WTF Is Faith Anyways [Archive] - Kay Tastrophe's Military School

Eliezer

12-17-2007, 10:27 AM

From a theistic standpoint most religions can't agree on the definition of anything, but I like to keep stuff simple.

I have faith in the scientific method. I have faith in elements defined by my personal religious views. I do not find the two contradictory or problematic, but that's probably because of how I view faith.

Faith is simply acting in a fashion not knowing beforehand the outcome but expecting or desiring a specific outcome. Knowing what is likely to happen based on past experience doesn't preclude faith. I go to my car in the morning and turn the key in the ignition believing it will start. I don't know it will start, but I believe that it will. Part of the reason I believe it will start is that the car has only failed to start couple of times when I to start it. I define faith as that motivation to act not knowing ahead of time what will happen but believing some desired outcome will result.

So how does that Jive with religion? Well, the difference between religious faith and scientific faith is the level or types of evidence.

Let me provide an example. I accept the laws of thermodynamics because so many have witnessed to it's veracity. They've studied the math and found no evidence anywhere in the universe that contradicts those laws and everything observed has conformed to them. I don't understand the evidence nor have I studied it out fully to be qualified to really be knowledgeable on the subject, but I believe what they tell me and I evaluate (that's the action) the pseudo-scientific claims of others based on conformity to thermodynamics. I have faith in thermodynamics. If I had all of the knowledge of the physicist then I probably would not have faith, but knowledge.

I know a lot people theists and otherwise strongly object to using this definition of faith, but it's been my working definition since I was a teenager and I teach it to others now. Faith and rationale thinking have to go hand in hand. If you're not critically thinking you're engaging in stupid blind faith which I consider a "sin". And that is true when looking at religious things, politics, science or just about any other endeavor of life. We all have to choose who we will believe and act accordingly.

On a side note, I've read some atheistic criticisms of faith. Victor J. Stenger proposed to offer a scientific criticism of religion in God: The Failed Hypothesis (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591024811). I found his arguments most convincing where he actually presented real arguments instead of sophistry. (I was very disappointed by the sophistry.) Unfortunately, he applied his arguments a very specific branch of Christianity.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-17-2007, 03:05 PM

Let's go back to the Good Book

My education, till past fourteen, was no better than very vulgar; reading, or rather spelling, an illegible scrawl, and a little ordinary plain work composed the whole system of it; and then all my foundation in virtue was no other than a total ignorance of vice, and the shy timidity general to our sex, in the tender stage of life when objects alarm or frighten more by their novelty than anything else. But then, this is a fear too often cured at the expence of innocence, when Miss, by degrees, begins no longer to look on a man as a creature of prey that will eat her.

Hang on. That's not right. Recalibrating.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Emotional commitment?

Eliezer

12-17-2007, 03:36 PM

Emotional commitment?

Yes, your definition of faith is one of the accepted Christian definitions.

That explains the whole James 2 thing as well where faith without works is dead.

But I have serious trouble with Fideism, at least when taken to the extreme of faith and reason being antithetical. I find nothing inherently contradictory about faith and reason. John 7:17 is a good example of knowing/learning through doing. Just as the science student understands and gains confidence in the principles under investigation through rigorous testing, so the student of religion should experiment and find out if what is taught is of value.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-17-2007, 04:09 PM

But I have serious trouble with Fideism, at least when taken to the extreme of faith and reason being antithetical. I find nothing inherently contradictory about faith and reason.

Me neither. I'm wondering if it's a Protestant thing - following Luther

Incidentally Has anyone tracked that Luther quote about reason being the enemy of faith back to it's source and checked what word he's using for reason? It just seems weird

Eliezer

12-17-2007, 04:38 PM

If only the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) would provide citations. :confused:

Here's a non-wiki article (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3664) that deals with Luther on Fideism. (Just scroll down to the Martin Luther section.) I don't know enough to evaluate the veracity of any of that.

In this context, Luther takes a very dim view of human reason. In the temporal affairs of human beings in the kingdom of earth, “the rational man is self-sufficient.” But in the eternal issues of life in the kingdom of heaven, “nature is absolutely stone-blind” and human reason is completely incompetent. Worse, reason is an enemy of God, “the devil’s whore,” whom Luther nicknames “Frau Hulda.” Reason was responsible for the distortion of the gospel by the Scholastics, who had tried to reconcile the gospel with Aristotle.

AZRogue

12-17-2007, 05:10 PM

Okay, this is very personal for me, but it's the truth:

I'm a Christian; a full, honestly believing, Christian.

I also believe in reason and think that we should use our reason to evaluate ourselves and the world around us at all times. Reason usually requires logic and evidence.

No, I don't think that faith and reason work very well together in as far as we can't prove God's existence and any "proof" of his non-existence is usually silly. Those things that you believe on faith are believed that way because they AREN'T provable.

So how do I reconcile this, for myself? I believe, on Faith, the following (this is the very personal part, as I don't share this with family, really): There is one God and his son, Jesus Christ, is his true son and that he came to earth in mortal form and died for the sins of all men, if they should choose to accept his gift, and that three days after his death he rose again and joined the Father and that he, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is God.

That's a very powerful, very personal, thing for me that I don't like putting out there, but it's what I believe. On Faith. The dogma of the church, the rituals, the translations, basically everything else, I try to examine using my reason. That core belief is seperate. Where they impact, I have so far chosen to side with Faith. They actually haven't impacted very often.

I understand the problem people have with such a faith-based belief. I have the luxory of having mine be non-threatening or hostile to others. I don't require anything of anyone to believe the way I believe. My believing that core statement impacts no one else, as I don't believe that those who disaggree with me are evil or "against me" in any way. So, I'm basically harmelss.

Sorry if that all came off strange. It almost feels like running around the mall naked, heh. Does this help the thread? I have no idea, other than that I felt the urge to firmly put myself in a camp and explain how Faith is a personal thing for me, not something I put on a flyer and attach to a car windshield wiper.

Snatch

12-17-2007, 05:43 PM

For me, faith is the belief in something or some world view without proof supporting the correctness of the belief.

Special K

12-17-2007, 05:44 PM

I think the most interesting aspect of this is that people draw that sort of line between faith and reason at different places. Some people will take certain things on faith and leave the rest to reason, and I've never understood why people will say "This I'll take on faith, but the rest needs to be proven." If some of it needs to be proven, doesn't all of it? And likewise, if some of it can be believed on faith, shouldn't all of it?

In conclusion, I don't know.

Eliezer

12-17-2007, 05:44 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

12-17-2007, 06:11 PM

I have absolutely not time for this today, but I promise I'll engage as soon as I've finished work.

In the meantime, let me let Sam Harris do the talking - from an article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html?cnn=yes):

What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith
by TIME

Sam Harris is best known for his barn-burning 2004 attack on religion, The End of Faith, which spent 33 weeks on the New York Times best-seller List. The book's sequel, Letter to a Christian Nation also came out in editions totalling hundreds of thousands. Last Monday, however, the combative Californian produced a shorter (seven pages) and seemingly calmer publication that will be a hit if it reaches 10,000 readers: "Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief and Uncertainty." It appears in the respected journal Annals of Neurology. And Harris, 40, claims it has little if any connection to his popular two books. Believers, however, may draw their own conclusions — and may want to read his subsequent neurological studies even more carefully.

The current paper recovers Harris's identity as a doctoral candidate in neurology at UCLA, his occupation before he commenced what he calls his "extramural affair jumping into trenches in the culture wars." It is an addition to the growing field of brain scan trials, and Harris thinks it may be the first to detail how the brain processes belief. At first read, it seems less dangerous to Christianity than to another cherished pillar of Western thought — that "objective" beliefs like "2 + 2 = 4" and "subjective" beliefs like "torture is bad" belong to entirely separate categories of thought.

Harris and two co-authors ran 360 statements by 14 adult subject whose brain activities were then scanned by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) devices. It suggests that within the brain pan, at least, the distinction between objective and subjective is not so clear-cut. Although more complex assertions may get analyzed in so-called "higher" areas of the brain, all seem to get their final stamp of "belief" or disbelief in "primitive" locales traditionally associated with emotions or taste and odor. Even "2 + 2 = 4," on some level, is a question of taste. Thus, the statement "that just doesn't smell right to me" may be more literal than we thought.

Harris tested how the brain responded to assertions in seven categories: mathematical, geographic, semantic, factual, autobiographical, ethical and religious. All seven provided some useful data, but only the ones relating to math and ethics produced results clear enough to give a vivid picture of the way the simple and the complex, the subjective and the objective intertwine. Regardless of their content, statements that the subjects believed lit up the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a location in the brain best known for processing reward, emotion and taste. Equally "primitive" areas associated with taste, pain perception and disgust determined disbelief. "False propositions may actually disgust us," Harris writes.

Is there a practical application here? He speculates that if belief brain scanning were sufficiently refined it could act as an accurate lie detector and help control for the placebo effect in drug design.

Harris says there is no critique of faith hidden somewhere in his brief paper. But his next neurological enterprise may be another matter. He is planning an fMRI run that will concentrate specifically on religious faith, which Harris thinks he now knows how to plumb more deeply. He also plans to set up two different subject groups — the faithful and non-believers. "That way," among other things, he says, "you can ask, 'Do believers believe that Jesus was born of a virgin the same way that nonbelievers believe that Chevrolet makes cars and trucks?'" It may turn out that the brain treats religious faith as its own special category of belief unlike ethics and math.

But that is not what Harris expects to find. He suspects the machines will show that "belief is belief is belief." And that conclusion, he admits, may put him at loggerheads with familiar foes. No one, he says, could accuse him or anyone else of trying to disprove God's existence on the basis of an fMRI. But faith is more vulnerable. "People who feel that religious faith is a singular operation of the brain — if they admit that it's an operation of the brain at all — would object to what I'm doing, since it may show that faith is essentially the same as other kinds of knowing or thinking. The whole thing will seem fishy to anyone who thinks we have immaterial souls running around in our bodies."

Which, of course, a lot of people do. And despite the fact that, as Harris puts it, his current literary mode "is not beach reading," they may find that they are keeping up with his academic writings more avidly — and nervously — than they do his bestsellers.

Sam Harris also has a profound critique of faith as being causally connected with violence that is independent of this research (hint: faith tends to make conversation impossible as a means of dispute resolution). But that's what I'll summarise when I get out from under this work.

Northcott

12-17-2007, 08:45 PM

If some of it needs to be proven, doesn't all of it? And likewise, if some of it can be believed on faith, shouldn't all of it?

How often does an absolutist stance yield positive results? :) Balance in all things, yadda, yadda, yadda. ;)

Eliezer

12-18-2007, 09:44 AM

Hastur T. Fannon

12-18-2007, 02:02 PM

AZRogue

12-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Belief despite doubt? I would say that the tension between faith and doubt is partly why I find it rewarding.

Northcott

12-18-2007, 02:05 PM

Does anyone else get irritated when "New Atheists" use "faith" as a synonym for "fanaticism"?

Aw, c'mon. You knew I was going to raise my hand, didn't you?

Now we can wait for the inevitable catty response from the expected quarter. :D

Atticus_of_Amber

12-18-2007, 02:44 PM

Does anyone else get irritated when "New Atheists" use "faith" as a synonym for "fanaticism"? They really don't seem to be talking about the same thing as me. Everyone from Tillich to Tennyson via Thoreau talks about doubt as being an essential component to faith

But they don't. Sam Harris is quite clear about that. As is Dennett. You really need to stop attacking straw men here.

Slight correction:
Hitchens falls into that trap sometimes, but he's not a substantial figure in my view.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-18-2007, 04:18 PM

But they don't. Sam Harris is quite clear about that. As is Dennett. You really need to stop attacking straw men here.

Sorry mate, but I just wrote that after reading chapters seven and eight of "The God Delusion"

Wise's [a bloke who couldn't reconcile science and a fanatical interpretation of the Bible] doublethink comes not from the imperative of physical torture but from the imperative - apparently just as undeniable to some people - of religious faith: arguably a form of mental torture

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to insert an appropriate PWND macro. None of mine quite fit

Atticus_of_Amber

12-18-2007, 04:41 PM

Sorry mate, but I just wrote that after reading chapters seven and eight of "The God Delusion"

I'll leave it to the peanut gallery to insert an appropriate PWND macro. None of mine quite fit

First, Dawkins =! Harriss and Dennett. Dawkins language can be loose at times, Harris and Dennett have even criticised him for that.

But, secondly, exactly how do you say Dawkins' account of the rather tragic case of Kurt Wise equates fanaticism with science? Even your rather out of context quotation doesn't seem to me to make the point you seem to think it does.

Thirdly, you might want to (a) read on to Dawkins' discussion of religious moderation and (b) read Harris on the issue.

To make it clear, I am not "equating" faith with fanaticism (and I'd argue the non-Hitchens "New Atheists" aren't either). What is going on here is an epistemological critique of faith itself as a dangerous cognitive bad habit that closes off conversation and always has the latent potential to cause violence. In Kurt Wise's case, it broke the poor man's mind. In Darkfire's case, it's seriously corrupted his moral sense.

For example, one hundred years ago, no one would have guessed that an apparently innocuous faith idea like "the could enters the zygote at the point of conception" could stymie a technology capable of saving millions of lives.

AZRogue

12-19-2007, 11:11 AM

Would it be more productive to try and establish realistic means to evaluate faith-based beliefs to determine whether they are dangerous rather than attack faith itself and, by so doing, pretty much get on the bad side of most people on the planet right off the bat. Since faith doesn't equate with religion, that is, and is instead simply a type of belief (strongly held belief without proof).

Limiting and/or watching "dangerous" faith-based beliefs would make sense, and it would be an interesting experiment to try and find guidelines that most people could agree on.

Brynja

12-19-2007, 11:46 AM

Does anyone else get irritated when "New Atheists" use "faith" as a synonym for "fanaticism"? They really don't seem to be talking about the same thing as me. Everyone from Tillich to Tennyson via Thoreau talks about doubt as being an essential component to faith

I always felt that doubt and questioning forced one to critically examine their views. In the end you figure why you buy into the idea, or you opt out. Either way win win, if you are going about it thoughtfully.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-19-2007, 01:49 PM

First, Dawkins =! Harriss and Dennett. Dawkins language can be loose at times, Harris and Dennett have even criticised him for that.

I said "New Atheist"'s annoy me when when they use faith and fanaticism as synonyms. You said they didn't while simultaneously conceding that one of the "Big Four" did (way to weaken your position, dude)

But, secondly, exactly how do you say Dawkins' account of the rather tragic case of Kurt Wise equates fanaticism with science? Even your rather out of context quotation doesn't seem to me to make the point you seem to think it does.

What? I was showing how Dawkins equates faith and fanaticism. You don't think that Dawkins is attempting showing how his (Wise's) fanatical behaviour is a product of his religious faith?

(personally, I'd say that it was a product of his lack of faith, but YMMV)

Thirdly, you might want to (a) read on to Dawkins' discussion of religious moderation and (b) read Harris on the issue.

