Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

[SFG75]

Chapter one has a small section titled "undeserved respect" and it contains a few interesting items that I've never considered before. I do believe that there is something to his argument that we give religion a "free pass" so as to not appear to be rude. We don't accept telemarketing calls, sales offers, or political statements as truth or through a "I can understand that" type of taking the one down, yet Dawkins believes that we do so regularly with religion.

If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argumetn about it. But on the other hand iif somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a ssaturday', you say, 'I respect that'.

A fascinating example that he provided is the use of drugs. Only if you claim it to be necessary to experience God can you get away with it. If you are a member of an art appreciation society and argue that it will help in viewing a given piece, no one would take you seriously. Dawkin's argumetn here is very clear specifically as to how religion gets a free pass, when it possibly shouldn't. It's also interesting to note that marijuana has proven medical results for some people who are terminally ill, but rather than run with evidence, we have no qualms allowing people to use drugs becasue of what they think it will do for them spiritually. Dawkin's gave two great examples here as I've re-stated, I did like his critique of it very much.

I believe that chapter two should have been chopped up. He could have done the issue of monotheism/polytheism more justice by focusing on that rather than also throwing in a section about the religious beliefs of the American founders. While it is relevant as they had some quirky beliefs, it just appears....odd.

I had a great laugh about the trinity writing of St. Gregory. "The father is in the son, who is also in the father, who each dwell in the spirit and. . . ."

I'd be curious to hear from our U.K. members about religion in their country. Dawkin's noted:

The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded ins ecularism, is now the most religious country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least.

This is perfectly explainable though on the American side of it. The Deist and Unitarian minded founders were a small percentage of the American population. Through his secular university and support for public education, Jefferson thought that one day, everyone would be a deist. The problem was his ascribing of his own beliefs to the majority of people who with their own life experiences and values, would make their own decisions. It does drive me nuts when people depict him as a devout man, he was not a literalist at all.

Thoughts?

 

[Stef]

The book enlightens the reader and gives alternatives to the religious beliefs. Those who insist Dawkins is going overboard in exluding faith are misunderstanding his message. It is religion that excludes alternatives while Dawkins puts the matter to the question. I have to agree with Dawkins, let me question it and let me believe what I want. It's about time someone stood up to religion fanatics.

 

[Stef]

There is a lot of speculation about who's right and who's wrong about the existence of God. But the matter is really a simple one: We were meant NOT TO KNOW

I think that if we were meant to know we would already know either way.

Not knowing if there is a God or not it's imperative for our own survival. Let's say we finally received certain proof that God does not exist, we would be extinct in a very brief time since humans not wanting to put up with life's mysery will commit suicide at an increasing rate, and if only the rich and wealthy want to live we will end up with a cut-throat society which will eventually self-destruct.
If we receive certain proof there is a God and a magnanimous one who will welcome us after death, we will no longer fear death and will not fight diseases or disasters to survive, thus will slowly become extinct. (and why would he not be magnanimous since we are the result of his creation, he made us the way we are, good and bad).
So, there is a very important reason why we still don't know and will never know and both science and religion will give us palliative answers good enough for our survival. (those who kill themselves or kill others in the name of God are the weakest link but luckily they are not the majority).
Well, this is a simple thought that I liked to share with you readers of the book of the month. Great selection!!!

 

[ylris611203]

There is a lot of speculation about who's right and who's wrong about the existence of God. But the matter is really a simple one: We were meant NOT TO KNOW

.................by whom were we meant not to know?

 

[robertd]

An interesting book, but maybe not the book of the month.

 

[beer good]

Let's say we finally received certain proof that God does not exist, we would be extinct in a very brief time since humans not wanting to put up with life's mysery will commit suicide at an increasing rate, and if only the rich and wealthy want to live we will end up with a cut-throat society which will eventually self-destruct.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would people "commit suicide at an increasing rate"? There are millions of atheists out there living perfectly normal lives with no thoughts of topping themselves at all - and they're not all called Donald Trump either. Do you have any sort of example of this?

(Here's a fun counter-argument: if the world itself is so awful that the only thing that keeps people from blowing their brains out is the fact that suicide is a sin which will land you in The Hot Place - wouldn't that disprove, at least, the existence of a benevolent God?

Besides, I always thought the idea of there being no afterlife would tend to make people want to hang on to this one more, not less.)

An interesting book, but maybe not the book of the month.

Well... it IS, in fact, book of the month. We voted on it. No maybe about it.

 

[beer good]

Right, so, a review.

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins

(Warning: core dump of brain in progress. Opinions expressed.)

