主播大秀

When he's on Will, could you ask him to cite the last article that he read on the evidential problem of evil?

He may well be up to speed - I'd just like to know if he thinks we're stupid.

I simply cannot contain myself, after "listening again" to this weeks' show. I am a 1st generation Canadian with a Mother from south Armagh, who has been listening to 主播大秀 Radio Ulster for 9 years now. The accent of Aaron Boyd on this show is possibly the ugliest Ulster accent I have yet to hear! I have yet to comprehend how such a tiny place like the North of Ireland can have so many distinct accents in the first place!

Regarding the response of the Irish Catholic Church to the child-abuse scandal; my own Mother, in the Crossmaglen area, was instructed to "look over" her 2 younger brothers who were altar boys in the mid 1930's. I would say that all these abuses trace back to the Vatican, which wanted to protect the "universal Church" at all costs. My own experience in my life has told me that one only hits out at some critic if one is uncomfortable with one's own past, when said past comes back to haunt a person or institution! Now 51, I still try to live my life through the teaching of Christ, but have not set foot in any RC Church (other than for a funeral or wedding) for over 20 years. For one good thing about a secular society is that no-one is not forced to have an open show of faith through attending a mass of any kind, unless one wants to do so. For "faith" is, above all else, personal!

I was interested to read Julian Baggini's article entitled: "The New Atheist Movement is destructive". It can be found here:



(If this link is broken then you can find the article listed in the Wikipedia article about Julian).

In this article he writes:

"It is only because of historical accident that atheism is not widely recognised as a world-view in its own right. This world view is essentially a very general form of naturalism, in which there are not two kinds of stuff, the natural and the supernatural, but one." He goes on to say, "Such a worldview needs defending..." (Please look it up and read on. I don't want to quote too much - for obvious moderatorial reasons).

Now some of the lesser minds who contribute their views on various blogs (including, I have say, W&T) do not seem to have grasped what Dr Baggini asserts - that atheism is indeed a world-view, which "needs defending" - and therefore can be open to investigation and criticism. I have often read the whiney pleas that "atheism isn't a belief, but the lack of belief, so please don't criticise my views" sort of tripe (classic stuff! There was a whole rash of those on the New Statesman site recently. These are the sort of comments that ought to be pinned up on the wall of the philosophy department for a bit of light relief after a challenging lecture on epistemology).

And, of course, if atheism is a world-view, that means there are moral and ethical implications to it. Now I wonder who it was who criticised me for wanting atheists to be morally consistent with their world-view? Hmmm. If a world-view means anything, it means you have to live by it, if you claim to believe in it. Not a difficult thing to grasp, that.

Of course, I don't agree with Baggini's claim that this "general form of naturalism" is true (which he states elsewhere in the article), but I do agree that the philosophy behind atheism is indeed known as "naturalism". This is something I have been trying to get across for quite some time, but unfortunately that which is obvious to a professional philosopher - such as Dr Baggini - doesn't seem to have filtered down to the masses, who are still sipping their starters called "straw man soup" and "caricature consomme". Will such people ever get to the main course, I wonder?

(Oh, and don't forget to add a bit of cabbage to your starter now, boys!)

Now I wonder who it was who criticised me for wanting atheists to be morally consistent with their world-view? Hmmm. If a world-view means anything, it means you have to live by it, if you claim to believe in it. Not a difficult thing to grasp, that.

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to criticise you for making one dimensional arguments on subjects you know next to nothing about.

grokesx, you said to LSV

"I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to criticise you for making one dimensional arguments on subjects you know next to nothing about."

You are very right to do so, but there is room for more. LSV regularly claims all the evidence points the other way than to evolution. If he has a better explanation and such overwhelming evidence, then let him present it. I've invited him to do so several times (see e.g. here, or here, or here). But nothing of course, all we get is the usual unconstructive negativity from believers against science that has shown their beliefs to be unfounded.

Care to back up your claims for a change LSV and provide something knowledgeable rather than the endless stream of negativity? Something quantitative even perhaps, rather than the usual pseudo-philosophy?

"the usual unconstructive negativity from believers against science"

Care to elaborate? Something quantitative? Say comparing the rates of atheists who believe in homeopathy and consult their stars signs? Or who believe that Earth has been visited by aliens?

