Attacks on Richard Dawkins

[DMB]

The Times carried an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece) by Dawkins a few days ago, responding to some of the criticism he has been receiving over The God Delusion. (It is in fact extracted from the book.) Then there was an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article1784953.ece) by William Rees-Mogg replying to that. Now there are some letters (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1790025.ece) that I thought Infidels might enjoy. Feel free to write in to The Times. Be sure to mark it "For Publication". The email address is letters@thetimes.co.uk and you have to supply your address and telephone number.

[Cheese]

The biggest difference between us, as Atheists, and them...is the ability for them to organize mass letter writing, protests, etc etc simply because a man on a pulpit asked them to do so.

This begs the question....do Atheists need a pulpit...or a man of the cloth to lead us? Is Richard Dawkins et al our man of the cloth??
What can we do as Atheists to help counter mass mis-information?

Is it time for Atheist Jihads? Can we use the Information Highway to organize ourselves better? How can we offer more information on a mass scale, without resorting to violence or mis-information?

[dettus]

Although sometimes it may not seem like it, conversation favors those with reality on their side. So, IMO, just keep talking about it. (and this includes talking with friends, writing letters to news outlets, contacting politicians, etc). IMO the major difference between secularists and religionists is that secularists have been cowed into silence.

[Cheese]

I agree we have been cowed into silence. When we are looked upon as a scourge to modern society by most and when leaders such as the US President makes no bones about how we are that scourge, most Atheists would rather stay quiet.
We need to ensure we talk....we need to teach our children the truth so they will always be able to question fantasy!

[AdamWho]

Atheism is like a solvent, it washes away the BS. Religions need hammers and someone with authority to beat ideas into people. While the idea of a atheist leader might seem appealing, our passive, relentless, fact based BS solvent will prevail at the end of the day.

[luvluv]

Rees-Mogg IMO presents the case too sympathetically. 75% of the Christians in the world are members of the Catholic faith, (which, incidentally, officially accepts evolution as scientific fact). So his argument that he is attacking the most widespread version of Christianity is demonstrably false.

[JennyRogers]

Although sometimes it may not seem like it, conversation favors those with reality on their side. So, IMO, just keep talking about it.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think we need to be in-your-face the way Christian evangelicals prostelytize, but we need to make sure people know who we are. Invite questions and answer them cheerfully. Let your enthusiasm shine. Encourage others to examine their own beliefs in a similar manner.

In my experience, responses tend to fall into two categories:

1. People who are religious but know very little about their own religion. They tend to ask fairly amusing questions (e.g., how can you be moral without the Bible) that are easy to answer.

2. People who are religious and think they have all the answers. These are the ones who have read C.S. Lewis (yawn), Behe, Demski and others. Their prejudices are just as funny and usually just as easy to answer. However, these are also frequently the folks who use the tactic of yammering ceaselessly to prevent you getting a word in edge-wise.

One tactic I've used is to talk under them: start explaining one of their errors without attempting to talk over them. When they can't hear you (over their own voices), they'll often stop talking long enough for you to make a point. It doesn't always work, of course, but it's worth a try.

[post tenebras lux]

Rees-Mogg IMO presents the case too sympathetically. 75% of the Christians in the world are members of the Catholic faith, (which, incidentally, officially accepts evolution as scientific fact). So his argument that he is attacking the most widespread version of Christianity is demonstrably false.Really luvluv? Or does it actually only accept a vaticanised/bastardised version of the theory of evolution?

What JPII said was: "my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points" followed by "Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

i.e. the theory of evolution is OK so long as you accept that at some point in time his god took some soulless apes, stuck a soul in them and, voila, humans!

In my humble opinion I think the current pope is saying basically the same thing, except less subtly (so that the devout don't miss the actual message and fall for the part aimed to be used by apologists against critics?).

Unless - of course - you have a less mealy-mouthed official statement from the RRC luvluv.

