The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

[Glider]

Dawkins (as this thread is about his book) talks about the probability of God's existence. He says that one of the more common arguments presented to him is that 'you cannot disprove God's existence'. He says this is often presented as if it were a sort of fait accompli and the implication seems to be that if the non-existence of God cannot be proved, then the probablity of his existence must somehow balance itself out to 50:50.

 

This, according to Dawkins is patently absurd. He makes the point that the probability of the existence of a creator God (as presented in Genesis) is reduced every time a new piece of plentological or geological of biological evidence that contradicts the premise of the creation is produced. With the current bulk of such evidence, the probaibility of God is incalculably miniscule (whilst still not impossible).

 

Another point he makes is that in order to create something as complex as the Universe, God must be even more complex. This does not bolster the probability of his existence.

[Vexer]

With regard to the OP;

 

I’ve read it, and my immediate response, is, “so what?”

 

There’s nothing in it that I hadn’t already thought (debated), by the time I was 20.

 

On the other hand, not many have been allowed to say, what I thought, when I was twenty.

 

 

But you should read the standard Christian rebuttal, “The Dawkins Delusion” for comparison.

[thedarkshade]

On the other hand, not many have been allowed to say, what I thought, when I was twenty.

Well then a big merit of Dawkins is that he just spitted out all he had to say, without caring what did particular people think of it.

[stingray78]

Pioneer GOOD. Someone with some brains around a science forum. That's strange jejeje. Here they just know 2+2=5.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, Pioneer's posts are always a must read.

[ydoaPs]

But you should read the standard Christian rebuttal, “The Dawkins Delusion” for comparison.

 

Is it any better than the usual Christian rubbish that comes out after a new book with which they do not agree is printed?

[john5746]

Dawkins (as this thread is about his book) talks about the probability of God's existence. He says that one of the more common arguments presented to him is that 'you cannot disprove God's existence'. He says this is often presented as if it were a sort of fait accompli and the implication seems to be that if the non-existence of God cannot be proved, then the probablity of his existence must somehow balance itself out to 50:50.

 

This, according to Dawkins is patently absurd. He makes the point that the probability of the existence of a creator God (as presented in Genesis) is reduced every time a new piece of plentological or geological of biological evidence that contradicts the premise of the creation is produced. With the current bulk of such evidence, the probaibility of God is incalculably miniscule (whilst still not impossible).

 

One thing I see happen in discussions or debates about god is the ebb and flow between a specific and abstract god. To me, a universe set in motion(not designed down to the last grain of sand) by a god is just as likely as a multi-verse. Neither are 50:50 propositions, just one of many ideas. I can respect these abstract beliefs, since there is no specific claim that would override any evidence one way or the other. If someone then starts claiming the bermuda triangle is a junction to a multi-verse and our health can be improved by linking to our multi-selves and that we must meditate to this concept or face eternal torture, then I don't respect the belief. I can still respect the person, it would just be another quirk about them. If they then want to make decisions about my society based on those beliefs, then I am ready to fight those decisions.

[Royston]

One thing I see happen in discussions or debates about god is the ebb and flow between a specific and abstract god. To me, a universe set in motion(not designed down to the last grain of sand) by a god is just as likely as a multi-verse. Neither are 50:50 propositions, just one of many ideas. I can respect these abstract beliefs, since there is no specific claim that would override any evidence one way or the other.

 

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

 

The concept, and definition of God has been blurred through many interpretations, and I feel it's unfair to attack early interpretations by using scientific argument, as those early interpretations were rationalizations of God within the knowledge they had at the time.

 

The point being, you can't rationalize or debate a concept such as God, because nobody can truly agree on an absolute definition of God, whatever God is, it's beyond our understanding. All we have are our own personal interpretations of concepts that lie beyond science, and both sides of this debate like to cherry pick which interpretation can be attacked. The whole argument is absurd to me, personally, and why it generally ends up with several pages of debate and no precise conclusion.

[pioneer]

I am going to play the devil's advocate and turn this around. Infinity is an important concept in math and science. Yet, Science can not prove infinity exists, except in a self serving way. It is an abstract concept that satisfies limiting conditions in math. I have no problem with this. But this does not mean it is real or provable. Let us apply the principles of science to infinity to make sure it is real. We may not be able to measure it. Let us try another way. Aren't the odds of infinity something like zero. Does that mean we may find an unicorn before we can prove infinity? Does it also mean we need to have have faith that it exists? Am I suppose to just blindly take your word without any scientific proof? This is superstition. To make sure science is not using any myth, maybe we need to purge it from science, since it has all the makings of a science faith concept.

