The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[YT2095]

 

All of the positive aspects of religion come from the community effect, not from faith.

 

Wow, you are So wrong there!

if I belong to Any "Community" it is a Science based one and a Gardening Based one, I belong to no `Religious Groups`, nor in fact do I Know anyone in real-time that is a Christian (nevermind even Talking to them or having a "Community"!).

I`m quite Alone I assure you, and all I have is Faith!

 

and yet there are positive aspects still

 

how can this be?

[iNow]

Wow, you are So wrong there!

if I belong to Any "Community" it is a Science based one and a Gardening Based one, I belong to no `Religious Groups`, nor in fact do I Know anyone in real-time that is a Christian (nevermind even Talking to them or having a "Community"!).

I`m quite Alone I assure you, and all I have is Faith!

 

and yet there are positive aspects still

Be specific, then.

 

What benefits do you accrue as a direct result of your faith which could not be achieved by someone without faith?

 

Regardless of any benefits you list, I'm quite confident that you will struggle to prove an assertion that those benefits are the result of faith alone, and not other auxiliary factors which would apply equally even to those without faith.

[PhDP]

... but is this really relevant ?

 

You could benefit from the belief in eternal life, it doesn't make it true.

[ydoaPs]

I really dislike people who try to ram their belief in my throat (something like some Jehova's witnesses try to do when they push their feet in the opening of the door), but the same is true with the way some people over here (only some!) are trying to ram their atheist view into the throat of everybody else without any respect.

 

Examples?

[john5746]

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

 

I'm in the process of reading it finally. I am in the choir of course, so I am enjoying, but I have heard most of it already through speeches, arguments, etc.

[Royston]

I was only pulling your leg thedarkshade, hence the smiley.

 

Why would that be? Would you like to share those particular comments and tell us why do you think are embarrassing to read? Because I really want to know if Dawkins screw anything up in there (which I doubt) or was it you that screw it up by misunderstanding it!

 

It's not so much the arguments, i.e we're entitled to our opinion, it's the terminology used such as 'leprechaun farts and unicorns' et.c I used such comparisons when I was given my Gideon’s Bible when I was 10, and tossed it in the bin after reading it...I like to think I've grown up since then.

 

What I find really embarrassing, is that on here, of all places, people are taking exception to others beliefs, when it has no consequence on the people questioning it. Now, is YT rallying for Creationism to be taught in science class...no. Is Severian writing journals claiming the Higgs Boson, is God's index finger...no. So why are certain people so inclined to question these irrelevances on 'here' not on a YEC forum for instance, where people are trying to mix their fervent beliefs with science.

 

There was a very similar discussion a while ago, but I'll repeat my point.

 

I had the same experience with a very good friend. We were just chatting one day, and I brought up evolution...and that was it, we got into a full blown argument, and nearly fell out. We ignored the 15 odd years we'd know each other, the passions we shared and hobbies we collaborated on, over nothing. I didn't even realize he had different beliefs to my own, despite knowing the guy for so long...why, because he doesn't force his beliefs on others, he didn't even mention his beliefs for all the 15 years I knew him, because it has nothing to do with our friendship.

 

I can make the same comparison with Paranoia, on many aspects we share the same views, we both have a passion for writing music, and have PM'd each other a number of times, and it's been very cordial. But that one recent thread (profit from supernatural claims) I was close to putting him on my ignore list, which is just really immature, over one, which turned out to be, misunderstanding. We both misrepresented each other, AFAICS and it got heated, and let’s face it, one misunderstanding is waaaay more important than everything else we have in common.

 

You have the same problems with the many denominations in religion, it could be one slightly different interpretation of a holy text, and two denominations which are almost indistinguishable can take exception to each other, over a formality, it's daft. You can go back to the 11th century, and even then there's examples where two denominations, celebrated their commonalities, just look at the famous minaret at Jam, if they can find common ground, then I would like to think so-called rational thinkers can do it in the 21st century on a science forum, which is why I think such discussions have no place on here.

