to zvacet

about the razor: I did say I was being generous

as for the genus-differentia definition: it is my understanding that this is one type of definition, and other types of definition exist. I agree that trying to define 'god' by a genus-differentia definition would be difficult, as would 'being', 'entity' or, well, 'matter', for that matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'religious scientist'. Is this someone who studies religion in a scientific way, like, say, a psychologist or a sociologist (I'm using 'scientific' in a broad way here ) or do you mean a scientist who also happens to be religious?

well here in the uk a large minority of people treat religion with a sense of tradition rather than belief as well as a slight sense of humorous wistfulness, after all, almost 400,000 people put jedi down as their chosen religion in the 2001 census.

as for the hate of atheists in the usa, i an only point to one of my favourite GWB quotes

thats what you want from a tolerant leader
if he had said the same thing about any other group of people can you imagine the outrage that would've been caused?

Or imagine a political leader in Western Europe saying something like that, it would be instant riot time

I'm bringing this over from What's your religion and why?, just to try and get it in the right thread:

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

I value that same sort of interaction very much. Even though I lean towards atheism myself, I don't like the cudgel of "you're wrong you religious idiot!" any more then I enjoy the evangelical's hellfire and brimstone speech. Everyone has their opinions, but we needn't be rude about it.

Dawkins' says "a widespread assumption, which nearly everbody in our society accepts -- the non-religious included -- is that religious faith is especially vulnerable to offence and should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect, in a different class from the respect that any human being should pay to any other." (God Delusion, 20)

He proports to disillusion the masses and bring religion full into the realm of critical analysis. This is his justification for being startlingly blunt and passionate against religion throughout the rest of the book. I agree that one should be willing to openly question and dialog over religion and it's merit, or lack thereof, but -- maybe I'm just a more mellow personality then Dawkins, or more insecure in my youth-- I don't feel the need to troll about it. I don't like how atheists seem to be using Dawkins' argument to justify disrespect for the religious mind -- a deeply embedded part of human history that people don't shed lightly.

Daniel Dennett effectively challenges religion (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena was published just a few months before The God Delusion), and is as widely reknown as Dawkins -- but he isn't nearly so harsh. Dawkins might be more convincing, I cede, but I don't know quite what to do with so much bias when I read him. I have to take twice as long to process Dawkins -- just to make sure I'm not being brainwashed. That's the real kicker.

I've met several who can make a cogent case from historical prophecy (Usually along similar lines to this site)-- which is probably why I insist on showing them respect when others find it easy to dismiss religion in general along with Santa Clause.

Which is grand, but it's exactly that sort of foundation for faith that makes the skeptic laugh. It may feel like a great transition, and it make feel like there is supernatural intervention -- but in the end it's all easily dismissable as emotional fluff accompanying a widespread meme.

This is the sort of evangelism (If that's the word) that my church has always encouraged. Friend-to-friend, by example through Christ. A somewhat amazing force seems to take over, if someone who trusts you takes interest in the religious foundation of your life style. Christians call it the Holy Spirit. I call it the amazing power of peer pressure: the same power that makes kids buy meth or join the chess team, against any real reasoning.

The world is run by cool factor in its various forms. In context of Dawkins, anything but atheism is shameful. The tide could be turned in any direction, however, by a skilled author of any world view.

Here's to idealism and youthful hope! I heartily hear ya, and hope to see more of said attitude permeate the world in the future. Just don't disillusion me just yet... :-).

Siggy

PS: This post is probably better suited for the thread on militant atheism... so I'm double posting. I know. Bad Siggy.

Einstein was far from embracing faith due to intellectual awakening, his skepticism increased with age, he made a few statements to appease powerful churchmen who at many points in time were calling for his deportation from the USA, but in his personal autobiographical notes i beleive he leaves little to interpretation,

I did not state he was a Christian, I stated he was a deist. You have collected a small blurb out of context from an entire life. You will have to do better than google quote of the day.

You may PM me your address and I will be happy to send you many of his works, along with prints of memorabilia collected over the years. I will be happy to highlight and place yellow sticky notes in the appropriate documents and white sticky's in the ones that support atheism. He led a complex life and a long one with a few turns in the road.

BTW, I will need the materials back so do take care of the box.

Google quote of the day:
SigmaX

No, it's not as it's infinite low in this case. You sure do not know much about calculus of probability.

Me neither... I just finished calc 1, which (I expect) leaves me in the dark. Can we bring this into a little less abstract terms? (i.e. "What the heck is going on!?")

