Dawkins The God Delusion

Hm. Having technophobe problems getting to grips with the new site so may have missed some of this debate. However, I'll have a go ... I'd warmly recommend The God Delusion. There is a serious critique of specific religious practices in it and I'd happily take a lot of it on board. However, on the basic issue of whether there's a God - well, if this is the best the atheists have to chuck at us believers, it strengthens my faith. As RD feely admits, he hasn't engaged with the actual content of theology. In his view he doesn't have to, because theology simply assumes that God exists a priori. You don't have to read much theology (a couple of Karen Armstrong books should do the trick - fortunately, since I've got no further myself) to see that this isn't the case. The complex, ineffable, paradox-laden God of the gospel according to the liberal non-fundamentalists stands up quite robustly to RD's critique. RD responds to this problem by openly and pointedly refusing to discuss it. Full marks for honesty; zero for coherence. RD's justification for the omission is to the effect that most believers haven't read Karen Armstrong, and are much closer to believing in the non-complex fundamentalist God which is the target of his critique. This may be the case. But for all RD knows, the liberals may have a point. So what if they're outnumbered by the fundamentalists? Since when was truth determined by a show of hands? And if it is, how many monist materialist atheists have really got to grips with quantum theory? A minority, I'm guessing. Does that mean that quantum theory isn't "real science"? Does it mean that real scientists should be condemned for giving indirect encouragement to pseudo-science? Course not. And in fact, when RD does mention non-fundamentalist religious belief, he's often very nice about it - a niceness which is quite consistent with his comments on, say, the awe and wonder due to the universe, the extreme, mind-bending weirdness of post-quantum science, and the non-disprovability of the God hypothesis. (Note: I'm only flirting with the "God of the gaps" theory here; I don't buy it.) It's as if a zoologist should argue on evidential grounds that whales don't exist because they don't leave footprints. Such a zoologist might be well advised to consult the voluminous literature pointing out that whales have no feet. But RD doesn't need to consult this literature: he already knows that whales don't leave footprints, therefore they don't exist. QED. Another fatal weakness is his weak dismissal of the argument from personal experience. Faced with the fact that a large number of people testify to a direct experience of God, he points out that an equally large number of people claim to see pink elephants, fairies at the bottom of the garden, etc. However, a similar number of people claim to see New York. Mentioning a given experience X in the same sentence as a manifestly delusory experience Y does not constitute a serious argument that X is also delusory. You don't disprove the existence of whales simply by mentioning them in the same sentence as mermaids, krakens and the Loch Ness Monster. Finally, and relatedly, RD ignores the fact that the basic questions of human meaning are not the sort of thing there can be evidence about. He's happy to accept that the Holocaust was evil. It was. There's a lot of evidence that the Holocaust happened; there's no evidence that it was evil. What's the repeatable, empirical test for evilness? RD is always hopping in and out of a highly subjective consciousness which is capable of discerning that this or that action or belief is good, evil, fair, unfair, civilised, and so forth. This is exactly the basis for his critique of religion: it's immoral. There's no evidence that religion, the Holocaust or anything else is immoral. You could argue that you need evidence to assert the existence of actual entities, but you don't need evidence for subjective value judgments. Well, (a) why not? And (b) the God of the theologians isn't anything so straightforward as an entity - as RD tacitly concedes, and would have to face up to, if he actually read the books. And (c) it's the same highly subjective consciousness where the experiences happen which prompt believers to accept the existence of God - which, in RD's view, is supposed to be a conclusive reason to reject them. Ahem. In the absence of any coherent argument against belief in God, the first part of The God Delusion really amounts to argument by assertion: There is no God because RD says there isn't. In rational terms this is no worse than saying that there is a God because I say there is, but it's no better.

Dear Professor Dawkins....too formal. Dear Richard.... too friendly. Dear Dick....mmmm, better not. OK, here we go: Dear Dawkins, I, as a Scientist and an Agnostic (something like Bertrand Russel but on a smaller scale), have read with great interest and admiration your clever books about Evolution, Religion, and God and, although I share 100% your views about the first two, I have great difficulties in accepting your arguments for the extreme improbability of the existence of God, any god, and I tell you why. You apply very clever arguments in trying to disprove that God exists and/or to contradict believers' arguments for his existence, however (and here is the flaw) in order to do this you use antropomorphic methods (of course: you are a human). And you argue: God cannot exist because of this and because of that. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps your arguments are not applicable to something which is not human? That perhaps, if he exists, he is Unimaginable, Undefinable, Unmeasurable, in other words, outside and beyond anything that men can ever conceive? And so, perhaps, we should resign ourselves to remain agnostics for ever. Perhaps, life, which, as you wrote, happened as an extremely rare chance event, is only unprogrammed contamination of a multiuniverse whose real purpose will forever remain unfathomable. Yours truly, Robertus Agnosticus

Bertrand Russell was an atheist, except in the sense that any reasonable person would admit that there might, or might not, be something out there. And Unimportant. A jury can discard the possibility that a supernatural being and not the accused, to whom the evidence pointed, actually committed the crime. A standard of proof which requires that non-evidence be given the same weight as evidence would prevent justice being done or any decision ever being reached. Agnostics are wimps who won't accept their intellectual responsibilities.

