Just curious, did anyone read The God Delusion and find his central argument disappointing (complete nonsense)? I read the book after he promised to reduce the probability of existence of God to the probability of something completely absurd.
His argument appears to be the following. First, when the universe began there was no God (this is the assumption.) So God would have had to come into existence by random chance, sometime after the creation of the universe, which we all can agree is absurd. Therefore, no God. Booyah. In your face Intelligent Design.
I read this a couple times to make sure that I was understanding it correctly. But it still seems to me that this is about as blatant an example of question-begging that you can find.
The God Delusion gives a handful of arguments both for and against the existence of God. Your summary comes across as a straw-man, a misrepresentation that's supposed to convince us that the real argument is poor. Where did he make this before/after argument?
Intelligent design is just one hypothesis among many to explain the complexity (the apparent "design") of the universe. But it posits the existence of an even more complex entity. If we really need intelligent design to explain where eyeballs and bird wings came from, why don't we also need an explanation of the omnipotent designer?
It is a valid argument , until you get into the math and physics of the infinite and of compact manifolds. Dawkins is a biologist.
I think Dawkins was too early. In more recent years, we have identified biological pathways for how humans generate spiritual thoughts/feelings, and we have economic models for how religious beliefs exploit trust and counterfactuals (that is, if you wanted to invent a lie and make it as widespread believed as Christianity, you would do marketing tricks that look exactly like Evangelism and Cults, and then L Ron Hubbard provided empiric proof with Scientology. (which maybe is what you meant by "probability").
Just started to check it out. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I've found the common atheist arguments (ie.. people start wars in the name of religion, therefore religion is bad) usually pretty weak.
The first part looked interesting. I wanted to see exactly what he is attacking, and it seems to be specifically the idea of the supernatural. He notes that Einstein has been misrepesented as a believer (didn't know that - so I learned something already!).
However, I would expect a physicist, engaged in deep study of the physical world - to deny the existence of the supernatural. Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work? Dawkins mentioning Einstein didn't believe proves nothing. Einstein not believing something doesn't make it false.
Ultimately, what it comes down to, at least for me is - we know little about the origins of the universe, not to much about even our own minds, and nothing outside of our consciousness.
It'a quite clear after you understand semi-advanced physics that nothing could exist before the universe started.
Now, you could contest the Big Bang, but from the moment you assume it happened then I don't see nothing absurd in the sentence:
"First, when the universe began there was no God"
Because unlike you put it, this is NOT an assumption. If the Universe did had a beginning (and all measurement indicate it did) then this (nothing existed before, not even God) follows directly from the laws of physics.
In fact Dawkins greatest problem when trying to explain people this, is exactly the one I feel when trying to explain other parts to believers. They are ignorant about certain parts of science that make what they are saying impossible, and since it's fairly advanced science, they just refuse to believe it and trying to understand it.
I would welcome to discuss religion with another person from my area (astrophysics) but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious... I guess because it would be really hard to mix both things.
> Coarse and tendentious atheists of the Dawkins variety prefer to overlook the vast traditions of figurative and allegorical interpretations with which believers have read Scripture.
Of course, because that interpretation is hand-waving nonsense: replacing the actual words with something else that you wish the words really said (at the moment), with no justification.
If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all? Macroexpand all the symbolism into its concrete terms, say that "this is it", and let's discuss that.
Until then, the serpent in Eden was really a snake, the apple was really an apple and so on.
> If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all?
Good question, which is thoroughly discussed and answered in various religious writings.
But I could ask you the opposite question: why would you assume that a text -- let alone an ancient one -- is anything but allegorical? Why would you assume that a text, by default, is literal until proven otherwise? Throughout history, there have been periods when it's been assumed that most written (let alone canonical and holy) texts are allegorical. It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.
In any case, whatever your views on human texts and their default literary genre, if you believe that a god wrote your scriptures, your interpretation of them would be based on the nature of your god and his preferred writing style, no?
Strict literalism and textual primacy, in Christianity at least, is a fairly recent reaction against the traditional approach to the religion, in which Scripture was important, but neither necessarily viewed as literal nor viewed as the sole (or even preeminent) foundation of the religion.
Just wanted to note that the bible doesn't say anything about the fruit being an apple. It's the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good an evil. You can't seriously claim this was ever meant as an actual physical tree.
Some aspects of human society and culture are not really subject to empiricism per se, literature for example. Dawkins could well say "I don't believe in the existence of literature beyond words printed on a page, until you present rational evidence". That wouldn't be an unscientific approach, but would nonetheless be closed minded, I think.
I recall a good definition of prayer by Mr. Bierce in this connection:
“Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.”
I wouldn't call Richard Dawkings close minded. Here's a man who abandoned a successful career in biology because he found contemplating God more rewarding.
I like this quote from the article, "If science, for Darwin, was a method of inquiry that enabled him to edge tentatively and humbly toward the truth, for Dawkins, science is an unquestioned view of the world," because it hints at what I see as the biggest flaw in Dawkins' science vs. religion debate. Science is fallible.