 

It's a case of taking exception, with the wrong people, and the wrong aspects of belief.

[ParanoiA]

I can make the same comparison with Paranoia, on many aspects we share the same views, we both have a passion for writing music, and have PM'd each other a number of times, and it's been very cordial. But that one recent thread (profit from supernatural claims) I was close to putting him on my ignore list, which is just really immature, over one, which turned out to be, misunderstanding. We both misrepresented each other, AFAICS and it got heated, and let’s face it, one misunderstanding is waaaay more important than everything else we have in common.

 

I'm glad you didn't follow through ignoring me. We should be able to argue and debate to long lengths, with no subject too precious to tackle, no point too controversial to make - and we should never allow any of that to matter to our acquaintanceship at all. You should know you have my highest respect, despite my immature appeals to insult in that thread. You are a good and decent man and you didn't deserve that.

 

Now, pardon me while I cut myself a piece of humble pie. You never outgrow it.

[thedarkshade]

It's not so much the arguments, i.e we're entitled to our opinion, it's the terminology used such as 'leprechaun farts and unicorns' et.c

Yes indeed, I agree.

 

I had the same experience with a very good friend. We were just chatting one day, and I brought up evolution...and that was it, we got into a full blown argument, and nearly fell out. We ignored the 15 odd years we'd know each other, the passions we shared and hobbies we collaborated on, over nothing. I didn't even realize he had different beliefs to my own, despite knowing the guy for so long...why, because he doesn't force his beliefs on others, he didn't even mention his beliefs for all the 15 years I knew him, because it has nothing to do with our friendship.

I'm sorry to hear that, and I've had such experience too. I have even been physically attacked, even from my friends (should I call them so?), when it came to the issue of God. There is this dogma living among then that you just have to believe there is God and deny evolution, not matter what proofs are there that contradict this point of view. Just believe and don't ask questions. How could a rational person do a thing like that? It is hard to understand how people have such strong belief in things that have no rational base at all, and all that backs up their beliefs is mystery and ignorance. It is indeed "A God of Gaps" like Dawkins puts it.

[Eadaoin]

I have never read it but it sounds really intresting so I might have a go for it!!!!

[lucaspa]

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?

 

Because you can falsify the second but not the first.

 

Look, I'm going to take a different tack here in looking at Dawkins and the book. My position is that The God Delusion is very bad science. Dawkins misuses and misrepresents science. And that is my stance with your post.

 

In science, we are tolerant of hypotheses that are not falsified. We mustrespect them and the possibility that they are true unless and until we can show that they are false. If we don't, then we stifle scientific progress and science itself.

 

Dawkins (and hopefully everyone here) knows there is no peer-reviewed scientific paper showing the Judeo-Christian deity in particular or deity in general to be false. That Dawkins chooses to believe that deity in any form does not exist is fine. For him to try to tell us that this is a conclusion of science is wrong.

 

When we read creationist literature we are very critical when they try to portray belief in the existence of deity as a conclusion of science. Rightly so. However, we also must apply that same high level of critical scrutiny when we read literature that portrays belief that deity does not exist is a conclusion of science. If not, then we are not acting as scientists but doing the same thing creationists are doing: misusing science to force our particular beliefs down other people's throats.

 

What benefits do you accrue as a direct result of your faith which could not be achieved by someone without faith?

 

Regardless of any benefits you list, I'm quite confident that you will struggle to prove an assertion that those benefits are the result of faith alone, and not other auxiliary factors which would apply equally even to those without faith.

 

I don't know whether this is true of YT, but many theists claim to have personal relationship with deity. Benefits they get out of that relationship are advice and assistance with their life that are not available to people without such experiences or relationships:

 

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily to those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there is an astounding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion. ...

"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our coalling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.

"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life./ 'The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent.' 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' ''The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251.

