims extraterrestrial genetic input,..is that life on Earth is a closed genetic system...

you havnt replied..<<question,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?>>

<<Histone-4 has a chain of 102 amino acids>>>your a mathi-magition...give the odds of evolving just this 102 amino acids chain...

mathimatrix-sic-ly...if any one is wrong..you got dead...not evolution//...just via math..more die than evolve...yet where is the proof of the math..that evolves...lol...

the odds simply dont stack up/..neither the math

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION
,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..[evolutions proofs is micro[intra species..into same species..intra genus...macro evolution into new[neo] genus...even via m,athimatricks..genious...they simply dont egsist

Histones are necessary..for chromosome condensation during cell division...The traditional neo-Darwinian step-by-step method must fail claims..because it implies 100 non-functional steps.

The alternative:..a jump of 100 mutations of exactly the right kind would be highly improbable....but your a math-magition weave your proof...the math alone..[probability]..proves evolution is fraud..

or at a minimum..some affect..[intelligence]..intelli-gent designer..that amasingly flukes it...naturally..lol..this natural selector is god..by any other name

George,

<<There is a difference between proving something, and offering an argument in support of something.>>

I agree, and I have used a similar analogy here before.

But I said “Many Christians (even those who accept evolution) try to prove...”, because “proof” is what I always seem to hear it referred to as. Unfortunately though, from the arguments I’ve heard, they don’t even offer support.

<<Not only that, as a mathematician I am probably also in a small minority when it comes to mathematics.>>

Just to be clear, when I said that you were in a small minority, I didn’t mean that as a bad thing (A good thing if anything). That’s just from my own observation of having been a Christian once before, and having many friends and relatives who are regular church goers.

<<Speaking of arguments, what can you offer to support your belief that I “don’t go very deep into what I believe God to be”?>>

Again, that’s just my own observation, I can’t quote something that I personally can’t recall you ever having done. I know what you believe God not to be, but I don’t yet understand what you actually believe God to be. Saying that you believe that he is “benign” has probably been the biggest clue so far.

As It appears that few of the posters here have actually read much of Dawkins' work, I can give a brief summary of my perceptions here:

1: He shows comprehensively that any scientific concepts flowing from the bible have no basis in reality.
2: He then questions the moral authority of the church from a logical, modern perspective and finds it wanting.

Considering that since the Gallileo debacle, the Church has prefered to take the back seat on scientific issues, and instead has focused on being the world's conscience, Dawkins' teachings are stripping the church and religion of the last vestiges of relevance to modern society.

This is why Christians attack his work with so much vitriol (especially those ignoramuses that haven't read his work like Trav), because Dawkins is the most serious threat to the credibility of the church since Gallileo.

the dorkins is talking to the ayhiest...here is a guy setting out to disprove an thing,...NOT OFFER PROOF..OF A SCIENCE ALTERNATIVE...any nutter can note simply by your quote

NOTE<<..a brief summary of my perceptions here:

1: He shows comprehensively...lol..that any scientific concepts flowing from the bible..have no basis in reality.>>talk about extreem...imagine..not one..valid science concept...lol

ok present your rebuttal...dont hide behind the dorrk..present your proof of evolution..dont think rebutting one prooves the other...lol

<<He then questions>>>.lol about anything to do with bible/religion/god....certainly he dosnt question his science...nor set out to validate it...he certasinly constantly refuse to explain THE QUESTION,...you lot keep ignoring

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION
,..‘Can you give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..

instead of science we get the new athiest god head questioning ...lol..<<..the moral authority of the church from a logical,....[laugh]..modern ...[god free]..perspective and finds it wanting....wow

so when is he going to validate or reply the science..

ANSWER THE DAMM QUESTION

,..‘..give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?

OR please..confirm the evidence of a single genus..that changed its genus..

ignorance is no proof...validate/replicate..or wake up you been decieved by a dorkk with an agenda,,,his godless adgenda...

in lue of science fact...attack the belief..of the other camps believers...its the same ignorant beliefs..in opinion..presented...in lue of faulsifyable/science/fact

Let's suppose that none of your 'tricky' questions can be answered by evolutionary biology using current knowledge. Then how does your God hypothesis help matters? What does your God actually do?

And if you cannot at least outline what your God actually does, then I would suggest that your God hypothesis is effectively useless. You are better off discarding it.

George
I encourage you to read Dawkins. Much of the criticism has bee selective, taking passages out of context. You might be surprised. Not that I am implying you will change your mind, far from it, merely to be able to read him for yourself and judge how relevant the writings of his detractors.

I am an Atheist/Agnostic (never quite comfortable with the distinction) and still get much from some religious writings. Religion has played a mammoth role in shaping society and as such it is interesting and relevant.

socratease, AJ you might beat me to the Hart book. I will get to it as soon as I can inbetween other projects.

