The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate (Transcript Here)

Catholic Education Resource Center ^

[SirLinksalot]

Home

The God Delusion: David Quinn & Richard Dawkins debate

   THE RYAN TUBRIDY SHOW

---

Now, this morning, we are asking, what’s wrong with religion? That’s just one of the questions raised in a new book called, The God Delusion. We’re going to talk to its author — the man who’s been dubbed the world’s most famous, out of the closet, living atheist — Richard Dawkins.

---

Ryan Tubridy	Richard Dawkins

David Quinn

Ryan Tubridy: Richard, good morning to you

Richard Dawkins: Good morning.

Tubridy: It’s nice to talk to you again. We spoke before once on the similar subject matter. David Quinn is also with us here. David Quinn is a columnist with the Irish Independent. David, a very good morning to you.

David Quinn: Good morning.

Tubridy: So Richard Dawkins here you go again, up to your old tricks. In your most recent book, The God Delusion. Let’s just talk about the word if you don’t mind, the word delusion, so put it into context. Why did you pick that word?

Dawkins: Well the word delusion means a falsehood which is widely believed, and I think that is true of religion. It is remarkably widely believed, it’s as though almost all of the population or a substantial proportion of the population believed that they had been abducted by aliens in flying saucers. You’d call that a delusion. I think God is a similar delusion.

 

Tubridy: And would it be fair to say you equate God with say, the imaginary friend, the bogeyman, or the fairies at the end of the garden?

Dawkins: Well I think He’s just as probable to exist, yes, and I do discuss all those things especially the imaginary friend which I think is an interesting psychological phenomenon in childhood and that may possibly have something to do with the appeal of religion.

Tubridy: So take us through that little bit about the imaginary friend factor.

Dawkins: Many young children have an imaginary friend. Christopher Robin had Binker. A little girl who wrote to me had a little purple man. And the girl with the little purple man actually saw him. She seemed to hallucinate him. He appeared with a little tinkling bell. And, he was very, very real to her although in a sense she knew he wasn’t real. I suspect that something like that is going on with people who claim to have heard God or seen God or hear the voice of God.

 

Tubridy: And we’re back to delusion again. Do you think that anyone who believes in God, anyone of any religion, is deluded? Is that the bottom line with your argument Richard?

Dawkins: Well there is a sophisticated form of religion which, well one form of it is Einstein’s which wasn’t really a religion at all. Einstein used the word God a great deal, but he didn’t mean a personal God. He didn’t mean a being who could listen to your prayers or forgive your sins. He just meant it as a kind of poetic way of describing the deep unknowns, the deep uncertainties at the root of the universe. Then there are deists who believe in a kind of God, a kind of personal God who set the universe going, a sort of physicist God, but then did no more and certainly doesn’t listen to your thoughts. He has no personal interest in humans at all. I don’t think that I would use a word like delusions for, certainly not for Einstein, no I don’t think I would for a deist either. I think I would reserve the word delusion for real theists who actually think they talk to God and think God talks to them.

Tubridy: You have a very interesting description in The God Delusion of the Old Testament God. Do you want to give us that description or will I give it to you back?

Dawkins: Have you got it in front of you?

Tubridy: Yes I have.

Dawkins: Well why don’t you read it out then.

Tubridy: Why not. You describe God as a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Dawkins: That seems fair enough to me, yes.

Tubridy: Okay. There are those who would think that’s a little over the top.

Dawkins: Read your Old Testament, if you think that. Just read it. Read Leviticus, read Deuteronomy, read Judges, read Numbers, read Exodus.

Tubridy: And do you, is it your contention, that these elements of the God as described by yourself are what has not helped matters in terms of, say, global religion and the wars that go with it?

Dawkins: Well, not really because no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally anymore, so it isn’t quite like that. An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally but that can only be because they’ve never read it. If they ever read it they couldn’t possibly take it literally, but I do think that people are a bit confused about where they get their morality from. A lot of people think they get their morality from the Bible because they can find a few good verses. Parts of the Ten Commandments are okay, parts of the Sermon on the Mount are okay. So they think they get their morality from the Bible. But actually of course nobody gets their morality from the Bible, we get it from somewhere else and to the extent that we can find good bits in the Bible we cherry pick them. We pick and choose them. We choose the good verses in the Bible and we reject the bad. Whatever criterion we use to choose the good verses and throw out the bad, that criterion is available to us anyway whether we are religious or not. Why bother to pick verses? Why not just go straight for the morality?

Tubridy: Do you think the people who believe in God and in religion generally who you think that have, you use the analogy of the imaginary friend, do you think that the people who believe in God and religion are a little bit dim?

Dawkins: No, because many of them clearly are highly educated and score highly on IQ tests and things so…

Tubridy: Why do you think they believe in something you think doesn’t exist?

Dawkins: Well I think that people are sometimes remarkably adept at compartmentalizing their mind, at separating their mind into two separate parts. There are some people who even manage to combine being apparently perfectly good working scientists with believing that the book of Genesis is literally true and that the world is only 6000 years old. If you can perform that level of doublethink then you could do anything.

Tubridy: But they might say that they pity you because you don’t believe in what they think is fundamentally true.

Dawkins: Well they might and we’ll have to argue it out by looking at the evidence. The great thing is to argue it by looking at evidence, not just to say “Oh well, this is my faith. There’s no argument to be had. You can’t argue with faith.”

Tubridy: David Quinn, columnist with the Irish Independent, show us some evidence please.

Quinn: Well I mean the first thing I would say is that Richard Dawkins is doing what he commonly does which is he’s setting up straw men so he puts God in the same, he puts believing in God, in the same category as believing in fairies. Well you know children stop believing in fairies when they stop being children, but they usually don’t’ stop believing in God because belief in God to my mind is a much more rational proposition than believing in fairies and Santa Claus.

Tubridy: Do we have more proof that God exists than we do for fairies?

