The God Delusion

[VinnieK]

Anyway I've rambled long enough, but I've read with great interest the various dedications to agnosticism provided above - thank you people.

 

But I find them unsatisfying - I too admit a basic agnosticism, but I think if you are engaged in these types of debates you have to go further - and hence this post.

 

Taking part in the debate does not then oblige a person to go further than basic agnosticism. Surely it's possible for someone to have an interest in the social mechanics of religion and faith (including atheism) with none of the interest in the actual "answers" to the questions that arise from faith.

 

As I've stated, my attitude is less agnosticism and more apathy towards spiritual matters. I'm happily an entirely materialistic creature, but that does inspire feelings of antagonism towards those who have a particular faith. One manifestation of this apathy is that I largely see questioning the internal structure of scripture in an attempt to hoodwink Christians into a position where they can't support their faith largely pointless, and a manifestation of a fundamental misunderstanding of "faith" (which by very definition does not require and often defies notions of proof and evidence).

 

Put it this way, all of your questions can be answered thus:

 

a. It's allegorical;

b. God used magic, what with being omipotent, and all that;

c. God's motives are beyond mortal reason.

 

Unsatisfying, certainly, but there you go; similarly unsatisfying is the atheist position of it being "unlikely" or "more simple" for a god or gods not to exist - these aren't scientific notions, they're every bit a form of supposition and evasion as the three answers above, and certainly no more substatiative or meaningful.

[Charles Flynn]

Chinahand according to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15,12-20:

 

 

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

 

So really to be a Christian you have to have faith that Jesus Christ did rise otherwise all your preaching etc is empty and devoid of meaning.

 

Does the former Bishop of Durham believe this?

[Chinahand]

Charles - the Dr David Jenkins has talked about the resurrection being a conjuring trick with bones.

 

He's not alone in doubting the physical resurrection - Daily Telegraph poll of church members in 2002.

 

Obviously for a believer there can be a world of difference between physical and spiritual resurrection. Dr Jenkins believed in a spiritual relationship with God and Christ and wrote on the Contradictions of Christianity.

 

Does resurrection result in a maimed body stumbling around reanimated by God, or something more?

 

Your quote from Paul can be interpretted many ways; who's to say who's right?

 

Edited to add Jenkins' full quote: there is controversey exactly what he said and this is reported to be a direct quote:

I am not clear that God manoeuvres physical things... After all, a conjuring trick with bones only proves that it is as clever as a conjuring trick with bones. A resuscitated corpse might be a resuscitated corpse and might be the sign of something, but there is still the question of what it is the symbol of.

[Charles Flynn]

Who is right?

 

It is up to the Bishops to give us guidance. Unfortunately they are as divided as the rest of humanity on this and many other issues which are a plank of mainline Christianity causing great confusion for many believers

 

In 1 Cor. 15:35, Paul says: "But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised? With what sort of body do they come?'" As he is answering that question, Paul makes this statement about our resurrection body that is also true of Jesus' resurrected body: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:44). Some try to twist Paul's words so as to make him say that Jesus' resurrection wasn't bodily, but "only spiritual"! As if Christ's body were still in the tomb!

 

In this the Greek term translated "spiritual" doesn't mean non-physical but instead means "filled or empowered by the Holy Spirit". Much of the stance taken is influenced by what the Greek really means. Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit and empowered by the Holy Spirit is the traditional meaning accepted by mainstream Christianity which believes in a bodily resurrection under the Holy Spirit.

 

It would appear on the face of it that Dr Jenkins has his own interpretation which represents a body of opinion common in theological academia. The person in the pew tends to gloss over such things.

 

None of this can be proved scientifically of course!!

 

Professor Dawkins in "Unweaving the Rainbow" page 184 says " But in science, as in any other field, there really are dangers of becoming intoxicated by symbolism, by meaningless resemblances, and led farther and farther from the truth, rather than towards it."

[DjDan]

Here I have to basically reject an awful lot of Christianity. I'd be interested in having some input from people of faith in how much of the orthodox Christian dogma you can reject and still be considered a Christian.

 

Well hey, start off by rejecting the "Trinity"!!!

[DjDan]

Chinahand according to St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15,12-20:

 

 

Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

 

So really to be a Christian you have to have faith that Jesus Christ did rise otherwise all your preaching etc is empty and devoid of meaning.