Atheism is the rejection of what is offered as evidence for the existence of supernatural beings. I question if 'intuition' is the word to describe the acceptance of a cultural construct. It's not as if religionists got their religion from a process of investigation. It comes, in most cases, with cultural conditioing, beginning in childhood. What you describe as 'intuition' is more properly described as dogmatism. An atheist arrives at his conclusions by a rational process and leaves them open to revision. If we're allowed to 'believe' whatever we fancy, you would have to very unimaginative to get no further than the god, named God. There are millions of supernatural beings which people have given credence.

Thank you for the compliment: It means I am in very good company. Indeed, another wimp I know of is Umberto Eco who, since he is also a world-renown expert in Semiotics, would probably object at all these useless words: Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, Deist. For discussion's sake lets say I dont know what I am, but I also dont know if God exists. But, to repeat myself, I think that all those (including RD) who use their very human, limited brain to evaluate the chances of God's existence or non-existence are full of Hubris and should limit themselves to counting how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin. As living beings (unless we are replicants), however, we are in a much better position to discuss about Life, how it started and how it will end. And, on this pregnant subject, I dare express an opinion I dont think has ever been proposed before (please correct me if I am wrong). We assume that the Universe (or, as proposed by RD) the Multiverse started with the 'Big Bang' several billions of years ago, and will last several billions of years more or even forever. Life, on the other hand, started on Earth by chance a few million years ago and will possibly last a few more millions. On the multiverse time-scale Life will thus last an infinitesimal amount of time. In other words, what we are and will eventually become and of which we are so proud, it's just a minute and effemeral contamination which one day will disappear without leaving any trace. And we pretend to discuss God? Lets instead continue to do what we are so good about as long as we can: Improve our lives, protect and disseminate our genes, love and kill each other, dream.

What is outside our limited capacities is of no concern to us. Religion is not outside our capacity. It is the utterances of popes and ayatullahs and priests of all kinds and the holy texts and traditions on which they base themselves. It may be that invisible supernatural beings are congregating on Mount Olympus but the reports of this we can consider of entertainment value only and of no practical interest. Likewise, for all the mountains of reports of the supernatural.

Robert, We agree with Dawkins that religion is a delusion. You seem to think, however, that this is nothing to make a fuss about and the correct position is to look down condescendingly, together with the eminent evolutionary scientists, on the lesser beings who are at an earlier stage of evolution and still need this nonsense. Dawkins didn't write his book to convince hardcore Christians to give up their beliefs. He was giving encouragement to non-believers who were a bit afraid to declare themselves. Whether or not religion played a vital role in human evolutionary development is neither here nor there. The issue is about reducing the influence of the 'hocus-pocus' in individual lives and society. I would contest the notion that only an élite is capable of discarding religion. Adherents.com lists non-believers as about a bilion strong.

Robert, The beliefs, rituals, habits which you call merely the superstructure of an inbuilt need to believe is what everyone else calls religion. It is what people believe that is important, not that they are bound to believe something. Nor is there any particular reason why what it is they believe should be religious. I don't see any evidence for man being a naturally religious animal. The billion non-believers suggests not. Nor can I see wfere your evidence of atheist tribes,defeated by the devout, comes from. The historical record on the subject is that it was the side with the more powerful god that won. Witness the Palestinian genocide where the God of Israel was simply too strong for the gods of the Canaanites and other indigenous peoples. Do you really consider genocide the unimportant product of an innocuous impulse to believe?

Robert, 'Awe of the universe', vestigial religionists with a vague belief that 'there is something out there' are no problem at all. This is not religion. Religion is the dogmatic pronouncements of Popes and Ayatullahs on human affairs. Religion, as a rallying point, no doubt, was useful in promoting tribal solidarity. This is exactly what we don't want in the era of globalization and weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry, meant to edit an old post, and ended up posting it again ...

If you are into numbers games: can six billion religionists be wrong? (one billion atheists?!! That figure probably is invented) You bring no evidence to prove your belief believers are at a lesser stage of evolution than non-believers.

