Dawkin's God Delusion

[finlma]

Just reading it at the moment and I have to say its a great read. I have been a non-believer since I reached the age of reasoning but it was great to read a clearly thought out argument which uses science to disprove the existence of any supernatural God. Evolution clearly shows how we arrived as we are in the present day.

I'm not interested in hearing from religous folk who slate Dawkins unless they have read the book and can comment intelligently on it.

Has anyone read it - if not I really suggest you do.

[John83]

I haven't read this one, though I've read a couple of his other books. I'm not a fan of Dawkin. He's repulsively arrogant and his arguments often contain suspect logic. I also find his style of writing a bit dull. He repeats himself a lot. I hesitate to think what someone who doesn't mostly agree with him would think of his books.

[BohsPartisan]

What have you read and why do you disagree with him?

[John83]

What have you read and why do you disagree with him?
The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, though I abandoned reading Climbing about half way through - very read for me to drop a book once I've started it.

I didn't say I disagreed with him. Please read my post more carefully.

[BohsPartisan]

Well you said you're not a fan. Not the same thing I admit.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Reading the God Delusion at the moment. Great read. Read the Selfish Gene before it but I haven't read the Blind Watchmaker yet.

As for Dawkins arrogance (or not) ...it's about time atheism had a spokesperson willing to take a long hot p1ss down on some of the twisted, jumbled nonsense religious of every creed and colour profess to be truth.

As he says in the preface "the gloves are off".

[Roadend]

Evolution clearly shows how we arrived as we are in the present day.


Eh, no it doesn't and there is certainly no common scientific concensus on how life began. I'm neither a religer nor a Dawkinser before you ask.

[dahamsta]

I haven't read any of his books, but I've seen him talk several times and I honestly believe he's one of the great intellects of our time. His ability to reason so calmly and thoughtfully in the face of obnoxiousness and idiocy is incredibly unusual these days.

[finlma]

Eh, no it doesn't and there is certainly no common scientific concensus on how life began.

Fair enough but its a damn lot more logical than some supernatural God.

[John83]

Well you said you're not a fan. Not the same thing I admit.
Yeah, I can understand how you might have picked it up like that. I mean I don't like his writing style mainly.

[Philly]

Dawkins book is more of a massive "Opinion Column" than a scientific debunking of there being a creator. He also can't seem to make his mind up on the issue. In interviews he states there is no God, in the book he implies there is a possibility at time.

Religious people look at the world, nature, the universe, even evolution - and they see the work of something great.

Athiests see it all as a result of mere chance pretty much.

The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.

[John83]

Religious people look at the world, nature, the universe, even evolution - and they see the work of something great.

Athiests see it all as a result of mere chance pretty much.
Which doesn't make it any more awesome.

[The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.[/quote]
Actually, either one or the other is true. Individual beliefs don't really come into it.

[finlma]

He also can't seem to make his mind up on the issue. In interviews he states there is no God, in the book he implies there is a possibility at time.
Incorrect. He firmly believes that there is no such thing as God and goes about proving why there almost certainly is none. He has always stated that he can't be 100% sure just like not a single person on this planet can be 100% sure that there is a God



The God Delusion does not prove God is a delusion, nor does the Bible prove there is a God. It's all down to the individuals beliefs.

Also incorrect. There either is a God or there isn't. There isn't a different God to match every person's individual taste. Its amazing how religion can just take rational thought and logic and through it out the window.

[dahamsta]

I concur with finmla on the first point, he's always been crystal clear about it in every interview I've seen.

[BohsPartisan]

Atheists don't put evolution down to pure chance. We put it down to the awesome complexity of natural selection.

[Student Mullet]

Atheists don't put evolution down to pure chance. We put it down to the awesome complexity of natural selection.But you believe that the awsome complexity of natural selection arose out of chance.

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

[jebus]

I'm with John83 on Dawkins to be honest. Whether he's right or not in his arguments I find the man to be as obnoxious as the Christian far right in America. I don't think he ever asks or is willing to listen to reasoned debate and his 'I'm right, no questions' attitude puts me off the man.