 

Absolutely. No Christian can reject the physical resurrection. It is the most magnificent event.

 

For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

 

...And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

 

The scriptures teach of the resurrection because God's prophet's knew it would happen. Jesus Christ was resurrected. It is central to the plan.

[slinkydevil]

It is the most magnificent event.

 

Allegedly.

[Charles Flynn]

Well if you do not accept it, you have to reject most of the New Testament, particularly the eye witness accounts of Mary Magdalene and the Apostles as recorded in the Gospels. These people were all prepared to die because of their belief - in fact the only one who lived to a ripe old age was John.

 

Scholars have examined these documents for 2000 years.

[Lonan3]

Well if you do not accept it, you have to reject most of the New Testament, particularly the eye witness accounts of Mary Magdalene and the Apostles as recorded in the Gospels. These people were all prepared to die because of their belief - in fact the only one who lived to a ripe old age was John.

 

Scholars have examined these documents for 2000 years.

For most of those 2,000 years though they wouldn't have dared to disagree with the accepted interpretation of those gospels, nor dared to mention any of the gospels rejected at Nicaea, for fear of being branded as heretics.

As for Mary Magdalene - whose 'eye-witness' account in the New Testament depends entirely on whether or not you accept those gospels - she was branded as a peccatrix (a sinful woman) by Pope Gregory in 591 AD and, although he didn't go quite as far as calling her a meretrix (a prostitute), her name was deliberately blackened.

Or perhaps you're referring to the apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments as well as a longer 5th century translation into Coptic?

[Chinahand]

Scholars have examined these documents for 2000 years.

Yes, and these documents provide a partial and unclear view of the events: list of contradictions etc.

[Chinahand]

Anyway I've rambled long enough, but I've read with great interest the various dedications to agnosticism provided above - thank you people.

 

But I find them unsatisfying - I too admit a basic agnosticism, but I think if you are engaged in these types of debates you have to go further - and hence this post.

 

Taking part in the debate does not then oblige a person to go further than basic agnosticism. Surely it's possible for someone to have an interest in the social mechanics of religion and faith (including atheism) with none of the interest in the actual "answers" to the questions that arise from faith.

 

Of course no one is under any obligation to answer, but all I'm asking is what are people agnostic about - a reply of everything is very dissatisfying, but if that's your point of view then fine by me!

 

As I've stated, my attitude is less agnosticism and more apathy towards spiritual matters. I'm happily an entirely materialistic creature, but that does inspire feelings of antagonism towards those who have a particular faith. One manifestation of this apathy is that I largely see questioning the internal structure of scripture in an attempt to hoodwink Christians into a position where they can't support their faith largely pointless, and a manifestation of a fundamental misunderstanding of "faith" (which by very definition does not require and often defies notions of proof and evidence).

 

I think Daniel Dennet has put it better than Dawkins in his attitude to faith. I suppose I'm sounding more like Dawkins by trailing through the bible looking for stuff which is difficult to accept without a mind set predisposed to the idea of an intervening God, but the reason I am doing it is I am fascinated about the idea of faith and what things should be kept as a matter of faith and not reason. Here's how Dennet put it:

 

If you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned (and reason- responsive) defense of faith as an extra category of belief worthy of special consideration, I'm eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; what I want to see is a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of getting to the truth, and not, say, just as a way people comfort themselves and each other (a worthy function that I do take seriously). But you must not expect me to go along with your defence of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you are supposedly trying to justify. Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason is on your side. [Daniel C. Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea]

 

Put it this way, all of your questions can be answered thus:

 

a. It's allegorical;

b. God used magic, what with being omipotent, and all that;

c. God's motives are beyond mortal reason.

 

Unsatisfying, certainly, but there you go; similarly unsatisfying is the atheist position of it being "unlikely" or "more simple" for a god or gods not to exist - these aren't scientific notions, they're every bit a form of supposition and evasion as the three answers above, and certainly no more substatiative or meaningful.

 

I agree, though I go back to how Occam's Razor, though not scientific, has been an extremely useful in allowing people to examine the world rationally.

 

I'd also be very interested in a mathematicians view on these Logical and Probabilistic attempts to understand the relationship between a Natural and Supernatural universe.

 

I think this analysis: The Anthropic Principles – Reasonable and Unreasonable is more than a bit flawed - I don't agree with his definitions of the Supernatural Anthropic Principle.