Quinn: I will come to that in a second. I mean the second thing is about compartmentalizing yourself when he uses examples of… well you’ve got intelligent people who somehow or other also believe the world is only 6000 years old and we have a young Earth and they don’t believe in evolution… but again… I mean that’s too stark an either or… I mean there are many people who believe in God but also believe in evolution and believe the universe is 20 billion years old and believe fully in Darwinian evolution or whatever the case may be… Now I mean in all arguments about the existence or nonexistence of God often these things don’t even get off the launch pad because the two people debating can’t even agree on where the burden of proof rests. Does it rest with those who are trying to prove the existence of God or with does it rest with those who are trying to disprove the existence of God? But I suppose you know if I bring this on to Richard Dawkins’ turf and we talk about the theory of evolution…The theory of evolution explains how matter — which we are all made from — organized itself into for example highly complex beings like Richard Dawkins and Ryan Tubridy and other human beings but what it doesn’t explain just to give one example is how matter came into being in the first place. That, in scientific terms, is a question that cannot be answered and can only be answered, if it can be answered fully at all, by philosophers and theologians. But it certainly cannot be answered by science and the question of whether God exists or not cannot be answered fully by science either and a common mistake that people can believe is the scientist who speaks about evolution with all the authority of science can also speak about the existence of God with all the authority of science and of course he can’t. The scientist speaking about the existence of God is actually engaging in philosophy or theology but he certainly isn’t bringing to it the authority of science per se.

Tubridy: Back to the original question, have you any evidence for me?

Quinn: Well I will say the existence of matter itself. I will say the existence of morality. Myself and Richard Dawkins have a clearly different understanding of the origins of morality. I would say free will. If you’re an atheist, if you’re an atheist logically speaking you cannot believe in objective morality. You cannot believe in free will. These are two things that the vast majority of humankind implicitly believe in. We believe for example that if a person carries out a bad action, we can call that person bad because we believe that they are freely choosing those actions. … And just quickly an atheist believes we are controlled completely by our genes and make no free actions at all.

Tubridy: What evidence do you have, Richard Dawkins, that you’re right?

Dawkins: I certainly don’t believe a word of that. I do not believe we are controlled wholly by our genes. Let me go back to the really important thing that Mr. Quinn said.

Quinn: How are we independent of our genes by your reckoning? What allows us to be independent of our genes? Where is this coming from?

Dawkins: Environment for a start.

Quinn: Well hang on but that also is a product of if you like of matter. Okay?

Dawkins: Yes but it’s not genes.

Quinn: What part of us allows us to have free will?

Dawkins: Free will is a very difficult philosophical question and it’s not one that has anything to do with religion, contrary to what Mr. Quinn says…but…

Quinn: It has an awful lot to do with religion because if there is no God there’s no free will because we are completely phenomena of matter.

Dawkins: Who says there’s not free will if there is no God? That’s a ridiculous thing to say.

Quinn: William Provine for one who you quote in your book. I mean I have a quote here from him. “Other scientists, as well, believe the same thing… that everything that goes on in our heads is a product of genes and as you say environment and chemical reactions. That there is no room for free will.” And Richard if you haven’t got to grips with that you seriously need to because many of your colleagues have and they deny outright the existence of free will and they are hardened materialists like yourself.

Tubridy: Okay. Richard Dawkins, rebut to that as you wish.

Dawkins: I’m not interested in free will what I am interested in is the ridiculous suggestion that if science can’t say where the origin of matter comes from theology can. The origin of matter… the origin of the whole universe, is a very, very difficult question. It’s one that scientists are working on. It’s one that they hope eventually to solve. Just as before Darwin, biology was a mystery. Darwin solved that. Now cosmology is a mystery. The origin of the universe is a mystery; it’s a mystery to everyone. Physicists are working on it. They have theories. But if science can’t answer that question then as sure as hell theology can’t either.

Quinn: If I can come in there, it is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask yourself where does matter come from? And it is perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer, God created matter. Many reasonable people believe this and by the way… I mean look it is quite a different category to say look we will study matter and we will ask how

Dawkins: But if science can’t answer that question, then it’s sure as hell theology can’t either.

Tubridy: Richard, if ...

Quinn: Sorry — if I can come in there — It’s a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask oneself where does matter come from. And it’s perfectly reasonable as well to posit the answer God created matter. Many reasonable people believe this.

Dawkins: It’s not reasonable.

Quinn: It’s quite a different category to say “Look, we will study matter and we will ask how matter organizes itself into particular forms,” and come up with the answer “evolution.” It is quite another question to ask “Where does matter come from to begin with?” And if you like you must go outside of matter to answer that question. And then you’re into philosophical categories.

Dawkins: How could it possibly be another category and be allowed to say God did it since you can’t explain where God came from?

Quinn: Because you must have an uncaused cause for anything at all to exist. Now, I see in your book you come up with an argument against this that I frankly find to be bogus. You come up with the idea of a mathematical infinite regress but this does not apply to the argument of uncaused causes and unmoved movers because we are not talking about maths we’re talking about existence and existentially nothing exists unless you have an uncaused cause. And that uncaused cause and that unmoved mover is, by definition, God.

Tubridy: OK. I’m going to move...

Dawkins: You just defined God as that! You just defined a problematic existence. That’s no solution to the problem. You just evaded it.

Quinn: You can’t answer the question where matter comes from! You, as an atheist —

Dawkins: I can’t, but science is working on it. You can’t answer it either.

Quinn: It won’t come up with an answer, and you invoked a mystery argument that you accuse religious believers of doing all the time. You invoke a very first and most fundamental question about reality. You do not know where matter came from.

Dawkins: I don’t know. Science is working on it. Science is a progressive thing that’s working on it. You don’t know but you claim that you do.

Quinn: I claim to know the probable answer.

Tubridy: Can I suggest that the next question is quite appropriate. The role of religion in wars. When you think of the difficulty that it brings up on a local level. Richard Dawkins, do you believe the world would be a safer place without religion?

Dawkins: Yes, I do. I don’t think that religion is the only cause of wars. Very far from it. Neither the second World War nor the first World War were caused by religion, but I do think that religion is a major exacerbater, and especially in the world today, as a matter of fact.

Tubridy: OK. Explain yourself.

Dawkins: Well, it’s pretty obvious. I mean that if you look at the Middle East, if you look at India and Pakistan, if you look at Northern Ireland, there are many, many places where the only basis for hostility that exists between rival factions who kill each other is religion.

Tubridy: Why do you take it upon yourself to preach, if you like, atheism and there’s an interesting choice of words in some ways — that you’ve been accused of being something like a fundamental atheist. If you like, the “High Priest” of atheism. Why go about your business in such a way that that’s kind of ...trying to disprove these things. Why don’t you just believe in it privately, for example?

