Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

The only thing I see coming out of this article is that agnosticism is a logically powerful position. That isn't to say you can't be theistic or atheistic with agnosticism, though. You can still hold beliefs, yet not know for 100% if they are the absolute truth. You may also chose to not participate in religions and effectively be an atheist while not knowing. This, in my opinion, creates a spectrum of sureness that extends all the way from the belief that we can never and will never know for sure to "I'm pretty sure, but there is a slight chance I'm wrong." At the same time the extremes of knowing 100% within one's own mind exist as well. It seems like arrogance to hold that sort of position, though. A lot of problems are caused when two beliefs that are "100%" sure conflict with each other.

On a cosmological scale, humanity has barely begun to research and understand our position on such things. It goes deeper into saying what exactly do we define as god? If we ever discover the basic interactions between particles in the universe that resulted in our blip of reality to momentously explode into existence, will we have to call that god? There is a reason the Higgs Boson has been labeled the "God" particle. While the name itself is a misnomer and discovering it won't have come even close to solving all of our issues with understanding, any such progress down the path to knowing what happened at time 0 could possibly be described as such. It would also let many physicists sleep at night knowing the standard model is on the right track.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
The fact that he chose 6.9 out of 7 means he has went away from the 99.9% convinced their is no God, to 98.5%. It seems he's subtly letting us know he may be having a change of heart.

No scientist, worth his salt gives a percentage on the validity of God. You believe, don't believe, or are undecided.

Dawkins is not a famous scientist. He is a famous atheist. Although he is a scientist, he has only made a name for himself on the debate circuit, arguing against God.

It means he said he's a 6.9 out of a scale of 7 .. you're being silly and presumptious ..

Science is science.. 99.9% is a percentage he has given, any scientist worth his or her salt would answer the same..

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Honest scientists don't make factual claims about God. He is using his title to push an atheist agenda. What science has he done to convince himself there is no God? Scientist's just don't make claims like this.

I was being facetious about the change of heart.

There is no way anyone can be 100 percent shur of anything in this world. To say otherwise would show lack of true intelligence. There are conditions or circumstances that nullify everything we know about anything.

Originally posted by reaxi0n
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Hello Professional,
I see in the time you 'haven't been home' you have managed to create a thread as well as hold conversations in three other threads, and are still online yet you can not answer my question?

Is it really that much of a surprise? Any reasonably educated person already knows he's flat out wrong or lying already with or without his response.

Your interactions with The Professional have been of some use to the ATS community. I, for one, now know to disregard and ignore his contributions to this community.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
The fact that he chose 6.9 out of 7 means he has went away from the 99.9% convinced their is no God, to 98.5%. It seems he's subtly letting us know he may be having a change of heart.

No scientist, worth his salt gives a percentage on the validity of God. You believe, don't believe, or are undecided.

Dawkins is not a famous scientist. He is a famous atheist. Although he is a scientist, he has only made a name for himself on the debate circuit, arguing against God.

It means he said he's a 6.9 out of a scale of 7 .. you're being silly and presumptious ..

Science is science.. 99.9% is a percentage he has given, any scientist worth his or her salt would answer the same..

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Honest scientists don't make factual claims about God. He is using his title to push an atheist agenda. What science has he done to convince himself there is no God? Scientist's just don't make claims like this.

I was being facetious about the change of heart.

He doesn't make factual claims about god.. he's openly admitted he can't prove God doesn't exist ( that happens to be the point of this thread in fact ) . so with that said, what are you suggesting? he's in line with typical science response to things.. no scientist will tell you that ghosts don't exist either.. they'll tell you they are 999% sure at most.. no scientist speaks in absolutes.. Dawkins hasn't either.

Him declaring he's a 6.9 out of 7 is perfectly reasonable for a science.. so I am failing to see what you're saying..

Originally posted by FlyingSpaghettiMonster

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
The rational approach would be to accept that we can never be 100% certain - though i've yet to find a practising Christian who would even entertain the notion or remote possibility that there may not be a god....

Quite. All he's doing is expressing the scientific method - you test a theory to destruction with the evidence you have available. You make a decision based on that testing. But there may be further evidence in the future which forces you to adapt the theory. This is not proof that science is wrong - it only shows that the scientific method is very sensibly open to complexity and doubt. It welcomes change and contradiction. That is one thing that the fundamentalist religious believer will never do.

I don't understand this. Are you claiming Dawkins is using the scientific method to come to a 98.5% certainty of there being no God? Wow.

Karma is the closet thing to a God that i've ever seen in my life's experience's. But sometimes even Karma has a sick sense of humour and poor timing ! But then again, life isn't perfect, if it was then Earth would be re-named to Utopia !

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
The fact that he chose 6.9 out of 7 means he has went away from the 99.9% convinced their is no God, to 98.5%. It seems he's subtly letting us know he may be having a change of heart.

No scientist, worth his salt gives a percentage on the validity of God. You believe, don't believe, or are undecided.

Dawkins is not a famous scientist. He is a famous atheist. Although he is a scientist, he has only made a name for himself on the debate circuit, arguing against God.