 

While this one: The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism fascinates me: I can't fault the bits I understand, and it keeps on going and going. I just worry that Keynes' idiom that "starting with a mistake a remorseless logitician can end up in Bedlam", but it is a very interesting analysis showing how logically a natural universe is more likely than a supernatural one!

[VinnieK]

I'd also be very interested in a mathematicians view on these Logical and Probabilistic attempts to understand the relationship between a Natural and Supernatural universe.

 

As I understand it, the probabilistic attempt is nothing more than a rhetorical device, crouching supposition and personal opinion in scientific terms. To say that "given all the science, it's unlikely there exists a supernatural power or sphere" is no more valid in terms of probability theory than creationists' nonesense about the complexity of the eye suggesting that it's more likely that evolution is guided by divine design than random mutation.

 

Logically speaking, the existence and non-existence of some form deity are both assumptions, neither of which can be proven by scientific means. You can of course prove that this or that account of a given deity's involvement in the universe is faulty where it contradicts science, or using logic where an account contradicts itself but all this does is demonstrate that the account itself is faulty - it does nothing to answer existential questions regarding that deity one way or another.

 

All of this is only exacerbated by the fact that science is incomplete, and indeed we don't even have a method of evaluating its stage of completeness, so the best statement that can be made by atheists is "given the current level of scientific knowledge, I conclude that it's most unlikely that some God exists", a statement which doesn't make sense either logically or in terms of probability theory, and the best the religious can rely on is "I assume that God exists and intervenes in the affairs of the univers, but, given the current lack of complete scientific knowledge, does so by means that currently cannot be detected by human means", which is just as invalid.

 

Now, you mention Occam's Razor, but I think there's been a misunderstanding regarding what Occam's razor actually says. In brief Occam's Razor can be described thus:

 

When you have a number of competing theories that are equivalent, the most preferable one is that which introduces the fewest assumptions or hypotheses.

 

(also important to note is that Occam's Razor is less a strict principle of logic than a general algorithm for evaluating theories, and is not in itself a cornerstone of rational thought).

 

What is important is that when our knowledge of a system is incomplete, Occam's Razor does not advise the simplest explantion available, as it may turn out that this explanation is wrong - an example being the disparity between Classical and Modern mechanics: the former is simpler, but is also demonstrably wrong in the strictest sense (although a very good approximation on certain scales). The result is that if we assume that any supernatural influence in the physical universe can be detected by physical means, we cannot in the face of incomplete knowledge and measuring techniques use Occam's razor to determine whether or not we should reject or accept that this influence exists.

 

In short. If you could create the perfect mathematical/logical computer, put in all our knowledge and input "Does God Exist?", the output would be "Error: Object not defined, please see manual".

 

In this context words like "logically" or "likely" when used in an argument for or against God are rhetorical tricks, not serious applications of logic or probability (and indeed such application to the question at hand are impossible) and should be discarded without a moments hesitation. Indeed, that's one of the main problems I have with "devout atheism", in so much as it's guilty of the same kind faulty logic and misuse/abuse of morality, history and science as the very religions it seeks to undermine, and as such is also as hypocritical.

[Charles Flynn]

Well if you do not accept it, you have to reject most of the New Testament, particularly the eye witness accounts of Mary Magdalene and the Apostles as recorded in the Gospels. These people were all prepared to die because of their belief - in fact the only one who lived to a ripe old age was John.

 

Scholars have examined these documents for 2000 years.

For most of those 2,000 years though they wouldn't have dared to disagree with the accepted interpretation of those gospels, nor dared to mention any of the gospels rejected at Nicaea, for fear of being branded as heretics.

As for Mary Magdalene - whose 'eye-witness' account in the New Testament depends entirely on whether or not you accept those gospels - she was branded as a peccatrix (a sinful woman) by Pope Gregory in 591 AD and, although he didn't go quite as far as calling her a meretrix (a prostitute), her name was deliberately blackened.

Or perhaps you're referring to the apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments as well as a longer 5th century translation into Coptic?

 

I accept the Gospels of the Canon. They do represent mainstream biblical scholarship.

 

As far as heresy is concerned - I agree the Roman Catholic Church have a tendency to stifle legitimate learned debate on many issues. However Pope Gregory's opinion of 591 AD has been overturned. The Second Vatican Council removed the prostitute label in 1969 after much debate and Biblical evidence that there was more than one Mary and that Mary of Magdalene and the unnamed sinner were two different figures.

