Ten Questions For Atheists & Religious Folks

Questions For Atheists And Religious Folks

Here are some questions raised on a panel discussion by the so-called "four horsemen" of contemporary atheism (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dennis Dennett, and Anthony Hitchens) originally posted in the Atheist/Agnostic Forum
http://www.richarddawkins.net/artic...Episode-1-RDFRS
and a debate (courtesy of Hyori) between Francis Collins, evangelical Christian and eminent scientist, and Richard Dawkins, atheist and eminent scientisthttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1555132,00.html :

(1) respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive toward each other? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).
(2) numinous vs. supernatural:Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" (sense of mystery, wonder,awe, & spirituality;accompanying emotional high) element from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?
(3) faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?
(4) dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities?
(5) science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?
(6) finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?
(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?
(8) altruism: does human altruism prove God?
(9) miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?
(10) war of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?

What do you think? Don't be shy, jump in anytime.

 

(1) respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive toward each other? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).

Generally yes, in that they will not attack each other's views. But will they give credence to points made against their own beliefs? Generally no.

(2) numinous vs. supernatural:Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" (sense of mystery, wonder,awe, & spirituality;accompanying emotional high) element from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?

Certainly. I think I have the numinous part, but I attribute it wholly to science and nature.

(3) faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?

It can be. It is not always. To be compatible, faith must take science into account.

(4) dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities?

Matter of opinion. I believe religion is harmful to the global psyche, and I think the human race would do better without it. Redeeming qualities include organizing some people's lives when they cannot seem to do it for themselves.

(5) science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?

No. Maybe there is a force that we can sense scientifically and not by ourselves which would make this possible, assuming there is a god. I highly doubt it, since, according to scriptures all over the world, the divine medium can be changed at will.

(6) finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?

I have heard this argument, but I haven't heard the specifics. Laws of nature are such that we couldn't exist if they were much different. So? Perhaps something else would exist, perhaps nothing, perhaps we are just one of many universes, some of which are far more suited to the evolution of intelligent life than we are.

Assuming that the universe is the only one, and made just such that intelligent life is possible, I do not think that is evidence for god or even universal intelligence. If it were set so that only organisms that flew could live, would that be a sign of a designer with these qualities in mind?

(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?

Yes, depending on your god. Evolution does not require god. Some people think god guided evolution, but I think that would be unnecessary.

(8) altruism: does human altruism prove God?

No. Other animals express altruism as well.

(9) miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?

I think not. Everything has an explanation, and many of the "miracles" that draws flocks have been shown to be very non-cunning hoaxes.

(10) war of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?

They are in perpetual limbo. I don't think either will ever win, genocide aside. I think it would be good for atheism to at least be more popular than religion, since it offers a much more science-based and logic and reason-based world view. Which should always be in charge of government and research.

 

Thanks, Freaker. Good answers. Anybody else?

 

3: they do not conflict because they deal with entirely seperate contexts of perception.
2: yes its possible but not mandatory. in fact i'm not sure i understand the question. if by spirituality you mean personification, well personification seems to run contrary to most of what we can observe beyond the human ego.
1: thoughts need to be judged on their own merits, more then how we feel about what we think we know about whoever expressess them.
4: yes dangerous and redeaming both. the one does not cancel the other in any way. and yes, i can't see as we'd be any worse of if the idea anything unseen had to be or not be had not been introduced. which is an entirely seperate question from whatever might or might not.
6: no, the universe is very definately NOT "fine tuned" for intelligent life. whether it was the conscous choice of any awairness to bring intelligent live into existence or not.
7: of course evolution is compatable with the existence of one or more gods. unless there are/were a hell of a lot of them, they'd all by bussy beavers for the rest of eternity without automating the proccess of creation somehow. do you really have the slightest idea how many species there are, just here on this earth, and how vast a universe, or even a galaxy really is?
8: nothing proves anything. other then observing it without preassumptions.
9: miracles are a matter of definition. the improbable does happen. and can and sometimes does happen when it is extremely fortunate for it to do so. there is nothing in the probablistic way reality works to rule this out. (they also happen at unfortunate times too)
10: assuming anything has to exist or not exist are manufactured concepts. whichever we assume, each are as unlikely as the other to resemble reality.
the real question is whether or not it is possible to not pretend to know what we do not, and the answer to THAT is yes.

