The God delusion by Dawkins

[Happy Ent]

True enough, but I think that it is a bit extreme to call it intellectual dishonesty, when that seems to simply mean "they are smart guys who do not believe as I do."

I think what he means is "smart guys to say one thing to each other and another thing to their flock". His point—with which I largely agree—is that there is little connection between the intellectually appealing mind-games that theologians play and what believers actually think. I think this is an interesting topic, and one I discuss often in the social circles I frequent (which are filled with priests); but Dawkins doesn't have much to say about it. I haven't seen anything theologically interesting from his pen. His focus is epistemology; from his point of view Christians have more in common with UFO-worshippers and aura healers and astrologers than with Christian theologists.

As for my own opinion, it'd make an interesting topic for General Chatter, MFC, and I'd be happy to discuss it there. By the way, tour contributions to this thread have been erudite and polite. A joy to have you around.

[C S]

MFC,

Any recommendation on where to start with Barth?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I think what he means is "smart guys to say one thing to each other and another thing to their flock". His point—with which I largely agree—is that there is little connection between the intellectually appealing mind-games that theologians play and what believers actually think. I think this is an interesting topic, and one I discuss often in the social circles I frequent (which are filled with priests); but Dawkins doesn't have much to say about it. I haven't seen anything theologically interesting from his pen. His focus is epistemology; from his point of view Christians have more in common with UFO-worshippers and aura healers and astrologers than with Christian theologists.

As for my own opinion, it'd make an interesting topic for General Chatter, MFC, and I'd be happy to discuss it there. By the way, tour contributions to this thread have been erudite and polite. A joy to have you around.

Actually, those are some incredibly interesting and certainly relevant thought-provoking questions, which I would love to discuss. And I would love to entertain some of your thoughts you raised quickly, but if you are to move this topic to General Chatter, then I will wait.

MFC,

Any recommendation on where to start with Barth?

I have only looked at his overall argument and have had some discussions about it, but I honestly do not know where to begin with Barth so I do not want to lead you astray and pretend that I know. The only work I aware of that he did off the top of my head is Church Dogmatics, but I heard that it is a 13 vol. monstrosity, so probably not a good place to start with Barth.

[Happy Ent]

Septon Barth, a blacksmith's son, served Jaehaerys I for 40 years.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Septon Barth, a blacksmith's son, served Jaehaerys I for 40 years.

Since it kind of sticks out with the rest of the thread, that actually sounds like some sort of code. Has GRRM read Barth?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

As for my own opinion, it'd make an interesting topic for General Chatter, MFC, and I'd be happy to discuss it there. By the way, tour contributions to this thread have been erudite and polite. A joy to have you around.

Well you can always move this to the other thread that may or may not come about, but what you have written is too good to ignore this long.

I think what he means is "smart guys to say one thing to each other and another thing to their flock". His point—with which I largely agree—is that there is little connection between the intellectually appealing mind-games that theologians play and what believers actually think. I think this is an interesting topic, and one I discuss often in the social circles I frequent (which are filled with priests); but Dawkins doesn't have much to say about it.

There are many truths which could be drawn out of what you said here. I do believe that are multiple things going on here with what "smart guys who say one thing to each other and another thing to their flock." 1) The mind-games which theologians play do not necessarily reflect their belief, but act as an appeasement to religious criticism. 2) Theologians do believe in the mind-games which they construct, but what they can or do say to their fellow religious is nothing new - just a retention of the status quo beliefs, traditions, and statements. I could see either of these options being true depending upon the particular theologian in question.

