There is a debate going on at the guild entitled

"This House believes that God is a delusion"

Guild council chambers, thursday 22nd november 6.30 - 8.00

there are top speakers from both sides going to debate it, so it should be a good show. I know many of you like arguing about religion so here is your chance. Feel free to debate it here.

(For the record, God isnt a delusion)

I believe it is, a manifestation of our desire to not be alone. But represents a basic human need to put substance to the spiritual experiences many of us have, often on a day to day basis.

Disclaimer: I have utmost respect for Stu and the faith he represents. I just don't subscribe to it.

I swear to a God yet have trouble believing in one.

From a scientific standpoint, the question is stupid.

Yes, theoretically you could prove that there is a God, if God were to appear to everyone simultaneously and do something to demonstrate God's existence in some irrefutable way. But that hasn't happened yet.

But it is scientifically impossible to prove that there is not a God, because by definition God could be something outside of what is scientifically measurable.

For the record, I do believe in God, but I acknowledge that this is not a scientific, logical, or rational conclusion. It just makes me feel better to believe. Besides, if I did everything in my life based on what was scientific, logical, or rational, I never would've come here and met all you interesting people.

The question, "Is God a Delusion?" is inherently stupid because there is absolutely no proof either way. There is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion, "there is a God" just as there is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion, "there is NOT a God."

Therefore, the entire debate is an exercise in banging your head against a wall.

But hey, if you enjoy that kind of thing, go for it.

_________________
"If you're offended, don't be" -Andy Kirkpatrick

Well I disagree with the idea that debating God's existence is stupid, since I don't believe that it will be a scientific debate. I think the debate raises some interesting philosophical questions, and allows people to discuss their beliefs.

I would almost certainly go, but for my utter contempt for the guild.

Yeah, you're right, it's not stupid.

I just find it extremely annoying when people try to pass off their opinions as fundamental truths when they have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

I won't be going to this for the above reason, but also because I already have all the answers I need.

Also, I am very arrogant and smug.

_________________
"If you're offended, don't be" -Andy Kirkpatrick

But in many people's opinion, they do have proof. Just not the scientific type.

That I would classify as a 'delusion.'

_________________
"If you're offended, don't be" -Andy Kirkpatrick

Have you heard of some physics theories known as supergravity, string and m theory? (attempts at a unified theory for the universe and everything it is composed of)

According to these there are many things going on simultaneously, that we currently have no way of looking at because they lie outside of the dimensions that the world we are in is apparently defined by...

This is a really poor explanation, its not easy to put in words, but the point is, science can acknowledge that there are influences on the world which cannot be explained at this date, and with current theory pointing towards an 11 dimensional universe, what lies beyond the fabric we can see is anyones guess!

_________________
Caveman

exactly like how in pre historic societies if it didnt rain the explanation was that the gods had forsaken them and they had to sacrifice some more maidens to appease them.

One opinion is that peace is impossible whilst religion remains as it is the easiest method to draw easily led people into irrational wars

When people say that "well, there can be no absolute proof of the existence of non-existence of God so no conclusions can be reached" they fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method, and indeed the nature of religious belief. The scientific method is not deductive, rather it is a form of inductive reasoning, and makes statements about the likelihood of a certain outcome. That it is inductive, and so never offers guarantees, does not mean it doesn't let us say anything. Unless you want to get into odd epistemological viewpoints (which you don't), we accept the utility of inductive arguments for practical purposes. So whilst it can't be proven that there isn't a 17 foot high pig floating in the sky above London, that all pigs we know don't do that provides a solid basis for behaving as if the existence of such a thing was a real impossibility.

Religious belief on the other hand doesn't depend on proof in some scientific or rational sense. If you ask Stu what evidence would convince him that God doesn't exist then he'd say that nothing could do that, which is a completely different epistemological viewpoint from the scientific one.
If someone came up with human fossils from the Jurassic and lots of similar evidence then I would stop believing that man was created by evolution, and start looking for a different explanation. If you asked creationists in the US what evidence would convince them that creationism was wrong they would not be able to give you anrthing, because it is not a falsifiable (and thus scientific) hypothesis.

(Of course we are contradictory creatures and in practice we all use both methods of examining the world, the differences are only so sharp in the most contencious areas. The real difference lies in which one we use when we sit down and think long and hard about something, and actually that does have a huge affect on the way we see the world and the way we reach conclusions about how the world should be and what we should do about it. Means cannot be seperated from ends.)

