Is God Real?

[Granth]

I am just as happy to entertain as I am entertained here, Philosch. Cheers to all fellow entertainers on onlinephilosophyclub.com

[Ormond]

Atreyu, I'm enjoying your posts, thanks.

And upon reasoning it out, I definitely arrive at a more coherent Universe when I include some kind of "God" or primordial Consciousness in my explanations, and particularly when I define that "God" or Consciousness as the Universe Itself....

A few thoughts...

-----

First, the universe is primarily space. Space is not only incredibly larger than everything else, it permeates everything else. The "somethings" that our human minds like to focus on seem the tiniest detail when compared to the enormity of the "nothing".

So if "God" is the Universe Itself, God is primarily space. So let's study space.

For starters, does space exist, or not? Space doesn't appear to have the properties we associate with existence, and yet there's "something" dividing the Earth from the Moon. So when we make a simple common sense observation of the overwhelming majority of reality, our simplistic dualistic "things exists or not" concept begins to unravel, and the God debate we've invested so much effort in to comes crashing to the ground.

Point being, there's a third option besides 1) a god exists, 2) or not, and that's 3) we have not the slightest idea what we're talking about and would best be compared to frogs trying to discuss algebra.

-----

Second...

Keeping in mind I likely have not the slightest idea what I'm talking about, it seems consciousness is incompatible with a "primordial Consciousness" which is everything, given that division is the essence of consciousness, and being everything would seem to be the opposite of division.

If God is everything and everything is God, then all nouns are illusion given their dependence on a separation which doesn't actually exist.

But again, the inherently divisive thought of my human mind demands I separate "division" from "unity", but this insistence may say much more about the tool being used to make the observation than what is being observed.

[Daviddunn]

You use Science Daily as if to make a scientific point, although it is still opinion albeit scientific opinion,

The Oxford dictionaries available for free online, has the following entries:

• Scientific: based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
  
  Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structures and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
  
  Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

So a scientific opinion will be a judgment necessarily based on observation and experiment of the natural world (i.e. science) and also not necessarily based on facts (opinion). This is awkward and can be misleading.

Instead of using the phrase ‘scientific opinion’, the proper and more accurate description of the present situation would be to say from the ‘scientific point of view or perspective’, i.e a particular attitude or way of considering a matter, namely a point of view based on the observation and experiment of the behavior and structure of the natural world. Here, small children were the subject of the study, and the issue addressed was whether the concept of God is innate.

Science Daily is an online news reporting media, which specializes in reporting scientific news. The scientific study that Science Daily reported; and that concerns precisely the topic of this thread, namely that the idea of God, the Almighty is innate, was conducted under the supervision of Professors of the University of Oxford. It involved 57 researches, who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures and which cost £ 1.9 million and spanned three years.

The telegraph also has something on this. Here it is:

Link: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/C ... laims.html

This is an interesting article.

The head of this project Dr Justine Barrett, senior researcher at the university of Oxford for Anthropology and mind, is reported to have said this in the above linked article:

The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.

If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.

The second statement in the quotation above replies to the second experiment you proposed in post # 59 in these words:

Raise a new born in a culture-less environment and where no language is expressed while feeding him nutritional food only and then see what this non-learning existence will leave him with after some decades.

The Telegraph article sheds further light on some of the experiments performed by the Oxford University academics and their conclusion:

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.
"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

__________________________________

…scientifically we cannot know from these experiments what it is that calms the baby or effects the emotions of people and children.

Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
Simple definition of science from Merriam-webster dictionary

Scientifically, (i.e. systematically studying the behavior of natural world through observation and rational conclusion) the recitation of the Holy Quran calms the babies or affects the emotions of people and children beneficially.

Emotionally we respond to sounds, beat, resonance, pitch, tone and many frequencies. Color is another frequency we respond emotionally to.

These are called triggers.
_________________________________


-- Updated January 7th, 2016, 1:59 am to add the following --

A video of a medical technique developed by Dr Hamiltion was shown in post #68.

At the 3.33 min mark on the progress bar, Dr Hamilton says this,

Finally, if you baby does not quiet down, think about two things. May be your baby is not feeling; they are ill. Or, number 2, may be your baby is hungry.
Finally, I find that the ‘Hold’ is very helpful for the first two to three months of age. After that your baby becomes too heavy, and it gets very difficult to hold a baby at that point.

I observe two things from watching the video;

1. Dr Hamilton is burning a lot of calories lifting and manipulating these healthy babies.
2. The technique of Dr Hamilton has a serious limitation, it cannot be used beyond three months of age, according to the doctor himself.

If Dr Hamilton knew of the Holy Quran listening experiment, he would be able to advise his patients of a much less physically demanding soothing method, and one which goes way beyond 3 months old to calm down babies, and adults as well. Some more video are presented as evidences which testifies to the previous statement.

1. Baby boy stops crying when Quran recitation is played to him

Link :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quqLwBamTvM

2. Teenages are calmed when listening to Quran recitation

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvkzG0U_XhA

3. Reaction of middle-age Japanese Broadcaster listening to the Holy Quran.

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX5VGr17240

________________________________________

In post # 66, Granth implied in his question that his ‘innate nature’ informs him there is no god.

Can you explain how my ‘innate nature’ informs me that there is no god as prescribed in the dominant religions?

Then I asked him for an evidence of this, based on the dictionary meaning of the word ‘innate’.

Innate: an innate quality or ability is one that you are born with and not one you have learnt. From the Cambridge dictionary.

And he replied this:

My point there is that I am ‘informed’. Informed by ‘culture’, whatever that has turned out to be.

Inform : to give information to (someone)
Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inform

Culture: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time.
Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture

If you were informed by culture about anything, then it is not innate, it is learnt. So now you are saying, you were informed by some culture that there is no god. I totally agree with that. There is no disagreement with the scientific community represented by the Oxford university either, which says as reported in the science daily article “theology and atheism is a reasoned response to what is basic to the human mind’. This is what a rational scientific person will conclude after getting knowledge of the scientific study conducted by the academics of the University of Oxford. Your innate nature as every human being's nature is that of belief in God, the Almighty, and belief in the afterlife. The scientific community has come to recognize this fact.
________________________________________


-- Updated January 7th, 2016, 2:02 am to add the following --

A video of a baby listening to Katy Perry was shown. And a conclusion was drawn. This is my analysis of the Katy Perry example.

God is Eternal, without a beginning and without an end. Katy Perry was born on the 25th of October 1984 according to wikipedia. So Katy Perry is not without a beginning, therefore Katy Perry is not God.

