The God Delusion

[Evoke]

got through about half the book but, while he starts off all clever and reasonable, he gets too emotionally invested and self-righteous. Can't really argue well without objectivity imo.

[Know me.]

Yeah the whole middle of the book could be cut out. It gets better again toward the end.

[StN]

Now I like bananas as much as the next guy, but an hour and a half?

Comfort alleged, “I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.”
Not only that, Comfort asserts that he will not argue based on the Bible or Faith.

Oh yeah - it will get fruity...

[sv]

Good critique of the book.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

[?>Superman]

Will reading this thread allow to me to grow a beard and stroke it deep-thought in a scholarly way?

[sv]

Yes!

[cEvin]

Originally Posted by ?>Superman

Will reading this thread allow to me to grow a beard and stroke it deep-thought in a scholarly way?

No, only puberty can help you on that.

[Foggerty]

Its an appalling critique of the book, as it completely misses the point.

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

First sentence says it all. Dawkins is NOT discussing theology, and any attempt to read his book as such is going to find issues.

Theology is the study of a religion from inside that religion. Dawkins is interested in the existence (or non-existence) of God, and the damage done by religious beliefs.

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus?

He probably wouldn't care. He doesn't believe in God, and so the differences in viewpoint between Aquinas and Duns Scotus about that non existent god don't actually matter to him or any of his arguments.

Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason.

Sorry, what?!? And the basis for this comment is where?

(Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins’s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?)

Well not in this book obviously, since its a book critiquing religion, not "science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like".

Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry.

And fair enough too. If the retarded debate surrounding "Intelligent Design" shows anything, its that in certain parts of the world Religion and Science are going head to head.

For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is.

Well actually, yes, he pretty much is - for mainstream Christianity god and Jesus are supposed to be pretty much the same thing, and Jesus is seen as a person (personal savior anyone?) While its true that many 'sophisticated' theologins do not see god in this way, they are a) a minority and b) do not represent the mainstream view. If memory serves, Dawkins does actually address this "but but but modern theologins don't think like that!" argument.

<'Moderate' and 'enlightened' theology.....>

Ahhh crap I've been trolled :-)
Oh well, going to leave this post as is, but for an added bonus:


Douglas Adams on Atheism

Lots of interesting looking vids

[samael]

Originally Posted by sv

Good critique of the book.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

I like the part where he describes Dawkin's arguments as strawmen, then proceeds to attach Dawkins with a strawman argument - saying that Dawkins does not know enough about religion to have an opinion.

Besides, I am sure Dawkins knows a lot about the specifics of the religions he attacks, even though its not necessary.

[fixed_truth]

dawkins forgets that the human misuse of religions and the existence of God are very different matters

[samael]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

dawkins forgets that the human misuse of religions and the existence of God are very different matters

Not at all, he deals with both separately in his books.

[sv]

Originally Posted by Foggerty

Theology is the study of a religion from inside that religion.

Nope...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology

[Lightspeed]

Although I don't particularly agree with Froggerty, the point of language is to communicate ideas, not define ideas. Dictionary definitions are doubleplus bad.

[Foggerty]

Erm.......

Really don't know what to say here - that page agrees with what I said. Nearly all of those describe study of god in a way the implies in a belief in god.

"The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." - only someone who believes would think in terms of religious truths and that religion can stand up to rational inquiry

"a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings; "Jewish theology"; "Roman Catholic theology"

The disciplined study of religious questions, such as the nature of God, sin, and salvation.

Again, only someone with a religious point of view questions the nature of god, everyone else questions his existence

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by cEvin

No, only puberty can help you on that.

Oh snapple

[EvilLumpy]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Although I don't particularly agree with Froggerty, the point of language is to communicate ideas, not define ideas. Dictionary definitions are doubleplus bad.

Sorry dude, but the point of language is to communicate ideas in a clear and meaningful manner. You have to be clear in what you're saying, otherwise when I say astrology and mean astronomy... well, the whole thing just doesn't work anymore because nobody can really understand a thing I say.

Just like now, I guess.

Originally Posted by Foggerty

"The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions." - only someone who believes would think in terms of religious truths and that religion can stand up to rational inquiry

How in the seven hells did you figure that? It says rational. Also, it specifies this 'truth' as religious, implying that which is deemed to the truth in a religious context (ie. that god didn't make ice cream on the 8th day because it simply isn't written and stating such would be irrational and untrue). It does not say anything about belief at all.

[Foggerty]

It does not say anything about belief at all.

Which is why I used the term 'implied'. If you can find me a non religious theologin I'll be impressed. And no, Religious Studies, the study of Comparative Religion is NOT theology, despite my friends calling me a theologin to piss me off

[sv]

"the study of a religion from inside that religion"

You don't have to be in a given religion to study it... or could study the properties of divinity in a metaphysical or philosophical sense rather than from within a given religion.

Quibbling?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by sv

Good critique of the book.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Sorry dude, that's a SHOCKING critique of the book.

[Xanatos]

Originally Posted by sv

Good critique of the book.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

That's not a review, it's a 5 page /cry

[doppelgänger of someone]

omg I've got to start reading LRB again.

I can probably guess what Dawkins will say in response to the 'sophisticated' theology. Claiming that God is transcendental (that He must be outside our framework in order to create our framework), is a copout, out and out.

That's like saying UFO exists, even though there is zero evidence to support it. The claim that 'UFO exists' could well be true, but we have no reason to believe it to be true. Therefore rationally it is not true.

If God exists outside our framework, how can WE know that HE exists? The alleged actions He made on our framework, i.e. physical world, can be explained by other means (e.g. Darwinism suggested how human can become what they are without a Creator). Discount all of those and you get zero evidence to support the existence of God, other than the transcendental argument. Should we then conclude that God exists? Dawkins says no. He went further and conclude that God doesn't exist.