Dawkins: Well, fundamentalist is not quite the right word. A fundamentalist is one who believes in a holy book and thinks that everything in that holy book is true. I am passionate about what I believe because I think there’s evidence for it. And I think it’s very different being passionate about evidence from being passionate about a holy book. So I do it because I care passionately about the truth. I really, really believe it’s a big question. It’s an important question, whether there is a God at the root of the universe. I think it’s a question that matters, and I think that we need to discuss it, and that’s what I do.

Quinn: Ryan if I could just say...

Tubridy: Go ahead.

Quinn: Richard has come up with a definition of fundamentalism that obviously suits him. He thinks a fundamentalist has to be somebody who believes in a holy book. A fundamentalist is somebody who firmly believes that they have got the truth and holds that to an extreme extent and become intolerant of those who hold to a different truth. And Richard Dawkins has just outlined what he thinks the truth to be and that makes him intolerant of those who have religious beliefs.

Now, in terms of the effect of religion upon the world, I mean, at least Richard has rightly acknowledged that there are many causes of war and strife and ill will in the world, and he mentions World War I and World War II. In his book he tries to get Nietzsche off the hook of having atheism blamed for example, the atrocities carried out by Josef Stalin, and saying that these have nothing particularly to do with atheism.

But Stalin and many Communists who were explicitly atheistic took the view that religion was precisely the sort of malign and evil force that Richard Dawkins thinks it is. And they set out from that premise to, if you like, inflict upon religion sort of their own version of a “final solution.” They set to eradicate from the earth true violence and also true education that was explicitly anti-religious. And under the Soviet Union, and in China, and under Pol Pot in Cambodia explicit and violent efforts were made to suppress religion on the grounds that religion was a wicked force; and we have the truth, and our truth would not admit religion into the picture at all because we believe religion to be an untruth. So atheism also can lead to fundamentalist violence and did so in the last century. And atheists…

 

Tubridy: We’ll allow Richard in there.

Dawkins: Stalin was a very, very bad man and his persecution of religion was a very, very bad thing. End of story. It’s nothing to do with the fact that he was an atheist. We can’t just compile lists of bad people who were atheists and lists of bad people who were religious. I am afraid there were plenty on both sides.

Quinn: Yes, but Richard you are always compiling lists of bad religious people. I mean you do it continually in all your books, and then you devote a paragraph to basically trying to absolve atheism of all blame for any atrocity throughout history. You cannot have it both ways! You cannot…

Dawkins: I deny that.

Quinn: But of course you do it. Every time you are on a program talking about religion, you bring up the atrocities committed in the name of religion. And then you try to minimize the atrocities committed by atheists because they were so anti-religious and because they regarded it as a malign force in much the same way you do. You are trying to have it both ways.

Dawkins: Well, I simply deny that. I do think that there is some evil in faith because faith is belief in something without evidence.

Quinn: But, you see, that is not what faith is. You see, that is a caricature and a straw man and is so typical. That is not what faith is! You have faith that God doesn’t…

Dawkins: What is faith? What is faith!?

Quinn: Wait a second! You have faith that doesn’t exist. You are a man of faith as well.

Dawkins: I do not! I have looked at the evidence!

Quinn: Well, I have looked — I have looked at the evidence too!

Dawkins: If somebody comes up with evidence that goes the other way, I will be the first to change my mind.

Quinn: Well, I think the very existence of matter is evidence that God exists. And by the way, remember, you are the man who has problems believing in free will, which you try to, very conveniently, shunt to one side.

Dawkins: I’m just not interested in free will. It’s not a big question for me.

Quinn: It’s a vast question because we cannot be considered morally responsible beings unless we have free will. We do everything because we are controlled by our genes or our environment. It’s a vital question.

Tubridy: We are returning to the point at which we kind of pretty much began, which is probably an appropriate time to end the debate. Richard Dawkins, good to talk to you again. Thank you for your time. And to you, David Quinn, columnist at The Irish Independent, thank you very much indeed for that. The God Delusion, by the way, throws up many, many interesting questions. It’s written by Richard Dawkins and is published by Bantam Press. We’ll put details, as always on our website, www.rte.ie If you want to exercise your free will to contact us, please do so.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Ryan Tubridy. "The God Delusion: David Quinn debates Richard Dawkins." The Ryan Tubridy Show (October 9, 2006).

Published with permission of The Ryan Tubridy Show of RTE radio in Dublin, Ireland.

Listen to the audio of this discussion here.

The debate lasts for about 18 minutes.

THE AUTHORS

Ryan Tubridy (born 28 May 1974) is a television and radio presenter on Radio Telefís Éireann in Ireland. Tubridy started his radio career at the age of 12 reviewing books for the popular Radio 1 show "Poporama" presented by Ruth Buchanan. From 2002 until 2005 he presented RTÉ 2 fm's hugely popular morning show, The Full Irish. In 2006 he presents The Tubridy Show, weekday mornings on Radio 1.

David Quinn is one of Ireland's best known religious and social affairs commentators. For over six years he was editor of The Irish Catholic, Ireland's main Catholic weekly newspaper. He has written weekly opinion columns for The Sunday Times and The Sunday Business Post. He has contributed to publications such as First Things, the Human Life Review and the Wall Street Journal ( Europe edition). Currently he is working freelance and contributes weekly columns to The Irish Independent, Ireland's biggest selling daily paper, and the Irish Catholic. He appears regularly on Irish radio and television current affairs programmes.

Richard Dawkins was educated at Oxford University and has taught zoology at the universities of California and Oxford. He is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. His books about evolution and science include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and, most recently, The God Delusion.

Copyright © 2006 RTE radio
 

---

[Alamo-Girl]

You wrote: "To not have free will wouldn't stop you from making choices." Okay. But what kind of choices?

LOLOL! I had the same reaction. A circuit board does not make choices, it executes logic. Software is the same albeit not hard-wired.

The metaphysical naturalist (atheist) view is that "all that there is" is matter in all its motions, microscope to telescope. The necessary consequence of that line of thought is that the "mind is what the brain does" that "there is no ghost in the machine."

That means the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen!

