George,

Trust Keiran has gained some insight into how Science works. Beliefs must always be tested.

On the weekend, I borrowed a copy of Dawkin's, "The God Deception". Normally, I don't like Dawkin's style of writing. This book is more readable than others** and he raises some interesting criticisms about religion. Howver, he makes a few errors on cultural matters, which clouds my assessment to trust him in areas, where he makes assertions; but, I am less well read.

** Dawkins, the geneticist, tends leap readily to realisations, for me. I realise he is paleo-anthrologist, but, I prefer someome like Richard Leaky. Bronowski was a good popular writer.

Have societal axioms to make into structural equations...

Cheers,

O.

Oliver, I think you mean "The God Delusion" described e.g. on amazon.com as a "surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion". And similarly by other reviewers knowledgeable about religion, though not as knowledgeable about molecular biology as Dawkins. I have not read it, and do not intend to, since I could see already in "The Blind Watchmaker" how he can combine a brilliant exposition of Darwin's theory with all sorts of non sequiturs regarding religion. I mean its metaphysics, because from the psychological point of view Dawkins is as much religious as those he attacks. I think an atheist will find his "teddy" in reading the book; it might confuse some naive theists, but I doubt it can lead to the conversion of a person with a reasonably mature understanding of what both science and religion are about. However, I have to admit, I do not have the time, and will, to read the book.

Oliver, I think you mean "The God Delusion" described e.g. on amazon.com as a "surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion". - George

You are correct about the title, and, Dawkin's feelings certainly do come agressively through. If he has a point to, make it is a bitter point. He says, he avoids direct debates [with exceptions] with religious folk and in this respect differently sees religionists as his opponents. In many ways, he is the opposite pole to Sells. Sells has said he sells people with differing points of view opponents.

However, like me, Dawkins would agree on a seven-point theist(1)- total atheism scale, one cannot have the absolute knowledge to a seven. [Sells, are you a one?]

Unlike Dawkins, my "interest" is in how societies discover knowledge and feel much of the content in the Bible replicated other theocrasia and OT and NT are at the same enjoined but disjointed. If the Bible were an equation for me it would be ineliquent. I would take at it with pruning shears! What "could" be problematic is, what if Jesus was divine, but, all the literature is not. That would a rub.

Many religionists and many athiests seem to be "missionary", yet, I prefer the course of the discovery. One has to be open and honest with the evidence or gaps in the evidence.

Oliver, I appreciate your answer of "mass" because matter cannot be created by energy, so how do you propose to explain the creation of the universe from nothing if that in itself could exist? A bang in a vacuum is out of the question but for you to explain ...... where in this fantasy big bang origin of the universe did all the matter come from if matter cannot be created from the energy of an explosion?

Let me make the point again, that systems people can only be experts with closed systems (of course if you can find them). To understand existence and the universe of which there can only be one by definition, we need to get over this worship of finite universal causality and finally let INFINITE universal causality prevail. There is voluminous evidence that redshift is not about velocity and that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies. This is evidence already 40+ years old that makes all the associated hypotheses and nonsense (such as expanding universes, warped space/time as a dimension) derived from the big bang, completely false, thus representing a monumental error for astronomy and science in general. Being so false, just how with this cover up can humanity collectively ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence?

Oliver, one of your clangers has been to refer to Fred Hoyle's Steady State hypothesis as the Steady State model which is really something different and to do with electricity. I must say that I found your mix up rather hilarious but in an odd way a reference to electricity is really not far off the mark when one considers the extraordinary observational work from Halton Arp.

My mistake in the above, Oliver. Should read that you refer to the Steady State as the SOLID state which is something more to do with electricity and nothing to do with Fred Hoyle's hypothesis. Incidentally, where did you get this solid state terminology?

If we are back talking Dawkins, we may well examine this quote of his ....
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness."

This I feel is where Dawkins is coming from when he attacks established religions. But one evening on an ABC radio science program he expressed his views on the big bang cosmological model where for the first time I heard mention this Mad-Hatter idea of multiverses. e.g. He said we have one based on its ability to support carbon life forms but there must be other universes.

My thoughts are that even someone so well ingrained in the system and as obviously intelligent as Dawkins has not been able to break the sucking gravity and curved space-time of Einstein/Newton, which for him seems to explain everything or even the righteousness that theory can be bent to fit. Most unfortunate really. i.e. If mathematicians remain the fashion leaders in physics then physics just becomes an intellectual game with no reality principles.

Dawkins may want to be seen as a daring outsider with regard to religion but just where do we find true blue outsiders or people with a 360 degree view of the world?

Keiran, if you attack belief in a transcendental God, you will have - if one is to believe a recent survey - about 35% of (American) scientists against you. If you attack Big Bang, or even Einstein's gravitation theory, you will have 99% of physicists and cosmologists against you (the 1% being probably Halton Arp and his sympathisers). Without Christianity you would not have the notion of human rights, without mathematics you would not have your computer and the internet. You can look at a tree without being aware of its roots but you will not understand how it came to life if you ignore the roots. Without the long (and often tortuous) Christian journey that started at the Sermon on the Mount (an experience "invisible" to an ex-Christian) you would not have Enlightenment; without contemporary mathematics you would not have contemporary physics to write about in popularising books in which the mathematics must remain "invisible" to the layperson.