The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins

pH

The God Delusion (Hardcover) by Richard Dawkins
(Published 25th September 2006)

Synopsis
Richard Dawkins was recently voted one of the world's top three intellectuals (alongside Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky) by "Prospect" magazine. As the author of many, now famous, classic works on science and philosophy, he has always asserted the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm it has inflicted on society. He now turns his fierce intellect exclusively on this subject, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind. Dawkins attacks God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed, cruel tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign, but still illogical, Celestial Watchmaker favoured by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins presents a hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types and does so in the lucid, witty and powerful language for which he is renowned. It is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.

5uspect

I preordered a copy from amazon last week (£10 hard back). Looking forward to reading it. I guess it will be an elaboration of the "Root of all Evil". Hopefully it will deal with many of the shortcomings of it too.

Zombrex

You would kinda wonder who this book is for?

Is he attempting to convert moderate theist, pointing out the illogical nature of their beliefs? Is it for confused atheists, who don't believe in God but are not quite sure how to formulate that rejection into a justification to society.

I look forward to reading it and I shouldn't form a view without, but I feel that, like someone like Michael Moore, Dawkins work is increasingly preaching to the choir.

The_Scary_Man

Channel 4 did a couple of docs with Dawkins on this subject and they were pretty good. I do find his conclusions tend to be a bit mechanistic and clinical for me.

His views on organised religion I do agree with, there is a great piece in the documentary where he debates evolution/creationism with an American preacher and you can see his frustration build as the preacher refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of us evolving from simpler organisms.

As far as God is concerned thats a different matter. Does God exist as an entity outside of human consciousness? I think not but if people believe in any system or entity strongly enough then it becomes real in the sense that it holds power over its adherents.

My own view is that God is human consciousness and the sooner we realise that we have more power over God than he has over us the better off we'll be.

robindch

> My own view is that God is human consciousness and the sooner we realise
> that we have more power over God than he has over us the better off we'll be.

Well said! Though I'd change it slightly to say that "God is created by human consciousness"

I'd expect that Dawkins will be a bit more straightforward than Dennett's book from earlier on this year -- the right ideas, but surrounded by what feels like thousands of pages of verbal padding.

pH

Candidate for the first book in A&A's "book of the month club" perhaps?

I look forward to reading it and I shouldn't form a view without, but I feel that, like someone like Michael Moore, Dawkins work is increasingly preaching to the choir.

Yes, but it's good that they're not burnt at stakes for these views any more.

Ideas like to spread (good ones that resonate with people). The God delusion is a catchy title - even though it implies that believers are deluded!

I hope that the book generates some debate. The real thing that I believe may convince people is clerics defending their point of view. If someone has to stand up against a reasoned argument to try to show that God exists (and is not a delusion) then they can make a fool of themselves real quickly. You may want to check out the 'proof of God' thread at this point

Zombrex

pH wrote:

If someone has to stand up against a reasoned argument to try to show that God exists (and is not a delusion) then they can make a fool of themselves real quickly. You may want to check out the 'proof of God' thread at this point

Religious Person - I can prove to you God exists

Atheist/Humanist/Sceptic - I seriously doubt you can

RP - Yes I can

A/H/S - No, seriously, you can't

RP - I assure you I can.

A/H/S - Lots of cleverer people than you have tried and failed. You can't

RP - I can and will.

A/H/S - Groan. Ok then, what is your proof

RP - Ok, welll everything has to be created, so the universe must have been created. The only thing that could create the universe is a god. Therefore, since the universe was created, there must be a god. Praise God/Allah!

A/H/S - Groan (again). That is baseless assumption. That is not proof

RP - Yes it is.

A/H/S - No, it isn't

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - No, seriously, it isn't

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - Are you even listening to me

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - Oh ffs, I'm out of here

RP - Yes it is

pH

RP - Yes it is

A/H/S - Oh ffs, I'm out of here

Well now we have another option:
A/H/S - "YOU'RE DELUSIONAL!"
(or possibly the more polite - Richard Dawkins says "you're delusional")

English usage experts - what's the difference (if any) between being deluded and delusional? Does the word deluded imply being tricked by others?