One of the most interesting things that my old campus minister told me, and one of the reasons why I developed respect for her, is that churches (PC-USA in the original context) essentially stopped teaching theology in the 2nd or 3rd grade of school. I of course asked her what she meant by that, and she said new theological concepts and trains of thought are very seldom taught in Christianity, so the mass number of believers are using elementary school theology. While the kids may grow up and their experiences in life and religion may have shaped their beliefs, they are just adults playing with elementary school toys instead of the theological power tools. Of course believers may be reading their Christian inspirational or apologetics which merely just exist primarily for Christians to pat themselves on the back, but even then the authors rarely leave this elementary school level of theology. For example, I doubt that there are too many American Christians who have been exposed to the ideas of Process, Liberation, or Natural theology or delve into allegorical readings of scripture. Hell, if believers wish to be taught theology, then they also need to be exposed to Hume, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Dawkins. Or try and find the theological holes and implications of Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Augustine. Of course, if someone were to do that, I am sure that they would be quickly labeled by some Christians as being atheists, trouble-rousers, as corrupters of the youth who cause their kids to lose their faith. Of course of a child's faith becomes shaken or lost because of "alternative views" chances are their foundations of faith were not very well laid to begin with, but I doubt that parents and other church officials would see it as such.

Religion is much like the human body. It can try and protect itself from germs by shutting itself inside and refusing to go anywhere "real," but when forced outside their immune system will be weaker against the infect of germs. The human body's immune system becomes far stronger when it is regularly exposed to bacteria. Religion can choose to avoid the questions posed by atheism, but by doing so, it's immune system will only get weaker.

I haven't seen anything theologically interesting from his pen. His focus is epistemology; from his point of view Christians have more in common with UFO-worshippers and aura healers and astrologers than with Christian theologists.

Which is an interesting question in itself: Why does that divide between the theologian and the layman exist? It is quite possible that even if the Average Joe believer were to read, for example, C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, that while they would process it and feel good about "being right" that they still would not really incorporate it, but just pat themselves on the back, resume life as normal, and forget the points and issues which Lewis tried to address.

But I suppose this is one of the reasons why I am in seminary to begin with, to learn the theology and perspective of Christianity from within and kind of get of a starting point and get a sense for what materials I have to work with. From a modern perspective and sensibility, it is easy to read the Old Testament and say that Adonai-Elohim is a bloody-thirsty tyrant and an asshole! but that ignores the growth of the tradition and how rabbis, priests, and pastors have dealt with those difficult laws and reading of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. For example, I believe that Philo Judaeus has even distinguished the laws within the Torah in On the Unchangeableness of God between those given by G-d, those created by a divinely-inspired Moses, and those created by the priests with the central question being which laws can be changed or ignored.

[AverageGuy]

Are you saying that I misrepresent Dawkin's view? Or do you just want to debate atheism? If it's the latter, then this is the wrong thread in the wrong forum.

No, I think you interpret Dawkins's view very well. However, considering Dawkins brings up the problems with religion as a moral authority in chapters 6 (tentatively) and 8 (definitively), I think one should question whether there is such a thing as a moral authority. Dawkins throws the idea somewhat onto society - which is either an appeal to tradition or an appeal to common practice, take your pick - but mostly onto altruistic genes - despite demolishing so many genetics arguments in The Blind Watchmaker. Moreover, several of his arguments in chapter eight are made from a specific ethical point of view, which an activer reader should immediately question given the context. I'd think a "bright" would encourage it.

That depends if they make any testable claims

I honestly can't think of any religion which makes testable claims which aren't historic claims (the fictional biblical accounts of King David spring to mind). An afterlife? Unseen, omnipresent gods? Miracles which necessarily break universal laws? Any claim that a scientist has a problem with isn't going to be testable, which is at least one reason the scientist will have a problem with it.

Faith's certainly not scientific. There's no evidence (well, there's testimony, but it's biased testimony), there's no testability. Since everyone who actually has faith is aware of this, though, that's a crappy argument. Irrationality wins the day (and if you don't consider the fact that these people don't require evidence irrational, I want to clarify the definition of rationality we're using here).

[MinDonner]

Faith's certainly not scientific. There's no evidence (well, there's testimony, but it's biased testimony), there's no testability. Since everyone who actually has faith is aware of this, though, that's a crappy argument. Irrationality wins the day (and if you don't consider the fact that these people don't require evidence irrational, I want to clarify the definition of rationality we're using here).

