The God Delusion

[Albert Tatlock]

There are currently 212 exoplanets known around nearby stars, and the number being discovered is rising extraordinarily - with 28 new planets and 4 multi-planet systems discovered in May alone. As our technology improves, and we can see further and more detail of these stars and planetry systems, and carefully pick the ones to monitor and further assess - we are potentially on the verge of the greatest discovery of mankind - i.e. that we are not alone.

 

 

It's time that religious (and a great many other) people took their heads out of their arse and looked up to see what's really going on.

[Charles Flynn]

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.

 

Thank you Lonan.

 

History tends to be made by those who write it. Churchill wrote the History of the English Speaking People not only for the £20 million he was paid but also to stamp his version of events into the record. Clement Attlee thought it should have been retitled "Things in history which interested me".

 

No doubt the same applies to the Bible which Christians believe is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. Leaving that point aside there is no doubt that human factors came into play and that what we get is what the writer of the time thought was appropriate.

 

All these records cannot be exhaustice and different writers would have different perspectives on matters. Presumably those who made up the Bible into the version we have today, did what they could to make it as reliable as they could. After all that is what they were supposed to do. What sort of Bible Dr David Jenkins or our mathematician friends would compile is open to conjecture but it would certainly stimulate heated debate. A Mathematical Bible - well there's a thought! Anyone starts it, remember to send some of the royalties to me - I claim copyright!

[Chinahand]

I realise the existence of life, and especially intelligent life, else where in the universe would present severe problems for Christians who believe God has a unique and special relationship with humanity, and no one else - I think the divinity of Christ makes the "and no one else" difficult to get round, but maybe I'm wrong - DjDan would you try and convert the Alien? Charles? But I am not certain what effect this knowledge would have for other religions - Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism etc. All of which have a supernatural content to back up their morality.

 

I'm not convinced that finding life on Mars, or signals from Little Green Men on Alpha Centuri would alter my agnosticism towards atheism. Though it would undermine the already low possibility of me accepting Christian dogma, but that is only a tiny subset of the debate - the idea that the Little Green Men couldn't debate the existence of a Creator because they don't know anything about our religious beliefs seems silly to me - and I've no idea what relationship they have between their heads and arses!

[Charles Flynn]

I realise the existence of life, and especially intelligent life, else where in the universe would present severe problems for Christians who believe God has a unique and special relationship with humanity, and no one else - I think the divinity of Christ makes the "and no one else" difficult to get round, but maybe I'm wrong - DjDan would you try and convert the Alien? Charles? But I am not certain what effect this knowledge would have for other religions - Hinduism, Bhuddism, Daoism etc. All of which have a supernatural content to back up their morality.

 

I'm not convinced that finding life on Mars, or signals from Little Green Men on Alpha Centuri would alter my agnosticism towards atheism. Though it would undermine the already low possibility of me accepting Christian dogma, but that is only a tiny subset of the debate - the idea that the Little Green Men couldn't debate the existence of a Creator because they don't know anything about our religious beliefs seems silly to me - and I've no idea what relationship they have between their heads and arses!

 

Well religions have a tendency to adapt in the light of new scientific or historical evidence. I have no doubt if some sort of being was found elsewhere there would be contingency plans brought into play!

[VinnieK]

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)
  

 

This is from the article on the Anthropic Principle isn't it? I was going to comment on this yesterday. The problem with much of the article is that the use of very elementary probability theory comes dangerously close to a parlour trick - its main result is to show that the Supernatural Anthropic Principle (that is, life in universe -> fine tuned universe -> god fingers a dabbling) is an example of circular reasoning, but this can be done without resorting to probability (and it's pretty dodgy just to throw probabilities in that particular argument anyway, one problem being that in the theist's view we're not dealing with truly random variables). In actual fact you don't even have to go so far as to achieve a result of circular reason, since the final implication in the Supernatural Anthropic Principle is clearly flawed. In short, he's gone to great lengths to show something that should be obvious, by methods that aren't entirely rigorous.

 

But, ignoring that for the moment, what has the article actually achieved? The Anthropic principle doesn't imply that there is no deity either, and so all the author has done is point out that the logic of one particular account is flawed (which of course doesn't then neccessarily undermine the consequence, just one of the arguments that lead to it). As such his article is less an attempt to understand the relation between the supernatural and natural worlds or further the debate, and can't even really be considered as an attack on theism in its broadest sense, than it is a criticism on one particular strand of religious thought.

 

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.

 

Of course they do, since Intelligent Design is puffed up mysticism with a thin veil of scientific respectability draped awkwardly over it. This is simply a consequence of the fact that attempts to investigate the supernatural via the natural world are intrinsically flawed, and this will always be apparent at some stage in the reasoning where one party has to introduce assumptions to fill the void between the material world of science and the ephemera of the posited spiritual world. Atheism suffers from the same weaknesses, however (at one point or another we have to start talking about likelyhoods and stretching implications for the very same reasons as do theists) and this is the fundamental flaw in any discussion of God vs. No God - each party inevitably ends up taking refuge in cracks in the other's reasoning until something resembling the monotony and static nature of trench warfare develops. Theists for their part will either resort to more complex justifications for their beliefs that take longer to debunk (or fall into more nebulous and fundamental beliefs that are more assumption than justification), whilst atheists are reduced to performing an endless kind of fire fighting strategy, debunking justifications here and there and little else.

