Evolutionary perspective on religion

Originally posted by josephw
The only thing I found interesting about this article and all other articles like it written by atheists is, that as a theist I was bored to tears. How can there be an once of truth to any assertion based in the lie that God doesn't exist?
The entire school of thought that produces any argument based on the assumption that "there is no God" is fundamentally flawed, and is therefor suspect in all of it's particulars.

If there is no God, then the proposition "There is no God" is true, and is so independently of the existence of God. QED

Originally posted by bbarr
If there is no God, then the proposition "There is no God" is true, and is so independently of the existence of God. QED

Then if both propositions can not be proved true all arguments are worthless.

The only difference between the two propositions, as I see it, is that on the one hand the atheist has only the existence of the material universe with which to draw evidence, whereas the theist has both the universe of material evidence and that which exists beyond our physical senses.

Is there a spiritual reality that is not apprehended by the senses? Of course there is! Why else do you think I believe in God?
Don't answer that question.
How do I prove it? It won't be by any means so far discussed in this forum. There is a way to prove that God exists, and it will have to be discovered by each individual separately. I resist taking the debate in that direction because I'm afraid. What do I have to fear? Rejection, humiliation, and defeat. Pride is a terrible foe.

Originally posted by josephw
Then if both propositions can not be proved true all arguments are worthless.

Word salad.

Originally posted by bbarr
Word salad.

Just when I thought things were getting interesting.

And now I have to go.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is that an established fact cast in iron (and repeatable) or the sort of fact established by consensus? It seems that when there are such major disagreements between scientific authorities, then the issue is still open. Whether people have already made up their minds or not is not important.

Something that interests me in this is defining individual ...[text shortened]... e too specialised for me (and others, I'm sure) to follow without incurring a headache.

I will, but today I'm ill. Nothing more than snide comments from me today, I'm afraid. :'(

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I will, but today I'm ill. Nothing more than snide comments from me today, I'm afraid. :'(

Well, get better soon. As it happens I'm also unwell.

If you're feeling super-generous you could also do a thread on scientific method, something I'm totally clueless about, it seems.

Here's a blog you might enjoy: barefootbum.blogspot.com

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, get better soon. As it happens I'm also unwell.

If you're feeling super-generous you could also do a thread on scientific method, something I'm totally clueless about, it seems.

Here's a blog you might enjoy: barefootbum.blogspot.com

I should be feeling better tomorrow, I hope!

You take care too mate. I'll maybe start a couple of new threads on the things mentioned here in the next couple, but life gets increasingly busy from here on in. I start my new (old) job on Thursday (reemployed), and need to fit my 25 private students in around that!

I'll see what I can do tomorrow though.

Thanks for the link - very funny!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The author's an evolutionary biologist (and atheist) who disagrees with Richard Dawkins on certain important points. Interesting!

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

I find it amusing to see so much attention being paid to the supposed evolution of religion, without a single consideration given to the possibility that a true religion might actually exist. No, no, it couldn't be the truth, it must be a parasite... It really seems at times that Dawkin's dogmatic belligerence is his only claim to fame.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I find it amusing to see so much attention being paid to the supposed evolution of religion, without a single consideration given to the possibility that a true religion might actually exist. No, no, it couldn't be the truth, it must be a parasite... It really seems at times that Dawkin's dogmatic belligerence is his only claim to fame.

But his book "The God delusion" addresses that issue in full and shows conclusively that a 'true religion' does not exist.
Of course even if you start with the hypothesis that a 'true religion' does exist one must still ask where all the false ones come from and how they evolved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But his book "The God delusion" addresses that issue in full and shows conclusively that a 'true religion' does not exist.

Ha ha...no it doesn't. It shoots a massive strawman down in flames...

But this thread is about two opposing scientific viewpoints, represented by Dawkins and Wilson. It's irrelevant, for the purposes of this thread, whether a true religion exists or not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But his book "The God delusion" addresses that issue in full and shows conclusively that a 'true religion' does not exist.
Of course even if you start with the hypothesis that a 'true religion' does exist one must still ask where all the false ones come from and how they evolved.

It is a distinct possibility that Christ is Who He claimed to be, therefore Dawkins could not have shown anything conclusively. Anybody trying hard enough to rationalize away the trustworthiness of the gospels could do it, but that doesn't mean those rationalizations prove anything.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But his book "The God delusion" addresses that issue in full and shows conclusively that a 'true religion' does not exist.
Of course even if you start with the hypothesis that a 'true religion' does exist one must still ask where all the false ones come from and how they evolved.

Dawkins shows nothing conclusively. His arguments against the proposition that god exists are absolutely terrible. Really, they're laughably bad. But if you don't believe me I'll make you a deal. If you present what you take to be the best argument Dawkins presents against the proposition that God exists, I'll respond here to the best of my ability.

Originally posted by bbarr
Dawkins shows nothing conclusively. His arguments against the proposition that god exists are absolutely terrible. Really, they're laughably bad. But if you don't believe me I'll make you a deal. If you present what you take to be the best argument Dawkins presents against the proposition that God exists, I'll respond here to the best of my ability.

I don't know what book you've been reading, but the majority of the stuff Dawkins presents in The God Delusion is pretty standard. Much of it certainly isn't original to Dawkins. The book functions more as a compendium of arguments that have typically been used by many others against the existence of god over the years. I fail to see how much of anything there could ruffle your feathers to such a degree. If your beef consists of the fact that he fails to conclusively disprove the existence of god then it is a misplaced one, for he does not claim to be able to do so.

Originally posted by bbarr
Dawkins shows nothing conclusively. His arguments against the proposition that god exists are absolutely terrible. Really, they're laughably bad. But if you don't believe me I'll make you a deal. If you present what you take to be the best argument Dawkins presents against the proposition that God exists, I'll respond here to the best of my ability.

I was only joking with the 'conclusively' bit. I do however think that he has some good arguments against the existence of God even thought they are far from conclusive nor do they claim to be.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is a distinct possibility that Christ is Who He claimed to be, therefore Dawkins could not have shown anything conclusively. Anybody trying hard enough to rationalize away the trustworthiness of the gospels could do it, but that doesn't mean those rationalizations prove anything.

There is a 'distinct possibility' that the spaghetti monster and Santa exist. We should never the less be sensible enough not to let that possibility cause us to refuse to discuss anything relating to a possible universe where they do not exist. In this particular case however, as I pointed out, the arguments are still valid and important whether or not Jesus was who he claimed to be. In fact you could put that forward as a third hypothesis but you would have to also hypothesize a lot more than that as it doesn't actually answer the question - how and why did man evolve an affinity for religion. The validity of Christianity does not in any way explain why Indians 3000 years ago were attracted to Hinduism.