I note two things on watching the video,

1. The baby is not calmed when listening to Katy Perry, on the contrary she gets excited and dances to the tune of Katy Perry.
2. The baby is not given a choice between another alternative. For example, it would be interesting to see her reaction on listening to the Holy Quran and successively to Katy Perry. Like in the following video, the baby is given a choice between Holy Quran recitation and some music,
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmdatMrL_sw

In the above video, there is a clear preference for the Holy Quran recitation, and the baby is calmed, as the other videos already shown clearly demonstrate.

Additionally, the ‘Katy Perry case’ is mute concerning the case of new borns, and fetuses which was initially requested by Granth. Whereas for the Holy Quran recitation, the evidences speak for themselves. I reproduce these cases here as a short reminder:

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gUxJKARWUs

Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkGFCq4HGwE

_________________________________________


Philosch

Even if it actually does calm them down, so what?

When your children calm down, then you will both get some peace!

Your conclusion is pure speculation.

I would say it is common sensical.


I am still waiting for the evidence allegedly in your possession about the ‘nothingness’ phenomena.

[Belinda]

Daviddun quoted in defence of the proposition that God is real:

Dr Justine Barrett wrote:
The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.

If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.

This authoritative opinion illustrates how children are makers of meaning. Adults too are meaning makers. The extract also illustrates what has been called "the God-shaped hole" in our awareness.

It would feel good to have proof of god's reality, proof that can persuade the more sophisticated modern or post modern seeker after truth. However man's thirst for meaning is not sufficient to satisfy honest sceptics that what a man desires is proof that the object of desire is attainable.

[LuckyR]

I too agree that the human tendancy to look for patterns (hence the ability to see objects in clouds, for example) will typically lead to the fabrication of a "higher meaning" or god, if you will, is germane here. This, of course is neither proof for or against the actual existance of such an entity, it is actually a separate issue.

[Granth]

Mr daviddunn, firstly Dr Justin Barrett is a devout christian. Yes frequencies could be defined as 'triggers'. So what? Someone singing quran inspired music can equally be said to be 'triggers'.

daviddunn; If you were informed by culture about anything, then it is not innate, it is learnt. So now you are saying, you were informed by some culture that there is no god. I totally agree with that. There is no disagreement with the scientific community represented by the Oxford university either, which says as reported in the science daily article “theology and atheism is a reasoned response to what is basic to the human mind’. This is what a rational scientific person will conclude after getting knowledge of the scientific study conducted by the academics of the University of Oxford. Your innate nature as every human being's nature is that of belief in God, the Almighty, and belief in the afterlife. The scientific community has come to recognize this fact.'

As infants we believed many fairy stories, not necessarily just 'holy' fairy stories. And anyway, I have no memory of believing in anyone's god. As a four year old my mother, who went to church for a while during that time, took me to the church's Sunday school. Even then it felt to me as very alien, not natural or 'innate' in the slightest, and I was never dropped off there again after two tries. I was always quite artistic also and found the art work I was asked to do, coloring in bible depictions, very silly and i refused to bother with them preferring to do my own doodles. It was just more propaganda for children anyway and I obviously had no 'rational' concept of propaganda. Maybe my RATIONALITY was INNATE!!

More of your youtube videos say nothing against what has already been alluded to as 'frequency triggers' or just babies responding to soft melodies. They do this also with the age old gentle sounding music boxes. And the youtube video of the ultrasound is just far to easy to fake. Even if it isn't there is still the question of genetic/biological transference from one generation to the next because memory, it has been shown, can apparently transfer within our adapted genes. Maybe I am merely made up of the genetic material of the Devil.

-- Updated January 8th, 2016, 1:41 pm to add the following --

This is an interesting article.

The head of this project Dr Justine Barrett, senior researcher at the university of Oxford for Anthropology and mind, is reported to have said this in the above linked article:

The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.

If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.

Anthony Grayling MA, DPhil (Oxon) FRSL, FRSA is Master of the New College of the Humanities, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.

'Earlier this week I had occasion to debate – if the soundbite culture of radio news permits that description – with a member of Oxford University's Centre for Anthropology and Mind the "findings" of its cognition, religion and theology project, to the effect that children are hardwired to believe in a "supreme being". The research is funded by the Templeton Foundation, an organisation keen to find, or to insert, religion into science and to promote belief in their compatibility – which, note, comes down to spending money on "showing" in the end that the beliefs of ancient goatherds are as good as modern physics.

Justin Barrett, a Christian and member of the centre's research team (whether it is research or propaganda is the moot question here) says with his colleagues on the centre's website:

Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' … In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs. Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural.

This claim was the subject of Barrett's lecture at Cambridge, in which he exhibited his reasons for thinking that children are innately disposed to believe in intelligent design/creationism and a supreme being. His real reasons for thinking this, of course, are that he is a man of faith funded by a faith-based organisation; but the reasons he professed were that children have an innate tendency when small to interpret what happens in the world to be the outcome of purposive agency.

Now on this point he and I, an atheist funded by no organisation keen on promoting atheism, agree. Children's earliest experiences are of purposive agency in the adults and other people around them – these being the entities of most interest to them in their first months – and for good evolutionary reasons they are extremely credulous, not only believing that things must be acting as their parents do in being self-moving and intentional, but also believing in tooth fairies, Father Christmas, and a host of other things beside, almost all of which they give up believing before puberty, unless the beliefs are socially reinforced – as with religious and, to a lesser extent, certain other superstitious beliefs. Intellectual maturation is the process in important part of weaning oneself from the assumption that trees and shadows behave as they do for the same reason that one's parents, other humans, and dogs and cats do; it is every bit as natural a fact about children that they cease to apply intentionalistic explanations to everything as that they give them to everything, on the model of their parents' behaviour, in the earliest phases of development.

But Barrett and friends infer from the first half of these unexceptionable facts that children are hardwired to believe in a supreme being. Not only does this ignore the evidence from developmental psychology about the second stage of cognitive maturation, but is in itself a very big – and obviously hopeful – jump indeed. Moreover it ignores the fact that large tracts of humankind (the Chinese for a numerous example) have no beliefs in a supreme being, innate or learned, and that most primitive religion is animistic, a simple extension of the agency-imputing explanation which gives each tree its dryad and each stream its nymph, no supreme beings required.

Barrett and friends say that children are hardwired to believe that nature is designed. This Barrett infers, apparently, from asking small children such questions as "why is this stone pointed?" It does not seem to have occurred to him that the semantics of "why" questions are such that they demand an explanation in terms of reasons or causes in response – the language game is constrained to that pattern: "why is/did?" prompts an automatic "because" – and that even small children know that "just because it is" does not count as satisfactory. So of course, from the limited resources they have in which reasons are vastly more familiar than causes (the causes that natural science later most fully discerns by investigation), they come up with what they know the questioner wishes to hear – an explanation – but in the absence of knowing very much about causes, they give it in intentionalistic terms. A small child might know why something might be made sharp, and for what sort of purpose, but not as readily how it might become so, especially if it is a natural object. All that this shows, therefore, is that the question was ineptly framed, not that the Templeton Foundation has proved that religious belief is innate.

