God and Science

Dawkins vs. Lennox debate.
youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw

There are a few interesting points that this rather shifty character, Lennox, presents:

The Unknown as the proof of God: 46:30-49:22 (God through revelation/miracles/unknown); 1:02:55 - 1:05:10 (Origins of Laws of Physics)

This basic argument seems to be that If there is God who wanted man to discover the universe and develop his mind though science AND acknowledge the existence of a creator (God) he would do it through the perpetual unknown. The speculation here is that the man, though his scientific pursuit, will always encounter something that he cannot explain - and that is the way God presents himself to man in science.

The other argument is God as (the most effective) Guiding force in science: Lennox in closing remarks (1:05:30 - 1:07:30)

The premise of this argument is historical. Historically, the major discoveries in science were done by theists who were guided by their faith, thus proposing the idea that God was the major cause of scientific inquiry and development. He uses science in China as comparison.

To me, this just looks like God is sending the man on a whild goose chase - chasing God though a perpetual Revelation?

There is another, a bit unrelated, argument by Lennox and that’s of consequences of scientific reductionism (1:08:30 - 1:10:35):

The main concern of this argument is the erosion of morality. If man sees himself as just an animal, then man will eventually come to treat himself and the others just like an animal. This is something that, indeed, is possible.

Shifty character ??

He hops around a lot.

Thank you Pandora for opening an actual civilized topic for discussion on this board (as opposed to our more common).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw[/youtube]

Generally I find the people who debate this topic as less than the brightest of the species and frankly still find Dawkins to be just embarrassingly foolish (although I think I more often express it as “a complete idiot”). In this debate, he seems at his best. Lennox seems to keep a clear mind and understands what he is saying. I wouldn’t describe him as “shifty”, but rather that he tries to relate too many branches of a theme into a single argument. Each of his branches are actually relevant.

Another take on a similar debate with Jewish Jonathon Sacks vs Dawkins, is actually a little closer to the truth of the issue and a little more intellectual.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK0tpvcIRhU[/youtube]

By watching both debates, one can get a feel for the distinction between protestant Christianity and Judaism from well qualified and intelligent speakers for each. One can possibly see how atheistic arguments fall on deaf ears due to their irrelevance to the real issues.

I can’t personally 100% agree with any of them of course, but nothing new about that. I do agree with Sacks that reading the scriptures literally and not understanding how to know when to distinguish metaphor or allegory is heresy. But then he does seem to take the typical route of excuse making concerning things he shouldn’t (Muslims seriously get into the whole excuse making bit in such debates).

Indeed Lennox like all theists who argued for the case of God has to be shifty otherwise there is nothing for them to present their illusory views at all.

For example from the beginning Dawkins presented his argument, how can any proper Scientist accept that ordinary water can be turned into wine, i.e. the changing of the molecular structure of H20 to a more complex molecular structure like wine.
Lennox should have addressed this point rather than shift to another subject.
Dawkins should have pressed him on this point?

There is nothing wrong with Dawkins’ views at all.
All Dawkins did was merely expressing from his Scientific Framework and claim that a God [who can convert water to wine, etc.] is impossible to exists within the Scientific Framework. There is no issue with with such claim.

To insinuate Dawkins as “a complete idiot” for expressing what is truth within his specialized empirical based framework and perspective, is totally wrong.

Dawkins’ cannot be wrong if he is expressing Scientific truths that are substantiated by accepted scientific theories and justifications. If anyone insist Dawkins is wrong scientifically, show me where did he go wrong scientifically.
Btw, I am not claiming Scientific theories are absolute truths. Scientific truths has limitations are relatively true within the conditions of the Scientific Framework.

On the other hand, Lennox as with most theists project an illusory transcendental and spiritual framework that cannot be proven at all.
The only basis for the theists’ illusory transcendental and spiritual framework is mainly due to their weak psychology as driven by existential desperation into an illusory cocoon of false hopes and lies. When Science and other fields of knowledge are able to explain and resolve the weak psychology within the brains of theists, theists will not need an illusory transcendental God as a security blanket to relieve their unavoidable existential angst.

Normally when theists [Lennox, Craig, etc.] debate for the case of God they often equivocate between different perspectives and present conclusions that are fallacious.

