"Tivo-ifies the web" Paul Kedrosky

There is no Theory of God

A nice little animated film that explains the difference between science and superstition, showing, among other things, that the difference in the colloquial use of the word theory and the scientific use, leads people to dismiss scientific theories which have enough supporting evidence (such as evolution or spherical earth) that they are facts, in colloquial terms. In other words, colloquial theory = scientific hypothesis and scientific theory = colloquial fact.

Perhaps we should turn the argument around – there is no theory of God. In fact, based on the evidence, there is not even a true theory of the supposed historical figure, Jesus. Both are hypotheses, unsupported by evidence.

Running time: 10 mins.

Via Laurence Moran

Uncategorized

9 comments on “There is no Theory of God

  1. Dan Westlake says:

    Who is that aimed at???

    Fundamentalists have explicitly chosen faith over reason so this won’t appeal to them. The majority of people realise faith and reason isn’t an either/or choice and presumably have no desire to be talked down to for 10 minutes so this just leaves us with obsessive atheists of the Richard Dawkin’s type who enjoy nothing more than having their belief system confirmed back to them. It’s ironic that it starts off by talking about people ‘being keen to express opinions about (…) theories they’ve never studied’. Hilarious.

    westlake

  2. admin says:

    Since faith is the opposite of reason it is certainly an either/or choice bar the fudging.

  3. “international community working with the most sophisticated knowledge and te”chniques available.”

    There is a danger in assuming that this community will always have the goal of objectivity. I’m skeptical about the details of the UN ICC report on climate change. Having a super computer is not the only prerequisite to tell me what is going to happen to the environment.

    “Get your objective evidence recognised by peer reviewed scientific journals which shouldn’t be a problem if your opinion is based on something more substantial than biased supposition.”

    Of course, all it takes is a good idea to publish in a peer review journal. About 90% of all articles submitted to such journals never make it to publication. There is plenty of room for politicing in the marginal calls.

  4. Todd Meyers says:

    I have to agree with Mr. Westlake that to draw faith and reason in opposition to one another is a mistake. According to this video, scientific inquiry requires faith in mankind’s ability to enlarge it’s understanding and faith in scientific method. To say something outside the immediate reach of an espoused methodology (substitute either ‘faith’ or ‘science’ here for ‘an espoused methodology’) is of no value rings of the fundamentalism that the makers of this video fear is threatening contemporary education. Faith in deity does not imply a disregard or misconception of reason. If anything it rather implies a reasonable lack of faith in man’s faiths/trusted methodologies.

  5. admin says:

    Faith is that which accepted because of belief rather than evidence and logic, and reason that the which is accepted because of evidence and logic not hope. They are by definition opposite, anything else is merely wishful thinking.

    You can indeed practice science without the slightest bit of ‘faith in the scientific method” as long as you follow the rules blindly and you can practice religion without the slightest dependency on reason as long as you have blind faith.

    @Todd, your argument is circular.

  6. Dan Westlake says:

    I am especially surprised one is still unable to see the complementary relationship between faith and reason after viewing the Nicholas Humphrey interview. The comedy/tragedy in the relationship between militant Atheists and Christian fundamentalists is that each group fail to see their mirror image in the other or that what they both share, a difficulty in seeing the world in anything other than black and white terms and the need to impose their beliefs on others, is at least as strong as that which divides them. Life is, happily, a lot more mysterious and nuanced than either fundamentalists or atheists with their arrested attachment to binary thinking would have you believe.

    westlake

  7. The function of science is not to proove or disproove belief, but to find establish truth. I’ve thought this about History before. Same function. similar arguement The historian should not attempt, hopefully, to prove or disprove scripture through the evidence.
    I agree with Mr. Westlake, I have endured atheists equally obsessed with god as the fundamentalist Christian.

  8. admin says:

    ” The comedy/tragedy in the relationship between militant Atheists and Christian fundamentalists is that each group fail to see their mirror image in the other”.

    This is nonsense, Dan. A shame since I always like your comments.

    Take Dawkins as an example of an extreme atheist. In a purely tabloid sense, for dramatic effect, he can be compared to a religious fundamentalist, since he is passionate and extreme. But his atheism shares nothing with a fundamentalist believer, because you cannot be a fundamentalist believer without faith and faith is not a particular tenet but a way of deriving any tenet.

    There are plenty of extreme views that end up being two sides of the same coin, Christian evangelicals in the US often share the conservative zeal of Muslim fundamentalists, for example. I have lived in both Saudi Arabia and America and both countries have similarities, even if Saudi is obviously far more extreme. But because both groups beliefs are irrational, it is almost impossible to convince either a Baptist Christian or a Wahabist Muslim of this.

    Luckily to test whether a stance is a mirror image of another, there is a method – switch the labels.

    If you say:

    “Muslims adhere to a practice where they believe what is written in a book is true and right, regardless of any new challenges to it by men.” You can swap Muslims for Christians, you cannot swap Muslims for Darwinists, for example.

    As Dawkins pointed out, there is a humility in reason that allows nobody to claim something is the truth without being able to show evidence or make predictions, so that you don’t need the faith that requires taking anyone, including God’s word for it. Similarly faith requires that you should hold steadfast and shouldn’t change your mind in light of new information, reason actively encourages you to always change your mind.

    Critics of the extreme atheist viewpoint suggest that by saying there is no god, this is absolute faith, when in fact, for Dawkins and others it is merely like saying the Earth is not flat. There is a Tiny chance the Earth is not flat, but the evidence points overwhelmingly in the direction where one can definitively be a ‘non flat Earther’.

    The idea that people with moderate views, like the people Dan refers to, are closer to the truth sounds reasonable. Moderate people are easier to be around. But in terms of religion, moderate people fudge the issues. No reasonable person would follow the Biblical instruction to give up your daughter to be raped by strangers, rather than hand over your son.

    Because of the way societies evolve, people who throw away their moral responsibility and trust in a book that tells them what to do in the brutal morality of the Bronze age era are deemed to be moderates, rather than people who simply say: BE REASONABLE.

  9. JK Joshi says:

    I really appreciate the animated vedio. I find your views about science absolutely correct. Spirituality is a different subject. One should study both these to understand the concept of God. God is a form of energy which we all possess in our body. Without this energy we can not live or think. Supreme God is the powerhouse of energy who supplies it to us. If He is properly understood by everyone in this world, there would be no religious hatred. For details please see my website Theory of God@http://Joshijk/TOxmlrpc.php

Comments are closed.