The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Jonas]

A fascinating book for anyone that might have questions on religion and arguments pertaining to theism and deism.

[thedarkshade]

It indeed is a fascinating book (though I haven't read it all yet). But there was one particular thing I found it underestimating for theists. It's in the beginning of the second chapter (I think) when he quotes "Isn't God a shit?!". I had no problems with that, but a God is a very important thinkg for theists and that would be a big offense for them. I mean, the entire book is offensive for a strong theist but this kinda direct insult was just not necessary.

[Sayonara]

A fascinating book for anyone that might have questions on religion and arguments pertaining to theism and deism.

Have you been composing this post for two years, or were you just really late to the party?

[Glider]

It indeed is a fascinating book (though I haven't read it all yet). But there was one particular thing I found it underestimating for theists. It's in the beginning of the second chapter (I think) when he quotes "Isn't God a shit?!". I had no problems with that, but a God is a very important thinkg for theists and that would be a big offense for them. I mean, the entire book is offensive for a strong theist but this kinda direct insult was just not necessary.

It wasn't a direct insult. Such a statement would be incosistant with Dawkins' position anyway. He was simply quoting the response of an individual (a young Curchill) who, in the absence of any prior indoctrination, was reading the Old Testament for the first time.

 

I think he was using that as an example to illustrate the point that without the cognitive filters of indoctrination already in place, a reasonable person could not read the Old Testament for the first time and conclude the existence of a 'paternalistic' and loving God, but is more likely to conclude that God was a petty, jealous, vengeful and genocidal being.

[gcol]

Have you been composing this post for two years, or were you just really late to the party?

 

A bit unhelpful and unbecoming, methinks. Would you make that comment to someone who said: "Hey, I've just come accross and read the works of Charles Darwin, such great insights and food for thought".

 

Surely the publication date of a book is by itself no relevance to the ideas presented.

 

People are still reading Einstein, how old hat is that.

 

A young (?) person suddenly coming upon mid-expanding and thought-provoking ideas should be encouraged to continue.

[Sayonara]

A bit unhelpful and unbecoming, methinks. Would you make that comment to someone who said: "Hey, I've just come accross and read the works of Charles Darwin, such great insights and food for thought".

Yes, yes I would. In exactly the same gentle and jocular fashion.

 

Surely the publication date of a book is by itself no relevance to the ideas presented.

Nobody said it is. Get a grip Gcol.

 

Jonas, I am going to assume that you have an about average sense of humour. But if you indeed have a void where it should be and my gentle ribbing made you cry, sorry. Have a tissue []

[pioneer]

One way to look at the change in the western God concept, over time, from Old to New Testament is that humans were also changing with time. The parent of a child does not use the exact same approach with their children regardless of maturity and age. The approach becomes modified as the child is better able to benefit by a more advanced approach. A rational approach will not work with the "terrible twos." One may have to be stricter. By about 5-6 , one can alter that approach if the earlier lessons stuck. If not one may need to continue intimidation.

 

The way I look at it, human civilization began less than 10,000 years ago. So the humans, relative to modern cultural maturity, began sort of like semi-animal. They were in their terrible two's in the beginning, but with the bodies of adult humans. Picture a full size adult male with a club acting like a spoiled two year old. A simple time out may not help. One may have to rely on stronger measures or else one of his temper tantrums could cause a lot of harm. Dad had to come on strong to intimidate him. As human minds caught up with their bodies, the God approach was able to soften. The New Testament sort of assume higher maturity.

 

One mistake most people make is assuming the people of 8000 years ago were us with funny clothes. They were losing instinct to culture but still using many of those strong impulses but within the confines of culture. The result were aberrations of the former natural instincts. It may have been more like the criminally insane with tough measures needed. Try to reason with a serial killer and see if that works. One may have to go old school even if it seems regressive. The bible was written by those who were more mature, than their contemporaries. This may be misinterpreted to mean everyone had that level of maturity. They were the concerned citizen trying to deal with the pimps, thugs and druggies. He may have to threaten to cal the police to make them get control.

 

For example, if you could teleport back to the year 1000AD, and tried to use science and reason to explain the earth is round, one would be in for a rude awakening. The people would get all freaked out and one would be subjected to cruel punishment leading to death. One may have to remember to bring a cigarette lighter to intimidate them with their own superstitions to get fair treatment. God had to use what worked to get the irrational humans in get along so they could keep evolving. As they evolved the approach was able to change.

 

Ironically, the approach has not changed in 2000 years, but often appears to go back to Old Testament punishment and intimidation. This may reflect the maturity level of humans doesn't seem to ever advance where a new and improved approach is able to work. We are sort of stuck at the adolescence of humanity, with the ego still evolving through their rebellion against the parents, trying to act like an adult, while wanting all the impulse benefits of being a child. Once that is superseded, the next set of lessons will appear that tries to the address the 21 year old version of humanity.

