I just disagree
Surely if I believe something different from you I am perfectly entitled (even obliged) to try to persuade you to my point of view. 'I believe there is no God' is the same as 'I believe you are wrong to believe in God'. I *love* being told I'm wrong about things and getting a chance to argue my case or be persuaded to a new belief.
In fact, I'd say this has already happened with me in the case of Dawkins, who certainly pushed me further down the path from vague agnosticism to outright (even evangelical!) atheism.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:10,
Share,
Reply)
That's wrong, which is a shame, because up until now I thought it was all going very well.
'I believe there is no God' is not the same as 'I believe you are wrong to believe in God'.
I don't really know what more to say about that, it clearly is the case.
I do not like Marmite, but I do not believe that you are wrong to like Marmite.
The existence of any deity is unproven (unprovable even) and therefore people can happily have different beliefs without disregarding the possibility of the beliefs of others.
If you wish to convince others then the onus of proof is on you, not on them (in either direction, of course) and it is precisely the fact that Dawkins tries to convert others to his faith without providing proof, whilst at the same time attacking them for not providing proof, which is so very distasteful.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:15,
Share,
Reply)
What is the difference?
'I believe that there is life on other planets'
'I don't believe that there is life on other planets'
Doesn't that mean that each believes the other is wrong? 'I believe A' and 'I disbelieve not-A' are the same thing.
'I like marmite' isn't the same thing at all. 'Liking' and 'Believing' are totally different mental processes. To believe in something is to have an opinion about a putative fact, which has to be either true or false (or a shade of grey in between). It's perfectly possible for one person to say 'I like marmite' and another to say 'I dislike marmite' and for them both to be correct. Isn't that blindingly obvious?
Meanwhile it is perfectly coherent to say 'I believe there is no God. I believe you are wrong to believe in God. But your belief may turn out to be correct'. That's what 'believe' *means*!
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:24,
Share,
Reply)
Okay, scrap Marmite (although i hold that it is sound)
Let's have a race. I believe that the red horse will win. You believe that the blue horse will win.
Neither of us is 'right' so to say that the other is wrong is logically flawed.
Dawkins's faith is not wrong, nor is that of an extremist Muslim. The actions of those individuals can be wrong and, in this instance, it is Dawkins's insistence that those who believe differently to him are 'wrong' which is inconsistent with his arguments.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29,
Share,
Reply)
What?
'Neither of us is "right"'? Of course we are - either the red horse or the blue horse will win, and then one of us will have been right (and will have been right all along) and the other will have been wrong. Just because an event is in the future doesn't make it any less factual (cf 'grue'). And of course, this still isn't relevant to the God question because that's talking about a supposed entity that exists now, or in the past. I'm obviously agnostic about the existence of a *future* God (although I still tend towards the 'there is not now and will never be a God' belief, I recognise that it is a marginally weaker position)
Dawkins doesn't have 'faith'. He has a rationally argued belief based on evidence and laws of probability. Faith is a belief *in opposition* to evidence: "I believe in God and will continue to hold that belief whatever you say". That's emphatically *not* the same as a scientific position.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:40,
Share,
Reply)
I agree with your last statement strongly.
"I believe in God and will continue to hold that belief whatever you say". That's emphatically *not* the same as a scientific position.
As is "I do not believe in God and, indeed, state that he does not exist, regardless of any lack of evidence.
That would be faith. He believes in something without being able to know it.
You started here well, but fell logically at this rather small hurdle and are now arguing for atheism, rather than accepting logical inconsistencies in Dawkins's argument.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:07,
Share,
Reply)
One of you is right...
But unfortunately, in a fair race, the truth value of neither proposition is knowable until after the race.
"It will rain tomorrow" has a truth value; we just do not know with perfect confidence what that value is.
(, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 21:31, Share, Reply)
God vs, Marmite
Not the same thing at all.
Saying "I don't like Marmite" is (unless it's an outright lie), a statement about my personal mental state. No-one else has any valid opinions on the subject. Saying "I don't *believe* in Marmite" would be a closer analogy. If someone can buy me a jar of God from Tesco, I'll change my opinion.
(, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 21:29, Share, Reply)