...but wasn't one of Dawkins's arguments about the fact that religion DOESN'T stay out of science? I know he went further than that and also discounted the "science=real stuff and religion=spirit stuff and never the twain shall meet", but a lot of his points revolved around the way that religion is trying to warp science to its own ends. If all religious people are aware that their faith has no testability, then where did the Intelligent Design movement come from? Just cos Ser Scot has reasonable views on this does not mean they are shared by the religious community as a whole.

[Ashamanic]

Which is an interesting question in itself: Why does that divide between the theologian and the layman exist? It is quite possible that even if the Average Joe believer were to read, for example, C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, that while they would process it and feel good about "being right" that they still would not really incorporate it, but just pat themselves on the back, resume life as normal, and forget the points and issues which Lewis tried to address.

More likely they would think "what was he smoking that made him think that could be remotely persuasive to anyone"

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

More likely they would think "what was he smoking that made him think that could be remotely persuasive to anyone"

It may not be persuasive to you, but many Christians find C.S. Lewis to be incredibly persuasive, though obviously they do so because they already believe the base assumptions of his arguments: there is a god and there is a Christ .

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

...but wasn't one of Dawkins's arguments about the fact that religion DOESN'T stay out of science? I know he went further than that and also discounted the "science=real stuff and religion=spirit stuff and never the twain shall meet",

Yes, Stephen J. Gould wrote a piece about how the realms of Science and Religion occupied different noma (non-overlapping magisteria), but then Richard Dawkins wrote a follow-up reply to that in which he said that they do not until religion begins to make truth claims about the universe. Whenever religion says that there is a god, or that these miracles did happen, they basically defy the logic of the natural world and enter the realms of scientific critique. And since most religions refuse to back down on the assertion of certain miracles which form center-pieces to religious dogma (the resurrection of a Jewish rabbi who was a carpenter's son comes to mind), religion will continue to be in direct conflict with science.

but a lot of his points revolved around the way that religion is trying to warp science to its own ends.

This is because of the tendency for many religions to always take the additional step of looking at the universe and saying that either G-d did it, or that G-d is simply part of the current scientific mystery-gap. For example, the Big Bang! KaBoom! Pow! How did it start? We do not know. Bill Nye the Science Guy: "We can never know how the universe truly began, but if we look at the trends and patterns of the universe, we can work backwards to create a hypothetical construct to which we can always change." Pat Robertson: "It was G-d." Of course this is assuming that Robertson adopted the quasi-rational intelligent design idea over the flipping-loony six-day creationism.

If all religious people are aware that their faith has no testability, then where did the Intelligent Design movement come from? Just cos Ser Scot has reasonable views on this does not mean they are shared by the religious community as a whole.

The Intelligent Design movement is essentially the religious community's attempt to protect their beliefs with science. What it amounts to is that the Scopes Monkey Trial essentially slapped the religious community in the face. Yeah, the religious "won" the case, but realized that they were losing the war. Science, and especially evolutionary science, was becoming a perceived threat to the religious communities of America, and they essentially had a few options: 1) take the offensive on science or 2) try and incorporate science. While some went with the former option, others went with the latter option to try and protect their beliefs through a false-scientific rationality. This is the birth of Intelligent Design, which says "Okay, evolution happened is happening, but it obviously required a designer, a cause, a mover, or rather an intelligent designer," which of course is just G-d in gift wrap.

[AverageGuy]

...but wasn't one of Dawkins's arguments about the fact that religion DOESN'T stay out of science? I know he went further than that and also discounted the "science=real stuff and religion=spirit stuff and never the twain shall meet", but a lot of his points revolved around the way that religion is trying to warp science to its own ends. If all religious people are aware that their faith has no testability, then where did the Intelligent Design movement come from? Just cos Ser Scot has reasonable views on this does not mean they are shared by the religious community as a whole.

Yes, but I think Dawkins generalizes based on a vocal minority, which is dying out, and the historical majority, which is already dead.