"Religious belief" and early childhood interpretations of how the world work are so far removed from one another that only a preconceived desire to interpret the latter in terms of "intelligent design" and "a supreme being" – the very terms are a giveaway – is obviously tendentious, and this is what is going on here. It would merely be poor stuff if that was all there is to it; but there is more. The Templeton Foundation is rich; it offers a very large money prize to any scientist or philosopher who will say things friendly to religion, and it supports "research" as described above into anything that will add credibility and respectability to religion. Its website portrays its aims as serious and objective, but in truth it is just another example of how well-funded and well-organised some religious lobbies are – a common phenomenon in the United States in particular, and now infecting the body politic here.

But the Templeton Foundation would do better to be frank about its propagandistic intentions, for while it tries to dress itself in the lineaments of objectivity it will always face the accusation of tainting the pool, as with the work of this Oxford University institute.

Indeed I question the advisability of Oxford taking funds from the Templeton Foundation for this kind of work. I wonder whether it has undertaken due diligence on this one. I hope it would not take money supporting research for astrology, Tarot divination, proof that the Olympian deities still exist, and the like. The general claims of religion differ not one jot in intellectual respects – or respectability – from these. Perhaps it should think again.'

Grayling is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of London.

Barrett responded by complaining:
'Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is “hardwired” or “innate” – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work.'

Mr daviddunn.

These are Dr Justin Barrett's own words: 'Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is “hardwired” or “innate” – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work'.

-- Updated January 8th, 2016, 1:46 pm to add the following --

"Dr Justine Barrett wrote:
'The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.

If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.'

"I THINK.....", Dr Barrett says. This means opinion.

[Philosch]

It might also be said that if you threw a handful kids on an Island with no training they might think the moon was a demon, redheads are witches, and fly covered pig heads were gods,etc., they might believe in just about anything a primitive, uneducated person in the past has believed in. This totally misses the point. Granth already pointed the mistake in logic out. This is classic fallacy in action. Without training and guidance human beings are capable of terrible leaps of faith and capable of terrible misjudgments and logic fallacy. We have crawled out of the dark ages once, I suppose we shall have to keep doing so until we finally find a way to instill truly rational thought into the masses. That is not to say humans aren't capable of great things as well, but it's certainly not a given. I'm sure most of you have read the classic "Lord of the Flies", it does a great job of addressing this very theme.

To Daviddunn, I will readily admit I cannot produce absolute conclusive evidence for "nothing" to your satisfaction, how could I? It can't be measured or experienced by definition. In the same way there is no evidence that you can or have produced that proves god is real. Just because something remains a mystery or inexplicable doesn't prove or even support it must therefore be "god" related. That is by now easily recognizable as the god of the gaps argument which in and of itself has been show to be a logical fallacy. I therefore respectfully withdraw myself from trying to debate you on the matter "nothing" or "god" which I believe is settled, despite what goes on in these forums. Whether or not you can rationally prove the "realness" of a god or gods at this point in time even for many apologists is settled. It can neither be proven or disproven and I'm okay with that. You are welcome to believe what you must in order to support what is supposed to be a matter of faith in whatever manner you choose. Just like the concept of the existence of "nothing" can neither be proven or disproven as it is another "transcendent" concept. Feel free to continue in your endeavor. I will however reserve the right to comment whenever I come across another one of the fallacies that permeate these discussions.

A Christian apologist R. Laird Harris writes:

The expression, "God of the Gaps," contains a real truth. It is erroneous if it is taken to mean that God is not immanent in natural law but is only to be observed in mysteries unexplained by law. No significant Christian group has believed this view. It is true, however, if it be taken to emphasize that God is not only immanent in natural law but also is active in the numerous phenomena associated with the supernatural and the spiritual. There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation

The gist of what one of your own is saying is that god should not be rationalized through the pointing out of mysteries in science, that he should be taken on faith, a subjective matter for the mind. God should be associated with the spiritual and the supernatural, and basically stay out of science, otherwise the "god of the gaps" fallacy (which was coined by another Christian apologist) comes into play. This last line.."Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation" is a conclusion that is only partially true. The terms soul and spirit I would concede but not the term life. Science may someday be capable of a physical-chemical explanation, unless he has a particular transcendent meaning for life he's referring to.

I won't patronizingly include a link to the word "immanent" as you would do, I'm sure you can look it up. The "god of the gaps" argument is a form of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy....which I will include a link to, along with a list of others you should read through, they are self explanatory.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/E ... lacies.htm

The bottom line is trying to use QM to infer the existence of God is by your own apologists' community's view an appeal to ignorance or some other form of fallacious argument. So too it is fallacious to try to use physiological experiments involving music and calming effects which are neither spiritual or supernatural to infer or prove god is real.

[Ormond]

When considering the question "is god real?" we look to some trusted authority who we feel is qualified to address this issue. If we think we've found an answer and attempt to sell our answer to others, we then bear the burden of showing that the authority we have chosen is qualified to deliver credible answers to questions about the fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of most god theories.

It is proposed that none of the authorities typically referenced such as holy books, personal experience, and human reason can pass this test. Such authorities may demonstrate incredible abilities in many arenas, but that does not automatically prove they are qualified in this arena, developing useful theories and conclusions about the fundamental nature of all reality.

Thus, agnostics are being reasonable if they conclude that because no one has proven the qualifications of their chosen authority, all conclusions for and against the existence of god are "fantasy knowings" reached via faith. That is, while a particular conclusion on the god question may indeed be right, it's a fantasy that any of us are in a position to know that, given the lack of proven authorities on questions of this scale.

Let's look at the implications of this worldview for the God debate.

If a holy book can not be proven qualified for developing useful theories and conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality, there's really no point in having a big debate about what the verses within that holy book mean.

In the same way, if a human reason can not be proven qualified for developing useful theories and conclusions about the fundamental nature of reality, there's really no point in having a big debate about what god theories are logical or not.

A simple test brings the entire God debate crashing to the ground. Prove to us that your chosen authority, whatever it may be, is qualified for developing useful theories and conclusions about the fundamental nature of all reality. If such proof can not be provided, then all arguments and conclusions which arise from that chosen authority can be discarded.

In addition to the lack of proven qualified authorities, the God debate is built upon two fallacies.

1) The first fallacy is the unexamined assumption shared by both theists and atheists that a god either exists or doesn't, one or the other. This assumption is deflated by a simple common sense observation of space (the vast majority of known reality) which is seen to have properties of both existence and non-existence.