A few years ago, Channel Four and Richard Dawkins did a documentary on religion. The ads for it were striking to say the least; an image of the New York skyline, with the World Trade Center still standing, and the words “Imagine a world without religion”.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams (a fan of Dawkins, and considering how often Dawkins quotes him in “The God Delusion” the admiration is mutual), we’re coming up on 2000 years since a guy was nailed to a piece of wood for suggesting that people should be nice to each other now and then. We’ve explored time and space, we’ve explained things that seemed beyond our comprehension even 100 years ago, we’ve built machines which to the man in the street are virtually indistinguishable from magic, and at least in the richer parts of the world we’ve turned diseases that used to wipe out entire regions into something you can cure with a shot. And religion, specifically the dogmatic kind which some might have expected to belong to the less enlightened times pre-Voltaire, pre-Darwin, pre-Einstein… is stronger than ever. We have (one or several, depending on how you count) war in the middle East where the battle lines are defined by which ancient book people believe in (or how they choose to interpret the same book), we have an American president who believes God speaks directly to him, we have growing support (so far mainly in the US, but we all know what happens in the US spreads) who want to teach Genesis as a viable alternative to science, people use “freedom of religion” as an excuse to let them oppress women, homosexuals or their own children, and just look at the whole Rushdie business that’s just flaring up again.

Something could be said to be wrong with this picture. And in sweeps Richard Dawkins with a cape and the DNA gene like a superhero symbol on his chest.

In his previous books, starting with “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins apparently focused more on presenting the scientific viewpoint, but “The God Delusion” really seems to aim at being something which may be an oxymoron: the atheist bible. Look at the cover illustration, the bestsellerishly catchy title, the simple, humorous language; he’s out to convert. The scientific, rational worldview gets a good explanation, but in addition to this, the good and bad sides of religion are looked at from every possible angle – from world creation to morality, from building block of societies to personal comfort, everything gets put through the ringer. And it’s hardly a surprise that he stamps a big red “DOES NOT COMPUTE” on every aspect of it and finds that humanity would be better off without it; we’d have the good sides of it anyway, and we’d be rid of its bad sides.

The problem isn’t that Dawkins is wrong, because I don’t really think he is; he makes a strong case and for a non-religious person there’s a lot here to agree with, learn, use... and be scared by. There’s a war between rationality and superstition, he claims, and the cost of backing down even an inch could be disastrous.

(One of many frightening examples: the court case against the Pennsylvania school that wanted to teach creationis... sorry, “intelligent design“ as an alternative to evolution, where the defense’s expert claimed that godless science will never be able to understand “irreducibly complex” things such as the human immune system. Tough luck, HIV patients, you’re screwed – and guess how many kids would come out of that school wanting to be immunologists.)

No matter how much Dawkins popularizes his arguments he’s still a scientist at heart, and his basic problem with religion as a solution to anything still goes back to this: for every “why?“ you’ll sooner or later end up in front of a black box with the words “Because God wills it so“ stamped in permanent ink on top. Rather than every answer leading to another question, an expansion of knowledge, he thinks that using god(s) as an explanation implies giving up, an acceptance that “this is the way it is, we cannot know why and we cannot do anything about it”. God wants genocide, God wants televangelists, God wants female circumcision, God wants badly designed human bodies (if we’re intelligently designed to walk on two legs, why does it ruin our backs?), God wants terrorists, God wants bans on abortion and stem cell research, God wants people who never change their opinion regardless of what the facts are, and the rest of us are expected to respect it since it’s written in an ancient, questionably translated book.

For every well-founded argument, however, it still shines through that Dawkins is after that conversion. It’s everywhere, in the language (he uses just about every negatively charged adjective and adverb in the English language in connection with religion), in the way he presents his opponents’ arguments in a way that makes them sitting ducks for him to blow out of the water (can ducks really sit on water?), in the way he has a slight tendency to paint “his” side in an extra good light (yes, Richard, atheists have blown up churches – been to the former Eastern bloc lately?), in the way he snorts with contempt at the idea of “live and let live”; there are two choices, he argues, rationality or superstition, atheism or blind faith. And (I’d like to think that this isn’t because he would probably classify me as one of those sissy “Neville Chamberlain agnostics” he dislikes so much) I can’t help but wonder whether this is really a constructive approach. If you tell people they have to make a choice between the religion they’ve grown up with for generations and things which, to a lot of people, are fairly abstract ideas no matter how important they are – astrophysics, geology, evolutionary biology, etc ... how many will choose the former? Is it possible to argue logically against something which, by its very nature, defies logic?

