Time Magazine Dawkins, Collins debate.

This debate is more about if God and Science can work together. Its great to see a debate with an intelligent christian and both sides make great arguments.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html

A couple of quotes:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This piece of stupidity was particularly entertaining:

Let’s see.
The concept of existence pretty much encompasses the phenomenon, the appearance – that which appears - which possesses a temporal character, being the manifestation of flux in juxtaposition to temporality in general, and due to this temporal character also possesses a spatial possibility/potential.
When we say something exists we are referring to a temporal appearance, that which can be perceived and which moves and acts and so has a spatial character as being the projection of this movement as a Becoming.

Saying that this hypothetical, imagined Being exists “outside space and time” is like saying something exists by not existing.
It is an argument based on selective reasoning and imprecise definitions.

Here the definition of ‘existence’ is left unsaid, thusly making it possible to use this line of irrational, self-contradicting argument.

Here’s the copout:

Here, this religious fanatical mind uses the very ambiguity and allegorical methods of the Bible to support the Bible itself.
The Bible, pretty much used the methods of the Delphic Oracles when they made their decrees and predictions.
They used poetic, metaphorical and allegorical symbolisms to pretend that they were saying something when they were saying nothing at all.
The events that followed were then analyzed in reference to these Delphic decrees and the human mind found ways of connecting them.

It’s the same tactics fortune tellers use to manipulate the imbeciles that rely on them to alleviate their life’s uncertainty.
The language used, like a Nostradamean foretelling, is so ambiguous that it leaves the door open to a multitude of interpretations.
The trickery lies in allowing a book, written by questionable human characters, a long, long time ago, and referring to hypothetical events of a previous period, open to any interpretation and flexible enough, in a world of changing human perspectives and knowledge levels, so as to remain relevant.

Any scientific breakthrough or intellectual insight is followed by a biblical scramble to adjust the interpretation of the text with the advancement.
This is often called biblical studies where allegorical superstition, mixed in with historical accounts, are interpreted to fit into the current human understanding of existence.

It’s a trick.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The notion of being "outside of space and time" isn't that nonsensical - its merely saying that God exists in more than 4 dimensions. Several cosmological theories, such as superstring theory and supergravity, also propose a higher-dimensionality.

Of course that doesn't make Collins' statement scientific, nor does it prove the existence of God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point #1: What doesn’t exist in more than 4 dimensions, if the 10 dimension theory is right?
How convenient that God would exist in the folded dimensions and be completely absent from the 4 we are immediately aware of.

Furthermore, how does the theoretical extra dimensions constitute an “outside space time”?
The concept of existence pertains to an active, changing, phenomenon which unfolds its temporality as possibility (space). Whether this possibility consists of 3, 4, 5, or 100 dimensions is a detail or if this temporality is unidirectional or multidirectional is part of the definition presented.

Calling this Collin’s an “intelligent Christian” is giving Christian apologists too much credit for attempting to harmonize modern scientific knowledge with an ancient, outdated and purposefully ambiguous text.

Any intelligent person would never take one source as undisputable and the “word of God” when it is written by humans for humans.

Might as well debate the validity of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and try to legitimize it by interpreting the text in a manner which corresponds with a modern understanding of the world; might as well call whatever Tolkien scholar, who successfully provides an interpretation that connects the allegory and simplicity of meanings in the book with modern existence, a genius.

There can be no harmonious coexistence between a theory that begins with an answer and proceeds to fill in the intervening reality with interpretations and definitions that lead to the desired outcome, such as Christianity is, and a discipline which begins by attempting to eradicate all prejudices and preconceptions, using a method, and build a viable understanding of the world.
The motives are different.

Point #2: Using a hypothetical theory to prove a hypothetical existence is, to say the least, pushing probability to its limits.
At this point one must question one’s own motives for making so many leaps of faith in an attempt to find an absolute.
What is it about the human psyche which makes these, particular, metaphysical positions so attractive to it?

 

"COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time."

Typical theist nonsense, they grasp at anything - merely an extension of, 'faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive...'

God is always, and must be, beyond anything humans are able to distinguish or discover.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"COLLINS: If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes (Genesis) is very consistent with the Big Bang.

