Human smoke
It's funny. I was going to promote the excellent New Humanist magazine's Advent Podcast, as Robin Ince was nice enough to ask me to contribute a "window" alongside such luminaries as Stephen Fry, Dave Gorman, Alexei Sayle and Eddie Izzard, but I've already been dismissed by two New Humanists in the blog section underneath my entry on Tony Hancock. They're like a New Humanist rapid reaction force. They certainly told me.
You are supposed to promote a scientist, philosopher or thinker as an alternative to Jesus, and I made a stupid joke about all scientists being "meddlers", which I thought was funny in the heat of having a microphone shoved in my face by Robin in an office, but I was also honest enough to admit that I don't know much about philosophers, which I why a chose a thinker: Hancock. This seems to have been far too flippant for two New Humanists. Have I incorrectly grasped Humanism? Isn't it about faith in one's fellow man rather than in a deity? Surely I can believe that and believe some other things? I had no idea it was so strict!
Anyway, the Advent Calendar is a really nice idea, with some really good contributions. Have a listen.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 12:00 PM
36 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
36 Comments:
Well, I thought that your contribution was very apposite and amusing. Merry Hancockmas!
Actually Collings, you certainly told THEM! You bloody woo-woo loving, woolly-liberal you!
Oh Happy Christmas by the way!
or are we using 'Happy Holidays' or 'Joyeux Winter Solstice'?
Note: The Word Verification I had for this post was 'gindi' which I believe is a Jewish name. Ho! Ho! Ho!
I see they gave you podcast number 13, almost as if they were tempting your superstitious witch-dunking side to reveal itself. Well played, Sir!
Don't worry Andrew, I was just messin' wit ya.
Allow me to counterbalance the criticism with a compliment, lest you lose sleep over the matter:
I think Herrin is going to have to raise his game in your podcasts. It's not a case of "the funny one" and the "the unfunny one", if it ever was. It's now, to me at least, "the funny double act".
Merry Christmas, you big woo-loving hippy.
Is my tooth loose or is that my finger going in and out. I like that.
It's funny that the guy complaining about your 'meddlers' joke thinks you are really called Collings and Herrin.
We are getting to the point where people who are into Richard Dawkins et al are becoming as closed-minded as any Christian evangelist- it's like a rigid dogma that Science=GOOD and Religion=BAD rather than each being a more or less useful lens through which to view the world.
Check out this article for a more open-minded view of the subject from John Gray.
I'm following the New Humanist advent podcasts and when I saw your name pop up on the feed thought we might be in for some controversy (most rationalists wouldn't give any weight to claims of water having a memory, for example, and we know your opinion of science!) I've not seen the complaints on the NH site, but I've seen some criticism on Robin Ince's blog.
When you made your comment on scientists, on a podcast series specifically looking at scientists and great thinkers, I winced, but figured you were saying it for comic effect.
I thought you rescued it though. Using a fictional character was a departure for the series, but a welcome one. Without variety it would be a pretty samey series, and surely a good thing about
Another reminder that petty squabbling isn't just the reserve of the religious.
You must have known you were courting controversy though (I was about to put a little winking emoticon there, but remembered I don't like them).
Guy, to be fair to the first person who commented on the New Humanist blog (Texturbation), he has revealed himself here to be a fan of the podcasts. Mine is a broad church, and I welcome him.
Stephen, I knew full well my "scientists are meddlers" line would rile, but only those who can't take a joke - and I don't really care too much about people who can't take a joke! If I really thought all scientists are meddlers, I'd live in a cave and you wouldn't be reading this. You'd have to actually come round to my cave to see what I'd written on the cave wall. My views on many things come in shades of grey - this is anaethema to some who call themselves "rationalists". I fear that rationalism is limited as a worldview. Not everything is rational or can be rationalised. That's the joy of the world, and of the human brain.
I have a horrible feeling I won't fit in with the New Humanists after all. Still, I'm playing the atheist Christmas gigs this Thursday and Friday at the Bloomsbury anyway, as I am an atheist, on paper. And they always did sound like fun. I believe in fun.