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Well now we have another option:
A/H/S - "YOU'RE DELUSIONAL!"
(or possibly the more polite - Richard Dawkins says "you're delusional")

English usage experts - what's the difference (if any) between being deluded and delusional? Does the word deluded imply being tricked by others?

They mean the same thing. Being delusional is being in a state of being deluded. You are deluded by someone, and while they are doing it to you you are in a state of delusion while you accept it. When you realise then you are no longer delusional, though you have been deluded.

"The God Delusion" title would imply those who have been deluded by religion and who are still being deluded, ie they are delusional in that they are in the current state of being deluded.

Dades

LOL @ Wicknights thread synopsis

No doubt there will be a big thread on this book that keeps getting rebumped as other people get into it. I won't be winning any race to finish it, though I'll get to it at some stage if only to sound knowledgeable in the aforementioned thread.

I prefer Carl Sagan's stuff to Dawkin's when I need my lack of faith reaffirmed.

UU

Ooh, I like Richard Dawkins. I really enjoyed his documentary "The Root Of All Evil?". It was very interesting and I even found myself agreeing with most of what he said in it. I might take a good read at this his new book. In a way though, he has to stoop to the level of all the religious nutcases he interviews to make his point across as being to soft doesn't do any justice.

Maybe hardcore atheism comes with a personality, eh?

pH

Starting to see reviews.

"Mr Dawkins is an atheist, an evolutionary biologist and an eloquent communicator about science, three passions that have allowed him to construct a particularly comprehensive case against religion. Everyone should read it. Atheists will love Mr Dawkins's incisive logic and rapier wit and theists will find few better tests of the robustness of their faith. Even agnostics, who claim to have no opinion on God, may be persuaded that their position is an untenable waffle."

If nothing else, his book should help bring the atheists out of the closet.

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7939629

Also he was on Newsnight tonight, but I missed it.

Dave!

oooh, I'm gonna have to get this baby

I'm in agreeance with whoever said that they hope it generates some debate. If it gets enough publicity then maybe more people will start to discuss this sort of stuff, and realise once and for all that religion = poo-poo! >.<

I really think that this should be our next evolutionary step (as a society) -- total secularism.

I really don't understand how people can't see the pattern in history of gods and deities. It's upsetting.

We atheists need to unite! But seriously, some time in the near future secular groups need to get together and organise mass demonstrations, debates, documentaries, articles, etc., to reawaken the whole religion debate. Surely logic will prevail!

I'm gonna start a new thread on this
Anyways, gonna get the book

pH

No 1 on the Amazon.co.uk Hot 100 as of 00:57 23 Sept 2006

Dave!

Cool! Is that based on how many are ordering it, or is it just a recommendation from Amazon?

5uspect

You can get an extract from the book here. I havent read it myself (waiting to read the book in full). There's some interesting comments posted there too.
Newsnight usually allow you to download the previous shows too, I'll have a look for this one.

Beruthiel

I'm looking forward to reading this!

pH

"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=godDelusion.php



Edited to add:
Newsnight Bookclub interview (Youtube)

Schuhart

Good, sober interview IMHO just calmly putting the case. I had a browse of the book in Easons, but tbh felt it would only convince people already well on the road out of organised religion.

Still, the process has to start somewhere. Even creating some kind of common consciousness among athiests is a valuable counterbalance. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I think this far 'disbelief' just hasn't been enough of a mobilising factor to make you think you are part of any kind of social movement.

UU

Actually I bought this book yesterday from Hodges & Figges on Dawson St. for around €16. I've started reading it and it is really good. Hip-hip horray for Richard Dawkins!

Dave!

Great interview!

Gonna buy the book this week Is it in Eason's yet?

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

Is it in Eason's yet?

I saw a big pile in Easons in Liffey Valley - around €15.

MeditationMom

by Atheist- I prefer Carl Sagan's stuff to Dawkin's when I need my lack of faith reaffirmed.

LOL
or just read the newspaper, but Carl Sagan is definitely more fun!

I've been thinking about this this weekend - since I am both an atheist and.... I know God. (Don't tell anyone I said that. I say this as a whispered secret.)