 

If we critically analyze infinity, with the same science principles used for God, it doesn't do too well, either. It comes down to faith and tradition. But proof may not matter to the atheists. What that tells me, it is not about the philosophy of science, it is religious. The atheist religion may want to keep their impossible to prove, but nobody can have theirs. If we get rid of infinity, or call it a religious concept, that can't be proven, there are many things we won't be able to do in math. Without the religious concept math and science will suffer. I have no problem with this religious concept that is so important to math. I sort of like it.

[PhDP]

Bogus.

 

Negative numbers don't exist.

 

Complex numbers don't exist.

 

...same thing goes for infinity, it's just an abstraction.

 

And atheism is not a religion.

[iNow]

If we critically analyze infinity, with the same science principles used for God, it doesn't do too well, either. It comes down to faith and tradition. But proof may not matter to the atheists. What that tells me, it is not about the philosophy of science, it is religious.

You see, that's what happens when one starts with a false premise. Their conclusions are also false.

 

 

The atheist religion may want to keep their impossible to prove, but nobody can have theirs.

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. Atheism is no more of a centralized grouping of principles or ideologies than a lack of belief in numerology is.

[thedarkshade]

If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. Atheism is no more of a centralized grouping of principles or ideologies than a lack of belief in numerology is.

Well not religion in the conventional meaning. But if by religion one means the order that exists in organic and inorganic world, the very elegant structure of the world, in that sense I am religious too. But nothing to do with any kind of supernatural being.

[YT2095]

what fascinates me about all this deeply felt and vigorous argument and debacle is how Perfectly Arbitrary it all is!

 

you may as well be arguing that a Real scientist cannot wear a leather jacket or eat Pizza etc...

 

no one has Ever come up with a single reason I can`t do exactly the same things any other scientist can.

or tell me in any way How it lessens my ability as a scientist?

 

the REAL facts are that it Doesn`t! not in Any way shape or form change a thing!

 

so it `s My turn to ask for some Evidence, show me why I cannot be Both and how it makes me a Lesser scientist as a result.

 

this will do one of 2 things, put an End to all this arbitrary nonsense once and for all, or Point out to those that argue so dogmatically, that they have a Problem and it`s nothing at all to do with religion directly, but something Else.

[thedarkshade]

so it `s My turn to ask for some Evidence, show me why I cannot be Both and how it makes me a Lesser scientist as a result.

Who says it makes you a lesser scientist. No one is saying that just not believing makes you a bit more science-y than you are. In science you are judged by what you are able to do and how good are you at what you do, and completely ignoring your beliefs. Those are personal beliefs and opinions and have nothing to do with a professional science job. No one is saying that religious scientists are bad scientists. Whether you are or not a good scientist is all shown from the results of your scientific work.

[YT2095]

Who says it makes you a lesser scientist. No one is saying that just not believing makes you a bit more science-y than you are. In science you are judged by what you are able to do and how good are you at what you do, and completely ignoring your beliefs. Those are personal beliefs and opinions and have nothing to do with a professional science job. No one is saying that religious scientists are bad scientists. Whether you are or not a good scientist is all shown from the results of your scientific work.

 

so you agree that being a Christian and also a Scientist is indeed an Arbitrary connection.

like wearing a leather jacket or eating Pizza on saturday and being a scientist is an arbitrary in connection?

[ParanoiA]

I don't see how you can be a scientist and NOT eat pizza. I thought you all lived on it cuz you're too busy doing science stuff. So, I'm not sure how arbitrary that is, but point taken nonetheless...

[iNow]

no one has Ever come up with a single reason I can`t do exactly the same things any other scientist can.

or tell me in any way How it lessens my ability as a scientist?

 

the REAL facts are that it Doesn`t!

 

<...>

 

so it `s My turn to ask for some Evidence, show me why I cannot be Both and how it makes me a Lesser scientist as a result.

Can you please point to any single post in this thread which has suggested, stated, or even implied that religious belief decreases your scientific abilities?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm still waiting for you to address this question I posed to you back in post #102.

[YT2095]

I deliberately did NOT answer you based upon this line:

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 switched OFF directly after the bit I Bolded out.

it rendered my posting of ANYTHING in response Moot.

 

as for the rest of your above post, I suggest you read this thread again Carefully (and other like it), as see how many times "Christian" or "Creationist" is used a pejorative and unSCIENTIFIC!

 

Then you will be able to answer your own question

[iNow]

I deliberately did NOT answer you based upon this line:

 

 

I switched OFF directly after the bit I Bolded out.

it rendered my posting of ANYTHING in response Moot.

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad you saw my point.

 

 

as for the rest of your above post, I suggest you read this thread again Carefully (and other like it), as see how many times "Christian" or "Creationist" is used a pejorative and unSCIENTIFIC!

 

Then you will be able to answer your own question

That's equivocating, though YT. It also is a misrepresentation of the true positions being shared.

 

 

To say that religious faith and that religions of various sorts are unscientific IS NOT THE SAME as saying that a religious scientist is a lesser scientist, which is what you appear here to be arguing against.

