Blind faith (a form of "non thinking" according to Dawkins) and scientific/fact based thinking based on evidence and experimentation are obviously mutually exclusive regardless of the fact that some scientists may believe in God. Betrand Russell's "celestial teapot atheist" parable illustrated the principle well I thought. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God but that does not automatically mean that we should necessarily believe in every mystical/spiritual/metaphysical being cooked up by different societies.Purple said:I don’t accept Dawkins assertion that faith and science are mutually exclusive, after all Albert Einstein had strong religious beliefs.
I don’t accept that as an absolute. I don’t believe in God but I wouldn’t presume to know the mind set of every non-atheist scientist. People believe because they choose to believe. It does not preclude the ability for rational and logical thought in a secular scientific environment. While I enjoyed the programme and am in broad agreement with Dawkins I thought that he was quite arrogant in the way he painted everyone with religious beliefs as unthinking, as if it supposed irrationality in all aspects of their lives. It was all too black and white for me.Blind faith (a form of "non thinking" according to Dawkins) and scientific/fact based thinking based on evidence and experimentation are obviously mutually exclusive regardless of the fact that some scientists may believe in God.
Well you alluded to Einstein in the first place - I was just responding to that point. It doesn't require one to presume to know the mindset of another to attribute their belief in God or any other mystical entity illogical thinking. Even the Catholic Church concedes this fact by describing many of its tenets of belief as mysteries not to be explained but to be accepted. All other religions require such a suspentions of logical/critical faculties too.Purple said:I don’t believe in God but I wouldn’t presume to know the mind set of every non-atheist scientist.
Yes - but not, de facto, on the basis of any rational thoughts. Belief in God requires one to set aside rational thought. That is the point of the programme.People believe because they choose to believe.
I agree that he pulls no punches, can be challenging to the point of arrogance and is pretty firm in his views. However regardless of his personality and approach I totally agree with him on the main thrust. I don't however believe that religion alone is the root of all evil as suggested by the programme title and some of the content. I do agree that the logical extension of blind faith is extremist views (after all each individual believes that his/her religious beliefs are right and his/her God is supreme) but that is not confined to just the religious fields.While I enjoyed the programme and am in broad agreement with Dawkins I thought that he was quite arrogant in the way he painted everyone with religious beliefs as unthinking, as if it supposed irrationality in all aspects of their lives. It was all too black and white for me.
I would be interested to know what logical reasoning can lead one to the conclusion that God exists?!icantbelieve said:Plus not everyone who believes in God does so on "blind" faith. Applying logic and reason easily allows plenty of people, for whom the existence of a world full of strange and wonderful things as well as the multitude of daily events that science has no explanation for, to believe in a God.
That doesn't follow logically for me or for anybody who believes that there are more logical explanations for the existence of the universe (e.g. big bang) and the life that inhabits our planet (e.g. theory of evolution).icantbelieve said:Can I not say the existence of the world and all the amazing things in it, especially life and all its associated inexplicability, allows me to logically conclude that this is proof of a God.
Inspiration? Of course - but then scientific discoveries/theories are then stand or fall on how they hold up against observable evidence and testing. It is impossible to test mystical beliefs using such criteria but the fact that this is not possible doesn't make blind acceptance of them any more logical either. Otherwise why should those who believe in God not also believe in Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot circling Mars (or at least some other astronomical body that is still not within our observable/visited universe) while they're at it?In fact a lot of scientific discovery is predicated on not accepting previously accepted assumtions or facts.
Well synopsised.redstar said:Dawkins approach is not for the easily offended as he tends to 'shoot from the hip', which puts people on the defensive and so might be counter-productive. Religions put a high value on those of strong faith and who withstand challenges to that faith. This is where science and religious faith are incompatible. Unshakeable, strong faith is by definition anti-scientific, as it will not change when contradicted by scientific discovery and evidence. Within religions, this is a VIRTUE. As such, it is almost impossible to overturn such faith by rational argument.
I don't consider that conceited. It's not a case of you agreeing or disagreeing with me. I don't care. It is, however, a case of accepting that blind acceptance of the existence of God or belief in the mystical aspects of any religion requires the suspension of logical/critical thought. Failure to accept that this is the case flies in the face of reasoned thinking and what most or all religions say about their own beliefs anyway!icantbelieve said:From what restar has posted it seems that I'm in the same corner as Einstein. I'm not questionning your need for other levels of proof but you seem to think that if I or Einstein don't agree with you that our beliefs are neither logical or reasoned, a major conceit on your behalf.
I have no problem with you holding those or any other views but surely you can recognise and accept that they are not logical at all.To me, the basic test (seeing as you want one) is, do I think the existence of life indicates a God, yes, does life exist, yes, therefore there is a God. There are a lot more aspects of life on this planet that reinforce my belief but boiling it down to basics does for me.
There is no logical reason for that to be the conclusion.By the way this doesn't preclude evolution as even evolution implies that things have to start somewhere, to me the starting place is God.
Surely this is six of one and half a dozen of another?icantbelieve said:I didn't say clubman's views were conceited
icantbelieve said:I'm not questionning your need for other levels of proof but you seem to think that if I or Einstein don't agree with you that our beliefs are neither logical or reasoned, a major conceit on your behalf.
The following is not logical:I'm saying my belief in God is based on logic, as I've displayed, and that it takes conceit to dispute my right to state this just because you don't agree with my logic.
In fact it seems, to me, to be a circular argument. If you believe in God it must, by definition, be on faith alone. There is no objective, logical reason to do so otherwise.To me, the basic test (seeing as you want one) is, do I think the existence of life indicates a God, yes, does life exist, yes, therefore there is a God.
Do you believe in everything that can't be explained or disproved by science? If not why do you just pick one, God, rather than all the others? Why not the celestial teapot? Or pixies?icantbelieve said:Then, having examined my surroundings and seen many amazing things that can't be explained by science, and having seen that just as organised religion can abandon once firmly held beliefs as time goes by so too are supposed scientific facts often disproved, I decided the logic dictated that life was started by God.
Precisely - they are just theories that are subject to refinement and change in some cases. However they are the best and most logical models by which we can explain things (e.g. big bank, evolution).I mean most of these scientific statements about what happened are just theories
Has anybody conducted a creationism or intelligent design experiment and created life?has anyone conducted a big bang experiment and created life.
On the basis of experimentation (where possible), observable evidence and/or predictive capabilities of the models. Not simply hunches or assumptions.Yet just because a scientist has a whole load of physcially provable facts behind them means these theories are accepted as fact, on what basis, faith in science?