Debating the unprovable...

[HarryT]

Yes - what's called the Myth of Er. It's that that the early Church liked so much, because it puts forward the idea of the existence of the soul after death, and that good deeds are rewarded, and bad deeds punished. But it's philosophical rather than religious in nature - there are no gods involved.

[GrimRedBones]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes - what's called the Myth of Er. It's that that the early Church liked so much, because it puts forward the idea of the existence of the soul after death, and that good deeds are rewarded, and bad deeds punished. But it's philosophical rather than religious in nature - there are no gods involved.

Its fascinating that even though the Republic is an attempt to postulate a perfect and moral state from logic alone, Plato still feels the need at the end to add on a supernatural element to round of the system. I suppose thats where atheists really differ. We can live without filling in the gaps. But the rise of modern scientific knowledge has made this dramatically easier these days, I feel. It would probably be hard if not almost impossible to be an atheist without that kind of support.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't worry, it wasn't you.

for once I know it wasn't me either as I made an early exit and refused to respond to further prods

[MJK2111]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

There used to be a rule in British pubs, Grim (good to have your new company, by the way): 'Strictly No Politics or Religion on the Premises'. Folks argued football instead or just got along.
[/I]

Having been in one or two (or three) UK pubs, one would think that football arguments would have much more dire outcomes that discussions about almost anything else!

P.S. Arsenal Rocks!!!!!!!!!!

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by Graham

Not at all. I'm not advocating in the slightest that the atheist community should hide their views; just that aggressive zealotry causes conflict which serves more to entrench beliefs rather than shift them.

You're right, it does take people with courage to stand up and speak out, but it doesn't have to be done with aggression and arrogance, which is what I took to be inferred by the "atheist zealot" label in the thread title.

Graham

I am going to stick my neck out here and say that the old saying of 'It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it', pretty much applies here.

With some people they cannot help themselves in the name-calling department, nor with their abrasive nature. Who knows, they may be the parents or grandparents of today's schoolyard bullies, who have learned by example.

With them it's of case of 'It's either my way, or the highway'.

They don't debate......they pontificate.

Sad really.

Cheers.

[ebooker]

i'm not sure forums are really the most productive place for arguments like that, even tho people engage in them online for a variety of reasons (not least of all, simple boredom). Yea sometimes you might learn a thing or two, but at what cost? We can learn much more from, well, reading books.

On a similar vein, someone said in the news recently that democracy (and I suppose it applies to internet democracy on forums) enables people to gain as much knowledge as they want -- or remain as ignorant as they want. On the forums, the outcome is often constrained by who has happened to show up to fight that day. At least in the real world you can go out and find your own audience.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

They don't debate......they pontificate.

Interesting choice of words . Seems that things may be just a mite skewed towards one side of the debate eh?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Interesting enough, last week my local astronomical society had a talk from Dr. Guy Consolmagno, who is also a Jesuit priest, and works at the Vatican Observatory. The subject of the supposed conflict between science and religion naturally arose, and he said that, certainly from his perspective, there's no conflict at all, and the Catholic Church, at any rate, fully accepts such ideas as the Big Bang, the universe being 13.7 billion years old, evolution, etc. etc. The Vatican has a science advisory council (of which Stephen Hawking is a member) specifically to advice it on new developments in science.

They usually then end up with a "God in the gap" theory and that is usually not what the common man associate with the God concept.

Also I think it is a conflict in the ways you decide to hold things true. For religion (Catholicism) you can hold thing true using methods that you would not accept in your activity as a scientist. To me this has always been the big conflict. How to motivate the difference in standard.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Graham

Again it's a sliding scale, and my feeling is that the more inclusive you can be the better the long term chance of real progress.

And the point Dawkin makes is that empirical evidence indicates that that is not true.

Can you give some example from The God Delusion about the things you are talking about? I really cannot remember anything to be upset by.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The counter-argument being, of course, that one has systems of moral philosophy

Well, the traditional counter argument is Plato's Euthyphro dilemma: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

[Graham]

Originally Posted by tompe

Can you give some example from The God Delusion about the things you are talking about? I really cannot remember anything to be upset by.

I'll have to have a dig later (at work at present). As I said earlier, I probably agree with most if not all of the points made in "The God Delusion". It was a question of tone rather than argument.

Graham

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

They usually then end up with a "God in the gap" theory and that is usually not what the common man associate with the God concept.

Also I think it is a conflict in the ways you decide to hold things true. For religion (Catholicism) you can hold thing true using methods that you would not accept in your activity as a scientist. To me this has always been the big conflict. How to motivate the difference in standard.

I'm in the middle of reading Science and Islam in Conflict by Todd Pitock (see link below) which was included in the 2008 edition of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Looks to be the full version here:


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/science-and-islam

[neilmarr]

Thanks for the link, Kenny. Looking forward to downing tools for the night and studying that. Very best. Neil

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm in the middle of reading Science and Islam in Conflict by Todd Pitock (see link below) which was included in the 2008 edition of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Looks to be the full version here:


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/science-and-islam

Interesting link, thanks for that. So, it seems that just as there are Christian scientists whose science is marred by their Christian beliefs, but there are also Christian scientists whose adherence to the scientific paradigm is paramount, (neither of which is, of course to be confused with a Christian Scientist), so it seems there are Islamic scientists whose science is similarly marred by their adherence to religious dogma, but there are also Islamic scientists, doing perfectly good scientific work.

Both lots of scientists are concerned with the unprovable, but neither type of scientist is - to return to the topic of the thread.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by TGS

so it seems there are Islamic scientists whose science is similarly marred by their adherence to religious dogma

Oh, yeah. Big movement in that. Though I'd use quotation marks around "scientists."

Witness this guy:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._a_science.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar

You can download all his books for free-- here's the link to the first one:

http://e-library.net/ATLAS-OF-CREATI...isit11689.html