Jump to content

The God delusion by Dawkins


Calibandar

Recommended Posts

Guest Other-in-law
How, pray tell, do you propose to test the assertion that Christ is the son of God, coeternal with God the Father. That he was crucified, died, was buried, and on the third day rose again form the dead? Because something is a factual assertion does not mean it is therefore, empiricaly testable. Some factual assertions can be taken on faith.

Not all factual assertions are created equal, either.

While it is not possible to absolutely disprove that those things happened, we don't have any similar cases that have been proven, nor is there a particularly intelligible theory to explain how it could even be possible. This puts it into a very different category from normal assertions that can reasonably be taken on faith; such as my sister telling me on the telephone that she ate a strawberry ice-cream cone yesterday. Strawberry ice cream cones do indeed exist, and they can be purchased and eaten...so no huge leap is required, nor an appeal to magic. She might have been lying, but I have no compelling reason to doubt it.

Virgin pregnancies and resurrections after three days with surviving brain functions among primitive humans not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scot says the events are not empirically testable and that one has to take them on faith, essentially saying that he realizes faith is unscientific and irrational but he believes anyway. The responses are pretty much reiterations of the fact that faith is unscientific and irrational.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take particular issue with this argument. It is not unlike blaming science for the existence of people that believe in social Darwinism. For that matter, are we going to blame environmentalists for fostering an environment in which the Earth Liberation Front believes that it's a good idea to burn down new McMansion subdivisions?

Social darwinism and eco-terrorism aren't based upon articles of faith and appeals to authority; they're more value-judgements than anything. Obviously some value judgements we disagree with, but at least we can argue against them without referring to achaic texts or unfalsifiable metaphysics; at least scientists don't feel some affinity with social Dawinists and place that affinity above or on the same level as nationality or family; at least we aren't urged to be respectful of political opinions just because a lot of people have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OtL,

Not all factual assertions are created equal, either.

While it is not possible to absolutely disprove that those things happened, we don't have any similar cases that have been proven, nor is there a particularly intelligible theory to explain how it could even be possible. This puts it into a very different category from normal assertions that can reasonably be taken on faith; such as my sister telling me on the telephone that she ate a strawberry ice-cream cone yesterday. Strawberry ice cream cones do indeed exist, and they can be purchased and eaten...so no huge leap is required, nor an appeal to magic. She might have been lying, but I have no compelling reason to doubt it.

Virgin pregnancies and resurrections after three days with surviving brain functions among primitive humans not so much.

If the factual assertion can be confirmed or is based upon logical deduction, it's not a leap of faith. Again, I'm not arguing believing in a "God-Man" who was born of a virgin died and rose from the dead is empircally testable. It's not. However, I am arguing Dawkins is as entitled to his opinion as I am to my belief. What concerns me, as Dawkins himself points out, his arugment may lead to radicalism on the part of some athiests, perhaps he should remember the sword cuts both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the factual assertion can be confirmed or is based upon logical deduction, it's not a leap of faith. Again, I'm not arguing believing in a "God-Man" who was born of a virgin died and rose from the dead is empircally testable. It's not. However, I am arguing Dawkins is as entitled to his opinion as I am to my belief. What concerns me, as Dawkins himself points out, his arugment may lead to radicalism on the part of some athiests, perhaps he should remember the sword cuts both ways.

How could his argument lead to radicalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashamanic,

How could his argument lead to radicalism?

The same way he claims moderate religious beleivers give aid and comfort to radical beleivers. In this case a radical atheist can comfort themself with the notion their attacks are justified because they are stamping out falsehood and superstition shown to be dangerous by Dawkins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashamanic,

The same way he claims moderate religious beleivers give aid and comfort to radical beleivers. In this case a radical atheist can comfort themself with the notion their attacks are justified because they are stamping out falsehood and superstition shown to be dangerous by Dawkins.

I think that's a misinterpretation of Dawkins' argument. It's not that moderates give aid or comfort to radicals. Indeed, often the opposite is true. Rather, all religion, whether moderate or radical, is based on the mindset that faith is a strength rather than a weakness. Dawkins argues that because moderates are accepted, it fosters an environment in which the mindset that leads to radicalism is actively praised, even if most people don't go that far.

The fundamental difference between atheism and religion in this regard is that religious radicals don't have to justify their actions because, hey, it's faith. No justification required. The other position is one where people do have to justify their actions with arguments and reason. I think the basic point is that elevating faith into a positive trait, rather than a flaw, doesn't necessarily create radicals. There will always be radicals. However, what it does do is create a mindset that cannot be argued with or convinced to change because it is based on the assumption that arguments and reason do not apply to their beliefs.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caligua,

I think that's a misinterpretation of Dawkins' argument. It's not that moderates give aid or comfort to radicals. Indeed, often the opposite is true. Rather, all religion, whether moderate or radical, is based on the mindset that faith is a strength rather than a weakness. Dawkins argues that because moderates are accepted, it fosters an environment in which the mindset that leads to radicalism is actively praised, even if most people don't go that far.