Or "New Scientist" writers who think that we might be living in a computer simulation?

GV

Graham of the gaps,

I don't have data on atheist believers in homeopathy or aliens visiting. But here is something else that compares answers from atheist believers to those of christians on questions related to beliefs. Enjoy.

LOL!! lovin@ it all!!
I have my hands up - I am going to make a one dimensional statement on a subject I know next to nothing about.
"To see the universe in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
If u have a response to this I bet it is the same emotion 4 all of u.You just express it differently depending on whether u r christain or atheist.
I would say your first response is your truest - so u r more alike than u think u r.

#5 - grokesx -

"I tend to criticise you for making one dimensional arguments on subjects you know next to nothing about."

Oh, anyone can say something like that - void, as usual, of any argument or evidence. I'd be most intrigued to see your "multi-dimensional arguments"! If you are so bright, then come on, let's see your evidence. Or do I sense a kind of totalitarian elitism here? It looks something like this: only "scientists" - meaning, of course, scientists, who toe the right party line (and thus deny their own claims to intellectual honesty and rigour) - have a right to make any intellectual claims, and those "peasants" and "serfs" who fail to conform to what their "betters" tell them, are simply regarded as "those who know next to nothing" about these subjects.

Funny that those who are always going on about the need for evidence can only respond with patronising insults and unsubstantiated statements. It rather reveals the flimsiness of their arguments.

As for PK's complaint, I have not been criticising evolution as much as "naturalism" - the two are not the same thing (and whatever comments I have made about evolution, have been in the context of arguing that that untestable, unproven and speculative theory is the result of a naturalistic interpretation of the empirical data). Naturalism (or "metaphysical naturalism" if you prefer) is, as Julian Baggini rightly points out, the philosophy behind atheism.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the debate about "theism" versus "atheism" lies in the realm of philosophy, not the domain of the natural sciences. Care to provide any evidence or logical argument to challenge that claim? I'd really like to see you try.

Science only deals with an aspect of reality. It cannot, by its very nature, explain everything, and when it attempts to do so, it is only through making a leap of faith into the arms of (metaphysical) naturalism - in other words, by being "religiously" dogmatic. It's called "naturalism of the gaps" and it's irrational, since it provides no coherent argument to validate "reason" itself.

Dutch Book

31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in Paranormal Activity - Bigfoot, Atlantis, UFOs etc. Only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did. According to "What Americans Really Believe" a Baylor University study.

GV

Or do I sense a kind of totalitarian elitism here? It looks something like this: only "scientists" - meaning, of course, scientists, who toe the right party line (and thus deny their own claims to intellectual honesty and rigour) - have a right to make any intellectual claims, and those "peasants" and "serfs" who fail to conform to what their "betters" tell them, are simply regarded as "those who know next to nothing" about these subjects.

What was that about whiney pleas?

only 8% of people who attend worship believe in UFOS??
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."EINSTEIN
If we dont believe in the mystery of UFOs why r we spending so much money in space exploration, SETI, goldilocks planets and hoping to find other worlds like ourselves, and why does NASA speculate on first contact?
but what would i know I still have my hands in the air!!.

I think mystery is mystery - if it makes a human strive for truth and knowledge should we really care what causes it - after all it is better than living with their eyes closed all the time.

LSV, post 10,

Ok, after banging on about science, evidence, etc. we now get your claim that that was never what it was about, that remarks of a scientific nature were only in the context of a broader debate etc. Duh, when earlier in the very same post you write to grokesx "If you are so bright, then come on, let's see your evidence." Such an ungracious and obvious retreat. And about as hopeless as Grahams god of the gaps arguing on the matter of consciousness. And equally not worthy of further arguing. Speaking of whom......


Graham of the gaps, post 11,

That sounds surprising to me. Shall look into it some time, my schedule permitting.

"And equally not worthy of further arguing..."

You use arguments? When? Where? I gotta see those!