The atheist's "reality" (a false, second reality actually) - unfolds according to physical laws and physical constants only. What is called a "choice" is an illusion, it can cause nothing to happen. It is like a circuit board, cellular automata, or a phenomenon emerging from self-organizing complexity. The universe, in the atheist view, is executing its program.

Moreover, atheism fails on causation per se.

If not for time, events would not occur. If not for space, things would not be.

Every cosmology has a beginning and they all rely on space/time for causation. Yet there is nothing in the void of the beginning - no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no thing and especially no physical causation. There must be an uncaused cause of causation itself, i.e. God.

The chief difference between them, it seems to me, is that humans can work outside of their "programs" -- which is why they have free will, and why computers do not. FWIW.

Exactly so, my dear sister in Christ! Thank you for all of your outstanding posts.

[TrisB]

Hi huys, this is all good stuff, but I'm still going to brutally disagree though lol!

[computers are "determined," not free: They seemingly are "slaves" to their programs (and programmers) in a way a human being is not.]

Is this not just blind postulation? I would here accuse you of lack of imagination - why couldn't we ever make a robot who could spontaneously decide to write a sonnet? Ok this one is more tough, but play baseball with my buddies achieves several important human drives - social behavior creating trust - improving mutual survival prospects, male urges to compete for obvious genetic reasons, the endorphin rush of exercise etc etc The point is that these are all just variables leading to finite desired end-states, no different in principle from a computer calculating an optimal course of action e.g. a robot calculating the shortest route to something. Sure one is more complicated, but is that not irrelevant?

[human beings (and computers) are neither "orderly" nor "chaotic" (as a rule). The chief difference between them, it seems to me, is that humans can work outside of their "programs" ]

How can something be neither orderly or chaotic? As I said, a "commuting" mixture is nothing different. Can humans really work outside their programs? Surely if I do something, I have to learn it first? Learning is a fascinating subject, and it starts often with freely associative attempts and empathic mimicking of others. Aside things which we do randomly, we generally have to create a subroutine describing what to do, before we do it. Yes yes we can write our own subroutines, but we only do so under the guidance of other ones, or as a learning process. Once written, it is then by definition not outside our programming. Our superior ability to learn compared with computers is on a sliding scale, and is irrelevant. It only reflects our current level of engineering expertise. The spontaneous desire to write sonnets arises out of a huge matrix of social phenomena, in a manor as to be inconceivably unpredictable - our minds see themselves so rich in complexity that they appear to "come alive". Sure our minds are complex, but again this is an issue of scale not substance. (Have you never marveled at the unpredictability and spontaneity of Microsoft products to go SEEMINGLY outside their programming?? Technically they don't, its just we cant explain why sometimes)

[you have ruled out a possible answer to the question of "what it could possibly be" in advance.]

Aren't all arguments based on axioms? Having them is not inherently wrong. Attack the axioms (order/chaos) if you must.

[TChris]

Silly people. Dawkins has been trying patiently to explain it to you. He is the one who is omniscient, so it's clear that all who disagree with him, including the writers of the Old Testament, were tragically wrong. If only Mr. Dawkins had been alive then to enlighten them.

[TrisB]

Thanks for your reply. Your description of the atheist view is accurate to the way I see it, just on your last paragraph:

[Every cosmology has a beginning and they all rely on space/time for causation. Yet there is nothing in the void of the beginning ... There must be an uncaused cause of causation itself, i.e. God. ]

Classic situation - your argument is self contradicting. Cant you see that if you reject something purely because it is uncaused, THEN YOU MUST REJECT AN UNCAUSED GOD. God is thus absolutely not a solution to the problem of creation.

On the flipside, if you accept an infinitely old God (not requiring a creation), then you could equally accept the idea of an eternal cosmos, and don't need a God to solve the problem of creation. You are not solving the problem, you are evading it.

[TrisB]

Whether in jest or not, this statement:

[Silly people. Dawkins has been trying patiently to explain it to you. He is the one who is omniscient, so it's clear that all who disagree with him, including the writers of the Old Testament, were tragically wrong. If only Mr. Dawkins had been alive then to enlighten them.]

..is very unfair. Dawkins never claims to know everything, and accusing him him sarcastically of this is obviously useless. How can you possibly discredit someone on the grounds that they don't know everything?

[TChris]

..is very unfair. Dawkins never claims to know everything, and accusing him him sarcastically of this is obviously useless. How can you possibly discredit someone on the grounds that they don't know everything?

You've got to be joking!

Dawkins is judging the writings of the Old Testament by his own standards of modern-day political correctness. Notice that he even uses the modern terms for his criticisms. He's just served up a custom-flavored version of begging the question: There is no God, because God wouldn't establish a morality that is so offensive to me. He presumes to know how a personal God should and would behave at the same time that he disputes the very possibility!

That's a particularly special kind of hubris.

[jwalsh07]

Creation is not a problem for creationists Tris. On the other hand, it is a huge problem for methodological naturalists as witnessed by Albert Einstein adding a constant to avoid a creation event in his field equations.

There is no physics extant, Quantum or Newtonian, that can explain matter and energy ex nihilo but one can have faith that God did it.

I know this puts more of a burden on the naturalists than the creationists but that's the nature of the beasts.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Classic situation - your argument is self contradicting. Cant you see that if you reject something purely because it is uncaused, THEN YOU MUST REJECT AN UNCAUSED GOD. God is thus absolutely not a solution to the problem of creation.

Not at all. For one thing, you are making the presupposition of time as a line instead of a plane or brane (Einstein.) And geometric physics strongly suggests additional dimensions, both spatial and temporal (Vafa, Wesson.)

The sense of causation and an arrow of time is event oriented. But were it not for time, events would not occur. Likewise, were it not for space, things would not exist.

No so-called random event can occur in the absence of space/time, so they are only pseudo-random. And we cannot say a thing is random in the system anyway when we don't even know what the system "is."

Geometry is the presupposition of all cosmologies whether cyclic, ekpyrotic, multi-verse, multi-world, inflationary, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.

More importantly, it is an obviously illogical argument that the uncaused cause must be caused.

To the contrary, the void in which all cosmologies must begin has no geometry whatsoever; there is no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no thing and most especially no causation in the void. As our resident physicist put it "existence exists."

The Hebrew term for God as the Creator in the void is Ayn Sof The term basically means “no-thing” — One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.

