Dan S – “Since when is not being sure of something 100% classed as a virtue?”

No self-respecting scientist says they are 100% sure about a theory. I think it’s arrogant to be 100% sure about anything. If someone says they are 100% sure that the earth is flat or that there is no extra-terrestrial life or that there is a god, I wouldn’t say their certainty is a virtue.

“when someone advertises a talk or seminar or conference, I’d like to come and hear about what they know, or what they’ve learned or discovered. I’m not interested in them boasting about what they don’t know.”

I don’t know if you were at the conference – but it was not about boasting about what we do know, it was largely about how we can live in a secular society with people who have religious beliefs. There were even agnostic speakers who said they did not know if there is a god. In fact I’ve never heard of a scientific conference in which they only talk about what they “know” – most of the time they talk about contradicting evidence and how to resolve inconsistencies in the results of studies or how to improve the method. If all they were interested in was what they know, there wouldn’t be any point debating or continuing research on a topic.

Michael, I was not at the conference. I’ve heard that Dawkins lectured on the topic of evolution. Can I ask how sure you are about this well accepted view of our origins? Is it 100% or 99% or something else?

’It’s because we value scepticism and evidence, and try to apply it to all things and for all claims, that most of us have turned to atheism in the first place.’ N.M.

The hairs you are splitting, Dan S de Merengue, are getting thinner and thinner, aren't they?

>>Can I ask how sure you are about this well accepted view of our origins? Is it 100% or 99% or something else?<<

I can't answer for Michael, of course, but I'd put my own level of certainty that the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old, at 100%.

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/pubs/age-of-universe.html

I expect the scientists will continue to discover new methods to refine these numbers, at which point my level of certainty that they are right will continue at 100%.

Mind you, if I were one of those scientists, I would never, ever, allow myself to think in terms of certainties. If they were to become certain, they would stop looking.

Interestingly, if they were to do that, my own personal level of certainty would start to dwindle. Why have they stopped looking, I would ask myself. What makes them so sure that there isn't a whole lot more to find out, and to learn about.

Which is the problem I have with Creationism. Having reached what they believe is a "conclusion", there remains nothing left for creationists to learn. The only avenue of enquiry or exploration remaining to them is to think up new ways to defend an increasingly untenable position.

Which certainly keeps the brain active, no doubt about that.

But it doesn't actually teach us anything.

My point about the '100% certainty' is that it is usually used by believers as a debating trick:

Atheist: "I don't believe God exists."
Believer: "But are you totally sure? After all, you could be mistaken."
A: "I COULD be mistaken, so I guess I am not 100% sure."

The fact that this has nothing to do with the content of the belief can be illustrated by using a different claim:

Fred: "I believe my name is Fred."
Sue: "But are you totally sure? After all, you could be mistaken."
Fred: "I COULD be mistaken, so I guess I am not 100% sure."

We are humans and fallible, and could be mistaken about anything. But so what? There is still just as much reason to believe in the non-existence of God as there is for any empirical claim. Unless believers can come up with any reasons to believe that a God exists, we are entitled to be as certain that it doesn't as we are certain of our own names. Arguments like this are just obfuscating the meaning of 'certainty'.

Sorry, Dan. While you were gone, you JP, myself and others already sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10117&page=0...

<< As JP noted, if at the bottom of everything, the universe is all about chemical reactions and atoms bumping together, then what is the atheist’s basis for saying that war crimes are wrong?>>

The answer is that atheists get their basis for what’s right and wrong from the same place theists get their ability to know how to cherry-pick to good bits in the Bible and pretend the nasty stuff doesn’t count anymore.

Anyone who actually needs an imaginary authoritative figure to remain good probably shouldn’t be walking the streets, and anyone who does good deeds because of the potential rewards and punishments at the end doesn’t deserve any credit.

That should read...

"While you were gone, JP, myself and others already sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10117&page=0"

...of course.