[madmax2976]

Rees-Mogg IMO presents the case too sympathetically. 75% of the Christians in the world are members of the Catholic faith, (which, incidentally, officially accepts evolution as scientific fact). So his argument that he is attacking the most widespread version of Christianity is demonstrably false. Do Catholics really comprise 75% of all Christians? More than I would have thought. I understood it to be about 50%.

[luvluv]

post:

Well, they accept the theory. You can't give them their immortal souls and call it even? Does evolution show that humans don't have immortal souls?

It seems to me that some atheists won't take yes for an answer.

madmax:

Well, I should have said 75% of Christians are non-Protestants, last I heard. That would include the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Pretty much all of Eastern Europe, Africa, and Central and South America are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I don't have strict numbers, but I'd also guess the majority of Christians worldwide are non-white, but that would probably be close.

Point being, Dawkins' religious attacks are clearly focused on American-style fundamentalists. He argues that this type of Christianity is widest spread in the Western world. But, surprise surprise, statistically, such denominations don't even comprise the numerical majority of Protestants living in America. In fact, I'm fairly sure that fundmentalists are a minority within Evangelicalism.

Fundamentalists make more noise, and vote more, but there aren't more of them. Point being, nobody should have been spitting on Falwell's corpse for the stuff they sat back and let him get away with. There's more atheists and liberal or moderate Christians in this country than people like Falwell.

[Atrus]

In The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that he is targeting all gods, in all forms, and even those to come. There is no God he is not referring to.

One thing about the way Dawkins approached the book is that he planned on the likeliest criticisms and then preemptively tackled them. Much in the way he plans to die with a tape recorder in hand to prevent any more myths of deathbed recantations, at least from his part.

[luvluv]

In The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that he is targeting all gods, in all forms, and even those to come. There is no God he is not referring to.

Am I correct in thinking his main argument in the book is that life wasn't intelligently designed, and the universe probably wasn't designed, and therefore there's no reason to believe in God?

Because if so, his arguments don't attack all gods. Not even close.

[openlyatheist]

In The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that he is targeting all gods, in all forms, and even those to come. There is no God he is not referring to.


On the contrary, he's not talking about MY God.


One thing about the way Dawkins approached the book is that he planned on the likeliest criticisms and then preemptively tackled them. Much in the way he plans to die with a tape recorder in hand to prevent any more myths of deathbed recantations, at least from his part.
And yet, I'm pretty sure I've seen the odd thread, even here, by Christians claiming Dawkins attacked outdated or false arguments. Naturally.

[luvluv]

And yet, I'm pretty sure I've seen the odd thread, even here, by Christians claiming Dawkins attacked outdated or false arguments.

<excitedly raises hand!>

I claim it ! I claim it!

Heck, if you read the links in the OP, Dawkins admits it.

[Atrus]

This excerpt from The God Delusion sums Dawkin's position up:

"This is as good a moment as any to forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise - as sure as night follows day - turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either. I don't believe in an old man in the sky with a long beard.' That old man is an irrelevant distraction and his beard is as tedious as it is long. Indeed, the distraction is worse than irrelevant. It's very silliness is calculated to distract attention from the fact that what the speaker really believes is not a whole lot less silly. I know you don't believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let's not waste any more time on that. I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion p. 36)

If you haven't read the book and are religious, then it's best to read the book to its conclusion before judging Dawkins' position. The book is targeted toward the religious, despite it's seemingly off-putting title.

[luvluv]

It doesn't matter if he intends the arguments to be against all gods if in fact the arguments aren't against all gods. And if his main argument is against design, he doesn't attack all gods. And if the design arguments he attacks aren't absolutely the most sophisitcated available (if, in other words, you can't find Robin Collins, Howard Van Till, or Richard Swinburne in the Index) then he's attacking a strawman.

[David B]

Am I correct in thinking his main argument in the book is that life wasn't intelligently designed, and the universe probably wasn't designed, and therefore there's no reason to believe in God?