The syllogism goes like this;
P1. Science confirm this [Big Bang, design, etc.]
P2. Only an all powerful God can create the big bang.
C3. Therefore God must exists.

Those theists do not even realize they are equivocation and using bad logic!

The syllogism in perspective is this;
P1. Science confirm this [Big Bang, etc.] [EMPIRICAL] [-Oil]
P2. Only an all powerful God can create the big bang. [TRANSCENDENTAL] [-Water]
C3. Therefore God must exists.[TRANSCENDENTAL] [-Water]

The point here one cannot argue by equivocating premises of differentiate perspectives and conflate them to arrive at a conclusion in one perspective.
Analogically in the above syllogism, oil and water just don’t mix.

The first step is one must always argue on the basis of the same perspective, i.e. both P1 and P2 must be empirical and thus the conclusion must be empirical.

Now even if the theists argued on the basis of the transcendental for both premises and conclusion, the conclusion may be logical, but it cannot be sound at all. Because what is transcendental is always illusory and thus cannot be sound.

As Lennox properly pointed out, Science can only tell you that your experiment did not prove that your hypothesis was wrong. Science CANNOT tell you of what is necessarily true because it cannot assess all conceivable possibilities.

Science is about, “If you DO X, you will get Y”.
Science is NOT about, “If you get X, Y is true to reality”.

Well, I didn’t say that he was the only complete idiot.

Oh really.
:laughing:

So you think that science has never been wrong and it is impossible for it to be wrong now? :-s
:-"

Laurence Krauss, in an effort to team up with Dawkins, ended up proving Dawkins a fool and a science charlatan.

You JUST DID in the prior sentence. :icon-rolleyes:

Which is to say that they are not reliable for absolute truth of the matter.

Actually, you just have no idea what he was talking about.

Your egocentric fantasy theory.

Lennox is a kind of guy who believes in literal miracles, and to him, in order for a miracle to even exist, it needs a rigid framework (laws of nature) to break through. Yes, I agree, a such-minded scientist is more likely to give up on an tough experiment and simply declare a phenomenon a miracle, or an act of God. How would such a scientist know the difference between what can be scientifically known and what cannot?

Lennox did briefly allude to the watchmaker argument - a complex thing must have been created by a more complex thing. Can such a more complex being be considered more transcendental? The flatland cartoon comes to mind, as maybe the theists may have this kind of ‘transcendental’ idea in mind.
youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

I thought it was kind of pointless. Sacks pretty much agreed with Dawkins on everything; I’m not even sure he even believes in transcendental God himself. He argues for usefulness (social value) of religion and faith, as a tool, in order to preserve human dignity, hope, culture and morality. And Dawkins didn’t call him out on it as a cop out (which he often does with believers). Truth didn’t even come in into this conversation. If you (knowingly) allow people to delude themselves in order to preserve human dignity, or morality, then you’re just doing politics.

Sacks pointed out that Dawkins’ perspective and errors in thought were due to common Protestant Christian misreading of the OT. True, they didn’t get into anything specific (Rabbis seriously and strategically avoid specifics). Sacks did strongly object to people deluding themselves by misreading (reading too literally).

As I said, I don’t generally have much respect for debates like these. Dawkins didn’t do nearly as badly as his usual. Lennox and Sacks both maintained rational argumentation. The debate was too short, shallow, and wide to be of much use.

… none of them could stand for long on this site. :sunglasses:

I take it, to Sacks, bible is just a history book (since he appears to look for a scientific explanation to everything in the bible - both new and old). If everything just happened historically, naturally, I don’t even know where belief/faith comes in for him, other than as an ancient cultural invention, as he seems to be treating it, anyway.
Why keep Torah in a synagogue, then? Can synagogue be even considered a religious place? Wouldn’t a rabbi, like himself, just be playng a role of some fancy cultural story teller?

No, what he is saying (and what is true) is that you don’t get to hear the real story (void of metaphor) until you are in the synagogue (and thus must be Jewish and under care of a Rabbi). In a debate, such is a bit of a cop out. But that doesn’t make it untrue.

Christianity attempts to openly explain. Judaism learned to use and keep secrets. Judaism is based upon secret doings so as to control power (as Sacks mentioned). Christianity is based upon preventing those secret doings from creating more harm than good. Christianity doesn’t absolutely require the secret doings thus they are more willing to openly discuss (even though they seldom get it right).