Despite my conviction that it would not be addressing what I believe, I have almost hacked my way through the God Delusion (Fuck me, I've read better (more focused, better argued) critiques of Christianity written by Christians). Unless he pulls something miraculous out of his arse in the next two chapters he will have said nothing about my faith and my religion that I didn't already know.

Now, why do you think Harris will do a better job?

To make it clear, I am not "equating" faith with fanaticism (and I'd argue the non-Hitchens "New Atheists" aren't either).

Have you read the last chapter of later editions of the Selfish Gene? If you substituted the word "fanaticism" for the word "faith" I'd agree with every single word. Given this, can you see why I think he's using them as synonyms?

What is going on here is an epistemological critique of faith itself as a dangerous cognitive bad habit that closes off conversation and always has the latent potential to cause violence. In Kurt Wise's case, it broke the poor man's mind. In Darkfire's case, it's seriously corrupted his moral sense.

Which is why a mature religious practice will be aware of this danger and contain exercises designed to mitigate it. Darkfire had one in his sig for a while; God alone knows why he isn't practicing it

Goblin Girl

12-19-2007, 01:52 PM

Eliezer

12-19-2007, 03:42 PM

I haven't read a lot of atheist literature, but what I have read relies heavily upon definitions that work to their advantage.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-19-2007, 04:06 PM

I said "New Atheist"'s annoy me when when they use faith and fanaticism as synonyms. You said they didn't while simultaneously conceding that one of the "Big Four" did (way to weaken your position, dude)

What? I was showing how Dawkins equates faith and fanaticism. You don't think that Dawkins is attempting showing how his (Wise's) fanatical behaviour is a product of his religious faith?

(personally, I'd say that it was a product of his lack of faith, but YMMV)

Despite my conviction that it would not be addressing what I believe, I have almost hacked my way through the God Delusion (Fuck me, I've read better (more focused, better argued) critiques of Christianity written by Christians). Unless he pulls something miraculous out of his arse in the next two chapters he will have said nothing about my faith and my religion that I didn't already know.

Now, why do you think Harris will do a better job?

Have you read the last chapter of later editions of the Selfish Gene? If you substituted the word "fanaticism" for the word "faith" I'd agree with every single word. Given this, can you see why I think he's using them as synonyms?

Which is why a mature religious practice will be aware of this danger and contain exercises designed to mitigate it. Darkfire had one in his sig for a while; God alone knows why he isn't practicing it

Hastur, I think we may be being tripped up by your rather loose of language again (shades of the "excluded middle" train wreck).

To say that "A tends to lead to B" is not the same as saying that "A equates to B". Salt air tends to cause rust, but salt air doesn't "equate" to rust.

Now the new anti-dogmatists ARE saying that faith (by preventing conversation) tends to lead to violence and other unpleasant results. And Harris has quite a persuasive argument for why that is so.

So if by "equate" you meant "tend to lead to" then you may be right, depending on what you mean by fanaticism. But if you're going to make that point, you need to do more than just whinge, you need to address their arguments.

The reason why I recommend Harris is that everything in the God Delusion that isn't about science is prett much cribbed from Sam Harris' book - and not surprisingly, Harris explains it better. Dawkins is a brilliant man, but he's also a little too chilgishly naïve ("But is it TRUE?!?") to be an effective advocate on non-scientific topics.
At the end of your post, you seem to admit that faith can lead to violence. So the question is, can we preserve the good things in religion while freeing ourselves from faith?

AZRogue

12-19-2007, 04:26 PM

At the end of your post, you seem to admit that faith can lead to violence. So the question is, can we preserve the good things in religion while freeing ourselves from faith?

I don't think we need, or should, free ourselves from faith. I would like to target the objects that faith is focused upon instead of attacking faith itself, as per my previous post and the experiment I'd mentioned.

Space Cadet B^3

12-19-2007, 04:29 PM

Faith is so much more than religion, yet essential to it.

Eliezer

12-19-2007, 04:33 PM

AZRogue

12-19-2007, 04:35 PM

Any closer to compiling a definition out of all this? :)

Eliezer

12-19-2007, 04:39 PM

Any closer to compiling a definition out of all this? :)

Not really, but understanding how others define it is helpful. :)

Besides, some folks have apparently had fun here so it's been worthwhile.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-19-2007, 04:54 PM

Small point, the fact that faith has been around for ages doesn't mean that its helped the survival of the species, or even that its been non-harmful. That's the whole point of the neo-Darwinian "selfish gene" synthesis, not to mention memetics.

As Dawkins points out, our vulnerability to faith memes is probably a side effect of another evolved characteristic that did improve reproductive success. In this sense, its an accidental by-product, like our vulnerability to memes for non-kin altruism. The question is whether its a by-product we want to keep (like altruism) or one we want to junk.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-19-2007, 05:13 PM

OK, then Atticus, what do you mean by "faith"?

Eliezer

12-19-2007, 05:15 PM

panther.jd

12-19-2007, 05:49 PM

Any closer to compiling a definition out of all this? :)Is this helpful?

Main Entry:
1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

synonyms see belief
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>

Main Entry:
be·lief Listen to the pronunciation of belief
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈlēf\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
Date:
12th century

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.
synonyms see in addition opinion
Helpful? At All?

AZRogue

12-19-2007, 06:00 PM

To me it is, thank you. I believe that faith is a type of belief (one that you hold without any proof and in the face of your own natural doubts). I don't think that faith is harmful. Instead, I think any belief can be harmful if the thing believed in impacts or intrudes upon the freedoms of others.

Space Cadet B^3

12-19-2007, 06:12 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

12-19-2007, 06:35 PM

Definition of faith - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

... firm belief in something for which there is no proof ...

That is the closest to what the New Anti-Dogmatists are getting at.

Faith is a form of dogma, a belief held with a high degree of certainty that is supported by no or very little evidence or which is opposed by a body of good evidence.

Examples of faith-beliefs might be:
- the universe is the product of a creative intelligence
- that creative intelligence has a plan for humanity
- that creative intelligence has suspended natural laws on occasions in things called miracles
- human consciousness is critically animated by an immaterial thing called the "soul" that survives the physical death of its human host
- the creative intelligence that produced the universe has dictated a book, which tells humans how they should live.

A good example is the distinguished biologist Dawkins talks about towards the end of the Four Horseman video. The biologist read the GD and said to Dawkins that he accepted all Dawkins arguments but still held his faith because, he said rather truculently, "there's a REASON it's called FAITH!"

The point made by the New Anti-Dogmatists is that beliefs held on faith are relatively impervious to being shifted by reason and evidence. Thus when a faith-belief conflicts with other faith beliefs (or with evidence-based beliefs) over a real issue of politics or resource allocation, conversation is excluded as a conflict resolution option. Violence almost inevitably ensues.

At any given time, not all faith beliefs conflict with each other; and not all faith beliefs conflict evidence-based beliefs; and not all faith beliefs conflict with either on real issues of politics or resource allocation. That is why, right now, Islam is more dangerous than Christianity, which in turn is more dangerous than Judaism, which in turn is more dangerous than Jainism , etc. But it's very hard to predict which beliefs will become sources of conflict given future scientific discoveries or historical events (e.g. the soul and stem cell research).

This point about the differing levels of threat posed by different faiths is behind Sam Harris' discomfort with the word "atheist" in his speech at the recent Atheist Alliance International conference (I posted it a while back). While he thinks all dogmas are potentially deadly for the same fundamental epistemological reason, at specific moments in history different faiths are more or less dangerous. Harris worries whether emphasising the general critique of faith is cutting the "Enlightenment 2.0" off from useful temporary allies like moderate Christians. In this sense, though not resiling from his critique of religious moderation in The End of Faith, he seems to be regretting giving it such prominence.

At the same AAI conference, Dennett gave a speech which seemed to put another perspective on this issue. Dennett said that he's increasingly thinking that his categorisation of thinkers into "brights" (naturalists) and "supers" (believers in the supernatural) is incomplete. He thinks there is an "excluded middle" he calls "murkies" or "mysterians". He includes in here post-modernists and many liberal Christian theologians who stubbornly refuse to be specific on principle. He sees these people as cousins of the mysterians who have so dogged his recent work in the philosophy of mind and neuroscience. I'd say Hastur falls into this category. Dennett's point is that he is coming to think that it IS unfair to accuse murkies of being supers and that murkies have every right to be offended when the new anti-dogmatists do that. The critique of mysterianism has to be subtly but significantly different from the critique of supernaturalism - and it dovetails nicely with the critique of post-modernism that has been developed by physicists like Alan Sokal. I think Dennett is actually overjoyed that he now has a real reason to go after post-modernism - he's ignored it as an academic irrelevance up to now.

But that brings us back to Sam Harris' point in his controversial AAI talk. Sam Harris says it's bad politics (though good philosophy) to attack all faiths equally. Dennett says it might actually also be bad philosophy as the murkies are actually fundamentally different from the supers (which makes sense, given how much contempt most supers have for most murkies). The good philosopher would distinguish the two and launch a separate attack on mysterianism. This distinction would also probably be good politics.

The question then arises - is Harris really a closet murky? He's advocated the benefits of an atheistic spirituality and has said he's not convinced that consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. He's even said he's open-minded on paranormal claims like telepathy. Does this make him a murky? Lots of people think it does. I don't - and interestingly, based on his comments in the Q&A at Harris' AAI talk and in the comments in the Four Horseman video, neither does Dennett. But that is an issue for another day.

Varaj

12-19-2007, 08:12 PM

I once had a murkie bite me on the leg. They are vicious.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-19-2007, 08:16 PM

I once had a murkie bite me on the leg. They are vicious.

I find that unlikely. They're usually so nebulous, being bitten by one would be like being gummed by a newborn baby.

Varaj

12-19-2007, 08:21 PM

I find that unlikely. They're usually so nebulous, being bitten by one would be like being gummed by a newborn baby.

I take it you have never been gummed by a newborn. Those fuckers hurt! :D

Space Cadet B^3

12-20-2007, 01:00 AM

I take it you have never been gummed by a newborn. Those fuckers hurt! :D
word!

Hastur T. Fannon

12-20-2007, 01:01 PM

Ok, Atticus, now what do you mean by "belief"?

panther.jd

12-20-2007, 03:24 PM

I posted the definition of belief right under the definition of faith. My default assumption is that someone means the dictionary definition of a word unless they say different.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-20-2007, 03:59 PM

Extreme logic has it's consequences too. Extremism in all things has it's pitfalls Atticus.

The argument that faith in all it's forms is now deleterious to us as a species contravenes the success of thousands of years of evolution.

Until we understand why faith has been so successful and helpful in our past I would be loathe call for it's abolishment so quickly.

But then again, I may agree with you. Your definition of faith might be what I find so offensive in faith. That's why I wanted to find out what people think faith is...

How is logic bad?

Well, that's an interesting conclusion considering a number of historians have directly disagreed with that assessment. I wonder what your specialized definition of faith is that allows that assessment?

I think your missing the whole point of memetics. Faith may not have survived because it benefits the species. It may have survived because it's a good meme at getting minds to copy it.

Again, that's the whole point of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: the unit of selection isn't the species or the group or family or even the individual, its the gene itself. The question is not "does this characteristic benefit the individual/group/species?" but "does the characteristic that this gene creates in its carriers increase the chance that the gene will (meaning the information, not the particular strand of DNA) will be reproduced into other carriers?" We are just machines our genes use to make more genes.

The same goes for memes. Memetics says that minds are just machines created by memes to make more memes.

This is all laid out in incredible detail in Daniel Dennett's book.

Ok, Atticus, now what do you mean by "belief"?

From panther:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
...
be·lief

...

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

...

For this discussion of faith vs reason, take out the last seven words. The new dogmatists are aiming to put them back in, but without the "especially".

Eliezer

12-21-2007, 10:00 AM

How is logic bad?

I didn't say that it is bad, but that it can be bad.

The Nazi policies regarding the retarded and mentally ill is extremely logical.

It is logical to kill all children that genetically don't meet excellent standards to prevent the propagation of their genes. Eugenics is logical.

Sure you can argue those things logically as well. But you asked how is logic bad and I'm pointing out that logic can be bad.

The problem that logic encounters is that all logic is based upon something a priori, usually a value.

Eliezer

12-21-2007, 10:04 AM

I think your missing the whole point of memetics. Faith may not have survived because it benefits the species. It may have survived because it's a good meme at getting minds to copy it.

Again, that's the whole point of the neo-Darwinian synthesis: the unit of selection isn't the species or the group or family or even the individual, its the gene itself. The question is not "does this characteristic benefit the individual/group/species?" but "does the characteristic that this gene creates in its carriers increase the chance that the gene will (meaning the information, not the particular strand of DNA) will be reproduced into other carriers?" We are just machines our genes use to make more genes.

The same goes for memes. Memetics says that minds are just machines created by memes to make more memes.

That is a great idea and probably there is much truth to it. However, it neatly ignores the reality that the survival of specific genetic information is dependent upon the survival and success of the species and the species survival is dependent in large degree upon cooperation and the formation of society. So the memes survival is also dependent upon those things. Now whether it survives despite or irrelevent to or because of the mechanisms that allow species survival is an question that may be subject to debate.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-21-2007, 01:20 PM

Atticus_of_Amber

12-21-2007, 04:09 PM

So in summary:

Logical positivism is a great way of doing debate
Forms of discussion that don't rest on logical positivism can lead to confusion and lack of communication
This can lead to violence
Which is a bad thing

What am I missing?

(I tried to fit a "... leads to murkiness" into there, but couldn't make it work?)

How did the term "logical positivism" slip into this debate? That term has more baggage than the carousel at JFK. I aint touching that skanky ho - not after the way Wictenstein (sp?) rode her hard and put her away wet.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-21-2007, 04:19 PM

That is a great idea and probably there is much truth to it. However, it neatly ignores the reality that the survival of specific genetic information is dependent upon the survival and success of the species and the species survival is dependent in large degree upon cooperation and the formation of society. So the memes survival is also dependent upon those things. Now whether it survives despite or irrelevent to or because of the mechanisms that allow species survival is an question that may be subject to debate.

It doesn't ignore that question at all. Indeed that question is a major of Dennett's book.

Genes and memes are symbiants. The question is whether a particular one is, in particular circumstances, a parasite, a commensal or a mutualist. The fact that a successful population shows a widespread hosting of a particular symbiant doesn't mean the symbiant is a mutualist. It might be a very well adapted parasite that is harder to get rid of than is worth the effort. Or it might have once been a mutualist or commensal but now, due to mutation or changes in the environment, has become a parasite.

Dennett's book is all about the research on these questions and about ways to get further answers.

Eliezer

12-21-2007, 04:23 PM

It doesn't ignore that question at all. Indeed that question is a major of Dennett's book.

Genes and memes are symbiants. The question is whether a particular one is, in particular circumstances, a parasite, a commensal or a mutualist. The fact that a successful population shows a widespread hosting of a particular symbiant doesn't mean the symbiant is a mutualist. It might be a very well adapted parasite that is harder to get rid of than is worth the effort. Or it might have once been a mutualist or commensal but now, due to mutation or changes in the environment, has become a parasite.