Because if so, his arguments don't attack all gods. Not even close.

No, you are wrong about that.

While he points out that life and the universe probably weren't designed, the main thrust of his book is that there is a trend towards complex things arising as the universe ages, and that a prior god capable of creating, monitoring, adjusting, rewarding, punishing would be something that would be strongly counter to that trend, and for which there is no good evidence.

That's how I read it, anyway.

David B

[luvluv]

While he points out that life and the universe probably weren't designed, the main thrust of his book is that there is a trend towards complex things arising as the universe ages, and that a prior god capable of creating, monitoring, adjusting, rewarding, punishing would be something that would be strongly counter to that trend, and for which there is no good evidence.

You're affirming what I said. That argument is primarly against one argument for the existence of one kind of God, and it does not apply to all god concepts. It does not apply to Brahman, or to process theology, or to animistic, pagan, or polytheistic concepts of God. It's just an argument against Creator/Moral Judge gods.

Now, does Dawkins make a sincere attempt to survey all the attempts to prove God? IOW, does he establish that there is no evidence for God or does he assert it? And does he establish it for all god concepts, even ones that wouldn't imply design?

No? Well then his book isn't an argument against all gods, regardless of what he claims.

ETA: And it isn't even a good argument against the kinds of gods he targets, if he doesn't attempt a comprehensive survey of the best arguments and evidences offered by believers in those gods.

[David B]

You're affirming what I said. That argument is primarly against one argument for the existence of one kind of God, and it does not apply to all god concepts. It does not apply to Brahman, or to process theology, or to animistic, pagan, or polytheistic concepts of God. It's just an argument against Creator/Moral Judge gods.

Now, does Dawkins make a sincere attempt to survey all the attempts to prove God? IOW, does he establish that there is no evidence for God or does he assert it? And does he establish it for all god concepts, even ones that wouldn't imply design?

No? Well then his book isn't an argument against all gods, regardless of what he claims.

ETA: And it isn't even a good argument against the kinds of gods he targets, if he doesn't attempt a comprehensive survey of the best arguments and evidences offered by believers in those gods.

IIRC, he does specify in the book the kind of god he targets.

Best arguments and evidences offered by believers consist of what, exactly?

David B (has yet to see any good ones)

[luvluv]

Best arguments and evidences offered by believers consist of what, exactly?

The strongest version of the design argument, the strongest version of the cosmological argument, the strongest version of the moral argument, the strongest version of the ontological argument, and the strongest version of the argument from religious experience, at the very least. And given Plantinga's influence among evangelicals, I would throw in the strongest version of reformed epistemology.

The claim that there is absolutely no evidence at all for any god-concept is a remarkably strong claim. Depending on how you define evidence, that claim is nearly as strong as theism. On the face of it, it seems impossible to establish, but Dawkins at least owes us a demonstration by refuting the main arguments and showing how his critiques of those arguments could reasonably be thought to apply to all theistic arguments. Other people have attempted this (Martin, Smith, Parsons, etc.) so it's not impossible.

ETA: Also, since so much of his work critiques the concept of faith, he should not depend on his own defintion of faith, but take on the strongest and/or the most widespread concepts of faith. Not just faith as a lack of evidence, but faith as personal trust, faith as existential choice, etc.

[trendkill]

Dawkins' first point is the best one: "The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack." Indeed, he is not a fundamentalist, and those who call him such are giving evidence of the patent irrationality of most religious belief. Case in point, the commenter who says "I don't ask others to share my belief, nor do I try to prove it to others. Its mine and not for sharing." I know this attitude well. It is the attitude of a person who believes something because it feels good for him to believe it, and for no other reason.

[JamesBannon]

ETA: And it isn't even a good argument against the kinds of gods he targets, if he doesn't attempt a comprehensive survey of the best arguments and evidences offered by believers in those gods.
How is it possible to survey evidence that doesn't exist?

[luvluv]

How is it possible to survey evidence that doesn't exist?

