Enjoying this one at the moment with some time to spare. I like the format with the informal questioning/conversation starting about halfway through. Some good rapport necessary for that to work.
Dillahunty is really good in these types of debates, as he always is on The Atheist Experience as well. Very calm, logical, just gets to the points. My problem with it in 2016 though is that everything that needs to be said has already been said, so you end up just watching new people say the exact same things in slightly different ways.
The answer to âdoes God exist?â to me is obvious, itâs no. The only so called debate that ever takes place essentially lies in different interpretations of what the word exist means. Non religious people think the meaning of exist is tied to actual evidence. If thereâs no proof of any of it, then it doesnât exist. Religious people donât seem to think it has anything to do with evidence, as exist is faith based. If you feel it and believe it, it exists.
So actually, the people who are best able to answer the question of whether god exists are linguists. Does the word exist really mean it has to be backed by actual evidence? Or is believing enough to make it exist?
What does exist really mean? 
Indeed, practical questions like morality get talked about a lot, and presuppositionalists show up a lot. I enjoyed this debate because they stayed out of those minefields and stuck to various arguments on the stated subject.
Iâm not sure thatâs quite it. The meaning of the word is clear enough, and I donât think that anyone would deny that some form of evidence is needed even in the case of intangible things. What is the standard of evidence? Thatâs the question. I havenât heard anyone say that simple belief in something would cause it to exist, though Iâve heard people contend that the widespread nature of religious belief is a form of evidence.
1 Like
Again though itâs just a question of definitions of words and unpacking common meanings of language. What does evidence mean? In no other area of our lives do we have this debate about how little evidence we will accept as adequate. It seems to me, the difference between not even remotely close and not even fucking close is about the same thing. However religious people seem to think that one level of not even close is somehow good enough.
Nobody knows whether God does or doesnât exist. With respect to God, everybody in the world is agnostic and probably always will be.
But despite the fact that we canât disprove God, that doesnât mean we canât definitively answer the question. Given the most common definitions of the words exist and what constitutes acceptable levels of evidence, the answer to the question of whether God exists is obvious, no.
And since we already have a word for belief in something without any evidence (faith) whatâs the point of the debate? Aside from the obvious entertainment value of course.
Define exist, evidence, and faith, and that answers the question. That doesnât mean there isnât a God, but it does mean we as speakers of the English language should be comfortable saying God doesnât exist.
Even religious people should be comfortable saying God doesnât exist. They can still say they have faith 
Hereâs a classic one from a few years ago, mostly about morality.
Another oldie but goodie, and pretty funny as well
The first sentence may be true, but the second doesnât follow logically because âI donât knowâ is not the same as âI donât believe soâ. Faith means âI have enough evidence to convince me of the truth of my opinionâ. An awful lot of human thought, including supposedly rational thought, hinges on faith.
I would also suggest the word âagnosticâ implies not only that one doesnât know, but that one doesnât much care either way. An atheist thinks the question is important enough to take stance.
Your faith is strong, young Skywalker
I donât think many people believe in things for which no evidence exists. If they canât find evidence then they invent it. People believe in flying saucers because National Inquirer has the photographs, and because, like, Area 51.
However I quite agree that the debate is pointless apart from its entertainment value. Atheists have evidence for their faith; theists have evidence for theirs.
Just watching the Sam Harris video on morality now. Heâs a good speaker. However I get the feeling nice people like Mr Harris simply havenât spent enough time mixing with evil people, and has absolutely no idea that his opinions about the âobviousnessâ of secular morality is a product of his own faith. He also conflates âreligionâ with âbelief in Godâ (as most atheists do). The difference is that religion is a formalised philosophical framework assembled around belief in some putative god or gods. Belief in God is a much simpler thing, that really means only what it says.