"God" is beyond belief. God is Love, and God is Peace. Do we believe in Love, and Peace, or do we know Love, and Peace? Creation is a by-product of Love, and Peace- in all its highest and lowest forms, but not created by it the way a builder builds a house. (This Love, and Peace is not the hippie kind we are all so familiar with but that infinite love and infinite peace some people recognise as God)

If we were to personify this "Love and Peace", it would neiter look like a powerful old man in the sky, nor a tortured corpse hanging exhausted and dead from a cross, but much more like a serene buddha figure, for example, or just be a feeling of Love, Peace, Serenity, Order in our heart.
What image or expressioin would one give that?


When a scientist/atheist looks at the Universe he may just stay cold, get obsessed with finding the facts, come hell or high water - if he has to torture a monkey, fine- or, he may be filled with wonder and peace.

When a scientist/atheist looks at a sprout fighting its way out of the dirt and up towards the light, or a beautiful flower dancing in the wind, would he get a sense of the sacredness of life - or would he be fine to just study the molecules or cut and press the flower?

Would a believer just use the beauty of a flower to point to it and shout "this is proof of God - and you better believe it or go to hell!"

To me the question is not about whether someone is a believer or non-believer, only whether he/she is aware or unaware of a Love so deep, and a Peace so infinite, it turns us into nothing but the very same.

What is good in the world and in creation is so fragile, so suble, so easily trampled over - who cares whether people believe in God or not, they both seem to be wrong, missing the whole thing entirely.

To be clear, an atheist whose heart is filled with love and wonder, peace and a sense for the preciousness, or sacredness of life, a gratitude and sense of the eternal - he knows God, but doesn't know he does.

A believer who does not have those things in his heart, especially at the sight of an atheist better keep believing until he/she also can know God. Then we can all love each other and be at peace!

So, in order not to get off subject, where does this Richard Dawkin fit in? I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that he is as self righteuous as any such priest, yet highly intelligent and convincing. Right about the harm religion brings to millions -and propably pretty blind to the love and peace religion brings to millions. So is religion any different from say, money or duct tape?

"One of the greatest intellectuals of our times" - that is often as much trouble as religion. The last big "Intellectual Religion" was Communism.

In the end it is not going to be as simple as that. We're not going to get around having to learn to be kind and understanding of our fellow man, no matter what he does or doesn't believes in, religiously or intellectually. Just as we are doing here on Boards!

lostexpectation

MeditationMom wrote:

I've been thinking about this this weekend - since I am both an atheist and.... I know God. (Don't tell anyone I said that. I say this as a whispered secret.)

When a scientist/atheist looks at the Universe he may just stay cold, get obsessed with finding the facts, come hell or high water - if he has to torture a monkey, fine- or, he may be filled with wonder and peace.

terrible *shakes head*

einstinian wonder he said...

To be clear, an atheist whose heart is filled with love and wonder, peace and a sense for the preciousness, or sacredness of life, a gratitude and sense of the eternal - he knows God, but doesn't know he does.

still nahhh

A believer who does not have those things in his heart, especially at the sight of an atheist better keep believing until he/she also can know God. Then we can all love each other and be at peace!

nobody knows these things pretending you know them or saying you are trying to get to know them is falseness associated with the religious.

So, in order not to get off subject, where does this Richard Dawkin fit in? I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that he is as self righteuous as any such priest, yet highly intelligent and convincing. Right about the harm religion brings to millions -and propably pretty blind to the love and peace religion brings to millions. So is religion any different from say, money or duct tape?

"One of the greatest intellectuals of our times" - that is often as much trouble as religion. The last big "Intellectual Religion" was Communism.

you're american right?:rolleyes:

In the end it is not going to be as simple as that. We're not going to get around having to learn to be kind and understanding of our fellow man, no matter what he does or doesn't believes in, religiously or intellectually. Just as we are doing here on Boards! [/QUOTE]

but if religion is bad and we don't encourage badness, and we show love by disincentifying badness then we must actively counter act this bad.


pssst athiest don't talk like you do. so there's a clue

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

"God" is beyond belief. God is Love, and God is Peace. Do we believe in Love, and Peace, or do we know Love, and Peace? Creation is a by-product of Love, and Peace- in all its highest and lowest forms, but not created by it the way a builder builds a house. (This Love, and Peace is not the hippie kind we are all so familiar with but that infinite love and infinite peace some people recognise as God)

Why do you insist on stretching the "god" concept to fit something you are comfortable with? It certainly doesn't make you sound like an atheist (which is cool) but more like a pantheist, or maybe a New Ager.

