Richard Dawkins argument

[Schn]

This reminds me of that great Catholic writer, G.K. Chesterton. He once said, “If there were no God, then there would be no atheists.”

I think that Mr. Dawkins was right about it being rather silly to believe something even if we don’t have the proof for it. But then, of course, we’ve got a duty to find out why we believe what we believe. I think we must find out why we believe, for example, that Christ is truly present, Body and Blood, in the Holy Eucharist. But we do not believe because of blind faith. We have proof of the Real Presence, so we espouse that admirable belief. Then, we must have faith that Christ is the Son of the Living God, as St. Peter said, and as He has proven.

Doesn’t that seem like a sort of circular cognitive dissonance? Trying to internally rationalize and explain behavior rather than changing the behavior.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

What type of evidence is needed to prove the existence of God?

I know there is currently a bit of a ban on Atheist topics so I will answer this in a more general sense without referring to god or atheism.

It is very dangerous to ask what the evidence should be before you provide it. It is up to the person postulating a theory alone to:

1. Say what the postulation is
2. Say what the evidence is
3. Explain how the evidence supports the conclusion.

If as an outsider to the person postulating a theory you were to specify upfront the evidence you will accept, you risk missing the real evidence when it comes in as it does not meet with your preconceptions.

As such I consider ALL evidence put before me on its own merit and without preconception. If someone feels they have evidence I will consider it. I can not predict what it may be in advance.

This is not to say however that you can not do the opposite. What you CAN do is say what evidence CAN NOT be in advance. For example I have never, should never and will never accept any evidence that is only evidence if you first assume the conclusion is true. This is why I often describe faith as “The willingness to assume to be true, that which you are trying to show is true”. A form of confirmation bias if you will.

 

[Schn]

What type of evidence?

Perhaps a short proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem in scripture. Maybe consistent prayer answering. Or that catholics are (statistically significantly) less often struck by lightning than those of other religions.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

If you are looking for scientific evidence for philosophical questions, than you are simply not going to find it. However, if you conclude that philosophical principles can therefore not be trusted, you are going to also have to reject your scientific evidence.

If you are saying you have never seen philosophical discussions about the existence of god, I can only scratch my head.

I am looking for ANY evidence. “Scientific Evidence” is a term without content. There is essentially no such thing. Science is not a list of evidence types. Science is a PROCESS. No more and no less.

What this process tells us is to gather ALL the data you can, regardless of type, and then find a “Theory” that explains all the data while 1) Not Ignoring data you have that does not fit 2) Not assuming data you do not have and 3) Being willing to ditch the theory and find a new one if any new data is found or old data is refuted.

That, in one short paragraph, is essentially what “Science” is and the process can be equally applied to philosophy or any other sphere of discourse.

To that end there is no specification on what the evidence should or should not be. It can be big, small, philosophical or physical for all I care. All I require is that evidence be brought to me and that it can be shown to support the Hypothesis that is based on it.

 

[Contarini]

Hello, I recently watched a TED talk by Richard Dawkins. I think there are a lot of good talks on ted.com. This one is making me question my faith. The talk was about atheism and he said that scientists say they know things because of seeing consistent evidence and observing the natural world. He remarked that it would be very silly if a scientist said he knew something because his parents had taught him to just have faith it was true.

Indeed. But it would not be silly for a layperson to act on the basis of scientific theories accepted by faith. We all do this all the time. Admittedly (and this would be Dawkins’ point), we do it because we see empirical evidence that the theories work. I drive onto a bridge even though I don’t understand the principles of engineering, because I see lots of cars driving onto the bridge before me, because I have driven or been driven over bridges many times in my life, and because I only rarely hear of bridges collapsing. So I know that there’s a pretty good bet the bridge will not collapse. Dawkins can rightly point out that with regard to *some *of the propositions of religious faith this is impossible. I have never myself experienced a miracle. Neither I nor anyone else I know has empirical confirmation that there is any kind of life after death (I’m not convinced that NDEs count). So I would say that most of us accept the religious beliefs handed down to us by tradition because we have empirical reasons to believe in their reliability within this life and within the framework of natural law (and some people apparently do experience miracles–I won’t address that because, as I said, I am not one of those people). We also have some reasons not to believe in their reliability. But again, bridges do collapse from time to time. For some folks, the bridges collapse once too often.

Edwin

 

[Michael_Francis]

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads
[IMG ]http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/thread_closed.gif[/IMG]