I do find it funny that many of Dawkins supporters hold him up as some sort of Christ like idol though, but again, if you check out pro-Dawkins message boards there's very little discussion going on, and anyone who opposes their views is attacked personally, so basically I treat them with the same regard I treat bible thumpers

[osarusan]

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

Exactly. It was Steven Hawking (the one true genius of our time, I believe) who said something like......"It cannot be proven in any way that God exists. However I fully accept that he may exist in some way which is not scientifically quantifiable"

[BohsPartisan]

In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.
No its a matter of probability.
There is no other concept with as low a probability as the existance of god that has so much credance. You can't prove there isn't an invisible rooster holding up the earth and stopping it from falling for eternity but you'd say I was mad if I believed in it. Belief must have a basis. The evidence is there that god does not exist. What is this evidence you ask? The history of religion. If there's one thing the history of religion and spiritual belief proves its that superstition has always been a substitute for a lack of understanding. God was a figment of the human imagination. That is why the probability of god existing is close to zero. If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win. The odds on gods existance are so wide that there is not enough room for me to type the number here, yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

[osarusan]

No its a matter of probability.
There is no other concept with as low a probability as the existance of god that has so much credance. You can't prove there isn't an invisible rooster holding up the earth and stopping it from falling for eternity but you'd say I was mad if I believed in it. Belief must have a basis. The evidence is there that god does not exist. What is this evidence you ask? The history of religion. If there's one thing the history of religion and spiritual belief proves its that superstition has always been a substitute for a lack of understanding. God was a figment of the human imagination. That is why the probability of god existing is close to zero. If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win. The odds on gods existance are so wide that there is not enough room for me to type the number here, yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

You mad b@stard.

[osarusan]

I dont think that this post -


In any case, a God's existance isn't something that can be proven or disproven so it's always going to come down to some believing and some not.

draws this conclusion-


yet you think because no one can categorically disprove Gods existance then the chance of his existance are the same as his non existance I.E. 50-50!

[osarusan]

If you have a horse that has odds of 1,000-1 it has "a chance" of winning, but would you believe that horse was going to win.

No I wouldnt, but I would understand that there is an actual possibility, however unlikely, that the horse could win.

Just as you must concede that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that God exists.

So..........


God was a figment of the human imagination

You cannot say this with certainty.

(PS : Mods - Apologies for the different posts - feel free to merge)

[BohsPartisan]

You mad b@stard.

:D

Seriously

:D

[BohsPartisan]

You cannot say this with certainty.




But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

[osarusan]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

How about we compare it to oxygen............after all you cant prove oxygen exists.............:D :D :D (remember that thread??)

I think that you can say it with 99.9999999999999% certainty when quantified in a scientific way, but religion/belief itself cannot be quantified in a scientific way. At its core is a belief in something that its followers/practicioners accept cannot be proven anyway. So I think to try and use scientific arguement misses the point.

[BohsPartisan]

but religion/belief itself cannot be quantified in a scientific way. At its core is a belief in something that its followers/practicioners accept cannot be proven anyway. So I think to try and use scientific arguement misses the point.

I think this is missing the point. Anything else that can't be quantified in a scientific way is fiction. Religion somehow is spared being categorised as fiction even though to all intents and purposes it is.

This is from a correspondance I had elsewhere on the subject...

In the beginning there was no religion.
The first Humans were very intelligent animals. They understood more about the world than other animals. In becoming human they became conscious of themselves. In becoming conscious of themselves they naturally questioned their origins. They questioned the natural world around them. As they had no understanding of biology, physics or chemistry so they drew the conclusion that something or someone had put them here and had created all around them. This must have seemed logical to them as they saw that for a spear or a hut or anything else to come into existence, someone had to make it.
With the division of labour came the specialisation of spirituality. A priestly caste developed who acted as bureaucrats, scientists and dispensers of religion. Because they did no other work they had time to develop their knowledge of astronomy which impacted upon agriculture I.E. the ability to predict tides and flooding around the Nile valley and such areas of early civilisation allowed them to appear to have some supernatural knowledge. It suited them to perpetuate this myth so the sun, the moon and the stars became gods. Sacrifices made to the gods meant meat for the priests. Tithes meant grain and other foodstuffs.
In early religions belief in an afterlife was not universal. In many of them the afterlife was reserved for the nobles and priestly castes. This made them godlike and helped perpetuate the social systems that guaranteed them their lavish lifestyles. Hence religion was born, invented by men through ignorance and perpetuated by greed. This is why I am an Atheist. I base my atheism upon historical, anthropological and scientific evidence...
because we don't know something we shouldn't just fill in the gaps with our imagination. The gaps in science's understanding of the universe are continuously getting smaller, therefore the space you can attribute to "the divine" is getting smaller. Take evolution. Before Darwin discovered natural selection people said, look we can't explain where humans came from, isn't it as good an arguement as any that god put us here? So a divine being was thrust into fill the gap in our knowledge. When that gap was closed by Darwin, God had to find some other gap to hide in...
What we have to ask ourselves though is what god is (should he exist).
God to be divine would be:
All knowing,
All Powerful,
Benevolant.
A look at the world around us shows that no such being exists. If he were all knowing he would know about human suffering, if he was all powerful he would be able to stop it and if he was benevolant he would.
Not that the god of the bible is in anyway benevolant. A reading of the old testement reveals Yaweh (the god of the Abrahamic tradition encompassing Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as being a nasty, vindictive, jealous, sadistic, racist, sexist and homophobic being. No god is preferable to that god by a mile.