2) The second fallacy is the unexamined assumption shared by both theists and atheists that an answer to this question, even a fantasy knowing answer, is more useful to us than the fact of our mutual ignorance. This claim requires a longer explanation than I should add here.

Once the lack of proven qualified authorities is admitted, and these two fundamental shared fallacies are faced squarely, the God debate slate is wiped clean of thousands of years of endlessly unproductive divisive dialog, and a chance of something new appearing arises.

[Granth]

In addition to the lack of proven qualified authorities, the God debate is built upon two fallacies.

1) The first fallacy is the unexamined assumption shared by both theists and atheists that a god either exists or doesn't, one or the other. This assumption is deflated by a simple common sense observation of space (the vast majority of known reality) which is seen to have properties of both existence and non-existence.

2) The second fallacy is the unexamined assumption shared by both theists and atheists that an answer to this question, even a fantasy knowing answer, is more useful to us than the fact of our mutual ignorance. This claim requires a longer explanation than I should add here.

Once the lack of proven qualified authorities is admitted, and these two fundamental shared fallacies are faced squarely, the God debate slate is wiped clean of thousands of years of endlessly unproductive divisive dialog, and a chance of something new appearing arises.

I don't see this type of discussion necessarily to do with theism vs atheism. Merely someone proposes that a thing exists, that to them, apparently, is an actual thing rather than a belief, and then others ask how they arrive at this conclusion. Now I know this must have been said many times before but it is worth repeating yet again. With regard to the 'Atheist' tag, a Muslim is almost as much of an atheist as I am. I merely doubt in the existence of one more god, among many, than a Muslim and so that a Muslim could be referred to as almost as atheistic as I am.

-- Updated January 9th, 2016, 11:11 am to add the following --

Oh, and I disagree that the assumptions suggested are therefore 'unexamined' particularly or merely because it maybe an assumption. Many doubts and assumptions are quite thoroughly examined.

[Daviddunn]

As a four year old my mother, who went to church for a while during that time, took me to the church's Sunday school. Even then it felt to me as very alien, not natural or 'innate' in the slightest, and I was never dropped off there again after two tries.

This story that you are telling us about you, I find to be very interesting. I have some stories as well.

My mother too is born of a Christian family. I recall of some memories when I was about 4-5 years old as well. I used to mock at statues which some people worship. I found them repulsive. I used to go up to them and say in a despising tone, "If you are god, why do you stay there all day? Don’t you have better things to do?" I would then prepare some saliva in my mouth, with intention to spit in their direction. Once my mother heard my little monologue, and she lightly scolded me. But I did not discourage at that, I would wait and when she was not watching, I would continue my mocking enterprise.

And I also recall of another memory. I was may be about 9-10 years old. I was at my grandmother’s place. Early one morning, the Muslim call to prayer woke me up. It was the first time that I heard it, and I appreciated it even though it woke me up. I felt peaceful while and after hearing it. I did not know what it was then, and I did not ask afterwards either. The story gets even more interesting (from my point of view) after this but it will be slightly off topic.

Even if it isn’t there is still the question of genetic/biological transference from one generation to the next because memory, it has been shown, can apparently transfer within adapted genes.

When someone makes a scientific claim, without the evidence it is as good as any speculation. When I turn off my computer, they are turned off as well, and they do not show up again.
What is the reference for this scientific claim? Respectfully, produce it and let us analyze it rationally.

___________________________________

These are Dr Justin Barrett's own words: 'Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is “hardwired” or “innate” – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work'.

Some entries in the dictionaries:

• Propensity: An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

Link : oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli ... propensity


'Natural' has the following entry in the Oxford dictionary:

• 2. In accordance with the nature or, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
  2.1 [attributive] (of a person) having an innate skill or quality
  2.2 (of a skill or quality) coming instinctively to a person; innate:
  ‘Laura’s natural adaptability enabled her to settle quickly’

Link: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli ... sh/natural

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there is the following entry for ‘religion’,

• Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

The statement of Dr Barrett as quoted by Granth, is as such: I do not say that religion is "hardwired" or "innate"- rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work.

Giving the words used their dictionary meaning, it reads as this:

Dr Barrett is saying that children are not born with an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (i.e. religion) but it is scientifically established that they have innate tendencies (i.e. propensities or natural inclination) to believe in God and an afterlife.

_______________________________________

The comment that Granth quoted about AC Grayling is reported in The Guardian (a newspaper available online also). The report is as Granth quoted.
But the reply of Dr Barrett, which Granth quoted(which has already been analysed above), is incomplete. It is also reported in TheGuardian.
Here is the link:
The Guardian: theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/ ... n-children

I will reproduce the complete reply(with the addition of some emphasis), to let Dr Barrett defend himself from the attack of AC Grayling,

Last week at Cambridge University's Faraday Institute, I summarised some scientific research that leads me and many of my colleagues to argue that from childhood humans have a number of predispositions that incline them to believe in gods generally and perhaps a super-knowing, creator god in particular. Unlike Andrew Brown, AC Grayling has opted to ignore the science and focus on the alleged motivations of the scientist (me) and one of his sources of funding (the John Templeton Foundation). As a philosopher, Grayling should know that attacking an argument not on its merits but by discrediting the arguer commits the ad hominem fallacy which is generally the strategy of school kids and desperate, uninformed people.

Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is "hardwired" or "innate" – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work. Grayling writes that my "real reasons for thinking this, of course are that a man of faith funded by a faith-based organisation." He seems entirely unaware that the position he claims must be religiously motivated was argued for by Pascal Boyer, an atheist evolutionary psychologist and anthropologist, in his 2001 book Religion Explained. Boyer was once asked whether a child left on an island to raise himself would become religious. Boyer responded that if there were two such children they would likely become religious. Likewise, Grayling seems unaware that the same theme has been taken up by another prominent atheist anthropologist, Scott Atran, who wrote in his 2002 book In Gods We Trust:

• Supernatural agency is the most culturally recurrent, cognitively relevant, and evolutionarily compelling concept in religion. The concept of the supernatural is culturally derived from an innate cognitive schema ...

I find it ironic that Atran and Boyer have been demonised by religious writers for daring to suggest that religion is the product of natural predispositions and now a prominent atheist accuses me of religious agenda – and being an intelligent design defender – for saying the same thing.

Grayling does attempt to critically engage one scientific study: a study that provides some of the evidence (but not all of it) that children have an affinity for explaining features of the natural world (such as why rocks are pointy) in terms of design, function, and purpose. Rather than checking to see whether he has the details right, he draws upon second-hand accounts to mount his attack and writes as if his evaluation of a soundbite trumps the expertise of the professional scientists who refereed and published the research in a scholarly journal. Incidentally, this "pointy rock" study is not mine and it was not funded by the Templeton Foundation as Grayling implies in the article and claimed in our radio exchange last week. This study is one of a large number of excellent, professionally-refereed articles published in top scientific journals by psychologist Deborah Kelemen. Based on these and other experiments Kelemen has argued that children are "intuitive theists" even without Templeton funding or any known religious agenda for or against.