 

As for the contradictions in the Gospels, the prevailing opinion is that this is to be expected as the Gospels were written many years after the Risen Christ had left this earth. It is not unusual for witnesses to the same event to come up with rather different versions of the detail. In some respects this adds legitimacy to the claims.

 

These people stood by their accounts and opinions in the face of death, not in the context of a gentle learned civilised debate, where the loss of the argument is simply so much water under the bridge. If you want to find chinks, you will find them/ It is a question of attitude. I take the view however that those who suffered martyrs deaths, have greater credibility than armchair critics who have nothing to lose except some mild loss of esteem.

[Lonan3]

In the end, Charles, it all comes down to faith. There is no way to absolutely prove anything that is recorded in the New Testament just as there is no way to absolutely disprove it. So it all becomes a matter of what each individual chooses to believe.

Personally, I have no particular issues with it - let people believe whatever they wish to believe. I do, however, sometimes get annoyed with those who take a superior attitude (and I don't count you among their number) about the unconditional correctness of their faith system, and to those who insist on trying to 'enlighten' those of us who have already made their own choices.

[Chinahand]

I'd also be very interested in a mathematicians view on these Logical and Probabilistic attempts to understand the relationship between a Natural and Supernatural universe.

 

As I understand it, the probabilistic attempt is nothing more than a rhetorical device, crouching supposition and personal opinion in scientific terms.

 

I totally agree with you that this is an entirely assumption based argument. There is no science here whatsoever. This is an example of rational thinking constrained by assumptions. "IF I assume this - what are the consequences."

 

But even though there is no science here whatsoever I do find the results interesting.

 

The assumptions are:

a] Our universe exists and contains life.

 

b] Our universe is "life friendly," that is, the conditions in our universe (such as physical laws, etc.) permit or are compatible with life existing naturalistically.

 

c] Life cannot exist in a universe that is governed solely by naturalistic law unless that universe is "life-friendly."

 

I think very few people would dissagree with these assumptions, whether religious or not.

 

These assumptions produce this interesting result:

 

• P(N|F&L) = P(F|N&L)P(N|L)/P(F|L)
   
  = P(N|L)/P(F|L)
   
  >= P(N|L)
  

 

and an even more interesting corollary

 

Corollary: Since P(~N|F&L)=1-P(N|F&L) and similarly for P(~N|L), it follows that P(~N|F&L)<=P(~N|L). In other words, the observation F does not support supernaturalism (~N), and may well undermine it.

 

This shows that people who believe that the universe is so fine tuned, so exquisitly designed to contain life cannot say that this makes it more likely to have been created supernaturally, at best it makes it no more likely.

 

We do not know whether the universe is fine tuned for life - ie out of all the possible boundary conditions, physical constants etc whether only a very few of them will allow life to evolve or not. This is an assumption.

 

But many theists go: I believe God created the universe AND given the fact that it seems so fine tuned for life this increases my belief that this is so.

 

But from what I can understand from the logic given [which I can't dispute and so think is correct, but which I'd like someone with more understanding than me to look at] this is a non sequitor.

 

I find that to be very non intuitive, but I cannot fault the logic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll have another go at giving my laymans interpretation of the corollary.

 

If you ask a theist:

 

Given the fact that the universe contains life (ie we exist), what do you reckon the odds are that it was created by God?

 

They'll give an answer: its very likely or whatever.

 

Then ask

 

Given the fact that the universe contains life (ie we exist) AND given the fact that the universe seems to be exquisitly fine tuned for life, what do you reckon the odds are that it was created by God?

 

Based on the logic give they should either give lower odds: its less likely, or its just as likely, to say that it makes it even more likely is not logical - its a constraint, not a relaxation of a constraint.

 

I fully admit that the theist can go - I don't accept that I can say how likely or not my beliefs are - and so refuse to play the game! But I think most would would, and IF they do and so are willing to accept a probabilitic examination of belief THEN this analysis is valid.

 

As you say its all down to the assumptions made! If you assume angels exist you can debate how many of them can stand on a pin head. What I am attempting to understand are the consequences of these assumptions - and they look very bad for Intelligent Design etc which use fine tuning as an argument for the existence of a designer.