I’m assuming you’re referring to segment at 21:30-24:00. In that case Dawkins is justified in describing the opening of Chapter 2 of his book as he did, and the anti-Semitism accusation is a cop out. This is a typical evasive “you don’t really know me” argument, hinting to some type of Jewish Mystique. If one uses ambiguities or duplicitous meanings, or shifts his meanings around, or hides things, he shouldn’t be (or act) surprised when he’s misunderstood. This is common-sense. Christianity does not make itself exclusive, like Judaism does, so the Jews should be taking that into account when dealing with non-Jews. And if, indeed, they are, and still proceed with accusations then they are just being intentionally misleading. The Jews then are, though indirectly, inflicting this on themselves. I mean, what did their elder leaders who came up with the exclusivity/secrecy idea think would happen?

A rational Scientist will accept the following;

  1. Known: Empirically proven within the Scientific Framework
  2. Not yet known: Empirically POSSIBLE to be proven within the Scientific Framework.

Thus with 2, I can speculate human-like aliens existing in a planet 1 billion light years away, because the element in color here are all empirically possible.

The above must be reinforced with very sound philosophical justifications to sustain their credibility to the truths of reality.

Lennox and theists however take the leap beyond empirically proven and empirically possible to the illusory of the Transcendental which is empirically impossible, like a square-circle. The idea of a transcendental God is an empirical impossibility and thus there is no way God can exists as real.

Whilst the idea transcendental God is an empirical impossibility, the idea of God itself is a possibility to be thought of in the mind. So what theists have at best is merely the idea of of an impossible God. Why theists are clinging to the “idea of God” as a belief is because it has psychological and survival value that work, otherwise they would be a psychological wreck with existential angst.

The Flatland cartoon is a thought experiment but it is not transcendental like the idea of a God.
To avoid infinite regression, Lennox would also have to end up with the first Cause. To force a stop [using mental effort] to the concept of infinite regression to the last turtle is transcendental because it is an empirical impossibility.
But the critical point is the idea of God itself [God’s nature] is transcendental, i.e. illusory and an impossibility, analogically like seeking a square-circle.

Moses did say that all would come to hate the Jews as they turn nation against nation [paraphrased].

And yes, the antisemitism cry was so very stereo typical, self-righteous, “poor me” inappropriate slander. I don’t blame Dawkins a bit for getting upset at that one. Dawkins, out of pure ignorance, spells God out to be a horrific evil, but that isn’t antisemitism. Judaism prefers that everyone ELSE be atheist.

I am well aware of the limitation of Science. I agree with Popper’s view that ‘Scientific truths are merely polished conjectures.’ The critical point is these albeit ‘polished conjectures’ has very very high survival and utility values for mankind whilst acknowledging there are cons as well.

What I stated was Scientific truths are only true subject-to/conditioned-upon its agreed Scientific Framework and System by all scientists.

‘Other’ complete idiot is off the point. Stating Dawkins is a complete idiot is insulting your own intelligence.

What I implied was Dawkins is a genius [not idiot] within his Scientific Framework and his sphere of expertise.
Whatever Scientific truths he relied upon must be conditioned and limited to the Scientific Frameworks [with is Scientific Methods, rules, assumptions, peer review] ONLY. Scientific truths are relative to its Scientific Framework Only and cannot be claimed as absolute truths.

So Dawkins is correct by stating within the Scientific Framework, a God who can turn water into wine cannot exists. He did not claim God do not exists in the absolute sense. Note Dawkins agnostic reservations in his God Delusion which he provided a very small possibility of God existence. I do not agree with him on this.

You countering of my point above is thus baseless.

Note my explanations above. You are merely insulting yourself for not understanding the point in its full perspective.

Dawkins is definitely not a fool in relation to his expertise, i.e. biology.
If ever, the error if any could be due to Dawkins’ speculation outside the scope of his expertise.
Show me the link, I am interested in confirming your assertion.

Where? Note my further explanations above. There is no way Scientific theories can be absolute truths.

The point is there is no such thing as absolute truth in a 100% absolute sense.
All truths are conditioned upon some human Framework, e.g. Scientific Framework established by humans and other Frameworks like philosophy, economics, legal, politics, conventional common sense, etc.