Graham of the gaps,

The argument I was referring to when I mentioned your name was the one that you don't have a strong (or 'superior' as you called it) case for theism to explain consciousness, as your position is summarized as

"
1) Either Theism is true or Physicalism is true.
2) If Physicalism is true there are no non-physical facts
3) But there are non-physical facts
4) Therefore physicalism is false
5) Therefore Theism is true
"

An 1105 word elaboration of your god of the gaps argument doesn't change it from still being a god of the gaps argument (how brilliant to come up with a god of the gaps argument in the first place and not realize it, especially as you are an RE teacher). I've seen you trying to convince grokesx and Helio on the open thread and noted with amusement that they also concluded that you were making a god of the gaps argument or something close to it.

But don't cry over it please my sweet.:)

Of course Dan, that proves you're right! Grokes and Helio agree with you. of course Bernard and Peter Morrow agreed with me, but they don't count because they're not scientists !
And of course #16 is a wonderful argument...premise *for the sake of argument*, further premises, provisional conclusion. Reasons to reject premises answered, reasons to accept premises proffered.

You've mastered the form, really. Recognised the conventions instantly, you did. I'm jealous.

And #16 doesn't show that you weren't paying the least attention to what I actually wrote! In that thread! Not at all!

I think Jonathan summed your "arguments" up nicely on the can "Science Answer Moral Questions" Thread. I noted with amusement that you disappeared soon after.

It's all just bluff and insult really... a shame. You seem to be a nice guy. Seriously, I really like your posts, and they're funny, and entertaining.

Insightful, logical? Nah..

GV

"As they missed..,
The sail on the comet,with the wind on their heels,
Flags, rags, ferryboats, scimitars and scarves,
While arguing about,
Every precious dream & vision under the stars,
Unicorn & cannonballs, palaces & piers,
LOL, who really sees the crescent,
And who sees the whole of the stars!!" Ripped off waterboys "Whole of the moon."

u have been very entertaining but i have to sign off !! Thnks

Dan the Illogical Scientist: My friends say you've advanced a God of the Gaps argument.
Me: But my arguments aren't formed in the same way as God of the Gaps arguments.
Dan the Illogical Scientist: But MY friend are scientists..


Dan the Illogical Scientist: These quotes prove you were advancing a God - of - the Gaps argument
Me: But quoting people out of context doesn't prove anything...
Dan the Illogical Scientist: Not for ordinary people. But I've had scientific training!

#14 - PK -

"Ok, after banging on about science, evidence, etc. we now get your claim that that was never what it was about, that remarks of a scientific nature were only in the context of a broader debate etc. "

Well, all this comment shows is that you haven't been paying attention...
...as if you really believe that the whole debate about evolution has absolutely nothing to do with philosophical matters and one's view of reality?! What planet are you living on, mate? And why on earth do you come onto this blog attacking people's belief in God, if all you are concerned about is "science"? Strictly speaking, science has absolutely nothing to say about this question, and can only claim to do so when it strays into an area beyond its remit. If you honestly think that science does have something to say about it, then either you have a highly distorted view concerning the scope of the scientific method, or you are being somewhat less than honest (or both).

It is obvious why so many people obsess about the question of origins; the subject has a direct relationship to how we see reality as a whole - and, of course, our world-view has deep personal implications (as I am sure you are aware). But if you can't see that, then well.... I won't say what I really think...

#12 - grokesx -

"What was that about whiney pleas?"

There is such a thing as being able to make a proper category distinction, before you accuse me of inconsistency. When certain atheists are told that they hold a belief (hardly an insult, is it!), they resort to a ridiculous claim that their viewpoint should be beyond criticism, since the burden of proof should always be on "believers". As they apparently do not possess a "belief" (ha ha!), then there is no requirement on them to defend their point of view (so they think). It's called intellectual cowardice - hence my phrase "whiney pleas".

But your comment to me was hardly in the same category. It was an insult (and quite an unimaginative one), and I responded by discerning the conceit that the content of the insult was conveying.

But your comment to me was hardly in the same category. It was an insult (and quite an unimaginative one), and I responded by discerning the conceit that the content of the insult was conveying.

Nooo. You responded with a whine about elitism, which is the last refuge of the intellectually vacuous.

As for the insult, it didn鈥檛 need much imagination because it came from reading your posts. For instance, just as there is more than one sort of Christian and no-one who didn鈥檛 know his Calvinists from his Catholics and his Quakers would presume to tell them what they believe (actually a polite person wouldn鈥檛 do that anyway), so your weak/implicit atheist ain鈥檛 going to let you tell him he has got to believe what a strong/explicit one does just because you say so. If someone doesn鈥檛 believe in god in the same way he doesn鈥檛 believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Holy Hooves Never be Shod), then your wibbles about naturalism are irrelevant, whatever Julian Baggini says.