[strangeirish]

How about we compare it to oxygen............after all you cant prove oxygen exists...


I can. See here. (http://www.oxegen.ie/) Still working on the God thing though.

[Student Mullet]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.I think that you're starting with a belief and landing statistics on top of it.

[osarusan]

Anything else that can't be quantified in a scientific way is fiction.


Here are some quotes from Steven Hawking (http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_SHawking.htm) on God. Look especially at the last lines of no. 2 and no. 8.

If this is a scientific debate, then, no offence meant, I'm gonna trust Dr. Hawking over you:)

[hoops1]

But my point was that you can say it with 99.9r% certainty/probability, and there is no other idea with such a probability that you'd believe in.

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything
including the price of camels testicles in Cairo

[osarusan]

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything
including the price of camels testicles in Cairo

Bohs Partisan, I stand corrected. Here is 100% proof that something exists, and that something is stupidity

[BohsPartisan]

There is also a 99.9% certainty that you have a ****ing opinion on everything

Well if I've gone to the trouble of studying a subject I'm entitled to have an opinion on it. :rolleyes:

[BohsPartisan]

If this is a scientific debate, then, no offence meant, I'm gonna trust Dr. Hawking over you:)

I don't rate Hawking at all to be honest. If you really want to read a top notch cosmologist go for Eric J.Lerner. By and large though cosmologists and physisists know such a tremendous amount about their own subject thay know little about anything else. People like Lerner are in a minority.

[osarusan]

I don't rate Hawking at all to be honest. If you really want to read a top notch cosmologist go for Eric J.Lerner. By and large though cosmologists and physisists know such a tremendous amount about their own subject thay know little about anything else. People like Lerner are in a minority.


Ah Jaysus man, you cant be serious.:mad: He is a true genius. I'll check out Eric Lerner. As it's 1.53am here, good night to ya.

[jebus]

Honestly I never understood why Dawkins and atheists care so much about people believing in God, if you don't like it then fine, constantly going on about it, or calling believers ignorant/stupid/etc. proves that you are just as ignorant as Bible thumpers trying to ram the Word of God down everyone's throat

[dahamsta]

Whether he's right or not in his arguments I find the man to be as obnoxious as the Christian far right in America. I don't think he ever asks or is willing to listen to reasoned debate and his 'I'm right, no questions' attitude puts me off the man.Have you seen him in Lynchburg? I doubt you'd say that if you have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

There's no doubt that some of the things he says are counter-productive, such as his belief that people that believe in god are "idiots", but he does always state clearly that that's his opinion. And he's his own man, he's not representing anyone other than by default, so if that's the way he wants to put his opinion across, that's his decision.


I do find it funny that many of Dawkins supporters hold him up as some sort of Christ like idol thoughI've never observed that, but then I haven't hung around on any cheerleading websites. Knowing Dawkins, I doubt he does either.

For the record, I'm not an atheist. I just think Dawkins talks a lot of sense, and I think we need someone sensible around to counteract the idiocy that is ID.

adam

[Lionel Ritchie]

Honestly I never understood why Dawkins and atheists care so much about people believing in God, if you don't like it then fine, constantly going on about it, or calling believers ignorant/stupid/etc. proves that you are just as ignorant as Bible thumpers trying to ram the Word of God down everyone's throat

Well I am an atheist and just for a flavour of why some atheists "care so much about people believing in God" I'll have a stab at the fact that here in Ireland Bertie Ahern would be commiting career suicide if he announced tomorrow he was an atheist, in the USA there are powerful people lobbying to have creationism taught alongside evolution in Science classes as an "equal faith position" and in the UK Blairs government are allowing creationist adherent nutcases like Reg Vardy invest money in schools in return for the right to appoint members to managment committees of schools in deprived areas of the north-east. Vardys aim is thought to be similar to the US scenario above.