[Albert Tatlock]

I'm not convinced that finding life on Mars, or signals from Little Green Men on Alpha Centuri would alter my agnosticism towards atheism.

Surely that depends on what such signals say? It is possible that such a race could be a billion years ahead of us, and talk of things we couldn't even begin to comprehend at the moment. If the speed of light cannot be breached in this universe (as I suspect) - then such a 'conversation' won't happen for at least 50 to 100 years at the earliest anyway.

[DjDan]

There are currently 212 exoplanets known around nearby stars, and the number being discovered is rising extraordinarily - with 28 new planets and 4 multi-planet systems discovered in May alone. As our technology improves, and we can see further and more detail of these stars and planetry systems, and carefully pick the ones to monitor and further assess - we are potentially on the verge of the greatest discovery of mankind - i.e. that we are not alone.

 

 

It's time that religious (and a great many other) people took their heads out of their arse and looked up to see what's really going on.

 

why so? The above is quite fantastic.

 

It is more convincing of God's existence.

[DjDan]

I realise the existence of life, and especially intelligent life, else where in the universe would present severe problems for Christians who believe God has a unique and special relationship with humanity, and no one else - I think the divinity of Christ makes the "and no one else" difficult to get round, but maybe I'm wrong - DjDan would you try and convert the Alien?

 

Heh, we already know there is other life in the universe. It's taught in scripture. God is not the God of one planet only!!

 

Converting the alien is hardly my responsibility, considering I'm not there... but the same work goes on.

[Chinahand]

I realise the existence of life, and especially intelligent life, else where in the universe would present severe problems for Christians who believe God has a unique and special relationship with humanity, and no one else - I think the divinity of Christ makes the "and no one else" difficult to get round, but maybe I'm wrong - DjDan would you try and convert the Alien?

 

Heh, we already know there is other life in the universe. It's taught in scripture. God is not the God of one planet only!!

 

Converting the alien is hardly my responsibility, considering I'm not there... but the same work goes on.

What scripture? Nice use of evidence there - it says so in a book so we know it is so. Like it - would you recommend we use this approach in the science curriculum?

[DjDan]

I realise the existence of life, and especially intelligent life, else where in the universe would present severe problems for Christians who believe God has a unique and special relationship with humanity, and no one else - I think the divinity of Christ makes the "and no one else" difficult to get round, but maybe I'm wrong - DjDan would you try and convert the Alien?

 

Heh, we already know there is other life in the universe. It's taught in scripture. God is not the God of one planet only!!

 

Converting the alien is hardly my responsibility, considering I'm not there... but the same work goes on.

What scripture? Nice use of evidence there - it says so in a book so we know it is so. Like it - would you recommend we use this approach in the science curriculum?

 

You're talking about Christianity here. Christianity is built on scripture, not science... so it's no suprise that I mention a scripture as an example is it?

 

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them..

 

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

 

The possibility of there being life on other planets is of no worry to Christianity. After all.. it makes sense.

[Chinahand]

Ah - the Book of Moses - translated from golden plates using magic spectacles presented to Mr Smith by an angel.

 

Funny how the only Scripture to understand that planets are other worlds was one that was, how should we put - revealed - 50 years after Herschel discovered Uranus and a couple of centuries after the Copernican revolution.

 

If only Moses had been given that sort of revelation it would have really boosted humanity's understanding of the universe - strange how he had the world view of a Bronze Age desert dweller - and the book Mr Smith wrote - the world view of the early 19th century.

[DjDan]

Ah - the Book of Moses - translated from golden plates using magic spectacles presented to Mr Smith by an angel.

 

you seem a bit muddled there, but you gave me a chuckle anyway!

 

regardless of what you believe, the point I was making was not the validity of the "book of moses" or "doctrine & covenants", but the point that 'life on other planets' is something already accepted by the church. We're hardly gonna' be 'shaken up' when science eventually proves it.

[Albert Tatlock]

...but the point that 'life on other planets' is something already accepted by the church. We're hardly gonna' be 'shaken up' when science eventually proves it.

That attitude wreaks of arrogance, naivity, stupidity and a superiority-complex. What you are really saying is that even if you 'met' an advanced race that told you what the universe is really all about, that you'd still carry on worshipping the sun and the moon, and try and convert them to do the same.

[DjDan]

...but the point that 'life on other planets' is something already accepted by the church. We're hardly gonna' be 'shaken up' when science eventually proves it.

That attitude wreaks of arrogance, naivity, stupidity and a superiority-complex. What you are really saying is that even if you 'met' an advanced race that told you what the universe is really all about, that you'd still carry on worshipping the sun and the moon, and try and convert them to do the same.

 

heh, you have no idea.

[Miss Take]

Have now finished this book and would highly recommend it, even to those who find Dawkins too strident on the subject (it's easy to filter out the sarcasm with which some (not all, by any means) of his opinions are dressed). In fact, given that he's one of the only major players arguing forcefully the case for atheism and against theism, it seems a bit petty to me to dismiss the possibility of reading his work just because of its perceived tone.

 

I'd especially recommend it to those of faith so that they can see what they're up against when trying to explain to us non believers how belief can override everything.