Dennett's book is all about the research on these questions and about ways to get further answers.

So the entirety of Dennet's book is speculation on what we don't know about the meme and whether or not it's been good for survival?

You can't separate them and claim on conclusion and then link them to respond to the claim that they must be considered together.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-21-2007, 04:32 PM

So the entirety of Dennet's book is speculation on what we don't know about the meme and whether or not it's been good for survival?

You can't separate them and claim on conclusion and then link them to respond to the claim that they must be considered together.

I have no idea what you're saying here. We must be talking at cross purposes.

It may be my fault. I typerd the above on my blackberry on the run.
I'm not sure what conclusions your talking about. Dennett doesn't really draw that many firm conclusiona' except to eliminate some clearly wrong hypotheses. He's trying to start a research program for others to follow after all (much as did years ago in neuroscience).

Eliezer

12-21-2007, 04:37 PM

I have no idea what you're saying here. We must be talking at cross purposes.

It may be my fault. I typerd the above on my blackberry on the run.
I'm not sure what conclusions your talking about. Dennett doesn't really draw that many firm conclusiona' except to eliminate some clearly wrong hypotheses. He's trying to start a research program for others to follow after all (much as did years ago in neuroscience).

Well, heck. I'd be all sorts of in favor of more research on the subject. I think I've stated that many times.

I think I'll need to read Dennett book so we can discuss it. It does sound fascinating.

Until such time I'm going to stick with the idea that people who have a genetic inclination that manifested itself in faith/belief in the unseen world have prospered. The relationship between survival of that meme and any role it may have played in assistance in the survival of the species is still subject to debate.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-21-2007, 05:06 PM

Well, heck. I'd be all sorts of in favor of more research on the subject. I think I've stated that many times.

I think I'll need to read Dennett book so we can discuss it. It does sound fascinating.

Until such time I'm going to stick with the idea that people who have a genetic inclination that manifested itself in faith/belief in the unseen world have prospered. The relationship between survival of that meme and any role it may have played in assistance in the survival of the species is still subject to debate.

My only caution re dennett is that he's incedibly persuasive. He tells you his biases, does a lot to show he's trying to be fair, and then just erodes your views with a steady stream of fascinating facts and mind bending arguments. I found that I had to put him down every couple of chapters to think about what he'd said and come to my own view.

I'm really looking foward to reading his other books, "Consciousness Explained", "Freedom Evolves" (on free will) and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

Hastur T. Fannon

12-22-2007, 04:45 AM

How did the term "logical positivism" slip into this debate?

I was using it as shorthand - a little sloppy. Would you prefer me rewording that first bullet point as "Not introducing propositions unless that proposition can and has been empirically tested is a great way of doing debate"

Genes and memes are symbiants.

This is the bit that really sandpaper's my nipples about "The God Delusion" (and it's going to be the main feature of the review I'm doing for our parish magazine). Thirty years on and there isn't even a decent hypothesis about what a "meme" is. Despite this, the holder the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science uses the phrase "meme theory". Unless there's been a pile of experiments and peer-reviewed articles that I've somehow missed that's as dishonest as describing evolution as "just a theory"

Atticus_of_Amber

12-22-2007, 11:05 PM

I was using it as shorthand - a little sloppy. Would you prefer me rewording that first bullet point as "Not introducing propositions unless that proposition can and has been empirically tested is a great way of doing debate"

This is the bit that really sandpaper's my nipples about "The God Delusion" (and it's going to be the main feature of the review I'm doing for our parish magazine). Thirty years on and there isn't even a decent hypothesis about what a "meme" is. Despite this, the holder the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science uses the phrase "meme theory". Unless there's been a pile of experiments and peer-reviewed articles that I've somehow missed that's as dishonest as describing evolution as "just a theory"

On memes, first I'd suggest you look at the first appendix to Dennett's Breaking the Spell, the latter chapters of his Darwin's Dangerous Idea, his Consciousness Explained (which is a whole theory of consciousness based on the idea of memes) or Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine before jumping to conclusions. You'll find the claims you make are highly controversial.

Second, memetics is hardly the core of TGD. It comes in in his speculative chapter on the origin and role of religion and faith. The core of the book is the earlier chapter "Why God almost certainly doesn't exist" and the "Ultimate 747" argument presented there. Those arguments have little or nothing to do with memetics.

As for your dot points, they're still a caricature of Harris' anti-dogmatism position. I'll say more when I'm not breaking my thumb on my blackberry.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-23-2007, 04:22 AM

On memes, first I'd suggest you look at the first appendix to Dennett's Breaking the Spell, the latter chapters of his Darwin's Dangerous Idea, his Consciousness Explained (which is a whole theory of consciousness based on the idea of memes) or Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine before jumping to conclusions. You'll find the claims you make are highly controversial.

Has a formal description of a meme been produced?
Has a falsifiable hypothesis been produced from this description?
Has this hypothesis been tested?
Have the experiments used to test this hypothesis been repeated?
Have these experiments been written up in a peer-reviewed journal?
If so, can you provide citations?

If you've read these books, you should be able to answer these questions. If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then memetics ain't a scientific theory as I understand the phrase. If my understanding of the scientific method is inaccurate, please can you nip over to my thread on the scientific method and explain to the actual fucking scientists on that thread how they've got things wrong

Second, memetics is hardly the core of TGD.

No, the core of TGD is a huge straw man. The God Hypothesis does not describe divinity as presented by any major world religion (with the possible exception of the LDS).

(shall we have another go at this? I promise to read your stuff more carefully this time)

Atticus_of_Amber

12-23-2007, 08:34 PM

Has a formal description of a meme been produced?

As Dennett points out in the appendix to Breaking the Spell and in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, "meme" is as well defined as "gene" or "species" - which is to say, not very. But as with genetics or zoology, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the discipline.

Has a falsifiable hypothesis been produced from this description?

I'm led to believe the answer is yes, in Consciousness Explained. I haven't read that book yet, so I'm going to refrain from shooting my mouth off about things I don't yet understand. But I gather the problem is that we don't yet have the technology to test many of Dennett's hypotheses (though the few we can test have apparently not been falsified, much to the chagrin of many in both philosophy of mind and neuroscience who think Dennett is an annoying know-it-all).

Has this hypothesis been tested?

See above.

Have the experiments used to test this hypothesis been repeated?

See above.

Have these experiments been written up in a peer-reviewed journal?
If so, can you provide citations?

See above.

If you've read these books, you should be able to answer these questions. If the answer to any of these questions is "no", then memetics ain't a scientific theory as I understand the phrase. If my understanding of the scientific method is inaccurate, please can you nip over to my thread on the scientific method and explain to the actual fucking scientists on that thread how they've got things wrong.

I haven't read all these books yet. Which is why I'm not going to shoot my mouth off about the issues. A policy I would strongly urge you adopt yourself.

What I do know is that the most revolutionary or controversial (depending on your POV) contribution to both the philosophy of mind and the theory of neuroscience in the last fifty years has been made by Daniel Dennett, using the concept of the meme. Indeed, in the 1980s Dawkins abandoned his own creation of the meme as a failed speculation, until Dennett revived it in the 1990s. In a very real sense, while Dawkins threw the idea out there as an off-the-cuff speculation in 1975, it is Dennett that is the real theorist of memes.

But, regardless of all that, I've never understood what is so objectionable about the memetic perspective. Ideas become widespread because there is something about them that compels our minds to create copies of them. You can't stop humming a tune, or telling a joke, or looking at the world from a particular perspective. The fact that an idea is widespread thus doesn't necessarily mean that it's true or even useful, it might just be that it's the equivalent of that godawful advertising jingle I heard on the radio yesterday and now cant seem to stop humming.

And finally, it seems unnecessary to go sandpapering your nipples over what is a side-issue towards the end of TGD. If you were reviewing Dennett's Breaking the Spell then yes, addressing memes would be central. But for Dawkins, memetics is an interesting side issue. Indeed, it's only one of several possible explanations he gives in that later chapter for the prevalence of religion. Hell, he so damn ecumenical in that chapter, he even included group selection explanations - which is pretty damn fair-minded of him given that he's the leading critic of the group-selection idea in evolutionary theory.

No, the core of TGD is a huge straw man. The God Hypothesis does not describe divinity as presented by any major world religion (with the possible exception of the LDS).

(shall we have another go at this? I promise to read your stuff more carefully this time)

You'll have to forgive me if I harbour suspicions about your intellectual honesty given what happened the last time. I'm tempted to say that you should go back and re-read that debate from the beginning now you understand the error you made. Bitchy, but fair given the train wreck caused by the way you, in Dennett's phrase, "read with a broad brush".

But let's try to distil it. The Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief that the universe was designed and created by an intelligence. If you don't think it's likely that the universe was designed and created by an intelligence, then you're an "practical atheist" as far as Dawkins and the New Anti-Dogmatists (and, I daresay, the majority of religious people) are concerned and they have no problem with you at all. That's why Bishop Spong and Richard Dawkins have such a mutual admiration society going on.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-24-2007, 06:19 AM

As Dennett points out in the appendix to Breaking the Spell and in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, "meme" is as well defined as "gene" or "species" - which is to say, not very. But as with genetics or zoology, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the discipline.

The difference is that you can point to a gene; you can point to a species (or at least a representative of a particular species). You can explain that "gene" and "species" are artificial classifications and don't cover all circumstances (lions and tigers; horses and donkeys; units of inheritance where the exons encode more than one product), but these abstractions allow us to test, understand, create and rely on all sorts of things - from medicines to foodstuffs.

You don't have that with memetics. Point to a meme.

I'm not saying that it isn't a great model. It's a fantastic model. It models everything from marketing campaigns to cults and, as a writer, I use it all the time. But (as the Monty Python team put it), it's only a model. As it stands, I have good reason to believe that the model is missing a number of things that would make it a testable hypothesis (notably testability and falsifiability) - these objections come up all the time when it's mentioned in the popular science press (e.g. New Scientist)

I wouldn't even mind Dawkins calling it a theory if he made clear that he was using the word in the same way as sociologists, historians and (glod help us) lawyers or theologians use that word. But he's a scientist. He holds a chair for the public understanding of science. So he should be using the word like a scientist (fuck me, in the Selfish Gene, Dawkins moves from calling a meme a "conjecture" to talking about it being a theory in about five pages - that's not just sloppy, it's irresponsible).

PS: a popular science book isn't a peer-reviewed journal. Try again. However, the book is on it's way. My deadline isn't until mid-January so I've got plenty of time to change my approach. Shall we table this discussion until we've both read it?

The Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief that the universe was designed and created by an intelligence.

Which is not the theistic position. For us murkies, the theistic deity is not "an intelligence".

Atticus_of_Amber

12-24-2007, 07:24 AM

The difference is that you can point to a gene;

No. You can't. You can only point to the medium in which a particular copy of a gene is currently recorded. Just as you can't point to a song or a word, only to the particular medium where a copy of it is recorded. Genes are information, just as ephemeral as memes.

(Indeed, the point that genes are information, not DNA or RNA, that genetics is a branch of computer science, not chemistry, is the core of the neo-Darwinian "selfish gene" insight.)

Note also, Consciousness Explained is by no means a "popular science book".

Which is not the theistic position. For us murkies, the theistic deity is not "an intelligence".

That's a massive retreat from the positionyou took last time. One of the few questions you gave a straight answer to was that the God you believed in was intelligent, indeed you said no god that wasn't would be worth worshipping.

The position you now take is functional atheism. At best you're a Einsteinian/Spinozian panthiest, which is a position Dawkins has no problems with. If you're serious, then my work here is done. You're a Dawkins-style atheist.

But you can't seriously suggest this is the position taken by most Christians.

AZRogue

12-24-2007, 11:02 AM

Hastur T. Fannon

12-24-2007, 11:53 AM

No. You can't. You can only point to the medium in which a particular copy of a gene is currently recorded. Just as you can't point to a song or a word, only to the particular medium where a copy of it is recorded. Genes are information, just as ephemeral as memes.

Woh. And you're calling me an Platonist?

That's a massive retreat from the positionyou took last time. One of the few questions you gave a straight answer to was that the God you believed in was intelligent, indeed you said no god that wasn't would be worth worshipping.

No. It's exactly the same position. In negative theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology), any statement about God has to be balanced by the knowledge that that statement can't really describe Him

Is He intelligent? Yes. Is He "an intelligence"? No

Northcott

12-24-2007, 04:04 PM

Are we back to circular path of "he's not a being, he's being" where we watch Atticus proclaim that the statement makes no sense because he can't grasp it?

It's somehow appropriate. It's Christmas, after all. The beginning of the Christian cycle. :D

Atticus_of_Amber

12-24-2007, 06:10 PM

Woh. And you're calling me an Platonist?

First, that wasn't my position I was describing, it was central insight of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis first articulated by WD Hamilton (generally acknowledged to be the most brilliant evolutionary theorist since Darwin) and developed and popularised by his student, Richard Dawkins.

Second, there's nothing platonic about it.

No. It's exactly the same position. In negative theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology), any statement about God has to be balanced by the knowledge that that statement can't really describe Him

Is He intelligent? Yes. Is He "an intelligence"? No

Sigh. These attempts of yours to avoid the central issue are getting more and more desperate Hastur. Surely you can see that the God Hypothesis can be reworded to accomodate your silly word games.

Ok. God Hypothesis: The Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent [insert noun here].

Pick a noun and then address the argument. Hell, the Ultimate 747 argument probably even applies to a belief statement as circular as: "the universe was designed and created by an intelligent God".

To review Dawkins' book without addressing his central argument would be an act of gross intellectual dishonesty.

The irony is that there probably are potentially good rebuttals to the Ultimate 747 gambit (I've thought of a partial one myself). It would be nice if a theist thought about it long enough to come up with one...

Atticus_of_Amber

12-24-2007, 07:02 PM

It isn't mine. I believe in an intelligent God. I don't necessarily believe that he had much of a hand in the creation of the universe once he set conditions into place and got the ball rolling, though. Like spinning a top and then letting it spin its way around the room.

I can't speak for most Christians, though, only myself.

Ok, you're a kind of Jeffersonian deist.

I really recommend looking at the Ultimate 747 argument in the central chapter of The God Delusion. It's what changed my mind from my old view that Jeffersonian deism was a sustainable position (the view I held until about December 2006).

Hastur T. Fannon

12-25-2007, 04:38 AM

First, that wasn't my position I was describing, it was central insight of the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis first articulated by WD Hamilton (generally acknowledged to be the most brilliant evolutionary theorist since Darwin) and developed and popularised by his student, Richard Dawkins.

