Richard Dawkin's God Delusion, I could not read it

[John Cuthber]

OK,

In the book Dbaiba says that

"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

 

I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book.

I'd like Dbaiba to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this.

 

In the mean time I will answer his question.

He asked "Just tell me this : is science qualified to say anything about metaphysics, about morality and ethics ,about God , about the existence or the non-existence of God ,about the. revelation....?"

 

And I think the answer is quite clearly yes, for two reasons.

Firstly I don't see any reason why science can not apply to any aspect of life.

Secondly, the scientific study of "right and wrong" i.e. ethics is well established and has been for sometime- it is (among other things) an aspect of game theory.

If one considers "good" (as opposed to "evil") to mean the greatest common benefit or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you then Dawkins is able, and qualified to speak on the subject.

 

I don't think that one needs any particular qualifications to speak of morality.

It is, much like ethics, the classification of intent or action into two classes- good and bad.

If Dawkins feels that, for example, offering your wife and underage daughter (rather than his guests) as a sexual partner to a group of strangers is imorral then he's entitled to make that point as he sees fit.

The fact that the Bible doesn't agree with him is(if anyone's) the Bible's problem.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s=O&utm_expid=13466113-5&search=Genesis%2019&version=KJV&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fs%3DO%26search%3DGenesis%252020%26version%3DKJV

If people say that they get their morality from a book, but he shows that their morality is not the same as that shown by the book, then he has- by use of evidence- shown them to be wrong.

That's legitimately part of science.

 

 

In the same way, it is perfectly legitimate to apply the methods of science to questions about the nature and existence of God.

For example, it is widely claimed that God is omnipotent and can do anything.

However logic dictates that such a claim is false.

Can God set Himself a task He can not accomplish?

If not then He can't do everything.

If He can, then He can't do that task.

Either way, He's not omnipotent

 

There is not reason why logic should not be applied to such issues and so it is legitimate for Dawkins (or others) to do so.

 

Again, it's reasonable to question the existence of a God who, while said to be a God of love, Did nothing for the first 95% of mankind's existence and then suddenly turned up with a set of rules, then a couple of millennia later or so, decided to restate the rules (people who think Christ's arrival changed the rules need to read what he said about it)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s=O&utm_expid=13466113-5&search=Matthew+5:18&version=KJV&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fquicksearch%2F%3Fquicksearch%3Djot%2Bor%2Btittle%26qs_version%3DKJV)

 

So, on the whole I think the matters covered in the book are well within the realm of science.

Can anyone think of a logical reason why they are not?

Equally, can anyone think of anything in the God delusion that is not a candidate for scientific study?

[John Cuthber]

"because there are other valid sources of knowledge as well"

Really?

Like what?

 

Anyway, back at the topic.

In the book Dbaiba says that
"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book.
I'd like Dbaiba to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this.

Edited June 19, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

Truly Dbaiba's arguments are exactly what the God Delusion is about, it's very difficult to see your own delusion, once you do the world is never the same again but that first step is so very difficult when your mind is infected with the god meme... once you believe that belief becomes the center of your reality but it is only real inside your own head which is of course the most influential part of reality... until you step in front of that bus then the external reality reasserts itself but you no longer exist to realise it...

[John Cuthber]

Dbaiba,

As often seems to be the way, you missed a bit.

 

I said

"If, on the other hand, supernatural things exist, please let me know what they are"

 

If you are so sure they exist, why didn't you say what they were?

However, it's still fair to say that , unless Dawkins talks about them in his book, they are off topic.

 

 

Whatever holes there may be in my logic (and you only think you have pointed them out- it's a lack of understanding on your part really), there are much bigger ones in your evidence.

 

 

So, lets get back to the topic.

You say
"First of all, Dawkins crosses the boundaries of science on many occasions by implicating science in metaphysical matters where science does absolutely not belong and does have nothing to say about : metaphysical matters are way out of the "jurisdiction " of science"

I don't believe that to be true, and I have read the book.
I'd like you to cite some passage from the book where Dawkins does this.

 

because, lets be clear about this.