 

Now, if you have not had such experience -- and all your posts indicate you have not -- then you are going to doubt the accuracy of these experiences. That's understandable. You are going to say that these experiences could be caused by something else. Perhaps. Although you are not going to be able to demonstrate this is the case. I put this up not to convince you to be a theist, but to answer your question: what does faith give that can't be obtained anywhere else? The answer is: leadership and help.

 

Can people get by without this leadership and help? Yes. Many do. You do.

[iNow]

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?

Because you can falsify the second but not the first.

I have no idea where, how, or why you are drawing this distiction. How on Thor's green Earth can you falsify that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns, and not apply that same technique to the god concept?

 

 

 

Now, if you have not had such experience -- and all your posts indicate you have not -- then you are going to doubt the accuracy of these experiences.

Let's be clear. I do NOT doubt the sincerity in those words. I do not doubt that these people believe their comments fully. What I do doubt is that they have any basis in reality and are anything more than hallucinations and anecdote.

 

I could say ALL of those same things, repeat EACH of those sentences, but instead insert the word "unicorn." However, if I did that, you would each look at me like I was a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

However, when the supernatural dictator is inserted into those sentences in place of "unicorn," I'm expected to somehow treat it with more basis in reality, as if it's somehow more descriptive of the universe in which we live, despite the fact that it stands on exactly the same ground as leprechauns and unicorns?

 

The difference is that everyone accepts that the unicorns and leprechauns are ridiculous, but refuse to apply that same acceptance to the god concept.

 

 

Why is it accepted easily as childishness or mental illness when we look at those sentences you quoted above, but replace the subject of them with Care Bears or Power Rangers or the flying spaghetti monster? Yet, if we leave the subject as god, then it's suddenly perfectly valid, and further suggested that those who disagree or challenge the validity of the god concept are somehow "missing" something in their lives? It's a self-reinforcing, societally protected delusion, and it's unfortunate that it's held sway for so long.

 

 

One of the main points I'm trying to convey is the equivalence of purple unicorns and god, since both are products of the insecure human imagination. I'd welcome the chance to be proven wrong with something more than anecdote. Those anecdotes could equally well be applied to the assertion that 2 foot tall Kenders named Tasslehoff Burrfoot are controlling the global petroleum infrastructure, which is why they are not accepted as valid arguments and hold very little weight in a discussion such as this.

 

 

That's understandable. You are going to say that these experiences could be caused by something else. Perhaps. Although you are not going to be able to demonstrate this is the case.

This is false. Countless studies using fMRI, PET, CAT, and SqUID have illuminated that activation in very specific brain regions account for ALL of these experiences and phenomenon. I can show you how researchers can stimulate brain regions using electricity and/or magnetism and achieve the EXACT same experiences reported by those who claim connection with god.

 

Does this mean that the researchers are god, since they are the one's creating the experience? No. Does it mean that they are "inserting" faith into the study participant? No, it means that there is an explanation for the experiences which is more robust, replicable, measurable, and applicable than simply asserting that it is the result of "faith."

 

 

what does faith give that can't be obtained anywhere else? The answer is: leadership and help.

I think we can all pretty well reject that assertion flat on it's face. Of course we can obtain leadership and help outside of faith. I would go so far as to say that even those who hold some personal faith and who feel this connection with some god would agree with me on this one.

 

 

Can people get by without this leadership and help? Yes. Many do. You do.

You've assumed, but not established, that there is a source of leadership and help in faith alone, and now you are going on to suggest that people who don't have faith can simply "get by" without it.

 

Lots of people "get by" without a belief in leprechauns and unicorns also. However, you assume a priori that a belief in leprechauns and unicorns is somehow important (oops, I meant a belief in god or an acceptance of faith).

 

Your position rests on exactly the same foundation and has exactly the same merit as a belief that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

[Mr Skeptic]

I could say ALL of those same things, repeat EACH of those sentences, but instead insert the word "unicorn." However, if I did that, you would each look at me like I was a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[...]

One of the main points I'm trying to convey is the equivalence of purple unicorns and god, since both are products of the insecure human imagination. [...]