It means he said he's a 6.9 out of a scale of 7 .. you're being silly and presumptious ..

Science is science.. 99.9% is a percentage he has given, any scientist worth his or her salt would answer the same..

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Honest scientists don't make factual claims about God. He is using his title to push an atheist agenda. What science has he done to convince himself there is no God? Scientist's just don't make claims like this.

I was being facetious about the change of heart.

He doesn't make factual claims about god.. he's openly admitted he can't prove God doesn't exist ( that happens to be the point of this thread in fact ) . so with that said, what are you suggesting? he's in line with typical science response to things.. no scientist will tell you that ghosts don't exist either.. they'll tell you they are 999% sure at most.. no scientist speaks in absolutes.. Dawkins hasn't either.

Him declaring he's a 6.9 out of 7 is perfectly reasonable for a science.. so I am failing to see what you're saying..

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/24/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

What I'm saying is Dawkins is speaking as an atheist, not a scientist. Scientists don't test the validity of God.

Originally posted by addygrace
don't understand this. Are you claiming Dawkins is using the scientific method to come to a 98.5% certainty of there being no God? Wow.

you arriving at 98.5% is playing on his scale of 1-7 .. it's a sad attempt and is just a play of mathematics..

Dawkins has also said he's 99.9% sure.. 6.9 just happens to be as close to 7 as he can get without extending his decimal places.. give it up .. and like I said earlier, you're arguing over miniscule fractions, which is petty.

in science its called the Heisenberg theory or uncertainty principle.. that nothing is 100%. so really he is still being scientific with his statements.
wiki link.... en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by addygrace


If you question a scientist on the validity of a God you'll get the same response.. but you're actually EXTREMELY wrong..

Science does in fact question religion and has tested it many times.. the scientific studies into the shroud of turin is one minor example.. you're just not correct in your claims.. Science, I'm sure, would love to prove a God existed.. imagine how exciting that would be?.. but there's not evidence to support it .. not a shred.. that is why I, like dawkins.. will say I'm 99.9% sure there's nothing.. I'm also a 6.9 out of 7 .. unless you'd rather me say 6.999999999999999 just to help you with your pickyness

reply to post by JailTales


Let me see if I can elaborate and break this down further.

Atheism is a term used to describe a lack of belief in a deity. This is the default state of every single human at birth. Religion is taught and learned, therefore it is a concept created by external influence. This is why any theist has the burden of proof, and any one who does not believe in a god, does not. It lies solely with the believer.

That said, you are correct in the sense there technically should have never been terms such as "atheist" and "agnostic," if it is inherent to all humans. However, the terms are used to differentiate between lack of belief, and belief. Just as the term "human" is used to differentiate our species from all other species. This is because of the fact religious ideas have been created.

Agnosticism only arises once the question of religion is entered into the equation. You can not be "unsure" without an external influence to be "unsure" about. Once religion is in question, we all live lives as agnostic atheists because of the outside factor that can not be proven or disproven. Keep in mind that atheism is not a belief system.

Because of the fact religious ideology has existed in the past, a term such as "agnosticism" is in fact needed in order to differentiate between logic and the extremes of the belief spectrum.

Pure atheism can not exist until one day the question of religion is no longer existent and long forgotten about. It will no longer be atheism, because it will be the norm and religion will no longer be in question.

Do you understand now?

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
don't understand this. Are you claiming Dawkins is using the scientific method to come to a 98.5% certainty of there being no God? Wow.

you arriving at 98.5% is playing on his scale of 1-7 .. it's a sad attempt and is just a play of mathematics..

Dawkins has also said he's 99.9% sure.. 6.9 just happens to be as close to 7 as he can get without extending his decimal places.. give it up .. and like I said earlier, you're arguing over miniscule fractions, which is petty.

Im not even arguing the percentage. I know the numbers he used meant nothing. He was just trying to say there is no God, although he can't be certain about that. I told you in my last post, I was being facetious about the 98.5%. What about 98.5% creates any controversy in you eyes?

I say the controversy is people believing scientists can use the scintific method to evaluate the validioty of God. Do you agree?

reply to post by miniatus


On the first day, a scientist threw a switch and said "Let there be light", he was confident that light would happen because he thought he understood electricity and those gigantic halogen light globes that burned so brightly.

What he failed to realize was that his laws of physics, that he so "religiously" believed in, allowed the electricity to flow and the halogens to burn. What happened was the manifestation of wave/particle duality and that our understanding of physics could have been completely different today had those early minds laid out a different structure for the matrix or 'the mind of GOD' to adopt, as Einstein would say "a persistent illusion". We chose our physics out of free will and they became fixed and demonstrable and empirically provable because it became the template for those of us that followed.

I sometimes wish that those early scholars had a little more imagination.

I believe all this "there is no god because a scientist says so" is pretentious bull@#$%.

As others have stated, math shows the law of probability that we didn't get here "by accident".
Fractal math has also been shown to prove the existence of God.

Now these fields ARE scientific, these are not scientists who are "fudging the numbers" to prove their beliefs in God.
I find it curious that when these scientists, math professors, etc etc provide THEIR proof, it's like crickets on the other aisle, why is that? Don't like the implications?