compatability of science and belief was asked twice.

can the nonobjective be studied tangably? no. this is by very deffinician of what intangable is. or at least the third order of intangability at any rate.

does feeling and experiencing what we are not capable of knowing invalidate doing so? i don't think so. i don't feel that it does.

nothing has to resemble what we pretend to know about it, that is the thing, and there are things we can experience without having to pretend to. i've experienced them myself.

nor am i convinced we are incapable of growing beyond the demads of our ego that we must have names and discriptions of everything for it to exist.

again there's a big universe out there, and almost certainly an invisible one next door to it.

god or gods, or whatever your perceptions might be, give great huggs but leave it up to us to avoid screwing everything up for each other. nothing anyone believes or disbelives absolves them of the responsibilty reality gives them, to avoid screwing up what they don't want to live with being screwed up.

this is the same whether there are gods or no god or one.

=^^=
.../\...

 

"THE UNIVERSE IS ONE I SEE WHAT RAP CAN BE
GLORIOUS!" - deltron 3030

 

Well, that depends on the person in question, now doesn't it?

Yes, if there is a physiological basis for the numinous, that does not take away from the empirical reality of the phenomena.

Yes, in a sense. Science cannot intrude on the domain of faith and vice versa.

Any religion, including atheism, has the potential to be "dangerous." A faith is what its adherents make it.

No, God cannot be studied scientifically. Scientific investigation precludes the supernatural prima facie.

There are obviously universal laws, but that's no proof of God's existence. Science cannot presuppose a "fine tuner."

Yes, just not with creationism.

No, don't see how.

Science must presuppose that miracles are impossible, or else it would not be scientific.

Well, atheism has made a lot of progress, but there are still more theists than atheists. How do you quantify these things, anyway?

 

Im caught in the grip of the city, madness

 

I think I agree with Freaker. In the panel discussion, the four horsemen start off with this issue, which is obviously troubling them. They can't understand why critics often call them rude and arrogant, when actually religious people are pretty arrogant themselves. In particular, they can't understand why religion seems to have a protected status when it comes to arguments. The notion is widespread that religion is "off limits" to criticism. The only thing comparable in terms of people taking strong offense to a perceived insult would be a derrogaroty remark about a spouse, parent or child. The panelists acknowledge that atheists should share revulsion against desecration of religious objects, but can't see why ideas should not be fair game.

As a Christian, I tend to agree with them on that point. Christians haven't shown quite the same touchiness as Muslims when it comes to perceived insults to their prophets, but we don't call religion "sacred" for nothing. The "off limits" status of religion came about as part of the truce after a long, bloody history of religious warfare. I think it's also a function of the perception that religion supports civic virtue ("God, flag country"), and the fact that politicians since Roman times have found religions to be (as Gibbon put it) "equally useful".

Listening to the panelists, though, I did have the feeling that they all were pretty dismissive of people of faith, as though they think of us as slackjawed knuckle draggers with little between the ears. Harris, in particular, talks about the need for the faithful to "renounce their superstition", and is puzzled by "the phenomenon of Francis Collins", respected scientist and evangelical Christian, who "should know better". The others seemed to agree. Apart from hurting believers' feeling, it seems to me that this attitude gets in the way of serious consideration of the opponent's point of view. Obviously, Collins is no intellectual slouch, nor is Kenneth Miller, an evolutionary biologist and Catholic whom Dawkins respects. Shouldn't this lead the Horsemen to consider the possibility that reasonable people might have a reasonable basis for believing that there could be something big out there that the Horsemen may have missed?

 

(1)Respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive toward each other? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).