I'm off to buy Dawkins today.

rainbow kirby

Just finished this book this morning, comes highly recommended

5uspect

I suggest MeditationMom read the Devils Chaplin for an insight into what Dawkins thinks about the world.

Dades

DaveMcG wrote:

Is it in Eason's yet?

Not in feckin' O'Connell Street Easons anyway. :mad:

It's in the system but appears to be sold out.

rainbow kirby

Try Eason's in Dundrum, that's where I got mine.

Dades

rainbow kirby wrote:

Try Eason's in Dundrum, that's where I got mine.

It'd be quicker if you just typed it out and mailed it to me.

5uspect

Amazon just delivered my copy, looking forward to a good ole read...

Schuhart

MeditationMom wrote:

So, in order not to get off subject, where does this Richard Dawkin fit in? I'll have to read the book, but my impression is that he is as self righteuous as any such priest, yet highly intelligent and convincing. Right about the harm religion brings to millions -and propably pretty blind to the love and peace religion brings to millions. So is religion any different from say, money or duct tape?

I can understand your reservations. I think you have to see it in terms of ideas evolving. I don't think Dawkins is the last word, but the ideas he puts forward are a necessary part of securing progress. But, clearly, simply illustrating that religion is largely baseless is not in itself a philosophy.

As to the Dawkins himself, from his various television appearances he comes across to me as very much a human being, with all that goes with it. He is impatient at some times, other times he takes the trouble to express himself clearly. But the case he makes is for reason over untruth, and I find I agree with that perspective.

Yes, people may find comfort in religion. Yes, many sick people who go to Lourdes in search of a cure return without one, but say they have become reconciled to their fate. Those are benefits and the only initial response that atheism can give is to point out that saying religion is a powerful placebo doesn't mean there's a god.

Ultimately, the atheist viewpoint does need to include some kind of personal revelation or sense of cosmic presence of the kind you mention. The problem, at present, is it raises in the minds of many the idea that you are chasing after the old comforts of religion. I know that's not really what you are saying, but I think recognition of the truth you are sensing is the next step beyond the outlook provided by Dawkins. It involves us standing with two feet on the ground, looking out at the stars, knowing that its just us and the universe.

MeditationMom

by Schuhart- Ultimately, the atheist viewpoint does need to include some kind of personal revelation or sense of cosmic presence of the kind you mention. The problem, at present, is it raises in the minds of many the idea that you are chasing after the old comforts of religion. I know that's not really what you are saying, but I think recognition of the truth you are sensing is the next step beyond the outlook provided by Dawkins. It involves us standing with two feet on the ground, looking out at the stars, knowing that its just us and the universe.

Yes, ... and ultimately, "us and the universe" as one. Not two, but absolute and total alone-ness. Even more frightening. Your paragraph sums up nicely, and better, what I was trying to say. Thanks Schuhart.

by Atheist- Why do you insist on stretching the "god" concept to fit something you are comfortable with?

It's the other way around. I was trying to fit it into something you, or any atheist, might be comfortable with. I guess that didn't work. Sorry. I thought maybe we could find agreement in the ideas of Love, or Peace, sense of wonder etc. among both atheists and believers, as those notions are shared human experiences which some people personify into some idea of a "God". Atheists and true believers finding something in common with each other? - thought it could help with finding common ground to discuss things from.

When I look at religious "war", I see one faith telling the other faith they are wrong, misguided, gullible and stupid, and will not "get it" until they change their thinking, and convert. Then I see atheists telling the same thing to all the religions. And all the religions, telling the same thing back to the atheists.