Firstly, when I was at school, a gene was a sequence of DNA that coded for a specific product. Things have since got more complex, but, whoops, dictionary.com still says nothing about information (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gene). You are arguing with a fucking dictionary. Actually, its a series of dictionaries - including medical and scientific ones

Secondly, this appears to be a strange new use of the word "information" that I haven't previously encountered. I have to admit, I've seen Dawkins use it in TSG and TEP, but I thought it was a sloppy analogy. I didn't realise he meant it

Information, to me, means "data plus structure". Data can be (e.g.) a set of varying levels of electrical charge or a set of marks or paper. The structure is a formal or informal description of how this data is to be interpreted - a specification or a language. Is this how you and Dawkins are using the word?

I think I can get how genes fit into this - the data is the individual base pairs ("are the individual base pairs"? Dammit, I can't find my copy of Strunk and White) and the structure is?

But memes? A meme is "a unit of information"? What the fuck does that mean?

Surely you can see that the God Hypothesis can be reworded to accomodate your silly word games.

Not my word game. This word game was begun in around 4 BC by a guy called Laozi (or possibly a series of blokes sharing a pen name). He realised that his experiences of transcendence and the experiences of those around him could not be capture in mere words, pictures or even interpretive dance

He described this problem in the classic phrase: "The Way (Dao) that can be spoken of is not the true Way."

(Ok, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is earlier, but I prefer the Daoist wording)

While it's throughly Biblical (e.g. Paul's references to an Unknown God, the Psalmists not being able to compare Him with anything), the Christian God was first described formally in these terms by a group known as the Cappadocian Fathers in the 4th Century AD and it's been at the core of Eastern Christianity ever since then. It's been less popular in the West, but groups like the Dominicans have done some good work on it.

It has been re-emphasised in the West over the past couple of hundred years as a response to modernism, but this isn't something I've dreamed up to agitate Antipodean atheists. We've always believed in it.

(I'm sure I've typed these words before...)

Ok. God Hypothesis: The Ultimate 747 argument applies to any belief that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent [insert noun here].

Pick a noun and then address the argument.

There isn't a noun I could pick (see above). Even "God" wouldn't be the right noun.

And I've spotted a mistake. I shouldn't have described God as "intelligent" while working within a negative theological framework - that's a positive statement. Bad Internet theologian - no cookie. Instead I should have described him as "not ignorant" ("omniscient" in other words)

Atticus_of_Amber

12-25-2007, 05:54 AM

Your retreat into "negative theology" makes you a practical atheist as far as I can see. That enough of a victory for me to be satisfied.

Now, returning to my point, it would be gross intellectual dishonesty to review TGD without addressing its central argument. I'd you say it doesn't address your "god" you'll have to explain why. That will make for fascinating reading. May I have a copy for an article I'm writing on the way the new anti-dogmatists have been misrepresented in the media? I need a good example of "murkiness".

As for memes and genes. No, Dawkins and the neo-Darwinista are deadly serious when they say genetics is a branch of information technology. It's not meant as an analogy. That is the central point of his book The Selfish Gene. It only makes sense if you view genes as bits of information, not bits of DNA.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-25-2007, 12:00 PM

Your retreat into "negative theology" makes you a practical atheist as far as I can see. That enough of a victory for me to be satisfied.

Don't be so ridiculous

Atticus_of_Amber

12-25-2007, 03:43 PM

Don't be so ridiculous

Lol! Projection, my friend, projection.

Honestly, I have real trouble seeing how "negative theology" is not consistent with practical atheism. It certainly seems to me to be inconsistent with the Creed.

Let me put it another way. If you believe the Creed, you're adopting a form of the God hypothesis and you have to address the 747 argument.

And I say again, to review TGD and not address the 747 would be an act of profound intellectual dishonesty.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-26-2007, 05:14 AM

Lol! Projection, my friend, projection.

Atticus, are you sure you want to take this position? Because I think you've just made a colossal blunder

Can I confirm a couple of things:

In your view, does the "Ultimate 747" argument apply to the negative theology view of divinity?

You believe that, to all intents and purposes, the negative theology view of divinity is functionally equivalent to atheism?

(the Creed does not describe God; it describes what Christians believe God is like - subtle difference)

Hastur T. Fannon

12-28-2007, 05:51 AM

No, Dawkins and the neo-Darwinista are deadly serious when they say genetics is a branch of information technology.

Oh and genetics will never be seen as a branch of information technology for the simple reason that you can't fix humans by switching them off and on again

I think you meant information theory

Atticus_of_Amber

12-28-2007, 08:31 PM

Oh and genetics will never be seen as a branch of information technology for the simple reason that you can't fix humans by switching them off and on again

I think you meant information theory

"Genetics today is pure information technology.": Richard Dawkins, "Son of Moore's Law" in his A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science and Love (2004, Houghton Mifflin Books, USA) at 107 (underlining added).

See also "Genes Aren't Us" in the same book at 105: "Genes are digital, textual information, and they retain their hard, textual integrity as they change partners, down the generations."

Atticus, are you sure you want to take this position? Because I think you've just made a colossal blunder

Can I confirm a couple of things:

In your view, does the "Ultimate 747" argument apply to the negative theology view of divinity?

You believe that, to all intents and purposes, the negative theology view of divinity is functionally equivalent to atheism?

My position is that the negative theology view of divinity is either (a) a disguised form of functional atheism; or (b) describes a deity to whom the Ultimate 747 argument applies. As currently advised, I'm at a loss to see how there could be an excluded middle.

(the Creed does not describe God; it describes what Christians believe God is like - subtle difference)

Then any deity resembling "what Christians believe God is like" is a deity to which the ultimate 747 argument applies and, if the argument is sound, is a deity that is very, very improbable. In other words, if the ultimate 747 argument is sound, when Christians say the creed, they are professing belief in something that is very, very unlikely.

And that is the central argument of The God Delusion. To fail to address it in a critical review would be an act of intellectual dishonesty.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-29-2007, 04:03 AM

"Genetics today is pure information technology.": Richard Dawkins, "Son of Moore's Law" in his A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science and Love (2004, Houghton Mifflin Books, USA) at 107 (underlining added).

I will concede that one can effectively apply information theory to genetics. I am concerned that treating DNA simply as a biological computer ignores the inherently chaotic nature of a cell - let alone a human being - and can result in tragedies like this (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL1817182120071218)

And you still haven't told me what a meme is.

My position is that the negative theology view of divinity is either (a) a disguised form of functional atheism; or (b) describes a deity to whom the Ultimate 747 argument applies.

In that case Atticus, you've just described all Moslems, all members of the second largest grouping of Christians and a significant number of practicing Jews and Christians from other denominations as atheists.

You may be comfortable with calling Osma Bin Laden an atheist. I wouldn't.

Then any deity resembling "what Christians believe God is like" is a deity to which the ultimate 747 argument applies and, if the argument is sound, is a deity that is very, very improbable.

Except that we know that God isn't like what we believe He is like. Our minds can't conceive or grasp what He is like. All we have is a human approximation.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-29-2007, 04:56 AM

I will concede that one can effectively apply information theory to genetics. I am concerned that treating DNA simply as a biological computer ignores the inherently chaotic nature of a cell - let alone a human being - and can result in tragedies like this (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL1817182120071218)

So you've never heard of someone's computer being totally fucked up by a computer virus or software error? Add in the rather nasty fact that we can't (yet?) download and copy and backup people's consciousnesses and that's pretty much what happened in that story.

And you still haven't told me what a meme is.

As I said in the other thread, I don't need to: "Review Breaking the Spell and we can talk memes, indeed it would be intellectually dishonest to avoid them then. But in the context of a discussion of TGD, I'm not going to talk about a speculative side-issue (which Dawkins, despite having coined the term, is actually quite crap at as a practitioner) while you're being so intellectually dishonest as to ignore the central argument of the book. Let me put it another way: To focus on the evolutionary speculations in the "Roots of Religion" chapters in a discussion of TGD would be like focussing on the "Souring of the Shire" and Bilbo's Birthday Party in a review of LotR. And to focus on memes in a review of TGD would be like writing a review of LotR focussed on Tom Bombadill."

In that case Atticus, you've just described all Moslems, all members of the second largest grouping of Christians and a significant number of practicing Jews and Christians from other denominations as atheists.

How? It seems to me I've equally said that both you and Osama have to address the Ultimate 747 argument.

Let me put it to you another way: What's the essential difference between your theology and that of Osama bin Laden or Jerry Falwell?

(And note. in NO WAY am I saying you're like them. Quite the contrary in fact. I just want to know what you think the key theological difference between you is.)

Except that we know that God isn't like what we believe He is like. Our minds can't conceive or grasp what He is like. All we have is a human approximation.

So your theological claim is that there is a God so unlike what Christians profess to believe in each Sunday that arguments that would apply to the God they profess believe in don't apply to the God that exists? Woah! Sophistry overdose!

You can't avoid the core argument of TGD and be honest. You either have to rebut it, or show how it doesn't apply to your "God". If the former, you've shown Dawkins core argument to be wrong. If the latter, you've shown yourself to not be one of Dawkins targets (though, if you're explicit about it, you may find quite a few of your co-religionists don't recognise what you call Christianity). But surely to ignore the central claim of the book in preference for an attack on a minor point in a chapter on what Dawkins sees as a side issue is to be rather dishonest, don't you think?

Hastur T. Fannon

12-29-2007, 07:01 AM

So you've never heard of someone's computer being totally fucked up by a computer virus or software error? Add in the rather nasty fact that we can't (yet?) download and copy and backup people's consciousnesses and that's pretty much what happened in that story.

Point made and accepted. It still seems counter-intuitive, but that's no reason to object to a scientific theory.

What's the essential difference between your theology and that of Osama bin Laden or Jerry Falwell?

I can't say whether or not Jerry Falwell practices negative theology, but, as a Muslim, Osma Bin Laden will believe that Allah is not a being, cannot be grasped and cannot be compared to anything

You don't see that you've reached an absurd conclusion, thus invalidating your argument? That's why I was saying that you were being ridiculous

Say it out loud Atticus: "Mohammad was an atheist." Then you might just see where your arguments have taken you

So your theological claim is that there is a God so unlike what Christians profess to believe in each Sunday that arguments that would apply to the God they profess believe in don't apply to the God that exists?

Good summary, though you lose points for using the word "exists". I think we've used the koan about the finger pointing at the moon before. Using this analogy, the creed is the finger; God is the moon.

(though, if you're explicit about it, you may find quite a few of your co-religionists don't recognise what you call Christianity).

This is a problem and it's good that Dawkins has brought it too our attention. The standard of theological education "in the pews" is dreadful. Which is why my vicar (conservative evangelical so this isn't a liberal viewpoint I'm pushing) is getting an actual, qualified theologian (letters after his name and everything) to write an introduction to negative theology which I'll reference after saying that "the Ultimate 747" argument is attacking a straw man

Atticus_of_Amber

12-29-2007, 07:53 AM

Point made and accepted. It still seems counter-intuitive, but that's no reason to object to a scientific theory.

Fair enough.

And you're damn right it's counter-intuitive. Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea gives some applications that will make your head explode. I know this because they made my head explode, and I started more sympathetic to the idea than you did.

EDIT: See here (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/valencia.htm) for a good example of his mind-bendingness.

I can't say whether or not Jerry Falwell practices negative theology, but, as a Muslim, Osma Bin Laden will believe that Allah is not a being, cannot be grasped and cannot be compared to anything

You don't see that you've reached an absurd conclusion, thus invalidating your argument? That's why I was saying that you were being ridiculous

Say it out loud Atticus: "Mohammad was an atheist." Then you might just see where your arguments have taken you

I think we're at cross purposes here. I'm not saying he's a "virtual atheist", I'm saying that you are (effectively) saying he's a "virtual atheist".

Good summary, though you lose points for using the word "exists".

That's because I'm sick of avoiding "naughtly words" for no reason other than to avoid being scolded by you. :tongue:

I think we've used the koan about the finger pointing at the moon before. Using this analogy, the creed is the finger; God is the moon.

No, God is the finger. And the moon is a reflection of something that was inside you all along. "Theism is a pickpocket that offers to lend you back your own money at a low interest rate": Sam Harris.

This is a problem and it's good that Dawkins has brought it too our attention. The standard of theological education "in the pews" is dreadful. Which is why my vicar (conservative evangelical so this isn't a liberal viewpoint I'm pushing) is getting an actual, qualified theologian (letters after his name and everything) to write an introduction to negative theology which I'll reference after saying that "the Ultimate 747" argument is attacking a straw man

If the God Dawkins attacks is the God believed in by the majority of ordinary Christians, then I think he's attacking the right target. I'm sure he'll write a sequel after "negative theology" makes it out of the seminary and into the minds of the congregation. Though I suspect that sequel might consist of one para: "I win! Well, close enough for me, anyway. Lalla! Stop drooling over footage of yourself and Tom Baker in old Dr Who episodes and pour me a G+T. I think I'm going to have to go back to kicking New Agers in the nuts and hosting nature docos... "

doc

12-29-2007, 10:57 AM

I got Faith it Religon that turns me off

there_is_no_bob

12-29-2007, 01:59 PM

No, God is the finger. And the moon is a reflection of something that was inside you all along.Make sure you're talking about the same God, before we start on that lovely merry-go-round again.

I think Richard is talking about the God that he can't descrbe when he says God is the moon.

The finger is the God* he can describe. Or the God you just talked about.

Maybe. Just make sure you aren't talking about the same thing with different words. It gets very confusing for those of us in the cheap seats.

...And probably for those not in the cheap seats, too.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-29-2007, 03:16 PM

I got Faith it Religon that turns me off

See, I'm the opposite. I dig religion, it's faith that makes me uneasy.

Atticus_of_Amber

12-29-2007, 06:25 PM

Make sure you're talking about the same God, before we start on that lovely merry-go-round again.

I think Richard is talking about the God that he can't descrbe when he says God is the moon.

The finger is the God* he can describe. Or the God you just talked about.

Maybe. Just make sure you aren't talking about the same thing with different words. It gets very confusing for those of us in the cheap seats.

...And probably for those not in the cheap seats, too.

So true.

What I'm saying is that, when it comes to mystical/spiritual experience, I really do think there is a "there there", but I don't think that necessarily means the "there" is external to the brain. Given that the "there" being is external to the brain looks improbably given our current state of knowledge about the universe, I think we should tentatively work on the basis that the there is "in here". At the very least, we should be very suspicious of any ethical or political conclusions that proceed from the assumption that the there is "out there".

I'm giving this a break for a while, though. Too much time posting. Not enough working or living.

If you want something interesting to read, check out Dennett's article on artificial creativity I linked to upthread (here (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/valencia.htm)). Someone's developed a computer program, using a kind of Darwinian algorithm, that can compose music that fools critics into thinking it was composed by a human. Literally, someone has built a program that passes a musical version of the Turing Test. Amazing. And it has some interesting implications for our common beliefs about the sources of human creativity.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-30-2007, 05:25 AM

EDIT: See here (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/valencia.htm) for a good example of his mind-bendingness.

A couple of questions:

1) when was this written?
2) Do you read much cutting edge science fiction?