In general yes, there are usually no physical altercations. Rarely after debate are any of the debater’s viewpoints radically changed. But I tend to respect the idea of God only if the person is not condescending and respectful of my opposing views, as well as a debatable and intelligible demeanor. I would not be so arrogant as to claim I am the final decider and corruptor of religious faith so a hopefully rational debate would be a natural response to my claims, I must say I openly accept another person challenging my celestial viewpoints.




(2) Numinous vs. supernatural: Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" (sense of mystery, wonder, awe, & spirituality; accompanying emotional high) element from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?



I can gaze at the cosmos from my room and feel a sense of awe; we are all simplistic creatures that attain a sense of wonderment on subjects we don’t completely understand. I am usually just amazed at what Mother Nature created, not what “God” created. Spirituality and reason don’t necessarily have to be inseparable. I think spirituality and secularism go especially well with one another, instead of feeling enlightened or wonderment and claim it’s the plan of a Devine dictatorship, I can say my new spirituality was obtained simply by my doing, Thus making it more significant.





(3) Faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?



Depends of course on the faith if it is completely dogmatic unquestioning faith then I would in all probability say no. It also depends on the branch of science if its botany or the studying of gravity or physics, belief in God would almost certainly not be as intervening in the mind as much as if he/she were studying the origins of the cosmos.
Religious conviction and faith by definition are completely void of empirical evidence therefore science and ancient orated doctrines are completely dissimilar subjects.




(4) Dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities?



Well if religion was exhausted atheism wouldn’t be obligatory and I would much rather live in a world where we are not blinded by this religious or irreligious fundamentalism. I think some religions are far more hazardous than others but I still hold with firm conviction they are all innately harmful. I deem there are few if any redeeming qualities even the eradication of a horrible drug habit making the user think he/she was healed by Devine intervention still makes the former user feel as if he/she is not in control of their existence.



(5) Science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?



I belief God and science are exclusively different subjects, and should be kept out of the same realm. You can’t disprove a negative, and God’s reality by characterization is conviction in uncertainty which cannot be proven without a logical doubt.






(6) Finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?



There are a large number more than two astrophysical arguments, (I think around 26). The finely tuned universe argument has been argued and refuted copious times. I believe we adapted to the universe, not that the universe adapted to us. There could be bubble universes, multiple universes, and extra-terrestrial universes. A finely tuned universe is certainly not proof or even evidence for God.




(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?


Of area of course, God could have guided it depending on the God you hold in veneration. This is the precise moment when you must decide whether to rely on the telling of antique literature or in the modern human science thus deciding whether you are blinded by faith or not.

(8) Altruism: does human altruism prove God?



Altruism proves that homo-sapiens inherently want to be in solidarity with one another. Nor would I even speculate if human charity would prove God, I don’t see how it would. Some of the earth’s greatest philanthropists were secularist.




(9) Miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?



Of course I can’t prove the absence of miracles but I stand firm in the belief they are coincidences. We must be very careful not to deem coincidences an act of loving Devine intercession. Excuse me but it feels as if I must pull a tangent, I was watching a documentary about a young boy considered by many to be the worlds most intelligent youth, he hailed from India and their Hindu intransigence confirmed his mental power a phenomenon and therefore wanted him to preach Gods word instead of finding alleviation for atrocious diseases.





(10) War of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?





Gridlocked as usual until maybe an enlightenment occurs or something of that nature.

 

(1) respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive toward each other? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).

-From what I've seen, it all comes down to the individual. Some are rude, some are not. It doesn't seem to matter what the belief system is, rudeness is a human trait.

(2) numinous vs. supernatural:Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" (sense of mystery, wonder,awe, & spirituality;accompanying emotional high) element from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?

-I think the universe is actually more awe-some from an atheist standpoint, but that is just me. People will find wonder and mystery if they want it, regardless of their deity or lack thereof.

(3) faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?

-If by faith you mean the suspension of discernment, then it depends on the belief. If I have faith that gravity exists, then yes. If I have faith that it doesn't, then no.