[quote=âfinleyâ]
The first sentence may be true, but the second doesnât follow logically because âI donât knowâ is not the same as âI donât believe soâ. Faith means âI have enough evidence to convince me of the truth of my opinionâ. An awful lot of human thought, including supposedly rational thought, hinges on faith.[/quote]
I would make a distinction between faith and belief. People believe all kinds of things to be true without complete evidence. The corollary is that you do not know it to be true. Faith goes farther than that, and suggests a certain attachment to the concept in spite of a lack of evidence. Can we take the New Testamentâs definition?
Not necessarily, at all. Agnostic means ânot knowingâ. Atheist means ânot believing in a god or godsâ I, and many atheists, consider myself to be both. I am agnostic as to the question of whether any type of god/higher power beyond our understanding/etc. exists, and atheist with regards to any god which I have heard people suggest exists. I suspect you are with respect to many such gods, as well.
I donât think soâmany people change their conviction during the course of their lives. These are important questions in many practical senses. It affects many things in my home country of the United States, for example. Also, Iâd like to know if there is a God. That would be good to know. Iâm agnostic about our ultimate origins, and although I do not expect to ever have answers, I think discussion of this topic is interesting in a way that transcends âentertainment.â
Why? I donât see why, based on what he said at least, or why that would be important. Do you think he would deny that people do evil things at times?
Before I say anything else about this, does he? Where?
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Even so, ânot seenâ doesnât mean there is no evidence. Think of Galileo: he had cast-iron evidence, but it wasnât accessible to the dumb masses and their leaders. Similar things happened with the discovery of disease-causing microbes. I see plenty of evidence of God, because like all humans Iâm subject to confirmation bias.
Human are terribly limited little creatures, both in terms of what we can know and what we can think about. In the grand scheme of things, weâre a very small step up from monkeys hooting and flinging poo at each other.
That said, I do agree (to a certain extent) with BGâs point about semantics. Some people take âto existâ a bit too narrowly: if God isnât an actual white-bearded guy floating on a cloud, then he doesnât exist. I know people who conceive of God as embodied in the universe itself. A sort of distributed God, who exists In The Cloud rather than on it
Fair enough. Itâs just my experience that people who use the word âagnosticâ to describe themselves just arenât that interested in the God question. It bores them.
Well put. I stand corrected
What I meant was that he doesnât appreciate that evil is neither more nor less rational than his âcommon senseâ moral framework. He mentions a debate with a philosopher at the beginning of his segment who tries to illustrate this. The point goes completely over his head. If he had met more people with no moral values at all, he would be forced to confront the idea that their views are no less logical than his ideas about maximizing the wellbeing of humanity at large. Some people just donât give a shit about the wellbeing of humanity at large, and arenât interested in whether their behaviour is evil (according to whoeverâs yardstick) or not.
Just in passing - he doesnât make a point of it. He takes it as axiomatic that theyâre the same thing. Incidentally, I should modify what I said before: a religion doesnât necessarily require a supernatural deity.
Again this is an issue with the language. Agnostic means to not know. Nostic is knowledge, and the ag is the lack there of. Itâs quite simple, agnostic means to not know. Therefore my statement that everybody on the planet is agnostic with regard to God is absolutely true.
theism / atheism is a belief claim
nostic / agnostic is a knowledge claim
You can either be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist, but everybody on the planet is agnostic with respect to God and likely always will be. On the one side, even if science backs God into the tiniest little corner to the point where itâs absurd to believe, and we could prove scientifically how life began and what happened before the big bang, that still wouldnât disprove God.
On the flip side, if a being so powerful emerged that he could demonstrate spontaneous creation of life and could see into my thoughts and predict my future, and he told us he actually did create the universe, that still wouldnât prove he was God. It would just mean heâs sufficiently more powerful to the point where it appears heâs God and heâs making claims for which are untestable.
So nobody will ever be truly ânosticâ with respect to God.
Nope it doesnât. It simply means exactly what it says. (Nostic + ag) says nothing about the desire to know or not to know.
Oh boy, youâre one of those people who say atheism is faith? Since when is the lack of accepting bad evidence faith?
