Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

I think the fact that none of you can bring a non-fallacious argument to bear against the book's central thesis is very telling in itself.I realize that you and Herp are scared to death to read this book. (I've been enjoying it greatly.) Intelligent people would realize that refusing to read a book leaves them in a fairly poor position to comment on it. But I guess (to borrow a popular syllogism) unwillingness to read = inability to refute.

Why don't you read it and find out? Dawkins isn't a loon; he's a widely respected figure in the sciences.But from where I'm sitting, trashing a book you won't even read = inability to refute.

I don't know that anybody is. I think his arguments against religion stand on their own merits, and I invite anybody to refute his book with an argument that isn't basically "but nonsense can make us feel so good!"Dawkins makes another point that I've never seen anybody rebut - if you're a person who's committed to rational inquiry in their lives and not just in their day jobs as scientists, it's impossible for you to be anything but an atheist. That's 100% true, as near as I can tell. I'm not an atheist because I want to be; I'm an atheist because, rationally, that's what's true about the universe.Perhaps there are those who don't agree. Well, too bad. Try not losing the debate sometime. That it's time to realize that religion isn't something that gets a pass just for being a religion. PS, have you read at all the dialogue ongoing between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan? You can see it here: Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on Faith, Religion, Tolerance, Moderates, Bible, God, Islam, Atheism, Jesus, Christian Nation - BeliefnetThe vast majority of religious narratives are based on events that, we can rationally conclude, did not occur. That it's considered "crazy" to point out something so obviously true is a sign of how religion has perverted the thinking of even those who aren't terribly interested in it.Statements offered as fact that are actually nonsense are rightly decried by reasonable people - unless, for most people, those statements are labeled as "religious." Dawkins point is that there's no reason for religion to get a pass on being false, and I find myself in complete agreement.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. One proof of this is that, while none of the religions can agree on the nature, purpose, personality, name, or even number of your supposedly "invisibe divine deities", all atheists come to the exact same conclusion about the number of gods that exist - zero.

Another way to look at it is that when you say "agnostic", you really mean "atheist." I'm not convinced there's a practical difference between the terms, other than a certain distaste on the part of self-described "agnostics" to use plain language. The only reason? I couldn't say. The main reason in most cases? Absolutely. A god who has an effect on the universe? Absolutely that's a scientific question - a question with the answer "no, there's no such thing." "Gods" who have no effect on the universe? It's not clear how such a being even merits the term "god"; it certainly doesn't meet the definition. I'd say Dawkins' assertion is accurate. What, we're supposed to believe that science can't address the question just because you say it can't? I respect you plenty, PS, but I don't see why you should be believed on this subject.

You say "a Creator", as though there's a consensus that it's just one of them, and that's absolutely not so. And most religions categorically deny that they're talking about the same deity as any other religion. Allah is not the same figure as Jehovah, not to Muslims, Jews, or Christians. And, of course, plenty of religious traditions assert multiple such creator figures. Some purport no creator.The defining characteristic of the world's religions is that they can arrive at no consensus whatsoever. They're not even unified in disagreeing with atheists! In your personal religion, of course he possesses such things. Not so in other faiths. There is no consensus among religion - a defining characteristic of that which is made-up. On the other hand, atheists are in universal agreement that gods are wrong. That consensus is considerable proof that it is truly atheists who are being objective, here.Still haven't read the book = inability to refute. (I'm quite indebted to you for that schema, RM; it really saves a lot of time.)

You're apparently having great difficulty supporting your points. = Inability to refute, I guess. I just refuted this, and it's a violation of the forum guidelines for you to repeat yourself without addressing rebuttals. But allow me to repeat myself. In fact, the concept of a single divine creator is not universal amongst religions. For instance, many religions posit multiple creative agencies, and some religions posit that the universe is eternal and uncreated.Randman, if you intend on replying further in this matter I expect you to address my rebuttals, not simply repeat yourself.

But there is. Among Hindus, for instance, their religion stipulates that the world is eternal and uncreated; the karmic circle symbolizes this.I'm sorry, Randman, but until you either defend or retract your erroneous statements, discussion cannot continue with you. If you insist on repeating yourself without responding to rebuttals a third time, I'm going to ask for moderator attention. In my opinion you've enjoyed a leash much longer than your behavior deserves.

Hrm, seems like they're having some difficulty coming to a consensus within the religion about that. Wasn't that my point in the first place? That's my point, Rand. Not only is it the opposite of what I have learned about the universe, it's the opposite of what other religions hold true about the universe.You're aptly proving my point, Randman. There's zero emerging consensus among the religious on these issues, but the consensus among atheists is clear - there are no gods.Thanks for the discussion. It was particularly nice of you to switch sides right at the end there and help me prove my point.