Guy - I checked out that John Gray article you linked to and I don't think it does come across as open-minded. It just seems a little muddled and confused.
Take this quote for example: "Dawkins, Dennett, and others are ruled by myths that they've never interrogated. But they all go bananas when you say that."
I imagine one of the reasons they "go bananas" is that it's simply not true. The whole point of science is to interrogate everything - you come up with an idea, look for evidence, test it, test it again, get others to pick holes in it etc etc. If your idea can survive all of that then it becomes accepted as probably true... for now. How that can be interpreted as being ruled by myths that are never interrogated is beyond me.
I also disagree with your point that they see things as: "Science=GOOD and Religion=BAD"
Certainly Dawkins does point out that religion can have some pretty pernicious effects, or at the very least can be used to justify some pretty shitty things (eg. "us men are better than women, honest, god said so!"). His main point though is that religion is wrong, rather than bad. There just isn't any evidence to back up any of it - even if all religious people were nice, and religion brought only happiness and joy to the world, the fact would still remain that there isn't any evidence to show that a supernatural omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being exists, no matter how much people would like it to.
Which kind of brings me on to Andrew's point about not everthing being rational. I'd agree that people certainly do act irrationally, or appear to do so, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying rationality to things.
It might not be nice to think that everything is rational, and we don't have to rationalise everything even if it can be. For example I know that there are no doubt some very rational reasons for me being in love with my fiance, no doubt involving brain chemistry, psychology relating to my upbringing, cultural norms etc etc. And also, if I thought about it rationally I know I'd probably be just as happy with any number of other women, perhaps for different reasons. But I choose to ignore all that other stuff and live my life as if she is The One. It's nicer that way.
Sorry for the loser length post. Slow day at the office.
Sorry Guy, but my experience of the whole "Atheists are as narrow minded as Fundamentalist" is just lazy thinking and based on the idea that a scientific theory is the same as a personal theory.
I probably am quite narrow minded though.
Penry
@Andrew- yes I read that post properly just after I'd posted my comment and felt a bit silly. However it does show that irony is hard to do on the internet, especially when you don't know the person concerned. Which is why emoticons were invented I suppose, to give clues (which might properly be given by clever writing, but which most of us are too lazy to put in on a comment on a website).
@Tristan- yes, 'open-minded' might have been a bad description of the Gray article: 'closed-minded in a different way' might've been more accurate.
I'm not a big expert on Dawkins and Dennett by any means, and I'm sure they have thoroughly examined everything they believe in somewhere in their oeuvre, but it's the overall message which comes across which bothers me, a kind of arrogant, frustrated attitude of 'if you believe this you MUST be an idiot'- I saw a video of Dawkins talking to an evangelical christian, and while the christian was spouting what I would consider rubbish, he remained calm throughout the discussion, while Dawkins was almost frothing at the mouth with indignation that this person chose to believe these things, as if it was somehow his (Dawkins') business.
I don't find John Gray particularly muddled, in fact I think he relates possibly obscure philosophical arguments to practical situations very well, as demonstrated by his comments on the Iraq war. I mentioned the article because Dawkins is in danger of becoming almost untouchable from a wolly-left liberal Collings-style ;-) (aggh the dreaded emoticon!) perspective and I think a bit of balance re-dressing is in order.
@Penry - I would agree that a belief in science is based on far stronger empirical basis than a belief in religion, but have you noticed that science textbooks are updated with regularity? If science was just a 'closed shop' of things we know to be true, they wouldn't have to be. Einstein made many of Newton's theories out-of-date and this can and possibly will happen with every scientific discovery, given time. What if science eventually proves that homeopathy is real and that water does have a memory? Of course it seems unlikely now but, in an infinite universe, who can say that it will never happen? This makes the proselytizing of certain pro-science people seem rather fragile. For me, everything is just a theory, including science and religion, and all can be disproved in time. This leaves us in a less certain, more vulnerable position, but I think overall that is no bad thing.
