Dawkin's God Delusion

[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.

[sonofstan]

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.

why is it nonsensical? - i never said scientific truth wasn't 'true'; i just mean that certain things are 'true' in ways that are not narrowly scientific. Read the rest of the post.

[BohsPartisan]

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?

I require a video of said injury. Oh hold on, he's invisible...

[sonofstan]

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.

the second sentence above is a hardly sufficient condition for the first - it is open to question whether D4IT undergrads in the philosophy dept. ever get even slightly familiar with the subject*TBH; I should know - I teach them......

Also... can a mod do something about the misplaced apostrophe in the thread title? guy's name is 'Dawkins' so it should be 'Dawkins' God Delusion'

*not suggesting this is true of you, of course

[Poor Student]

Aristotle who lived nearly 2.000 years before Descartes was nearly 2,000 years more advanced in his thinking.

What's 2000 years less advanced than the natural existence of slaves and the natural inferiority of women?

[BohsPartisan]

What's 2000 years less advanced than the natural existence of slaves and the natural inferiority of women?

Aristotle was a Materialist. He understood that our consciousness begins with the material world. Descartes did not. In other ways as you say Aristotle was a creature of his time, he could not have been otherwise. I'm merely saying that in his mode of thinking Aristotle was more advanced than Descartes, not that all his ideas were correct.

SOS,
Yeah I know what you mean. There are some areas of what I was supposed to have studied that I know SFA about because I didn't bother. Witgenstein for example.

[pete]

Watch South Parks Go God Go episodes Part I & II & everything is clear.

[finlma]

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.

Dawkins doesn't ram anything down the throat of anyone. You can listen to him if you want and don't otherwise. Its not only hardline Christians that ram religion down peoples throats - schools teach religion to our kids every day.

[BohsPartisan]

Exactly. If I ever have kids I don't want religion anywhere near them, which is another reason this subject is so important to me.

[Lim till i die]

Exactly. If I ever have kids I don't want religion anywhere near them, which is another reason this subject is so important to me.

The kiddies don't have to do religion in school. I never bothered

It's not really ramming down the throat when you have a choice

(This has just been my experience of school. I apologise if anyone else has had children in schools where religion is compulsory. But I doubt such a place exists)

[BohsPartisan]

It was rammed down our throats at school. The majority of schools are still owned by the catholic church.