SigmaX

Einstein did believe in god just not in a personal one, who was parent to the humans but in a god who is a creator.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

hmm I'll try to explain it in a simple way with the troll story.

the old man stated seeing a troll under the bridge so the others went there to prove it's existance.

a) the troll is not there b) the troll is there

a) why is the troll not there b) why is the troll there


in both cases you'll have to reach 100%

a) 100% no troll b) 100% troll

. a%=∞ /\ ∞=b%

a) 0% of a are 100% of b b) 0% of b are 100% of a


a)only killing the troll would state he isn't there, but he was if you killed him.
b) not killing the troll because he was not there does not disprove his existance.

You must believe he does not exist which is not based on facts.


No you think, dude that's bullshit, you can say that to everything.
well you are right IT IS bullshit this is how science works

The older my profs were so much more did they believe in god and stuff and we did laugh at them. but they always told us that when you dive deeper and deeper into maths there is no way to disprove the existance of god or the troll. And as long it's not disprovable it can be used.

The only way to make sure god does not exist would be to kill him which is an paradox.


I'm just 29 and I'm still a sceptic when in comes to faith but I was beginning to see his point while studying. When I'm the ordinary guy I want just to believe what i've seen but when I'm the mathematician I do think different.

bringing it down from maths for a moment we both seem to be agreeing that theoretically you can never prove anything 100%, even water boiling at 100 degrees, and that point was never in dispute.

but if you went to the bridge, didn't see a troll but we did find a 10 foot long axe, a loincloth, some human heads, youd have reason to assume that some form of large intelligent, carnivorous creature,even if its not a troll, was there, and by the flip side if you found evidence that nothing had been under the bridge for many years, such as overgrown branches with none broken, no footprints anywhere, none of the habitat choices you would associate with a troll then you would naturally assume indeed a troll had not been there and the old man was at fault, couple that with the fact that noone anywhere has ever verified troll existence then you would naturally realise there is more evidence against troll existence the troll and none for troll-existence,

hence the chance of a troll living under the bridge is greatly reduced to the chance he does not.

indeed. but it's relatively reduced and not absolute.

I'm a religious person , but I don't believe in God.

I do however believe in science. When scientists speak about Quantum entanglement - I believe them . I never learned physics and the fact that two particles ,which can be miles away , can influence each other instantly , seems rather magical to me.

I think God is a broad concept. Most atheistst consider God only in its anthropomorphic aspect. But not all religious people view God this way.

But why bother? Let them wallow in their fantasy. What is gained by stirring them up? At best, you mobilize them for action not in your interests (especially considering they outnumber you).

QFT++

I once ran across a "militant atheist" on another board. He was almost scary to all the other atheists there so fervent was his militancy. He was also gay, and fairly militant about that. Over time, many of us came to the conclusion that he was not a militant atheist because he did not believe in god; he was a militant atheist because he was angry at god. Angry for making him gay. When confronted with this, he kinda just clicked off and didn't return for about 3 months.

The moral of this story is that belief/faith in god is so impotent in reality that militancy is really unwarranted. And those that insist on their continuing intolerance towards this belief may be working on some other issues.

Sophistry. By that "logic" one would never be able to pass thru a doorway, since you would always need to traverse half the remaining distance to the threshhold.

Hehe. I always liked that one.

SigmaX

Faith is the ability to turn your brain off when confronted with difficult questions that cause discomfort or question why you have it. There isn't much point in trying to make those who don't want to ask question ask them. I did think that Daniel C Dennets book "Breaking the Spell" was an heroic effort, and perhaps if people find Dawkins too direct, Dennet is less confrontational. Has any one out there read him?

Dawkins' work is direct and lucid and I haven't yet seen anything in his writings that is intemperate or aggressive towards people. He argues very forcefully that religion is irrational, and gives evidence-based arguments why.

He is at pains to explain the arguments, present the evidence, and take the claims of the religious seriously. It's the latter that seems to arouse the most hostility from the religious because by introducing evidence, it reduces the status of faith.

But in establishing knowledge, faith doesn't cut it, and whatever social or psychological benefits might be claimed for religion, establishing knowledge isn't one of them. That's why the claims of creationists, faith healers, etc, are so dangerous - they undermine human rationality, by substituting superstition for knowledge.

In the God Delusion, there's an excellent typology of religious argument - a guide to muddled thinking. Some might think it's arrogant to point these things out, but in the absence of any refutation, they stand. Some of the arguments are stark (for example, why don't faith healers ever cure amputees?) but they're none the less good arguments for that.

Religion has been regarded as beyond criticism for far too long. They're ideas not people and as such deserve no respect. Ideas can and should be subjected to criticism, however clever or daft they might be. The people advancing such ideas should be treated with respect and the ideas taken seriously. But if people proposed such contrary notions like transubstantiation, virgin birth, Papal infallibility, and others, they should expect those ideas to be treated with the same attention as someone who denies the chemical composition of water.