matthew s says

Well, I finally pulled this off the shelf and started looking at it. The author is a good deal more likable than Hitchen's, who wrote a tome on atheism as well, but that's really the leftist in me talking. Dawkins is madly in love with the natural world, and uses this as a counterpoint to what he considers a delusion: God, defined as any supernatural being or beings considered by humans within the context of religion.
I have variously been an Episcopalian, an atheist and an agnostic. I am cautiously re-approaching my religious views, and I have to say I am still finding my way. This book caught my eye because the author is a renowned scientist, and I was interested in his views. More later, but so far, his arguments are well spoken. He doesn't mince words, be forewarned.

posted Monday, March 17 2008

jazzed says

Actually that is not the ultimate argument. BTW, I make these comments as a Buddhist, which does not have a God concept. Does God exist? I have no idea. My reason for writing is that your arguments—as are Dawkins’—are as specious as the current administration’s arguments for going to war in Iraq.

God may not currently be suitable for scientific enquiry but it is merely a prediction, an assumption to say it will never be a suitable subject. God could be suitable for scientific enquiry if someone discovered a way to measure what could be called God force or energy or presence. Will science ever be able to do this? I have no idea, but neither does anyone else. To assert otherwise is mere speculation masquerading as logic. It is a stupid argument--“told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”--that shows only how little the maker understands the logic of science. One cannot prove truth; one can only disprove hypotheses (Sir Karl Popper).

As for the logic of religion, take a look at Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. While Dr. Collins presents nothing that can legitimately be considered “evidence” for the existence of God, he comes across as a well-mannered, interesting person, someone I wouldn’t mind having a beer, coffee, or dinner with. Dawkins, by contrast, comes across as a whiny, child, someone who was beat up on the playground as a youth and now has made this his personal crusade to show his childhood tormentors how worthy he actually is. Good luck, Richard, but don’t you think you should see a psychologist first? From reading his book, I would turn the other way should he approach me. It can be very unpleasant to converse with those who have such unresolved personality issues.

What does this prove? Maybe nothing. But isn’t it odd that the one who believes in God comes across as a real human being, while the one who would destroy that belief for everyone comes across as a petulant, demanding infant? Do you also delight in telling children there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, Richard?

Which brings us to a second point. While it is true that an aberration of religious fanaticism led to 9/11 and Oklahoma City, Dawkins fails to acknowledge the huge benefit belief holds for society. Collins acknowledges the fanaticism; Dawkins does not mention the benefits. What does that say about who is trying to uncover a closer approximation to the truth and who wants you to BELIEVE the way he does?

Now, what are these benefits? For millions upon millions of people—in the USA alone—attending church, synagogue, mosque, Pagan gathering, or meditation group provides a respite from the mind-numbing, heartless grind of this material society. And for many of those it also provides a moral compass. Has this no value to society? It is of immeasurable value. What kind of big-brother surveillance and police force would be required to affect the same influence on society? What would it cost? More importantly, there goes the free society. If it were big brother it would be control, not influence.

Two, what would be the cost of the millions of volunteer hours believers give every week through assorted ministries and church-sponsored social justice programs? While some of these programs spend more time proselytizing than providing services, most do not. Many don’t even mention religion. But perhaps Dawkins is an archconservative who sees no value in providing a hand up for the less fortunate. It seems he mimics the unredeemed Scrooge: “Are there no prisons….and…Union workhouses….If they would rather die…they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” What a wonderful world that would be. And consider that these benefits accrue from the belief, not from whether the beliefs are actually true.

Dawkins does not make a good point. He only shows how far he has come from trying to uncover truth by saying it is up to believers to prove the existence of God. This is a free country. I, you, Dawkins, or anyone can believe whatever any of us choose to believe. As long as religion is kept out of politics, what basis is there to say anyone must prove what they believe? If you want to believe, believe. If not, don’t. It’s not rocket science, in spite of what some clowns would like us to believe.

posted Thursday, March 13 2008

(This is a response to a previous comment)

(jazzed previously rated this book 4 stars)

gorikka says

That last comment is supposed to be in response to viki k's review--the site is screwing up!

posted Sunday, March 9 2008

(read gorikka’ review)

gorikka says

Ha! This is the most accurate review of this book on the site (besides, cough cough, mine)--however, personally, I'd say that 75%-25% is a more honest statistical breakdown of the useful-superfluous elements.

posted Sunday, March 9 2008

(This is a response to a previous comment)

(gorikka previously rated this book 3 stars, read review)

booksnake says

Way to go sokimo! Sounds like a very positive attitude!

posted Wednesday, February 27 2008

(This is a response to a previous comment)

freddiefan says

"Religion and God are beyond the realms of science, logic and rational thinking." - Thats the ultimate argument of all believers in God. Something like, "When you cant win an argument, pretend there isnt one, because your opponent's premise is flawed... God cannot be explained, only felt". How would you respond to an argument as ridiculous as this?