Infinity is merely boundarylessness - but there are no things in the void to which boundaries would apply - no geometry of any kind - only existence - transcending and singular. Existence exists.

Or as God said of Himself, I AM that I AM.

Another way to meditate on the void is consider the difference between zero and null. Zero in a number sequence such as "301" means there are no tens. If it were null, tens do not exist at all.

The void is not merely zero spatial and temporal dimensions. It is null, no space, no time, no causation.

Again, only God can be the uncaused cause of the beginning.

[TrisB]

Thankyou all three, I'll address you in turn.

TChris - Yes Dawkins does judge the old testament relative to the modern zeitgeist (as he wrote), and makes no illusion of it. I think he is justified to reject the, at worst, genocidal aspects of the old testament, and this is an accurate reflection of almost everyone on the planet's opinion. This is certainly not just about Dawkins' personal views. We cannot rob ourselves of the ability to make such stark moral judgments on the grounds that we don't know what god would want. Dawkings is not putting himself on a moral throne, but merely leveling the playing field saying that morality cannot objectively be derived from scripture.

Anyway, why can't we decide for ourselves collectively? Paraphrasing Galileo, why would god give us the ability to think, and then not have us not use it?

jwalsh: [Creation is not a problem for creationists ] Indeed not, but our friend tried previously to reason physically that a God must exist to solve this problem, which it doesn't.

Alamo-girl: [Again, only God can be the uncaused cause of the beginning] Not sure you have grasped the nub here. Ok clearly you are DEFINING God as something that is uncaused. How can you argue that the only thing that solves causelessness is a custom-made concept purposefully defined as being uncaused? As I said, it doesn't solve the problem - its like defining the slepojebog as something which hypothetically cures cancer, therefor the cure for cancer is slepojebog. Lets all celebrate!

But seriously, why in principle can't a physical phenomenon be uncaused if God can? Surely If God exists in a plane where causality doesn't exist, why can't a purely physical phenomena from this plane exist, and govern our universe? Why is it requisite that uncaused phenomena must be godly, being the guy you prey to etc. What is inherent to these personal-god characteristics which allow God to be uncaused? Why would God being able to read our minds and influence people etc have forbearance on whether he needed a designer? Why must you associate the two? I think you're just trying to find a logical platform to package your illogical beliefs within, which wouldn't hold up on there own.

Thankyou all for reading my musings and replying!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

But seriously, why in principle can't a physical phenomenon be uncaused if God can?

Sigh… Once again, because any physical phenomenon is by definition in space/time.

Remember this:

Were it not for time, events would not occur.

Were it not for space, things would not exist.

It is "about" the geometry of physical reality. But evidently the geometric physics has escaped you for you also said:

Surely If God exists in a plane where causality doesn't exist, why can't a purely physical phenomena from this plane exist, and govern our universe?

Any “thing” or “event” - including a phenomenon – which exists “in a plane” or membrane (or brane) - or as a plane or membrane or brane --- is by definition “in” space/time.

Moreover, no “thing” or “event” can exist in the absence of the space/time continuum. And that therefore is the bottom line of causality in physical cosmology and why there had to have been a beginning ex nihilio.

Remember that although our vision and minds are limited to a 4 dimensional comprehension (3 of space and 1 of time) – additional spatial and temporal dimensions are both possible and necessary to explain the phenomena we observe.

Take matter for instance. Of the critical density of the universe, 5% is ordinary matter, 25 % is dark matter (high gravity like the center of galaxies) and 70% is dark energy (which has a likeness to negative gravity causing the universe to expand creating space/time as it does).

But neither Fermilab nor CERN have ever been able to make or observe ordinary matter (Higgs field/boson) – much less can dark matter and dark energy be put to empirical tests in a lab. Currently, physicists are proposing other theories to the Standard Model which will no doubt be embraced if the Higgs field/boson is not observed in the next round of tests at CERN.

Among these theories is the suggestion that matter in four dimensions is a shadow of momentum components of particles in a fifth dimension which we do not yet understand. Another theory (Wesson) is that matter in four dimension may be multiply imaged as much as 10⁸⁰ times from a single particle in the fifth time-like dimension.

And all of these physical phenomena are “in” space/time – because those additional spatial or temporal dimensions are part and parcel of the space/time continuum.

Why is it requisite that uncaused phenomena must be godly, being the guy you prey to etc. What is inherent to these personal-god characteristics which allow God to be uncaused?

Sigh … Once again, there can be no uncaused phenomena because phenomena occur “in” space/time. In the absence of space/time, they would not exist.

They are all therefore caused.

There are many universals, forms, qualia and other non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeal “things” which would likewise not exist in the absence of space/time. Among these are pain and pleasure, information (successful communication,) autonomy, mathematical structures, theories, intentions, physical laws, physical constants, threeness, treeness, redness and so on.

None of these things would exist in the absence of space/time - they are therefore the effect of a cause.

Moreover, causation itself is a non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal phenomenon which likewise cannot exist in the absence of space/time – and is therefore the effect of a cause.

The only possible uncaused cause of causation itself must by definition be beyond the space/time continuum per se - existence itself – uncaused and singular.

Moreover, this existence, uncaused and singular must also have wanted there to be a beginning. In other words, I AM is willful, having personality.

Or to put it another way, He caused causation per se. Causation didn’t exist until He gave rise to a beginning, of space, time, energy, matter, things, events, qualia, logic, laws, etc.

Why would God being able to read our minds and influence people etc have forbearance on whether he needed a designer? Why must you associate the two?

Your above questions make no sense to me. If you’d care to rephrase, I’ll try to respond.

[TrisB]

Bear with me here. Why is there only room outside spacetime for God? You are defining God as something outside the realm where physical things live, yet isn't God a thing in itself? Any thing which god is made of is still a thing, and if you insist on lumping all things INTO the cosmos then do the same with god. If you want to argue that god isn't a thing, then I would agree. But wouldn't he then be nothing? If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it. If at some point his proverbial hand would have to cross the boundary of the physical realm whenever he interacts with it. He however cannot do so without being part of it. If he doesn't ever interact with the physical realm then he is, as far as we are concerned, non existent.