To steal a line from Sam Harris, I suppose you also think that a lack of belief in astrology and zodiac signs is a faith?
Which is immoral. Thatâs kind of the point is it not? Are you sure you understood what Sam was saying on this issue? Heâs trying to define morality, and he just did. Whether you accept it or not is on you, but it certainly didnât go over his head. That was his exact point.
Itâs a + gnostic 
[/pedantry]
While your literal translation of the Greek might be accurate, thatâs not the way the word is used in English. The point is that there are degrees of not knowing, or of certainty. The agnostic is completely on the fence.
Well, there are two forms of atheism:
âI believe there is no Godâ.
âI do not believe there is a Godâ.
The former is an explicit statement of faith. The latter is not. However, it would be a hard sell presenting evidence even to the second case. Confirmation bias again.
Yes, he was trying to define morality, and failing. He failed because he started with some âself-evidentâ axioms, in particular that we âought toâ maximize benefit to humanity. He then tried to muster âscienceâ in support of these axioms, which science sadly cannot do. Sam Harris believes in the axioms he invented (or more likely absorbed from his cultureâs Judeo-Christian traditions). I have met people who would find his axioms puzzling at best. Iâve also met people who donât have a conscience, which Sam Harris insists is an evolutionary thingy that everyone has. Heâs dead wrong, and I suspect certain societies actively select against whatever gene codes for our conscience.
Have you watched Terminator 2? Remember that scene where wossisname tries to convince the Terminator that he canât just go around killing people, and Arnie just keeps saying âwhy?â. There is no âwhyâ, and there is no âought toâ, at least none that science or logic will give you. To provide those things you need to invoke a belief system with value-judgements, which might or might not involve a god.
Again I just think you are incorrect. That is exactly how people use the word, or at least people who know what it means use it. Agnostic means to not know, period. How YOU use it is up to you, but donât assume that the world is supposed to take on your own little version of the definition of words.
Agnostic is not confusing in the slightest. It means to not know. It doesnât mean you donât want to, or what degree you do or donât, it just means to not know.
[quote=âfinleyâ]Well, there are two forms of atheism:
âI believe there is no Godâ.
âI do not believe there is a Godâ.
The former is an explicit statement of faith. The latter is not. However, it would be a hard sell presenting evidence even to the second case. Confirmation bias again.[/quote]
Again you are conflating definitions, muddying the waters to the point where it all gets lost.
Atheism means a person does not believe in God or gods, full stop !
Now there are subcategories, strong and weak, positive and negative, militant, anti, etcâŚ
But the word atheism is not at all confusing. What is the problem? It means a lack of belief in God or gods, thatâs it man.
Which is why I said itâs up to you whether you accept it or not. Are you convinced by his argument? Apparently not, which is fine. But itâs pretty clear you didnât understand his general point. To say that there are people who donât care about humanity and the well being of others puts a dent in his argument? Dude, that IS his argument.
As far as whether youâve met people who think his axioms are puzzling at best, Iâve met people who think they were abducted by aliens. Was there a point somewhere? Thereâs plenty of people who agree with Sam 100%, and plenty of others who donât. But your attempt at an argument from popularity is quite meaningless.
And your Terminator analogy just further shows that you donât understand what Sam is saying. That is his entire point my friend. According to him, and again be convinced of his argument or donât, but what heâs saying is that there are scientific truths about morality, and the ought to in Terminator might actually be explained by some of them.
Honestly, give Sam another chance. It really does appear you missed his point.
When it comes to the question of whether there is a God (which when defined for debate purposes as a creator of the universe), it seems to me that sometimes the atheist wins and other times the theist wins, precisely because I donât think science can take us any further. The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo. There was nothing (meaning no matter, no space, no time), and in an instant everything. So what happened before there was nothing? Who knows?! Itâs one philosophy against another. Krauss and his universe from nothing is no help either: particles arenât the universe and a vacuum isnât nothing (subatomic particles and the vacuum resulting in the so-called vacuum fluctuation). Other scientific theories, while interesting to ponder, are in principle unprovable. Itâs my understanding that multiverse theory falls under this category (and also, doesnât multiverse theory just push back the question of how it all started in the first place?). So Iâve given up on these debates. Someone mentioned that theyâre just a rehashing of things already said in previous debates. I totally agree. So pick your philosophy. Figure out whatâs most rationally satisfying (or perhaps whatâs most rationally unsatisfying) to you and live your life accordingly.
