A lovely quote from a debate between Peter Hitchens and Christopher Hitchens. The event is the Hays festival. The two are brothers and had not spoken before the event for 4 years.
This bit is on Faith:
PH: He has several faiths. He has the faith I think of Darwinism, which is just like Christianity, an unproveable theory, which you can believe if you want because you prefer that arrangement of the universe. I happen to think the arrangement of the universe based on the belief in intelligent life is more tolerable than both morally and aesthetically, but he prefers another. I dislike only the attitude that his atheism is not a faith, because it is. I have absolutely no disgust or anger with anybody who disagrees with me about that. I’m much more worried about people who are indifferent.
I quite agree with this. My universe is one in which “God” plays a fairly important part. Someone else’s universe might be one in which she doesn’t. Why are we assuming that because we share the same space, we are in the same universe:)
Bad logic. Atheism is not a faith. It’s not that I belive there is no God. It’s just that I see no proof of a God therefore I arrive at the logical conclusion that there is no God.
Harini, do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? No you don’t? Why? Because you have no proof of it’s existance? Or because you have faith in it’s non-existance?
Existence!Existence!!
Athiesm is a belief that God does not exist. Just as theism is a belief that God does.
You can no more disprove God doesn’t exist to me, than i can that God exists for you.
As far as life and universe is concerned God is as useful a belief as any!
The big bang is a belief that the universe started with a bang.
The mini bang theory is that there wasn’t one bang – but lots of little ones that led to creation.
There is a belief that life began on earth because some meteor came to earth with ice. You ask any scientist the probablity of bacteria surviving on a meteor that is racing through space and you would know how improbable it is!
There is a theory that space travellers brought life to earth.
There is another which says that god had nothing better to do, and created life.
You want proof of God look around you. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you:)
You can no more disprove God doesn’t exist to me, than i can that God exists for you.
Not true. If you claim something exists, the burden of proof lies with you. I don’t have to disprove it. We start from nothingness, and you claim something called “god” exists. Well, you have to show me. I don’t have to prove god does not exist.
Let me take the Invisible Pink Unicorn as an example. Say Mr. X believes in the IPU. I say “Don’t be silly, the IPU is a myth. Prove that it exists” Mr. X respons with “No, you disprove that it does not exist!”
Yazad the DNA existed before Watson & Crick “proved” that it existed.
The quarks existed before people even knew they were there,
The Universe existed before we figured it out.
The list is endless.
You want a mathematical equation for God – i cant give it to you. In any case maths is just as innacurate as anything else. Except that it is inaccurate in a formula form:)
Like I said :
You want proof of God look around you. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you:)
As far as the IPU is concerned, i can’t disprove that it exists. And if it exists for Mr.X i hope that he is very happy with it. imagine a unicorn, and pink and invisible! what fun:)
You want proof of God look around you. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you.
Well, I did look around me when the tsunami struck, in which tens of thousands of people died senselessly, and I saw no evidence of God at all. Quite to the contrary.
And “Darwinism” is hardly unscientific. Natural selection explains pretty much everything around us, for most of which “God” is an utterly inadequate explanation.
There’s far too much crap in this world for that to be anything close to a decent argument.
(Amit, the number dead was in the hundreds of thousands.)
Related links:
Burden of proof
God of the gaps
Which version of God? The numerous faiths around the world have varying accounts of him. Some even say their God is the real deal. Perhaps you can tell me if the Christian God kicks the arse of the Muslim God. Or is it vice versa? Or are both of them deluded?
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not a faith that no gods exisst.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/overview.htm
enjoying the erudite debate and learning…
given the chaos and mayhem all around – and if the hindu gods do exist – then shiva should be commencing his “tandava” pretty soon!
have chased the IPU quite a lot in the past, but the context here was interesting!
Amit
Darwinism is one hypothesis about creation. more likely than the rest. but a hypothesis all the same. Not yet proven. IF it were – there would hardly be the controversy about it. Do I disbelieve it ? no. i believe that it possibly the most likely way in which evolution happened. Did I see it, has mankind managed to line up every species in the chain. No.