Which brings me to your banging on about naturalism/empiricism being self refuting as if this is some sort of knock down for science/atheism/natural selection without even beginning to grasp what the concept of methodological naturalism means in the practice of science. I think I鈥檝e probably said that before, in a considerably shorter sentence.

You talk egregious nonsense about evolution - on this very thread you have called it that untestable, unproven and speculative theory without ever demonstrating (although it has been pointed out to you at least once) that you know what a testable theory is.

It's not as if this stuff isn't freely available these days. Nobody says you have to agree with it, or even understand it fully, but having it as a passing acquaintance would be good. I have a bit of a hunch, though, that you won鈥檛 bother looking, so here is highly truncated version of sciency weak atheism:

Science takes a position of methodological naturalism, ie assumes no supernatural agent is messing with the results. With each successful iteration of the theory/prediction/testing cycle that doesn鈥檛 break down because angels are playing with the instruments, the assumption of methodological naturalism is retained. If and when this proves not to be the case, it will be re-examined.

You will note that this process is not contingent on an acceptance of metaphysical naturalism and it allows a few interpretations of the position we are now in, ie that there is no known reason so far to junk methodological naturalism. The positions are:

1) There is no god or supernatural beings. Strong atheism and a holding to metaphysical naturalism. Go ahead and find someone who holds to this and have a natter. Please. I mean, really.
2) Deism. There is a god but she does not intervene in the world.
3) Agnosticism. We can never get to the bottom of this.
4) Weak atheism. That鈥檚 most of us, including Dawkins, although he calls himself a De Facto atheist. For us positions 1 and 2 are possible (3 is a bit wishy washy and we are upbeat about the possibilities of science), but the effect on how we live our lives in each case is the same. Theism, with all its claims of a god intervening in this world is implicitly rejected due to lack of evidence, but if that evidence comes along we will change our minds and shuffle our feet a lot.

And there it is. Now do us a favour. Tackle the argument without telling us what we have to believe. There are more dimensions than yours.

grokesx

"Theism, with all its claims of a god intervening in this world is implicitly rejected due to lack of evidence, but if that evidence comes along we will change our minds and shuffle our feet a lot. "

I'm curious. I've already asked a couple of people (I don't think you) who are not theists what sort of evidence they'd like, or the sort of thing which might pass for evidence of a theistic-a-ma-jummy, and I've been told, an arrangement of stars and a sign in the sky (which I suppose could be an arrangement of stars... if you were out at night). But it has occurred to me that either of these could be dismissed, or rejected, as one might reject the face of Jesus on a slice of toasted Nutty Crust; or, say, if all the hoo-ha happened and you were, like, busy, and you missed it, what then? Anyway if you thought there was a chance of evidence for theistic-a-ca-dabra turning up, what sort of thing would you be expecting?


And I know I'm being a bit flippant... but...

Like, would the fastest appearing post in the west count as evidence? It almost appeared before I clicked 'post comment'.

I'm going to time this one!!

01:21.4

Come on grokesx... you have to admit!!

@Peter

That's it. Consider me converted...

...or not. Tackled this on a thread sometime back. Answered prayers above chance would be good for starters. Serious healing - none of your placebo stuff, a regrown limb or something, that'd make me think a bit. Miracles. I like miracles, but not the "I'll allow thousands to die in an earthquake but let a couple survive in unlikely circumstances." That's just creepy and doesn't count.

I'm really not fussy. I'm sure He could think of something. He's an omnipotent being for crying out loud, am I expected to do all His thinking for Him?

Grokesx

Converted?... Praise the

Miracles?

A definite point of agreement to begin with, 鈥�...not the "I'll allow thousands to die in an earthquake but let a couple survive in unlikely circumstances." That's just creepy and doesn't count.鈥�

You鈥檙e right, they don鈥檛 count, indeed I might suggest that this kind of 鈥榤iracle鈥� is more than creepy. I mean what are we saying, that God gets the praise when people survive, but plate tectonics get the blame for people dying? Personally I have found this to be a limited outlook.