Stephen Hawking, arguably this generation's Einstein, was quoted as saying that the idea of there not being a "creator" (note not a god) of the universe was a mathematical impossibility. He said the odds would be 1 -1(now add a zero for every proton in the universe). Is that an impossibility? No, but it's a statistical improbability.

Now I will admit since he has said this he has changed his view on God, I looked up to find the "why" and the closest thing I could come up with this: Link

It makes no sense to me why the apparent discovery of a planet that may be similar to earth makes him change his view on the probability of a creator. If anyone has a better link or explanation on why he changed his view I would love to read it.

People also say that what difference does it make what a physicist says? Well I'll give you two reasons, based on my own research. Chuck Missler did a presentation called signs in the heavens I believe on youtube, and the interesting thing was that he was comparing the twist of spiral galaxies from 25 Million light years away all the way upto 185? million light years away, and noticed that they were almost identical.

So what you may ask? The light from the farthest one should show a difference in galaxy twist, yet since they're very similar (along with six other galaxies from varying distances he posted) it would seem to indicate that these galaxies wre all created at the same time.

Another one is written by Gerald Schroeder, he has a double doctorate from MIT. Most of his arguments deal with the first trillionths of a second after the big bang. His conclusions showed that when the bang happened, there was a "pause" in the explosion, and that something intervened and continue the explosion by separating the atoms/ Again, so what? If the explosion was to big, it would have incinerated the cosmic egg, if too small the gravity would've collapsed the matter back in on itself.

These two examples, written by scientists with varying degrees, as well as those in ages past, (I didn't hear anyone calling Newton an idjit for having faith) are my reasons for why I believe in God, as well as a couple dozen more hard scientific facts that are "out there" for ppl to read online.

Folks, the truth isn't being hid from anybody, the simple fact of the matter is that ppl would rather pee & moan about how God doesn't exist, and use ad hominem attacks, rather than investigating the issues themselves with an open mind. And that's the problem with an open mind, you may find the answers you don't wish to find, than may believe you'd be accountable for that knowledge.

MOST ppl don't want to be accountable for squat, so they bury their heads in the sand.

/not a scientist, nor do I play one on tv
/not interested in mental masturbation either tyvm
and yes Missler and Shroeder are both "Christians" but their faith shouldn't take away anything from their evidence.

Originally posted by miniatus
reply to post by addygrace

 

If you question a scientist on the validity of a God you'll get the same response.. but you're actually EXTREMELY wrong..

Science does in fact question religion and has tested it many times.. the scientific studies into the shroud of turin is one minor example.. you're just not correct in your claims.. Science, I'm sure, would love to prove a God existed.. imagine how exciting that would be?.. but there's not evidence to support it .. not a shred.. that is why I, like dawkins.. will say I'm 99.9% sure there's nothing.. I'm also a 6.9 out of 7 .. unless you'd rather me say 6.999999999999999 just to help you with your pickyness

47.2% statistics are made up on the spot *smirks* Why did he use 7 as his maximum measure? isnt it a number used in the bible alot? or is he being self important like many athiest by making his own system of measure? Why didnt he just say he was 99.99999% from 100% interesting.

god bothers piss me off!

ooo look!

your aethist king is wrong!

so he is 6.9 out of 7 convinced there is no god.

sounds like a scientists rational to me.

as a scientist myself, you can never be fully sure.

on the other hand, you god types have 100% FAITH and ZERO facts.

nothing else.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
don't understand this. Are you claiming Dawkins is using the scientific method to come to a 98.5% certainty of there being no God? Wow.

you arriving at 98.5% is playing on his scale of 1-7 .. it's a sad attempt and is just a play of mathematics..

Dawkins has also said he's 99.9% sure.. 6.9 just happens to be as close to 7 as he can get without extending his decimal places.. give it up .. and like I said earlier, you're arguing over miniscule fractions, which is petty.

Im not even arguing the percentage. I know the numbers he used meant nothing. He was just trying to say there is no God, although he can't be certain about that. I told you in my last post, I was being facetious about the 98.5%. What about 98.5% creates any controversy in you eyes?

I say the controversy is people believing scientists can use the scintific method to evaluate the validioty of God. Do you agree?

I do agree .. in the sense that science can also not be used to evaluate the validity of the tooth fairy .. it can't prove or disprove, what I deem.. as fantasy .. In comparison, I just invented a deity named Grawl that is the God of all things purple .. science can't disprove it .. so it is also a 99.9% situation..

reply to post by rexusdiablos


Thank you for being one of the people that still gives me faith in this website and takes the "deny ignorance" slogan seriously.

Originally posted by Foxy1
47.2% statistics are made up on the spot *smirks* Why did he use 7 as his maximum measure? isnt it a number used in the bible alot? or is he being self important like many athiest by making his own system of measure? Why didnt he just say he was 99.99999% from 100% interesting.

He's used 99.9% in interviews.. your guess is as good as mine as to why he arose to 1-7 .. why do people chose 1-5, 1-4, 1-100.. I've seen many odd scales.. it doesn't mean there's a hidden meaning