[finlma]

Well said Lionel. Atheism is seriously frowned upon in this world. For some reason its not right in our society to question religion. People are happy to believe that a man can walk on water, turn water into wine and have a virgin as a mother and expect people not to question it. Beggars belief to be honest.

[sonofstan]

I'm a perfectly contented atheist - well, I'm not perfectly contented, but i am about my atheism - but i think Dawkins' book is nonsense (though I haven't read it - much too busy) this review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) by terry Eagleton is worth a read, if only for the first line

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm a perfectly contented atheist - well, I'm not perfectly contented, but i am about my atheism - but i think Dawkins' book is nonsense (though I haven't read it - much too busy) this review (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html) by terry Eagleton is worth a read, if only for the first line

That article is nonsensical.

Seems to claim Dawkins work is worthless because he doesn't know enough about theology. Dawkins will rightly claim that that's as irrelevant as his not being up to speed on the Harry Potter series. The only difference being that if there's a crucial vote to be taken soon on any number of issues ...Education, Stem cell research, right to life, right to die -news and current affairs programs from here to worlds end aren't going to drag JK Rowling on for her tuppence worth.

[sonofstan]

That article is nonsensical.

Seems to claim Dawkins work is worthless because he doesn't know enough about theology. Dawkins will rightly claim that that's as irrelevant as his not being up to speed on the Harry Potter series. The only difference being that if there's a crucial vote to be taken soon on any number of issues ...Education, Stem cell research, right to life, right to die -news and current affairs programs from here to worlds end aren't going to drag JK Rowling on for her tuppence worth.

The difference is this; Theology is not akin to astrology or the exegesis of Harry Potter novels - it is a study undertaken by serious people. Many of the foundational figures of the rationalism that Dawkins privileges were also deeply interested in theology - Descartes, Kant, Rousseau and so on. If people you respect in one area also appear to have a deep interest in something else, then it would seem to be the least one could do to pay the tribute of respecting that pursuit as sincere and un- ephemeral. Anyone who reads Augustine or Origen or Aquinas - or more modern philosophers of religion such as levinas or Marion - will grasp immediately that, whatever the validity of the ultimate claims, we are in the presence of real thought.

Works such as Dawkins - and that of even more egregious figures such as the silly AC Grayling - play a loose game, equating a 'common sense' idea of rational with its philosophical counterpart, and assuming a match between the two. Actually, it is extraordinarily difficult to work out any definition of reason that isn't simply tautologous - and reason is of no more help in saying anything useful about 'truth' - as opposed to 'facts' - than religion.

[dahamsta]

I'm sure quite a few astrologists think they're serious people too. The simple fact remains that both fields consist almost entirely of theories and philosophies; and that scientists view fields in that category as nonsense until they come up with a few facts and proofs.

[sonofstan]

I'm sure quite a few astrologists think they're serious people too. The simple fact remains that both fields consist almost entirely of theories and philosophies; and that scientists view fields in that category as nonsense until they come up with a few facts and proofs.
And why should science be the only model of truth? even if an ultimate 'scientific image' of the world were available, certain, very ordinary things would remain inexplicable - or at least the scientific explanation would have no bearing on the situation. Understanding pheromenes and formal ideas of beauty is not going to give you a satisfying account of why you fell in love; neither will formal theories about art explain the aesthetic particular.

Science is a conceptual model, one that hopes to be self- correcting; it hopes to present a coherent and internally consistent picture of the world - not the world itself. I would argue that the importation of instrumental reason - reason considered as a tool - into areas where it's use is akin to learning to swim from a book - is the cause of much annoyance and idiocy in the world.

[jebus]

I'm sure quite a few astrologists think they're serious people too. The simple fact remains that both fields consist almost entirely of theories and philosophies; and that scientists view fields in that category as nonsense until they come up with a few facts and proofs.

That said Dawkins cannot produce any solid proof that there isn't a God, he can produce theories, but so can the Church, depends who you believe really. As for Dawkins saying that he is his own man and his ideas are his own, well I still have to question why he feels the need to ram down the throat of people in the same way that hardline Christians try to ram their ideas down peoples throats.

From a personal standpoint I think anyone who says that religious people are idiots is just trying to provoke negative attention towards themselves. There is absolutely no need for Dawkins to use such a strong term and to lord himself over people. I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate the Pope calling him an idiot for not believing and would head straight to the media to have a moan about it if he did.