The trouble though is that any kind of miracle will raise as many questions as it answers, for example your 鈥渞egrown limb鈥� suggestion - you see, I鈥檇 have lots of 鈥榳hat ifs鈥�.

What if my limb regrows and yours doesn鈥檛?
What if someone says their limb has regrown but you didn鈥檛 see it happen?
How many regrown limbs would we need to see to be more or less convinced?
Would almost persuaded be good enough?
Would every generation need to experience regrown limbs, or would one account be enough?
What if God miraculously regrew limbs but not hearts, or kidneys.
How much miracle is enough?
What if someone regrew a limb and then kicked someone with it, or pulled a trigger?

The trouble I have with miracles is that sometimes they鈥檙e just unbelievable.

What if my limb regrows and yours doesn鈥檛?

I'm not chopping a limb off for anyone, thanks very much.

The thing about limb re-generation is that a single documented case would be enough to overturn much of what we know about human biology. Obviously, it has never happened before and there would be no way such a thing could be done by any presently understood process. So, questions of confirmation aside, this would be evidence of the supernatural. Those of us on the sceptical side of the fence would be scratching our heads because it could not be explained by placebo, spontaneous remission, God getting the credit for doctors' work and the like.

Anyway, we both know it is never going to happen, we'll be able to grow our own from cells before God decides to flex his miraculous muscles in that way, but that won't stop some religious people from insisting that they have a direct line to God and that prayers work and that He works in mysterious ways.

The thing is, I've shown you mine, now it's your turn. What would make you say, You know what, as far as I'm concerned, that about wraps it up for God"?

grokesx

I will answer your question, but not so fast!

Sorry, but you just can鈥檛 say, 鈥渜uestions of conformation aside鈥�, conformation would be critically important.

Why should I believe if I have not seen? If you told me something miraculous had happened why would I take you at your word? Unfortunately the evidence which you would accept requires that I take you (or someone) at your word unless God going to pull 鈥榓 rabbit out of a hat鈥� every other day or so and at some appointed place.

If I am to accept the premise of your suggestion of suitable evidence all my other questions are relevant too.

I ain鈥檛 chopping of a limb either but you didn鈥檛 answer the point, which is, how many people have to benefit for miracles to be fair, we do want fairness, don鈥檛 we?

And what about people misusing a miracle, don鈥檛 we have to ask questions about the nature of a person?

And how many miracles do we need?

But you want see the colour of my money, what would make me say, 鈥淵ou know what, as far as I'm concerned, that about wraps it up for God"?

First of all I don鈥檛 think there is any one thing, no particular magic trick which might bring down the curtain, I make no assumptions about my 鈥榝aith鈥�, no assumptions that it is 鈥榳rapped up鈥�, but as a starter for ten...

someone who was learning to love their enemy, like really loving them, not just doing it cos there was something in it for them... that might make me think twice. Does make me think twice.

And then there is the taste of beer, and laughter, and bluegrass, and blue grass (it is sometimes in a certain light), and eye contact, and the way dry sand blows over the wet stuff at the beach during a winter storm, and my kid's giggle, and wonky snowmen and... oh I don鈥檛 know...

Not that it鈥檚 wrapped up... more of a nagging doubt might be a way to put it.

And daisies.

And the sound of a campfire.

and raspberry ruffle ice-cream...

and the impression on my wife's finger when she takes off her ring...

...and yellow ochre tips on gorse bushes

even #FFC40C does it for me...

and Psalm singing, in Gallic...

and Bon Jovi...

and snow on the rusty back mudguard of an old Massey Ferguson... one I used to be able to start with a lolly stick...

and forgiveness...

and Van Gogh鈥檚 brush strokes...

and the scribbles once made by my then three year old on our living room wall in green crayon...

and penicillin...

and fractals... especially the frosty ones on glass in winter...

#21 - grokesx -

"Now do us a favour. Tackle the argument without telling us what we have to believe."

Telling people what they have to believe? Are you sure you're addressing your comment to the right person?

Unless it has slipped your notice, all I have been doing on this blog is exactly what you have been doing, namely, exercising my right to express my views. I am not aware that I have the power to force any horse to any trough, but I am flattered if you think that I do appear to be exercising that sort of influence.