(4) dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they
have any redeeming qualities?

-I don't think it's the belief system that matters, but the amount of yourself that you invest in it. I know of very functional, socially conscious people who believe in Jesus, and I've known atheists who are jerks and essentially a waste of space. I think any dogmatic belief can be a distraction.

(5) science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?

-Not the Old Testament God, if you ask me. A more abstract view of God could potentially be compatible.

(6) finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?

-I think this is up for debate. I personally think that the complexity of life points to a higher intelligence, but I know that many of you could intelligently dispute that point. For now, I just entertain the thought. It would not be considered evidence from a scientific standpoint, since the purpose of science is to measure the material world.

(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?

-Yes. Loosely, maybe, but yes.

(8) altruism: does human altruism prove God?

-Not at all. You can perform brain surgery and remove one's morality. You can also remove one's belief in God.

(9) miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?

-Can the rules of science be violated? I say not. Can weird things happen that science can't completely explain? Yes, it happens all of the time.

(10) war of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?

-It will be war as long as people are fighting for control. If you go by the numbers, obviously religion is winning. I guess it's kind of like monopoly. The religious community has houses on most of the population, but atheism and agnosticism has hotels on the scientific community. Then, of course, there are politics, which throws a monkey wrench into the equation.

I hope this post was worth reading. I do not believe or disbelieve. I find it much simpler just to think.

 

I must admit "numinous" is a word I had to look up, but it seems to me that the issue the panelists were grappling with is what others (like AA) call "spirituality" versus "religion". The former is an emotional experience; the latter is a set of doctrines, rituals, traditions and practices. For most people in our society, they go together, but if you've ever tried computer dating, you're probably familiar with the "spiritual but not religious" line. In the video, Harris acknowledges that people clearly do have "extraordinary" and "transcending experiences" that are the most important experiences in their lives. I feel a deep sense of spirituality when I experience natural wonders like the Grand Canyon and a beautiful sunset, even though I realize the former could be viewed as a bad case of erosion and the latter might be an indicator of air pollution. After my "religious experience" a few years ago, I get the same thrill going to WalMart and encountering different kinds of people, who seem really amazing to me. The "canned spirituality" of churches doesn't have the same uplifting effect on me that it seems to have on others. Dawkins mentions that the universe is a "grand and wonderful place", and thinks that it cheapens it and makes it more parochial to believe in a supernatural cause of it. That's his spirituality.

The questions is: are these experiences caused by some kind of supernatural intervention, or evidence of the existence of supernatural forces at work? As I mentioned, I had a life-changing emotional experience from reading a passage in Genesis that took on a different meaning and caused me to view the world in a completely different way. William James, in his Varieties of Religious Experience mentions this type of experience as fairly common, and it is easy to understand why people might conclude that it's divinely inspired. I can't honestly say that in my case I can claim this as proof or, by itself, even evidence--although it's one thing that contributes to my embrace of a Christian outlook. The panelist, Harris and Dawkins in particular, are puzzled by an experience reported by the fellow scientist Francis Collins, who was moved by a frozen waterfall that reminded him of the Trinity. I guess I have the same reaction to a report of that as the Horsemen do; I scratch my head and wonder, "What the hey?" I think spirituality is a very personal, subjective thing. If the end result is a deeper sense of meaning and connection with the environment and other people, then I think it's valuable. If the result is impairment of critical judgment, I think it's a problem.

I think of faith as intuitive-based risk taking in which the believer bets his life on a chosen alternative. I know that some believers tend to think of faith as a gift from God, thus incorporating a kind of personal revelation or gnostic insight. I have no experience with the latter kind of faith, but as for the former, I think at least a minimal level of faith is a necessity. Santayana coined the term "animal faith" to describe the most basic "leaps of faith" we make in assuming a universe out there full of people with whom we can communicate. I have faith that when I type these profundities, there are real people on Hip Forums who will read them and respond. I also have faith in arithmatic and other math, that 1+1 does and always will =2, and in math and logic in general. I think science is founded on faith--in the scientific method.

