Invariably, those and similarly weak arguments are all that's available. The mistake lies not in the construction of poor arguments - which is unavoidable - but in the objective of those arguments which is to conclude that those who disagree with us about God (in either direction) should change their minds. Russell's teapot is actually a defensive argument, it is ok when used to explain why a person who is already an atheist should feel satisfied with their decision. As an offensive argument aimed at changing the mind of somebody who has concluded otherwise, it sucks.

There are only two types of argument which can result in a conclusion to the effect either that God MUST/MUST NOT exist, or that belief in God is necessary/illogical; those are the easily disproved, and the easily ignored. Russell's teapot is a perfect example of the latter. It relies on acceptance of a premise that the two competing hypotheses are equally likely. But acceptance or rejection of this premise is pretty much a foregone conclusion, the rabid atheist will accept because he agrees with it before its stated, everyone else will reject it because they don't. Most importantly, there is possibility of ever forcing anyone to accept or deny the claim.

Arguments such as that don't move the burden of proof, it will continue, as it always has, to fall on whoever is attempting to change the other party's mind. Which is pointless because it is a dialogue of the deaf, and so long as people on both sides continue in their deluded absolutist claims, they are all equally to blame for that.

You're suggesting then that there will never be a resolution to this discussion. I understand that, but I hope otherwise. You talk of 'competing hypotheses' but a hypothesis is nothing more than words unless you can use it to perform experiments, something which science attempts and religions cannot do.

Religions were invented by man to explain events that occurred that they could not understand and in order to control the masses. I hope that, as a species, our understanding will reach a point where religion becomes irrelevant to those who follow them at present.

It all boils down to those who want to know more and can live with the knowledge that they don't fully understand, and those who don't know and can't live with the knowledge that they don't fully understand and so place all those fears and insecurities in an imaginary bag that they call 'god'.

You forgot to say IMO

How do you account for me then? I am a scientist/engineer, I want to know more and can live with the knowledge that I don't fully understand; yet I am also a christian.

People also use religion for comfort - not just to explain the world. It’s a kind of security blanket - what happens when I die? Why am I ill? Stuff like that.

In this context, it’s also a good tool to beat yourself up with. When my other half had a miscarriage last year, she was constantly asking what she had done to be punished like that. I know she was thinking that there had been some divine intervention (she does have some form of religious conviction herself), rather than a natural rejection of something that was going wrong. As time passed, she settled on the “there was something wrong” train of thought rather than the “god’s angry at me” one. The problem with the latter is that it immediately gives an excuse to aim blame inwards at yourself - and this doesn’t help healing.

Even if you took "God" out of the equation, people would still look to blame something eg fate/mother nature etc. They feel like they are being punished because something bad has happened. I wonder if this is in response to learned behaviour eg as kids, when we do something bad, we get punished?

Remember that science developed from the want to look closer at the handiwork of God and hence know God that bit better. I agree that religion has been used to manipulate people but some of the core is good behaviour. It essentially has changed us from savages to more "civilised" people, although I admit not everyone has become civilised and in some ways, we are still barbaric. We as humans have an intrinsic morality but this is often overruled by our minds and I personally feel that religion has gone in some way to re-align our morality.

As with all things, the mind is the cause. One's desire/greed overcomes all else to achieve that goal in spite of the effects.

FWIW I'm a doctor, believe in a "Deity"* though not necessarily a religion but would probably align myself more with Buddhism in the way of thinking.



*For me, "God" is a being that probably set everything in motion but doesn't need to control the minutiae of our lives.

Quite so. IMO.


I'd never try and account for you mate.

Burn the witches!

Sigged!

If viewed as scientific hypotheses, that would be true. But even the scientific hypothesis has necessary limits. It is impossible to devise an experiment that would demonstrate that science was the correct method to answer a religious question. It is equally impossible for a valid scientific hypothesis to contain an occult entity. And it is impossible for science to recommend itself as the answer to life the universe and everything. Science should continue to do its thing, explaining observable phenomena.

But even when the scientific picture is complete there can be no scientific hypothesis regarding whether or not that is the only picture to draw. That will remain a matter of faith.

So it is important for those who consider themselves to be men of science (rational, logical, and implacably opposed to statements which exceed their evidential basis) to honestly recognise this. Instead we have this absurd notion that the perfect life would be lived without any faith at all, only evidence. Unfortunately, certain assumptions of science are actually articles of faith that can never be proved. If you never took anything on faith, you wouldn't be able to get out of bed in the morning.