Don't get me wrong, I love science and the many wonderful things it has brought into my life, but I view it as a tool to further our understanding, rather than an absolute truth. I don't see a difference between Dawkins' faith in science (his apparent belief that science is infallible and absolute) and the religious beliefs he likes to argue against. Both require a leap of faith, don't they?
> a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
The key word being "testable". The fallibility (or falsifiability) of scientific hypotheses is the great strength of science: We can improve, or prove wrong, our understanding.
Dawkins writing celebrates this, and I think it's unfair to characterize his passionate (OK, sometimes strident) advocacy as "unquestioning" fanaticism.
If it's a "leap of faith" to accept the axiom that we can refine/invalidate knowledge through experimentation, then "a leap of faith" isn't a very profound deed.
[+] [-] micwawa|10 years ago|reply
His argument appears to be the following. First, when the universe began there was no God (this is the assumption.) So God would have had to come into existence by random chance, sometime after the creation of the universe, which we all can agree is absurd. Therefore, no God. Booyah. In your face Intelligent Design.
I read this a couple times to make sure that I was understanding it correctly. But it still seems to me that this is about as blatant an example of question-begging that you can find.
He's an entertaining author, sure.
[+] [-] matthewtoast|10 years ago|reply
Intelligent design is just one hypothesis among many to explain the complexity (the apparent "design") of the universe. But it posits the existence of an even more complex entity. If we really need intelligent design to explain where eyeballs and bird wings came from, why don't we also need an explanation of the omnipotent designer?
[+] [-] tamana|10 years ago|reply
I think Dawkins was too early. In more recent years, we have identified biological pathways for how humans generate spiritual thoughts/feelings, and we have economic models for how religious beliefs exploit trust and counterfactuals (that is, if you wanted to invent a lie and make it as widespread believed as Christianity, you would do marketing tricks that look exactly like Evangelism and Cults, and then L Ron Hubbard provided empiric proof with Scientology. (which maybe is what you meant by "probability").
[+] [-] dpweb|10 years ago|reply
The first part looked interesting. I wanted to see exactly what he is attacking, and it seems to be specifically the idea of the supernatural. He notes that Einstein has been misrepesented as a believer (didn't know that - so I learned something already!).
However, I would expect a physicist, engaged in deep study of the physical world - to deny the existence of the supernatural. Doesn't accepting that kinda ruin the whole basis of their life's work? Dawkins mentioning Einstein didn't believe proves nothing. Einstein not believing something doesn't make it false.
Ultimately, what it comes down to, at least for me is - we know little about the origins of the universe, not to much about even our own minds, and nothing outside of our consciousness.
[+] [-] jbssm|10 years ago|reply
Now, you could contest the Big Bang, but from the moment you assume it happened then I don't see nothing absurd in the sentence: "First, when the universe began there was no God"
Because unlike you put it, this is NOT an assumption. If the Universe did had a beginning (and all measurement indicate it did) then this (nothing existed before, not even God) follows directly from the laws of physics.
In fact Dawkins greatest problem when trying to explain people this, is exactly the one I feel when trying to explain other parts to believers. They are ignorant about certain parts of science that make what they are saying impossible, and since it's fairly advanced science, they just refuse to believe it and trying to understand it.
I would welcome to discuss religion with another person from my area (astrophysics) but I've never met an astrophysicist that was religious... I guess because it would be really hard to mix both things.
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
Of course, because that interpretation is hand-waving nonsense: replacing the actual words with something else that you wish the words really said (at the moment), with no justification.
If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all? Macroexpand all the symbolism into its concrete terms, say that "this is it", and let's discuss that.
Until then, the serpent in Eden was really a snake, the apple was really an apple and so on.
[+] [-] pron|10 years ago|reply
Good question, which is thoroughly discussed and answered in various religious writings.
But I could ask you the opposite question: why would you assume that a text -- let alone an ancient one -- is anything but allegorical? Why would you assume that a text, by default, is literal until proven otherwise? Throughout history, there have been periods when it's been assumed that most written (let alone canonical and holy) texts are allegorical. It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.
In any case, whatever your views on human texts and their default literary genre, if you believe that a god wrote your scriptures, your interpretation of them would be based on the nature of your god and his preferred writing style, no?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aap_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tome|10 years ago|reply
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/10/richard-dawkins-...
[+] [-] kazinator|10 years ago|reply
(Or if that's not the definition of "closed mind", then what is?)
[+] [-] tome|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ommunist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alfapla|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innocentoldguy|10 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, I love science and the many wonderful things it has brought into my life, but I view it as a tool to further our understanding, rather than an absolute truth. I don't see a difference between Dawkins' faith in science (his apparent belief that science is infallible and absolute) and the religious beliefs he likes to argue against. Both require a leap of faith, don't they?
[+] [-] matthewtoast|10 years ago|reply
> a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
The key word being "testable". The fallibility (or falsifiability) of scientific hypotheses is the great strength of science: We can improve, or prove wrong, our understanding.
Dawkins writing celebrates this, and I think it's unfair to characterize his passionate (OK, sometimes strident) advocacy as "unquestioning" fanaticism.
If it's a "leap of faith" to accept the axiom that we can refine/invalidate knowledge through experimentation, then "a leap of faith" isn't a very profound deed.