"Atheist" seemed to be the closest to my point of view, as I do value reason over blind belief. At the same time, profound Love, and Peace, and a sense of wonder, are beyond reason. Is there is no room for anything beyond reason in the atheist camp? Then I am definitely not an atheist.
I would ask the same question reversed of a religious person - is there no room for pure, hard logical thought in religion - then I am definitely not religious.
If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief. This "beyond" comes as a revelation experience after either logic or faith, or both, have been utterly exhausted.

by llostexpectation- terrible *shakes head*

by lostexpectation- still nahhh

For someone who prides himself to love reason, please...a little more explanation of your opinions than this.

by lostexpectation- nobody knows these things...

That sure sounds like blind belief on your part. What is your scientific basis for this idea? How would you know, or ever be able to assume or measure this?
Nobody? Have you met, or tested, everyone on this planet? And how would you test the truth of your statement?

by lostespectation- pretending you know them or saying you are trying to get to know them is falseness associated with the religious.

Again, how can you know, for sure, what I, or anyone else, knows or doesn't know? How can you know whether I or anyone else is pretending, or actually knows something you may not know? Seems like you are going with your belief or defenses rather than your reasoning abilities.

The concept of "falseness of the religious", yes that exists, is sad, annoying and dangerous - which is why I rather call myself an atheist than anything else. I won't call myself an atheist again, though, as "I know" that there are things beyond reason and human intellectual understanding, and once in a while I do like to use the G-word to make a point, or to relate "what I know" to Christians in their own words, but not because I "believe" in God. I used to believe in God with all my heart and soul, so I do understand "belief". I used to be very clear and certain about the non-existence of God and the dark side of religion, later on, and so I do also understand atheists. Now all I can say is that both groups are right, but sometimes for the wrong reasons, the meaning of which is what I am trying to explain. Not too good at it, I guess, but I hope to improve over time.

by MeditationMom- "One of the greatest intellectuals of our times" - that is often as much trouble as religion. The last big "Intellectual Religion" was Communism.


by lostexpectation- you're american right?

Another great argument! Am I supposed to guess what you mean, or imagine what you believe, or "know", about Americans? Communists killed thousands of religious people just because of their beliefs. Strikes me as quite similar to religious fanatics. Whether the belief system is religious or intellectual/political what is the difference? Are fanatic atheists - like the old communists in Russia and China - going to try to wipe out all the religious people in the world for a more peaceful planet? Communists, Nazis, Islamic Fundamentalists, Christian Crusaders... all the same in my book. Is this uniquely American?

by lostexpectation- but if religion is bad and we don't encourage badness, and we show love by disincentifying badness then we must actively counter act this bad.

Agreed, and a noble and loving effort. I'd be the last to tell you not to. But I am a little nervous about what you mean by "actively counter". Do you mean informed debate, intelligent arguments - or actions, as in fighting and killing, the way Communists eradicated religions in Russia, China, Tibet? And don't forget that religious people are trying to do the very same thing as the atheists- counter "bad" and show love by discouraging badness - from their point of view.

by lostexpectation- pssst athiest don't talk like you do. so there's a clue

Point taken. Thanks for the clue. But I don't think they all talk like you do either.

by atheist- It certainly doesn't make you sound like an atheist (which is cool) but more like a pantheist, or maybe a New Ager.

Pantheist and New Ager are just describing yet another belief system. I made a mistake trying to identify with a group. I have simply spent countless hours over the last 30+ years in the pursuit of truth, first by studying physics and later by spending endless amounts of time in silence, alone-ness, contemplation, reflection, meditation and all the usaul lifestruggles.
It unfortunately sounds very dramatic when I say I had a certain "revelation" that is a direct experience and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put into words. (And no, it wasn't a near-death experience either - far beyond form, light, images, thought, feelings, ideas etc.)
So far, as I am looking into all the religions and belief systems that I can dig up, I have found truth, and often the most eloquent expression of truth, in all of them, including atheism. And much nonsense, also, in all of them. I make friends and enemies in all camps. It also seems on the surface that I am contradicting myself constantly, depending on who I respond to or which language I chose to use in trying to explain or express something. The total of all my posts - maybe can exhaust logic or belief for somebody out there for a glimps of freedom.