Technically I agree with you, being an atheist myself. Although it is slightly the wrong type of explanation being far too teleological (i.e. it explains the phenomenon by end result). Religion often answers questions with these teleological explanations (God made fleas black so they would show up on white men's skin is a real example of a Victorian argument). Whereas science tends towards a more accretive answer. So "in the beginning there was no religion, and then man said let there be God" is a bit too religious an explanation in itself.

So I would reformulate that explanation: hunter gatherer societies have collections of stories that can be seen as proto-religion. Then move on from there to cover how the evolution of cities and states with war and laws required new power structures in society. After that you get the kings who perform rituals to intercede with the gods, and all that other stuff.

But this is one type of explanation. There is no proof that God didn't invent religion, and until I'm dead, and even then only if I am horribly wrong, will I found out. Same goes for you.

I think this just shows debates about religion are pretty futile.

One thing's for sure, if there is a God then when I get to see Him I'm going give Him a real good kick in the shins for being such an arse.

And IMO this is what the debate boils down to.

I thought you'd like that, 'if'.

Well it looks like we've finished the religion debate a few thousand years earlier than our competitors. If x404 will kindly turn its attention to world peace we should be done by teatime next Wednesday.

Tsk, ever the pessimist. Surely we can wrap that up by end of play Tuesday?

Shock Waffle you seem to be saying that:

Science cannot disprove the existence of God, therefore you cannot hope to change someone's mind about whether to believe in a religion.

Please explain how anyone could ever break free of a cult then. By your reasoning all a cult needs to do is invoke the "GOD" idea and it becomes impervious to reason. It is not arrogance for intelligent people to try and help those stuck in Scientology, but it is arrogance to help those stuck in Islam? It is not arrogance to tell a child that there are no trolls in the wardrobe, but to say there's no God in the wardrobe... arrogance.

If the cult relies on aliens in volcanoes, fair game try and change their minds. But if the cult leaders have the clever idea of "patching" their religion with the GOD 2.0 virus, then, everything surrounding idea becomes untouchable. Voila, you've added God to Scientology, therefore it would be arrogant of me to suggest "where your line should be", because the presence of God locks you in to your cult, sorry.

From where I'm standing Shockwaffle you have all reasoning capabilities of someone still stuck in the religious way of thinking, you still give too much respect to God. I would like to point out that you were the first person to leap to the defence of religion by turning the debate into a "does he exist" argument.

As shown by you offending me by trying to use that creationist theory "Omphalos Hypothesis" as a weighty support of your viewpoint. Surely that's just God himself embodied in a theory - it doesn't explain anything, it just throws a spanner in reasoning itself. OK so God created all the atoms, all the matter, all the neutrinos in their present state 5 minutes ago, because that was what was needed for the universe to function? OK well surely that amount of data would require a universe of equal data at least to create this universe. The idea is God himself, what created God, what created the thing that created God... ad infinitum.

...And you criticise me for making assumptions!

Can you see what God really is? This is where the beauty of memes comes in to play.

God is nothing more than an idea. An incredibly clever idea. But not clever in the same way as a good scientific idea. God does not allow you to "stand on the shoulder of giants", it does not allow you to see further, it does not explain or model anything. It just makes the religion that wields it a very powerful set of memes.

God is how religion has evolved to protect itself from reason and spread itself, it is almost immovable once it has infected your mind - as you so fervently exemplify - convinced that your arguments are sound!

I'm not trying to disprove God (in all his beardy might), I'm saying it's just an idea, an insidious flaw in reasonable thinking, it's a virus, able to implant nonsense ideas into people's heads and lock them in by association.

Islamic Fundamentalism is the fluke worm of Dennett's example. Instead of infecting the brain of an ant to move it to the top of the blade of grass to be eaten by sheep, where it can replicate, it makes people strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up, so the idea can make it to the newspapers where it can replicate.

And they do this in the name of Allah. If there were doing it in the name of a talking salmon, you could see the madness of the idea for what it is, but they're doing it in the name of God, so it would be arrogant to try and change their minds, to suggest that there is a better way of thinking about the world...

Memetics is a beautiful tool for understanding the spread of ideas - please give it the time of day, it may give you that little push you need to get you off that fence.

I know you don't like analogies (for some reasons you don't go into) but Atheism is the anti-virus program against God, I know God will never infect my reasoning, I won't give any stupid ideas more respect because of His presence.

The meme still tells me to capitalise the G and refer to it in the masculine though (and to think of itself as being white) It's associated itself with the traditionally most powerful group of humans on the planet! Such a clever meme!