[this existence, uncaused and singular must also have wanted there to be a beginning]

WHY!? Firstly, you have utterly disposed with the possibility of infinitely negative time existing (with time being zero at the big bang, say). I will address this first. Why don't we have a problem with infinitely POSITIVE time existing? When the heat-death of the universe occurs in infinitely positive time (as by 2nd law of t.d.) the universe stagnates into an ever-unchanging homogeneous infinitesimal goup. Time only has a direction as a part of our anthropocentric perception of the universe, that is of increasing entropy, yet isentropic particle interactions have no perception of temporal direction since they have no entropic signpost (many Feynman diagrams do violate causality as we know it - yet they are empirically correct). If the universe started as a zero, and was braught into finity then it will end (in the limit of infinite time, by 2nd l.o.t.d.) as a zero. (I assume you understand that. Even if god intervenes to stop this, then we either violate our presupposition that he is outside our spacetime, or put him inside our spacetime, where he must bow to the same rules we do)

A little lateral thought begs the question: isn't direction in time arbitrary? I think we are neurally equipped to perceive a temporal direction, and can thus accept an infinite future, yet why are we all so concerned with the opposite end? If our inability to comprehend infinitely negative time drives us to believe in a creator-god, then wouldn't we then need a destroyer-god at the end of time by the same logic? If we need to transition from a null to a zero we require a creator, yet why is this any more necessary than transitioning from a zero to a null, opposite to the creator-god? Do the laws of physics really still exist after the heat-death of the universe, any more than before its birth? (In equivalence to the "tree falling in the woods and not making a sound" argument). Why must the "rules" be created at one particular end of the universe - the beginning - and not the other?

What if the two ends are joined in a cyclic fashion? The cycle conceptually requires no beginning, since infinities are acceptable by its very nature. Then couldn't we rule out both Gods altogether? These situations are very fun to concoct and are not very instructive, but it goes to show that God is only STRICTLY confined to that which we cannot imagine. The more we think, the less we can assume about him.

Secondly, why must we lump together all the religious baggage into this otherworldly figure God, which we postulate to exist outside our spacetime. Even if my rantings above were flawed, finding a logical necessity for this figure IN NO WAY justifies or validates any religious standpoint, other than that there is some creator-God. It does not justify a personal-God, it does not validate any religious morality and it does not give him a beard! What else can we infer about this god figure, purely from logical speculation?

[I AM is willful, having personality]

Why did god will the universe to happen? Why couldn't it have been an accident? Why why why why? We KNOW nothing about god for sure. I don't think you can use science as a weapon to justify god, in the way you are trying to. Regards, Tris.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Why is there only room outside spacetime for God?

Not outside of space/time as it is but rather in the void of the beginning, i.e. in the beginning. The spiritual realm exists and is not necessarily altogether "in" the space/time continuum.

You are defining God as something outside the realm where physical things live, yet isn't God a thing in itself?

No, God is not a “thing” nor is He an “event.”

Any thing which god is made of is still a thing, and if you insist on lumping all things INTO the cosmos then do the same with god.

God is not made of any “thing.” He is. "I AM that I Am." In the void of the beginning, existence exists, uncaused and singular.

If you want to argue that god isn't a thing, then I would agree. But wouldn't he then be nothing?

Go back to the discussion of Ayn Sof - the Hebrew phrase for God in the beginning which means “no thing”, i.e. One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves.

If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it.

Absolutely a false presumption. I am living proof that he interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century.

If at some point his proverbial hand would have to cross the boundary of the physical realm whenever he interacts with it. He however cannot do so without being part of it. If he doesn't ever interact with the physical realm then he is, as far as we are concerned, non existent.

Another absolutely false presumption of boundary restrictions. Since God is the creator of “all that there is” – both heaven and earth, spiritual and physical – there is nothing of which anything can be made but His own will – whether by His creative will or His permissive will. And there is no limitation of His own will except that when He wills it, it is and therefore He cannot lie.

Firstly, you have utterly disposed with the possibility of infinitely negative time existing (with time being zero at the big bang, say). I will address this first. Why don't we have a problem with infinitely POSITIVE time existing? When the heat-death of the universe occurs in infinitely positive time (as by 2nd law of t.d.) the universe stagnates into an ever-unchanging homogeneous infinitesimal goup...

Again, infinity is boundarylessness. Infinity past is not the same thing as “no time” – neither would negative infinity past be the same thing as "no time." Infinity is geometric and therefore the same causation "bottom line" applies:

In the absence of time, events can not occur.

In the absence of space, things can not exist.

As an aside, the Steinhardt cyclic universe model has a beginning of real time. The rebooting of a universe does not reset real time to zero. It is considered a weakness in the model that it cannot obviate the need for a Creator.

A little lateral thought begs the question: isn't direction in time arbitrary?

Again, you keep insisting that time is a line and therefore there is an arrow of time (either direction.) Think of time as a plane. Time is geometric and that fact becomes abundantly clear when you add even one more temporal dimension to a model.

I think we are neurally equipped to perceive a temporal direction, and can thus accept an infinite future, yet why are we all so concerned with the opposite end?

The discovery that the universe is expanding – and therefore had a real beginning – was the single most theological statement ever to come out of science. Before that, atheists could take comfort in the notion of a steady state universe.

If our inability to comprehend infinitely negative time drives us to believe in a creator-god, then wouldn't we then need a destroyer-god at the end of time by the same logic? If we need to transition from a null to a zero we require a creator, yet why is this any more necessary than transitioning from a zero to a null, opposite to the creator-god?

A new heaven and new earth does not require a “new” God. The existence which exists, I AM, is not diminished by the collapse of a space/time continuum nor by the creation of a space/time continuum.

Do the laws of physics really still exist after the heat-death of the universe, any more than before its birth? (In equivalence to the "tree falling in the woods and not making a sound" argument). Why must the "rules" be created at one particular end of the universe - the beginning - and not the other?

Again, you are the one insisting on the existence of physical laws – in this case causality – to begin space/time. And I keep asserting again and again – there can be no physical causality (or any physical laws or constants) in the absence of space/time – because in the absence of time, events cannot occur and in the absence of space, things cannot exist. There must be an uncaused cause.

What if the two ends are joined in a cyclic fashion? The cycle conceptually requires no beginning, since infinities are acceptable by its very nature. Then couldn't we rule out both Gods altogether? These situations are very fun to concoct and are not very instructive, but it goes to show that God is only STRICTLY confined to that which we cannot imagine. The more we think, the less we can assume about him.

