God is a myth. No, really, and science must destroy this myth. According to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and their fellow non-believers at this recent conference, religion is eeeevvviiillll. And they know that why? Because, of course, they are more clever than us religious folk.
“When asked what the main difference between believers and atheists was, Dawkins had a quick answer: “Well, we’re bright.“”
Well, there we go, they know that God is a myth because they are not stupid. I must admit, that has me stumped. Not because I think they are right, but because I don’t know how one responds to such an inane comment.
I have stated this before, but will repeat it because it is relevant to the discussion. Can these bright scientists, who want to destroy the God myth, describe how they propose to do that using the scientific method? It is by it’s very nature an inductive process, and unless they can investigate and experiment on every piece of proposed evidence, they will end up short.
They may argue that it is not a single experiment, but a combination of all scientific endeavors which show that God does not exist. That, however, still does not solve the problem.
But I would want to start at the beginning. These clever folk must show that the scientific method is valid, without appealing to examples where this method is used, or else it is just a gigantic case of question-begging. Furthermore, I would want to investigate why the scientific method is necessarily only atheistic. I understand that it is all they have, but why do they lay exclusive claim to it?
Then, they must use this same reasoning to arrive at Dawkins’ proclamations of evil, and how to arrive at a conclusion that something is evil without appeal to examples, as they have been doing. What is evil, and why is it evil?
To end with, then we should see the experiments and scienfitic investigations done that disproves God. Surely, as prominent scientists, if they proclaim “God is a myth”, they have some factual ground to stand on?
It seems that they have a conundrum. If science is exclusively naturalistic, then how can it be used to “destroy God”? If they want to argue that God is a myth, then they must be able to define this myth in order to disprove it. But that is not a naturalistic process, so it immediately lies outside of what they assume to exist. It’s like saying I am going to disprove the existence of elephants without going to Africa.
So while they may have enjoyed their conference, it seems to have just been a repetition of the same tired and oft-refuted rhetoric from before. Maybe now that they are getting organized with Dawkins as their de-facto leader, he will be prepared to stand up in some serious debates?
Let’s see how it goes tonight:
Edit: Dawkins got schooled. His rhetoric was exposed as exactly that, mindless fluff.
Debate review and discussion here