I keep thinking of Karen Armstrong’s “The Battle for God”, where she makes a very good case for the growing role of religious fundamentalism during the 20th and 21st centuries not being a paradox but exactly the opposite; a very obvious reaction to the shrinking space left for religion to occupy when almost everything has a non-religious explanation, when the secular world becomes the norm. I suppose this book in a way is a reaction to the reaction; Dawkins speaks of religion as worshipping gaps – ie. the bits of the world, of humanity, of life that are attributed to God since we have no other explanation for them; as a scientist, it’s his job to get rid of those gaps. It’s all very Hegelian – thesis->antithesis and all that jazz – only to both sides, there seems to be no opportunity for synthesis, and I’m not sure whether Dawkins’ book will end up bridging the – heh – gap or widening it.

But on the other hand, should we demand of truth, of science, that it also be comfortable and non-confrontational? Maybe not. “The God Delusion” is a very well-written, thorough and convincing argument, I would recommend it both to fellow agnostics/atheists and to the religiously-minded who would like to be informed of what the “other side” (yeeeeesh) is actually arguing/thinking, but as with everything: read it with a critical eye.

4/5.

 

[Stef]

by nature itself, one of the many laws of nature for our survival, the same law that prevents us from knowing the future, it's for a good reason, we can only know present and past and only imagine our future, this fact is what drives us to go on and live.

 

[beer good]

by nature itself, one of the many laws of nature for our survival, the same law that prevents us from knowing the future, it's for a good reason, we can only know present and past and only imagine our future, this fact is what drives us to go on and live.

Which law of nature would that be, exactly? Thermodynamics, gravity, relativity, Heisenberg's principle...? You're still assuming that there is a specific thought-out "reason" behind it - in practice, you're arguing that "We cannot know whether God exists because God doesn't want us to", only with the word "God" replaced by "nature", but still granting "nature" the ability to plan out ahead and decide what's best for us. Fine, I guess that's a matter of belief; but you can't simply take an unprovable assumption and declare it a law of nature.

Dawkins, of course, goes into the question at length of whether we CAN know whether God exists or not. He seems to think there's no reason we won't be able to at some point; personally, I doubt it - proving a negative is one of the hardest things there is - but then again, 150 years ago we didn't know about radiation and black holes either. But I tend to think it's pretty much a moot point; the people who truly believe wouldn't accept proof of God's non-existence anyway.

 

[Stef]

When I say "nature" I don't necessarily think of a "god" since we cannot prove it or disprove it, what I see is the natural way of survival, as intelligent living beings we keep thinking and wondering who created all this, the fact that there is no certain answer could only be for our own good as (nature sometimes could be so perfect) not knowing will keep us wanting to live on and avoid extinction. I would dread the day that humanity finally has the answer...

 

[ylris611203]

There is more than just this because there can't not be.

If we are here by accident and not design then mankind would be better off ending it all now and not trying to preserve the result of a freak accident.

 

[beer good]

When I say "nature" I don't necessarily think of a "god" since we cannot prove it or disprove it, what I see is the natural way of survival, as intelligent living beings we keep thinking and wondering who created all this, the fact that there is no certain answer could only be for our own good as (nature sometimes could be so perfect) not knowing will keep us wanting to live on and avoid extinction. I would dread the day that humanity finally has the answer...

Do forgive me for banging on about this, but I think it's a fascinating theory (if slightly flawed); OK, so "nature", which is non-conscious and non-divine, has in humanity evolved a mechanism that makes it impossible for us to know whether there is (a) god(s) or not. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no god(s); he/she/they don't exist. Why then would we have a mechanism for not knowing about something that doesn't exist? In other words, wouldn't the existence of such a mechanism prove the existence of one or more gods (by whatever name you wish to call them), thereby making itself redundant?

Chris: arguments like that is precisely why I'm happy the people with their fingers on the buttons to nuclear weapons aren't religious fundamentalists... wait... uh-oh.

 

[Stef]

There was another question to another thread and I replied but I don't know where it went, so I just add a further explanation of my theory here, when you ask why would we have a mechanism for not knowing about something that doesn't exist... again we don't know that it doesn't exist, as we don't know that it does exist. We can only speculate and we can only choose to believe or not to believe, that doesn't mean we have the right answer. Just because there is this mechanism doesn't prove the existence of a god who doesn't want us to know, this mechanism it's just like the air we breathe, it's necessary for our own survival, it's just another way that help us go on living. I mentioned the 2 scenarios leading to possible extinction if humans did have the right answer, one way or the other. As it is, we don't have the right answer, we can only speculate and we can choose to believe what we want, and be happy with our choice.
Atheists seem to enjoy life more because they don't live in fear of displeasing an imaginary supernatural entity (and not because they have the proof God does not exist).
The fact that we don't know the future and can only imagine it, it's another mechanism that helps us go on living and survive as a species.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

If we receive certain proof there is a God and a magnanimous one who will welcome us after death, we will no longer fear death and will not fight diseases or disasters to survive, thus will slowly become extinct. (and why would he not be magnanimous since we are the result of his creation, he made us the way we are, good and bad).