Any claims of absolute truths is delusional.

In general, a theistic framework is based on illusory ideas.

It is not mine but supported by many Eastern philosophies from thousands of years ago plus some Western Philosophical theories. Based on from you have posted so far, I believed you have not covered all these mentioned theories to understand (not necessary agree) them.

Point is when you have only understood only 20% of the 100% established “philosophical” knowledge known to humanity, your intellectual credibility is very low. You are so clueless to the many points and elements I introduced.

So “Scientific Framework” is your new obscurity scapegoat?

Exactly how do you define “Scientific Framework” such as to cover your bases?

Scientific Framework == ??

That is why I said you are clueless to the many elements I have introduced. You are insulting your own intelligence again by jumping the gun without getting and understanding the terms I used which is quite obvious to any average person.

Note I mentioned in my above post;

“Scientific Framework [with is Scientific Methods, rules, assumptions, peer review].”
There should be sufficient clues to the term “Scientific Framework”

The Scientific Framework and Systems comprised scientists, Scientific Methods, rules, assumptions, peer review, consensus, policies, and other relevant elements.
All Scientific Theories must comply with the imperative elements otherwise they are not Scientific Theories.
Any theory that do not comply with the main elements of the Scientific Method will not be accepted as a Scientific Theory.
Any theory that is not peer-reviewed and do not has sufficient consensus it not accepted as a scientific theory within the Scientific Framework and System.

Is the above a “new obscurity scapegoat”?

I had used the term “Scientific Framework” and Systems so I don’t have to explain the relevant details involved and having to state the following elements all the time, i.e. scientists, Scientific Methods, rules, assumptions, peer review, consensus, policies, and other relevant elements.

“Assumptions and consensus”?
What assumptions? Assumptions are usually not allowed in science.

It sounds like by “Framework”, you are saying that the Science Vatican Counsel dictates truth. Whatever they choose to assume and say is “science”. How is that any different than the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

Yes.

Basic assumptions of science;
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

“Much as we might like to avoid it, all scientific tests involve making assumptions — many of them justified.”
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_13

web.utk.edu/~dhasting/Basic_Assu … cience.htm

I have listed to you what are the elements that are essential and imperative within what is general accepted as the Scientific Framework and System, i.e. scientists, Scientific Methods, rules, assumptions, peer review, consensus, policies, and other relevant elements.

What is central within the Scientific Framework is the Scientific Method;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Regardless of the name “Science Vatican Counsel”, etc., whatever is to be accepted as Scientific truths or theories must comply with all the imperative elements within the Scientific Framework and System subject to sufficient consensus for the relevant peers.

Consensus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
All Scientific theories and truths are confirmed based on sufficient consensus.
One example, that Pluto is now a dwarf planet and not a planet-proper is based on consensus amongst astronomers.
String Theory is still not recognized as an official Scientific Theory because there is not yet sufficient consensus within the related peers. Consensus is obviously based on sufficient convincing proofs and evidences.

Is the above a “new obscurity scapegoat”?

The cure is for you to read up more and be more exploratory.
You could have easily search the above elements using google instead of raising self-insulting questions.

Catholic Vatican Council makes assumptions too.
They have peer reviews as well.
I guess that we can ASSUME that one is as good as the other, huh.

A pretty vague list actually. And it still seems that you are ASSUMING that the Science Vatican Council is the holy disseminator of truth.

Yeah, all hegemonies have done that for millennia.

Yeah, yeah … what like minded people agree to like.

And I suspect the “cure for you” involves finding out who you are insulting BEFORE you try to show off.

The “Scientific Community” has been wrong on more things than I can count. They still stand wrong on many things today. The reason is that thing that you keep calling “assumption”. More often than not it is a presumption, not an assumption.

In any case, in a debate concerning the legitimacy of Science vs anything else, whatever the Scientific Community Consensus assumptions are, is not valid declaration of truth any more than saying “The Bible told me so”.

Science can ONLY tell that a hypothesis is or is not necessarily wrong. Science knows nothing of truth.

… and Dawkins knows damn little science.

At the beginning of the video when he says they debated the previous year in Birmingham, Alabama…I was totally there.