This is silly. He simply wants to replace the current religious systems with one of his own making. It is terrible for him to suggest that humans should retain their questions about existence while denying them the answers they have found.
And given enough resources and power, I'm sure atrocities will be committed in the name of science. People will always be people, and will always have the need to follow/believe in something while hating anyone who doesn't agree with them. I think maybe it is more about human nature than anything else, but this is only my opinion.
This is insightful. But science isn't committing the atrocities, it's people. Just as I'll concede that religion isn't committing the atrocities, people within the religion do. But religion does create the barrier mentioned in the article - the "us vs. them" mentality created by the formation of "tribes". I don't see that in science. Science, in my opinion, concerns itself more with curiosity and discovery than it does with tribalism.
I'm sympathetic to your argument but I do not agree. German and Japanese scientists would be an example of atrocities committed in the name of science from societal base scrubbed of the positive aspects of religion. If it happened once it can happen again. To develop and move forward, a society needs both scientific inquiry to understand our world and some sort of religious value system to enhance our social interaction. I think people who can't strike a balance and find some value in both are silly.
In my opinion, a person's relationship, thoughts about, or feelings towards the higher (yet unexplained) power we like to refer to as god should be unique to that person. What's silly is when someone begins to claim that their "religion" is the only true religion or their "god" is the only true "god". This alienates anyone else who may have a different interpretation of said "god" and breeds conflict.
The proof argument never gets anywhere; minds are usually already made up anyway. I would think the creative mind could allow for the existence of a deity more as an open ended question. Plus, Dawkins seems to be an activist in this area. I believe (my opinion) that makes one less rational when strong emotions are tied to a subject...if that's the case, I don't judge his intentions or emotions...just going off my perception. Einstein was never willing to completely rule out the existence of a deity and I'll take his perspective on the matter over Dawkins any day.
I don't think anyone can 'completely rule out the existence of a deity', rather I think the question should rely on probability and evidence. If there is no evidence for a claim, or it does not fit with what we can observe and measure, we can disregard it until further evidence is provided. This kind of gets into the discussion of gnosticism vs theism (level of knowing vs position). Myself as an example: I see no evidence of a god, so I'm an atheist, but I also cannot say definitively that there is no god, so I'm really an agnostic atheist.
egro, you have a point. However, the question of whether there is evidence is already loaded. If you begin with a materialistic understanding of the universe, you find no evidence because you're looking for materialistic evidence and God is not material, ergo (sorry, pun intended!!) he does not exist. That doesn't really prove or disprove anything, it just seems to reinforce itself. Bertrand Russell would agree with you on the agnosticism part. It is not really tenable to maintain real atheism, the "best" you can do is agnosticism.
Religion is treated as a great evil these days but to be fair, Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed millions so the track record isn't great there either. The problem isn't religion or lack of religion, it is people.
If god is not material, now we have more questions to address, in what medium does god exist? What proof or evidence is there that this new medium exists? If we cannot define that medium and show it exists, the hypothesis for it's existence can be rejected. This is just a 'god of the gaps' fallacy. I agree with your statement on agnosticism, and I would include that there is no gnostic theism either, hence the reliance on faith.
No, the burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion, such as "there is no God". If you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, then you are practicing blind faith as much as any theistic believer. This "no proof required to prove the negative" is just a regurgitated cliché made up by internet Atheists so that they never have to supply any evidence to support their religious beliefs. A negative claim requires "proof of impossibility", so go ahead and provide some or stop shoving your religion down our throats.
Correct, burden of proof is on the assertion, this is basic logic. If you reread my comment, you'll see I reject the assertion god exists. Thus, the burden of proof remains with those claiming god exists.
It's an open forum, my friend. And just look at the reaction it's spawning! I doubt a real gentleman would go around name calling others who carry differing worldviews than himself. Therefore, by that measure, why are YOU on here?
Though it really doesn't matter, I'm curious: at what point was I hypocritical?