Because Grayling assumes that the only people arguing for the strong natural disposition to believe in gods are religious (most are not as far as I can tell), he cavalierly disregards the mounting body of scientific evidence in favour of an alternative account that he backs with no evidence at all. Grayling favours what I call the "evolved gullibility hypothesis": for good evolutionary reasons they [children] are extremely credulous. I do not disagree that children have a tendency to trust their parents and other adults – surely this is how children learn about the particular god of their cultural environment – but children are not equally likely to believe anything that parents teach them.

Good luck teaching a five-year-old that people don't really have conscious minds or that it is okay to murder the neighbours in their sleep. The preponderance of scientific evidence (peer-reviewed and published) shows that some ideas find children's minds infertile ground, whereas others readily grow and flourish.

Grayling may disagree with me regarding just which ideas are most at home in children, but surely it is the scientific evidence that we should determine who is right instead of trying to psychoanalyse each other's motivations.

It seems to me the scientist is more of a reasonable man than the philosopher!

__________________________________________

'If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.'
"I THINK…..", Dr Barrett says. This means opinion.

Yes indeed it is an opinion. The point of contention that I had with the use of the word 'opinion' in my previous post was used in a different context namely a 'scientific opinion'. Which was awkwardly used. Notice now, you have dropped the qualifier 'scientific', and it sounds correct. Let me explain this again.
You said this earlier in post # 68,

You use Science Daily as if to make a scientific point, although it is still opinion albeit scientific opinion

The phrase "scientific opinion" will always sound weird as I explained. This is so because of the meaning of these words. But this does not mean that scientists do not express opinions. 'Science' refers to a methodology, which is systematic and focuses on facts and observations, and in 'opinion' there is no such requirement.
Recall as I explained in post #78 in these words,

So a scientific opinion will be a judgment necessarily based on observation and experiment of the natural world (i.e. science) and also not necessarily based on facts (opinion). This is awkward and can be misleading.

Instead of using the phrase 'scientific opinion', the proper and more accurate description of the present situation would be to say from the 'scientific point of view or perspective', i.e a particular attitude or way of considering a matter, namely a point of view based on the observation and experiment of the behavior and structure of the natural world. Here, small children were the subject of the study, and the issue addressed was whether the concept of God is innate.

Science Daily is a news reporting media, which specializes in reporting scientific news. The scientific study that Science Daily reported; and that concerns the precise topic of this thread, namely that the idea of God, the Almighty is innate, was conducted under the supervision of Professors of the University of Oxford. It involved 57 researches, who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures and which cost £ 1.9 million and spanned three years.

The report of Science Daily concerns, a scientific study in which children were investigated concerning the issue whether the concept of God is innate. The conclusion of this study based on the observation of these children subjects was that God is an innate concept. This is a scientific claim, because it is based on observation of actual children.

In the case of the children raising themselves on a desert island, no such experiments were actually made, so Dr Barrett can make no scientific claim on this. But based on the conclusion of the £ 1.9 million scientific study, Dr Barrett opined (he says, 'I THINK') that they would believe in God. In any case, it would be inhuman to conduct such an experiment.

The same reasoning applies to the Theory of evolution, which is sometimes used to infer that humans evolved from apes. No actual apes were actually seen to become human. So it cannot be called a scientific claim. In fact it is not. Notice here as well such a hypothesis is always referred to as a "Theory". In the Oxford dictionaries the following definition is found under the entry 'theory':

• Theory: a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
  'Darwin's theory of evolution’

(Note: The example of the 'Theory of evolution' is given in the dictionary itself.)

and 'supposition' has the following definition in the same dictionary,

• Supposition: A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.

And now consider again the definition for 'opinion' in the same dictionary,

• Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So as one can see, by the very appellation of it as a "Theory", the Theory of evolution is a supposition or an opinion, i.e. a belief held without proof or certain knowledge.

If one wants to use the term 'scientific opinion' to describe the statement of Dr Barrett in relation to children raising themselves on a desert island, and for the theory of evolution, I have no problem with it. But when I encounter such statements, I will have to point out that it means the opinion of a person who earns a living as a scientist, and not that there is anything scientific (here referring to methodology) about what is said.

______________________________________________________


-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 2:29 am to add the following --

Philosch

In post # 38, you said this to Harris,

You are wrong at least at the moment, the current state of evidence is that some quantum events emerge from nothing, and of these events, Mr Hawking has of course remarked that "we no longer need to have a creator" for the universe to have emerged.

And now, you are saying this,

I will readily admit I cannot produce absolute conclusive evidence for "nothing" to your satisfaction, how could I?

So I conclude there is no such evidence for the emergence of something from nothing for some quantum events.

You are also saying now, that nothing cannot be measured or experienced,

It can’t be measured or experienced by definition.

This is exactly what Harris has said in post #31,

Nothingness is not a subject for investigation or understanding…

And also, Hawking indeed was talking nonsense as the statement of John Lennox claims.
Hawking said, as quoted by Harris,
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Page 227
The Grand Design
Stephen W. Hawking

From a scientific perspective, which is necessarily based on observation and experimentation of the natural world, such a statement of 'something coming from nothing' can never be made. As you rightly pointed out "nothingness" cannot be measured or experienced, therefore the statement 'something coming from nothing' is not a scientific claim. On this ground alone, Hawking is talking nonsense as John Lennox says. But this is not the only problem with this statement of Hawking.

1. Hawking says, "the universe can and will create itself ". This implies that the universe existed before it existed (i.e. was created). Which is again a contradiction.

2. The law of gravitation is a law of physics.

Law of physics is described in thefreedictionary as:

• A property of a physical phenomenon, or a relationship between the various quantities or qualities, which may be used to describe the phenomenon, that applies to all members of a broad class of such phenomena, without exception.

One can read more of it in the link provided.
Link: encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Law ... of+physics

If there is 'nothing' as Hawking refers to in his statement, then there is no law of physics.
Furthermore, the law of gravitation specifically, as described by Dictionary.com,

• Law of gravitation: a law stating that any two masses attract each other with a force equal to a constant(constant of gravitation) multiplied by the product of the two masses and divided by the square of the distance between them.

Link: dictionary.reference.com/browse/law-of- ... ravitation

Note: Do not worry about the mathematical equation, it is not important here.

From the imponderable 'nothing' as Hawking alleges in his statement, there are no mass/body and also no distance, therefore there can be no law of gravitation.

