Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.


The next statement from New atheism section in Wikipedia.

[wigginhall]

I don't understand reality.

[Robbie]

I don't understand what Phyllis Tyne is getting at.

[Sebastian Toe]

I don't understand what Phyllis Tyne is getting at.

I'd be surprised if he knows either!

[jeremyp]

........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.

That seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement, unless you have some counter examples.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement, unless you have some counter examples.

Oh dear. I think this is a case where Wigginhall hit the nail on the head and you hit your thumb.

[SteveH]

Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)

[jeremyp]

Oh dear. I think this is a case where Wigginhall hit the nail on the head and you hit your thumb.

Doesn't look like it. It looks more like a case where you shot yourself in the foot.

[jeremyp]

Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place.

That's just nonsense. I'm glad you don't necessarily agree.

[torridon]

Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)

Wouldn't help, that merely shifts the goalposts to understanding 'god'.  That's just burying the problem rather than facing it.

[Stranger]

Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place. (Note the"arguably": I'm not ssying I necessarily agree.)

How does that argument go, then?

[Stranger]

........Nowhere is it necessary to introduce God or the supernatural to understand reality.

It's a sort of a non-statement really. Which version of god(s)? What does 'supernatural' really mean? What objective methods could possibly be used to investigate any claims regarding them?

Is there any reason at all to think that either are anything more than human superstitions?

[SteveH]

How does that argument go, then?

If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.

[ProfessorDavey]

Arguably, we can't undetand anything unless we assume God in the first place.

Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.

I don't 'assume god' and therefore by your comment cannot understand anything.

The whole process of science, which has lead to an unparalleled increase in our understanding of reality, doesn't not 'assume god' - so is this all flawed. Are all the things we understand through science, all the technologies we routinely use and are based on scientific understanding actually false?

[SteveH]

Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.

Read my post above yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't look like it. It looks more like a case where you shot yourself in the foot.

All I've done so far is to venture that Wigginhalls statement that he doesn't understand the universe is closer to the real situation rather than an approach like yours which seams to say, use naturalism and you can understand the universe.

That seems like not just a world view but cosmic view which makes the claim we are not afraid to say we don't know a bit suspect.

The only other thing I did was to quote what Wikipedia sees as a stock belief of New Atheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would you like to justify that rather bizarre statement please.

I don't 'assume god' and therefore by your comment cannot understand anything.

The whole process of science, which has lead to an unparalleled increase in our understanding of reality, doesn't not 'assume god' - so is this all flawed. Are all the things we understand through science, all the technologies we routinely use and are based on scientific understanding actually false?

You are perilously close to saying science established what reality is rather than chipping away to discover reality. The old invention/discovery thing.

[Stranger]

If there's no God, and we are merely the product of unguided evolution, then our thoughts and reasoning are simply the result of chemical and electrical changes in our brains, which evolved to help us survive, not to do valid reasoning, so how can we trust our reasoning, including the reasoning that led us to the conclusion that there is no God? Strict atheism is thus an argument against the possibility of arguments.

Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.

[SteveH]

Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.

Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.

[Roses]

Not necessarily. If there's no God, why have our brains convinced us that there is (or are) since we started walking upright? It might be evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe certasin illusions.

Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?

[SteveH]

Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?

Perhaps because if we had to deal with the naked truth with no illusions, we'd all despair and top ourselves. Again, I'm just hypothecising, not saying that this is what I believe.

[Roses]

Perhaps because if we had to deal with the naked truth with no illusions, we'd all despair and top ourselves. Again, I'm just hypothecising, not saying that this is what I believe.

The illusion of god with which I was presented as a child was a very unpleasant one, which I could well have done without.

[SteveH]

Sigh... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not all human brains have been convinced supernatural entities exist. Why do you think it is advantageous to believe in some illusions?

What is God an illusion of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right, I recall that rather bizarre argument. Why wouldn't evolution produce rational beings? Evolution is rather good at producing organs that are good at what they do, and a function of the brain is to represent the external world in order to react to it. Drawing correct, rather than erroneous, conclusions about the world would be a clear advantage.

Is the universe rational? Why should it be rational?
Isn't the idea that the universe conforms to our evolved rationality just a sophisticated version of Adams Puddle and hole analogy?