I don't suppose for one minute that you might just possibly be trying to persuade others to accept your point of view? Please forgive me if I have misconstrued in your particular case, but I certainly know that one of your co-ideologues has been rather "evangelistic" on this blog. He even once accused me of being "a lost cause" (or something to that effect). Could he have been trying to convert me, I wonder? Telling me what I had to believe? Well, I never!

As for trying to rubbish my arguments with insults (or should I say, with "bluff and bluster"), I can only thank you for (tacitly) admitting that you have abandoned logic. I assume that if you had a logical argument you would use it. So your neglect of the same is rather reassuring.

And yes, I do most certainly believe that empiricism is self-refuting. I say this, because I believe in reason. I hope you do too.
As for hoping to silence me... pigs may yet fly.

Telling people what they have to believe? Are you sure you're addressing your comment to the right person?

You mean the one who says:

When certain atheists are told that they hold a belief...

As for trying to rubbish my arguments with insults (or should I say, with "bluff and bluster"), I can only thank you for (tacitly) admitting that you have abandoned logic. I assume that if you had a logical argument you would use it. So your neglect of the same is rather reassuring.

So are you aren't going to address the argument, then?

@Peter M

Sorry, but you just can鈥檛 say, 鈥渜uestions of conformation aside鈥�, conformation would be critically important.

Why should I believe if I have not seen? If you told me something miraculous had happened why would I take you at your word? Unfortunately the evidence which you would accept requires that I take you (or someone) at your word unless God going to pull 鈥榓 rabbit out of a hat鈥� every other day or so and at some appointed place.

Well, I can't imagine that we would ever have to worry too much about the confirmation problem, since it's not going to happen until we work it out for ourselves. But if it did, there would be enough sceptical doctors around to make sure there had been no twin switching going on or other such mullarkey. "Miraculous" claims are made all the time even in this day and age and they usually get taken seriously enough for proper investigation. There was that poor guy who'd been in a coma who had a woman moving his hand thinking that he was communicating which turned out to be baloney. Interestingly there was a story a while back that a man's finger had been re-grown which turned out to some charlatan trying to flog his angel dust. The latest one is a Croatian girl who woke from a coma only being able to speak German, which she had just started learning. I don't suppose many neuroscientists are going to start believing in past lives and regression on the strength of this, but there will be any number of woo mongers ready to interpet it in time honoured fashion.

But I digress. My question about your faith was phrased confusingly due to a . I'm really asking if there is anything that would say to you, "You know what? That God guy, forget about him." I don't want to go into that special domain of philosophy and logic that makes idiots of us all and ask what would constitute proof, but I am wondering if there is anything for you that would falsify the God Hypothesis.

Thank you for sharing your positive reasons, they were lovely. Except for the 80s C***k Rock, of course.

grokesx

Just read your comments and don't have time for a reply now other than to say, interesting question, "You know what? That God guy, forget about him.", slightly different from some other versions I've heard in the past so let me think about that one a bit more.

I'll also get back to the word, 'lovely' too.

I mean, lovely... that's as 'cheesy' as 80's rock, if you get the ref.

Grokesx

鈥淟ovely?鈥� Believe me, I can do cynical.

Speaking of believing people, apparently 鈥渟ceptical doctors鈥� can be trusted, not that I鈥檓 saying they can鈥檛 be, just that trust is important. And you鈥檙e using the word 鈥榚nough鈥�, one I alluded to in my questions (how many miracles?), how enough is enough?

And speaking of my questions, I鈥檓 sure you spotted the unlovely aquatic life lurking beneath the still waters of those questions.

Justice is one, thin on the ground, generally; but we usually only worry about it when it affects us, like when someone steals my pot-plant instead of my neighbour鈥檚.

And trust, as I鈥檝e mentioned already. Awkward old thing, trust, often works best when there鈥檚 something in it for me, but when I stand to loose, it can become a bit more tricky.

Or human nature, like problems with the misuse of generosity (or trust).

There are lots of unlovely things around but people usually prefer 鈥榮trawberries and cream鈥�, or 鈥榗reamola foaminess鈥� so I started there.

Having said that I don鈥檛 think that you really respond to whatever it is lights your fire with, 鈥榣ovely鈥�.