"Enemies" help me to sharpen my mind in my strange efforts to express "what I know" and have no words for, and people friendly to me often put what I say into better words, helping me that way, and also allow me to get a little more poetic or mystical in my expressions, or ask new questions. It's all good. I really made a mistake trying to identify with any particular group. "Atheist" was just the most logical and tempting. A momentary lapse into dualistic thinking on my part, even though to my defense, I did qualify it.

lostexpectation

MeditationMom wrote:

Agreed, and a noble and loving effort. I'd be the last to tell you not to. But I am a little nervous about what you mean by "actively counter". Do you mean informed debate, intelligent arguments - or actions, as in fighting and killing,

I think there plenty of room between the two.

and also allow me to get a little more poetic or mystical in my expressions,

im not sure you could get more mysterious.

Dades

MeditationMom wrote:

Sorry. I thought maybe we could find agreement in the ideas of Love, or Peace, sense of wonder etc. among both atheists and believers, as those notions are shared human experiences which some people personify into some idea of a "God".

Don't be sorry for anything. The problem is all the lines become blurred when the "god" concept is applied to something as vague as love, nature, consciousness or whatever. None of those are a "god" in any real definition of the term. I guess your personal definition of god is what makes you what you are, atheist, agnostic, theist etc. But when you start to define your own god you might as well be making up a new religion.

MeditationMom wrote:

"Atheist" seemed to be the closest to my point of view, as I do value reason over blind belief. At the same time, profound Love, and Peace, and a sense of wonder, are beyond reason. Is there is no room for anything beyond reason in the atheist camp? Then I am definitely not an atheist.

Do athiests not experience love, peace or wonder? If you prick us do we not bleed? Finding some sort of blanket understanding of existence is not a prerequisite for wonderment. You responded to my mention of Carl Sagan earlier. A typical example of a devout atheist who spent his life in search of peace, and in awe at the wonderment of the unknown.

MeditationMom wrote:

If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief. This "beyond" comes as a revelation experience after either logic or faith, or both, have been utterly exhausted.

Using logic to find the truth behind our existence will only bring a part way down the road. Travelling that road of logic we pass the remains of previous attempts to explain our existence - called faith. Logic suggests we don't know the truth and have no way of knowing. To suggest there is some other way of knowing is turning around, and going back down that road.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

"God" is beyond belief. God is Love, and God is Peace. Do we believe in Love, and Peace, or do we know Love, and Peace?

Groan ... no offense but sounds all very wishy washy. Which you know, is grand and all, but it really makes no sense at all.

God is love and God is peace?

No, love is "love", and peace is "peace".

"God" is a supernatural intelligence that is supposed to have created the universe and everything in it.

Why humans feel the need to abstract out concepts like "god" to fill massive definition sets is beyond me. Why do you personify something that has no need tobe personified.

"God is the smile on a childs face" a Christian friend said to me once. My thoughts were that the smile on a childs face is the smile on a childs face.

Is that not enough? Can I not apprecate the smile on a childs face on its own, without attaching some very undefined wishy washy concept such as "god" to that to some how make it more worthy of my apprecation?

That makes me sound all grumpy and cranky, and I'm really a swell guy. But for some reason things like that just really annoy me. It is just so silly

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

If this sounds contradictory or illogical - it is! The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief.

But you are not using logic, or reason. You are using wishy washy undefined words like "love" and "infinate peace" to try and describe things, as if that put great meaning on the things you are describing.

None of those things actually mean anything, preciesly because you haven't defined them in any way to mean anything. So they seem at first kind of wonderous and mysterious, but when you actually think about it they are say meaningless as saying "infinate cake" binds the universe together.

Of course there is no harm in this, to each their own. If it makes sense to you good luck with that. But you have to understand it is going to turn a lot of atheists, like myself and lostexpectation off.

I don't instill an artificial man made concept to something in order to feel wonder or pleasure out of it. THe universe doesn't have to contain infinate love and infinate peace for me to find it infinately wonderous. It can just be what it is. That is enough. A supernova doesn't contain "love" nor does it contain "peace". It doesn't contian "hate" or "war". It just is what it is, a collection of super dense atoms exploding. And it is cool to look at, and wonder at the scale and size of it.