[jebus]

Well I am an atheist and just for a flavour of why some atheists "care so much about people believing in God" I'll have a stab at the fact that here in Ireland Bertie Ahern would be commiting career suicide if he announced tomorrow he was an atheist, in the USA there are powerful people lobbying to have creationism taught alongside evolution in Science classes as an "equal faith position" and in the UK Blairs government are allowing creationist adherent nutcases like Reg Vardy invest money in schools in return for the right to appoint members to managment committees of schools in deprived areas of the north-east. Vardys aim is thought to be similar to the US scenario above.

Honestly I still don't think any of those are valid reasons for attacking someone's beliefs on a personal level. In those instances you should attack Irish society on the Bertie issue (although I disagree with you as regards to him being an atheist being career suicide), you should criticise the religious right in America as any right minded person does, and you should point out the Blair-Vardy connection as just another instance where New Labour has let Britain down. I think what Dawkins sets out to do is attack religious people on a personal level, and thats where he loses me to be honest.


Well said Lionel. Atheism is seriously frowned upon in this world. For some reason its not right in our society to question religion. People are happy to believe that a man can walk on water, turn water into wine and have a virgin as a mother and expect people not to question it. Beggars belief to be honest.

Are you serious? "It's not right in our society to question religion"? Do you honestly think we're still living in 1950's Ireland? Religion and the role of religion in society is questioned practically every day in the media. On a ground level I'm constantly either questioned, or pretty much attacked, as to why I'm wearing a cross. Maybe this depends on what side of the religion/science debate you sit but I think it's getting to a point in our society where being religious is frowned upon and you are seen as some sort of ignorant bigot for wearing a cross, a society where the atheists have taken the mantle of the Catholic's holier than thou attitude

[BohsPartisan]

That said Dawkins cannot produce any solid proof that there isn't a God, he can produce theories, but so can the Church, depends who you believe really.
How many times do we need to go over this. Dawkins as any atheist will tell you that they cannot categorically disprove the existance of god. This does not mean that belief that god exists is as valid as belief god doesn't exist. The bottom line is that the existance of a god is extremely improbable. So much so that you can say with relative certainty that there is no god. You can't prove that Zeus and his associated gods are not living invisibly at the top of mount olympus but you surely don't think that its as likely that they are as it is that they aren't. Similarly the idea of a giant invisible rooster holding the earth up can't be disproved and its just as valid as the idea of god.
I'll give you 100 Euro if you can disprove my rooster hypothesis.



Are you serious? "It's not right in our society to question religion"? Do you honestly think we're still living in 1950's Ireland? Religion and the role of religion in society is questioned practically every day in the media.
The role of organised religion is questioned to an extent but irrational belief is a no go area.

SOS,
I'm very familiar with theology and philosophy. I studied philosophy in UCD including an elective course in the philosophy of religion. Most philosophy is nonsense to be honest, that includes Descartes. Aristotle who lived nearly 2.000 years before Descartes was nearly 2,000 years more advanced in his thinking.

[osarusan]

the idea of a giant invisible rooster holding the earth up.

You mad b@stard.


The evidence is there that god does not exist.
God was a figment of the human imagination.

does that not contradict this.......... (and yes, i edited the above post to condense it)


How many times do we need to go over this. Dawkins as any atheist will tell you that they cannot categorically disprove the existance of god.

Dawkins himself will not categorically deny God's existence, but you, in your first post, seem to do so.

[BohsPartisan]

does that not contradict this.......... (and yes, i edited the above post to condense it)



Dawkins himself will not categorically deny God's existence, but you, in your first post, seem to do so.


If you're 99.999999999% sure it often sounds as if you are 100% sure. There is little difference. Its the old concept of proving beyond reasonable doubt.

[osarusan]

Similarly the idea of a giant invisible rooster holding the earth up can't be disproved and its just as valid as the idea of god.
I'll give you 100 Euro if you can disprove my rooster hypothesis.

If I took a huge sword and slashed at the space under the earth, slashing a space wider that the diameter, then if there was an invisible rooster, I'd kill him. You just said he was invisible, not "uninjureable". (there is a word, but its 4 am here, i am tired)

100 euro............should I pm you my address?

[dahamsta]

And why should science be the only model of truth?I'm sorry to be rude, but it's comments like this that push legitimate discussions over the edge. It's just nonsensical. Look the word science up in a dictionary.