As far as the Tsunami is concerned. or a riot. or any thing else is concerned – why is that proof of no god?Why do athiests believe (and my assumption is that u are one) that faith in God is going to keep you safe and immortal? It doesn’t.
Joe thnx.
Madman – God as complete conciousness works for me. Not the cuddly bearded version who acts as a placebo effect. I am also terribly basic (animistic? in my faith. For me everything is God. will read the links later. tnx for them. You are also confusing religion and God.
God – atleast mine – has no religion, and assumes whatever form that i want:) I have my own hang ups on religion and religious organisation, but that is for another post and another debate.
I really have an issue with the English word God – because it really boxes in the concept. There are too many connotations of what God ought to be.
pH – looks like being fun. The tandav must have been something else.:!have chased the IPU too – usually after copious amounts of alcohol:))
Joe – tnx for the link will look it up later.
check out this
Darwinism is one hypothesis about creation. more likely than the rest. but a hypothesis all the same. Not yet proven. IF it were – there would hardly be the controversy about it.
There is a controversy about it only because the religious right refuses to accept that it removes the need for God or religion as an explanation. It is a political controversy, not a scientific one. In the words of Douglas Adams, those who prefer Religion as an explanation for the world are favouring “the awe of ignorance” over the “awe of understanding”. Try reading any of Richard Dawkins’s books, especially The Blind Watchmaker, which is an argument against creationism, which you seem to favour.
As far as the Tsunami is concerned. or a riot. or any thing else is concerned – why is that proof of no god?Why do athiests believe (and my assumption is that u are one) that faith in God is going to keep you safe and immortal?
You miss the point. A few hundred thousand people died in a terrible manner in the tsunami – and I was there, I saw the rotting bodies – and I believe that if any God does exist, then he or she is worthy of our contempt for allowing that to happen. I spit on any God who, despite being supposedly all-powerful, does nothing about the suffering in the world, and needs bribes in the form of worship and belief.
Of course, no such God exists, so I can save my saliva.
On that subject, also read this. Answer it if you can.
Of course, you’re welcome to your faith, and can believe in anything you want – be it God or invisible pink unicorns. But it’s a bit silly to accuse people who don’t believe in something they see no evidence of “faith”.
Amit
i don’t believe in creationism. i dont belive that “God” created the world in 6 days and on the 7th the rested. Nor do i believe the “Hindu’ view on creation which says that the universe is created when God wakes up, and dies when the God goes to sleep. Both these are religious belief, emphasised by religious books, and a part of religious dogma.
i don’t really ascribe or prescribe to any body of religious faith. And i believe that religion and religious passions have caused more grief, war, colonisation etal – than any other way of thinking.
Having said that – i have no qualms in accepting that Darwinism is one theory amongst many scientific ones . Creationism is not a scientific theory – it is a religious belief. About as plausible as the world being flat or earth being at the centre of the universe.
I also think that the loony right has hijacked the science debate a bit too much for comfort.
When i say there are issues on Darwinism – i really didn’t consider creationism, simply because its not a theory, its religious dogma. (written in a book 3000 years ago – and therefore it must be true). I meant more the scientific issues both with natural selection and with the origins of life. How did life start? there are too many species that don’t “”conform” into the theories of natural selection – what happens to them – did scottie beam them down!
Check out the Evolution wiki here
Any scientiest worth his or her salt will tell you that Darwinism or Relativity or anything else that is making waves it is not proven fact but dominent hypothesis. A hypothesis that will change with time as we understand the universe around us better. Read this article in Wired – it is on how dominant theories on Time have changed with time:)
I have read the Blind Watch Maker which I have enjoyed, and a number of others on origines. Try Stephen Jay Gould – brilliant writer.
Back to death and destruction – why do you assume the presence of God nullifies death and tragedy?
You are also assuming that just because i believe in God – i am ritualist. As I said earlier i also have a problem with the word “God” it just covers too many sins and has too much of baggage attached to it. Faith, in God – as you so generously point out – is personal. So is lack of faith.