But there are vast areas of experience where there is far less consensus. Where faith and reason/science conflict, I tend to defer to reason/science, and never allow faith to trump logic or scientific findings. But I think there are many improtant questions in daily living where science doesn't get me far: who to date,what job to take, where to live, etc. Science isn't interested in these things--there's no funding, the necessary experiments would take too long,I need to make quick decisions on the basis of the most readily available evidence at hand and often fly by the seat of my pants. Scientists are trained to avoid Type A statistical errors:minimizing the risks of accepting answers that could be wrong. Often lay people are more interested in avoiding Type B errors: rejecting answers that could be right.

In the Time interview, both Dawkins and Collins reject the notion put forward by paleontologist S.J. Gould that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate spheres. Collins says that is wrong. He thinks religion is not a scientific question, because the tools of science can't provide answers to religious questions. God can't be completely contained within nature, so science can't really "weigh in". But he thinks that studying the natural world can provide scientists with an "opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation. In other words, God is beyond the reach of science, but science isn't beyond the reach of God and religion. Dawkins thinks that the existence of God is a scientific question that can be refuted empirically. He objects to what he perceives as his opponents' tendency to "play the faith card", and invoke faith when the arguing gets tough. I agree. Using "faith" to trump science is always out of bounds. But I tend to side with Gould that there are areas that may be beyond the reach or interest of science. God isn't likely to participate in a controlled experiment, and while observation of order in nature can lead to the suspicion of a designer, such a conclusion requires a "leap of faith" that puts the believer beyond the methods of science. So I rely on intuition-based risk taking within the bounds of reason and available knowledge in making decisions about God and religion. I consider myself to be a religious pragmatist like William James and a Christian existentialist like Keirkegaard, though unlike the latter, my beliefs must be at least consistent with reason and science, and I'm ready to revise my beliefs on the basis of new evidence. Instead of a "leap of faith" , I prefer a "hop of faith", with my eyes open to all possibilities.

 

On both sides of the question, there are some who are open to a healthy, intelligent exchange of ideas and there are some who are are not.

Neither Atheism nor Religion are monolithic. There is an immense variety of belief, temperament, awareness and intent that is probably more deeply rooted in human nature than in any belief or disbelief.

I think both internal and external reality is essential for a fully human experience. Awe, wonder, ecstacy and insight are vital, of course, but one who has never experienced any higher good beyond their own personal horizon is limited in their knowedge of what the discussion is actually about.

To the extent that both are reality-oriented, they are perfectly compatible.

Because they communicate essential information about the nature of reality, both religion and science are susceptible to dimly grasped but persistent, unrealistic concepts like holy violence, geocentric cosomlogy, militant communalism, the ether, and so on.

The meaning of Genesis' creation story is perfectly compatible with the scientifically verifiable sequence of events that led to human evolution.

Violence is dangerous.

Religion, politics, economics, "reason," these are all-too-often abused excuses for violence.

There is meaning in everything that exists. You can experience meaning on its own terms or you can misunderstand it on your own terms.

God can be studied scientifically, but the results are usually as meaningless as an inch of music.

You are proof that Consciousness exists. There is certainly a physical aspect to Consciousness (electro-magnetic vibrations, sensory organs, nerves, neural networks), but the fact that it exists at all is significant.

The real question is - Does Consciousness require any specific form of existence? Or does Consciousness exist, regardless of form?

I don't know if Consciousness is evidence for God, but Consciousness IS traditionally believed to be an attribute of God.

Yes.

I don't think so. Altruism is a good thing, however.

I think proof of God is a conceptual misapplication. It is similar to "proof" that your favorite song is more musical than an air raid siren, how do you measure that?

I think it all depends on what one means by "miracle."

Victory is possible only as long as the conversation between Atheism and Religion continues. If the conversation ends, then both sides lose.

