David,

Quick p.s.

"As a final comment, I have been annoyed at your referral, on a couple of occasions that Richard Dawkins is willing to enter the murky field of null hypothesis with his staunchest opposition. It may interest you to learn that RD will not even debate them." - David

-- "I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis. Even if is hard to practice..." - Richard Dawkins

In Science the alternative hypothesis is tested after null hypothesis. Binary investigation requires trying to prove and disprove your proposition. It is because of his staunch opposition, he should test his belief and disbelief. That is Science.

-- My arguments to an alertnative David would be along the Dawkins in some cases. But I would also defer to comparative theocracy in history. The latter would better demonstrate the commonalities and patterns among many religions than it would the ultimate existence/non existence or non existence of god. It would however demonstrate there is a strong case that humans invent gods for political reasons and that the character of gods evolve as civilizations change.

The danger for the Reseacher to "indwell" [Polanyi in the performance of Dawkins or a Religious Creed. We need to be independent and have the conviction to try and falsify [Popper] ourselves.

Take care.

Philo,

Best wishes. I will catch-up with and David, perhaps, in a month or two.

Oliver,

Many people have mentioned the god word even though they did not accept the concept as having any meaning in reality. Einstein is the quintessential example with his; “God does not play dice”.

What I find somewhat annoying about the particular quote of RD is that the god word has a capital ‘G ‘. That is the name of the Christian God. I therefore suggest he is influenced by his own culture just on that point. If one suggests a god is the initiator of everything, then that has to be a lowercase ‘g’. Dawkins would not consider it was Yahweh/Jesus.

You did leave an important word out of the quote and one that your case rests upon. Here is your quote with the word inserted by me in uppercase: “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to TEST in practice,…”

RD cannot say the word ‘impossible’ to test as that is unscientific and absolutist and he therefore uses the word ‘hard’ when he really means the highest probability possible is that the notion cannot be tested. If you like, he was accommodating both the scientific and the religious audience alike in that statement.

As with Einstein’s loose tongue example, friend and foe alike, jump upon the usage of such language. I personally think he should have been more careful.

I disagree with Dawkins on this point. I would not link the concept of a god with a scientific hypothesis, rather I would call it a hypothesis, or better said, a guess.

David

David,

"You did leave an important word out of the quote and one that your case rests upon. Here is your quote with the word inserted by me in uppercase: “Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to TEST in practice,…”

RD cannot say the word ‘impossible’ to test as that is unscientific and absolutist and he therefore uses the word ‘hard’ when he really means the highest probability possible is that the notion cannot be tested."

Look back on my earlier post where I say am a 6/7. In fact, I took that same anti-absolutionist position with a US Freethinker group ten years ago. That is why am anti-abolutionist and anti the concept of infallibility. Why I see extreme the Atheist at the opposite pole to fundamentalist religionists. I don't need Dawkins to tell me that.

As a 6/7, myself, I test, else, I really am "deluded", to borrow from RD. Given latitude for any possibility we are wrong, we should test.

Moreover, we should share the burden of proof, I posit, not just listen to the religionist position. As I have said explicitly and RD stated implicitly, we, all sides have limited knowledge. Any side placing the burden of proof on the other, and sitting back, is a poor methodology.

O.

Oliver,

You are getting your knickers in a knot. If you wish to share the burden of proof on popular guesses, then be my guest. I won’t impede you. But don’t expect me to follow you down this road to Mount Impossible.

I kinda like to think, as we are attempting to be scientific, that an infinite regression of gods created each other and the universe. To suggest that only one god is involved goes beyond science and smacks into religion. Prove me wrong.

Just a point of interest; Our present location only allows for dial-up, with broadband Australian style (By wireless) some weeks away. It is extremely difficult to keep this conversation going under this regime. But I will persevere.

David

”You are getting your knickers in a knot. If you wish to share the burden of proof on popular guesses, then be my guest. I won’t impede you. But don’t expect me to follow you down this road to Mount Impossible.”

-- No, I am as calm as can be. I have found studying comparative religions fascinating, without changing my basic beliefs. I respect the views of others yet also I feel I should independently study their casework. I don’t assume guesses. It is possible to research religionist claims, say relating independent historical interpretations against theocracies. Is there a historical record of the Eyptian plagues in Bible? No.

"I kinda like to think, as we are attempting to be scientific, that an infinite regression of gods created each other and the universe. To suggest that only one god is involved goes beyond science and smacks into religion. Prove me wrong."

I don’t believe any God created the Universe to the point of being a “de facto Atheist” [Dawkins].

Tentatively, I believe the Universe, now, is a result of its cooling [thermodynamics], gravitational forces [weak and strong], nuclear forces and its expansion [Big Bang]. Were we to regress space-time back far enough; we would find a highly energised state, where fundamental particles are torn apart. This is not theistic religion, as you posit. This is not “one god is involved goes beyond science”; It is physics. Suggest you read the Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann {Nobel Prize in Physics].

To iterate: Einstein doubted his own gravitational constant and Durac his physics suggesting the positron. Both kept returning to proposition they were wrong.

How many universes have we seen created? We cannot readily go back before Planck time. There are theories involving say Phase Space [Penrose]. Yet, things are very spectulative "beyond science", until we better understand singularities and unify cosmology and QM.

Oliver,

I think you missed the point. Maybe it was just a wee bit too subtle. If there is an infinite regression of gods, then ipso facto, that interferes with the notion of what presently the word god means to humans. It further means that the one god scenario is not a scientific concept but a religious one and therefore its assessment is only possible with a religious mind-set. I think we will just have to differ on this.

I tend not to speculate to the point of guessing about precursors to the big bang. (And even that may be a metaphor for something not yet understood) Multi-verses, quantum fluctuations, many dimensions etc all have some mathematical or hypothetical scientific support but not enough to create a consensus in academe. It’s all very interesting, even exciting, but at the moment we have to live with the uncertainty. That’s OK by me.

I agree that history needs checking and rechecking when new material becomes available or with advanced methods of examining the old, and I leave that too those qualified to do the investigation. I am well capable of evaluating the results.

It is a bit much to class RD as a de facto Atheist. He is often in unenviable situations and no one can claim perfection in the use of the language. I think he is such a nice guy he finds it difficult to blatantly upset people. The antithesis of me, you might suggest, but again, you would be wrong.

I assume you realise we are simpatico with most things on this topic.

David