I guess on this one we will have to agree to disagree
As always GOD/RELIGION is a popular topic…
u can say that again:)
Here’s my favourite spanner for the works…
i’m sure all of you have heard of the so-called “ichneumon fly”.
They are not flies, but insects of the family Ichneumonidae, related to wasps. When these insects were first studied scientifically in the Middle Ages, they threw the Church and the Clergy in a quandry (for they preached that God the Creator was Benevolent and Merciful). And here was this little fly – His Own Creation – which made the “rack” or the “iron maiden” feel like pampering!
Consider this, the female insect has an extremely long ovipositor which it uses to deposit eggs into the body of living caterpillar and other larvae. The ovipositor is even capable of piercing several inches of tree trunk to reach caterpillars and other larvae within.
When the eggs hatch, the ichneumon larvae feed on the living host. This feeding is selective – fat and muscle tissues are devoured earlier than vital organs – keeping the host alive longer, thereby keeping the food from rotting! The host is literally eaten alive from the inside. Even inert chrysalis have been observed to writhe in distress as they are eaten to a shell by larvae inside.
So much for the Merciful…
Incidentally, the Ichneumonidae are harmless to humans and plants and in fact, help to keep many insect pests under control!
how about this:
Whether there is God or not : I dont care at all….. that is what i mean by atheism.
Lakshmikanth, that’s agnosticism, not atheism.
does the terms matter… that is what i am…..
Agnostic means the following
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I am not an atheist… i dont profess there is NO GOD
and nor am i an agnostic coz i DO NOT profess that there is no way of knowing that there is a God or not.
I just say i dont care 🙂 its a very simple statement.
Live your life the happiest way you can i.e. by doing the work you love. I am into that!!!! then why should i care about whether there is God or not and waste the time that i can enjoy doing what i love to do.
Btw, Harini, thanks for the Wired link.
And is Gravity also just a dominant hypothesis?
Darwinism is really well proven, and rigorously tested. The only people who claim Darwinism isn’t provable are strong supporters of Creationism (nothing against them, only against their arguements).
I wrote a short post explaining evolution (which has moved way beyond Darwin, and is explained in far greater detail by molecular evolution). Hate it, love it or ignore it, but it will continue to happen, and continue to shape our lives.
here’s my post:
Darwinism is really well proven, and rigorously tested. The only people who claim Darwinism isn’t provable are strong supporters of Creationism (nothing against them, only against their arguements).
I wrote a short post explaining evolution (which has moved way beyond Darwin, and is explained in far greater detail by molecular evolution). Hate it, love it or ignore it, but it will continue to happen, and continue to shape our lives.
Here is my post
Hi Sunil
the problem is not with evolution as a theory. The question mark is on the process of natural selection. Darwinism is on both. Dawkins whom Amit has refered to and Gould whom I have – both believed in evolution. but disagreed on natural selection. The fact remains we know very little about the world that we live in. and as technology advances to verify scientific hypothesis – our way of looking at and understanding the world changes.
Hi Amit
LOL.
gravity as a force that keeps us on earth and the moon in its orbit exists.
Gravity as a theory postulated by Newton was replaced by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. so when u say is it the dominant hypothesis i guess the answer is no.
And if General relativity has been replaced, i really don’t know – haven’t kept in touch with science news for a long time:)
PH
all religious organisations are fossilized in terms of thought. it is hardly surprising that a body that put out the message “Condom causes Aids” in the 21st century, believed what they did in the distant past:)
Laksmikanth
:)) interesting viewpoint.
With Amit bringing gravity into the picture, I would like to add then that newton was a deeply religious person. Newton’s argument for the existence of god – “in the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of god’s existence”. For newton the study of science reaffirmed his faith in god.
Closure: misunderstandings in any subject comes from our inadequate knowledge (be it science OR economics OR Math OR faith). And in this ensuing topic, understanding and convergence of all knowledge including the “correct interpretation of the scriptures” will confirm our belief one way or the other.
BTW, to blame god for the loss of any life would lead one to a conclusion that “we want god to be partial” which would then lead us not to believe in him. God is impartial and hence, to blame god for tsunami-like disasters (or any kind of loss in human life) would be incorrect.