I know exactly why I smile like an idiot when I see a giggling child. And it is nothing to do with an infinate love that sweeps through the universe binding everything togethe like the Force out of StarWars. It is to do with biological evolution, my inbuild natural instinct and urge to protect human off spring, even those that aren't mind. My mind is triggering a happy response to the facial shape of the child, and the sound it is making, in an attempt to bond me to the child, so I will if necessary protect it from danger.

Now some might say "Oh, that is so cold and clinical, you are taking all the wonder out of the experience. Is it not much nicer to say that the universe powerful force of 'love' bonds you to that child".

I could, but I would be talking nonsense. And more importantly why would I feel the need to in the first place

I am perfectly happy knowing why I enjoy seeing a child smile (that sounds a little pervy, so I might change the metephor ) Knowing this in no way deminishes the experience, or my enjoyment of it. Applying reason to something doesn't destroy the wonder of it? I think it is really really cool that evolution has developed such a system in the first place. I think it is really cool that dogs have managed to manipulate this process so we will help protect them (there is a theory that dogs evolved to take advantage of our instincts to protect children by adapting their facial structure, such as big eyes, when puppies). I think that is really really cool and facinating.

This is ultimately the message of Dawkins. You don't need to apply silly abstract man made concepts like "God", to things, they are fine as they are just existing.

Things are pretty cool and interesting as they are

Reason is not something to be shunned away, it should be embraced. You don't need to apply something like the very abstract concept of "infinate peace" (what does that even mean?) to say a star formation or a butterfly. A butterfly is just a butterfly. A star formation is just a star formation. But they are interesting and wonderous on there own

Dave!

^
I concur.

Beruthiel

Well said wicknight, you have put it better than I ever could.
The world has evolved into a wonderous place, it doesn't need anything else added to make it more so.

Dave!

There's a chapter at the start of the book that deals with just this Einsteinian Pantheism and all that...

5uspect

Yeap, well said Wicknight, I see you've been studying hard. So when's the written exam?!

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

That makes me sound all grumpy and cranky, and I'm really a swell guy.

Modest to boot

But for some reason things like that just really annoy me.

So does that mean that God is annoying, or that annoying things are annoying?

MediationMan wrote:

The whole point is to use logic to its fullest extent to go beyond dualistic thinking to discover the truth of existence, which is beyond intellectual understanding, and beyond belief.

Your definition of logic does not match our human definition of logic.

Logically you cannot discover truth beyond understanding.

Big words only impress people who don't fully understand them.

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

There's a chapter at the start of the book that deals with just this Einsteinian Pantheism and all that...

I’m in the happy position of not having read the book, for which I accept all the abuse that can be hurled for thus commenting.

bonkey wrote:

Big words only impress people who don't fully understand them.

When this kind of thing starts creeping in, I think we have to ask if we’re actually trying to get anywhere. Clearly people can take any opportunity to seize what they see as the moral high ground. Alternatively, they can try and understand what someone is trying to communicate and add and subtract what might make a better statement.

As I see it, the essential points being made about the need to strip away the layer of folderol that religion adds is correct. I think of the Lourdes sequence in Dawkins’ TV series as a good place to start this consideration. Wandering around with candles at night in a McReligion grotto doesn’t cause some god to leap into action and cure your cancer - which is rarely the claim made. Nor does it cause him to leap into your mind and stop your worry that you’ll soon be very very dead – which is more frequently the experience. Yet something in all that folderol gives some people that piece of mind.

I would speculate that piece of mind comes from achieving that final acceptance that we all reach some end point. Maybe some take comfort from an illusion of an eternal life. We are seeking some alternative route, a way of just facing the conclusion that reason suggests – death is the end of this individual.

I don’t see an atheist outlook per se as addressing this. It primarily just points out that there’s no point in chasing a religion unless you can be happy drawing comfort from an illusion. But that still leaves a vacuum for where this and that individual fit into the world.

I think the points being made on the other side are just about that. It’s about addressing that individual space, but in the clear light that religion is error. I’ve a very superficial understanding of Buddhism, but the little I know suggests it tries to follow this path. I think it essentially has to do with some concept of each of us being a product of evolution to this date and contributing to evolution in the future. It’s an awareness that the very material of your body has been around since the dawn of the universe and will be there until the end – its just the consciousness that evaporates.