Claims of sufficient evidence for God exist, and before he can declare that evidence doesn't exist, Dawkins should evaluate those claims.

Do you agree? Or do you think people can rationally declare that there is no evidence for a position without looking into it. For instance, can a Young-Earth Creationist just declare there is no evidence for evolution without engaging with any of the best arguments for evolution? If not, then why should Dawkins get a pass for avoiding the best arguments for theism?

[Atrus]

For someone that seems adamant on refuting Dawkins, you could at the very least buy and readthe book. As opposed to having intermediates short-hand it so you can save yourself both the money and time.

As I mentioned before, the book is aimed at the religious audience as a sort of attempt to raise the moral consciousness. It defeats the purpose if you believe you can somehow absorb its content through osmosis.

[luvluv]

I have about as much interest in reading Dawkins as you have in reading Strobel. I considered buying the book until I read the reviews, and the argument he advances doesn't rise to the level of something I'm going to waste my time with. I've read books on atheism by atheists philosophers (George Smith, Michael Martin, etc.) So it's not that I won't read arguments for atheism, but I have some standards, and Dawkins doesn't measure up (at least, not on the subject of religion).

[JamesBannon]

Claims of sufficient evidence for God exist, and before he can declare that evidence doesn't exist, Dawkins should evaluate those claims.

Do you agree? Or do you think people can rationally declare that there is no evidence for a position without looking into it. For instance, can a Young-Earth Creationist just declare there is no evidence for evolution without engaging with any of the best arguments for evolution? If not, then why should Dawkins get a pass for avoiding the best arguments for theism?
No I don't agree simply because claims that evidence exists does not mean that evidence actually does exist. Without any evidence all such claims are just so much theological ramblings. I think this is Dawkins' point.

[thedistillers]

I have about as much interest in reading Dawkins as you have in reading Strobel. I considered buying the book until I read the reviews, and the argument he advances doesn't rise to the level of something I'm going to waste my time with. I've read books on atheism by atheists philosophers (George Smith, Michael Martin, etc.) So it's not that I won't read arguments for atheism, but I have some standards, and Dawkins doesn't measure up (at least, not on the subject of religion).

Just by reading one of his interview one can see it's clear he has a limited knowledge of theology.

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but in my opinion, if you're going to publish a book called 'The God Delusion", well... At least know what you're talking about. Otherwise, stick to biology where you excell.

[Atrus]

I have about as much interest in reading Dawkins as you have in reading Strobel. I considered buying the book until I read the reviews, and the argument he advances doesn't rise to the level of something I'm going to waste my time with. I've read books on atheism by atheists philosophers (George Smith, Michael Martin, etc.) So it's not that I won't read arguments for atheism, but I have some standards, and Dawkins doesn't measure up (at least, not on the subject of religion).

Isn't that just intellectual laziness and moral cowardice? That you feel you can dispute something without even placing effort into knowing what it is you're disputing?

[luvluv]

No I don't agree simply because claims that evidence exists does not mean that evidence actually does exist.

And if a Young Earth Creationist said the same thing about evolution, you'd agree? Or would you insist the Young Earth Creationist had an obligation to asses the evidence claims honestly before deciding?

If I decided to write a book called The Evolution Delusion, which claimed that there was no evidence for evolution, without mentioning any of the best arguments for evolution, would you think I'd assumed my burden to prove that Evolution was false?

[madmax2976]

The claim that there is absolutely no evidence at all for any god-concept is a remarkably strong claim. I might even call it a "silly" claim, as anything anyone wants to present to me for the God they believe in, I consider to be evidence for it.

Granted I haven't found any of it to be convincing evidence, but that's another matter.

[luvluv]

Isn't that just intellectual laziness and moral cowardice? That you feel you can dispute something without even placing effort into knowing what it is you're disputing?

