>>Existence, including of God or gods, is the realm of science<<

Well, as mentioned in another post, we have apparently different understandings of the word “existence” (unless you want to endorse Richard Dawkins, who, I think, would agree with this statement).

Dear George,

Science takes no position on the existence of God or gods. There is simply no evidence for the existence of a God. There is only religious belief. Likewise there is no evidence with which one can disprove the existence of a God. I think there is no God, but I cannot prove it. Science deals with the realm of observable phenomena and of hypotheses based on thought experiments which are inspired by observable phenomena.

In writing of God as a delusion Dawkins was not in general writing as a scientist as it is not a matter for science. He is a lay person regarding the existence of supernatural entities.

However, if we relate theistic belief to the activity of specific parts of the brain or specific physical stimuli, then it becomes a matter for scientific investigation. I looked through "The God Delusion" by Dawkins, and he does not do this. He deals with the effects of religious belief and its justification. I agreed with his view. However, he was not writing as a scientist except when he was bothered by the conflict of literal, biblical belief with biological knowledge. In that I agree with him. However, it is possible to get inspiration from the Bible without literal belief. It is also possible to be religious without belief in God or any sort of supernatural entities.

Science deals with observable phenomena not existence. Mathematics deals with logical structures based on non-provable axioms.

Religion is more than belief in God. Buddhism and Unitarianism, which are religions as far as I can see, do not require a belief in a God. We tend to define religion in terms of the religion we are most familiar with and ignore the numbers of people who do not subscribe to the religion we think we know.

Dear George,

<<Well, as mentioned in another post, we have apparently different understandings of the word “existence”>>

Very interesting!

So according to your understanding of 'existence', God exists?
Wouldn't that render Him an object?

<<(unless you want to endorse Richard Dawkins, who, I think, would agree with this statement).>>

I cannot answer you on that because I haven't read Dawkins. I prefer reading a holy scripture over materialistic trash (though I must also admit my weakness for fiction).

Dear david f,

Thanks for your post. I agree with most of what you wrote.

>> if we relate theistic belief to the activity of specific parts of the brain or specific physical stimuli, then it becomes a matter for scientific investigation.<<
You are probably referring to the experiments of Andrew B. Newberg and his followers with meditating Tibetan Buddhists or Franciscan nuns (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/ or www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1043104430).

This only marginally relates to “theistic belief”. Besides, I would not mind if some neuroscientist informed me about what was happening in my brain while I was doing my research in mathematics, as long as he/she would not want to draw conclusions from his findings about logical correctness and relation to “reality” of the mathematics I was "doing".

As for Dawkins, I only wrote that I thought he would agree that all that exists belongs to the “realm of science” (a basic world-view assumption I referred to as Sagan’s maxim, c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#248265.)

>> Science deals with observable phenomena not existence. <<
I think it is more complicated than that. It depends again not only on what you accept as existing but also on what you mean by “dealing with”. I would agree that neither science nor mathematics “deals with existence”, although we accept that electrons exist and phlogiston does not, or that a solution of the equation x^2+1=0 does or does not exist (depending on whether we look for it among real or complex numbers).

>>We tend to define religion in terms of the religion we are most familiar with<<
It depends on who is the "we" but for the philosophically unsophisticated this is certainly true. As you might remember, my favourite definition is the anthropological of Clifford Geertz (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645).

Dear Yuyutsu,

>>So according to your understanding of 'existence', God exists?
Wouldn't that render Him an object?<<

According to my understanding of ‘existence’ you exist, however I do not think you are an object. You are a God’s creation (so are all "objects) which He obviously cannot be, but that is a different matter.

Perhaps Paul Tillich's understandings of "God's existence", might be closer to yours, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9564#157122 and the sequel.

Dear George,

<<According to my understanding of ‘existence’ you exist, however I do not think you are an object.>>

Good, so you are not referring to my body, my mind, my feelings or any such faculty of mine that can be manipulated by others and by time.
An object can be acted upon and is subject to change, so I am very glad that you recognise me not as one of those.

Same for God - what kind of God would He be if He could be manipulated and subject to change?

<<You are a God’s creation (so are all "objects)>>

But you just agreed that I am not an object, so why that clause comparing me with objects? Is this perhaps an attempt to define 'existence' inclusively as "what God created", objects and non-objects alike?

Had you considered me an object, thus subject to time and separate from God, that would also impose a limitation on God, for if I am not He, then He is also limited by not being me! I am glad that's not the case.

Further, if God is my creator, then He had to change - then at some point in time He was only my yet-to-be creator, later to become my actual creator (note that I am not excluding the possibility that this universe had a creator - but if that's the case, then that creator is not worthy of being worshipped in place of God).

I also occasionally call God "my Creator", but I know that this is just a pet-name, a show of gratitude and love, like lovers calling each other "Honey-Bunny" knowing well that it has nothing to do with bees and rabbits.

Or perhaps you may be referring to Genesis 1: as I read it, I believe that it has long been misunderstood as a creation-story, where in fact it was written as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath!

Yuyutsu,

The following is somewhat imponderable:

> I am not excluding the possibility that this universe had a creator - but if that's the case, then that creator is not worthy of being worshipped in place of God<

And yet perhaps I begin to see: Your God appears to be a concept of an ideal; an essence perhaps, which is of and within all things, living and inanimate, all things moving, flexing and immobile; and yet not so, but separate, aloof, eluding all construct, eluding even imagination, and truly beyond human comprehension; totally transcendent, universal, infinite, and yet as a pin-dot in the infinity of space, time, and beyond.

Still, a Creator capable of creating the universe and all things (as is believed faithfully to be the case by so many) is yet not God, but is left wanting, falling short by some measure? Yet you surmise it possible that such a Creator may have created you yourself (at least in spirit) and yet such is not God, but perhaps rather a conjurer? A trickster perhaps, but, certainly not God?

A unique view perhaps, yet not less intangible than so many other concepts of the essence of being.

Pray perhaps, but why worship? Surely simply being and acknowledging is sufficient?
And, what of the Creator? Not worthy of acknowledgment, even for the air we breathe and the world we inhabit - and without which we too could only be a construct, only one possibility amongst an infinity of possibilities?

And to such an infinity we shall return?