And by the way (I can't leave this alone), no one is shoving anything down anyone's throats (except maybe a Catholic priest or two). You can believe whatever you want to believe. It literally doesn't effect me. Yet, somehow my beliefs seem to be effecting you quite negatively as you've reverted to name-calling and censorship.
Finally, to address your previous comment further, did you even read the article? No where does he say anything about or make any claims that there was no god. He actually states that the belief in a god is a natural humanistic trait that "unite(s) humanity". The problem is religion. But I think, as some have mentioned in comments above that it's more a problem with humanity. We naturally form these "tribes" for multiple reasons; churches, clubs, and sports teams are just a few examples that we can identify. These groups give us purpose, give our lives meaning, and give us something to do with our time. But something else happens when we form these "tribes". A boundary is created that separates this tribe from that tribe which inevitably spawns conflict.
The problem is even if I proved there was God beyond a "reasonable doubt" we would have those who would argue the definition of "reasonable doubt" to avoid the burden of knowing there is a source of creation beyond their own grasp or control. By definition there is only one ultimate truth, truth can not be relative. As men we are cursed to continually seek and desire that Truth while blindly alienating ourselves from it with an often subconscious fear of how we will look in the light of the Truth we seek. We all hate being measured to something bigger than ourselves. My opinion of the truth does not change Truth.
Ummm... I'm sorry but that is B.S. First of all, if god were to reveal himself and lay down the "truth" once and for all for everyone to witness, leaving no ambiguity, that would be the coolest thing ever. And if you were able to prove the existence of a god beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have to be beyond any objective reasonable doubt, not just your own reasonable doubt.
I don't know what you're talking about with your "alienating ourselves from (the truth) with an often subconscious fear of how we will look in the light of the truth we seek" statement. Can you give an example of this? I don't know if I'm missing something, but seeking truth can never be a bad thing. Claiming to know the truth, without being able to prove it to anyone else is, on the other hand, a terrible thing.
Truth IS something we all seek. It's therefore on us as humans to do our best to not only find it but share it with others. In order to do so, however, we need to be able to show why we believe something to be true. If you cannot do this your claim to truth is, in fact relative or simply not the truth.
Lastly, that we hate being measured to something bigger than ourselves is just ridiculous. We constantly measure ourselves against others, particularly those who we view as "better" or "bigger" than ourselves. This is why people have problems with their self-image and confidence. This is something we do every day. It's not necessarily a good thing either but it can be in terms of motivation.
First, the Internet does not do justice to such conversation and I would like to note everyone who has posted in this chain appears to be the kind of gent I'd like to share a beer, whiskey, or scotch with. Second as much as I would love to have you share my opinion it wouldn't be for the pleasure of proving anyone on here wrong. That being said if my God did make himself known to you completely, it would indeed blow your mind :), along with in "theory" remove any freedom of making any choice but him. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship, God wants that relationship to be a choice not a command. Even Biblical figures who had what is described as direct (but not complete) encounters with God denied him or disobeyed him, because he affords us choice. We (Christians and non-Christians) just find ways to devalue the ways he discloses himself to us, choosing less fulfilling and empty pursuits (I do this). There is a reason it takes 12 jurors to determine reasonable doubt in a court room and they still are not infallible. I identify only one who knew complete truth and aside from him I don't think anyone else ever has or will, but I don't suggest we stop the pursuit. I also think humans are incapable of proving truth to other humans because the likelihood of one of us completely understanding truth is as statistically likely as observing spontaneous generation of life.
As far as "Claiming to know the truth, without being able to prove it to anyone else is, on the other hand, a terrible thing." - I agree completely... Which reinforces the Biblical fallen-ness of man. You stated "we need to be able to show why we believe something to be true" and I agree, but would like to point out as men there is no statement we are capable of making for or against Truth that does not involve belief or faith.