Do you read entirely every theist paper, book, argument, etc. you criticize? If can glean the thrust of his argument from numerous sources, I can legitimately critique as much of his argument as I know. In this very thread, I asked about Dawkins approach, and concluded on the basis of the answers that Dawkins arguments were structurally inadequate. I'm open to revising my case in the light of new evidence, and if enough people tell me that Dawkins has attempted to sufficiently meet his burden of proof (by assessing the best arguments for theism) I might give it a read. But I've read enough of him and been exposed to his arguments enough to know the guy is a lousy philosopher, and is entirely ignorant about theology. And if I want lousy philosophy from people ignorant about theology, I can always read this forum for free. ;)

[thedistillers]

No I don't agree simply because claims that evidence exists does not mean that evidence actually does exist. Without any evidence all such claims are just so much theological ramblings. I think this is Dawkins' point.

But the issue always comes down to: what is evidence? :huh: Why can't an intellectual argument be an "evidence"?

There are many arguments provided for the existence of God. + religious experiences.

Of course you can think all those arguments are flawed. + you can think people who have religious experiences are crazy, deluded or whatever.

But you know, whatever evidence one would present, if your view is strongly naturalist, no evidence will never be enough, because you'll treat those evidences as a result of a naturalistic phenomenom X that science is not able to explain yet, but will be able to explain one day when science will improve.

I suspect this is the case for dawkins. If Jesus show up like a genie-in-the-bottle right in front of him, he would think that something is wrong with his brain.

[madmax2976]

And if I want lousy philosophy from people ignorant about theology, I can always read this forum for free. ;) Hey, I'm an atheist and even I thought this was a good one, hehe. :notworthy:

[JamesBannon]

And if a Young Earth Creationist said the same thing about evolution, you'd agree? Or would you insist the Young Earth Creationist had an obligation to asses the evidence claims honestly before deciding?

If I decided to write a book called The Evolution Delusion, which claimed that there was no evidence for evolution, without mentioning any of the best arguments for evolution, would you think I'd assumed my burden to prove that Evolution was false?
Not the same thing at all. Evolution is, at least in principle, falsifiable. All you would need to do is falsify evolution (for which you would probably receive a Nobel prize and acceptance from every sceptic on these fora and from Richard Dawkins). On the other hand, any god concept is not falsifiable so science wouldn't have anything to say on the subject. All we can do is put forth a reasonably cogent argument that it is equally plausible that, say, the Celestial Teapot, the FSM, the IPU, Zeus or a hundred and one other gods, spirits and what not exist and that there is no way to tell them apart. For this no sophisticated theology is required. I think Dawkins does a reasonably good job of this, though I sometimes object to the kind of language he uses especially when talking about human morality (it has rather too many Hegelian overtones for me).

[Atrus]

Do you read entirely every theist paper, book, argument, etc. you criticize? If can glean the thrust of his argument from numerous sources, I can legitimately critique as much of his argument as I know. In this very thread, I asked about Dawkins approach, and concluded on the basis of the answers that Dawkins arguments were structurally inadequate. I'm open to revising my case in the light of new evidence, and if enough people tell me that Dawkins has attempted to sufficiently meet his burden of proof (by assessing the best arguments for theism) I might give it a read. But I've read enough of him and been exposed to his arguments enough to know the guy is a lousy philosopher, and is entirely ignorant about theology. And if I want lousy philosophy from people ignorant about theology, I can always read this forum for free. ;)

Actually, I do. The argument from idiocy your making (or is it ignorant arrogance in this case?) has never proved to be effective. In fact, it undermines the individual making the argument because it highlights their nature to agenda-monger without a full understanding of what it is being said.

I certainly have no problem if someone refuted Dawkins on the basis of having read the book, but if you want to end with quips about ignorant people, I suggest you don't turn it into irony by portraying yourself as a hypocritical ignorant. It just heightens the argument that religiosity is prone to anti-intellectualism.

[luvluv]

Actually, I do. The argument from idiocy your making (or is it ignorant arrogance in this case?)

Take your pick.

has never proved to be effective.