Dawkins whom Amit has refered to and Gould whom I have – both believed in evolution. but disagreed on natural selection.
I’ve read most of the work by both of them, and their disagreements over natural selection were on nuances here and there, such as spandrels. They both essentially believed in it. And being scientists, how could they not? Natural selection is pretty much established, except by creationists and proponents of “intelligent design”, as the way we evolved. It explains pretty much everything in that field that there is to be explained, and barring creationists etc, which you say you are not, no one disputes it.
grant nothin of human conception authority beyond reason
end of debate
Amit
that is like saying that mani shankar iyer and bal thackeray have minor differences of opinion over Savarkar!
Gould and Dwakins ‘violently’ clashed on natural selection. they came from different schools of thought as far as natural selection is concerned.
Even within “Darwinism” there is a schism- between those who believe that Natural Selection explains everything. And others who believe it is not.
An excellent article that sums up the disagreement between the two schools of thought that they represent is here.
from a purely personal viewpoint – i enjoy reading both. I am not a scientist – therefore for me to opine on which school is more right is impossible. But i enjoy reading and following the debate – it gives you a perspective on the fact that even in science there are but a few absolutes.
will the two schools of thought synthesize – most likely. It is a dialectic.
Finally, it is the process of questioning the dominant hypothesis across the ages that is the spirit of enquiry. And enquiry leads to advances, and advances to progress! I don’t think that any one should be too upset if scientists question theories postulated Darwin or Newton or anyone else.
I’m afraid the essay you linked to is a bad one (one of the pitfalls of doing searches on the www). Dawkins himself, in a essay about Gould, summed up their differences much better. He wrote:
“Gould saw natural selection as operating on many levels in the heirarchy of life. Indeed it may, after a fashion, but I believe that such selection can have evolutionary consequences only when the entities selected consist of replicators … genes are such entities.”
That’s the gist of it. Both men believed strongly in natural selection, but Gould objected to what he called Dawkins’s reductionism, his explaining the process from the level of the gene. (In the Gould-Lewontin v Dawkins-Wilson argument, I tend to favour the latter group, but that is irrelevant, because both believed in natural selection.)
You could call it a dominant hypothesis if it was an incomplete theory but currently the best one. It isn’t that. It is complete in that it explains everything it sets out to explain, with no lacunae at all, and the only disputes come either from creationists, or are about nuances that don’t negate the theory as a whole. Natural selection is as real a force as gravity is, and to call it merely “dominant hypothesis” is, um, rather strange. That is faith. 🙂
http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec03/VisitingTheOriginOfLifeAgain.html
this is really interesting check this out
Jayadev,
Don’t know if you’ve noticed this little para from the home page of http://www.doesgodexist.org
Sorry Yazad. My mistake didn’t check that part out. Since you’re more into the scientific part of it, check this out
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
Hi Doniv
so was Einstein. So was oppenheimer. and a whole host of other greats in science.
Besides incompete knowledge – i am not a scientist to have a deep and meaningful conversation on science – what is so worrisome is intolerance.
The tragedy of our age is that most arguments have become bi polar “with me or against me” and neither side is ready to concede that there may be something right about the others’ argument. Somehow argument has become denying someone else’s rationality. Because if we are rational beings – and one would assume we are – then all of us make rational choices. even someone whose point of view we have major differences with.
And there is a lack of maturity – and this definition of maturity probably sums up what is so lacking in the world of arguments:
As Amit pointed out elsewhere – in another context – , the majority who are the middle ground are being left out. What happens when i am neither for you or against you – i sit out the process!
JD
great like – the geocities one.
the other one, i agree with yazad – i am wary of sources that postulate that earth was create on 4004 B.C at 9 a.m.:)
Sorry, I am late! Still here is my take.
Creationism thrives on holes in what we call science. That is why the sun and the rain were once gods, till we proved that they are a nuclear fusion bomb and water condensate respectively. The gaps in evolution present a prominent refuge now.