3. Now, one may try to escape these contradictions, by qualifying this allege 'nothing' as 'not anything as we know it today'. (Here it is to be noted that this qualified 'nothing' is something, but we do not know empirically what). In this case, the law of physics, which has been derived by the observation of the natural world, still no longer applies. There is still no law of physics. But 'law' still has a meaning for us in this state of qualified 'nothing'.

• Law: a rule made by the government of a town, state, country, etc…

link: http://www.merriem-webster.com/dictionary/law

In this meaning of Law (or Decree), a Legislator with the Might to enforce His will is necessary.

I therefore respectfully withdraw myself from trying to debate you on the matter "nothing"…

Respectfully, I appreciate your honesty and humility. Mistakes happen. I will only tell you that I have tried to help you reach this conclusion from the very start of our exchange by giving you the dictionary meaning of 'phenomenon'. I was not being patronizing as you said, but merely trying to encourage you to use the intellect that your Creator, the Almighty gave you.

The gist of what one of your own is saying is that…

I already told you in post #44 that I am not a Christian nor am I a Christian apologist. I embraced Islam 11 years ago.
But if a Christian is doing genuine scientific study, I have an interest in it. Same thing, if there is a good Christian medical doctor in town, and I am ill, I am not going to refuse to consult him because he is a Christian.

_________________________________________

[Granth]

As a four year old my mother, who went to church for a while during that time, took me to the church's Sunday school. Even then it felt to me as very alien, not natural or 'innate' in the slightest, and I was never dropped off there again after two tries.

This story that you are telling us about you, I find to be very interesting. I have some stories as well.

My mother too is born of a Christian family. I recall of some memories when I was about 4-5 years old as well. I used to mock at statues which some people worship. I found them repulsive. I used to go up to them and say in a despising tone, "If you are god, why do you stay there all day? Don’t you have better things to do?" I would then prepare some saliva in my mouth, with intention to spit in their direction. Once my mother heard my little monologue, and she lightly scolded me. But I did not discourage at that, I would wait and when she was not watching, I would continue my mocking enterprise.

And I also recall of another memory. I was may be about 9-10 years old. I was at my grandmother’s place. Early one morning, the Muslim call to prayer woke me up. It was the first time that I heard it, and I appreciated it even though it woke me up. I felt peaceful while and after hearing it. I did not know what it was then, and I did not ask afterwards either. The story gets even more interesting (from my point of view) after this but it will be slightly off topic.

(I'll respond to each point as time permits due to my many entertainment options which is further due to our Western science advances in technology which is further, further due to a Western open system of inquiry beyond notions of gods)

I find your story interesting also. I notice that although you were rebellious, which is healthy and normal, regardless you still spoke to the statues, albeit disdainfully, as though they were people. Even equally as real people, possibly, given that you seemed to be equally rebellious toward your family and/or religious community. You then eventually found another religious community so it seems your genetic predisposition was always going to lead you into something with rituals consisting of speaking to either inanimate symbols or visualized and imagined ideas thereby believing in some reality about them, now in both kind and presumably also in some fear. This is not unusual worldwide. Here in my country, NZ, the so-called 'indigenous' Maori, whom had their own religious ritual beliefs, relatively easily embraced introduced Christianity presumably as a consequence of already being BELIEVERS, thereby more fluidly transitioning into another belief or believing ritualistic social system. Your story, as interesting as it is (I am not being disingenuous about this, maybe evidenced by how your story has sparked my intellect into these considerations), is certainly not a surprise to me.

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 10:14 pm to add the following --

Even if it isn’t there is still the question of genetic/biological transference from one generation to the next because memory, it has been shown, can apparently transfer within adapted genes.

When someone makes a scientific claim, without the evidence it is as good as any speculation. When I turn off my computer, they are turned off as well, and they do not show up again.
What is the reference for this scientific claim? Respectfully, produce it and let us analyze it rationally.

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 10:36 pm to add the following --

These are Dr Justin Barrett's own words: 'Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is “hardwired” or “innate” – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work'.

Some entries in the dictionaries:

• Propensity: An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way.

Link : [url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... propensity]oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli ... propensity


'Natural' has the following entry in the Oxford dictionary:

• 2. In accordance with the nature or, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
  2.1 [attributive] (of a person) having an innate skill or quality
  2.2 (of a skill or quality) coming instinctively to a person; innate:
  ‘Laura’s natural adaptability enabled her to settle quickly’

Link: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engli ... sh/natural

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there is the following entry for ‘religion’,

• Religion: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

The statement of Dr Barrett as quoted by Granth, is as such: I do not say that religion is "hardwired" or "innate"- rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work.

Giving the words used their dictionary meaning, it reads as this:

Dr Barrett is saying that children are not born with an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods (i.e. religion) but it is scientifically established that they have innate tendencies (i.e. propensities or natural inclination) to believe in God and an afterlife.

_______________________________________

The comment that Granth quoted about AC Grayling is reported in The Guardian (a newspaper available online also). The report is as Granth quoted.
But the reply of Dr Barrett, which Granth quoted(which has already been analysed above), is incomplete. It is also reported in TheGuardian.
Here is the link:
The Guardian: theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/ ... n-children

I will reproduce the complete reply(with the addition of some emphasis), to let Dr Barrett defend himself from the attack of AC Grayling,

Last week at Cambridge University's Faraday Institute, I summarised some scientific research that leads me and many of my colleagues to argue that from childhood humans have a number of predispositions that incline them to believe in gods generally and perhaps a super-knowing, creator god in particular. Unlike Andrew Brown, AC Grayling has opted to ignore the science and focus on the alleged motivations of the scientist (me) and one of his sources of funding (the John Templeton Foundation). As a philosopher, Grayling should know that attacking an argument not on its merits but by discrediting the arguer commits the ad hominem fallacy which is generally the strategy of school kids and desperate, uninformed people.

Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is "hardwired" or "innate" – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work. Grayling writes that my "real reasons for thinking this, of course are that a man of faith funded by a faith-based organisation." He seems entirely unaware that the position he claims must be religiously motivated was argued for by Pascal Boyer, an atheist evolutionary psychologist and anthropologist, in his 2001 book Religion Explained. Boyer was once asked whether a child left on an island to raise himself would become religious. Boyer responded that if there were two such children they would likely become religious. Likewise, Grayling seems unaware that the same theme has been taken up by another prominent atheist anthropologist, Scott Atran, who wrote in his 2002 book In Gods We Trust:

• Supernatural agency is the most culturally recurrent, cognitively relevant, and evolutionarily compelling concept in religion. The concept of the supernatural is culturally derived from an innate cognitive schema ...

I find it ironic that Atran and Boyer have been demonised by religious writers for daring to suggest that religion is the product of natural predispositions and now a prominent atheist accuses me of religious agenda – and being an intelligent design defender – for saying the same thing.

