• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The God Delusion set me rolling towards God

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
This is in answer to a question
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenw
Reading 'The God Delusion' set me back on the road to God. The irony of it never stops making me smile.

What a curious outcome. I have to ask, why?
This was me in 2007

I've made it half way through the book and I just can't go any further. It's not that I'm offended by what Dawkins has to say in fact I agree with some of it.
I think the book is designed to appeal to those who are already atheists rather than engage in any way those who are not. It seems Dawkins considers theists complete idiots.
I've got as far as 6 points that he says are the central arguments of his book, which I think can be fairly summarised as:-

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation to attribute to design is false because it raises the problem of who designed the designer.

4. Darwin illustrates that the appearance of design is an illusion.

5. Physics doesn't have a scientist who has done for physics what Darwin did for biology.

6. We shouldn't give up hope of something similar to Darwinism being produced by Physics.

This shows that the God Hyppothesis is untenable. "God almost certainly does not exist".I don't agree.

I agree with points #1,#2, #5, #6.
I disagree with #3, I regard the problem of where all the matter in the Universe came from as the same problem as who made God
#4 Evolution is evidence of evolution. That's all.
From this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/60330-god-delusion.html

I agree he is no fool, I also agree a religious play or atheist cartoon isn't going to excite him.
He's a very smart man who I think knows he is dodging the question in point 3 from the op.
I also don't think that his belief in science and aliens is as different from some theists belief in God as he would have us believe.
I want to state that I've no interest in changing your belief before I proceed, you and he are quite entitled to your views and I respect them.
However I am fascinated by the world and science alone cannot satisfy my desire to understand. There is no scientific evidence as to where the world came from and indeed where the world came from is a question not addressed by science. It seems to me that for Dawkins to argue that there is almost certainly no God because there is no scientific evidence for God when the existence of God is not something addressed by science seems incoherent.
Where did everything in the universe come from, and who designed/made God seems to me the same question. What I feel the best answer to this question was put better by Rolling Stone earlier in the thread than I can put it so I'll borrow from him- "To put it simply, he's saying that God needs a cause, which is contrary to most definitions of "God." Every human is an effect and therefore has a cause, but it does not follow that God has a cause"
The origin of everything is a question not addressed by Dawkins, this appears to me a weakness in any rubbishing of God theories. If someone believes that science will eventually provide the answers that is fair enough, but I don't see how such a belief, which actualy ducks the question, is superior to a belief arrived at by thinking.
Also how is a reasoned belief in aliens different from a reasoned belief in God?
 

whereismynotecard

Treasure Hunter
I don't think I could stand to read religious stuff, either promoting religion or atheism.
I already know what I think, and I don't need a book of any sort to reinforce it for me.

The only book like that I've ever read is The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because I thought it was funny, and the first few pages of a Bible of some sort because I wondered what it was all about. I didn't like the Bible though.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
I think that Dawkins has a personal bias towards religion and allows that bias to cloud his judgment. He has become close-minded.

What must be asked (I believe) to any person who is considering God's existence is whether or not God's existence matters. If God's existence will not change your behavior or how you live, then what does it matter that He might/might not exist? If God's existence will change your behavior then one should ask themselves why do they need God's existence to change their behavior in that way?
 
Top