So how's that for a loser-length post?
Andrew, I like your position on this sort of thing and I think it's right. There is nothing wrong with thinking that there may be more to the world than reason can tell us. On the contrary, this seems to me to be pretty wise. After all, why should a lump of grey squidgy stuff, which evolved only to allow a bunch of apelike creatures to lead their lives in a way that wouldn't result in their immediate extinction, be any good at deducing the nature and causes of the universe itself? The fact that we've done as well as we have is cause for just as much amazement as celebration.
Tristan, I think that some of what you says does in fact illustrate the assumptions that *some* atheists work under in an unquestioning way. You say, for example, that there's no evidence at all for theism. I don't think that is true; I think there are plenty of things that are evidence for it. That doesn't mean that I think that theism is true (I don't). There can be evidence for an untrue theory. For example, the fact that many people have experiences that seem to be of God is evidence that God exists (since we might expect such experiences to occur if we knew that God existed *more* than we would if we knew that he didn't). That doesn't mean it's *good* evidence, of course. But to say that there is no good evidence for something is not the same as to say there is no evidence at all.
More fundamentally, you assume that if someone believes something for which there is no evidence, this is irrational. This claim is known as "evidentialism" and it emerged in the seventeenth century. But there is a big debate in philosophy right now over whether evidentialism is true or not. Some people say there are things that we all believe even though there is no evidence for them, and that we do so rationally. A common example is this. Suppose that someone told you that the universe popped into existence ten minutes ago, complete with the appearance of being billions of years old, and complete with you and me and our apparent (but actually fake) memories of the past. On this theory, all of the evidence that the universe is billions of years old is actually fake. That means that there is no evidence that this theory is false and that the universe really is billions of years old. Any evidence you could provide would equally support both theories. But it would be ridiculous to think that "ten-minutism" was true. Not only do we all reject "ten-minutism", but we are rational to do so - if anyone were really to believe "ten-minutism" they would be not simply mistaken but irrational, perhaps even mad. And if that is so then evidentialism is false.
And if that is so, the question is: what sort of beliefs can one believe *rationally* even in the absence of evidence? Some people have argued that religious beliefs may be in this category. If that's so then it might be possible to believe in God without any evidence for his existence, but still to be rational in so doing. For example, if someone frequently has experiences that appear to be of God, then it might be rational for that person to believe in God even in the absence of any formal evidence that might convince an objective observer.
Now the point I wanted to make is this: perhaps the views I've just mentioned are wrong, and perhaps evidentialism is true and those atheists who criticise religious people for being irrational are right to do so. But many of them (and I am thinking of Dawkins and his ilk here) never discuss these matters. For them, evidentialism and various associated beliefs *are* assumptions, which they do not question or challenge. And that is why those who accuse them of being less critical and open-minded than they claim to be do have a point, at least as I see it. Again, this is irrespective of the *truth* of these assumptions.
I don't mean to debate these things here, it's hardly the forum for it. But I wanted to show that there *is* a debate to be had, but that some figures in the endless "religion" argument in the public arena not only take up positions in that debate unquestioningly but seem unaware that the debate even exists. Which also makes me wonder how well informed Dawkins et al are about the subject at all, because that debate is raging right now in epistemology and philosophy of religion journals, which suggests that they don't read them.
Sorry for a *truly* loser-length post!
In case no-one else has done it yet, and someone is interested, here is part one of The Bedsit.
I'll try not to creep to loser length.
I'm rarely aligned with Rumsfeld but: there are almost certainly things we cannot know. We'll never know what those things are or how extensive they are. Science has limits and it can't tell us anything beyond those limits. That's not say that anything else can; it's just to say that science does not and cannot inform us about what is beyond the reach of our knowledge. Gods could easily exist in that realm. Of course that's no reason to believe in them. But whatever drives some people to deny the possibility of that existence, or to ridicule those who choose to believe in it, or to suggest that the weight of scientific evidence is against it, it certainly isn't scientific learning, and it isn't an open mind.
