Alistair Humphrey, not Humpfrey -- I finally get it! Yeh!
Prometheus -- I presume you are talking about this -- there were a number of lasts points
Why wouldn't we. Why wouldn't we dare? Why do you use the word 'dare' anyway? This was just my question and the one I expected you to address.
You think that we can't assume god does not exist based on lack of evidence pro and con and based on our lack of understanding and because god is such a mighty figure? Are you afraid to offend god? Should I be?
Why would one need 'dare' to assume god doesn't exist while everyone uses the same logic in the exact same situation all the time without anyone ever having a doubt?
So one should not apply the usual logic and make an exception because we are talking about the creator of all? Or because God is such a sensitive issue? Because god is such a dominant idea?
These arguments have no valid in truth finding.
I use the word 'dare' because of the the scale of things we know and we don't. To make an analogy, lets take physics or science to be a Bach Fugue. It sets things up for a comical bushism, like "Science is a fugue" and "Bach is God" (possibly true). And we can discuss things in a language that we both can relate to.
We as little inhabitants the world can hear this fugue, constantly playing, we hear the four voices, and it affects everything, when we get up, the way we feel etc. etc.
We can even measure the fugue, and tell want's going on. For example, a C can go with a G or an E or an A but seldom with an F#. So in our little world, we can make rules for the fugue, what can and what can't be done.
One day, some clever guy comes along and says. hey look, what you've been listening to for the last three bars is acctually the same sort of thing repeated in the four different voices! And the whole world has a look and sees that this is true, and they go , wow... that is interesting. He goes on to say, that the next note that we should hear in the third voice is an F. And true enough, that's the next note they hear. So, the inhabitants of our little universe have found out small things about what is happening around them. Pretty important things as well.
The thing about this world, is that each inhabitant just lives for about half a bar (although they could understand the history, by looking at records). So my question is that if you were an inhabitant on this world, what would you say?
Would you go, we don't know everything, but we know LOTS. We know, largely how it is constructed, and have a pretty fundametal theorem, and we can predict how it is going to play out.
or
Would your reaction be, some higher being must have created this -- the we only see bits of the work, but it is impressive, and there must be a grand design.
I use the word dare because in my view, in all of human history, we have only progressed about 1 bar in a 10 minute Fugue. It's slightly presumptious to make the claim -- There is no God (Bach) -- based on hearing half a bar.
I don't think we should make exceptions for God per se, but that's just my opinion. Many important people think that we should. Again, i think that the reasons for this are mainly social, historical and political, but hardly scientific. So i give you this point.
Also, seems that this kind of reasoning can only argue for a Spinozian/Einsteinian god-view. That's not really a god in the conventional sense, is it?
Fortunately or unfortunately, that is correct because we are arguing in the context of science. I am just trying to show that there is room in science for god. Science certainly has not disproved god. On the contrary, I have also tried to show that science may never be able to prove/disprove the existence of god. We can start a discussion on the other aspects of god, which religion does cover, like social, moral and political aspects, but I would very much appreciate some kind of distancing from science because it is not the (primary?) domain of the subject (by definition). So yes, you are right. I need to argue by putting an abstract face on god, not a human one. No JC abilites and compassion and the like.
Some comments to the utility of a belief in god, that is from a untiliatrian perspective, rather than a believer's. There have been many great works of art and science done in his name. In my opinion, this should be left up to the individual. If you looking into the scientific mysteries of the universe in god's name, that's as good a reason for me as looking at the same puzzles in the hope of becoming famous. Whatever that case, most of the religious scientist I know are able to separate, in a satisfactory way, their conduct and lives under god, and they way they approach their science. From my experience, a religious scientist no better or worse than a non-religious scientist.
I'm not sure if I'm really answering your questions anymore or sounding more like a politician.
. But it is an interesting debate and has helped me to understand certain things and points of view better. Believeing is a different thing altogether, and for a scientist, too strong a word to use in general.
Need to do some work. See you all this evening...
Topic: Huge!