Effective at what? What are you under the impression that I was attempting to do here? My point is only that Dawkins doesn't know much about theology or advanced religious philosophy. Dawkins himself admits this.

In fact, it undermines the individual making the argument because it highlights their nature to agenda-monger without a full understanding of what it is being said.

I completely understand what's being said. Dawkins doesn't, by his own admission. That's why I think I'd be wasting my time. Half the people on this forum could write a more interesting book on atheism (and if you know what I thought about this forum, you'd know just how big of a slight that is on Dawkins).

I certainly have no problem if someone refuted Dawkins on the basis of having read the book, but if you want to end with quips about ignorant people, I suggest you don't turn it into irony by portraying yourself as a hypocritical ignorant. It just heightens the argument that religiosity is prone to anti-intellectualism.

Why would not reading Dawkins on religion make me prone to anti-intellectualism? I bet I've read more books by philosophical atheists than you have (Martin, Smith, Parsons, Nielson, etc) and all of them have advanced arguments much more compelling than anything I've seen from Dawkins. You could certainly accuse me of being rudely dismissive of Dawkins on religion, but that doesn't make me anti-intellectual. I own and intend to read The Blind Watchmaker. I just have no interest on Dawkins thoughts on religion.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do you read entirely every theist paper, book, argument, etc. you criticize? If can glean the thrust of his argument from numerous sources, I can legitimately critique as much of his argument as I know. In this very thread, I asked about Dawkins approach, and concluded on the basis of the answers that Dawkins arguments were structurally inadequate. I'm open to revising my case in the light of new evidence, and if enough people tell me that Dawkins has attempted to sufficiently meet his burden of proof (by assessing the best arguments for theism) I might give it a read. But I've read enough of him and been exposed to his arguments enough to know the guy is a lousy philosopher, and is entirely ignorant about theology. And if I want lousy philosophy from people ignorant about theology, I can always read this forum for free. ;)


Am I a lousy philosopher? Can you tell me where I went wrong with my omnigenesis argument other than merely call it "atrocious", which isn't much of an argument? Dawkins has repeatedly said that God cannot be disproven. He is a weak atheist, and asks that the Christian and Islamic gods be proven. I think my omnigenesis shows us Dawkins is not the nee plus ultra of atheist theorists. We can do better than weak atheist arguments.

Cheerful Charlie

[Yahzi]

Just by reading one of his interview one can see it's clear he has a limited knowledge of theology.
How much do you need to study the insane ramblings of L. Ron Hubbard before you can declare Scientology to be crap?

Because if you aren't a level 23 Operating Thetan with the B* upgrade, I don't think you're justified in criticizing it.

Do you agree?

[luvluv]

Not the same thing at all. Evolution is, at least in principle, falsifiable.

So the rule is, if something is falsifiable, you need to provide evidence against it, but if it is not falsifiable, you don't have to provide evidence against it? You can just assume that which is unfalsifiable is, in fact, false? The obvious follow-up is, if it's unfalsifiable, how do you know it's false?

On the other hand, any god concept is not falsifiable so science wouldn't have anything to say on the subject.

Many god concepts are falsifiable. The gods who live on Mt. Olympus can be falsified by looking at the top of Mt. Olympus. The Christian God could be falsified if it could be demonstrated his attributes are contradictory. I could go on but I get the feeling it would be useless. Enjoy your bewildering, unjustified love of all things Dawkins.

[madmax2976]

But the issue always comes down to: what is evidence? :huh: Why can't an intellectual argument be an "evidence"? <shrug> It can be as far as I'm concerned.

There are many arguments provided for the existence of God. + religious experiences. Yes there are.

Of course you can think all those arguments are flawed. + you can think people who have religious experiences are crazy, deluded or whatever. I believe all the arguments fit into one or the other of those category's, yep.

But you know, whatever evidence one would present, if your view is strongly naturalist, My "view" isn't strongly - even completely - naturalistic by accident. It's that way because that's been the sum total of my experiences involving explanations that can be confirmed.

