I personally believe that recognising that some things surpass our understanding is a very
valuable position and deities are a nice way to get people to do so, but that aside, he is an out atheist and has stated that those who believe in a deity are suffering from a mental illness.
That is a fairly clear standpoint, one might say.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:50,
Share,
Reply)
"[R]ecognising that some things surpass our understanding is a very valuable position..."
I don't see that as being coherent.
I don't think anyone really denies that there may be things that we, as humans, will never understand. The reconciliation of quantum and relativistic physics may be one of those things: they plainly do coexist, but noone has got them to fit together yet. Maybe noone will.
But to recognise that there're perhaps things that are beyond us is not a licence to introduce any old crap into a field. There is a reason to believe that the models of physics do fit together - after all, the universe is here - but there's no reason to believe in a deity. As I said before, such a belief adds nothing to any debate about the nature, workings, or content of the universe except mystery.
Why should we ascribe value to beliefs that add nothing except mystery?
People who continually beleive in stuff for which there is no evidence, and that is inaccessible to others who do not hold those beliefs, are frequently mentally ill; so the comparison - though a bit cheeky - may not be entirely specious.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:04,
Share,
Reply)
So you contest that Stephen Hawkin is mentally ill
since he clings to a belief that there are black holes?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:06,
Share,
Reply)
So they are only mentally ill if their beliefs do not coincide with yours?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:23,
Share,
Reply)
No, only if their beliefs don't coincide with the observable and testable laws of the universe.
(, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32, Share, Reply)
And you suggest that this is true of all beliefs involving a deity?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:48,
Share,
Reply)
Not in the slightest.
Black holes are predicted by a theory that is testable. That theory has been tested in other ways, and been found to be sound. So we have a reason to, and the ability to, go ahead and make predictions about the nature of these predicted black holes, and test for their existence.
And - what do we find? Well, that the universe seems to behave as we predicted it would. Thus the evidence strongly suggests that there are supermassive black holes at the centre of most galaxies, and that there're smaller ones elsewhere. Score one of Einstein and Hawking.
Had the universe differed radically from the predictions, then the theory would be ditched. That's why noone believes in phlogiston any more.
What we have is a picture in which a theory explains some phenomena in an efficient manner, and makes testable predictions about others. The god hypothesis does neither of these things.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:21,
Share,
Reply)
On the contrary,
a deity explains some otherwise inexplicable phenomena in an efficient manner.
There is no evidence for it and we may have to readdress, but for the moment it fits - it is VERY similar to black holes.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:25,
Share,
Reply)
What phenomena are you referring to, specifically?
With which phenomena does the input of a god make the most sense?
(, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29, Share, Reply)
Pretty much EVERYTHING for which we have no answer.
See also 'magic'.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32,
Share,
Reply)
That's not an explanation.
That's just a way of saying "Dunno, mate".
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:35,
Share,
Reply)
Not at all.
Imagine a hitherto explained phenomenon. Now invoke a deity to "explain" it. Do we really have a better grip on that phenomenon? No. We're just saying "God did it". That's not an explanation.
What we do have, though, is a whole range of other things to explain, such as the nature and existence of that deity - what kind of thing it is, how it interacts with the world, and so on - a deity that we've invoked merely to explain the phenomenon, and without any supporting or independently-testable reason.
That's not an efficient answer. It's a refusal to answer.
It's not the same as with black holes, which - as I explained - are predicted by a theory that is independently testable, and the existence of which is in itself independently testable in principle.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:34,
Share,
Reply)
"God did it" IS an explanation.
I accept that you reject that hypothesis - I do myself, but just because it is not our belief that does not negate its innate value.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:50,
Share,
Reply)
Innate value?
What currency are you using to value God?
It's an untestable position, just one of an infinite number of possible explanations for shit we don't understand yet.
If you ascribe value to something that by definition can never be tested (it's faith, you're not meant to prove it) and for which an infinite number of alternative variations exist, infinite dilution of your value system to worthlessness is the only logical conclusion.
(
chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:30,
Share,
Reply)