Dawkins

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sorry but they believe something exists, if you don't verify it with science its completely meaningless, if thats what your getting at then sorry, but my point is this: If god is a material entity, it must be verified with science, because science is our physical verification. If god is non-material, then you cannot verify it with any material concept, therefore god is meaningless.

It entirely depends what your view is of the entire thing, basically a god non varified by science is a pointless and entirely fictitional entity.

Is testimony by 'religious experience' not being counted as acceptable verification then? Not saying that it's perfect by any means, but you'd only have to take a handful of cases from people who have never shown any signs of psychosis or any other neurotic illness which might cause hallucinations etc. and you'd probably have thousands of cases of people who could verify that they've seen or heard God or something.
Of course, it is all subjective, but IMO there's a huge body of evidence ignored by Mr. Dawkins simply because it's not 'scientific enough' more or less.
While I think he has a great deal to offer to people, I would agree that he lacks to sensitivity to successfully challenge the belief systems which have been more or less mandatory for the last 2000 or so years. He's probably right, there probably isn't a God in the 'guy with a beard and tunic' sense, but there's no reason to lead such an apparent assault against like I say, a belief system that's reaching it's 2,000th birthday. So no wonder some people don't like him.
That South Park with him in is pretty funny, though. 'Mrs Garrison, what are you doing?' 'How should I know?! I'm a f*ckin' monkey!'

Using the same criterion for demarcation for science and meaning is ludicrously strong. Is abstract math "meaningless" too?

That's a bit of an odd jump don't you think? Logical calculations (I.e: Maths) and Deities with no evidence some how land in the same boat? Sure not all mathematical equations are viable, but if they are possible you will find them, sadly I don't ever see that happening with the god of classical theism

No it isn't an odd jump. You proposed a criterion for meaning which excludes non scientific propositions. By almost all definitions of science and most definitions of math, that implies that mathematical propositions are meaningless.

This is precisely our disagreement. You are a materialist, I am not. This is a philosophical choice, not something science can say anything on one way or the other.

How do you explain the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? This, I think, is the hardest problem for materialists -- explaining why math is so useful without resorting to platonism.

Science is a useful tool. It is not the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. You have to use the right tool for the right job. Tell me, do you drive nails with a hacksaw? Do you cut down trees with a Phillips screwdriver? Do you turn screws with a hammer? Why then do you attempt to approach philosophical and theological questions from the perspective of science?

Mathematical proposition which are interpreted in real world terms are not meaningless. The are meaningless only as abstract propositions, not as descriptions of the world.

Think of map. When the elements of the map are put into correspondence with locations of real places and topographical features a map is no longer merely squiggles on a piece of paper.

ruveyn

My point is not that math needs to be read has having meaning in the abstract, but that applying said standard forces one to accept that it does not (which many find counterintuitive).

In fact God is something significantly stronger than mathematical propositions in terms of meaning, because while mathematical propositions are a priori constructs, God describes a *potentially* observable external thing.

Then how come so many of the maps that mathematicians create just for the fun of it turn out to be accurate maps of real places?

That is an excellent question which to which no one (so far) has given a satisfactory answer. Read the following essay:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDram ... igner.html

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences" by Eugene Wigner.

Wigner was one of the early giants of quantum physics. His essay is very thoughtful but it comes down to ".... suddenly, a miracle happens..." so to speak.

His essay ends thus:

"Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. "

ruveyn

I am currently reading "The God Delusion". the first half of the prologue, called "deserved respect" was enough to encourage a critical self-analysis of my own beliefs. I am enjoying this book and will read or study more about Dawkins and what he has to say.