The fundamental difference between atheism and religion in this regard is that religious radicals don't have to justify their actions because, hey, it's faith. No justification required. The other position is one where people do have to justify their actions with arguments and reason. I think the basic point is that elevating faith into a positive trait, rather than a flaw, doesn't necessarily create radicals. There will always be radicals. However, what it does do is create a mindset that cannot be argued with or convinced to change because it is based on the assumption that arguments and reason do not apply to their beliefs.

Which is precisely why I differentiate between holding a belief based on faith and taking an action that affects others arising from a faith based belief. They simply aren't the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a misinterpretation of Dawkins' argument. It's not that moderates give aid or comfort to radicals. Indeed, often the opposite is true. Rather, all religion, whether moderate or radical, is based on the mindset that faith is a strength rather than a weakness. Dawkins argues that because moderates are accepted, it fosters an environment in which the mindset that leads to radicalism is actively praised, even if most people don't go that far.

The fundamental difference between atheism and religion in this regard is that religious radicals don't have to justify their actions because, hey, it's faith. No justification required. The other position is one where people do have to justify their actions with arguments and reason. I think the basic point is that elevating faith into a positive trait, rather than a flaw, doesn't necessarily create radicals. There will always be radicals. However, what it does do is create a mindset that cannot be argued with or convinced to change because it is based on the assumption that arguments and reason do not apply to their beliefs.

Does that make sense?

There are always limitations placed on many "positive" traits. Self-confidence is greatly valued as a positive trait, but self-confidence can lead to pride or hubris. Being decisive is considered a positive trait, but taking it too far and a person can be dismissive or totalitarian. Having faith can be a positive trait, but it can also be a negative trait when taken too far and becomes fanaticism or straight-up delusion. While faith itself is irrational, religious belief is not completely irrational, but generally features a rational component (dogmatic justification) that surrounds the irrational core. Holding an irrational faith belief does not make individuals completely irrational, but not fully rational. Otherwise, Scot raises a valid distinction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe in God. I even still believe that God had a son who came to earth to redeem mankind blah blah blah (insert usual argument for the existence of god here)

Anyway my feeling on this new wave of Atheist Dawkins, Hicken is that by attacking people of faith (or who believe in imaginary men in the sky whatever you want to say) they are actually making their job harder then it has to be.

The point they always invariably make churches being corrupt products of flawed humans is a totally valid one and if they stuck to that avenue of attack they might find friends among many Christians. By attacking an entire group they cause that group to close ranks and attack. Therefore we are more apt to listen to our own collection of modern day high priests’ such as Jack Van Impe, Jerry Fowell and John Hagie.

My concern is the rise of the Christian right in this country that diminish God by claiming to speak for him. Seriously if God is talking to the president I wish god would tell him to get a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
Anyway my feeling on this new wave of Atheist Dawkins, Hicken is that by attacking people of faith (or who believe in imaginary men in the sky whatever you want to say) they are actually making their job harder then it has to be.

Harder how? Are you saying they're somehow more likely to deconvert people by not pointing out the flaws in their beliefs? Or just that there will be less of a hostile reaction from those who were unlikely to deconvert anyway? I'd say the former is basically silly, and the latter timid.

SeE (:P),

The same way he claims moderate religious beleivers give aid and comfort to radical beleivers. In this case a radical atheist can comfort themself with the notion their attacks are justified because they are stamping out falsehood and superstition shown to be dangerous by Dawkins.

The difference is that cultivated skepticism doesn't tend to elevate specific conclusions into "exempt from criticism" territory, the way a deferential attitude toward faith does. Where historical tyranny by atheists has occurred...primarily in the communist bloc...it was accompanied by a similar exemption from criticism of it's tenets. Indeed, it's not too great of a stretch to say that marxism became a faith itself, adherence to it was expected, critical examination was not. Faith is terrible as an epistemologic tool, deference to it in other a bad idea.

Which is precisely why I differentiate between holding a belief based on faith and taking an action that affects others arising from a faith based belief. They simply aren't the same thing.

That's nice (seriously), and Dawkins wrote that his book would be a very different thing if, say, Paul Tillich* was representative of most believers. The debate could be more subdued because the threat would be much less (if it existed at all).

(*I don't have Dawkins book at hand, he may have said a different theologian)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the "irrationality of faith," and one that I think that Happy Ent would agree with since I think we've talked about this before, is that religious faith does not exist in a vacuum completely cut off from other beliefs held by individuals. Happy Ent posted a thread not too long ago about how belief in evolution was not linked to intelligence so much as it was culture and geography. The case is not one of evolution, as I am not using Happy Ent's thread to talk about evolution, but the importance of culture and community in the establishment of beliefs that people hold. In the case of religious fundamentalism, there are obviously cultural communities in which it is more prevalent than others. The idea that I am stressing here is that the irrationality in question that we see in religious fundamentalism is not so much about the religious belief itself, but about the desire to maintain and preserve the identity of the cultural community in the face of changing society. The belief becomes the means to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...