"I can't see any evidence for the existence of gods and I don't believe in them." That's a rational statement. But it isn't rational to say there are no gods. It isn't even rational to say there are probably no gods (if you mean a probability of more than 0.5). There's no evidence to back up either of those statements. I think that's the kind of lazy prejudice Guy was talking about.
There's evidence for all kinds of things all around us: all kinds of ideas that we haven't had yet are being proved by the universe right now. I can't see any of it as evidence for anything because I don't know what those ideas are (and I'm thick). Similarly I don't know what gods might be. Even assuming that there ought to be evidence of their existence (and there's no reason to assume that), I'm certainly not prepared to say that there isn't any.
word verification: crything
Ah, some interesting points being raised. I fear there is going to be a trend for loser length posts on this one!
Guy - I think one of the reasons Dawkins may come across as “frothing at the mouth” when talking to evangelical creationists is that actually to promote what they believe (6000 year old earth, no evolution etc) they either have to be fundamentally dishonest or actually an idiot. The science behind evolution isn’t hard, honest! Yet they will consistently come up with absolute howlers like the fact that the eye is too complicated to have evolved. It really isn’t hard to look up exactly how the eye could have evolved, it’s pretty basic stuff, but they insist it couldn’t. For someone who has spent his life working in the field it must be pretty damned frustrating to have to put up with that shit!
Not everyone likes Dawkins’ style but most of the time he is on the money. Have a read of the God Delusion and you’ll see what I mean. Personally I like the fact that he doesn’t tip toe around the issues.
With regards to you observation of science changing, textbooks being updated etc, then you’re right, science isn’t meant to be a ‘closed shop’ of things we know to be true. Science isn’t facts, it’s a method of explaining them. The thing is, most developments in science aren’t about fully replacing old theories with new ones, they’re generally about improving them, making them more accurate etc. So, to take the Einstein vs. Newton example – the equations of motion, description of gravity etc. that Newton came up with are still pretty reliable, within limits. For things of mid-size (ie. not large like stars, or tiny like fundamental particles), travelling at slow speeds (relative to the speed of light) then Newton’s equations are still great approximations to use. What Einstein did is add a whole new level, showing how those broke down at relativistic speeds or high masses. What has never changed is the observations – an apple still falls as fast on earth now as it did in Newton’s time, and Einstein hasn’t changed that. The speed of an apple falling on earth is what you could probably call a fact, not the explanations for it.
Now, that brings me on to the homeopathy point, and why I personally think science will never show homeopathy is real. The whole memory of water thing is the explanation or the theory, but before we even get to explaining how or why homeopathy works we need the observation that it does in fact work. If there were reliable trials showing it actually had a real effect then we would need to start looking for that explanation of why. The problem is that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy actually does anything, so there is no need to look at theories of water memory etc. It would be like observing that apples fall when dropped and then deciding that we needed to construct a theory to explain why apples rise when dropped!
JonathanCR – you’ve got me! I accept the difference between no evidence and poor evidence to a certain extent and perhaps should have written my original post differently.
The “ten-minutism” theory is an interesting one, but could something along the lines of Occam’s Razor come into it? The simpler explanation is more likely to be right. So, on the god issue, if you can explain something without recourse to a supernatural omni-present-potent-scient being then surely it is irrational to believe in god. If we look at your person who frequently has experiences that appear to be of god, imagine that someone had actually hidden a speaker in their bedroom and was broadcasting themselves talking as god. That person might believe that god is talking to them, but would it be rational for them to continue to do so once it had been pointed out to them where the speaker was, and that someone was faking it all?
That might sound like a flippant example, but increasingly things that were previously explained as being because of god are being shown to have much simpler explanations.
Agnostic Dave – God’s may well exist in a realm outside the reach of our knowledge, but then so could anything by that logic. So could herds of 5-legged pink elephants with giraffe heads for example. I agree that we shouldn’t deny the possibility of the existence of gods, in the same way that JonathonCR’s “ten-minutism” might be possible.
