sandandfoam
Veteran Member
This is in answer to a question
This was me in 2007
From this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/60330-god-delusion.htmlI'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.
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?