[thedarkshade]

It wasn't a direct insult. Such a statement would be incosistant with Dawkins' position anyway.

Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.

[iNow]

You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.

No you don't.

 

I don't have any imaginary friends, and I don't have to respect someones belief, regardless of how important that belief is to them personally.

 

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?

[ydoaPs]

Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked.

Go back and look at the context.

 

You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.

 

Why? Why are religious beliefs to be automatically respected? Why must we automatically respect the belief in a Jewish zombie who is somehow his own father but not respect the belief that charge is some ambiguous "twist"?

[pioneer]

In many ways, atheism is a virus religion. It is a religion in the sense that it always makes mention of God, even if this is done in a negative way. Remove the words God and religion and there is little to talk about. Where it is like a virus, it needs a host to appear to come alive, which in this case is religion. The goal, like any bad virus, is to take over the cell leading its destruction. What it fails to realize, if it got rid of religion, or its host cell, then the virus will go into dormancy. It will not know how to differentiate itself without having healthy religion to use as a host so give it a sense of life.

 

Let us try this to prove the point. Define the atheist position without any type of contrast or mention of religion or God.

[ydoaPs]

Let us try this to prove the point. Define the atheist position without any type of contrast or mention of religion or God.

 

There is no atheist position.

[iNow]

In many ways, atheism is a virus religion.

There's another member here who likes to say it this way, and I find it both very poignant and telling...

 

If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

 

 

Why does this get it's own special word? We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology like a-astrologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in numerology like a-numerologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in panspermia like a-panspermists...

 

Maybe... just maybe there is such a word as pertains to theism since they cannot defend their beliefs with evidence, and so it's become easier to attack those who oppose it by type casting them into a non-descriptive group using a label which has been for years marketed with negative connotation.

[CDarwin]

Why am I supposed to accept someone's belief in god, when I don't simultaneously accept someone's belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns?

 

But would you respect a belief in naturally endowed human rights (the basis of American government)? Where does that come from other than, for lack of a better term, faith?

[iNow]

But would you respect a belief in naturally endowed human rights (the basis of American government)? Where does that come from other than, for lack of a better term, faith?

 

Ethics (and/or social morality), and it's not specific to human life (IMO).

 

 

 

 

 

Why does this get it's own special word? We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology like a-astrologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in numerology like a-numerologists. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in panspermia like a-panspermists...

 

Maybe... just maybe there is such a word as pertains to theism since they cannot defend their beliefs with evidence, and so it's become easier to attack those who oppose it by type casting them into a non-descriptive group using a label which has been for years marketed with negative connotation.

 

I can't believe I forgot to mention the stork theory of childbirth!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM

 

Enjoy.

[Realitycheck]

Let us try this to prove the point. Define the atheist position without any type of contrast or mention of religion or God.

 

Atheism is belief in a reality without figurative constructs.

[dichotomy]

What it fails to realize, if it got rid of religion, or its host cell, then the virus will go into dormancy. It will not know how to differentiate itself without having healthy religion to use as a host so give it a sense of life.

 

If you are saying that everything is a two edged sword, then of course, without evil we wouldn’t know what good was. Without fantasy we wouldn’t know what reality is. Without deities we wouldn’t know what an atheist was. The fact is, there are two sides to everything, in order for us to more fully comprehend what the other side might be.

 

I don’t think it would be much of an atheist tragedy if the deity belief was successfully extinguished. Although it may be a tragedy for a fairy tales writer.

 

Ethics (and/or social morality), and it's not specific to human life (IMO).

 

I agree, herds, packs, flocks etc, wouldn't exist if some form of ethic wasn't being unconsciously practiced.

 

As human minds caught up with their bodies, the God approach was able to soften. The New Testament sort of assume higher maturity.

 

I do agree that primitive minds had to start somewhere with a unifying code of morality, and religion filled that need, and that obviously millions/billions still need the deity belief thing as a sort of security blanket. Hopefully, eventually, that illusory security blanket can be let go of for plain old common ethics, once the mind is ready.

[Glider]

Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.

I accept it's a big deal for believers, but the bigness of the deal to the individual is no grounds for respecting a belief.

 

Where else, in daily life, are the beliefs of others respected? Look at these forums. People's beliefs are pulled apart on a daily basis here. It happens in schools and Universities. In research it happens all the time (it's called peer review). The beliefs may be a big deal to the holders of the beliefs, but that never stopped anybody.

 

It is unreasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect an unreasonable belief. You can only respect the right of another to hold it. Should they choose to present it, it is absolutely reasonable to question it.

 

The threat of physical attack is no grounds for respecting a belief and I would suggest that the concept of 'respect my belief or I'll attack you' is, in itself, not a respectable position.