Peace to all.

*give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?*

Actually UOG, that is not even a difficult one, if you know anything
about modern plant breeding. When they insert a gene for say
Roundup resistance into a plant, they use a virus to do it. The
resulting offspring then carry a gene for Roundup resistance, which
they never had before, doing exactly what you are on about.

The problem is that they have also discovered that the same can
happen in nature, although far less common. Viruses can actually
move genes from one plant to the other.

It is one of the reasons why people like me are concerned about
so called Roundup ready canola. Eventually those genes will be
moved around to other species, making them roundup resistant. That
is really bad news for agriculture, as we depend so much on
Roundup.

But UOG, Richard Dawkin's new book is only days away from launch,
read it and you'll have 480 pages of evidence to refute, which
should keep you busy for the next 3 lifetimes :)

Just imagine, if you could actually refute his evidence, you would
be a hero in the eyes of all the other religious nuts!

Go for it UOG, read it and show us what you can do!

Actually Yabby, the book is out now, got it at Target for $21.99 and its a great read. I would recommend it to everyone on both sides of the so called 'fence' as it is comprehensive and easily readable.

I would also love to hear that OUG has read it. He really should stop criticising Richard Dawkins when he hasn't even read one of his books.

Now that would be enlightening OUG given that you always seem to think you know more than everyone else, get his latest book and do tell us what you think...i wont hold my breath waiting though LOL

yabby...Most viruses tend to be rather host-specific,

Viruses infect all cellular life and,..although viruses occur universally,..each cellular species has its own specific range that often infect only that species.

SO FOR YOUR THEORY TO WORK...please explain how the vires...havnt evolved us...we all still look the same..,virus afects genotype not phenotype..[evolution is about phenenotypical progression]...lol

Diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease and bluetongue are caused by viruses...Companion animals such as cats,..dogs, and horses,..are susceptible..to serious viral infections.

Fortunately,..most viruses co-exist harmlessly in their host..and cause no signs or symptoms of disease

when..finite populations..with high mutation rates are considered,..a significant proportion of the mutants should be deleterious...In that case a kind of irreversible ratchet mechanism..gradually will decrease the mean fitness of the populations..Chao..provided the first experimental evidence..for the action of Muller's ratchet..in RNA viruses.

there is a common pattern of fitness decline,..but the magnitude of decline strongly depended on the virus studied...We documented variable fitness drops after 20 or more plaque-to-plaque transfers of VSV...The relevance of these findings for evolutionary biology is clear:..whenever bottlenecks occur,..fitness decreases.

virus means dead/sick..not fittest surviving..or as if of null affect..not evolution

DNA shows there is God,..as does mother nature,..the miracle of birth,..and the love of man...and for those with eyes to see...love expressed even by beasts

http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/popular-science/discuss/entry/dna-proves-the-existence-of-god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyf2vokOo88

AJ Philips,
You seem to challenge me to write “what I actually believe God to be”. So let me try.

You are right that it is easier to say what God is not (c.f. Via Negativa or Apophatic theology) than to say what He is. Many such statements fall into the trap of being self-referential hence self-contradictory (c.f. Russell’s paradox - the set of all sets that are not members of themselves - or the “barber who shaves everybody except for those who shave themselves”). So let me start differently by repeating what I wrote in an earlier post:

There are in principle only two presuppositions, what one can believe about reality (actually three, if you count “sitting on the fence”):

(1) The physical universe is all there is (as Carl Sagan put it), and either
(a) it is without cause and without purpose, or
(b) it is its own cause and purpose (c.f. Paul Davies), or
(c) it does not make sense to ask for its cause or purpose,
or
(2) there must be Something (different religions model It differently, we call Him God) not reducible to the physical universe, which is its own cause and purpose, and is (the carrier of) the cause and purpose of the physical universe, including us, humans.

There is no rational way to decide “logically” in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference. [One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer, his/her preference comes from some other sources, outside metaphysical speculations. For instance, a personal (religious) experience or just simple marvel at the world around him/her or the enigma of his/her self-awareness, that he/she simply cannot accept as being without cause and without purpose, combined with level education and cultural environment.]

So the FIRST step in my belief in God is my option for (2). - ctd

ctd-
Since God is also the purpose of MY existence, the SECOND step in my belief is that I can communicate with Him, hence I assign to Him the attributes of a person. (Something like a three-year old assigns to his/her father (or mother) the attributes of a three-year old, although he/she somehow feels that the father is much more than that, without understanding why and how). Here the “I” is embedded in the cultural environment I grew up in, so my communication with God depends on that, which in my case is Christianity.