I’d stress this is not about filling that individual space with illusion. It is simply a suggestion that this space exists – and the failure of atheism to fill it may go a way to explain why religion persists in the face of reason.

pH

Stephen Unwin writing in the Guardian trots out the same old "you can't be sure" argument 'against' Dawkins. Unwin wrote a book that calculated the probability of God to be 67%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329588697-103677,00.html

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Yeap, well said Wicknight, I see you've been studying hard. So when's the written exam?!

Hey, that was all me baby. I've haven't even bought the book yet

Dawkins has nothing on me

5uspect

LOL, sure maybe ye could publish the creationism thread and it might outsell Dawkins. Why try to reason when we can let the creationists talk everyone into disbelief?!

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Stephen Unwin writing in the Guardian trots out the same old "you can't be sure" argument 'against' Dawkins. Unwin wrote a book that calculated the probability of God to be 67%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329588697-103677,00.html

Who is this Unwin guy? He sounds very similar to the Creationists you find on Boards.ie

Unwin wrote:

As for Dawkins' assertion that moral behaviour for believers is simply "sucking up to God", or that morality doesn't need faith, I feel that such observations miss the more fundamental question of why we have moral or aesthetic values at all - such as the ones by which Dawkins, myself and others venerate rational analysis. This is among the questions that, to my knowledge, no science is on the verge of answering compellingly. But on this matter I am fanatically uncertain.

In fact science has gone a long way to answering why we have moral frameworks embedded in your instincts and emotions.

But even if it hadn't, that is not evidence for a God

Dave!

Schuhart wrote:

I’m in the happy position of not having read the book, for which I accept all the abuse that can be hurled for thus commenting.

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how relevent the book is, and that if anyone's interested there's a chapter about it. Calm.....

Schuhart

DaveMcG wrote:

Don't get so defensive, I was just pointing out how relevent the book is, and that if anyone's interested there's a chapter about it. Calm.....

Apologies for causing alarm - its really not a big deal at my end. I was just making it clear that my knowledge of Dawkins is limited to the TV series and interview, and that I don't doubt that he has to compress what he's saying for that format. I do intend looking for his book in the library at some stage to give it a trot.

robindch

> Who is this Unwin guy? He sounds very similar to the Creationists you
> find on Boards.ie

Yeah, that's about right. Stephen Unwin is a physics graduate of Manchester University who arrived in the USA some years back and now works in the insurance industry in Ohio.

Unwin's contribution to humanity is a short calculation of the probability that god exists, helpfully carried out in Excel and extended to best-selling book form in 2004. The gist of the calculation is that if you start off assuming that there's a fifty-fifty probability that god exists, then add on for all the good things that happen in the world (which is evidence that god exists), and subtract off for all the bad stuff that happens (evidence that god doesn't exist), then you end up with a 67-33 propability that god exists. And bully for him in thinking up of this new wheeze.

Actually, there are two things about Unwin that will strike the non-credulous immediately: (a) the book is sub-titled "A simple calculation that proves the ultimate truth"; it seems that the editor may have been unaware that a 67% probability does not constitute a formal "proof", even using creationist maths; and (b) Unwin has apparently added that he's "95% certain" that god exists, which doesn't say much for how much he trusts his own calculations.

Oh well. The religious have no doubt taken this as proof-positive that their favourite deity exists, while atheists and agnostics will just slouch back into their chairs, shake their heads, sigh a little and reach for another can of the saving beer.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Unwin's contribution to humanity is a short calculation of the probability that god exists, helpfully carried out in Excel and extended to best-selling book form in 2004. The gist of the calculation is that if you start off assuming that there's a fifty-fifty probability that god exists, then add on for all the good things that happen in the world (which is evidence that god exists), and subtract off for all the bad stuff that happens (evidence that god doesn't exist), then you end up with a 67-33 propability that god exists. And bully for him in thinking up of this new wheeze.

Quite possibly the dumbest thing i've heard in a while, even from a 95% theist.

Good things happen which is evidence for God? How?

I wonder what percentage the fact the people are morons factor into his calculations