Irrational. Discussions of God are not criminal trials and the rules of evidence as (supposedly) practiced in criminal courts are not the same as whatever rules or methods we use to discuss religion. Intolerant as well as arbitrary. No one has any responsabilty to adhere to what belief system Eric advocates. To believe as agnostics do God is no more unprovable than provable is not weakness or cowardness. Agnostics believe it is a coherent application of the rules of evidence to religious subjects. When atheists categorically assert there is no GOD and no afterlife, atheists do more than just reject the other side's arguments: they make assertions they cannot prove. In point of fact many intelligent people have reasoned their way to one form of religion or the other. How can one arrive rationally at such fundamentally unprovable proposations as "there is no GOD" or "there is no afterlife?' Again, you persist in making absurd parallels. Just as religious discussion is not the same thing as criminal trials so it is not the same as medical practice and the methods and knowledge than help a physician diagnose and treat an illness do not apply to religious matters. Not true. Plenty of intelligent people have writen plenty of intelligent books to convince intelligent people to get into religion or to stay in it. And to fall from religion for such reason as that one has lost a child is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to tragedy, not a thoughtful consideration of the problem. I would contest the notion that scientific popularizers (ie Richard Dawkins and Steven Jay Gould) qualify as "elite" or that irreligion is a necessary attribute of elites. A truly meaningless sentence as the nazis were not a religious group and indeed an anti-christian as well as anti-jewish party. Plenty might want to consider communist mass murder as the essential product of an inclination to atheism, however. No doubt?!!! As a matter of fact, your identification of religion with tribalism is open to much doubt as several of the makor religions - Christianism, Islam and Muslim - claim universal significance and applicability. It would seem eric is being blinded by his a priori belief relegion is backward, thus his unthinking association of religion with tribal solidarities (themselves arbitrarily assumed to be retrograde.) This sentence is most truly ignorant of the history of science! Science is the study of nature. It does not prove or disprove religious beliefs or the lack of them. Not true. Force of conviction (or force of cynicism and manipulation) is all we need to influence people. Do left and right parties ever justify their beliefs on such matters as taxes and war. No. But they can influence people into voting for them. Parents do not need to justify their beliefs to influence their children, ditto professors with their students. You really need to be more specific than this, Eric. I have neither time nor inclination to go through this evidently rubish site. Please give me the specific page number where these people claim there are 1 billion atheists, so I can double check their methodology and see for myself if there is any merit to that assertion. Until you do so, I will have to stand by my claim the figue is fabricated.

Bluejay, As you correctly say, atheism is nothing new. What is (comparatively) new, is the advance of physical and biological science which is displacing religion in the lives of the citizens of developed countries. As you also say, in former communist countries atheist regimes suppressed religion which is making a comeback in the former Soviet Union and in China. We could also say that New Age fads and other superstitions are thriving as religion declines. Nevertheless, I wonder which of the thousands of religions do you maintain is true or useful?

I'm not so sure about that - religion can act as a powerful unifying force, convince individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of the group, maintain social order, etc. In the past it's probably conferred a considerable advantage to certain groups. Early theology has probably also contributed quite a bit to philosophical thought, even if we merely learn from their mistakes.

Matt Murrell has a point. In pre-rational societies 'religion' was a powerful unifying force. Problem is that having become institutionalised in the pre-rational world, 'religion' has survived into modern times, partly because the power of pre-rational thinking sometimes can overwhelm rationality - especialy in societies where 'religious teachings' (brainwashing) corrupt the curriculum. Islamism is one extreme consequence.

Should civilisation collapse (meteor strike, climate change, nuclear weapons, black death - take your pick) religious belief could become a useful organising force again. It also encourages charity, at least according to various studies (by believers and non-believers alike). Not necessarily because of the belief itself, but because people who are part of social organisations are more likely to be involved in community and charity work.

The gods are hypothetical persons, invented in primitive times to provide what we now consider bogus explanations for natural events. They are preserved, those that are not extinct, by religious organizations whose postion of influence depends on obsolete ideology

Discuss it.

eric 1- i agree, their is no goods, their is only one god , who was not invented, we are the one invented if i use the correct term, i mean created. other goods are yes invented and are hypothetical and not original. 2- yes also some people are living from those invented goods.

1- i have faith in one God as it is the only sense way of life. it is not because i was taught as a child eventhoug yes it have some influence, but not to all sorts of people, take e.g plenty of christians and jewish and even athesist turn to islam eventhoug they were taught at childhood their relegion. 2- i think it is a matter of experience and background as each one choose his relegion and i beleive in the only God which till now all evidences support his existence and it is logic God and not hypothetical or humanbeings God.