I don’t agree however that it is irrational to say that there probably are no gods. The onus isn’t on atheists to give evidence that gods don’t exist, it’s actually up to theists to provide evidence that they do, given that it’s the theists that are making a specific claim. Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot gives a good illustration of why this is the case. If I were to claim that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun, which happens to be too small to be seen by even our most powerful telescopes, would the burden of proof lie with me to show that it does exist, or with the sceptic to show that it doesn’t exist?
Nobody has provided any good evidence, that can’t be explained by simpler theories, that the Celestial Teapot exists, so I think it’s fair to say that it probably doesn’t exist. Likewise for gods.
I think Hancock was a genius. I heard Danny Baker refer to a new biography of his recently by saying " a good read but it gets a bit depressing towards the end" and wasn't sure whether he was being ironic - it was on the Radio 2 slot.
When Tony Wilson insisted on changing his name to Anthony StJohn Wilson I noticed some simillarities...
Anthony Aloysius StJohn H Wilson:
It is well publicised that Tony Wilson, wishing to stretch his television character, decided to work without his sidekick Factory Records and continue the show as solo lead. To accentuate the difference, and noting its reduced 25-minute time slot, the title was trimmed from Tony Wilson to plain Anthony Aloysius StJohn H Wilson
The show was an unbridled triumph, with New Order and The Happy Mondays - in what turned out to be their final television collaboration with the comedian - coming up with six outstanding scripts that propelled the star's buffoonish character to new heights of hilarity and nudged the British Music industry into a new era. In the first episode, 'The Bedwetter', to emphasise that Wilson was now operating without Factory, he appeared solo, rambling around Manchester while delivering a stream-of-consciousness monologue and desperately trying to find ways to pass the time. The other episodes were 'The Raw-Ts', a spoof on the BBC radio serial Top of The Pops; 'The Record Ham', where Wilson, at the controls of his amateur recording equipment, stumbles upon a mayday call; 'The Lift', in which Wilson tries to entertain but succeeds only in annoying a group of people trapped in a stalled lift at the Hacienda; 'The Succession - (I am the) Son And Heir', where Wilson tries to find a suitable soul mate with whom to have children (this episode included a sparkling appearance by Morrisey); and, most famously, 'The Money Donor', where Wilson decides, altruistically, to give money but finds there's more to the process than he realised. Immediately upon transmission 'The Money Donor' became a part of British TV folklore with lines from the script still in the public psyche three minutes later.
hello andrew, i took a picture of this book for you: http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1417/5/18/1089060030/n1089060030_30239200_3591.jpg
happy christmas.
From Backtoblack
Hi andrew i woundered if you where aware of this, from The Word Blog-
Posted by Martin on 15 December 2008 - 7:43pm.
Sorry to bring bad vibes to the festive season, but I feel compelled to complain about Andrew Collins’s article in this month’s mag. This really was a tawdry piece of journalism: ill-informed and irresponsible. “Is the gun-toting “management” of the grey squirrel class war or animal racism?” he asks. Well, actually, it’s neither. It’s a government approved project done in consultation with the RSPB, The National Trust and the Forestry Commission. Andrew Collins doesn’t explain this, perhaps because it would get in the way of his rather smug rant about some of the aristocrats who are carrying out the cull, whom he accuses, among other things, of arrogance, racism, and (gulp), genocide. This sounds like the language of extremism.
“If one breed of squirrel does better than another, who am I to arrogantly step in and redress the balance?’ he then asks rhetorically. Applying the same perverse logic, it is also arrogant for scientists to seek cures for Aids (don’t viruses have rights too?), to kill malaria carrying mosquitoes, to rid Australia of the gluttonous and unwelcome cane toad, and so on. To make matters worse, Mr Collins substantiates his argument with an ancient quote from that renowned expert in conservation biology, Sir Paul friggin’ McCartney.
