Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Him - yes - they are certainly an organisation with an agenda - but I think the experiments are as genuine and unbiased as we're likely to see. After all, it would be in the interests of Christians if they succeeded - but they reported the negative results honestly.

yes, fair play to them for publishing.

HH, It amazes me that you can invest so much in studying philosophy (but always within the context of your religious beliefs), whilst (by your own admission) remaining ignorant about science and the understanding of the world that it can bring. If you really want to get a feel where the people on this thread are coming from you could try to address this. Evolutionary theory, for instance, can explain very clearly why the world is as it is (without resorting to magic). You mentioned earlier that you have read Richard Dawkins : 'the God Delusion', but I can't help feeling that it would have been far more instructive to read one of his other books.

ElBurro (or anyone else) - I must admit the only books by Dawkins are The Selfish Gene (decades ago) and GD. Is there any in particular you would recommend? (I think DH has them all)

Similarly - does anyone know a good book on the origins of religion? I gather Dennett is pretty hard-going...

I mentioned Dawkins because he is now known more for his militant atheism than his wonderful science writing. It has been decades since I read it, but the book I was thinking of was the Blind Watch Maker - from what I remember it gives a very clear and accessible description of evolutionary theory. Another great book on evolution and behaviour is (IMO) 'the Blank Slate' by Stephen Pinker - to me the arguments made are really clear and written with some humour.

Yes I agree on 'the Blank Slate', its a really good book. I thought Pinker was tilting at windmills a bit in arguing that the blank slate thesis is seen as credible....that is until I spent some time on MN.

I also like Dawkins' 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.

I think Dennett's book 'Breaking the Spell' on religion's natural origins is his least hard going.

Oh good... I don't think DH has anything by Pinker (I've one, can't remember the name, language stuff...). And he has a birthday coming up so I can get it for myself him.

He's got the others. I really ought to read them instead of doing MN - but can do this while code compiling, books require proper attention.

As a child of the 60s, I unconsciously absorbed a lot of the blank slate thesis as I went through the education system. It is easy to forget how very fashionable it was back in the day, both in politics and education, Pinker reminded me a lot of that. To me, what his destruction of the thesis should tell our politicians is that you can never have equality of outcome whatever you do.

Yes, Grimma - I am 'writing code' as well

I'm actually updating documentation at the mo, so no excuse really for breaking off except to relieve the tedium.

Holo et al.

I have just watched the first 30 minutes of the Richard Dimbleby 2012 lecture by Paul Nurse (the geneticist and Nobel laureate). He gives a beautifully simple and well constructed explanation of the "scientific method" and I can not recommend enough that you watch it to understand my viewpoint (and the view point of the majority of people who have posted on this thread).

I implore that you watch the lecture and let us know what you think about his description (it will be on iPlayer later this evening and will no doubt stay on there for a week or two - I will post a link to it when it goes live).

Here is the link:

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cx7x0/The_Richard_Dimbleby_Lecture_28_02_2012/

Thanks for that link, TDad - I'm in the midst of a crazy-busy week but have bookmarked it to watch when things calm down a little!

And ElB, I'm not a philosopher - I work on ancient texts, biblical and otherwise. I am interested in philosophy though, and as I've repeated often on this thread, deeply impressed by and grateful for the achievements if scientists.

Will have to try to watch that too.

Current viewing chez Nome - DHs self-chosen xmas pressie was several 'Great Courses' dvds - currently the history of eastern religions/philosophies, I'm getting to see parts of it when I'm not doing stuff with DD of an evening. Very interesting, the bits I've heard - so many different ideas, some complementary, some contradictory. Polytheists, monotheists, monists, nontheists across a huge swathe of time and geography ... and barely a mention as a side-note of Christianity.

HH, OK it sounds like an interesting job. I do feel that whenever someone asks a difficult question you always pull the philosophy card to avoid giving an answer (different ways of knowing etc.). I appreciate that it is a bit unfair as you are the only one representing your viewpoint.

The scientific viewpoint can explain our existence in a coherant and logical way without having to resort to the semantic games of philosophy. We don't need it to explain anything.

Ah well, that's where we disagree, ElB! You see, I think that scientific phenomena / data must be interpreted somehow, within one frame of reference or another, and therefore 'philosophy' of one sort or other is unavoidable -unless one just wants to do scientific work without any thought as to how one's discoveries might relate to other issues, such as belief in God. It's easy to knock 'philosophy' as wordy obfustication, but a tad anti-intellectual and dishonest / self-limiting. (IMHO, of course!)

I think that scientific phenomena / data must be interpreted somehow, within one frame of reference or another, and therefore 'philosophy' of one sort or other is unavoidable -unless one just wants to do scientific work without any thought as to how one's discoveries might relate to other issues, such as belief in God.

Belief in God has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of a scientific experiment. It has no bearing on the interpretation.

Now, you certainly consider whether you should perform an experiment, and how you perform certain experiments in the light of ethical considerations (e.g. animal experiments, medical trials). Certain discoveries will prompt further ethical dilemmas. But that's not the science itself, that's about what you do with it. So, yes, science is (or should be!!) conducted within an ethical framework but that framework doesn't impinge at all on the scientific method itself, or on the veracity of its findings.

Holo,

Have you watched that iPlayer link yet? I think it would help your misconceptions about science.

I think what I am trying to say is that a lot of the truth discovered by science exists outside of the human mind (i.e. it is objective). That is to say, that, for instance, gravity would exist even if humans had never evolved. We do not need a philosopher to verify this and explain how we understand that gravity exists and put it in the context of other knowledge - to me that is just crazy.
If you extend this thinking to other areas of science then you will start to get a feel of where I am coming from. To me, your argument is conducted from such a subjective or relativist point of view. You want to make science into just another way of thinking about things as is the fashion these days - but it isn't. To mescience sits outside of this framework and that is why it is so special.

ElBurro - exactly.

Whereas god has no existence separate from the human mind

HH, I would like to add that I am certainly not dishonest or anti-intellectual. But in fact, I do agree that intellectual honesty, is at the core of our disagreements.
The scientific outlook is about viewing the world as it actually is in a dispassionate and logical way, and having a methodology that allows you to do that. As discussed, from the scientific process you have a good chance of finding the objective truth - if that is really what you are interested in. This truth exists outside of yourself and is not a belief system like a religion or a philosophy is. Superficially this may feel disappointing because it seems limiting (e.g. it omits the chance of magical interventions by divine beings). But if we are really interested in the truth then it is the only intellectually honest way that we can know it.

Because you cant prove he/she exists