Unfortunately Harris appears to be one of those people who is clueless about what science is for or how it works - which is bizarre since heâs employed as a scientist - and thinks that referring to something as âscientificâ makes it so.
If there were âscientific truthsâ about morality, my opinion wouldnât matter in the slightest: his assertions are either true or they are not. The only part of his thesis that is scientifically falsifiable is his belief that moral frameworks arise naturally from evolutionary pressure. There is plenty of empirical evidence that evolution doesnât necessarily select for the characteristics that lead to humane or âgoodâ behaviour. There is a very obvious reason for this: people who behave in thoroughly immoral ways get to pass on their genes just as effectively as people who donât. Possibly more so. They are only constrained from doing so where the majority rejects their behaviour and suppresses it. If the majority approves of such behaviour - or does nothing to halt it - then that society will end up in the âworst of all possible worldsâ scenario that he describes. There are specimen human societies of this type.
Since observation does not fit his hypothesis, it is wrong and can be dismissed out of hand. Welcome to Karl Popperâs world, Mr Harris.
It goes without saying, of course, that dismissal of one hypothesis does not automatically âproveâ any competing hypothesis.
Not to nitpick the general point, but science doesnât really say that. At least thatâs not the implication. It actually just says âI donât know.â
If you were to ask me if X can come from Y, what would I need? Iâd need an X so I can examine it, and Iâd need a Y so I can examine it. I would then be able to tell you whether X can come from Y.
If you ask can a cat come from a bicycle? We can examine the properties of both of them and conclude that no, a cat canât come from a bicycle.
So if the question is whether something can come from nothing, thatâs easy to answer right? Go get me a âsomethingâ and go find me a ânothingâ and we will analyze both of them and see if something can come from nothing.
Wait, whatâs a ânothing?â Nobody has ever seen one. Nobody knows what that even is. Itâs wrong to say that something canât come from nothing. Maybe it can, who knows? Weâd first have to know what a nothing is wouldnât we? Science doesnât make claims like that, despite certain scientists saying that in the language we use. It just rolls up itâs sleeves and goes searching for answers. It doesnât just say âGod done it!â
So for me anyway, and of course to each his own, but to me science wins 100% of the time, all day every day and twice on Sunday.
Iâm pretty sure Sam Harris is comfortable with his level of understanding of science, as is the vast majority of academia. Calling a clearly scientifically brilliant man ignorant of science is the type of comment that makes people doubt you, not him. Not for nothing, but youâre the one who said atheism is a faith. :loco: To enter the discussion in the first place should require a person to understand why the rejection of a claim is not a faith.
I reject the idea that my zodiac sign has anything to say about my life. Itâs sure as hell not my faith to be anti astrology. 
1 Like
So does that mean you think the evidence against his hypothesis is invalid? How so?
Not that it makes me right, but hereâs a guy at Oxford University with, like, loads of PhDs and stuff, saying pretty much the same thing (except a bit more eloquently than me):
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ⌠-morality/
[quote]So by âscienceâ Harris evidently means, âphilosophyâ ⌠or at least something thatâs not different from philosophy in a principled way. Let me check my brochure for a second and confirm what the title of his talk was â the radical-sounding title that sold so many tickets â yes, here it is, itâs, âWho says science has nothing to say about morality?â If we do a quick update based on Harrisâ personal definition of science, we get ⌠âWho says philosophy has nothing to say about morality?â
The answer is: no one ever said that. Moral philosophy plus facts is not âscienceâ telling us objective moral truths.[/quote]
He also says exactly what I said above: that Harrisâs whole premise hinges on a personal opinion that he takes as axiomatic:
No, and I donât think that even Sam would say that. Him and several others are at the forefront of a very interesting thought experiment about expanding the moral landscape to potentially include science. Heâs at the very beginning, putting forward ideas for discussion, some of which Iâm sure even he will be willing to admit will be successfully picked apart. Heâs certainly not presenting definitive answers in scientifically verifiable ways yet, heâs just giving talks on a very interesting subject. Itâs thought provoking to say the least and in some respects, at least in my opinion, in some areas accurate in itâs assertions.