Because I was reading it I was thinking: so this is what Warren Ellis, Greg Egan, Ken Macleod, Alan Moore, Alistair Reynolds (etc.) are going on about. It was nice to see "the science bit", but these guys blew my mind before I got to read this paper, so it was only nice. I grew up with books about creative artificial intelligences (Heinlein in particular) so a paper saying "here's how we do it." just gives me an almost nostalgic tingle rather than bending my mind. But thanks for posting it.

I think we're at cross purposes here. I'm not saying he's a "virtual atheist", I'm saying that you are (effectively) saying he's a "virtual atheist".

Ok, I'll bite: why do you think that negative theology is functionally equivalent to atheism?

If the God Dawkins attacks is the God believed in by the majority of ordinary Christians, then I think he's attacking the right target. I'm sure he'll write a sequel after "negative theology" makes it out of the seminary and into the minds of the congregation.

For Christianity, it's really only the Prots that have this problem. Catholics and Orthodox formally teach their flock what they believe before they'll let them be full members (though the Catholics do it much too early). The Orthodox push negative theology more than the Catholics do (OrthodoxWiki article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/God)), but stuff like paragraph 213 of the Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM), is a negative theology view of God

Frankly the average protestant will, if pushed, move into a negative theology position - he or she won't think of God as being "a being" in the same way that they are a being, but I don't need to support this statement. If you add the Catholics and the Orthodox together you've got the vast majority of the worlds Christians before you add minor figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury ( :) ). So it's not in the seminaries, it's in the pews and Dawkins should have addressed what Christians actually believe rather than a straw man

Muslim conceptions of God are all about the negative theology - as I've shown.

To be frank, I don't care whether you think we're atheists or not (though I will point and laugh if you keep on bringing it up) - just as long as you concede that "the Ultimate 747" argument doesn't apply to our God.

Prof. Dawkins should have found out what Christians actually believe and attacked that - the first half of TGD is simply bad theology

Make sure you're talking about the same God, before we start on that lovely merry-go-round again.

I think Richard is talking about the God that he can't descrbe when he says God is the moon.

The finger is the God* he can describe. Or the God you just talked about.

Bingo

What I'm saying is that, when it comes to mystical/spiritual experience, I really do think there is a "there there", but I don't think that necessarily means the "there" is external to the brain. Given that the "there" being is external to the brain looks improbably given our current state of knowledge about the universe, I think we should tentatively work on the basis that the there is "in here". At the very least, we should be very suspicious of any ethical or political conclusions that proceed from the assumption that the there is "out there".

One final question: has anyone brought up the idea that our feelings of transcendence might be related to a reward mechanism for encouraging curiosity? It's something I've been thinking about over the past few weeks

Atticus_of_Amber

12-30-2007, 07:46 AM

Hastur, I'm not going to have time to post for a few days but there are several things in your last posts with WHICH I strongly disagree - including one (almost certainly unintentional) misrepresentation of my position.

To be continued...

Varaj

12-30-2007, 08:42 AM

Hastur:
Do you belief that God created the universe?
Do you belief that God is intelligent?

Hastur T. Fannon

12-30-2007, 12:32 PM

Hastur:
Do you belief that God created the universe?

Yes

Do you belief that God is intelligent?

I believe that he is not ignorant - which is not the same thing

Varaj

12-30-2007, 03:54 PM

I believe that he is not ignorant - which is not the same thing

Intelligence and ignorance have very little relationship. Asking about intelligence and answering with ignorance is kind of like asking about water and answering with air. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. The opposite of intelligence is the inability to understand or make judgments?
Do you believe God is capable of planning?
Do you believe God can make choices?
Do you believe that God is incapable of understanding?
Do you believe that God is incapable of making judgments?

Or more to the point, to you have proof of God? If not you and Atticus can move past the retarded 747 crap.

Hastur T. Fannon

12-31-2007, 05:15 AM

Intelligence and ignorance have very little relationship. Asking about intelligence and answering with ignorance is kind of like asking about water and answering with air. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. The opposite of intelligence is the inability to understand or make judgments?

Would you prefer "not stupid"? I only used "not ignorant" out of tradition, I believe the phrase dates from before human beings started separating knowledge and reason

Do you believe God is capable of planning?
Do you believe God can make choices?
Do you believe that God is incapable of understanding?
Do you believe that God is incapable of making judgments?

Now I can see what you're going here and it's a good approach. You're attempting to get me to ascribe attributes to my concept of God that are features of intelligent behaviour. If I did do that you'd go "A-ha! You believe that God has that attributes of an intelligence being, therefore the Ultimate 747 argument applies."

Now you can apply positive attributes to a concept of God (He is loving, just, merciful, intelligent, etc.), but you have to always realise that what you are doing is creating a model that may or may not map onto an external reality. Even if it does map onto an external reality, it will do so imperfectly - it's a metaphor. If you forget this then what you are doing is worshiping an image of God - and that's a breach of either the 1st or 2nd Commandment depending on how you're tradition divides them [1]

To put is crudely "The Lord is my Shepherd" does not mean that He has a crook, a satchel for his sandwiches and a flock of woolly things that go "baa".

To put it another way: I may believe that God is intelligent, but I know that, if He is real, his intelligence is on a completely different level to my concept of intelligence

How familiar are you with the Cthulhu Mythos? I might be able to find an analogy that way.

Or more to the point, to you have proof of God? If not you and Atticus can move past the retarded 747 crap.

Was that "do I have to have proof of God"? Is so, absolutely not. I am convinced that a deity whose existence can be proved would not be God. "The Dao that can be spoken of is not the true Dao" and all that.

[1] And if Dawkins had spent 30 seconds talking with a priest he'd have avoided that really, really embarrassing mistake he makes in chapter 7 of the TGD. The second commandment is one of the hardest to avoid breaking

Varaj

12-31-2007, 10:59 AM

Would you prefer "not stupid"? I only used "not ignorant" out of tradition, I believe the phrase dates from before human beings started separating knowledge and reason

Now I can see what you're going here and it's a good approach. You're attempting to get me to ascribe attributes to my concept of God that are features of intelligent behaviour. If I did do that you'd go "A-ha! You believe that God has that attributes of an intelligence being, therefore the Ultimate 747 argument applies."

Now you can apply positive attributes to a concept of God (He is loving, just, merciful, intelligent, etc.), but you have to always realise that what you are doing is creating a model that may or may not map onto an external reality. Even if it does map onto an external reality, it will do so imperfectly - it's a metaphor. If you forget this then what you are doing is worshiping an image of God - and that's a breach of either the 1st or 2nd Commandment depending on how you're tradition divides them [1]

To put is crudely "The Lord is my Shepherd" does not mean that He has a crook, a satchel for his sandwiches and a flock of woolly things that go "baa".

To put it another way: I may believe that God is intelligent, but I know that, if He is real, his intelligence is on a completely different level to my concept of intelligence

How familiar are you with the Cthulhu Mythos? I might be able to find an analogy that way.

Of course the type of intelligence that a God would have is not understandable by humans or comparable to human intelligence. The word only touches on it the smallest way. That goes with out saying.

Was that "do I have to have proof of God"? Is so, absolutely not. I am convinced that a deity whose existence can be proved would not be God. "The Dao that can be spoken of is not the true Dao" and all that.

[1] And if Dawkins had spent 30 seconds talking with a priest he'd have avoided that really, really embarrassing mistake he makes in chapter 7 of the TGD. The second commandment is one of the hardest to avoid breaking

The 747 argument is a completely retarded argument in my mind. Atticus says its only purpose is to get a person to admit their belief in God is one of faith. I'm just trying to help you guys move into the point you can both ignore the 747 crap.

AZRogue

12-31-2007, 12:04 PM

Eliezer

12-31-2007, 01:08 PM

I don't see the supposed "power" of the 747 arguement. God is an improbable being (for lack of a better word) that we can't "prove" exists and, so, believe in by faith? Well, shock my heart.

I believe in God through my faith. The fact that I may have had compelling spiritual experiences of my own may strengthen my faith but does not change that fact.

Similar arguments have been made and although I'm unfamiliar with the 747 arguments, I've read others.

I'm always amused at the complete lack of evidence of a god/creator of the universe. Every argument I've read proposing that the physical world in someway shows that there is a god breaks down completely in the face of science.

That in and of itself isn't a huge issue and is definitely not a deal breaker. Given that I believe in a god who works through the laws of the physical universe and isn't the creator of the universe but of this world such arguments make little difference to me. It is what I would expect given my theology. Even natural phenomena creating life on the planet isn't much of a problem if we assume god functioned as a terraforming agent who subtly guided things to eventually evolve and create a hominid that would serve his purposes.

The biggest argument that I've seen against Christianity is the utter lack of evidence in a spirit, or a life sustaining/giving force/entity/thing that departs the body when the body dies and is somehow involved in cognitive or life sustaining functions.

This may seem like a very trivial thing, but the theological premise that the spirit is the life giving agent and death is characterized by the departure of the spirit and that the person persists beyond death as a spirit is pretty fundamental. So failure to find any evidence of a spirit in biological functioning is pretty significant.

The only way to reconcile this (if you assume that if there were something we would have detected it) is to assume that the spirit does not give "life" in the biological sense and that biological sustenance of biological functioning (meaning both cellular and organism) is all that is needed. That the spirit may be attached to the body, but does not give life, but only departs when biological life ceases (at least under normal circumstances).

Hastur T. Fannon

01-01-2008, 05:21 AM

Similar arguments have been made and although I'm unfamiliar with the 747 arguments, I've read others.

The "Ultimate 747" argument (as found in chapter 2 of The God Delusion) is this:

First Dawkins defines what he calls "The God Hypothesis":

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it.

He then goes on to show that:

Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution

and, therefore:

Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion

The 747 argument is a completely retarded argument in my mind. Atticus says its only purpose is to get a person to admit their belief in God is one of faith. I'm just trying to help you guys move into the point you can both ignore the 747 crap.

As I see it, Richard Dawkins thinks that the Ultimate 747 argument disproves the existence of a theistic deity (and I think Atticus agrees). However, I don't believe that the God Hypothesis describes a theistic deity, which makes the first half of the God Delusion a straw man

Varaj

01-01-2008, 11:22 AM

As I see it, Richard Dawkins thinks that the Ultimate 747 argument disproves the existence of a theistic deity (and I think Atticus agrees). However, I don't believe that the God Hypothesis describes a theistic deity, which makes the first half of the God Delusion a straw man

Atticus says that it is to show that belief in God is a matter of faith. /shrug/

Atticus_of_Amber

01-02-2008, 06:33 PM

A couple of questions:

1) when was this written?
2) Do you read much cutting edge science fiction?

Because I was reading it I was thinking: so this is what Warren Ellis, Greg Egan, Ken Macleod, Alan Moore, Alistair Reynolds (etc.) are going on about. It was nice to see "the science bit", but these guys blew my mind before I got to read this paper, so it was only nice. I grew up with books about creative artificial intelligences (Heinlein in particular) so a paper saying "here's how we do it." just gives me an almost nostalgic tingle rather than bending my mind. But thanks for posting it.

It was written very recently. Interestingly, Dennett has had something to do with editing science fiction: see Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul.

Ok, I'll bite: why do you think that negative theology is functionally equivalent to atheism?

I'll deal with that in more detail in the negative theology thread. Basically, because *I* can agree with the tenants of negative theology. I can agree with the tenant that god is "not stupid" for the same reason that I can agree that the Mosad agents who framed Osama bin laden for 9/11 an faked the Moon landings are "not stupid" - I don't believe either of them exist. They are both "not stupid" because they are both "not [anything]".

For Christianity, it's really only the Prots that have this problem. Catholics and Orthodox formally teach their flock what they believe before they'll let them be full members (though the Catholics do it much too early). The Orthodox push negative theology more than the Catholics do (OrthodoxWiki article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/God)), but stuff like paragraph 213 of the Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM), is a negative theology view of God

None of that is purely negative theology. There are always positive statements about god mixed in. Moreover, if you polled the people in the pews, they'd almost all makes positive theology statements.

Frankly the average protestant will, if pushed, move into a negative theology position - he or she won't think of God as being "a being" in the same way that they are a being, but I don't need to support this statement. If you add the Catholics and the Orthodox together you've got the vast majority of the worlds Christians before you add minor figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury ( :) ).

Exactly, "negative theology" seems to me to be a fortress of sophistry into which theists retreat when pressed by sceptics. Once the sceptics have gotten gone away (because they're satisfied, based on what they say, that the "theists" are really atheists and just don't want to admit it yet), the theists open the gates and start frolicking in the meadows of positive theology again. I think one of the few things that's "new" about the "new atheism" is that its planning a permanent siege. They aren't going to leave theists alone ever again.

So it's not in the seminaries, it's in the pews and Dawkins should have addressed what Christians actually believe rather than a straw man

If the people in the pews are forced to retreat to negative theology and stay there, with no positive theological beliefs, then I suspect Dawkins will consider that he has won.

Muslim conceptions of God are all about the negative theology - as I've shown.

Hmm. Mohamed ascending on a winged horse? The Koran as literal and perfect word of God? Martyrdom? Paradise?

To say it's "all" about negative theology seems to me to be either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

To be frank, I don't care whether you think we're atheists or not (though I will point and laugh if you keep on bringing it up) - just as long as you concede that "the Ultimate 747" argument doesn't apply to our God.

Prof. Dawkins should have found out what Christians actually believe and attacked that - the first half of TGD is simply bad theology

Professor Dawkins has attacked what most Christians believe when they are not being pressed by sceptics. He hasn't attacked the retreat they use when pressed, because I suspect that's where he wants them.

As GG and you pointed out in the Spong thread, anaemic theology doesn't fill pews. If you're right, Christianity retreat to negative theology (and it's logical conclusion, Spongian functional atheism) is a rather suicidal move. Personally, I hope you're wrong.

Hastur:
Do you belief that God created the universe?
Yes.

THAT is not a statement of "negative theology. It's a statement of positive theology and it is part of the God Hypothesis.

Do you belief that God is intelligent?

I believe that he is not ignorant - which is not the same thing

If you believe the God that created the universe did so deliberately and with a plan, then you're adopting the God Hypothesis. If you don't, then you're adopting the "Einsteinian religion" or Spinozian pantheism that the "new atheists" have said time and again that they have no problem with.

Now I can see what you're going here and it's a good approach. You're attempting to get me to ascribe attributes to my concept of God that are features of intelligent behaviour. If I did do that you'd go "A-ha! You believe that God has that attributes of an intelligence being, therefore the Ultimate 747 argument applies."

Now you can apply positive attributes to a concept of God (He is loving, just, merciful, intelligent, etc.), but you have to always realise that what you are doing is creating a model that may or may not map onto an external reality. Even if it does map onto an external reality, it will do so imperfectly - it's a metaphor. If you forget this then what you are doing is worshiping an image of God - and that's a breach of either the 1st or 2nd Commandment depending on how you're tradition divides them

As soon as you attribute any such characteristic to God, you're adopting the God Hypothesis and have to face the Ultimate 747 argument. Extend even a finger beyond the walls of that negative theology fortress, and you have to fight. No more frolicking in the meadow unchallenged.