I believe ID gained steam because many see nothing except a way to reconcile faith and science - and saying natural selection guides evolution instead of intelligence is meaningless to most people. But I think the majority of people who believe in ID still realize that it's a faith thing and are aware that there's no evidence for it. This is solely based on my experience, but I lived in the Bible Belt for a few years, and I never even met a creationist who tried to claim his beliefs were scientific. Though I know there must be some - the creationist museum wouldn't exist otherwise.

[Ashamanic]

It may not be persuasive to you, but many Christians find C.S. Lewis to be incredibly persuasive, though obviously they do so because they already believe the base assumptions of his arguments: there is a god and there is a Christ .

Which is pretty much my argument - that his arguments for the existence of god have an underlying assumption that god exists.

His defence of atonement theology did make it seem to almost make sense, though it is a while since I read it and can't remember why.

[Liffguard]

an intelligent designer," which of course is just G-d in gift wrap.

I prefer the phrase "God wearing a stolen lab coat."

[Guarneri]

"Okay, evolution happened is happening, but it obviously required a designer, a cause, a mover, or rather an intelligent designer," which of course is just G-d in gift wrap.

Yes, but we can't ignore the massive problem that arises from a divine Mover, which is: which Mover, let alone whether or not the actual Mover is established already or an unknown force.

It's obvious to look at the simplistics of cause and effect, find a water bottle on the ground and say, "Aha! The water bottle is there, thus something must have moved it there. Thus there is a Mover of the object!" That's all dandy fine, but it becomes quite ridiculous when you have a Christian approach and go, "God put it there!" then we get an ancient Greek to wave his hands. "No, no, Gaia 'twas the Mover!" Then naturally an ancient Egyptian sees them all, comes by, and starts laughing at them. "Idiots, Amun was the creator!" Throw in some Scientologists, and a few hundred other religions, and we have a heaping mess of people claiming WHO was the Mover. In addition there also exists the possibility of the Mover being none of the claimed sources, or quite simply no source at all, due to some elaborate reasonings which have yet to be fathomed and understood.

Then there's always the charming problem of proving one's God was the Mover. To do this first you have to establish a conclusive definition for what He is, as otherwise it's merely a word or vague abstract concept, since there is no physical appearance to attach the entity to, as we can often do with humans to say, "who" they are. Most will define the Mover based upon what is presented to them about the god, often religious doctrines, which describe the Mover's actions, state, attribute, thoughts, and other various aspects which conclude a decisive definition of a being over an abstract concept. For simplistic purposes go with Aristotle's ever-famous: substance, quantity, quality, time, place, position, state, passivity, activity, and position.

Now, once you've established what composed the Mover, you'd have to find conclusive proof that the things which compose the definition are true, for otherwise the being is different. Like I said, with humans we often define people by their physical appearance, as personality, mindset, thoughts, etc, are ever-shifting and thus in short the person is indeed never the same person, when using those things to define them. Having no such route for Mover's, we seek to define them by those principles, and to prove that the Mover is existent, let alone the one who did the Moving, would require proof for all the aspects which form the definition. Which rises another problem, of people in Christianity having varying definitions for their God, especially ones who don't delve too much into the teachings, accept them different, etc, to the point where the aspects of God vary to the point where often the only concrete similarity is that they are all refering to it as, "God". Yet because the aspects are different, the Mover itself becomes a different Mover, due to the nature of how one defines the Mover in the first place. Though I am getting off-topic, I suppose.

Back on topic: God doesn't wear stolen lab coats, stolen lab coats wear God.

[ztemhead]

*bumps a dead thread*

I also found out that one of the companies who's products I sell was founded by one of Dawkins' main targets, Sir John Templeton. I had a vague idea that SJT was a professional philanthropist, but I didn't know that he awarded $2mil per year to people who successfully (in his foundation's view) combine faith and science.

[Arthmail]

Though i have not made it through the entire set of posts, i need to reply to this now.

Such as?