I have zero problem with people taking the opposite stance, thatâs what science is all about. Iâm sure Sam welcomes the dissension. But thatâs not what it sounds like youâre doing. Youâre introducing logical fallacies, mischaracterizing his points, making arguments from popularity, and insulting him personally. And like I said, oddly as well making silly comments about how atheism and rejecting a claim of a God is a faith.
Honestly, considering how smart and scientific most of your posts on this forum are, it sounds to me like somebody is having a bad day. Iâm quite sure you can find many people who disagree with Sam, and youâve brought up some good points as well. Thatâs why heâs doing it, itâs controversial and new. But I donât think youâll find many who take the opposite side in quite the same manner youâve chosen to.
So Samâs main premise is âThe worst possible misery for everyone is bad.â
I like that. I agree with that, and I like how he says that (Iâm paraphrasing cuz Iâm lazy) "if you donât agree with that, then I donât know what youâre talking about, and whatâs more, I donât think YOU know what youâre talking about.
So, do you agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad? Or is it one of the other axioms that you disagree with?
Some people say science has nothing to say about morality, and I like Harrisâ way of explaining how it can. Is health better than sickness? Can science say something about how to be healthy?
Whether I disagree with it or not is irrelevant: the fact remains that it is an axiom, not something that can be proven from first principles. There have been, and still are, plenty of men who think that the worst possible misery for everyone is bloody awesome. Or at least is neither here nor there as long as they, personally, are having a good time. Their very existence pokes a big hole in his evolutionary argument, as I said earlier.
Anyway, the basic problem here is that Harris wants this axiom to be accepted as âscientificâ, and it just isnât. For any reasonable well-adjusted person, itâs a perfectly good value-judgement. But it ainât science.
Science can say something about how to be healthy. Whether you think that is desirable is entirely up to you, isnât it? There was actually a debate on, um, the other place about whether being fit and healthy might not be completely pointless. I know several people who have eaten themselves into Type 2 diabetes who nevertheless continue eating the shit that gave them the disease in the first place, and which will ultimately kill them. Why? Because they want to. People make weird, irrational decisions. Science wonât help them do otherwise.
Thatâs like trying to include kitchen utensils in a discussion of heart surgery. What heâs saying is actually nothing new. Itâs been attempted many times, and never goes anywhere, because science cannot be used for answering moral questions. Science is a tool for establishing facts about the natural world. Itâs been carefully refined to do that very well. You canât repurpose it just because you think itâs a neat idea.
I suggested that there is no mechanism by which evolution could favour âgoodâ behavior, and pointed out that some societies do not select for it. If Iâm right about that, then his assertion is false. Where is the fallacy?
Iâm pretty certain I didnât. Zender gets it, although I disagree with his response.
Where?
Religion is pretty interesting, and I donât get too uptight when people make jokes about it or insult believers. Thatâs their prerogative. Debasing science, on the other hand, really gets me wound up, and thatâs what Harris is doing. Science is an awesome tool. It does what it says on the tin, and it really pisses me off when people twist it into something itâs not just to support their religious or political beliefs.
If you disagree with me on that point, I assume you also disagree with Earp (the PhD-laden academic I linked to)? Perhaps you can address his points rather than mine?
No, I said that claiming there is no God is an act of faith. Thatâs not the same as rejecting a claim of God.