 

I tend to agree with you here too Okie about the arrogance of people. If you watch Dawkins' doc. for The God Delusion, his conversation with Ted Haggard is quite arrogant, but it goes both ways. Haggard becomes furious with Dawkins that after the shoot, he threatens to call the cops if they do not leave. Arrogance is a problem fo both sides of the debate.

I do not agree that religion should be off limits too. No topic really should. If we are afraid to talk about sex, bad things will happen. I do not think that a sensitivity needs to be shown to beliefs, but a sensitivity needs to be shown to the person. Or in other words, hate the game-not the player

 

When I read rudolph Otto for a class this year, I thought his ideas about the numinous were very interesting. The concept that all people (Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, Animists, and even Atheists) have a feeling of awe in relation to certain objects and ideas is a nice change to a common "religion is a anthropological construct" or the functional idea of the origin of religion. Mysterium tremendum et fascinans (“fearful and fascinating mystery”) is a phrase Otto uses later in his word similarly to how "fear of the Lord" is used in Hebrew Scripture. He talkes about how the numinous not only inspires awe, but also a fear of the numinous that excites us as people. Not only are we inspired and moved by what we experience, but we are taken aback and slightly unnerved as well. If you haven't already Okie, you should take a class on religious theory in post-secondary studies. Olson's "Theory and Method in the Study of Religion" for me was quite interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Method-Study-Religion-Theoretical/dp/0534534740 It did have some typo's and some printing errors, but overall it was quite good. It covers a range of topics.

 

I agree. The alleged "dangers" of atheism are its possible impacts on morale and morals. One contributor to our Forums (I can't remember who) sees atheism as saying :"My life has no meaning. Yay!" Some people obviously can live with it. There's a kind of "macho" value system, exemplified by the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that embraces the notion of carrying on bravely in a cold, cruel world. Holmes wondered whether there is any more significance to human life than to a grain of sand or a baboon. To Nietzscheans, atheism is liberation for the human spirit, but the rest of us may have legitimate concerns about self-styled "supermen" getting carried away. Of course, there's also a thriving atheist existentialist tradition finding significance in creating one's own meaning and taking responsibility for it. I think the panelists exemplify a third approach: scientism. Scientific inquiry performs for them some of the same functions as religion performs for most of us. In fact, some writers have argued that naturalism and humanism are the underlying secular religions for many atheists. Is it enough for most people? Should we experiment to find out? I think it's one thing to arrive at atheism on your own, and another to disrupt people's belief systems. For example, many people have achieved recovery from substance abuse through twelve step programs that rely on a Higher Power. These programs have been criticized for being "crutches" and contributing to a certain mental rigidity and dependence on the meetings. But former alcholics and drug addicts in these programs regard it as their life preserver. Would we want to take it away without being very careful about finding a substitute?

As for morals, the outspoken eighteenth century "sage" Samuel Johnson speculated that if people were truly atheists we should hide the silverware when we invite them over. But I see little actual evidence that atheists are worse than so-called believers in their moral behavior--if such a thing were conceivable. Of course, if atheism were widespread, it might be different. It might be, as is often suggested, that the average person needs the fear of hell or bad karma to keep them in line, and that atheism would be a dangerous social experiment for that reason. I'm writing, of course, from the Bible Belt. As I understand it, Europeans, while not exactly atheists, have a far more secular outlook than we have, and seem to get along reasonably well, George Will and other American conservatives to the contrary. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I wouldn't want to live in a world without atheists, because theyre doing the Lord's work in helping to keep believers honest and on their toes. (I'll get to the dangers of religion later).

 

The panelists consider religion to be dangerous because it has a sorry history of violence and intolerance, because the dangers of unreason are difficult to anticipate, and because it discourages critical thinking. In The End of Faith, Harris argues that even moderate liberal believers like me must be condemned because we somehow support a pattern of belief that can lead to Pat Robertson and al-Qaeda. He notes that some faith-based beliefs, like the idea that life begins at conception, may seem innocent enough until they lead to oppostion to abortion and stem cell research. Hitchens goes so far as to argue that all religions are "rotten, corrupt, and dangerous", even Quakers. And Dawkins, in The God Delusion, calls for intervention to prevent parents from raising their kids as Amish.

