Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

[David T]

Ya, how dare he think for himself. . . . the nerve of that guy!

He doesn't think for himself. There barely is any thinking going on. Before science Dawkins is an idiotic theological professor in the 15th century. Same dude different clothes not much going on except regurgitating doctrine. Big deal.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

He doesn't think for himself. There barely is any thinking going on. Before science Dawkins is an idiotic theological professor in the 15th century. Same dude different clothes not much going on except regurgitating doctrine. Big deal.

Well whatever he is doing he is producing a reaction. Theist can't seem to stop talking about the guy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is there a difference between experience and narratives about experience? Would a narrative about the taste of an orange be the actual taste of an orange? Science has a long history of "facts" yet you have made the statement as if scientific facts are some magical universal. That's rather impossible and not even scientific not even historically accurate . Science like theology is not some objective view but an incredibly subjective view in narrative about the world around us. Its great for creating iPhones etc but metaphorically speaking when it is more than that it just becomes religion in New drag. Richard Feynman got this interestingly. Am I saying religion is correct? Hardly and I don't think creationism, theology, imtelligent design etc have have to do with the bible or jesus thatbthey love to profess, other than a lame excuse to create philosophical fantasies. I am all about nature Dawkins clearly is a clueless reductionist.

I'll take that as a "no."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I wonder how much free advertisement Dawkins has gotten from the religious community complaining about him.

 

[1robin]

Ya, how dare he think for himself. . . . the nerve of that guy!

You have really backed a lame horse with Dawkins. I do not know how competent he is in biology, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. However when he ventures out of the lab into theology and philosophy he is abhorrently ignorant. He is trained in biology, not in theology or philosophy and it is apparent. Take his central argument against God (do you even know what it is?). There is a philosophical principle related to causation. It states that everything that exist has an explanation (this one is irrelevant here), and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause (this one is relevant). It does not even matter if either of those are true, but it does matter that Dawkins has no idea what they even mean. He said that if the universe requires a cause then God also requires a cause (keep in mind here that this is Dawkins core argument). He is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. The universe began to exist according to every piece of evidence we have. God did not begin to exist and so requires to cause.

Dawkins central argument has been called by PhDs who are actually trained in philosophy "The worst argument against God in the history of western thought". If you are going to put your credibility on the line by backing someone I recommend you do not choose a person as utterly unqualified as Dawkins is about anything related to theology, philosophy, or cosmology.

 

[1robin]

Any verifiable fact about the real world is the subject of science. Doesn't the existence of God imply any verifiable facts about the real world?

Science is only concerned with natural laws and entities. God being by definition a supernatural entity and the source of exceptions to natural law, is not accessible to science. Try using a ruler to measure an infinite mind and see how that works out.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, and there is a book by Alistair McGrath called 'the Dawkins Delusion'
who used to be an atheist

 

[whirlingmerc]

There is also Mathematician David Berlinski's book The Devils Delusion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Science is only concerned with natural laws and entities.

... because it's based on empirical evidence.

God being by definition a supernatural entity and the source of exceptions to natural law, is not accessible to science.

... because it leaves no empirical evidence.

Try using a ruler to measure an infinite mind and see how that works out.

If you can't measure an infinite mind, how do you know that it even exists at all?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You have really backed a lame horse with Dawkins. I do not know how competent he is in biology, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. However when he ventures out of the lab into theology and philosophy he is abhorrently ignorant. He is trained in biology, not in theology or philosophy and it is apparent. Take his central argument against God (do you even know what it is?). There is a philosophical principle related to causation. It states that everything that exist has an explanation (this one is irrelevant here), and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause (this one is relevant). It does not even matter if either of those are true, but it does matter that Dawkins has no idea what they even mean. He said that if the universe requires a cause then God also requires a cause (keep in mind here that this is Dawkins core argument). He is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. The universe began to exist according to every piece of evidence we have. God did not begin to exist and so requires to cause.

Dawkins central argument has been called by PhDs who are actually trained in philosophy "The worst argument against God in the history of western thought". If you are going to put your credibility on the line by backing someone I recommend you do not choose a person as utterly unqualified as Dawkins is about anything related to theology, philosophy, or cosmology.

There must be something to his arguments if gets you and other believers so worked up.

 

[1robin]

... because it's based on empirical evidence.

I didn't say anything about what type of evidence science is founded, however much of it isn't based on any evidence at all.

... because it leaves no empirical evidence.

What is the "it" referring to?

If you can't measure an infinite mind, how do you know that it even exists at all?

That was not the point. Your responses have almost nothing to do with what your responding to. Basically someone said something about whether God can be detected by science.

1. I do not necessarily disagree with your statements about science but they don't change anything.
2. I was addressing the philosophical mistake which was driving the line of reasoning I responded to. The claim that there is a lack of evidence for God is only valid if there should be more evidence and we do not have it. That isn't the case and I was starting the line of argumentation to show that.
3. I think your responses are in a different context.