The 747 argument is a completely retarded argument in my mind. Atticus says its only purpose is to get a person to admit their belief in God is one of faith. I'm just trying to help you guys move into the point you can both ignore the 747 crap.

Not it's "only" purpose. It persuaded me out of being neutral on the question of deism, after all. It's hardly retarded, it just has a couple of very limited functions.

I don't see the supposed "power" of the 747 arguement. God is an improbable being (for lack of a better word) that we can't "prove" exists and, so, believe in by faith? Well, shock my heart.

I believe in God through my faith. The fact that I may have had compelling spiritual experiences of my own may strengthen my faith but does not change that fact.

Ultimate 747 forces a theist to either admit that his God is highly improbable and thus admit that he's belief is based on faith rather than reason; or forces him into the functional atheism of pure "negative theology" (which any new atheist could agree with). In other words, the Ultimate 747 either forces the theist to face Sam Harris, or it forces him to effectively surrender.

As I see it, Richard Dawkins thinks that the Ultimate 747 argument disproves the existence of a theistic deity (and I think Atticus agrees). However, I don't believe that the God Hypothesis describes a theistic deity, which makes the first half of the God Delusion a straw man

It' doesn't "disprove" anything. It demonstrates that, on the currently available evidence and the current state of our knowledge of how the universe works, it is highly improbably that there is a God, in the sense that it is highly likely that the universe was designed and created by an intelligence.

You've admitted you believe in a God that created the universe. So you've admitted half of the God hypothesis. If you admit that he's intelligent (n the sense of being able to make plans and deliberately design the universe) then you've adopted the hypothesis and have to face the argument. If you don't, then your an Einsteinian/Spinozian pantheist and the new atheist have no problem with you.

AZRogue

01-03-2008, 12:24 AM

Atticus_of_Amber

01-03-2008, 12:33 AM

Let's drift a bit back to the original topic:

Atticus, is there anything that you have faith in? No value judgement is meant by the question (I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have faith in anything and your answer won't affect my opinion of you, I mean); I'm just curious. Is there something that you believe in that you have no proof for but that you choose to believe in anyway?

Again, I'd insist on using the term evidence rather than proof.

I don't think there are any external facts that I that I have no evidence for but that I choose to believe in anyway. When contrary evidence comes to my attention, I tend to change my view if I'm persuaded of the evidence's accuracy.

On things like human rights, liberty, autonomy and equality, the situation is ambiguous. But those are normative views about what should be, not positive view about the external world. If we want to get into a discussion about the is-ought dichotomy, then that should probably be another thread.

If not, do you have anything that you would LIKE to believe in by faith? If so, what is it?

No. I don't think so.

I suspect if there is something, it is those "gumption" beliefs one adopts when one's back is against the wall that one IS going to succeed. That irrational belief is often necessary to actually have a chance of succeeding. I have detached my rational faculties temporarily in those circumstances. I always feel a bit "dirty" doing it though.

Lastly, have you ever held a true faith-based belief in the past? Not in an offhand way, but in a personal and powerful way.

Hmm. I was quite religious as an early teenager and even considered the priesthood, until I decided faith was irrational at about age 16. hose beliefs weren't "off-hand" but they were rather immature.

AZRogue

01-03-2008, 12:58 AM

Fair enough. Thanks.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-04-2008, 03:34 PM

Ultimate 747 forces a theist to either admit that his God is highly improbable and thus admit that he's belief is based on faith rather than reason

I don't accept your use of the words "faith" and "belief"

Atticus_of_Amber

01-04-2008, 05:19 PM

I don't accept your use of the words "faith" and "belief"

Then you're not accepting the dictionary definitions of those two words that were established, without apparant dissent from you, earlier in this thread.

So, we're now pushed back several steps. Ok. What do *you* mean by faith and belief?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-05-2008, 12:17 PM

Hmm. Mohamed ascending on a winged horse? The Koran as literal and perfect word of God? Martyrdom? Paradise?

Come on Atticus, you can do better than that. Those aren't statements about Allah and one of them is from a very dodgy hadith. Find me a verse in the Qur'an (or even a well-attested hadith) where Mohammed attributes a positive attribute to God that isn't a metaphor

You've admitted you believe in a God that created the universe. So you've admitted half of the God hypothesis. If you admit that he's intelligent (n the sense of being able to make plans and deliberately design the universe) then you've adopted the hypothesis and have to face the argument.

I believe in Him; I just don't believe He exists (that He is a created being)
I don't believe He's intelligent; I believe that you can ascribe something to Him that is analogous to our intelligence

Then you're not accepting the dictionary definitions of those two words that were established, without apparant dissent from you, earlier in this thread.

You were planning to expand on that position, but never got back to me

"Belief without reason" doesn't describe religious faith. As usually described and practiced, religious faith is an act of the will and the intellect as much as of the heart. "Belief without reason" - unthinking belief - would be fanaticism

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

If we're playing dueling dictionaries, definitions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 could all potentially be applied to religious faith (which I'm tentatively describing as "emotional commitment")

What I believe that the "New Atheists" are doing by describing faith as "belief without reason" is, frankly, Orwellian. The implication is that people of faith are unreasoning, unthinking brutes. If you really think that, just come right out and say it

Varaj

01-05-2008, 12:29 PM

If we're playing dueling dictionaries, definitions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 could all potentially be applied to religious faith (which I'm tentatively describing as "emotional commitment")

What I believe that the "New Atheists" are doing by describing faith as "belief without reason" is, frankly, Orwellian. The implication is that people of faith are unreasoning, unthinking brutes. If you really think that, just come right out and say it

Definition 2 seems to fail to meet definition 1 b & c of reason
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason
b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action

belief without reason would mean to me belief without proof.
Perhaps their is a connotation I'm missing, but I don't get from the statement belief without reason what you do.

panther.jd

01-05-2008, 12:56 PM

Find me a verse in the Qur'an (or even a well-attested hadith) where Mohammed attributes a positive attribute to God that isn't a metaphorIs the story of Jesus a metaphor?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-06-2008, 07:05 AM

Is the story of Jesus a metaphor?

Can a story be a metaphor? Metaphor is a story-telling technique

It contains metaphor - that's obvious. Describing Him as the Son of God doesn't mean that God and Mary had sex - it's one of the metaphors used to describe how He was completely God and completely human

Saying that He ascended into Heaven doesn't mean that Heaven is somewhere in the sky. Metaphor again

Atticus_of_Amber

01-06-2008, 02:38 PM

Can a story be a metaphor? Metaphor is a story-telling technique

It contains metaphor - that's obvious. Describing Him as the Son of God doesn't mean that God and Mary had sex - it's one of the metaphors used to describe how He was completely God and completely human

Saying that He ascended into Heaven doesn't mean that Heaven is somewhere in the sky. Metaphor again

Are ALL the apparant miracles, including the resurrection, just metaphores? Or did any of them really happen, the same way an event like 9/11 or the moon landing really happened?

I think that's the question panther was asking.

panther.jd

01-06-2008, 10:07 PM

Are ALL the apparant miracles, including the resurrection, just metaphores? Or did any of them really happen, the same way an event like 9/11 or the moon landing really happened?

I think that's the question panther was asking.Yes, seriously. You say god can't be disproven because god can't be defined. But a statement such as "Jesus died for our sins" is a positive statement (unless that's a metaphor too.) The assertion that Jesus is both god and man, that Jesus was crucified and resurrected are positive statements.

I'm seriously asking if it's all metaphor or if any of it happened. This is the reason I said in the negative theology thread all religions are false. If negative theology is taken seriously, if negative theology is held to be true, the conclusion that all religions are false is inescapable.

AZRogue

01-06-2008, 10:15 PM

I've already admitted that my belief is based on faith--didn't need the 747 thing to get me to admit that. I'm curious what happens next.

Varaj

01-06-2008, 10:16 PM

I've already admitted that my belief is based on faith--didn't need the 747 thing to get me to admit that. I'm curious what happens next.

Then Atticus kicks you in the nuts and calls you a sissy girl and then runs away laughing.

AZRogue

01-07-2008, 12:13 AM

Then Atticus kicks you in the nuts and calls you a sissy girl and then runs away laughing.

To not have to hear about the 747 thing any more .... it may be worth it. ;)

Atticus_of_Amber

01-07-2008, 01:16 AM

Then Sam Harris kicks you in the nuts and calls you a unwitting enabler for terrorists and then runs away laughing.

FIFY ;-)

Me? I'm not so sure.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-08-2008, 02:41 PM

Are ALL the apparant miracles, including the resurrection, just metaphores? Or did any of them really happen, the same way an event like 9/11 or the moon landing really happened?

Yes, to both questions. For a fuller explanation you can read an introductory text on theology, "Honest to God", the second half of CS Lewis's Miracles, or, if you want to feel the sensation of your brain trying to to escape out of your ears, the first couple of chapters of Rowan's "On Christian Theology"

I'm done here

Hastur T. Fannon

01-08-2008, 03:04 PM

Hastur T. Fannon

01-08-2008, 03:21 PM

Triple post, sorry

Quick question Atticus: Do Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett agree with Richard Dawkins' definition of faith (as "belief without reason")?

Varaj

01-08-2008, 04:13 PM

Triple post, sorry

Quick question Atticus: Do Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett agree with Richard Dawkins' definition of faith (as "belief without reason")?

Hastur I'm not sure they have the same connotation that you do for the word "reason". I believe they may be using it as "belief without proof".

Atticus_of_Amber

01-08-2008, 04:24 PM

Hastur I'm not sure they have the same connotation that you do for the word "reason". I believe they may be using it as "belief without proof".

Not "proof", evidence.
Faith is a belief (i.e. in these circumstances, the emotional comitment to the view that a particular idea corresponda to reality) held on insufficient evidence or against the weight of evidence.

Varaj

01-08-2008, 04:35 PM

Not "proof", evidence.
Faith is a belief (i.e. in these circumstances, the emotional comitment to the view that a particular idea corresponda to reality) held on insufficient evidence or against the weight of evidence.

proof and evidence mean about the same thing to me so I have no problem using evidence if you like. :)

Hastur T. Fannon

01-08-2008, 05:19 PM

Faith is a belief (i.e. in these circumstances, the emotional comitment to the view that a particular idea corresponda to reality) held on insufficient evidence or against the weight of evidence.

When someone shows integrity, they are said to be "faithful", agreed?

Is the word "faith" being used in the same way here?

Eliezer

01-09-2008, 11:50 AM

When someone shows integrity, they are said to be "faithful", agreed?

Is the word "faith" being used in the same way here?

The most fun part of all of these attacks on "faith" are based upon definitions of faith or faith in specific things that many people of faith would not agree with.

That was my response to most of Victor J. Stenger book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis". It was fairly well done and where he bothered with analysis (he did stick to science and although he paid token respect to the philosophical analysis others have provided) the analysis was good.

The problem was at the end of each argument I was left thinking, that's true. Too bad that doesn't apply to my understanding of god. It wasn't just an issue of subtleties about definitions. The definitions he chose were some that I would consider heretical.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-10-2008, 11:39 PM

Come on Atticus, you can do better than that. Those aren't statements about Allah and one of them is from a very dodgy hadith. Find me a verse in the Qur'an (or even a well-attested hadith) where Mohammed attributes a positive attribute to God that isn't a metaphor

Statements about the reality of paradise aren't statements about Allah?

I believe in Him; I just don't believe He exists (that He is a created being)
I don't believe He's intelligent; I believe that you can ascribe something to Him that is analogous to our intelligence

Would you agree to the statement "God is not intelligent"?

"Belief without reason" doesn't describe religious faith. As usually described and practiced, religious faith is an act of the will and the intellect as much as of the heart. "Belief without reason" - unthinking belief - would be fanaticism

"Belief without reason" seems to me to be, at best, a misleading shorthand for the "new atheist" position on faith. For what must be the hundredth time, it's about beleifs without evidence.

Indeed, Sam Harris argues that its precisely the combination of faith and reason that is so dangerous. Oonce you accept certain premises on faith (i.e. without evidence, as dogma) reason requires you to think and do certain things. For example, if you believe that there is an afterlife, that this life is simple a brief vale of tears before paradise, that the greatest place in paradise is reserved for martyrs and you are a Palestinian in the occupied territories, it would be irrational for you NOT to want to be a suicide bomber.

What I believe that the "New Atheists" are doing by describing faith as "belief without reason" is, frankly, Orwellian. The implication is that people of faith are unreasoning, unthinking brutes. If you really think that, just come right out and say it

No it's YOU who is being "frankly Orwellian". You've been told innumerable times that the issue is evidence and you continue to ignore that.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-10-2008, 11:41 PM

Are ALL the apparant miracles, including the resurrection, just metaphores? Or did any of them really happen, the same way an event like 9/11 or the moon landing really happened?

I think that's the question panther was asking.Yes, to both questions. For a fuller explanation you can read an introductory text on theology, "Honest to God", the second half of CS Lewis's Miracles, or, if you want to feel the sensation of your brain trying to to escape out of your ears, the first couple of chapters of Rowan's "On Christian Theology"

I'm done here

I think you missed the word "just". What you've said is incoherent.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-10-2008, 11:43 PM

Ok, maybe I'm not

(Frolic, frolic, frolic. Hello trees - hello sky!)

I am emotionally committed to the idea that there was a bloke called Yeshua bar-Yoseph, who lived in Palestine around 2000 years ago. I am also emotionally committed to the idea that the four accounts of his life, colloquially known as the Gospels, describe his life and works. In other words, yes to the second question

To describe what this alleged bloke allegedly was requires metaphor. In other words, yes to the first question

Better?

I think that's avoiding the issue. Is it factually true that Jesus (if he existed, which I suspect he did) actually perform miracles - like healing the sick, raising the dead, duplicating food, turning water into wine (not the reverse, *I* can do that) and did he die and rise again?

Atticus_of_Amber

01-10-2008, 11:48 PM

Triple post, sorry

Quick question Atticus: Do Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett agree with Richard Dawkins' definition of faith (as "belief without reason")?

No. And neither does Dawkins. If he's ever used that formulation it must have been as a shorthand, because in most places he's as focussed on evidence (even moreso) as Dennett and Harris. See my post above.

When someone shows integrity, they are said to be "faithful", agreed?

Is the word "faith" being used in the same way here?

No.

Faith, for current purposes, is belief in propositions about the external world without evidence or on insufficient evidence. As has been said now, dozens of times before. But I'm sure you'll ignore it this time too.

(As to "integrity", that's a rather unusual use of the term. More often it's used as a synonym for loyalty - as in being faithful to a cause or a spouse. And there it does have a passing family relationship to the "belief without evidence" meaning. But that's as far as it goes. The meaning under discussion here is faith as belief in propositions without evidence or on insufficient evidence.)

Hastur T. Fannon

01-11-2008, 02:28 PM

Statements about the reality of paradise aren't statements about Allah?

I don't understand the question

Would you agree to the statement "God is not intelligent"?