 

Well, for one thing, unicorns are horselike one-horned creatures that have a few magical properties but can be hunted, etc. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (where omni means very but not necessarily all) and cares about people's personal lives. Hence, gods would be able to do things that unicorns can't, and anyone who says different would rightly be called a fool. Given the premise that unicorns and gods exist, they would be different entities with different abilities.

 

What you're saying makes just as much sense as me saying that it would make just as much sense to say that a tree was destroyed by a chihuahua's fart instead of by lightning, in as much as they are both real things.

 

--

 

I do agree with you that purple unicorn farts are just as infalsifiable as god though.

[Glider]

...what does faith give that can't be obtained anywhere else? The answer is: leadership and help.

I'm beginning to fully understand the term 'flock'.

[iNow]

Well, for one thing, unicorns are horselike one-horned creatures that have a few magical properties but can be hunted, etc. God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (where omni means very but not necessarily all) and cares about people's personal lives. Hence, gods would be able to do things that unicorns can't, and anyone who says different would rightly be called a fool.

I disagree completely. Both are imaginary, and have yet to be proven otherwise, so your argument is simply that "one imaginary entity has been posited with greater power, and hence is better than another imaginary entity."

 

I'm not arguing that "one imaginary entity is better than another."

I'm arguing that they are both imaginary, and hence any "within group" differences are meaningless, arbitrary, and insignificant.

 

You have no foundation on which to stand when you simply say, "Because I've decided god is more powerful than unicorns, then THIS, THAT, and the OTHER."

 

 

...and this is why books like the God Delusion are so good and so important. They generate dialogs such as these where we can all share our positions and logically refute holes in the positions of others.

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, when you get around to proving that gods and unicorns don't exist, let me know. In any case, in saying that a unicorn (which might not exists) can do stuff like create the earth, you are making two mistakes: invalid argument, in that unicorns as described in folklore do not have such power and so would be unable to do something like create the earth, and secondly, a potentially invalid premise. Whereas someone who says an omnipotent being created the earth has a valid argument, even if is not sound (the premise might not be true).

[iNow]

Again, the powers attributed to imaginary beings are arbitrary.

They are both imaginary.

 

 

Would you feel better if I said fire breathing dragons, trolls, or trees that could uproot and walk across vast distances? Sounds a little "Lord of the Rings" to me, but okay.

[Mr Skeptic]

Again, the powers attributed to imaginary beings are arbitrary.

 

No... If you invent your own imaginary being, then you can give it arbitrary powers. However, the imaginary beings that were already invented have more specific powers. If you go around saying that unicorns are omnipotent, then you shouldn't wonder why people think you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[iNow]

No... If you invent your own imaginary being, then you can give it arbitrary powers. However, the imaginary beings that were already invented have more specific powers. If you go around saying that unicorns are omnipotent, then you shouldn't wonder why people think you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

Okay. I can see you are missing my point, but I won't push the matter.

 

 

What if I called it "Thor" or "Apollo?"

[john5746]

No... If you invent your own imaginary being, then you can give it arbitrary powers. However, the imaginary beings that were already invented have more specific powers. If you go around saying that unicorns are omnipotent, then you shouldn't wonder why people think you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

?? Are you referring to making fictional claims on a fictional character or fictional claims on a real character? If I claim that I saw a unicorn in my backyard I would expect people to laugh. Forget the details.

 

 

 

What you're saying makes just as much sense as me saying that it would make just as much sense to say that a tree was destroyed by a chihuahua's fart instead of by lightning, in as much as they are both real things.

 

A better analogy would be lightning or a dog fart creating a table from a tree. There is evidence of lightning destroying trees, so that is much more probable than a dog fart doing it.

[Mr Skeptic]

?? Are you referring to making fictional claims on a fictional character or fictional claims on a real character? If I claim that I saw a unicorn in my backyard I would expect people to laugh. Forget the details.

 

True enough. But iNow is claiming that god and unicorn are interchangeable because they are both imaginary. I am simply pointing out to him that they are different, even if neither of them exists.