That apart, evolution is a scientific theory, because it is based on the probability of a sequence of events that have been proved to be possible. Creationism is still a whole lot of fantasy. It is possible that with an increase in our understanding of the fundamentals of the universe, creationism will become a valid scientific theory. That might happen in the distant future. Yet the fact remains that creationism has neither a scientific past nor a scientific present.
And what is science then? A definition of the truth as understandable by our senses.
On dominant hypotheses and a priest’s contibution to Science:
In 1915, Einstein became aware of a tricky problem when he developed general relativity- as to why had not gravity caused the matter in universe to collapse inward on itself.
The solution was to fiddle with his theory of General Relativity adding an anti-gravity force alongside familiar gravity.
Georges Lemaitre, both a cosmologist and an ordained priest was one of the pioneers of Big Bang model. Critics cited his theology as his motivation for advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They suspected that the model was Lemaitre’s way of sneaking in Creation into Science.
Enter into the scene Einstein. He was not biased against Lemaitre’s religious background but he did call the priest’s physics “abominableâ€. It was enough to banish the Big Bang model to hinterlands of cosmology.
However, in 1929, Einstein was forced to eat humble pie by Edwin Hubble.
Recently, in 1998 astronomers have come to support Einstein’s anti-gravity force, rechristened ‘dark energy’ as an answer to why the universe is in fact accelerating though by now the Big Bang should be slowing because all the receding galaxies would be attracted to one another.
On tsunami and other disasters and religious beliefs of scientists:
July 16, 1945, Trinity test: After $ 2 billion of research, a prototype plutonium device is detonated in New Mexico desert. It yields four times more energy than the scientists had thought possible. Oppenheimer quotes the Hindu Bhagvad Gita, “ I am become Death, the destroyer of worldsâ€.
On dominant hypotheses and a priest’s contibution to Science:
In 1915, Einstein became aware of a tricky problem when he developed general relativity- as to why had not gravity caused the matter in universe to collapse inward on itself.
The solution was to fiddle with his theory of General Relativity adding an anti-gravity force alongside familiar gravity.
Georges Lemaitre, both a cosmologist and an ordained priest was one of the pioneers of Big Bang model. Critics cited his theology as his motivation for advancing such a crackpot theory of creation. They suspected that the model was Lemaitre’s way of sneaking in Creation into Science.
Enter into the scene Einstein. He was not biased against Lemaitre’s religious background but he did call the priest’s physics “abominableâ€. It was enough to banish the Big Bang model to hinterlands of cosmology.
However, in 1929, Einstein was forced to eat humble pie by Edwin Hubble.
Recently, in 1998 astronomers have come to support Einstein’s anti-gravity force, rechristened ‘dark energy’ as an answer to why the universe is in fact accelerating though by now the Big Bang should be slowing because all the receding galaxies would be attracted to one another.
On tsunami and other disasters and religious beliefs of scientists:
July 16, 1945, Trinity test: After $ 2 billion of research, a prototype plutonium device is detonated in New Mexico desert. It yields four times more energy than the scientists had thought possible. Oppenheimer quotes the Hindu Bhagvad Gita, “ I am become Death, the destroyer of worldsâ€.
God spoke, His Word was like a “Big Bang” = the sonic boom = Let there be, and there it was!
Any Questions?
East and West
Hi POV, have you been introduced to http://www.reasons.org ?
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200608_fine_tuning_for_life_in_the_universe.shtml
hi all,
I was to write a paper on atheism and I got enough data from the above argument.
As far as my views are concerned …
One tries to over power the other. It has been the same debate since ages, a theist society overshadows the atheist by trying to test their beliefs by asking questions of fate, destiny, and naturalness; while the later try to counter-question the prior by giving examples of natural calamities occurring and where there is no god to control them. In this issue it is difficult to reach to a conclusion that is acceptable to all.
I have been a believer since birth may be because I was brought up in a spiritual family which believes in the vastness and sanctity of God as the supreme power. I have passed through a phase where I started questioning the existence of God and my own self for that matter.
What I understood of them is that Human craves for peace, harmony and by believing, it provides me with happiness, protection, confidence, faith and all the more harmony and peace. An atheist might get all this by not believing in God and hence contended.