[pioneer]

I am going to look at this from a totally different angle. Whether one believes in God, religion, or not, one has to admit God and religion has been a part of human history longer than the modern rational mind. In other areas of history, historical preservation is considered important. We don't go into Rome and bulldoze all the old dusty artifacts to make room for high rise condo developments, simply because these designs are only considered precursory, relative to modern design. We try to preserve this past, as part of our living history, so humans can see where we came from, giving us a better sense of where we are going.

 

If we bulldoze religion, to make room room for high rise intellectual condos what begins to happen is we go retro and call it cutting edge because there is no historical context to see we are on recycle. For example, the religious heaven was never considered part of our physical reality. In physics, we now have n-dimensional space, and alternate universes, between 4-D space or between tangible reality. This was already done by religion, but since the connection is broken it looks like this is brand new. But within the historical context, we have simply recycled the old, and use modern science to explain an intuition that has been around for 1000's of years. It gives a modern explanation for what science would like to call superstition. So what it is? Is this physics, just recycled superstition or it is starting to offer proof for what religion has intuitively sensed for thousands of years?

[Realitycheck]

Religion attempts to put a supernatural rubberstamp on law and fails every time when prodded for evidence. Why can't man govern himself? There is no such thing as superstition. It's a figment of the imagination. I could do an entire thread on all of the different types of superstition used or implied in religion, since there is no cold hard evidence..

[iNow]

This idea of "where would morality come from if there were no religion" is thoroughly null and void, and it's been an excuse for worse evil than it has ever ameliorated.

 

Got 10 minutes? This approach is one of the best I've seen (specifically Christophers comments roughly 4 minutes in, after Peters comments):

 

 

 

 

And later in that same debate, another powerful point along the same lines as the above:

 

 

 

 

For there to be a fair test about this, you'd have to do the following, and no one I've ever debated with has even tried it, so you be the first.

 

You find me a state or society that threw off theocracy and threw off religion and said, "We adopt the teachings of Lucretius, and Democratus, and Galileo, and Spinoza, and Darwin, and Russell, and Jefferson, and Thomas Payne... and we make THOSE what we teach our children... We make THAT scientific and rational humanism our teaching."

 

You find me that state that did that and fell into tyranny, and slavery, and famine, and torture, and THEN we'll be on a level playing field. As it is, all you've done is show that the idea of worship, and the idea of credulity, and the idea of servility and slavery to religion is a bad idea in the first place.

[thedarkshade]

iNow, YDOAPS, respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't mean believing in what they believe too, it just means don't argue about it, just let it blindly believe, no matter what it is.

 

Suppose I meet a priest, a very devoted one, and he starts telling me stuff about how the world was created, how everything came into existence just because some supernatural being wanted it to be that way and stuff like that. That of course is completely on the other side of the road of what I think, but it's impolite and meaningless to reply to him "That's bullshit! There's no such thing as a God and you guys have all been brainwashed and don't even know what you're talking about." That is what I think but I don't necessarily need to tell this to him. I can disagree and not accept his point of views, but I cannot deny to him what he believes, so I'll just respect his beliefs.

 

I know that believers do not really respect our point of views, and don't even try to understand why we deny such thing as "supernatural creator", but this does not mean that we should disrespect them too. And this respect that we are giving to them is not because they are religious and believe in God, but because of our human and friendly side.

[Mr Skeptic]

Why can't man govern himself?

 

Well, that's what we've been doing. Not that we're particularly good at that yet.

 

There is no such thing as superstition. It's a figment of the imagination. I could do an entire thread on all of the different types of superstition used or implied in religion, since there is no cold hard evidence..

 

My grandma is proof that superstition exists. She reads the horoscope!

 

Oh, and I do think that some of the superstitious beliefs have a tiny bit of truth to them too. If you walk under a ladder, you might be unlucky enough to have some paint or tool fall on your head. If you find a four leaf clover, you are lucky enough to have good eyesight and/or perseverance.

[thedarkshade]

Oh, and I do think that some of the superstitious beliefs have a tiny bit of truth to them too. If you walk under a ladder, you might be unlucky enough to have some paint or tool fall on your head.

Oh pleaaseeeeee! What if there is no one at the top of the ladder?! This is so naive!

[Phi for All]

iNow, YDOAPS, respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't mean believing in what they believe too, it just means don't argue about it, just let it blindly believe, no matter what it is.

I don't think you have this quite right. Tolerance is what you're looking for, not respect. You can respect a person's right to believe what they want without respecting what they believe. You can be tolerant of their specific belief and deal with them in ways that don't engage their belief system. But you can't ask me to respect someone's beliefs when I don't agree with them.

 

If I believe that Zeus granted me dominion over all human females, are you going to respect my beliefs enough to just let me blindly believe, no matter what it is, and give me your sister?