This comment is completely unfounded. Millions of people worldwide truely believe that God exists, and yet they still fight against dying. I do not know one Christian who doesn't cherish their own life, and the life of others. Have you never heard of people praying for each other when they are ill or in danger?

Knowing the truth about God's existence will not spell the end of mankind in any sense of the term.

 

[ylris611203]

Chris: arguments like that is precisely why I'm happy the people with their fingers on the buttons to nuclear weapons aren't religious fundamentalists... wait... uh-oh.

Your argument is typical of many, including I would guess 'Richard Dawkins', although I have not got round to reading the The God Delusion yet.

You associate fundamentalist, religion and God always in the same breath.

Where in my comment did I use the word religion?

Also, since you are talking about religion, don't you think that to many people are using science as a form of religion.

 

[beer good]

Your argument is typical of many, including I would guess 'Richard Dawkins', although I have not got round to reading the The God Delusion yet.

Why do you put Richard Dawkins' name within quotation marks? Are you implying he doesn't exist?

Where in my comment did I use the word religion?

You didn't, that's correct. What you wrote was:

If we are here by accident and not design then mankind would be better off ending it all now and not trying to preserve the result of a freak accident.

I took this to mean - and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you - that if there ISN'T a "designer", that is a "god" by whatever name (hey, quotation marks!), then life is pointless and we'd better end it right away. Even if we ignore the misconception that any scientist is arguing everything just sprang up by "freak accident" (you REALLY should read the book - Dawkins spends at least an entire chapter addressing that particular idea), I still don't understand it. Why would life be LESS meaningful because you're completely in control of it yourself, not depending on the whims of some divine being? If we have been lucky enough to end up here, why throw that lucky break aside? It makes no sense.

Also, since you are talking about religion, don't you think that to many people are using science as a form of religion.

Depends on how you mean, feel free to expand. If you're going to drag up the old argument that "believing in gravity/evolution/geology is just another form of blind faith", then I'm sorry, it's not. That gets right back to the question of what can be proven and what can not. Believing in a non-visible, non-interventionist, non-provable "God" is NOT the same as "believing" that E=MC2, that the earth is 5 billion years old, or that antibiotics can cure infections.

(Speaking of, Stef, I'm still not seeing how your argument hangs together. If there is a "God", then he/she/they have existed in the past and/or exist in the now; we can't tell the future for the simple and entirely different reason that it hasn't happened yet, and could at any conceivable "now" go in lots of different ways. The only way we could tell THE future would, of course, be if there were a "God" who had it planned out and might let us know how it's going to look. If there isn't, then the future doesn't happen until it happens.)

 

[ylris611203]

Why do you put Richard Dawkins' name within quotation marks? Are you implying he doesn't exist?

Quotation marks can indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words.

I took this to mean - and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you - that if there ISN'T a "designer", that is a "god" by whatever name (hey, quotation marks!), then life is pointless and we'd better end it right away.

No not quite right away. I want to see how Lost ends first.

Are we only here until a meteor has a lucky strike and destroys the earth and that is mankind gone for ever. Why should we try and keep mankind alive forever? Why reproduce more of ourselves so that they can be grateful that they exist. Have we along got some sort of divine right to bring others into a world that is so imperfect and expect them to clear up our mess. And for what purpose?

Depends on how you mean, feel free to expand. If you're going to drag up the old argument that "believing in gravity/evolution/geology is just another form of blind faith", then I'm sorry, it's not. That gets right back to the question of what can be proven and what can not. Believing in a non-visible, non-interventionist, non-provable "God" is NOT the same as "believing" that E=MC2, that the earth is 5 billion years old, or that antibiotics can cure infections.

Not believing in something; that belief can be as strong as believing in something. Richard Dawkins (no quotation marks ) has made a lot of money writing about something that according to him does not exist, yet he is no more able to prove that what is has written about has any more truth in it than a holy mans bible.

If there is a "God", then he/she/they have existed in the past and/or exist in the now; we can't tell the future for the simple and entirely different reason that it hasn't happened yet,

You are making an assumption that there is a past and a future and not just an here and now.

 

[SFG75]

Have you never heard of people praying for each other when they are ill or in danger?