Those who think that rationality and inductive reasoning should and can be applied to all aspects of life, the existence of a God included, aren't interested in absolute proof because it's not the modus operandi of those systems of reasoning. And the religious aren't interested in proof, in the sense of experiments or logical arguments, to justify their faith. So the idea that absolute proof is possible, let alone relevant to any debate on the existence of God, is absurd and stems from a complete misunderstanding from the two world views on offer, neither of which are interested in such a thing.

So, to take an example of this:

If you take the existence of God to be a question that can be examined by scientific methods, then the outcome that such belief is a delusion is entirely possible. You can't 'prove' that invisible flying unicorns don't exist but if you apply the scientific method to the question of their existence you could reasonably come to the conclusion that believers in such things are delusional. And, if you do think the existence of God should be the subject of rationalist arguments, then there is plenty of evidence to be examining. 'Prove' or 'Not Prove' are misnomers here.


From my limited understand (only up to third year undergrad quantum, so I've never done quantum field theory let alone even been up to date with new areas like M Theory) that's a pretty misleading description.

But after writing all that I'm not interested in going to such a debate. I attended enough debates at the Cambridge Union to get thoroughly bored of public speaking exercises. I enjoy considered written debates and sometimes arguments with people in real life, but the polite slanging matches that are public debates aren't my thing.

I'm never quite sure what it means to respect someone's beliefs. It's something is normally only asked for with respect to either religious belief or unfamiliar cultures. It's also never required that all political views be respected for example. I can, and do, respect people who believe things I strongly disagree with, but the ideas themselves I have no respect for. So I despise religion from a practical and philosophical standpoint and have absolutely no respect for it. But I do have a huge amount of respect for many religious people, and don't find any contradiction between finding some of their beliefs abhorent and finding them to be lovely intelligent human being who contribute hugely to both society and my life. The very common demand that religious beliefs be respected seems to stem from an inability to seperate someone's religion from the totality of their being. So "he's a nice bloke but a bit of a Tory" is acceptable, but "he's a nice bloke but a Muslim" is not considered so. Whilst religion is often a hugely important part of people's lives, or even the most important part of their life, it is still just a set of beliefs that they hold, not them themselves.

As you mentioned yourself, the scientific method requires a hypothesis that is falsifiable, ie can be proven wrong. Therefore the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science and the above statement is technically correct, albeit poorly worded.

The scientific method is both deductive (what happened?) and inductive (what will happen?). And yes, one of the great values of scientific discoveries is their predictive powers, but even the Laws of Thermodynamics are not considered conclusions. They are still subject to scrutiny, and will be modified if new information comes along. Similarly, the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best explains the existing evidence, but it's not called the Law of Evolution, or the Conclusion of Evolution.



If you define God as, "The All-Knowing, All-Powerful Creator of the Universe" (Because Capital Letters Signify Importance) there is simply no way to conduct a scientific study because you can't set up a falsifiable hypothesis.

For example, scientists have found that stimulating a certain portion of the brain causes the sensation of a religious experience in subjects even when the subject knows the scientist is poking them in the head.

But this does not in any way 'prove' that God doesn't exist. For all we know, God put that part in our brain so we could experience God's divine....stuff.

Similarly, my admittedly limited knowledge of astronomy, evolution and abiogenesis leads me to believe that it is possible that this universe came into being without the help of a Divine Creator, but again this doesn't prove anything.

And just in case you were thinking of mentioning it, Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast scientific principle.




Aye, there's the rub. I admit that there's no rational, logical or scientific reasoning for my beliefs. I don't care. My beliefs make me happy. All things being equal, why should I believe something that didn't make me happy?

You can't reason someone out of a corner they didn't reason themselves into.



Same here. I have no 'respect' for beliefs that have no foundation in science, logic, or basic reasoning.

But I have a lot of respect for Stu because of his character, his integrity, and conviction, even if I disagree with his beliefs.

I basically agree with you Luke, except regarding some small points and, of course, semantics.

_________________
"If you're offended, don't be" -Andy Kirkpatrick

Thanks Stu.

Heh.

Hey, I'm just using this as an excuse to not do work, and as a distraction from the fact that I've been rejected AGAIN by the girl of my dreams.

Upon further consideration, I think I misinterpreted everything Luke said anyway.

_________________
"If you're offended, don't be" -Andy Kirkpatrick

ha

In my opinion respect is different to agreeing with. I think people these days think that respect means you have to agree, but I disagree.

I can respect a muslims or an atheists beliefs, but that doesnt mean I agree with them. Im happy to tell them they are wrong, and I am also happy for them to tell me that I am wrong, I wont get upset, because I know Im right.

For the record, i dont think that the debate will do much what u guys would call "Science", I think its going to be more philosophical stuff (Similar to Dawkins, but lets not get started on him.)

_________________
Committee position - Christianity and exotic islands Sec