Not nakedly. I'd agree with the statement "God not intelligent; instead He is omniscient"

I think that's avoiding the issue. Is it factually true that Jesus (if he existed, which I suspect he did) actually perform miracles - like healing the sick, raising the dead, duplicating food, turning water into wine (not the reverse, *I* can do that) and did he die and rise again?

What do you mean by factually true?

Faith, for current purposes, is belief in propositions about the external world without evidence or on insufficient evidence. As has been said now, dozens of times before. But I'm sure you'll ignore it this time too.

Would you agree with the statement that "it is not an act of reason to hold a belief without evidence"?

(As to "integrity", that's a rather unusual use of the term. More often it's used as a synonym for loyalty - as in being faithful to a cause or a spouse.

Really? Given the dictionary definition I've quoted?

What about the phrases like "keeping the faith"?

Religious faith (as the word is used by people of faith) isn't just about belief. If it was, then "the long dark night of the soul" wouldn't be a common part of their development

Varaj

01-11-2008, 02:35 PM

What do you mean by factually true?

If we went back in time would we see Jesus crucified and then raise from the dead? Would we see him bring back Lazerus from the dead? Would we see him turn water into wine?

Would you agree with the statement that "it is not an act of reason to hold a belief without evidence"?

Is your belief in God based on evidence in the sense that the existence of God could be proven? Or does your belief in God rest on something that you take without evidence.

For my self without a doubt my faith is without evidence. I believe it but I know it isn't evidenced based belief.

there_is_no_bob

01-11-2008, 09:34 PM

Not nakedly. I'd agree with the statement "God not intelligent; instead He is omniscient"
I am so confused about negative theology.

...Wait, was that positive theology?

Atticus_of_Amber

01-11-2008, 10:04 PM

I am so confused about negative theology.

I think confusing you, and making you go away, is a big part of its purpose.

...Wait, was that positive theology?

Sure looked like it to me...

Hastur T. Fannon

01-12-2008, 06:44 AM

I am so confused about negative theology.

It's a really quite simple idea wrapped up in some very complex jargon. For me, the Daoists describe it best:

"The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way."

We can't talk about spiritual experiences except by using metaphor

Negative theology says that it's a bad idea even to use metaphors unless you're clearly flagging them. Positive theology says that metaphor is fine, but you've got to be aware that you are using metaphor otherwise you'll get confused. The difference is really only one of emphasis

This is a bit from the review of the God Delusion that I'm writing. If it doesn't help then I still need to work on it:

Christians, Jews and Moslems share a concept of God that is known as “theistic”. One of the primary features of theism is that God is utterly beyond human comprehension. The only way that we can describe Him is by saying what He isn’t like (when we describe Him as omnipotent, what we are saying is that there are no limits to His power) or by the use of metaphor (when the Psalmist says that “The Lord is my shepherd”, he’s talking about the way that God protects, guides and cares for him – he does not mean that God has a crook and a herd of woolly things that go “baa”).

The God Hypothesis says that theists describe God as “intelligent”; this is incorrect. Instead we describe God as “omniscient”, saying that there are no limits on His knowledge and His ability to reason.

The God Hypothesis also says that theists think that God “created the Universe”. This is, obviously, true. In the Nicene Creed, we describe God as “Creator of Heaven and Earth, and all that is seen and unseen”. However, this is a metaphor. I want to be very clear here; by using the word “metaphor”, I am not, in any way, saying that the Creed is untrue. What I am saying is that it codifies truths that are too huge for the human mind to comprehend. When human beings create, we take an existing piece of matter (e.g. a lump of clay) and turn it into something else (e.g. a pot). When God made the universe, there wasn’t any pre-existing matter. This means that He didn’t create in the same way that human beings create. Instead He did something that is analogous to what we do when we create an object, but the idea of creating something out of nothing is to huge for us to comprehend. We have to use metaphor.

Prof. Dawkins argument (which he calls “The Ultimate 747 argument”, because of a feature of his reasoning) depends on God being intelligent in the same way that human beings are intelligent and created the universe in the same way that human beings make pots. However, theists doesn’t describe God in that way, so his argument doesn’t apply to us.

If we went back in time would we see Jesus crucified and then raise from the dead? Would we see him bring back Lazerus from the dead? Would we see him turn water into wine?

Yes.

I think I've figured out what Atticus is doing here, so I'm going to take the liberty of jumping ahead a couple of steps.

If I'm right, Atticus was going to ask if I believe that Jesus was intelligent in the same way that humans are intelligent and creative in the same way that human beings are intelligent. As I believe that Jesus was human, I'm bound to say "yes".

As I also believe that Jesus is God, this, theoretically would mean that I believe that God is creative in the same way that humans are creative and intelligent in the same way that humans are intelligent and, therefore, the Ultimate 747 argument applies

It's a nice try, but to make it work, Atticus is going to have to explain how Christians believe Jesus is utterly and completely God and utterly and completely human without using metaphor. Best of luck.

For my self without a doubt my faith is without evidence. I believe it but I know it isn't evidenced based belief.

Yes, but faith isn't just "belief without evidence" - that's not how the word is used. Fanaticism is also "belief without evidence" and most people of faith would describe fanaticism as being in opposition to faith

Also, "faith" implies community: Robert Winston (British pop-scientist) attends synagogue because he believes Judaism provides a good discipline to help him structure his life and lead a good one. He has no belief in the supernatural, but, despite this, it would be a nonsense to say that he isn't of the Jewish faith.

This is why I prefer the shorthand "emotional commitment". It covers all uses of the word that I'm aware of

Atticus_of_Amber

01-12-2008, 04:28 PM

Hastur first, why does "Prof. Dawkins argument (which he calls “The Ultimate 747 argument”, because of a feature of his reasoning) depends on God being intelligent in the same way that human beings are intelligent and created the universe in the same way that human beings make pots"? I don't see that it does. If your God is “omniscient”, and "there are no limits on His knowledge and His ability to reason", then that seems to me to be within what Dawkins means by "intelligent" (indeed, he addresses this issue in the paragraph containing the phrase "what bandwidth"). Even in your own terms of the review, you seem to me to have adopted the God Hypothesis.

Second, your prediction as to what I was going to do was bizarre. I was basically declaring victory and moving on to Jesus and historical issues and ask why you believed the Jesus miracles but not, say, the miracles of Satya Sai Baba?

Third, "belief without evidence" is all the new anti-dogmatists are concerned with. And that's certainly a part of what religious people mean when they use the term faith. If you want to be definitionally sloppy and load the term with extra irrelevant issues, that's your problem, not ours. Belief without evidence is still a part of it, and its the part that the anti-dogmatists are attacking.

Fourth, what, in your bizarre definitional scheme, is the defining difference between "faith" and "fanaticism"?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-12-2008, 04:41 PM

Hastur why does "Prof. Dawkins argument (which he calls “The Ultimate 747 argument”, because of a feature of his reasoning) depends on God being intelligent in the same way that human beings are intelligent and created the universe in the same way that human beings make pots"? I don't see that it does.

Because, to quote the good professor "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution"

If God isn't a creative intelligence in the same way that human beings are creative intelligences then He doesn't have to come into existence as a result of evolution. His argument also has the problem of defining God as "existing"

I was trying to move us on to Jesus and ask why you believed the Jesus miracles but not, say, the miracles of Satya Sai Baba?

Could you really trust a man with a haircut like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sathyasaibaba.jpg)?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Whoopsie. Edit while I was replying

Third, "belief without evidence" is all the new anti-dogmatists are concerned with. And that's certainly a part of what religious people mean when they use the term faith. If you want to be definitionally sloppy and load the term with extra irrelevant issues, that's your problem, not ours. Belief without evidence is still a part of it, and its the part that the anti-dogmatists are attacking.

And if you want to start arguing with a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith) that's fine by me, but people will start pointing and laughing at you.

Fourth, what, in your bizarre definitional scheme, is the defining difference between "faith" and "fanaticism"?

Absence of doubt

panther.jd

01-12-2008, 06:10 PM

While faith is belief without evidence, this does not mean belief without reason. People do have reasons for what they believe, even if they have no evidence.

(Of course, if you ask if it is reasonable to believe something without evidence, you are using a different definition of reason.)

My own view is to value truth, I want to know what is true. What you may find ironic is that because of my agreement with the principles of science, I can never be absolutely certain of what is true!!

I think that a certain level of uncertainty is ok, I think doubt is a good thing, and I'm comfortable being reasonably certain about some some things and absolutely certain of nothing. (But admittedly, I don't question the belief that there is a real reality outside of myself).

Atticus_of_Amber

01-13-2008, 12:26 AM

Because, to quote the good professor "any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution"

If God isn't a creative intelligence in the same way that human beings are creative intelligences then He doesn't have to come into existence as a result of evolution. His argument also has the problem of defining God as "existing"

You just contradicted yourself.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-13-2008, 12:28 AM

Atticus_of_Amber

01-13-2008, 12:33 AM

Could you really trust a man with a haircut like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sathyasaibaba.jpg)?

I agree, but it has to be said that the evidence for Satthya Sai Baba being the son of god and capable of performing miracles is actually several orders of magnitude more convincing than the evidence that Jesus was. Needless to say, I don't think either of them are/were.

there_is_no_bob

01-13-2008, 12:30 PM

Maybe I'll come back to negative theology. I'll need to read some primary sources before I make any more comments on it.

In the meantime:

Yes [I believe Jesus performed miracles].

How about a couple of fish and loaves into enough food to feed several thousand with many baskets of leftover waste?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-16-2008, 02:32 PM

You just contradicted yourself.

No, I'm showing that the Ultimate 747 argument is a straw man because it's addressing a view of God that isn't taught by the majority of the world's Christians

Varaj

01-16-2008, 02:40 PM

No, I'm showing that the Ultimate 747 argument is a straw man because it's addressing a view of God that isn't taught by the majority of the world's Christians

To think that God* is the mostly likely explanation for the universe and life?

My position is that the universe and life is the mostly likely explanation for god.*

*Capitalization difference intentional.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-16-2008, 02:52 PM

How about a couple of fish and loaves into enough food to feed several thousand with many baskets of leftover waste?

Do I believe that Jesus did that? Yes

To think that God* is the mostly likely explanation for the universe and life?

My position is that the universe and life is the mostly likely explanation for god.*

I'm really sorry, but I can't make head or tail of this

Varaj

01-16-2008, 02:55 PM

I'm really sorry, but I can't make head or tail of this

Do you think the most likely explanation for life existing and the universe existing is God.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-16-2008, 03:02 PM

Do you think the most likely explanation for life existing and the universe existing is God.

I find that a really strange question and I'm not sure why...

Varaj

01-16-2008, 03:06 PM

I find that a really strange question and I'm not sure why...

Didn't mean it to be a strange question.:o

Hastur T. Fannon

01-16-2008, 03:14 PM

Didn't mean it to be a strange question.:o

No, it's cool.

If there is an explanation - and there's no need for there to be an explanation - then Christians teach that this explanation is God

(I think I've just finally groked the first chapter of Rowan Williams' "On Christian Theology" after re-reading it twice over a period of years. Thanks)

Atticus_of_Amber

01-16-2008, 06:48 PM

No, I'm showing that the Ultimate 747 argument is a straw man because it's addressing a view of God that isn't taught by the majority of the world's Christians

No, you contradicted yourself.

You acknowledged that the Ultimate 747 applies to "any intelligence that created the universe".

You then say that the Ultimate 747 does not apply to your God, because your God is an intelligence of a very different sort to human intelligence.

Can't you see the logical leap? (Explained more below.)

Atticus_of_Amber

01-16-2008, 06:50 PM

I find that a really strange question and I'm not sure why...

You claim to have read The God Delusion and yet you say that you find it a "very strange question" to ask "Do you think the most likely explanation for life existing and the universe existing is God?"

That is the very question to which the whole first half of TGD us addressed!!!!!!!!!!

[calms down]

Look, the whole point of the first half of The God Delusion is that it is highly unlikely that there is a God, in the sense that it's highly unlikely that the universe was deliberately created by an intelligence of some sort or another. The point is that everything we've learned about the universe so far indicates that intelligences are massively complex things and that complex things are massively improbable and are only likely to arise after a long process of evolution. On that basis, no matter how improbable it is that the universe "just happened" or "always existed in some form" or is just one of many multiverses, each of those explanations is (based on what we know so far) massively less improbable than the God hypothesis.

In other words, based on what we know so far, it is very very improbable that there is an intelligent god who created the universe.

Now, you might say that there may be forms of intelligence that we don't know about that aren't massively complex and improbably but are intelligent enough to deliberately create and monitor the universe. You might be right, but there is currently no evidence to support or even suggest that idea.

You might also say that there is a natural process that we don't yet know about that could create a super intelligence like God or which could result in one having always existed. But again, there is currently no evidence to support or even suggest that idea.

Thus belief in God represents a massively long-odds bet - a bet based on almost no evidence and against the best evidence we have so far. Based on the information currently available to the scientific "bookies", we're talking something like trillions of trillions to one against (unless you include simulism, where some people assess the chances as about 15-30%).

Atticus_of_Amber

01-16-2008, 07:07 PM

If there is an explanation - and there's no need for there to be an explanation - then Christians teach that this explanation is God

which means they're teaching something that the best evidence we have available today indicates is massively unlikely to be true.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-17-2008, 04:27 PM

You acknowledged that the Ultimate 747 applies to "any intelligence that created the universe".

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort. I just quoted Dawkins

You claim to have read The God Delusion and yet you say that you find it a "very strange question" to ask "Do you think the most likely explanation for life existing and the universe existing is God?"

I found it a strange question because of the transitional mental state I was in at the time. Think of it as a koan

Thus belief in God represents a massively long-odds bet - a bet based on almost no evidence and against the best evidence we have so far. Based on the information currently available to the scientific "bookies", we're talking something like trillions of trillions to one against (unless you include simulism, where some people assess the chances as about 15-30%).

Yeah? So what? My imaginary friend beats your lack of imaginary friend every single time :)

Atticus_of_Amber

01-17-2008, 05:52 PM

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort. I just quoted Dawkins

My apologies, that was written in haste and consequently unclear. I meant you acknowledged that Dawkins claims that the ultimate 747 applies to any intelligence capable of creating the universe.

I found it a strange question because of the transitional mental state I was in at the time. Think of it as a koan

Ok, but ...

Yeah? So what? My imaginary friend beats your lack of imaginary friend every single time :)

"Yeah, but so what?" Huh? You mean your conceding teh point we've been arguing for the last three months now and saying it doesn't matter? Ok, but it would have been nice if you'd gotten there earlier.

Ok, so Dawkins is right that, given what we know, the chances of there being a god are trillions to one against. You acknowledge that believing in God is a very long-odds bet, but you take that bet anyway.

Terrific! Now finally we can get to the interesting bit of the conversation.

OK, you say you choose to believe in something that the evidence shows is very unlikely to be factually true because believing it makes your life better, right?

Are we sure this is a very wise way to operate a life though? To believe in very unlikely things because they make us feel better and act better? And what if those beliefs compel us to certain actions that aren't good for ourselves or for others? Your solution seems to be that you believe that God want the best for humanity and thus, if a consequence of a Christian belief can be empirically shown to be harmful, that belief was a misunderstanding of "true Christianity". Right?