Again, infinity is merely boundarylessness. The Steinhardt cyclic model requires geometry for physical causation – as do brane models, multi-verse, loop models and so forth. All of these models must have a beginning of the geometry itself - for there to be physical causation.

Secondly, why must we lump together all the religious baggage into this otherworldly figure God, which we postulate to exist outside our spacetime. Even if my rantings above were flawed, finding a logical necessity for this figure IN NO WAY justifies or validates any religious standpoint, other than that there is some creator-God. It does not justify a personal-God, it does not validate any religious morality and it does not give him a beard! What else can we infer about this god figure, purely from logical speculation?

One can infer from logical speculation that God exists. But no one can get from that knowledge to knowing Him personally without a revelation from God Himself. That is why it is impossible to know Him without being “born again” and it is impossible to be born again without being called by Him (given “ears to hear.”)

Why did god will the universe to happen?

In speaking of Ayn Sof, the Jewish mystics assert that God wanted to reveal Himself. That assertion is confirmed by the Spirit who indwells me.

God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways, in this order of importance: through Jesus Christ, through the indwelling Spirit, through Scripture and through Creation, both physical and spiritual.

The purpose of the revelation is not this heaven and earth but the one to come. Jesus Christ was God enfleshed – not to establish a religion – but rather a family. That is the context of the new heaven and new earth.

Why couldn't it have been an accident? Why why why why? We KNOW nothing about god for sure. I don't think you can use science as a weapon to justify god, in the way you are trying to.

You may know nothing about God for sure. But that does not apply to me. Not at all. I’ve known Him personally for nearly a half century.

And no, I am not using science as a weapon to justify God. I am pointing out that reason alone should be enough for any intelligent man to observe that God exists. Only a fool could miss the evidence though certainly many may resent what they see, wanting to be the captain of their ship and the master of their own destiny.

[TrisB]

You have tried to systematically reject everything I have said, without a single convincing argument, relying only on dogma, formulae and rhetoric. Please argue only in a logical manor because it is, I fear, the only conduit of communication we share.

[I am living proof that he interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century]

You are most certainly not living proof of god! If you want to argue this point, you must prove god is needed for life to exist! - which you haven't. By all means hold such an opinion, but it isn't proof. Knowing Jesus for x years doesn't make him exist any more than an imaginary friend.

[Since God is the creator of “all that there is” ...]

Obvious unproved presupposition. "I am right because I am right" is what you are saying. Try again.

[Again, you keep insisting that time is a line and therefore there is an arrow of time]

Read my article again, and you will see I considered time as directionless and thus geometrical in nature. Planar time does nothing to detract from the argument.

[Since God is the creator of “all that there is...therefor therefor therefor therefor therefor] see above

[One can infer from logical speculation that God exists]

Really? Please put forward your argument without circular reasoning. Then answer why this tells us anything about the colour of God's beard.

[You may know nothing about God for sure. But that does not apply to me. Not at all. I’ve known Him personally for nearly a half century.]

What is knowing? If all perception is just electrical sensory information, then we can never know anything beyond all doubt. What is illusionary and what isn't? What matters is the using of our brain to understand probabilities of what might be. I am fully aware of the power of the human mind to distort reality in a manor to protect the ego (and would suggest reading some V S Ramachandran if you're interested). Knowing Christ might mean hearing voices in your head - but can we be so sure, given that perfectly sane people have been recording denying ownership of a paralysed limb on the grounds of protecting the ego. Indeed, I've heard of even worse. It is a probabilistic approach, our perception, and I fear your mechanism for such an approach has been corrupted by higher psychological needs. Religion is a cradle for the ego, pampering to its insecurities and blinding us selectively to the inconsistencies whilst allowing us to join any logical "dots" together to suit our purposes.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

What is knowing? If all perception is just electrical sensory information, then we can never know anything beyond all doubt. What is illusionary and what isn't?

This is at the root of the difference between us and the reason we will never be able to communicate effectively.

To you as an atheist, all knowledge derives from sensory perception.

My epistemology or “how I know what I know and how certain I am that I know it” is completely different as follows:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue; e.g., that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — it didn’t come from me.

2. , Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.

Caveat: Many Christians of good conscience are quite comfortable relying on the doctrines and traditions of faithful spiritual leaders, but I personally eschew the doctrines and traditions of all men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or whomever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, David, etc.) do not fall into this category for me since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He authenticates the Scriptures personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings — such as the geocentricity interpretations of the early church or any of my own similar musings.

3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.

4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.

5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.

6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.

7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.

8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know.…

9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that.…

11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.

12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

We do not have the same knowledge base much less the same order of value for different types of knowledge.

The first two on my list – the most important, most valued and most certain types of knowledge to me - do not exist for you. They are not transmuted into a knowledge form which is within your sense of “reality”, i.e. sensory perception – nor will they be on anyone's demand.

So you speak words without knowledge as follows:

It is a probabilistic approach, our perception, and I fear your mechanism for such an approach has been corrupted by higher psychological needs. Religion is a cradle for the ego, pampering to its insecurities and blinding us selectively to the inconsistencies whilst allowing us to join any logical "dots" together to suit our purposes.

The result is as if I am speaking in one language, you are listening in another language. For instance,

me: [I am living proof that he (God) interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century]

You: You are most certainly not living proof of god! If you want to argue this point, you must prove god is needed for life to exist! - which you haven't. By all means hold such an opinion, but it isn't proof. Knowing Jesus for x years doesn't make him exist any more than an imaginary friend.

My statement was not that I am living proof of God but rather that I am living proof that He interacts in the space/time continuum. It was in response to your assertion that: ”If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it.”

To the contrary, every thing I have posited in our sidebar discussion as evidence to an intelligent man that God exists is based on the beginning of "all that there is" - i.e. causality. I haven't even begun to mention other evidence known to me.

So you see if we cannot communicate on such simple things, if every statement has to be parsed and clarified - and assertions restated over and again - then there is really no point in continuing.

But it has been fun and interesting. Thank you for the discussion!

[TrisB]

Thankyou Alamo-girl, I do appreciate your time and attention on the matter, just a couple final things would plague me if I didn't say them.