Grayling does attempt to critically engage one scientific study: a study that provides some of the evidence (but not all of it) that children have an affinity for explaining features of the natural world (such as why rocks are pointy) in terms of design, function, and purpose. Rather than checking to see whether he has the details right, he draws upon second-hand accounts to mount his attack and writes as if his evaluation of a soundbite trumps the expertise of the professional scientists who refereed and published the research in a scholarly journal. Incidentally, this "pointy rock" study is not mine and it was not funded by the Templeton Foundation as Grayling implies in the article and claimed in our radio exchange last week. This study is one of a large number of excellent, professionally-refereed articles published in top scientific journals by psychologist Deborah Kelemen. Based on these and other experiments Kelemen has argued that children are "intuitive theists" even without Templeton funding or any known religious agenda for or against.

Because Grayling assumes that the only people arguing for the strong natural disposition to believe in gods are religious (most are not as far as I can tell), he cavalierly disregards the mounting body of scientific evidence in favour of an alternative account that he backs with no evidence at all. Grayling favours what I call the "evolved gullibility hypothesis": for good evolutionary reasons they [children] are extremely credulous. I do not disagree that children have a tendency to trust their parents and other adults – surely this is how children learn about the particular god of their cultural environment – but children are not equally likely to believe anything that parents teach them.

Good luck teaching a five-year-old that people don't really have conscious minds or that it is okay to murder the neighbours in their sleep. The preponderance of scientific evidence (peer-reviewed and published) shows that some ideas find children's minds infertile ground, whereas others readily grow and flourish.

Grayling may disagree with me regarding just which ideas are most at home in children, but surely it is the scientific evidence that we should determine who is right instead of trying to psychoanalyse each other's motivations.

It seems to me the scientist is more of a reasonable man than the philosopher!

Barrett, then, is confused in order to argue against being quoted for the use of the word 'innate' if, as you suggest, 'propensity' is more or less the same thing. Barrett, however, is a devout Christian. Confusion therefore is the order of the day.

You are perfectly entitled to not only regard me as a philosopher (I never thought of myself as such) but also as unreasonable. Others may or may not agree with you...or me. However I really do not care about judgments of my character. I am an artist and such an artist that I celebrate subjectivity and freedom of expression. I don't need to feel my expressions SHOULD be liked and/or accepted by either some universal consensus or individual. I think such a need is for the religiously inclined who are more tribal or need to feel as a member of some social club to identify with and/or as.

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 10:48 pm to add the following --

'If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.'
"I THINK…..", Dr Barrett says. This means opinion.

Yes indeed it is an opinion. The point of contention that I had with the use of the word 'opinion' in my previous post was used in a different context namely a 'scientific opinion'. Which was awkwardly used. Notice now, you have dropped the qualifier 'scientific', and it sounds correct. Let me explain this again.
You said this earlier in post # 68,

You use Science Daily as if to make a scientific point, although it is still opinion albeit scientific opinion

The phrase "scientific opinion" will always sound weird as I explained. This is so because of the meaning of these words. But this does not mean that scientists do not express opinions. 'Science' refers to a methodology, which is systematic and focuses on facts and observations, and in 'opinion' there is no such requirement.
Recall as I explained in post #78 in these words,

So a scientific opinion will be a judgment necessarily based on observation and experiment of the natural world (i.e. science) and also not necessarily based on facts (opinion). This is awkward and can be misleading.

Instead of using the phrase 'scientific opinion', the proper and more accurate description of the present situation would be to say from the 'scientific point of view or perspective', i.e a particular attitude or way of considering a matter, namely a point of view based on the observation and experiment of the behavior and structure of the natural world. Here, small children were the subject of the study, and the issue addressed was whether the concept of God is innate.

Science Daily is a news reporting media, which specializes in reporting scientific news. The scientific study that Science Daily reported; and that concerns the precise topic of this thread, namely that the idea of God, the Almighty is innate, was conducted under the supervision of Professors of the University of Oxford. It involved 57 researches, who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures and which cost £ 1.9 million and spanned three years.

The report of Science Daily concerns, a scientific study in which children were investigated concerning the issue whether the concept of God is innate. The conclusion of this study based on the observation of these children subjects was that God is an innate concept. This is a scientific claim, because it is based on observation of actual children.

In the case of the children raising themselves on a desert island, no such experiments were actually made, so Dr Barrett can make no scientific claim on this. But based on the conclusion of the £ 1.9 million scientific study, Dr Barrett opined (he says, 'I THINK') that they would believe in God. In any case, it would be inhuman to conduct such an experiment.

The same reasoning applies to the Theory of evolution, which is sometimes used to infer that humans evolved from apes. No actual apes were actually seen to become human. So it cannot be called a scientific claim. In fact it is not. Notice here as well such a hypothesis is always referred to as a "Theory". In the Oxford dictionaries the following definition is found under the entry 'theory':

• Theory: a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
  'Darwin's theory of evolution’

(Note: The example of the 'Theory of evolution' is given in the dictionary itself.)

and 'supposition' has the following definition in the same dictionary,

• Supposition: A belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.

And now consider again the definition for 'opinion' in the same dictionary,

• Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

So as one can see, by the very appellation of it as a "Theory", the Theory of evolution is a supposition or an opinion, i.e. a belief held without proof or certain knowledge.

If one wants to use the term 'scientific opinion' to describe the statement of Dr Barrett in relation to children raising themselves on a desert island, and for the theory of evolution, I have no problem with it. But when I encounter such statements, I will have to point out that it means the opinion of a person who earns a living as a scientist, and not that there is anything scientific (here referring to methodology) about what is said.

http://notjustatheory.com/

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 10:54 pm to add the following --

Even if it isn’t there is still the question of genetic/biological transference from one generation to the next because memory, it has been shown, can apparently transfer within adapted genes.

When someone makes a scientific claim, without the evidence it is as good as any speculation. When I turn off my computer, they are turned off as well, and they do not show up again.
What is the reference for this scientific claim? Respectfully, produce it and let us analyze it rationally.

I'll try linkage again. I'm not of-fay with this quote-set system of this site....bumbling through.

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2-3/356.long

-- Updated January 11th, 2016, 11:27 pm to add the following --

Ah, it wasn't inferred I am a philosopher. Nothing lost there. Barrett may have received some scientific acknowledgments in the forms of some employment and college degrees but emotionally he is Christian. His emotions merely rule him, I suspect.

[Philosch]

Philosch wrote:You are wrong at least at the moment, the current state of evidence is that some quantum events emerge from nothing, and of these events, Mr Hawking has of course remarked that "we no longer need to have a creator" for the universe to have emerged.

And now, you are saying this,
Philosch wrote:I will readily admit I cannot produce absolute conclusive evidence for "nothing" to your satisfaction, how could I?