So what do you say to a fundamentalist who says, but the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? It pretty much does say that, after all. My answer to him is "so what? Why should I get my morals from a book of old Jewish folk tales?" What's yours?

Hastur T. Fannon

01-19-2008, 04:30 AM

My apologies, that was written in haste and consequently unclear. I meant you acknowledged that Dawkins claims that the ultimate 747 applies to any intelligence capable of creating the universe.

Yep. But his argument only applies to an entity that is creative in the same way that human beings are intelligent and creative in the same way that human beings are creative. Theists don't describe God that way, so the argument doesn't apply to the theistic description of God - making the first half of "The God Delusion" one part polemic, to one part straw man, to one part crib from a undergraduate theology textbook. And that's not a good cocktail

"Yeah, but so what?" Huh? You mean your conceding teh point we've been arguing for the last three months now and saying it doesn't matter? Ok, but it would have been nice if you'd gotten there earlier.

Nope. I've come to the conclusion that Dadaism is the only appropriate response to someone who believes that the Archbishop of Canterbury is an atheist (sorry holds a position that is "functionally equivalent to atheism" - though the distinction is a bit subtle to a bear of very little brain like myself)

As to whether theism is wise, I'd like to table that discussion until after I've read some Sam Harris - otherwise we'll be talking about different things

Varaj

01-19-2008, 07:58 AM

Yep. But his argument only applies to an entity that is creative in the same way that human beings are intelligent and creative in the same way that human beings are creative.

I only know the argument from what I read on wiki and following you too in this (and other) thread(s), but I'm not sure I believe that. It seems to me that the argument would apply to an entity that is intelligent and/or creative in a way different than how humans are intelligent and creative.

I'm just not sure the response "Yeah but my God is intelligent in a way that your argument doesn't apply" holds much water. It sounds like you are writing off the argument by fiat, which to some extent is ok since we are talking about faith. :)

Atticus_of_Amber

01-19-2008, 04:12 PM

Yep. But his argument only applies to an entity that is creative in the same way that human beings are intelligent and creative in the same way that human beings are creative.

Wrong. For reasons gone into above and conceded by you at some points and then denied (without argument) at others.*

I only know the argument from what I read on wiki and following you too in this (and other) thread(s), but I'm not sure I believe that. It seems to me that the argument would apply to an entity that is intelligent and/or creative in a way different than how humans are intelligent and creative.

I'm just not sure the response "Yeah but my God is intelligent in a way that your argument doesn't apply" holds much water. It sounds like you are writing off the argument by fiat, which to some extent is ok since we are talking about faith. :)

Precisely. Which is. why I'm declaring victory in this particular battle and moving on to the question of whether it is a good things for humans to be encouraged to accept highly unlikely propositions on faith.*

As to the Archbishop of Cantebury, my point was not that he was a practical atheist, but that, given his public statements, he was EITHER: (a) a practical atheist, (b) being intellectually dishonest, OR
(c) a moron who entirely missed the point of TGD when he read it. I'm genuimely unsure as to which is the case at present.

*(For clarity: For the ultimate 747 argument to not apply to a posited form of creative intelligence, that creative intelligence would have to be simple, in the same way the law of gravity is simple. But creative intelligences are complex almost be definition. It is certainly the case that everything we currently know about the universe points very, very strongly towards the proposition that intelligences (and a fortiori, complex intelligences) are necessarily highly complex. Therefore, given what we currently know, any God is massively likely to be complex. [Insert Ultimate 747 argument] Therefore, in the absence of an explanation of where this god came from, given what we currently know, such a god is massively unlikely.)

Hastur T. Fannon

01-21-2008, 04:00 PM

*(For clarity: For the ultimate 747 argument to not apply to a posited form of creative intelligence, that creative intelligence would have to be simple, in the same way the law of gravity is simple. But creative intelligences are complex almost be definition. It is certainly the case that everything we currently know about the universe points very, very strongly towards the proposition that intelligences (and a fortiori, complex intelligences) are necessarily highly complex. Therefore, given what we currently know, any God is massively likely to be complex. [Insert Ultimate 747 argument] Therefore, in the absence of an explanation of where this god came from, given what we currently know, such a god is massively unlikely.)

:)

Divine simplicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity)

Which is. why I'm declaring victory in this particular battle and moving on to the question of whether it is a good things for humans to be encouraged to accept highly unlikely propositions on faith.

"Declare victory" all you want, but if you're not addressing the view of God that the Christians are presenting then your argument is a straw man - in other words, both you and Prof. Dawkins are being dishonest.

I'm just not sure the response "Yeah but my God is intelligent in a way that your argument doesn't apply" holds much water. It sounds like you are writing off the argument by fiat, which to some extent is ok since we are talking about faith.

I wouldn't have a problem with Dawkins if he attacked what Christians actually believed. Instead he's presenting a view of God that both mainstream theologians (instantly) and the pew-monkeys (if they thought about it at bit) would see as blasphemous, saying that it's what we believe and attacking it using a dressed up version of an argument that 4th century theologians like the Cappadocian Fathers used to show why that view of God was a bad idea. And the bit that really annoys me? He seems to think it's original

Atticus_of_Amber

01-21-2008, 05:50 PM

:)

Divine simplicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity)

Bingo. Everything we know about the universe indicates that it is massively improbable that an intelligence could be simple in that sense. Thus, on the assumption you propose above, the conclusion of the Ultimate 747 argument holds even before the argument itself kicks in.

"Declare victory" all you want, but if you're not addressing the view of God that the Christians are presenting then your argument is a straw man - in other words, both you and Prof. Dawkins are being dishonest.

No Hastur, it's not Professor Dawkins who is being dishonest, it's you. We've gone round this multiple times and at every turn you've failed to coherently articulate why the the Ultimate 747 doesn't apply to your version of God. The only time you've come close is with the negative theology dodge, and then you had to stray into positive theology (and thus make the Ultimate 747 relevant) in order to avoid being a Spongian atheist.

Varaj, Bob? Am I missing anything here?

I wouldn't have a problem with Dawkins if he attacked what Christians actually believed.

He has. Again, unless you can come up with anything new,* this thread has demonstrated that, in the above comment, you are being dishonest.

Instead he's presenting a view of God that both mainstream theologians (instantly) and the pew-monkeys (if they thought about it at bit) would see as blasphemous,

He's attacking every non-atheistic conception of god. If you're not Spongian, you're in his sights.

(Moreover, and in any case, a huge proportion of the "pew-monkeys" (and quite a few of their clergy) DO subscribe to a "view of God that ... mainstream theologians ... see as blasphemous".)

Unless you can come up with anything new,* you've lost Hastur. Indeed, you've as much as conceded (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=31408&postcount=141) Dawkins' central thesis that God is massively improbable - so I don't see why you're still trying to attack him when you agree with him.

Lets move on from our common ground that God is massively improbable to dealing with whether believing in Him anyway (i.e. faith) is a good idea, shall we?

* This is so pathetic, but if you want to continue this travesty, here's your next move: attack the words "based on what we currently know" in my summary of the Ultimate 747 preconditions . I'm reasonably confident it will gets us to the same place in about two moves, but in a way that might make you feel better.

Eliezer

01-22-2008, 06:34 PM

I finally took the time to look at the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit...

There are some underlying things to look at with this. Almost all atheists start from the position that "god" is omnipotent and omniscient. This isn't an unreasonable position to start from since most Christians would agree with that definition.

Well, I plan to differ a little on those definitions. The god I worship is not omnipotent, merely virtually omnipotent from my ability to understand power. My god is not omniscient, but merely so much more knowledgeable than me that I can't understand all that my god knows or understand the limitations of his knowledge. That's a very important distinction.

Now for the kicker: The biblical story of the creation is not describing the creation of the universe. It described the creation of this planet, or more accurately, the preparation of this planet for my god's use for some folks he wants to help out in a very paternal fashion. So the creation is not the creation of the universe, but just this planet.

My understanding of god does not preclude other beings of similar power and scale nor does it preclude a creator of my god or uber god(s) over my god. It does preclude my god being the creator of the universe or creating the natural laws that control physical interactions in the universe. (Although some cosmologists have postulated that the universe is discontiguous and natural laws vary in different parts of the universe in subtle ways and it may be possible that certain laws are maintained in local space to certain variables.)

My understanding of god would have required either evolution or some other perfectly natural process or panspermia to prepare the planet for his purposes.

Now all of these changes do not negate the 747 argument. They change it to simply asking the question, "If all that god has done can be explained by natural phenomena then why have a god?". That is a legitimate argument and the only answer is that I have an irrational and persistent belief that life or intelligence or something persists beyond death. To make that happen physically requires (not a god) but something in physics that is as yet totally unexplained. No scientific evidence supports or indicates that such may exist. In order for it to function would require a type of matter/energy that does not interact with matter/energy that we currently know in any observable fashion. This new type of non-interactive matter would have to be capable of transmitting/recording/simulating much of the functioning of of our organic brains.

In this scenario the 747 argument succeeds and I must admit that my faith in god is completely non-scientific and completely based upon a belief with no supporting scientific evidence.

Eventually, I shall have to reconcile this, but I do not feel terribly discomfited by this because my religion is a positive influence in my life and my perceptions and feelings of god give me great comfort. My intellectual inability to perceive what another part of my brain (some call heart) perceives is not surprising.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-22-2008, 07:38 PM

I finally took the time to look at the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit...

...

Now all of these changes do not negate the 747 argument. They change it to simply asking the question, "If all that god has done can be explained by natural phenomena then why have a god?". That is a legitimate argument and the only answer is that I have an irrational and persistent belief that life or intelligence or something persists beyond death. To make that happen physically requires (not a god) but something in physics that is as yet totally unexplained. No scientific evidence supports or indicates that such may exist. In order for it to function would require a type of matter/energy that does not interact with matter/energy that we currently know in any observable fashion. This new type of non-interactive matter would have to be capable of transmitting/recording/simulating much of the functioning of of our organic brains.

In this scenario the 747 argument succeeds and I must admit that my faith in god is completely non-scientific and completely based upon a belief with no supporting scientific evidence.

Eventually, I shall have to reconcile this, but I do not feel terribly discomfited by this because my religion is a positive influence in my life and my perceptions and feelings of god give me great comfort. My intellectual inability to perceive what another part of my brain (some call heart) perceives is not surprising.

<sigh of relief> Thank you.* Let's move on to the issue in your last para in another thread shall we?

*However, I'm not sure the word "scientific" in your answer "the 747 argument succeeds ... my faith in god is completely non-scientific and completely based upon a belief with no supporting scientific evidence". I don't see theism as being based on any kind of evidence.

Scarbonac

01-22-2008, 08:03 PM

Let's boil it down, eh?

Dawkins is a cock.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-22-2008, 08:12 PM

Let's boil it down, eh?

Dawkins is a cock.

That is as may be, but the important thing we seem to have established in this thread is that Dawkins is right when it comes to the Ultimate 747 argument for the improbability of God. Whether he's also a cock is beside the point.

Scarbonac

01-22-2008, 08:49 PM

That is as may be, but the important thing we seem to have established in this thread is that Dawkins is right when it comes to the Ultimate 747 argument for the improbability of God. Whether he's also a cock is beside the point.

He's a cock who is also wrong.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-22-2008, 09:23 PM

He's a cock who is also wrong.

Care to provide an argument as to why?

Eliezer

01-23-2008, 02:44 PM

He's a cock who is also wrong.

The argument is one of probability. Based on the methodology provided (which is scientifically sound) his argument stands.

To boil it down in a nutshell: nothing in science indicates the influence of a divine creator of the universe and scientific inquiry appears to be a sufficient explanation of the universe without a god.

It in no way denies a creator, but it does force the believer to admit (as Atticus has stated before) that the believer is choosing to believe without the support of any observable, testable, disprovable reason.

Atticus_of_Amber

01-23-2008, 07:15 PM

The argument is one of probability. Based on the methodology provided (which is scientifically sound) his argument stands.

To boil it down in a nutshell: nothing in science indicates the influence of a divine creator of the universe and scientific inquiry appears to be a sufficient explanation of the universe without a god.

It in no way denies a creator, but it does force the believer to admit (as Atticus has stated before) that the believer is choosing to believe without the support of any observable, testable, disprovable reason.

I agree with that, but it's not quite what I have been saying.

To be precise, what I'm saying is that Dawkins successfully demonstrates that the theist is choosing to believe something that is, based on what we currently know about how the universe works, very unlikely to be true.

Hastur T. Fannon

01-27-2008, 05:35 AM

Bingo. Everything we know about the universe indicates that it is massively improbable that an intelligence could be simple in that sense. Thus, on the assumption you propose above, the conclusion of the Ultimate 747 argument holds even before the argument itself kicks in.

Do Christians describe God as complex?
Do Christians describe God as intelligent (in the same way as human beings are intelligent)?
Do Christians describe God as creative (in the same way as human beings are creative)?

If they do then the Ultimate 747 argument applies. If they don't it doesn't

Lets move on from our common ground that God is massively improbable to dealing with whether believing in Him anyway (i.e. faith) is a good idea, shall we?

Ok. I agree that the version of God as described in Dawkins' God Hypothesis is massively improbable. And having read the relevant sections of Book II of Gregory of Nyssa's Against Eunomius I'm convinced that the blokes who wrote the Nicene Creed would agree with me

Atticus, I’m going to ask you if you’ve heard of a man called Viktor Frankl and a book of his called “Man’s Search For Meaning”, because, if you haven’t, Sam Harris has been a lot less honest than you think he has – it’s one of the most important texts on the psychology of faith

Frankl was a psychiatrist who survived the Nazi concentration camps. While there he made an incredibly objective study of the of his own reactions to the conditions and the reactions of this fellow inmates. He found that the most important factor in whether or not an inmate survived was whether or not that inmate had something to believe in. This faith (and, given the circumstances, it was both “emotional commitment” and “belief without sufficient evidence” – so both our definitions apply) didn’t have to be religious. An inmate could believe that he had to survive because his wife and children might still be alive or even that it would “be all over by Christmas” and it would still be a powerful motivator

But Frankl realised that what an inmate believed in did matter – in the last week of December and the first week of January there was a blip in the inmate death rate (even today you can check this; the Nazis kept meticulous records). Frankl realised that this was caused by the people who believed that it was going to “be all over by Christmas” losing their faith

Everyone needs something to believe in – the trick is finding something that isn’t going to damage you or the people around you. You might think you’re better than the rest of us because you’re motivated by pure reason overriding your emotions, but you’re not. At 4am on the night after Morbidity finds a hypothetical lump in her hypothetical breast you’ll be begging an uncaring universe for mercy – the same as the rest of us. The difference is that you’ll despise yourself for being human

What you (collectively) are doing by attempting to make faith-speech ridiculous is damaging humanity’s ability to survive in extreme circumstances. I think that’s both dangerous and decadent