 

I'll give an example. You're one of the best damned scientists on this site, and you are religious. It would be ignorant of me (and anyone else) to suggest that your religious practice makes you a worse scientist... which is why I have not done that.

 

 

So, I ask again, can you please point to any single post in this thread which has suggested, stated, or even implied that religious belief decreases ones scientific abilities?

 

 

 

I will also say that my arguments against religion and faith are not done in some vein attempt to support my love of science. I've very clearly articulated my reasons for my position, and anyone can read those reasons here for themselves in this very thread.

[Royston]

I will also say that my arguments against religion and faith are not done in some vein attempt to support my love of science. I've very clearly articulated my reasons for my position, and anyone can read those reasons here for themselves in this very thread.

 

The problem is inow, you appear to take exception to somebodies belief, when it has absolutely no consequence on you, or anyone else (see my earlier example.) You are also very dogmatic and vocal about your opinions, which is exactly the kind of behaviour I'd expect from an Arkansas Christian Fundamentalist.

 

You really have the wrong audience here for such discussion, and it is insulting to the people that do have faith on here, I can think of three, who are incredibly good scientisits, who are provoked into responding. You started pushing your opinions on a thread about chemistry desktop backgrounds, of all things. So wtf are you pushing your opinions on them, and not the people who really are a threat ? I just don't understand it personally.

 

I really hate to see it on here, where there's much better things to discuss...that actually go somewhere.

[ParanoiA]

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

 

This seems quite the false premise though. I bolded the words that emphasize the fault. This could just as easily be turned around...what benefits do you accrue as a direct result of your lack of faith which could not be achieved by someone with faith?

 

I realize you asked first, but it's a meaningless question. There may be many things that I can only do with faith in a god, whereas you may not need faith at all to do those same things. This is about personal, subjective strength and belief.

 

I don't believe anyone has suggested that certain benefits require faith, no matter who's trying to access that benefit. (Well, other than benefiting from the belief itself anyway, obviously).

 

Try as you might, iNow, but you're falling in all the same traps I fell into trying demonize "faith", when really organized religion is actually your culprit. Just my opinion, but you seem to insist on them being synonymous.

[iNow]

Well, what IS an organized religion if not a collection of individuals with faith?

 

I cannot show the faults, inconsistencies, and inherent problems in such an approach to a conceptual and ideological organization, so I must present my comments and arguments toward the arbitration of individuals who espouse membership in said organizations and/or mindsets.

 

 

By the way, Snail, thank you for your post. Your soft tone is calming and appreciated, and really struck me on a deep level. With that said, I simply disagree with your suggestion that somebody elses belief "has absolutely no consequence on you, or anyone else."

[Royston]

By the way, Snail, thank you for your post. Your soft tone is calming and appreciated, and really struck me on a deep level.

 

You're welcome, I do have that effect on people. I apologize for getting heated, because that's just being hypocritical.

 

With that said, I simply disagree, with your suggestion that somebody elses belief "has absolutely no consequence on you, or anyone else."

 

No, I said 'when' somebodies belief has no consequence on you or anybody else i.e people who have their beilefs, but have the intelligence to seperate that belief from science, and don't it make their business to force their beliefs on others through dogma, or scaremongering et.c

[gcol]

In the broadest sense, my "faith" is agnosticism. This places no restrictions on the width, breadth and depth of my imagination, and my ability to consider any and all possibilities. I have no artificial brick walls. A belief in anything even remotely supernatural and unprovable must, ultimately, be restrictive. So I see my agnostic faith, perversely, as a personal benefit.

[ParanoiA]

Well' date=' what IS an organized religion if not a collection of individuals with faith?

 

I cannot show the faults, inconsistencies, and inherent problems in such an approach to a conceptual and ideological organization, so I must present my comments and arguments toward the arbitration of individuals who espouse membership in said organizations and/or mindsets.[/quote']

 

I covered this in a previous reply to you in some other thread, can't remember which one now, but I tried to make the point that organized religion doesn't have to be based on unsubstantiated beliefs, rather it can be rooted in evidental truths. Like, say global warming.

 

The culprit, that I believe we seek to demonize, is the surrender of independent thought or critical analysis in favor of pre-written, dogmatic belief systems. Not all organized religion is guilty of this, but all have the potential to motivate you to act, irrationally, without questioning the act. Going along with the group, mindlessly. Any system of beliefs that restricts personal growth, which I believe comes from questioning every single thing you have the capacity to ponder, threatens to contain, or imprison the potential of human kind.

 

Getting a little carried away here. But, this kind of "mind numbed robot" is what is responsible for humans doing the horrible things we read about in our history books. Not the only thing, but one of the things. And while it has traditionally been about god, and similar concepts of faith, it can also be about GW, Animal Rights, Terrorism...etc.

 

Faith is not the issue. Surrender of your mind, is the issue.