I have never seen any such "appropriate answer". Ever. Either they miss the point completely, act in a completely intellectually dishonest way and fabricate strawmen, or go on tangents and non-sequitur.

Honestly I have no idea what you're going on about here. "there will be answers provided which explain the rationality of some of the aspects of religion." - what kind of answers are you talking about? What rationality is there in religion (hint: none)? And why would Dawkins care about any atheistic religions (they already exist, anyway) when his book is clearly about god, and theistic religions?

I wish I knew what people were talking about when they claim Dawkins belittle others. He attacks beliefs, not people. Anyone who's seen him in interviews would see he's actually quite the polite and mild-mannered chap - the exception was with Ted Haggard, but then it was Haggard himself who provoked him by being the smug asshole who completely misrepresented evolution (seems to be the favourite past time of US evangelists).

What is the "truth that is greater than the truth Dawkins presumes"? Stop being vague please.

By the way, this is a complete tangent. John said he was rooting for the kooks to "leave Dawkins flabbergasted", simply because he dislikes Dawkins. I found that a very odd thing to say, at least from the point of view of one who embraces reason.

So you admit that they would fail, miserably. Yet it does not bother you that charlatans rip off the gullible and impede on the progress of reason, to the point that you would prefer them to "win" over Dawkins?

By the way, some of those people -have- been shown to be frauds, yet they still make money: see Peter Popoff and Uri Geller. It's not really commercial suicide because there will always be gullible fools.

What does the name of the show have to do with anything. And they don't have to take a test by those people specifically. The JREF challenge is more than suitable, and already well-organised.

??? Dawkins is not trying to have small, petty "victories". He provides evidence for his claims, and challenges others to do the same.

Morrigan, this is a simply brutal response. Matrim has actually responded fairly and with passion, without being combative. Your response is as snide as friggin Dawkins.

There is little point in continuing an argument with you, as your bias is brandished in front of you like a sword.

I have read Dawkins, and he's got many excellent points. But he is smug, and he does deride those that don't believe as he does. Not as badly as that fat sack of wind Hitchins, but bad enough.

What both men do is allow their own ideology to run rampant. Its not religions that cause wars in the end. Its fanatacism. Its shit like Dawkins, and Hitchens, and the religious zeolots that cannot accept that someone else might have a valid point, or at the least are entitled to their own beliefs.

Does that invalidate their criticisms? No. But it does hurt them, if only because they show themselves as close minded as everyone else.

[Liffguard]

What both men do is allow their own ideology to run rampant. Its not religions that cause wars in the end. Its fanatacism. Its shit like Dawkins, and Hitchens, and the religious zeolots that cannot accept that someone else might have a valid point, or at the least are entitled to their own beliefs.

Hitchens maybe, but Dawkins is anything but a fanatic. I fail to see how releasing a book and giving lectures that succinctly lay out his position with reasoned arguments makes him a "fanatic." I'm pretty sure he only gets that lable because it's religion he criticises. If he used the same tone and language to criticise a political position or a piece of art then he'd be considered a fairly mild critic.

[Ashamanic]

Hitchens maybe, but Dawkins is anything but a fanatic. I fail to see how releasing a book and giving lectures that succinctly lay out his position with reasoned arguments makes him a "fanatic." I'm pretty sure he only gets that lable because it's religion he criticises. If he used the same tone and language to criticise a political position or a piece of art then he'd be considered a fairly mild critic.

There seems to be an unspoken view (something Dawkins talks about) that religious belief is beyond criticism. To many people, simply saying religiuos beliefs do not deserve special treatment is the mark of a fanatic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ashamanic,

There seems to be an unspoken view (something Dawkins talks about) that religious belief is beyond criticism. To many people, simply saying religiuos beliefs do not deserve special treatment is the mark of a fanatic.

People taking actions that affect others on the basis of religious beliefs deserve no special consideration. That said, condemning people for holding religous beliefs that affect no one but themselves is absurd. People have been holding beliefs not based in emperical reality for thousands of years.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V.