I think I should have discussed this last point under the previous "Are Atheists Dangerous?" post. The notion that superior rationality gives secularists the right to intervene in the family to force kids into modernity and rationalism strikes me as chilling. Some of us rather admire the Amish, and see advantages in a simpler life, given how kids seem to be faring in the larger world. Religion has contributed to lots of violence, but when atheists have had an opportunity (as under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) they've shown that they can mass murder with the best of us. Hichens recognizes that religious people may regard atheists as "cultural vandals" who will tear away faith-based civilization in favor of a chromium and steel technocracy. I was relieved to hear the panelists express awarness that the materialism and triviality of western culture is an issue of legitimate concern, that Dawkins says grace, likes religious music, and thinks the Bible is worth keeping. So I think we need to encourage people, believers and atheists alike, to think critically, keep their belief systems on a short leash, and preserve the diversity of belief that is as important as genetic diversity to healthy development.

 

You're correct that the "finely tuned universe" argument is a varient of the classic argument from design to prove God. In the panel discussion with the Horsemen, however, Dawkins thinks this is the only argument that would give him pause (briefly), and well-respected scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller give credence to it. The argument goes like this:the basic parameters of the universe involve physical constants with precisely the value needed for complex structures to arise. If these were different,the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. For example, if the expansion rate of the universe after the Big Bang had been one-billionth less, the universe would have imploded, and if it had been one-billionth more, it would have exploded, leaving only dilute gas. A minute difference in the strength of the electomagnetic field relative to the gravitational field would have prevented our Sun from forming. If the difference between the mass of the neutron and the proton were not twice the mass of the electron, it would be difficult or impossible to have chemical reactions, etc. For more examples, see http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html (obviously a Christian apologetics website). Or check out Ward & Brownlee, Rare Earth (2000); Hugh Ross, The Creator and The Cosmos;and Gonzalez & Richards, The Privileged Planet(2004). Collins concludes:"when you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise and extremely improbable event--namely, our existence".

As you say, as "proof", the argument is not logically compelling. First of all, there is the classic comeback against all "designer" arguments: if order and complexity are signs of design, who designed the designer? Either way, the logic leads to infinite regression. Second, there are alternative explanations, two of which Dawkins provides: (1) the constants may not be free to vary, because not all of the parameters can be assumed to be independent; there may be some as yet undiscovered cohesive principle locking in them in. Studies by Aguire (2001) and Hogan (2006) indicate that some of the parameters may be varied by orders of magnitude and still plausibly allow intelligent life to emerge. (2) the "multiverse" idea that there may be many other universes out there where the constants are different and therefore there is no life. We're among the lucky ones. Against these arguments, Collins invokes Occam's Razor; he finds an intelligent designer simpler and more straightforward than the multiverse. Of course, it's possible to slit one's jugular with Occam's razor. I personally don't find fine tuning, by itself, conclusive for design. But I don't find it less plausible than the alternatives. Invoking an undiscovered principle or an unknown multiverse doesn't stike me as more compelling than an unseen Higher Power.

I see the "solution" as more like a policy question than a science or logic question. I can see Dawkins arguments for seeking naturalistic explanations that fit with the rest of our knowledge and not being too ready to invoke god and miracles that shut off further inquiry. I can also see Collins' postion, that if belief in a Higher Power rings true on the basis of our experience and intuition, it shouldn't be ruled out or scoffed at, as long as it doesn't interfere with scientific judgments. It's a matter of (hopefully informed) opinion, like which candidate to vote for in the upcoming election. And of course ours will be the best and only idiots could support the other.

 

Did I touch a nerve? These questions seem to be fair statements of issues raised in the Four Horseman debate and the Time article, as explained in the prologue, and the panelists didn't find them "stupid". But I guess the participants on this thread can judge.

 

This a stupid post.