Dawkins makes a good point when he says that its up to the believers to prove the existence of the object of their belief, and not the other way around. Else, this world would be full of the most fantastic products of the man's imagination, only because nobody could disprove their existence. How are you gonna prove to me that there isnt a Martian sitting right next to you at THIS VERY MOMENT?

posted Saturday, January 26 2008

aladdin says

Gihan,

You appear to be trying to have it both ways. You are attempting to use rational argument to prove that rational argument is nonsense.

As for the semantic problem, the word "god" is a perfect case in point. Do you mean "God," as in an actual omnipotent being? Or god, as a concept of infinite greatness? Or god as in something that is worshipped (IE: money, idol, etc?) Or god as something that exists solely by means of being defined? Anselm proposed this in his "proof" of god (God is that which nothing is greater than; something that exists is greater than something doesn't exist; therefore God has to exist.) By that token, I can invent an infinite number of heavenly beings, each one greater than the other. For example: a Snerf is that which is greater than God. Therefore, following Anselm's logic, Snerf's MUST exist, because they can't be greater than God without existing.

It's this sort of arbitrariness that is religion's great weakness, and simply putting all religious matters outside the reach of reason is what makes religion so dangerous.

posted Saturday, January 26 2008

(read aladdin’ review)

gihan says

Hi Aladdin,

Yep, I agree with everything you say.

But what you refer to as the Great Escape Clause IS exactly the point. Believers don't try to explain God by rational means; they admit their belief is outside rational logic (OK, I'm sure SOME believers do try to explain God by rational means - e.g. some of those who want to teach religion in American science classrooms. But they are clearly idiots, so let's not give them any further thought).

It's only non-believers who try to prove/disprove God by rational logic, and that's clearly nonsense. And I find it hard to believe that somebody of Dawkins' reputation could have proposed such a flawed argument without knowing it.

I have no argument with theists who hold an irrational belief and admit it; I only have an argument with atheists who hold an equally irrational belief but smugly consider themselves more "rational" or "scientific".

I don't quite understand what you mean by the "definition of terms" hurdle. What terms exactly are being disputed? God? Rational? Scientific? I'd be interested in knowing specifically what you're referring to.

Gihan

P.S. Thanks for the Asimov reference - I will look out for it.

posted Thursday, January 24 2008

(This is a response to a previous comment)

(gihan previously rated this book 4 stars, read review)

aladdin says

Gihan,

You are relying on religion's Great Escape Clause: putting god outside all rules of logic and reason by assigning him/her/it to a realm where he/she/it may be allowed to exist. In a previous post, you suggest that these other realms might be created by highly evolved beings (like, perhaps, mankind many years from now) which, to their created realms would be "gods." This is an interesting idea, put forth very well by Asimov in his wonderful short story, "The Last Question." However, I think you would have a hard time convincing most religions that this is what they mean when they refer to "God." ALl of this brings up one of the biggest hurdles in any discussion such as this: definition of terms.

By the way, I agree with you that Chapter 4 is one of the weakest, along with the final chapter, in Dawkins' book.

posted Monday, January 14 2008

(read aladdin’ review)

gihan says

Hi Aladdin,

Interesting comment, and again you invoke the "improbability argument" - as Dawkins does. But did you see my previous comment replying to your earlier post? In it, I made a fairly plausible argument (at least to me :-) that the probability of God is at least as high as that of (evolved) Life itself. I would be interested in your comments.

I also think your argument is wrong for another reason. Arguing about the improbability of God is meaningless, because you can only argue from what probability means in OUR universe. But if you're God and you created the universe, you can make up whatever rules you like for that universe, but it doesn't mean the same rules apply to you. So to argue that God is "probable" or "improbable" according to OUR rules is meaningless.

This is important. The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are supposed to exist within our universe. And therefore I agree with you that they are highly improbable. But God - by definition - CREATED our universe, and thus is not bound by our laws of probability.

For example, it's like a computer programmer designing a virtual world with virtual "people". The programmer can design those people with limited intelligence and limited reasoning capacity - even limited to the extent that they will never be able to comprehend the programmer's universe.

I'm interested in your comments.

(Note: By the way, I agree with you that Dawkins' primary aim is "to knock religion off its pedestal". And in that he does a commendable job - albeit only really addressing one religion. But that's not the point here. I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about God. After all, the book is "The God Delusion", not "The Religion Delusion". The latter would have been a more honest title, and if he had published the second half of his book under the latter title, I would have little argument with him.)

Gihan

posted Sunday, January 13 2008

(read gihan’ review)