Of course it is consistent, we have proof on this very forum from dozens of religious nutters who can interpret the bible to be consistent with any theory. Congratulations, Collins!

 

He's obviously a nutter.

 

No, just a religious nutter.

 

Here is living proof that intelligence and wisdom seldom coincide.

That the mind grasps onto anything that offers relief, when health issues or mortality shocks the mind or when age and a traumatic personal event causes a psychological disturbance, is obvious.
Religion offers a life raft to those that fall over reason’s boat into the harsh cold waters of the human condition and into the coldness and suffering of life.
It is the comforting embrace of fantasy that protects against reality – not by confronting and overcoming, but by surrendering and/or fleeing.

 

God does not contradict Science. Anyone saying anything else is stupid. Neither does science contradict god. And anyone trying to outargue science is just wrong.

Satyr,

What, just because you don't know of higher levels of existence, none exists?

 

Does that fact that you do not perceive Leprechauns mean that they don’t exist?

What is a “higher level of existence”?
Define existence.

 

Collins has done nothing but rehash old hat. I grant that Dawkins is revisiting his own points as well, but bear in mind athiesm as a public target is fairly new, plus Collins bringing up old points forces Dawkins to rehash his book as well.

Be that as it may...

Collins challenged Dawkins with the old theist standby "who are we to decide" whether the process of creation was an odd, difficult one to take. My own response to this (and yes there should be a response), is that we are the human race. As a collective we are curious and seek answers. In doing so it is reasonable that we question the likelihood of any suggested process of our appearance on the universal map.

Collins also brings up the tired "if constant X were a pico-unit off-accurate, the universe would not exist as we know it". This is a possibility. It is also a possibility that life would have been different. With a higher gravitational constant for example we may have been amorphous life instead of solid. It is fanciful thinking, and by the same token the 'god of the gaps' is another big IF.

Conversely, we have no concept of time before the universe. We therefore have no knowledge whether there were previous evolutions of the universe that failed. It is entirely possible that this universe is the 48 trillion 960 billion 188 millionth one in a series! And it therefore is entirely possible that this universe won out the odds at variables aligning correctly to sustain life. Yes this is nothing but an unprovable postulation...but that's the point...so is any creator god.

Back to the article

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I also notice that, even granting that Dawkins reduced fundies to name calling, Collins did not say why he even bothers considering fundie claims or arguments. I interpret that as a retreat...it is difficult in the extreme for the compartmentalized (aka moderate) theist to explain their patience with or even countenance of unbridled fundamentalism.

 

God created many robots one of them was Darwin.

 

Satyr: Dawkins entertains the possibility of a multiverse, of which I would assume there are an infinite amount of universes, as well as an infinite amount of parallels and probabilities. Is it not okay then to say that at in at least one universe there is the probability of say, the flying teapot God?

 

I agree - Dawkins is quoting himself word-for-word.

Maybe good for first time readers, but I would like to see something fresh interjected. This is getting stale...

 

Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher.

Reducing God to a creator discusses none of the finer aspects of God. Moreover, Dawkins ethics are just bland utilitarian. Not even interesting.

Alvin Platinga v. Daniel Dennett would have been more interesting.

 

I tend to agree with you there. I have read a bit by Dawkins, "The extended phenotype", "The selfish gene" and "The God deslusion". While his knowledge in biology is sound I feel him a little weak on the theological side.

 

Yes, no one can doubt his excellent biological knowledge. Just his whole Atheism is poorly constructed as he knows so very little about philosophy and theology, that he really ought to take the time out and study.

Doesn't he teach at Oxford or Cambridge? Surely he can get one of his fellow professors to tutour him in the subject, or enroll in one of their classes likely for free?

 

Yup. I have spoken to a couple of academics about this. He has a way of writing things so simpler people can understand them and his bio work is great (though its not "tautology"!!! hehe ). To these academics Dawkins method of debate is silly and his lack of historical and theological knowledge when debating philosophy shows in how he approaches certain ways of thinking. Though I hope he is learning, though he appears to be echoing what the Greeks have already said when he walks into the philosophical realm.