This article was crass populism of the highest order. It belongs in the tabloids, and its presence in your esteemed pages only serves to damage the otherwise excellent reputation of your mag.
Agnostic Dave, while I agree that there will always be something beyond the reach of science (which I hope includes poetry, not just deities), to say "science does not and cannot inform us about what is beyond the reach of our knowledge" seems to me to be a gross misunderstanding of what science is. The reach of knowledge is (and never has been) finite. The microscopic world was, not so long ago, beyond our knowledge and limits. We are now examining sub-atomic particles as well as searching for a purely theoretical particle. The scientific analysis of black holes is extraordinary given that we've never seen one and we can look back into the images from billions of years past.
And maths has been exploring places scientists haven't even dreamed of yet. Imaginary numbers were discovered at least 50 years before anyone found a use for them in the real world.
The reach of religious teachings is however finite. That's where the conflict arises.
As for Dawkins, the notion that he states he is 100% certain that there is no God is another little fib that gains strength from being repeated. Like I said - lazy thinking.
Now I really do feel narrow minded.
Penry
Dont think the twats on the N.H. have a sense of humour. I thought your piece was nicley done and thought prevoking. What more can you hope for.
Tristan - speaking as a Christian here, the problem I have with The God Dilemma is really with the condescending attitude Dawkins has to anyone who might not hold the identical world view. However, as this is a pretty universal human condition (we all have it to some extent - and I have to admit that some of the evangelical fundamentalist Christians have it much worse than Dawkins does!), I can hardly blame him for it...
I came to the conclusion some time ago that there are, in fact, two different coexisting universes - one with God and one without. The problem is that we think there's only one. Thus I look at the world and see God everywhere; Dawkins looks at the world and sees God nowhere. But I don't think Dawkins is delusional for holding his position*, whereas he apparently thinks I am being delusional for holding mine.
(*which, as has been observed, isn't as simple as "there is no God".)
Dawkins (and others, like Philip Pullman) do seem to think that somehow they are declaring radical principles that must inevitably demolish the faith of believers; in fact, they are merely catching up with where theology got to some generations ago. But since they've never bothered to study theology (since it is a meaningless subject to them), they wouldn't know :) But I do try to keep up with modern science (albeit only via New Scientist really), and know enough not to make stupid remarks about the "theory" of evolution etc, since it's so obviously right - I might believe in God, but that doesn't mean I am automatically a credulous idiot!
Indeed, it strikes me as amusing that I think homeopathy is such obvious nonsense that you'd have to be a fool to even consider it, and yet I believe in God. Hmmmm.
-- David
Hi Andrew, I think you’ve found one of the frustrations of humanism. Although, broadly speaking, humanism should mean ethics based on all human qualities, it is often taken as narrower than that; most of the time humanism ends up being based on rationality and empiricism.
You say that you don’t know much about philosophers. I’d recommend reading some philosophy. In particular I think you might like the philosophy of science; it shows that science is perhaps more limited than some people think.
I am officially keeping out of this one. Knock yourselves out!
David - can you expand on the two coextisting Universes concept?
I don't see how that can work, and it seems like a bit of a fence sitting position to avoid offending anyone.
And why only two Universes? Surely there would be an infinite number of them, including some that have those 5-legged pink elephants with giraffe heads in them.
Why is everyone arguing over something that doesn't exist?
Anna
I started quite a long post in response to a number of points raised (I actually like the 2 universe analogy) but then I got to Guy's "For me, everything is just a theory, including science and religion" and just lost the will to type.
Instead I shall be preparing my alternative MP3 Christmas tune list.
So far:
River - Joni Mitchell
I want an Alien for Christmas - Fountains of Wayne
Prokofiev - Troika
Sleigh Ride - The Ronettes
That's better
Penry
@Penry- well, I'm sure you've heard this before but... 'the map is not the territory'- all systems of thought are just theories, or symbols pointing to external reality. Or would you rather go into a restaurant and eat the menu?