But onward...

Your question: "You know what? That God guy, forget about him."

Can I change it slightly, just to get me going. Can I start with the question, 鈥淲hat makes me doubt?鈥� Here goes.

Women who move the hands of people in a coma and then let others think of it as a miracle.

鈥楢ngel dust鈥� and all other forms of snake oil, like fillings in your teeth turning gold, and evangelists with private jets, and healers who pray for people twice... just to reassure them (I can tell you, I flipped that night!:-) and confusing the praise band鈥檚 syncopation for the 鈥榩resence of God鈥�. I could go on.

Pain.
Unrealised hope.
Cancer.
Off hand answers about the 鈥榳ill of God鈥�.
Pollution.
The chocolate Easter egg sitting on a shelf in a bookcase in my house which wasn鈥檛 made from Fairtrade chocolate.

and, to pick up on a specific reading of the question, "You know what? That God guy, forget about him.", the thought that there is a god, but that he鈥檚 deluding us, that he鈥檚 a charlatan, all angel dust and no justice. That wouldn鈥檛 be 鈥榣ovely鈥� at all, being the worst of both.

I鈥檒l stop there for now though because I鈥檓 not sure how dispassionate we should be.

Then again, God or no God we all still have the unloveliness, which is fine, of course, until, as I鈥檝e said, someone steals my pot-plant.

So I suppose a personal tragedy would make me want to forget about 鈥渢hat God guy.鈥� Trouble is I know enough to know that that鈥檚 just me being selfish, I mean it鈥檚 OK to believe as long as the sun shines on my side of the street... cos that what faith is, isn't it?

鈥淟ovely?鈥� Believe me, I can do cynical.

Ah, don't be like that. It's a perfectly serviceable word in my lexicon, despite what that blond Philadelphia girl did to it. Dictionary.com has one meaning as:

...of a great moral or spiritual beauty.

Seems apt in the context.

Speaking of believing people, apparently 鈥渟ceptical doctors鈥� can be trusted, not that I鈥檓 saying they can鈥檛 be, just that trust is important.

Indeed, which is one reason why the practice of science is structured so that to a pretty large extent it is independent of the foibles of its individual practitioners.

And you鈥檙e using the word 鈥榚nough鈥�, one I alluded to in my questions (how many miracles?), how enough is enough?

A regrown limbs would be such a biggy one would do for me. All the other considerations are of lesser importance - one stonking miracle like that would at least be evidence of a supernatural agency. There would be plenty of argument about what particular flavour it was until it properly broke cover.

Women who move the hands of people in a coma and then let others think of it as a miracle.

To be scrupulously fair, she wasn't doing it consciously and genuinely thought she was doing good.

Pain.

One of God's/nature's better ideas. Those few who can't experience it often lead very short lives.

The chocolate Easter egg sitting on a shelf in a bookcase in my house which wasn鈥檛 made from Fairtrade chocolate.

Eat it for crying out loud. The fact you do any ethical shopping at all puts you in a (hopefully growing) minority.

and, to pick up on a specific reading of the question, "You know what? That God guy, forget about him.", the thought that there is a god, but that he鈥檚 deluding us, that he鈥檚 a charlatan, all angel dust and no justice. That wouldn鈥檛 be 鈥榣ovely鈥� at all, being the worst of both.

This is the big one. If I did happen to believe in god, I wouldn't like him much. And his biological designs are rubbish. Anyone would have thought he just took one basic idea and built on it, overcoming obstacles as he went along in a higgledy piggledy fashion rather than following fundamental design practices. Amateur.

Grokesx

I see you got the cheese ref.

That I can do cynicism is merely a statement of fact, an example being my reading of your use of the word 鈥榣ovely鈥�. It鈥檚 a dreadful problem, cynicism, but helpful in how it highlights the need for and superiority of trust. (I think we鈥檙e both agreed on that.)

But aren鈥檛 we faced with a dilemma, a real everyday human and earthy one? How is it that we want to champion something like trust and yet have to recognise the need for 鈥榳atch dogs鈥�. It鈥檚 as if we long to trust yet succumb to suspicion. What is it about us (humans) that can be so delightfully noble on the one hand yet also... well, whatever antonym we choose?