"We constantly measure ourselves against others, particularly those who we view as "better" or "bigger" than ourselves. This is why people have problems with their self-image and confidence." Only when we measure ourselves against things unobtainable do we experience these negative attributes. We also are prone to greed, envy, and lust in that scenario. I challenge anyone to find someone who takes motivation in striving for the unattainable, motivation is only found when reaching for what can be perceived as obtainable. Christian don't get motivation from being measured against God but in our service to him and how he allows himself to work through us. I think you and I both can agree that neither of us is capable of obtaining god-hood.
I guess that would depend on our individual interpretations of what god is. :)
All that is, all that exists from the far reaches of physical reality to the deepest depths of the mind, is but a vast ocean and the only thing that really matters is what floats your boat.
I think you make some good points there and the fear of what the "light of truth" may reveal us to be (exposing our failures even if only to ourselves in a sort of brutal honesty) is very real for many people, I'm sure. Excellent point, I think.
I would also like to point out that I'm just as busted and debased as anyone. I am fearful of how my God will measure me. I have my struggles with doubt but have chosen to doubt towards faith because to "me" it is the most reasonable answer.
Pin it! 
26 comments
Login to comment →
Ebaker 9 years, 2 months ago
This is silly. He simply wants to replace the current religious systems with one of his own making. It is terrible for him to suggest that humans should retain their questions about existence while denying them the answers they have found.
Reply
Nickolas 9 years, 2 months ago
While in college I had a Professor of Biology state "Atheists have to have as much FAITH there is no God as though that do."
I challenge you to watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Reply
skilletboy 9 years, 2 months ago
Ok guy. Have fun with that.
Reply
57plymouth 9 years, 2 months ago
Evolution is a religious belief that takes more faith to believe than Christianity. He just doesn't like other religions.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
Give it time, folks. Religion isn't proving anything. With science, however, we're on the cusp of proving the origin of life on this planet.
Reply
Chet_Manly 9 years, 2 months ago
And given enough resources and power, I'm sure atrocities will be committed in the name of science. People will always be people, and will always have the need to follow/believe in something while hating anyone who doesn't agree with them. I think maybe it is more about human nature than anything else, but this is only my opinion.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
This is insightful. But science isn't committing the atrocities, it's people. Just as I'll concede that religion isn't committing the atrocities, people within the religion do. But religion does create the barrier mentioned in the article - the "us vs. them" mentality created by the formation of "tribes". I don't see that in science. Science, in my opinion, concerns itself more with curiosity and discovery than it does with tribalism.
Reply
Chet_Manly 9 years, 2 months ago
I'm sympathetic to your argument but I do not agree. German and Japanese scientists would be an example of atrocities committed in the name of science from societal base scrubbed of the positive aspects of religion. If it happened once it can happen again.
To develop and move forward, a society needs both scientific inquiry to understand our world and some sort of religious value system to enhance our social interaction. I think people who can't strike a balance and find some value in both are silly.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
In my opinion, a person's relationship, thoughts about, or feelings towards the higher (yet unexplained) power we like to refer to as god should be unique to that person. What's silly is when someone begins to claim that their "religion" is the only true religion or their "god" is the only true "god". This alienates anyone else who may have a different interpretation of said "god" and breeds conflict.
Reply
Chet_Manly 9 years, 2 months ago
We can certianly agree on that.
Reply
egro 9 years, 2 months ago
There's no convincing evidence for a god, and fortunately the more we learn about the world, there are fewer gaps for god to exist in.
Atheism is purely a rejection of a theistic claim - specifically that god exists. The burden of proof is on the theists.
Reply
Chet_Manly 9 years, 2 months ago
The proof argument never gets anywhere; minds are usually already made up anyway. I would think the creative mind could allow for the existence of a deity more as an open ended question.
Plus, Dawkins seems to be an activist in this area. I believe (my opinion) that makes one less rational when strong emotions are tied to a subject...if that's the case, I don't judge his intentions or emotions...just going off my perception.
Einstein was never willing to completely rule out the existence of a deity and I'll take his perspective on the matter over Dawkins any day.