 

What you're saying makes just as much sense as me saying that it would make just as much sense to say that a tree was destroyed by a chihuahua's fart instead of by lightning, in as much as they are both real things.

A better analogy would be lightning or a dog fart creating a table from a tree. There is evidence of lightning destroying trees, so that is much more probable than a dog fart doing it.

 

No, my analogy is correct. A creator god is by definition able to create whatever he is supposed to have created, whereas a unicorn...isn't. So claiming a unicorn created the world involves both bad logic and bad premise, whereas claiming god created the world involves only a bad premise. In a universe in which gods and unicorns existed, it would still be wrong to say that a unicorn created the world.

 

---

 

Anyhow, I feel I have explained that well enough, won't continue on this subject.

[Phi for All]

A creator god is by definition able to create whatever he is supposed to have created, whereas a unicorn...isn't. So claiming a unicorn created the world involves both bad logic and bad premise, whereas claiming god created the world involves only a bad premise. In a universe in which gods and unicorns existed, it would still be wrong to say that a unicorn created the world.

This is well put and I agree.

 

And don't forget that unicorns sometimes were supposed to appear to virginal human females, whereas after a certain point, God stopped appearing to living humans and told everyone that faith was the new burning bush. I don't know of any mythical creatures that are THAT much outside the observable, rational world.

[ydoaPs]

What about invisible creator unicorns?

[ParanoiA]

I can't believe Mr Skeptic goes misunderstood here. I think it's an important point because it helps to further define the scientific method as well.

 

God, as he's been defined, cannot be proven not to exist. He's been defined in such a way that none of our detection methods are sufficient to test one way or the other. Unicorns, as they've been defined, may be proven not to exist. That is, our detection tools might be adequate to search the entire earth and prove that they don't exist. However, as soon as someone says "Ah, but the Unicorns I worship live in another dimension" - then, again, we cannot prove they don't exist.

 

Make believe things are not vehemently disprovable by science, rather only certain ones can be proven or disproven, dependent entirely on how they are defined. Once you make something up that transcends the limitations of current scientific mechanics, then it's just as plausible as any other similar "fabrication".

 

Mr. Skeptic is having some fun here demonstrating how powerless the scientific method is for disproving/proving what most of us believe are fairy tales. He's showing the difference between an "invalid argument" and a "bad premise", to use his words. I love it.

[Graviphoton]

You know, people who try to use science against any godlike, incorporeal, impervious being, fitting any attribute like that of, any religious type, is in fact a flawful move. Any quantum statician, or any general physicist will tell you that at the very beginning of time, there was quantum rules. If this istrue, it means something rather extraordinary.

 

This means, the the universe, dispite the fact the universe began at the size of a proton *, it began in a unique state, even though it had no unique radius, or energy. It had to choose from an infinite amount of possible states.

 

* This is simply to keep distance from the Anthropic Principle, and using hard quantum facts

 

This means, even the most improbable case of anything, can and quite possibly collapse into existence, due to the infinite distribution of all possible cases of existence, popped by the wave function. This means that something as unique as a cosmological superintelligence to exist.

 

Alone, we can now speculate the things i tried to ignore. The Anthropic Principle. Something which i have personally ignored for many years, until the turn of the most recent.

 

It turns out for me, that reality can be based upon a gravitational equation, as stated by the Einstinean Unified Theory of Everythings' conclusions, but instead, there is something unique about the observer.

 

I cannot stress enough how many scientists know this fact, but it harder for the public to recognize these facts, with so little publishing these facts, and also due to the very little devoted attention by physicists.

 

* This is simply to keep distance from the Anthropic Principle, and using hard quantum facts

[iNow]

I can't believe Mr Skeptic goes misunderstood here.

Oh, I QUITE understand his point. It's still completely arbitrary and nonrelevant though. I like Mr Skeptic, and I've enjoyed MANY of his posts. He's just wrong here, because he continues to posit some "extra" importance to one imaginary friend over another, and further expects the rest of us to accept that as somehow significant.