 

[1robin]

There must be something to his arguments if gets you and other believers so worked up.

I am not worked up, Dawkins actually get makes me laugh. There is something to his arguments, complete ignorance. BTW I noticed you made no attempt to justify his claim.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am not worked up, Dawkins actually get makes me laugh. There is something to his arguments, complete ignorance. BTW I noticed you made no attempt to justify his claim.

"I noticed you made no attempt to justify his claim."

I don't care either way about Dawkins, or his claims, as I have a life and better things to do. It just makes me laugh the way believers get all steamed over him. Believers talk about Dawkins far more than non-believers do, and it is a bit silly. If his arguments are so non-consequential then why do they keep yammering on about him?

 

[paarsurrey]

I found it a very well written book that put into eloquent words many of my own thoughts; it didn't convert me to atheism, I was already one.
There are certainly better ones, I prefer Sam Harris' End of Faith. But Richard Dawkins' book certainly hit the headlines and continues to today.
Why else would someone start a thread to discuss it?

btw What qualification does one require to be able to write a book about atheism and not be labelled as a layman?

G-d and or religion is not a subject of science. Is it? Please
So anybody who does not belong to Religion talks on Religion from the stand point of a layman.

Regards

 

[Altfish]

G-d and or religion is not a subject of science. Is it? Please
So anybody who does not belong to Religion talks on Religion from the stand point of a layman.

Regards

Then you will only ever have laymen writing books against religion.
The fact that Dawkins in depth knowledge of science (or certain areas of science) has led him to conclude that no god exists. His science background elevates him above layman

 

[paarsurrey]

Then you will only ever have laymen writing books against religion.
The fact that Dawkins in depth knowledge of science (or certain areas of science) has led him to conclude that no god exists. His science background elevates him above layman

My view is different from one. The Atheism whatever worldly specialization they have in the worldly subject, they are just laymen while discussing God or Religion, unless of course if they justify their "no-god" position/no-position with positive and reasonable arguments without reference to the believes of God. Which God is truthful? This is an internal subject of the believers from which-ever of the God/gods they select for themselves.
Dawkins is sure a layman on Revealed Religion or God. Please
Regards

 

[YmirGF]

My view is different from one. The Atheism whatever worldly specialization they have in the worldly subject, they are just laymen while discussing God or Religion, unless of course if they justify their "no-god" position/no-position with positive and reasonable arguments without reference to the believes of God. Which God is truthful? This is an internal subject of the believers from which-ever of the God/gods they select for themselves.
Dawkins is sure a layman on Revealed Religion or God. Please
Regards

2nd time asking the question, @paarsurrey
Have you actually read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins?

 

[Altfish]

My view is different from one. The Atheism whatever worldly specialization they have in the worldly subject, they are just laymen while discussing God or Religion, unless of course if they justify their "no-god" position/no-position with positive and reasonable arguments without reference to the believes of God. Which God is truthful? This is an internal subject of the believers from which-ever of the God/gods they select for themselves.
Dawkins is sure a layman on Revealed Religion or God. Please
Regards

Then why do religious people think they can comment on science?
Dawkins, was religious as a child, he then started looking into scriptures and the likes and found errors, lack of evidence, etc. He started questioning the assertions made by vicars, priest, etc.
They could not give satisfactory answers. So he realised that god was man made and wrote a book explaining his thoughts.
If you ban non-religious people from writing about religion it gets a free pass. Religion is an idea, just like capitalism or socialism that should be scrutinised.

Look, the book is fine, but it does not claim to be a 'scripture' or a 'revealed word', it is just a book. A book that is easier to read and less ambiguous than any of the so called holy books

 

[paarsurrey]

Then why do religious people think they can comment on science?
Dawkins, was religious as a child, he then started looking into scriptures and the likes and found errors, lack of evidence, etc. He started questioning the assertions made by vicars, priest, etc.
They could not give satisfactory answers. So he realised that god was man made and wrote a book explaining his thoughts.
If you ban non-religious people from writing about religion it gets a free pass. Religion is an idea, just like capitalism or socialism that should be scrutinised.

Look, the book is fine, but it does not claim to be a 'scripture' or a 'revealed word', it is just a book. A book that is easier to read and less ambiguous than any of the so called holy books

"He started questioning the assertions made by vicars, priest, etc". of Christianity.

That was OK, then he should have looked into other religions and prayed to G-d to find the truthful religion.
But he became superstitious in religious matters and subscribed to Atheism.
There he was wrong.

Regards

 

[whirlingmerc]

Seems that what flies in the name of 'science' is a bit interesting. First, the scientific method was formulated by Sir Fransic Bacan, a Christian Theist. Second, science if limited to whats in the box, the normative laws of nature set by the creator but can't go outside the box where a creator outside of time space and matter is. Third, it is falsely claimed science only deals with facts, science starts with faith claims whether naturalistic or otherwise taken a priori and goes from there.... religious assumptions of sort and often hidden assumptions..