The God Delusion - Chapter 2

[otseng]

Not a whole lot of action in chapter 1 so far. So, I'll go ahead and start up chapter 2. Discussions can still continue in chapter 1, but hopefully by starting chapter 2 more people will want to get involved.

I'll repost McCulloch's proposed questions:
- Is the God Hypothesis ("there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us") "a scientific hypothesis like any other", one that should be treated with as much skepticism as any other hypothesis?
- Is Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria valid?
- Does the inability to disprove the existence of God provide a positive reason to believe?

I'll also throw in some other questions:
- Is agnosticism impoverished?
- What exactly does Dawkins have against Michael Ruse?

[otseng]

Is the God Hypothesis ("there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us") "a scientific hypothesis like any other", one that should be treated with as much skepticism as any other hypothesis?

I would agree with Dawkins. "Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question" (page 48)

Is Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria valid?

I think there is an overlap. If A is the set of science and B is the set of religion. There exists C that is the intersection of A and B.

Does the inability to disprove the existence of God provide a positive reason to believe?

No, it doesn't. But does Dawkins actually state this somewhere?

Is agnosticism impoverished?

I'm not sure what Dawkins means by the "poverty of agnosticism". I assume he means that PAP is not a logical position to hold. If so, I would generally agree with it.

What exactly does Dawkins have against Michael Ruse?

I never knew that there was a feud between Dawkins and Ruse prior to reading this book. Also, does Dawkins imply Ruse is not a true atheist with this statement? "He claims to be an atheist, but his article in Playboy takes the view that..." (page 67)

[McCulloch]

Is Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria valid?

I think there is an overlap. If A is the set of science and B is the set of religion. There exists C that is the intersection of A and B.

You and I are somewhat in agreement here. I just think that B is the empty set. ∅

Does the inability to disprove the existence of God provide a positive reason to believe?

No, it doesn't. But does Dawkins actually state this somewhere?

I do not believe that he does. But he and many apologists for atheism have run across it too many times to simply dismiss it as a straw man.

[QED]

Is Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of non-overlapping magisteria valid?

I fail to see how it could be. How could science uncover God's methods without shaping our knowledge about God -- if he exists?

[otseng]

I think there is an overlap. If A is the set of science and B is the set of religion. There exists C that is the intersection of A and B.

You and I are somewhat in agreement here. I just think that B is the empty set.

Religion does not exist? God might not exist. But that doesn't mean religion does not exist.

[jjg]

Define what you mean by science. If you mean a systematic way of thinking then yes God is a question of science.

If you mean physical science then no God is not a question for science.

[QED]

Define what you mean by science. If you mean a systematic way of thinking then yes God is a question of science.

If you mean physical science then no God is not a question for science.

I don't understand this at all. We shouldn't digress too much but if, for instance, miracles are the effects of God's intervention upon the physical, then the science of physics would have something to say on the matter.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Is agnosticism impoverished?

If faith is belief without evidence, then yes, agnosticism is impoverished. It's actually the only worldview / philosophy that is entirely faith-based.

Atheists have science, logic and the natural world.

Theists have tradition, holy text and the perception of design.

Each stance believes they have valid evidence while the other side has no evidence or invalid evidence.

What do agnostics have? Nothing more than the idea god is "possible".

Not real.

Not impossible.

Possible.

It's a stance they must hold by definition of agnosticism. If they believe god is real or not real, they're no longer agnostics.

In debating agnostics, the only constant definable attribute of god is the ability to change / morph to avoid any logical syllogism. This is what I call the agnostic fallacy. It goes like this:

• Person 1 demonstrates a critical attribute of god is impossible and unsupported.
  Person 2 denies the critical attribute is necessary for god.

Example:

Joe: "Omnipotence would require the ability to break EVERY proven law of science. There is no evidence the laws of science can be broken. Until evidence is provided, omnipotence is false."
Jim: "Oh yeah!? Well... god doesn't necessarily have to be omnipotent. Maybe he just created the universe."
Joe: "How would god have created the universe without omnipotence."
Jim: "No clue. Lol"

Delve into agnosticism enough and you'll always find a point that hasn't been properly addressed or a bit of evidence that's been ignored.

[McCulloch]

I think there is an overlap. If A is the set of science and B is the set of religion. There exists C that is the intersection of A and B.

You and I are somewhat in agreement here. I just think that B is the empty set.

Religion does not exist? God might not exist. But that doesn't mean religion does not exist.

Religion certainly does exist. What does not exist in my opinion is a magisteria, or a set of issues or concerns which religion correctly does and / or should address.

[otseng]

Religion certainly does exist. What does not exist in my opinion is a magisteria, or a set of issues or concerns which religion correctly does and / or should address.

If religion exists, then certainly it has the right to have teaching/guidance authority over itself. So, since it has this right, then the B set cannot be empty. It might be non-overlapping from A, but because it is non-overlapping does not mean B would be empty.

[McCulloch]

Religion certainly does exist. What does not exist in my opinion is a magisteria, or a set of issues or concerns which religion correctly does and / or should address.

If religion exists, then certainly it has the right to have teaching/guidance authority over itself.

No necessarily so. Does its mere existence imply that it authority over itself?

But that aside, the authority to decide matters internal only to itself is not, I think what Gould's idea of magisteria is all about. His point, if I understand it correctly, is that science can decide scientific things; how old is the earth, how many baryons fit on the head of a pin and the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. And that religion can decide religious things; how does one store up treasures in heaven, should we kill the adulterous woman, is the wine really blood.

My belief is that religion cannot reliably answer this second set of issues.