(There is a subtle transition/equivocation between the 'epistemic' truth to 'metaphysical' truth, please contact your nearest university philosophy department for more info. Philosophers are not all pinko-commie liberals like Dawkins, some of them are religious.)

[BathTub]

Essentially the set up for the Courtier's Reply.

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

[BathTub]

Richard Dawkins wrote a new preface for the UK paperback and read it aloud to the people who joined him on his trip to the Galapagos recently

It addresses a lot of the crap people used to avoid the issue, including the Courtier's Reply.

Pick your poison
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24787207865440
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGmALkvcG2M
http://richarddawkins.net/video/TGD%...ace%20WEB2.mov

My understanding is the Quicktime is the highest quality.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by EvilLumpy

Sorry dude, but the point of language is to communicate ideas in a clear and meaningful manner. You have to be clear in what you're saying, otherwise when I say astrology and mean astronomy... well, the whole thing just doesn't work anymore because nobody can really understand a thing I say.

You're saying that a word can only ever mean what webster says it means ( using further words ). I don't believe this is true. Also, you aren't considering context. Frogerty didn't use an incorrect word. He had what sv believed to be an incorrect understanding of the concept of theology.

Dictionary definitions do not say all there is to be said about the concept behind words. In this case they're simply blunt instruments used to give a person a "Bzzzzt, you're wrong" slap down. Not something that is particularly conducive to discussion.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

If God exists outside our framework, how can WE know that HE exists?

thats the whole point - we can never know if god exists AND we can never know if god doesn't exist - any belief yay or nay goes beyond what we know - resulting in different versions explaining the unknown

Originally Posted by doppelgänger of someone

The alleged actions He made on our framework, i.e. physical world, can be explained by other means

actually astrophysicists face a paradox when explaining the beginning:
It is generally accepted that the universe has not been around forever and so
has a beginning.(big bang)
Laws of physics can’t be eternal (independent of the universe) because there
was nothing before the beginning.(they don't preexist)
If the laws of physics came about with the beginning of the universe - then
these laws can’t be used to explain the beginning.

whether you believe that an infinite conscious intelligence somehow preexists or the laws of physics somehow preexist - either way you're justified in your extrapolation - imo

[samael]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

thats the whole point - we can never know if god exists AND we can never know if god doesn't exist - any belief yay or nay goes beyond what we know - resulting in different versions explaining the unknown

I think you have missed the point. If God exists outside our framework, and we can't know he exists, then he is irrelevant. If there is no way for us to detect his influence (ie we can't know he exists) then he has no influence. There is no point considering a influence which, well, isn't.

Also, a binary choice does not imply an equal chance. Either I am 30 metres tall, or I am not. Its not 50/50, the chances of me being 30 metres tall are pretty bloody slim. Hell, the chance that I am the tallest man in the world is 6,602,224,175 to 1.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Dawkins claim the point is, we HAVE reason to believe God doesn't exist. All the scientific theories explaining our world don't have a superentity of God in it. *As far as we know through science* God doesn't exist. Therefore God doesn't exist. (epistemic -> metaphysics)

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by samael

I think you have missed the point. If God exists outside our framework, and we can't know he exists, then he is irrelevant. If there is no way for us to detect his influence (ie we can't know he exists) then he has no influence. There is no point considering a influence which, well, isn't.

I think this is philosophical. For the purposes of science there is no point investigating what has no influence.

However there is no requirement or reason to live based simply on what can be observed and measured scientifically. At least no reason other than personal philosophy.

I think you're wrong doppel. Science hasn't observed the existence of God. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It is not possible for us to observe both the position and velocity of a particle, but Steven Hawkins admits it maybe possible for a supernatural entity to know such information. Just, for the purposes of science, there is no point considering that because it's not possible for us.

Some would say life is more than science.

[Ajax]

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

[Hemebond]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

we can never know if god exists AND we can never know if god doesn't exist

Rubbish. All a god has to do to prove his/her existence is show up, in the "flesh", and do a few tricks. Easy.

But gods don't exist.

[samael]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think this is philosophical. For the purposes of science there is no point investigating what has no influence.

I just looked up the meaning of the term "philosophical", and I have to say I completly agree with the above statement.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

However there is no requirement or reason to live based simply on what can be observed and measured scientifically. At least no reason other than personal philosophy.

I also agree with this.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I think you're wrong doppel. Science hasn't observed the existence of God. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It is not possible for us to observe both the position and velocity of a particle, but Steven Hawkins admits it maybe possible for a supernatural entity to know such information. Just, for the purposes of science, there is no point considering that because it's not possible for us.

Some would say life is more than science.

Some would be wrong.

[Ab]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200707...igbangpossible

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by samael

Some would be wrong.

But who can really say? ( Except for the fundies of either camp. )

[Whiplash]

uh ... really?

[Lightspeed]

No sir, I don't like it.

[samael]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

But who can really say? ( Except for the fundies of either camp. )

The definition, and origin of the word science says so. Life is all about knowledge. Acquiring it, disseminating it, verifying it.

[sv]

Originally Posted by samael

Life is all about knowledge. Acquiring it, disseminating it, verifying it.

Knowledge of pie eating is not identical to the experience.

[?>Superman]

Originally Posted by Ajax

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Jesus. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

This nigga bought the sword too

[samael]

Originally Posted by sv

Knowledge of pie eating is not identical to the experience.

The best way for someone to gain knowledge of eating pie is to eat pie.

[Lightspeed]

Fundy you may be, but I can't argue with anyone who promotes the eating of pie.