If you can't do that you have no evidence to back up your assertion.

And, since you repeatedly fail to answer this question, it looks like you are not able to.

And that, in turn may suggest to some people that you are a liar.

Edited June 19, 2013 by John Cuthber

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I haven't read all of the replies since swansont's last modnote, but I think it's fair to say that almost everyone in this thread has pretty much ignored it. I do not think it is fair to close someone else's thread because a few people do not know how to follow forum rules or listen to staff warnings, so instead I am moving all of the OT posts to the trash.

 

In future, they will be deleted and the next person who derails this thread will be getting an official warning.

[Dbaiba]

I see that my posts were removed ,ok.

No big deal

 

I just wasted that valuable time for nothing , i see , i could spend doing better things than this .

..........

When i say the supernatural , that includes God mainly ..

 

Dawkins God delusion was all about that , about "proving scientifically " that God is a delusion , while science , per definition , cannot neither prove nor disprove the existence of God altogether, in the first place to begin with

 

Dawkins was not only unscientific in just that , but he was also paradoxical ,self-refuting and self-defeating .

 

So , he deserves no refutation at all , because there is nothing to refute in his unscientific book of his i just mentioned

You know what ?

 

We seem to come from different planets , you and i , so :

 

I am not gonna waste my valuable time ,talking to people who cannot consider other paradigms than theirs

 

 

So, I quit

 

Bye

[Moontanman]

I see that my posts were removed ,ok.

No big deal

 

I just wasted that valuable time for nothing , i see , i could spend doing better things than this .

..........

When i say the supernatural , that includes God mainly ..

 

Dawkins God delusion was all about that , about "proving scientifically " that God is a delusion , while science , per definition , cannot neither prove nor disprove the existence of God altogether, in the first place to begin with

 

You cannot disprove that i am a centaur either, does that mean you have to believe I am a centaur?

 

Dawkins was not only unscientific in just that , but he was also paradoxical ,self-refuting and self-defeating .

 

You have been asked several times to give examples of this, you have failed to do so.

 

So , he deserves no refutation at all , because there is nothing to refute in his unscientific book of his i just mentioned

 

 

so you keep asserting but yet you give no examples, the flying spaghetti monster will be displeased, Never mess with the Pastafarians... do you not see the irony in your stance on this?

 

You know what ?

 

We seem to come from different planets , you and i , so :

 

I am not gonna waste my valuable time ,talking to people who cannot consider other paradigms than theirs

 

Projection much?

 

So, I quit

 

Bye

 

 

If only...

[science4ever]

I did buy the book when it got published as soft cover pocket.

I trust that I read it .Being an atheist I am used to his style

so did not react as strong as the OP did.

 

My problem is more with this idea that is common for both

believers and disbelievers. A god that is a delusion is not a real god.

 

AFIK both theist and atheist looks down upon such gods. Dawking as Agnostic atheist

does look down upon made up gods and the True Believers also look down upon made up gods.

 

The True Believer assert that their God is very alive and real and not a God made up by humans.

That is even in the Bible that the made up gods are false gods.

 

So both theist and athist agree upon that a God has to be real

or else that God is a false god and thus no god to trust at all.

 

I am neither theist nor atheist because I want to have faith in a human made God.

to me that would be the most honest and true to reality one can act. To tell it like it is.

 

"I made up this God myself and that is why my God is believable and true

because I made it to be true to me for my needs and my purpose.

 

Yes I know it sound totally far out but how else to do it?

If there are no gods and one need at least one god

then one have to build God as good as one can.

Edited July 2, 2013 by science4ever

[John Cuthber]

It seems to have been a while since anyone said anything about the topic here.

[hypervalent_iodine]

It seems to have been a while since anyone said anything about the topic here.

Indeed.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

science4ever, since you are new to this thread I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Please do not take this thread off topic again.

 

pwagen, you are not new to this thread and initiated the OT stream of posts. I think I made it pretty clear that this is not acceptable.

[science4ever]

hypervalent_iodine

I care about Moderators view so I leave this thread.

I don't trust I know how to be on topic based on OP

No big deal.