I feel you have partitioned your epistemology rather unnecessarily. All the things you have listed are still just sensory information. I challenge you on this. Even if god did speak to you, would you not have to hear him in some way? You don't need to be told that hearing is sensory information, even if not done by your ears in the conventional manor.

Its just that you have deliberately separated out different aspects of sensory information so that you don't have to apply the same objective probabilistic analysis to all of them. If you have spiritual understanding in your memory, then accessing that memory is tantamount to sensory stimulation, is it not? We, by definition, perceive absolutely nothing other than what our senses tell us - any supernatural qualia we perceive is still perceived by our "divine radio antenna", and is thus still just a sense. Why would you be willing to question your senses on a matter of a crucial piece of scientific data, but not on a divine radio broadcast? If religion is so important to you, shouldn't you be even MORE willing to question the authenticity of this sensory information, given its significance? You have shut up shop and refused to question the beliefs you stand to benefit from.

We differ in opinion on whether God is logically necessary to explain creation, and I don't think either of us will budge. I would you say the "proof" you stand by is foggy at best. A universally accepted theory of, say, gravity is something I hope you'd accept, but genuine contrary evidence could sway your view despite its ubiquity. Why do you make such an unfaltering stand by the creator-god theory when it clearly doesn't stand on such firm turf? (It has no measured evidence, and stands only from greatly debated logical musings) You grant "theological knowledge" exemption from critical probabilistic analysis through fear of loosing the benefits it brings you (which I don't doubt). I have great respect for theists who don't do this.

Aside: Before you say that x-billion people believe in god therefor probabilty is on your side, I would point that despite the efforts of x-billion people (all sharing more or less the same phsycological flaws) not one has any substantiable evidence. Hmm, x-billion negative results.

Anyway, I thankyou for your time and effort, and you have raised my awareness of the religious justification for a creator-god. In turn, I hope my words have had at least some resonance with you. It's a shame we cant meet eye to eye on some of these issues, but maybe the price of mental-freedom is eternal vigilance. Regards, Tris

[Recovering_Democrat]

bump

[Puddleglum]

The Universe is a Box.

I think the term "universe" itself is an expression of faith. It's a philosphical term meaning "everything we can ever know." It's one notch beyond science but can't be proven itself.

"Universe", like "environment," is sort of an athropomorphism of a collection of facts, with the perspective (and hence the thing's personality) chosen and imposed by the individual.

[William Terrell]

Ravi can't write too well, but he can sure talk. He has a photographic memory. He would slice Mr. Dawkins into very thin slices. Incidentally, my girlfriend and her family know the Zacarias' personally. Has their private phone number.

I would pay to see Zacarias debate Dawkins, even if I had to take out a loan for it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your parting reply!

I had hoped to be gone from this sidebar by now, but evidently my points were not clearly made, so I will try one last time to explain why we cannot communicate.

My previous reply to you was carefully worded to be as gentle as possible. But I can see it missed its mark altogether, because you replied as follows:

Its just that you have deliberately separated out different aspects of sensory information so that you don't have to apply the same objective probabilistic analysis to all of them.

Therefore I will be frank.

When I said that you are speaking “words without knowledge” I was hoping you would understand that to mean “you are speaking of things you know nothing about.” The above is a case in point for you have attributed motives to me that you could not possibly know. You cannot read my mind.

And concerning the characterization of knowledge per se even the term “objective probabilistic analysis” is oxymoronic because probability theory itself has an underlying bias whether the mathematician chooses Combinatorics or a Frequentist or Bayesian approach. The sampling choices affect the distributions in Order Statistics – therefore, the inferences drawn for the continuous based on the distribution of the discrete cannot rise to "objectivity."

We differ in opinion on whether God is logically necessary to explain creation, and I don't think either of us will budge. I would you say the "proof" you stand by is foggy at best.

Not at all, Tris. The second point which I tried to make as gently as possible in the previous post is that your reading comprehension “needs improvement.”

The points about causality and beginnings which I raised with you are not at all "foggy." They have been tested in many a debate on this very forum with some of the most heavily credentialed Freepers imaginable in a variety of disciplines – from Physics to Philosophy.

The bottom line, applying causality to physical cosmology, is that "existence exists" regardless of how one understands that existence – but this point has escaped you and I cannot help you to obtain it.

Now, before I go, I do wish to engage a few issues raised in your last:

I feel you have partitioned your epistemology rather unnecessarily.

I am not surprised at your assessment because you have declared yourself an atheist. Therefore, for you, all that exists is matter in all its motions and the mind is what the brain does. Thus in your last, you have subordinated spiritual hearing and memory (and perhaps all other types of knowledge) to sub-types of sensory perception. Matter in all its motions is reality to you, i.e. it is all that you have.

If religion is so important to you, shouldn't you be even MORE willing to question the authenticity of this sensory information, given its significance?

It might help you to spend some time meditating on the “observer problem.” You might start with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and move on to wave particle duality, Schrödinger’s cat (quantum superposition) and non-locality v local realism.

If you do this then perhaps you will appreciate that – in questions such as “what is reality” - the observer is part of that which he seeks to observe and thus his determinations can never rise to “objective truth.”

Another example is the limitation of our vision and minds to a four dimensional construct – three of space and one of time. If you were able to see from a higher dimensional aspect, your arm might be here, your torso might be there. IOW, that your arms and torso are connected from a four dimensional worldview – does not mean this is “objective truth.”

Likewise you cannot declare something is random in the system when you don’t know what the system “is.”

And likewise you cannot declare that God does not exist when you have no knowledge whatsoever beyond sensory perception of matter in all its motions.

[MHGinTN]

Your post zeroed in on the essence of it all ... Dawkins assumes his own status as godhood and thus moral responsibility which begins and ends with himself. From such an arrogant position it is near impossible to even comprehend his own error in reasoning, yet the error is blatant. Dawkins may have free will as his own god, but no one else may have free will if their choices obstruct his will. Truth is, only with a God of the creation in which we are creatures may we each have free will since we answer ultimately to the highest authority ... which is not Richard Dawkins, not any government, not any whim of nature or even the natural destruction of that which is matter in nature, for the soul is more than the matter in the mechanism and the spirit is more than the soul of the mechanism. Someone might want to ask Dawkins by what standard Stalin was evil or bad ... alas, Richard will obfuscate the obvious even from his own mind because he is unable to be free to be loved by his creator since he holds himself to be god to himself.