You are quite the accomplished cherry picker aren’t you Daviddun. The key to the above statement is “To your satisfaction”. I am recognizing the limits of communication between you and I, that is all. I accept that currently there is "reasonable" evidence for the nothingness claim, just not unassailably absolute evidence.

Daviddunn says;
So I conclude there is no such evidence for the emergence of something from nothing for some quantum events.

Your conclusion here is a fallacy unless you are simply restating. To conclude because you have seen no absolute conclusive evidence from me, therefore no evidence exists is very bad logic. It may exist as yet undiscovered. Many very brilliant cosmologists believe it does exist. You can simply argue and say it doesn’t because I can’t prove (to your satisfaction) the underlying “nothing” in the supposed evidence.

You are also saying now, that nothing cannot be measured or experienced,
Philosch wrote:It can’t be measured or experienced by definition.

This is exactly what Harris has said in post #31,
Harris wrote:Nothingness is not a subject for investigation or understanding…

Yes...and he should have stopped right there, but he does not, he goes on to say that;
“Nothingness and God are the limits of human imaginations. This is a very literal fact. However, nothingness is not existent because of the presence of everything whereas intelligible universe reflects the image of intelligent God.”


If indeed it is a "literal fact" that nothingness and god are at the limits of human imaginations (something I agree with) then why start a post attempting to prove or elicit the realness of god by scientific observations or rationale? He proceeds to offer that as a matter of fact nothing does not exist because of the presence of everything…clearly a baseless logical fallacy, either reductio ad absurdum or the appeal to ignorance fallacy, take your pick. He proceeds to then claim the intelligible universe reflects the image of an intelligent God. Says who? Pure speculation and opinion. If he had stuck by this statement you are seemingly trying to catch me with, there would be no reason for his post, as determining whether something is real is certainly a subject for investigation and understanding, clearly he is contradicting himself. My position has been that this is NOT a subject for reason as the transcendent nature of these topics renders them outside such investigation and that Harris uses classic fallacies in his post. I rest my case.

Do not take my withdrawal from the nothingness discussion with you as acquiescence. My main mistake is trying to engage with people who mistake their beliefs and intuitions as any sort of rational evidence or basis for "reasoning". Their opinions and speculations are to be disregarded out of hand. And finally you claim to not be patronizing and then you arrogantly claim your god is responsible for my intellect which you were merely trying to get me to use. How is this not anything but patronizing arrogance? No matter, Granth is handling the discussion with you quite nicely and I'm quite content to spectate.

[Newme]

Because the idea of God is rooted in every person’s consciousness, therefore there is no likelihood that someone by any means can eradicate it in literal sense. The only freedom that people have is the freedom of rejection. The only way to overwhelm an “Innate-Idea” is by means of implementing deceitful dichotomies. Anyone can reject that “Innate-Idea” only by a deliberate intension and people have only one reason to reject and that is to support their pleasure seeking behavior.

Excellent, Harris!
God is "I AM THAT I AM" - that consciousness behind consciousness.
"The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." -Luke 17

Atheism is illogical for several reasons - besides the ridiculous rejection of one's own consciousness.
Paul Tillech defined God as one's "Ultimate Concern" - or as written more commonly, "God is love (that which you love/worship most)."
To deny that one has a concern that is more ultimate than others is ludicrous.
Also, as you know, in Islam, God is defined in 99 or 100 ways - one of which is to say there are too many definitions to list.
That's just one religion - and even within each of many religions, people define God uniquely... So, for an Atheist to claim to know so much about every possible definition of God enough to deny them all, is pretending they are Ominicient.

Is God real? It's like saying, "Is GOoD real?"
What is GOoD and what is real?
I say, "functional illusions are priceless." I will not pretend to know much - certainly not enough to have any realistic understanding of love based on objective truth (aka God), but I won't let my awareness of my ignorance keep me from searching and acting on faith. What is the alternative? Hide out, paralyzed by skepticism? I find what inspires and motivates me - which is belief in a higher power! My idea of higher powers has evolved and will likely evolve my entire life, as I learn more. In the meantime, I find GOoD when I look for it.

[Granth]

Because the idea of God is rooted in every person’s consciousness, therefore there is no likelihood that someone by any means can eradicate it in literal sense. The only freedom that people have is the freedom of rejection. The only way to overwhelm an “Innate-Idea” is by means of implementing deceitful dichotomies. Anyone can reject that “Innate-Idea” only by a deliberate intension and people have only one reason to reject and that is to support their pleasure seeking behavior.

Excellent, Harris!
God is "I AM THAT I AM" - that consciousness behind consciousness.
"The kingdom (realm/experience) of God is within you." -Luke 17

Atheism is illogical for several reasons - besides the ridiculous rejection of one's own consciousness.
Paul Tillech defined God as one's "Ultimate Concern" - or as written more commonly, "God is love (that which you love/worship most)."
To deny that one has a concern that is more ultimate than others is ludicrous.
Also, as you know, in Islam, God is defined in 99 or 100 ways - one of which is to say there are too many definitions to list.
That's just one religion - and even within each of many religions, people define God uniquely... So, for an Atheist to claim to know so much about every possible definition of God enough to deny them all, is pretending they are Ominicient.

Is God real? It's like saying, "Is GOoD real?"
What is GOoD and what is real?
I say, "functional illusions are priceless." I will not pretend to know much - certainly not enough to have any realistic understanding of love based on objective truth (aka God), but I won't let my awareness of my ignorance keep me from searching and acting on faith. What is the alternative? Hide out, paralyzed by skepticism? I find what inspires and motivates me - which is belief in a higher power! My idea of higher powers has evolved and will likely evolve my entire life, as I learn more. In the meantime, I find GOoD when I look for it.

"Atheism is illogical for several reasons - besides the ridiculous rejection of one's own consciousness."

Um, really? I don't think I have heard any scholarly atheist or even just an everyday intelligent layperson atheist proclaim anything that resembles a statement such as that. You said atheism is illogical for several reasons then give us one which you present as though it is the most obvious and most voiced and yet it sounds very foreign to me. I think even a mildly intelligent atheist understands how we cannot really escape our own subjectivity, subjectivity being the obvious example of individual 'consciousness' (or "one's own", as you put it). I think you should dig a bit deeper into your "several reasons" bag and expose them here for debate because your only example so far in your attempt to highlight your point is a dismal failure. Try harder. I'm thinking you have very little grasp on this 'consciousness' thing and really only want to preach your thing. Anyway, feel free to have another go. The floor is still waiting.

[Newme]

Granth,

It's very difficult to even consider truth that conflicts with lies you've believed for a long time.

If you come up with some intelligible response, feel free, but so far, all you've offered are logical fallacies.