This is an interesting comment and it's one that Dawkins deals with early on in page 62. Some researchers who favored the argument that prayer "heals" paid $2.4 million to conduct a study. What they found was that people who were prayed for got worse. There is no correlation to this, it's pure mythology that it "helps."

The results, reported in the American Heart Journal of April 2006, were clear cut. There was no difference between those parents who were prayed for and those who were not.

Chris-Science as it's own religion? How does one "worship" that? Do people conduct the scientific method with everything or something? I don't believe it is a "religion" in any sense of the word. Any and every claim is subject to *peer review* through professional associations and journals. This encourages a degree of skepticism and criticism, not wholesale agreement. That is counter to any circular reasoning regarding the trinity, purgatory, or other items which cannot be proven.

 

[Stef]

I wished the threads were easier to locate but with a little patience I can find my way (some quick replies seem to be hidden in some of the modules), I think I am now replying to 'beer good' although I also have in mind Chris' comments.

One comment was that it's not true that suicide would be in the minds of those who believe in God, again, I didn't say that, I said if the believers had 'certain proof' of God's existence, of course they don't commit suicide now because it's only a 'belief' not a 'proof'. It's their hope they're right that drives them to live on. So, there is the difference. Again we have to read the 2 scenarios I gave in the beginning of my posting here. Possible extinction only with 'certain proof' for exixtence or non existence, not imagination or belief. All religious people and all atheists have made their choice based on their imagination, since we cannot have any proof. My suggestion for possible extinction was only in case of certain proof. The fact that we cannot have it goes along perfectly well with the laws of nature in its endless strive for survival.

And about the future, I do not attribute the impossibility of seeing the future to the lack or presence of a God, it's the law of the universe, it only goes forward. Maybe in some newly born galaxy it's possible to see what happened to our solar system, as we were able to see a few years ago the supernova that happened so long long ago. But we live in the present and only the nextness (meaning I know that in 10 minutes I will have lunch), I would never think I could know the future because a God could tell me, it would be against the laws of the universe.

Dawkins has so many wonderful theories as alternative to religion, however, even he fails to explain the 'initial creation', evolution is easy to explain, but that very first burst of matter will forever remain the mystery that will allow us to go on living and stimulate our minds.

 

[beer good]

One comment was that it's not true that suicide would be in the minds of those who believe in God, again, I didn't say that, I said if the believers had 'certain proof' of God's existence, of course they don't commit suicide now because it's only a 'belief' not a 'proof'.

So what kind of proof would you consider "certain"?

My suggestion for possible extinction was only in case of certain proof.

But I still don't see why the lack of a God would cause mass suicide. You say it would, but you're not explaining why. Which ties nicely into Chris' comment:

Are we only here until a meteor has a lucky strike and destroys the earth and that is mankind gone for ever. Why should we try and keep mankind alive forever? Why reproduce more of ourselves so that they can be grateful that they exist. Have we along got some sort of divine right to bring others into a world that is so imperfect and expect them to clear up our mess. And for what purpose?

Maybe we'll get hit by a meteor tomorrow. Maybe we'll continue to evolve for millions of years à la Olaf Stapledon and colonize the entire galaxy. Maybe we'll just settle down and have dinner. The point is, WHY would life be pointless just because the meaning isn't handed to you by a "designer" or "creator" or whatever you want to call it? Why can't it be enough that it's good to be alive, that there's a certain subset of humanity that you love and care for, that there are books, movies, good food, warm sunshine, beer, Beethoven, and yes, even "Lost" for those who like unsolvable mysteries? Why would the reason for your existence be the be-all and end-all of the meaning of life? Why not find out on your own?

Richard Dawkins (no quotation marks ) has made a lot of money writing about something that according to him does not exist, yet he is no more able to prove that what is has written about has any more truth in it than a holy mans bible.

Well, again, you haven't read the book so I guess it's understandable that you don't know what's in it. As was mentioned earlier, he does write about a lot of things that DO undeniably exist and can be proven. For instance, the existence of religion, the main focus of the book, is undeniable. The various scientific principles he discusses for hundreds of pages can be and have been proven. He never claims to prove the non-existence of God, but he does discuss how it might be proven or disproven. (See SFG's response, too.) Whether he makes money off it is completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

You are making an assumption that there is a past and a future and not just an here and now.

Well, I know I watched Kill Bill yesterday, so there is a past. And I plan to eat some chicken in an hour or so, so there better be a future. Of course, you could always argue that it's all just an illusion, but then I'd have to respond that you're just an illusion too, and then we end up in Matrix territory and I hate Keanu Reeves. So probably not a good idea.