David Berlinski Skeptic/Agnostic on science and religion.

[SemperFiDawg]

This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

 

[WaltL1]

Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.

Maybeeee. I only have a Masters in Science. I’m not nearly as qualified as the author. His resume’ includes the following:

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, ....He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Maybe, just maybe, he has an understanding of “what science is”. And maybe, just maybe, he is one of a rare breed of HONEST agnostics who are actually dedicated to truth and hot a Hack with an axe to grind against anything religious. I highly doubt you are familiar with such a concept though it does exist.

 

[WaltL1]

Maybeeee. I only have a Masters in Science. I’m not nearly as qualified as the author. His resume’ includes the following:



Maybe, just maybe, he has an understanding of “what science is”. And maybe, just maybe, he is one of a rare breed of HONEST agnostics who are actually dedicated to truth and hot a Hack with an axe to grind against anything religious. I highly doubt you are familiar with such a concept though it does exist.

Keep reading about your author's "resume".

I only have a Masters in Science.

And?
I'm a high school dropout and I can easily see right through his straw man arguments/points.

 

[atlashunter]

 

[WaltL1]

When the first thing on the list of points is -

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

You know you are in for an intellectual treat.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I'm a high school dropout and I can easily see right through his straw man arguments/points.

Ohhhhhh. I’m not sure which astounds me more: the statement that you see a straw man argument above, or the claim you can see through it. Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school. I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.

In all honesty it takes more faith to take your comments seriously than it does to believe in God......any God: Thor, Hermès, Cat Woman, Chicken Little.

 

[WaltL1]

Ohhhhhh. I’m not sure which astounds me more: the statement that you see a straw man argument above, or the claim you can see through it. Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school. I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.

In all honesty it takes more faith to take your comments seriously than it does to believe in God......any God: Thor, Hermès, Cat Woman, Chicken Little.

Maybe we should have dropped out during grade school. I’m sure we could more easily understand your claims then.

No I don't think that would have helped you at all.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

When the first thing on the list of points is -

You know you are in for an intellectual treat.

Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”. There’s a difference. You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

No I don't think that would have helped you at all.

You’re most certainly correct.

 

[WaltL1]

Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”. There’s a difference. You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.

Your continual efforts to pound a square peg into a round hole are admirable.

 

[oldfella1962]

Its not suprising you feel that this is an honest assessment of science in relation to religion.
Anyone with a basic understanding of what science is and isn't sees this for the big pile of steaming carp that it is.

agree - science is a process, a mindset, a technique that (if followed properly) uncovers concrete truths that cannot be denied by people of all cultures, beliefs and faiths. If proof-positive results are not revealed then at least the stage is set for further testing and examination.

Science is not just a collection of facts/achievements that are "set in stone" unchanging. True scientists want to be proven wrong eventually as better ideas, experiences, and techniques are developed and science develops. No scientist should ever use "because this book says so" as the answer to the question "why". A scientists helps you run your own test so you can find out for yourself. I can't see a clergyman doing that.

Yes, there is in the Bible something about "God's word being open to investigation & study & discussion" but only if that study follows the party line and leads to a conclusion that satisfies God. True we can't disprove much of what is in the Bible because there is not much physical evidence to examine especially Old Testament legends. But if you bounce most of it (including New Testament) up against other historical records of the time what evidence does remain is pretty flimsy indeed.

 

[atlashunter]

Just a hint: “a proof”, not “proof”. There’s a difference. You may want to investigate it, albeit it’s a bit late now.

Christians have provided neither for their god. Should have been easy to do if their book was true. As it currently stands there is no more reason to believe Yahweh exists than there is to believe in any other god. That's what we should expect of a mythical figure. That's my proof. When you can come to the table with something that changes that let me know. Thus far you got nuthin'.

 

[ambush80]

This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:

Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

This is pretty basic. Take a look at this and tell me what you think it means:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

Quantum Cosmology

Modern cosmological research concentrates on 'quantum cosmology', which attempts to reconcile the quantum physical conditions just after the big bang with the general relativistic conditions thereafter.
There's nothing in there that says that they're trying to explain "why". It also says nothing about what happened before the Big Bang. Why do you say these things?

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

Again, they're not in the "why" business. How come you don't know that?

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

They are willing to believe anything including religious thought. The same goes for atheists. Put up some proof.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

Yes. Rationalism/rationality tells me that much of what is described in religious texts including the Bible is abhorrent and wrong.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

What parts of secularism? Equality? High regard for rationality? Science? Secularism has benefited you greatly.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

Describe the oppressive orthodoxy. Tell me something that one could not offer up to the scientific community.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

All supernatural claims are irrational. Claiming that the Earths stopped turning is irrational.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

"Intellectual contempt". That sounds bad. Give me an example.

 

[RegularJoe]

This is a bit dated, I feel he has done an honest job of assessing where science currently stands in relation to religion:

Has anyone provided......

Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
Have printed it out .....
with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.

 

[ambush80]

Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
Have printed it out .....
with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.

The first thing I would look into is "Proving the negative", which is the first thing the author wants to do when he says "They can't prove God DOESN'T exist". Here's some things that should provide good reading:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Thank YOU for the list, Semper.
While, for some, it may be 'dated,' as you say .... i am thankful for your posting of it cause i am seeing it for the 1st time.
Have printed it out .....
with the intent of exploring, studying and stumbling my way thru it over the next couple months, fyi.

Your welcome, but it isn't my list. It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth. As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause." I ignore them for the most part. I'm
gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.

Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
Evolutions' Achilles Heel. It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription. My kids are actually watching it again this week. I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do. It takes a honest look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws. I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.

 

[ambush80]

Your welcome, but it isn't my list. It's the foreword by David Berlinski in his book The Devil's Delusion which is a rebuttal to noted Atheist Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion. David Berlinski is one a handful of notable agnostics/skeptics who appear honestly dedicated to the truth. As you can see here most are NOT: militant in their views, disdain if not literal hatred of anything that even whiffs of religion or God and a commitment to sacrifice all intellectual integrity and truth for the sake of "the cause." I ignore them for the most part. I'm
gonna post up a few more links over the next few days of some more notable authors, speakers who provide rational arguments for God.

Also I just watched a great documentary last week titled
Evolutions' Achilles Heel. It's on Pureflix and the documentary itself is worth a months subscription. My kids are actually watching it again this week. I wasn't sure they would like it, but they do. It takes a honest look at the tenets of evolution through the eyes of some of todays scientist and scholars and points out it's fatal flaws. I'm convinced that if we last 100 more years, the theory of evolution will be looked upon as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity.

I addressed each point Berlinski made one by one. Which of the things that I said are lies or wrong?

 

[ambush80]

Semper Fi,

I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real. If I need a personal revelation to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.

 

[RegularJoe]

Semper Fi,
I will believe in your god or any god if you can convince me that they're real. If I need a personal revelation* to believe, then I wasn't convinced by rational** argument, I will have been convinced by a subjective experience.

Please consider the following a non-fake-news news report, NOT an 'opinion editorial.'

i am not saying that you would actually wish to try the following
(it will only be perceived thru your senses - yet all **rational thought is perceived thru senses, as well);
however, i KNOW it has provided personal revelation* for some folks who have tried it.
(& i am not saying it applies to me, bro) ......
John 7:17 - [a quote from Jesus Christ]
"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
What said folks decided was that, for them, it was worth a try (one commented, 'Didn't cost me much to try, just a little time, a few days) .... and for them, something happened that they say 'stuck.'