Sigh. Randman, I did warn you that I would seek moderator attention if you continued to repeat false claims. You'll find my request for same in the general moderation thread subsequent to this message.We dealt with this. Many religions propose an eternal world. That which is eternal, as you surely must recognize, cannot be created. Your argument is false. It's incumbent upon you either cease repeating it or advance new information to support it. These comments are completely off-topic and irrelevant to my argument. They constitute a smokescreen to avoid rebuttals, another violation of the forum guidelines that I'll be sure to bring to moderator attention.Honestly, RM, I'm surprised. For all that you talk about evos violating the guidelines I would have thought you'd be more interested in showing the rest of us that you could follow them yourself.

Why are we only talking about those? I wasn't. Upon which there is no agreement. You call him "Creator". Muslims call it "Allah." The Jews speak of "Jehovah." You can't even agree on his name! The most basic characteristic of someone, and you can't even agree amongst yourself what it's supposed to be. Theism isn't the only kind of religion. Your attempt to draw a dichotomy is fallacious. Indeed. That's rather the point, isn't it? It rather looks like you did. I don't see the relevance. Not everybody sees courageous, honest inquiry into the universe as something worth doing as more than a day job.

It's not clear to me what authority you and Randman have in this thread to dictate the terms of the discussion.This isn't the Showcase, Herp. You're not the master here. Try to remember that, ok? Many religions, sure. Randman disagreed with you - he asserted all religions. He was, of course, wrong, as you agree.But that proves my point. There's no universal consensus among religions - but all atheists agree, there are no such things as gods.

Really?Tell me, Herp - what does a mad scramble to change the subject rather than face a rebuttal mean? You know, like you just did? (I'm guessing - inability to refute. Just off the top of my head.)

I've got the book sitting here on my coffee table, and I have to say this is a pretty clear misrepresentation of the content of the book.What I wonder is why nobody seems to be able to address the arguments of his book without completely misrepresenting them, calling Dawkins names, etc. If anything substantiates the central thesis of Dawkins book - that religion is not something that can be rationally defended - it's this phenomenon of religious believers not being able to marshal any kind of rational response.

Well...What I thought was weird is that you drew such a distinction between Harris and Dawkins, and after reading both Dawkins' book and Harris's dialogue with Sullivan (about which we have another thread), I'm struck by how I don't see a difference between them. I'm not familiar with Harris' book or books - An End to Faith, is it? - but Dawkins' book reads like Harris' arguments to Sullivan put in book form.I mean, in the dialogue, it's abundantly clear that Harris is not about to become Catholic - the fact that the religion is based on affirming that events that didn't happen actually did makes it an intellectually dubious effort from Harris' perspective. And whatever spiritual merit exists Harris thinks he can get from a source that doesn't require him to believe that up is down and black is white.Now, from my reading of the book, Dawkins is less focused on the spiritual, and that's fine; that's not important to everybody. It may or may not be important to me, and many may disagree about what exactly falls under the heading of "spiritual", anyway. He's largely more concerned about expanding a thesis that Harris hits on in the dialogue - religion is not a net benefit for human societies and the individual experience. Maybe it's time for them to be called that. Pandering to religious nonsense hasn't achieved anything; instead, religious tribal warfare threatens, now, every corner of the Earth. To cross-pollinate from another thread, when an Orthodox Jew feels that he can beat a woman senseless for having the temerity not to get into the back of the bus, maybe it's time to draw a line in the sand about how exactly religion tends to inculcate mental habits that don't result in just, peaceful societies. Especially now that religion and region are no longer synonymous. You think so? From here in the midwest, where I've lived all my life, I wonder if I see things a little differently. I've always been raised amidst messages that to focus on scientific truth is to "ignore the bigger picture", and that to use science to try to deny God is to "miss the forest for the trees", and that "there are many paths to truth", a formulation that puts every single one of the world's "approved" religions on the exact same footing as science, even though that's a position that the most casual observer should be able to see through immediately.I couldn't count on two hands the number of national religious figures who claim to have a hold on truth that, within their own magisteria, is at least as valid as scientific answers to science questions. There's that many. The only public figure I can think of who represents the other side is Dawkins; if I ever see Harris on C-SPAN I guess we can add him to the list.I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't take a confrontational approach in the book - but it's only confrontational in comparison to the ridiculously non-direct, circumspect, tip-toeing-around-the-religious tone that otherwise dominates the discussion of the relationship between science and religion. I think it's time for the religious to hear matter-of-fact statements about the intellectual vapidity that lies at the heart of their belief structures, and have to deal with it. Bending over backwards to avoid offending their sensibilities is what leads to things like the imposition of Shari'a in otherwise secular countries.