Reply
egro 9 years, 2 months ago
I don't think anyone can 'completely rule out the existence of a deity', rather I think the question should rely on probability and evidence. If there is no evidence for a claim, or it does not fit with what we can observe and measure, we can disregard it until further evidence is provided. This kind of gets into the discussion of gnosticism vs theism (level of knowing vs position). Myself as an example: I see no evidence of a god, so I'm an atheist, but I also cannot say definitively that there is no god, so I'm really an agnostic atheist.
Reply
ahnyerkeester 9 years, 2 months ago
egro, you have a point. However, the question of whether there is evidence is already loaded. If you begin with a materialistic understanding of the universe, you find no evidence because you're looking for materialistic evidence and God is not material, ergo (sorry, pun intended!!) he does not exist. That doesn't really prove or disprove anything, it just seems to reinforce itself. Bertrand Russell would agree with you on the agnosticism part. It is not really tenable to maintain real atheism, the "best" you can do is agnosticism.
Religion is treated as a great evil these days but to be fair, Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed millions so the track record isn't great there either. The problem isn't religion or lack of religion, it is people.
Reply
egro 9 years, 2 months ago
If god is not material, now we have more questions to address, in what medium does god exist? What proof or evidence is there that this new medium exists? If we cannot define that medium and show it exists, the hypothesis for it's existence can be rejected. This is just a 'god of the gaps' fallacy. I agree with your statement on agnosticism, and I would include that there is no gnostic theism either, hence the reliance on faith.
Reply
TheNilvarg 9 years, 2 months ago
No, the burden of proof lies on whoever makes an assertion, such as "there is no God". If you have no evidence to back up your beliefs, then you are practicing blind faith as much as any theistic believer. This "no proof required to prove the negative" is just a regurgitated cliché made up by internet Atheists so that they never have to supply any evidence to support their religious beliefs. A negative claim requires "proof of impossibility", so go ahead and provide some or stop shoving your religion down our throats.
Reply
egro 9 years, 2 months ago
Correct, burden of proof is on the assertion, this is basic logic. If you reread my comment, you'll see I reject the assertion god exists. Thus, the burden of proof remains with those claiming god exists.
Reply
TheNilvarg 9 years, 2 months ago
Mattlockhart and E.O. Wilson are bigoted hypocrites.
Why is this on here? This is Gentlemint, not a database of religious propaganda.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
It's an open forum, my friend. And just look at the reaction it's spawning! I doubt a real gentleman would go around name calling others who carry differing worldviews than himself. Therefore, by that measure, why are YOU on here?
Though it really doesn't matter, I'm curious: at what point was I hypocritical?
And by the way (I can't leave this alone), no one is shoving anything down anyone's throats (except maybe a Catholic priest or two). You can believe whatever you want to believe. It literally doesn't effect me. Yet, somehow my beliefs seem to be effecting you quite negatively as you've reverted to name-calling and censorship.
Finally, to address your previous comment further, did you even read the article? No where does he say anything about or make any claims that there was no god. He actually states that the belief in a god is a natural humanistic trait that "unite(s) humanity". The problem is religion. But I think, as some have mentioned in comments above that it's more a problem with humanity. We naturally form these "tribes" for multiple reasons; churches, clubs, and sports teams are just a few examples that we can identify. These groups give us purpose, give our lives meaning, and give us something to do with our time. But something else happens when we form these "tribes". A boundary is created that separates this tribe from that tribe which inevitably spawns conflict.
Reply
egro 9 years, 2 months ago
It's sad he is unable to express himself with intellectual discussion, rather than rash emotional response. As you stated: not gentlemanlike.
Reply
AmazngSpiderpig 9 years, 2 months ago
The problem is even if I proved there was God beyond a "reasonable doubt" we would have those who would argue the definition of "reasonable doubt" to avoid the burden of knowing there is a source of creation beyond their own grasp or control. By definition there is only one ultimate truth, truth can not be relative. As men we are cursed to continually seek and desire that Truth while blindly alienating ourselves from it with an often subconscious fear of how we will look in the light of the Truth we seek. We all hate being measured to something bigger than ourselves. My opinion of the truth does not change Truth.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
Ummm... I'm sorry but that is B.S. First of all, if god were to reveal himself and lay down the "truth" once and for all for everyone to witness, leaving no ambiguity, that would be the coolest thing ever. And if you were able to prove the existence of a god beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have to be beyond any objective reasonable doubt, not just your own reasonable doubt.