This brings me to the THIRD step in what I believe about God: Although He is inscrutable, and although He possibly communicates with other cultures in different ways, it is binding for me to accept the image of Him as He revealed Himself to the cultural tradition and environment that determines what I am, how I view existence. This “revelation” is through Scripture, Church doctrines and intellectual insights, including philosophy and science, as they evolved through centuries. So to Galileo’s “two books written by God” - the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature - one might add a third book, that of (our) Culture.

pelican,
One should never say never, however there are many books I know I could learn from and haven’t got the time to read them. Dawkins is an expert on evolutionary biology, I learned a lot from him (and I wish I could more), however I do not think he is an expert on topics that are closer to my interests, and - I am afraid - neither an expert who can provide new insights into things like religion or the intellectual underpinning of the educated Christian’s belief in God. Also, it is a bit rich to call a group of world-views based on centuries of intellectual endeavour to understand reality and the human condition a delusion. Nevertheless, I believe Dawkins’ book serves its purpose as do some Christian apologetic books helpful for those who need confirmation in their faith or “unfaith” respectively.

'Since God is also the purpose of MY existence, the SECOND step in my belief is that I can communicate with Him.....'

Dawkins would call this a "God Delusion". Mainly because it is.

*virus means dead/sick..not fittest surviving..or as if of null affect..not evolution*

Well UOG, in this case, it clearly does not! For of course those
plants resistant to Roundup, now cover tens of millions of acres
around the world, as humans grow ever more of them.

Now we have a little problem lol. That Roundup resistant gene is
now turning up in other species, so slowly but surely all that
human spraying of Roundup will be as effective as peeing in the
breeze, as those individuals which carry the gene, multiply by their
billions! The fittest survive by the benefit of one gene, transferred
by a virus.

Now go and read Dawkin's book and prove him wrong, I dare you.
The fact is that you can't, you haven't even bothered to read the
evidence that he presents, relying on Utube for your information.

UOG, you are free to delude yourself, but you arn't convincing anyone.
Ok, so I concede, it makes you feel good to think that your crap matters :)

OUG...that link you posted was really really good.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/popular-science/discuss/entry/dna-proves-the-existence-of-god

It actually, step by step debunked your whole argument LOLOL...that DNA shows the existence of god. I'll quote one little bit for you....hopefully you will go back and read the whole thing, might learn something, you never know, and it proves you don't read anything closely, just more cherry picking!

"In closing, the larger argument here is a classic example of the god of the gaps, as described in layman's terms in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Since we can not DISPROVE that god designed DNA, it has to be true. Epic fail."

I have been so impressed by the width and commitment to personal points of view related with so much passion, and also humour sometimes!
I wonder if I am the only one who has noticed that everyone is right in what they say or even if they are not the point has to be made that as finite beings the durability of the truths or views are limited by the death of all of us.So, how important are these differences.
The point I wish to make is that might it not be that what there is is what it is but not all that is. There is or must be a transcending truth that absorbs everything without in any way being diminished or enhanced by it. Truth keeps evolving; has always been ever since the first arboreal ancestor left the forests for the savannah grasslands.
How had hydrogen, the simplest of elements, evolved into such creatures able to contemplate creatures such as ourselves?. Then through the ages we arrive at where we are.

Fourteen billion years ago there was nothing and now all this,you and I, and in the near future there will be neither you nor I and in fact there will be end-time when the entire planetary system implodes into cosmic dust. It doesnt end there. matter is neither created nor destroyed and consciousnness may have its own and undiscovered own indestructibility. So then it goes on again and again. I believe that process theology is the best and most consistent theology that can live with these truths. I am not talking about religion or any theistic god. I believe that what passes for god is capable of being seen and accepted in a non-personal sense as a secularly derived version.
What we think is a physical reality may need to be re-assessed.

socratease

re read the statement tricker<<...the larger argument here is a classic example..of..'the god'..of the gaps,>>..it might be a god of the gaps...but even if gods..were still talking about god..lol

<<as described in layman's terms>>..LAYMAN..get it?..ie..a religious novice..as revealed..<<in the/God..Delusion..by Richard Dawkins>>...

how would you feel gabby..if i told you to read 600 pages of bullshitt...nearly equal to two new testiments..[or one old testiment..in every line him..telling you smuggly...he got my cash..to call me an idiot...STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR FAULSE dorky-GOD

if you cant explain..without telling me to read his bull..dont bother matey..put your own statements..

state things in YOUR OWN WORDS..

the reason the genes resistant..to roundup..are transphering is because they use a virus..from plants...

