5 ms·

Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very ha

by robg 18y ago

Pantheists do find God in a lump of coal. So too do coal miners and energy conglomerates. :) Aquinas called God "Pure substance through pure act". It's very hard not to see a definition of matter and energy there and given by a "Saint". Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"?

dfranke 18y ago
So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.
- robg 18y ago
  And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
  - 0x44 18y ago
    And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
    - astine 18y ago
      "To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however." No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special. a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
      - 0x44 18y ago
        All a priori knowledge we have discovered so far, is universal at least to the locality that we can see.
        astine 18y ago
        That doesn't matter.
        0x44 18y ago
        Perhaps not. How would you presume that a "mundane" person tell the difference between genuine a priori knowledge held by a "special" person, and the rantings of a supposed prophet? edit: This should not be taken that I'm implying that believers are ranting prophets. Just a query as to how you propose to tell the difference.
        astine 18y ago
        I wouldn't. If is knowledge is truly a priori, and you truly didn't have it, there would be no way that you could know. My advice would be to look at the person. If the man seems rational and honest, then maybe there is something to it. Then again, maybe not. It's really up to you.
        0x44 18y ago
        Can a person seem rational and honest while discussing special knowledge they have that is neither experiencable or verifiable?
  - gruseom 18y ago
    the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) Since I understand you're a neuroscientist by training, what do you mean by "and soon neuroscience too"?
    - robg 18y ago
      I'd say we are already there but the pretty pictures are still very alluring. One example: Consciousness appears to be within grasp with the massive datasets already collected. The problem comes down to explaining, or reducing, consciousness in terms of that data. We might be able to show you what happens in the brain when you see beauty or feel pain, but that explains the experience of neither. The questions remain even as the science is the best it's ever been. I think this reality is much more glaring in modern physics.
      - gruseom 18y ago
        Yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. It always struck me as a silly non sequitur to observe biochemical or neurological changes in the brain of a person experiencing X (the classic example being mourning the loss of a loved one) and conclude that X has biochemical or neurological causes or can be reduced into those terms. Of course, that's the way the pendulum has swung in psychiatry for 40 years now too. It's not obvious to me that consciousness can explain itself.
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky, The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those. Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion. Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.
- robg 18y ago
  "In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion." And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in... Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.

by robg 18y ago

dfranke 18y ago

So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? He doesn't have to be. The argument stands on its own: you can define "God" to be whatever you want, but the definition that you advance approaches tautology.

robg 18y ago
And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? Dawkins is substituting one definition for all definitions. Problem is, his definition is neither necessary nor sufficient. Furthermore, the traditional problem with organized religion is the same: specific, and sometimes powerful, people failing to see that outcome with their own definitions. Sure, "God" could be whatever you want it to be. But that's exactly the point. It's a personal relationship (or lack thereof) defined by you. And no amount of science can take that away. If anything, the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) deepens my appreciation for the religious perspective.
- 0x44 18y ago
  And who stands outside time and space to define the tautology? That statement has no meaning. There is no fundamental understanding regarding the concept of "outside time and space", because our knowledge of them both derives from experience. To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however. Since, we can readily determine that the difference between believers and non-believers is a matter of experience. The difference between the two has nothing to do with "outside" either time and space, because that "outside" is not experiencable (at this point in time).
  - astine 18y ago
    "To have some understanding of 'outside', you would have to have received that information a priori. That would mean that everyone had received that information, however." No it wouldn't. Perhaps I'm just special. a priori knowledge is knowledge gained without experience. There is no reason it has to be universal.
    - 0x44 18y ago
      All a priori knowledge we have discovered so far, is universal at least to the locality that we can see.
      - astine 18y ago
        That doesn't matter.
        0x44 18y ago
        Perhaps not. How would you presume that a "mundane" person tell the difference between genuine a priori knowledge held by a "special" person, and the rantings of a supposed prophet? edit: This should not be taken that I'm implying that believers are ranting prophets. Just a query as to how you propose to tell the difference.
        astine 18y ago
        I wouldn't. If is knowledge is truly a priori, and you truly didn't have it, there would be no way that you could know. My advice would be to look at the person. If the man seems rational and honest, then maybe there is something to it. Then again, maybe not. It's really up to you.
        0x44 18y ago
        Can a person seem rational and honest while discussing special knowledge they have that is neither experiencable or verifiable?
- gruseom 18y ago
  the failures of modern physics (and soon neuroscience too) Since I understand you're a neuroscientist by training, what do you mean by "and soon neuroscience too"?
  - robg 18y ago
    I'd say we are already there but the pretty pictures are still very alluring. One example: Consciousness appears to be within grasp with the massive datasets already collected. The problem comes down to explaining, or reducing, consciousness in terms of that data. We might be able to show you what happens in the brain when you see beauty or feel pain, but that explains the experience of neither. The questions remain even as the science is the best it's ever been. I think this reality is much more glaring in modern physics.
    - gruseom 18y ago
      Yes, I thought that might be what you had in mind. It always struck me as a silly non sequitur to observe biochemical or neurological changes in the brain of a person experiencing X (the classic example being mourning the loss of a loved one) and conclude that X has biochemical or neurological causes or can be reduced into those terms. Of course, that's the way the pendulum has swung in psychiatry for 40 years now too. It's not obvious to me that consciousness can explain itself.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago

Dawkins here is insisting on a definition for which his professional training gives no special insight. So why should he be recognized as some "expert"? To paraphrase Dawkins' speech to the University of Kentucky, The thing about being an atheist is that you don't think that "theology" is a subject at all. You're not an expert in fairies, but I'll bet you have no problem not believing in those. Actually, since Dawkins is an expert in Ethology, the evolution of animal behavior, he is in fact uniquely qualified to talk about religion, as that is among the most odd, fascinating, paradoxical, and complex behaviors that evolution has yet produced. In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion. Theologists are the ones not qualified to analyze religion.

robg 18y ago
"In The God Delusion, he outlines many of the factors of the human animal that make us particularly susceptible to religion." And yet none are testable hypotheses. In other words, he's no longer doing science unless he can propose some experiments with predictions. They're just so stories that give the illusion of understanding without verification. Hmmm, seems an awful lot like faith creeping in... Now, that's not to knock evolutionary theory. It's just a massive reach, without an empirical net, to try to apply it toward explaining away religion.