I don't know what you're talking about with your "alienating ourselves from (the truth) with an often subconscious fear of how we will look in the light of the truth we seek" statement. Can you give an example of this? I don't know if I'm missing something, but seeking truth can never be a bad thing. Claiming to know the truth, without being able to prove it to anyone else is, on the other hand, a terrible thing.
Truth IS something we all seek. It's therefore on us as humans to do our best to not only find it but share it with others. In order to do so, however, we need to be able to show why we believe something to be true. If you cannot do this your claim to truth is, in fact relative or simply not the truth.
Lastly, that we hate being measured to something bigger than ourselves is just ridiculous. We constantly measure ourselves against others, particularly those who we view as "better" or "bigger" than ourselves. This is why people have problems with their self-image and confidence. This is something we do every day. It's not necessarily a good thing either but it can be in terms of motivation.
Reply
AmazngSpiderpig 9 years, 2 months ago
First, the Internet does not do justice to such conversation and I would like to note everyone who has posted in this chain appears to be the kind of gent I'd like to share a beer, whiskey, or scotch with.
Second as much as I would love to have you share my opinion it wouldn't be for the pleasure of proving anyone on here wrong. That being said if my God did make himself known to you completely, it would indeed blow your mind :), along with in "theory" remove any freedom of making any choice but him. Christianity is not a religion but a relationship, God wants that relationship to be a choice not a command. Even Biblical figures who had what is described as direct (but not complete) encounters with God denied him or disobeyed him, because he affords us choice. We (Christians and non-Christians) just find ways to devalue the ways he discloses himself to us, choosing less fulfilling and empty pursuits (I do this). There is a reason it takes 12 jurors to determine reasonable doubt in a court room and they still are not infallible.
I identify only one who knew complete truth and aside from him I don't think anyone else ever has or will, but I don't suggest we stop the pursuit. I also think humans are incapable of proving truth to other humans because the likelihood of one of us completely understanding truth is as statistically likely as observing spontaneous generation of life.
As far as "Claiming to know the truth, without being able to prove it to anyone else is, on the other hand, a terrible thing." - I agree completely... Which reinforces the Biblical fallen-ness of man.
You stated "we need to be able to show why we believe something to be true" and I agree, but would like to point out as men there is no statement we are capable of making for or against Truth that does not involve belief or faith.
"We constantly measure ourselves against others, particularly those who we view as "better" or "bigger" than ourselves. This is why people have problems with their self-image and confidence." Only when we measure ourselves against things unobtainable do we experience these negative attributes. We also are prone to greed, envy, and lust in that scenario. I challenge anyone to find someone who takes motivation in striving for the unattainable, motivation is only found when reaching for what can be perceived as obtainable. Christian don't get motivation from being measured against God but in our service to him and how he allows himself to work through us. I think you and I both can agree that neither of us is capable of obtaining god-hood.
Reply
Mattlockhart 9 years, 2 months ago
I guess that would depend on our individual interpretations of what god is. :)
All that is, all that exists from the far reaches of physical reality to the deepest depths of the mind, is but a vast ocean and the only thing that really matters is what floats your boat.
I appreciate your reply, thank you.
Reply
Chet_Manly 9 years, 2 months ago
I think you make some good points there and the fear of what the "light of truth" may reveal us to be (exposing our failures even if only to ourselves in a sort of brutal honesty) is very real for many people, I'm sure. Excellent point, I think.
Reply
AmazngSpiderpig 9 years, 2 months ago
I would also like to point out that I'm just as busted and debased as anyone. I am fearful of how my God will measure me. I have my struggles with doubt but have chosen to doubt towards faith because to "me" it is the most reasonable answer.
Reply