It鈥檚 another of those nagging doubts, should I say faiths, that I have.

I鈥檒l leave a direct response to your comments on pain and chocolate and well meaning people and 鈥榦ne stonking miracle鈥�, for now and deal with what you call 鈥榯he big one鈥� (except to say that very often the circumstances and facts of our lives cut both ways. Pain, for example being good if your inflamed appendix is caught in time, but appalling if someone lives with pain all their lives without ever finding any real comfort. Or rain clouds which provoke faith as much as sunny afternoons 鈥榓t the wicket鈥�.)

But you are right, the big one is dealing with the kind of God who might be there. I described it as the worst of both, a god who was there, but one who was cruel. But neither Christianity nor atheism say that. Christianity says, inspite of the world we live in, and one you partly described, that God is just, that he is good (and there are other such positive attributes), atheism says that there is no God.

Either way though, each of us, you and I, are left with both 鈥榞reat moral or spiritual beauty鈥�, and the 鈥榗ynicism鈥� and cruelty of this world. Each of us have to find a way of living with this and we all do it in different ways. Neither is it merely a (what did you call it!) philosophical question 鈥渢hat makes idiots of us all鈥�, it is one we live with, one each of us responds to whether atheist or Christian, or whatever. There are atheists who do some staggeringly beautiful things and those who take the name of Jesus who are unspeakably cruel - the labels by which we identify ourselves are not necessarily an indicator of behaviour - beauty and cynicism are much more fundamental to humanity and each of us prefer beauty.

Christians claim to have an answer to why this should be the case, and, in keeping faith with the story of God, claim to have an answer to the problem of a cynical world aswell.

There鈥檚 something about needs of humanity which is central to Christianity and which means that it鈥檚, 鈥榤ore than miracles鈥�, but I鈥檒l stop there, in case I link to a creed or something!

Graham of the gaps,

I started looking at the Baylor study you had mentioned. But immediately found it was just another piece by that revisionist Rodney Stark. And so I decided not to waste any more time on it. Instead I'll add that one to the list of citations from not very credible sources. Right under under the link to Penrose for the supposed connection between conscience and wave function collapse.

LSV,

"And why on earth do you come onto this blog attacking people's belief in God, if all you are concerned about is "science"? Strictly speaking, science has absolutely nothing to say about this question, and can only claim to do so when it strays into an area beyond its remit. If you honestly think that science does have something to say about it, then either you have a highly distorted view concerning the scope of the scientific method, or you are being somewhat less than honest (or both)."

Science may not be able to disprove every flavour of god(s), but it is perfectly capable of showing plenty of them to be rubbish. Including various forms that the christian god is made out to be by certain christian sects. Contrary to what you say science has plenty to say about god(s) and had had the last word in plenty of those exchanges.
And as science keeps progressing it may undo more and more of them still.

I described it as the worst of both, a god who was there, but one who was cruel. But neither Christianity nor atheism say that. Christianity says, inspite of the world we live in, and one you partly described, that God is just, that he is good (and there are other such positive attributes), atheism says that there is no God.

As an atheist I can accept the world as it and try to make sense of it on its own terms. The fact there is staggering beauty and unspeakable cruelty and every conceivable gradation in between is not of itself a problem. Atheists do not have to tie themselves up in theodical knots to square the circle of the God of Love and the decidedly unlovely aspects of His creation. If that leaves us open to accusations of our lives therefore having no meaning, I for one am comfortable as that's a definition of meaning I can live without. A happy by product is it leaves me free of the cognitive dissonance that leads even the most

Christians claim to have an answer to why this should be the case, and, in keeping faith with the story of God, claim to have an answer to the problem of a cynical world aswell.

There鈥檚 something about needs of humanity which is central to Christianity and which means that it鈥檚, 鈥榤ore than miracles鈥�, but I鈥檒l stop there, in case I link to a creed or something!

But the miracles, the prayers, the revelations, the perceived personal relationship with God, the word of God as revealed in the Good Book, the prophecies and the rest are the means by which the claimed answer is bolstered. That and the neat trick of promoting belief without evidence as a virtue. Without these the whole edifice amounts to uplifting historical fiction, worthy of Francis Bacon, sorry, Shakespeare, himself and exhortations to be nice to each other.