thus naturally..the plants that get the bad gmo/on virus..absorb the gene...yet..the plant phenotypically..is still egsactly the same..as the others..no pheno-typical evolution

you breed..blooming yabbies..[i had hoped..you were conversant with breeding/terminology..but clearly your hit and miss..[a yabby raiser...not a breeder]..google genotype/phenotype..get educated son

the fittest survive...now...but you watch..re read my previous post..watch what happens down the line...noting..gm corn/gm potatoes is making beasts infertile..[allready]..

yeah..im concerned[about gmo]..that is some satanist/eugenicyst/capitalist plot,..to mutate us and our plants..[us via gmo vacine..for the spanish/bird/pig-hy-bred..as well as our food..

but recall santo's[mon-satano]..its not as if they kept it secret...but the thing is the virus..isnt evolution..its genomic...the mutations are physiological..not phenotypical..evolving is all about pheno-logy..[pheno-type]

look at the damm...vidio...see all the process DORKINS claims by accident[or lol alians...which begs the questions how the alians get it...lol...first make your own life..then speculate..

science has NEVER MADE LIFE MATE...figure it out...all them clever retards..cant do..what god..may have..done by accident

gods the dreamer...we are his dream..live with it...

i can understand you lot rejecting religion...but how the hell..cant you see gods hand..moving the puppet..its between god and you..and god loves you..dont judge something you never knew

The one under dog is like a stuck record. He never answers questions posed to him, and continually asks the same genus questions in spite of them having been answered many times.

He has yet to provide any reason why we should buy into the fantasy called genesis.

I like many people have been confused about the relationship between spiritualism/religion and science. On the one hand you recognise the logic of science but somewhere deep down you feel there is another dimension to the real answers.

I have found the writings and of Dr Robert Anthony to synchronise the truths for me as no one else has ever been able to.
According to Dr Robert Anthony, one of the benefits of understanding the basics of quantum physics is that you can finally see clearly how your thoughts, ideas and beliefs control the outcome of your life.

Quantum physics is the study of the building blocks of the universe. Let's use your body as an example. Your body is made up of cells. These cells are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are in turn made up of sub-atomic particles such as electrons. The study of quantum physics has proven that everything is made up of 'large groups' of sub-atomic particles.

Your body, your car, plants, trees, thoughts, light, everything else, including the entire universe are 'concentrations or large groups' of energy or sub-atomic particles. The only difference is in the way these particles are grouped together into building blocks.
The sub-atomic particles are energy packets that are sometimes called "quanta".

Knowing how they work and knowing how they are drawn together, is the key to knowing how to get what you want in life. Because the law of attraction (how things are or become grouped together) works for everything.

Everything in this universe is made up of energy, and these energy packets behave in the most amazing way! The reason they appear as certain things and arrange themselves into an automobile or a table, for example, is due to our individual and collective thoughts.

Spirit and Mind shapes this energy into physical form. If you can see what I see, then you will understand the relationship between spirituality and science much more clearly now

George,

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it not only because you’d put so much thought into your response, but because you’ve put your belief, and your reason for believing out there and open to criticism - and all because of my subtle challenge.

Having once been a literalist believer in the Bible, I’ve always been genuinely curious as to what exactly it was that you believed (if not a simplistic literal interpretation of the Bible), and how you reconciled it with science.

In regards to your presuppositions, I would consider myself to be 1a, and Occam’s Razor is a big reason for that.

Thanks again for the explanation.

TR,
>>Dawkins would call this a "God Delusion".<<
That is his and your good right, the same as others’ good right is to call Dawkins’ ideas - on what other people necessarily believe about God - his “delusion”. However, I do not think name calling helps us to understand each other.

Of course, if you opt for Sagan’s alternative in Step 1, then what I believe in Step 2 must come to you as a delusion. Perhaps not unlike marvelling at the beauty of a sunset - and its poetic description that goes beyond the physical explanation of the phenomenon - must come to a blind man as nothing but expressions of a “delusion”.

Of course, there is also the deist approach, accepting my option in Step 1 but not Steps 2&3.

socratease,
There are positions in between the extremes of being a “literalist believer in the Bible” and “not talking about religion or any theistic god”. See John Polkinghorne in http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm on process theology. However, when he says

“Whitehead's event-dominated picture of reality ... (because) most of the time there is, in fact, a continuous process (and so) Whitehead's metaphysics doesn't fit very well on to physics as we understand the process of the world”,

he does not take into account Carlo Rovelli’s and Lee Smolin’s loop quantum gravity in which space-time is supposed to be quantized, i.e. discrete rather than continuous (quantised geometry).

Well, in 1998 when that interview took place, this theory was only a couple of years old. I do not know whether Polkinghorne since changed his mind about process theology “not fitting on to physics”. See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9423&page=0#150700.

AJ Philips,
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the strength of the Occam’s razor argument, especially when combined with negative “religious” experience.