The question is: which is the more or less useful theory? If that makes me a pragmatist then so be it. :) If it makes you lose the will to type then I guess we will miss out on what you have to say.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by the author.
I followed a link to an interview on youtube that Dawkins did with Derren Brown (mainly on psychics and their techniques) which was pretty interesting. However, I then saw a link to an hour long interview (in 7 parts) that he did with Father George Coyne, a catholic astronomer who was the former head of the Catholic Observatory.
It's really fascinating stuff, and not at all what I'd expect from a member of the catholic church. Part one is here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc
What's particularly interesting is that they both agree on a lot of stuff, including the value of science, and that god isn't needed as an explanation for anything. Both agree that god is superfluous, but whereas Dawkins sees this as a reason to disbelieve in its existence Coyne sees it as a reasoning for strenghtening his faith. Obviously I'm more inclined towards Dawkins view, but there's some interesting discussion here.
Also interesting to hear Coyne talk about miracles. Dawkins pushes him on this point, asking him how he can reconcile miracles with the rational side of himself, to which Coyne says he's sure god CAN perform miracles, but he hopes he won't do it too often. He reckons the virgin birth and the resurrection probably were miracles, but doesn't believe in any of the other countless medical miracles that have been attributed to god.
I'd highly recommend watching all 7 parts of the interview.
Guy, there is absolutely no point in discussing the matter. In the video Tristan refers to Derren Brown addresses that exact point about equating scientific and religious theory. He says "That way of thinking throws all rational discussion out of the window".
It's like trying to argue with your mother when you know she can just pull out her trump card of "well I'll be dead soon!"
Unless I'm going to just start throwing meaningless sayings back at you (and there's actually a website dedicated to them, so I'm not about to run out anytime soon) there is no basis on which we can continue any discussion.
So...anyone else want to recommend slightly alternative Christmas songs for me?
Penry
Dication - a molecular species which has two electrons removed
Downloaded today's Humanist podcast and it's you again. Why do you get two days?
A mistake? (I only recorded one, so if they've put that in, it's self-evidently not supposed to be there!)
Ha ha. Sorry, you were making a joke. I'm not myself today.
Tristan - that comment you make ("Both agree that god is superfluous, but whereas Dawkins sees this as a reason to disbelieve in its existence Coyne sees it as a reasoning for strenghtening his faith") pretty much sums up my position too. And, equally obviously, I'm with Coyne - my 2 universes comment was essentially trying to make the same point; if you can't see God in the Universe, there's probably no point in trying to explain why I do.
And the other major problem is the "definition" one: almost everyone has a different understanding of what the word "God" means, but if you don't know what someone else's definition is, then you will not always understand their position. Dawkins (quite rightly IMO) mocks the "Old Man With A Beard Sitting On A Cloud" group, but he does sometimes tend towards assuming that anyone who believes in God is part of that group.
Meanwhile I tend towards an understanding which someone (I can't remember who, sorry) neatly summarised as "God is a verb, not a noun." I realise that this is perhaps a rather complex philosophical point to debate in a blog thread, but it's a start.
-- David
(who is now off to watch the Coyne interview. I enjoyed the Derren Brown one lots.)
Hi David,
thanks for the post. I still struggle with the 2 universes thing, if I've understood it correctly. I can see why you'd think that there are two potential universes, one with and one without god (as well as many other potential universese with or without other things), and that it's impossible to tell for certain which one we're in. But I don't think it follows from this that both of those universes exist. There either is or there isn't a god.
The defintion point I think is a bit of a red herring. To have a sensible discussion about whether or not god exists there needs to be at least an attempt to define what it is. You might not be able to provide all the detail, but if god isn't a supernatural being of some sort then I don't know what god is.
If people want to define god as something else, as an explanation for "love" or something like that then fine, but in that case I have no problem with that existing. The problem is that this then makes any discussion on the issue meaningless, because you're doing so on shifting sands!
Enjoy the Coyne interview. It's very good, and shows what a grown up debate about religion can be like... and that Dawkins is capable of having one!
Post a Comment
<< Home