...no evidence will never be enough, Well this is obviously incorrect. All we would need is sufficient naturalistic evidence. If the stars suddenly rearranged themselves to spell "Jesus" or "Yahweh", that'd be pretty good evidence. Same if amputated limbs suddenly regenerated themselves, or if God simultaneously spoke to everyone on the planet.

because you'll treat those evidences as a result of a naturalistic phenomenom X that science is not able to explain Unless, as above, it is unlikely that any naturalistic explanation would ever be forthcoming.

..., but will be able to explain one day when science will improve. When it comes to something we admittedly don't understand we have a finite number of choices. We can admit we don't know and move on. We can admit we don't know, but feel it likely that any explanation will be a non-theistic one. We can admit we don't know, but feel it likely that any explanation will be a theistic one.

In and of itself, the above might be considered a "tie". The problem is, I know non-theistic explanations have been confirmed. I've never known a theistic one to be. Thus I favor the former over the latter. That's not to say things can't change some day, but until they do, that's the way it swings for me.

I suspect this is the case for dawkins. If Jesus show up like a genie-in-the-bottle right in front of him, he would think that something is wrong with his brain. Not if there were plenty of witnesses right there with him able to confirm his observations.

[luvluv]

How much do you need to study the insane ramblings of L. Ron Hubbard before you can declare Scientology to be crap?

Excuse me, the question is not "how much do you need to study to declare religion crap" the question is "how much do you need to study to declare that there is no evidence for any concept of god"?

Keep your analogies consistent with what Dawkins claims.

[Yahzi]

But the issue always comes down to: what is evidence? :huh: Why can't an intellectual argument be an "evidence"?
It can. The problem with religious experiences as evidence is not that we don't accept it; it is that religious people do not accept other religious people's religious experiences.

Of course you can think all those arguments are flawed. + you can think people who have religious experiences are crazy, deluded or whatever.
Every single theist advances the argument that every other theist is crazy, deluded, or just plain wicked.

But you know, whatever evidence one would present, if your view is strongly naturalist, no evidence will never be enough, because you'll treat those evidences as a result of a naturalistic phenomenom X that science is not able to explain yet, but will be able to explain one day when science will improve.
So you admit in advance you can't prove your case. Yet you expect us to respect your argument anyway.

If the Grand Wizard of the KKK says, "No mater how much racist evidence we present, you'll just ignore it, because you're not a racist," would you find it convincing?

I suspect this is the case for dawkins. If Jesus show up like a genie-in-the-bottle right in front of him, he would think that something is wrong with his brain.
You know, presuming the lack of integrity of your opposition is not really an argument, either.

When you have something to offer other than character assassination, let us know.

[Atrus]

I just have no interest on Dawkins thoughts on religion.

So why do you think anyone else should care about your thoughts on Dawkins thoughts on religion? If you lack interest, silence seems to be preferable no?

At any rate, I'm not arguing to change your position. Just highlighting that your reducing yourself into an already established caricature, and this is as far as my maxims carry me. What you do beyond my pointing it out is your own decision, and my part of my intent is met.

[JamesBannon]

So the rule is, if something is falsifiable, you need to provide evidence against it, but if it is not falsifiable, you don't have to provide evidence against it? You can just assume that which is unfalsifiable is, in fact, false? The obvious follow-up is, if it's unfalsifiable, how do you know it's false?
You can't and that's the point. What you can do is show that there are many equally plausible alternatives and then ask the believer why they don't believe in any of them. Then watch them struggle to do that using empirical evidence! Whose to say, for instance, that we're not all being consistently deceived by Descartes' Demon?

[thedistillers]

The problem with religious experiences as evidence is not that we don't accept it; it is that religious people do not accept other religious people's religious experiences.

Not necessarily.

Every single theist advances the argument that every other theist is crazy, deluded, or just plain wicked.

That doesn't make any sense.

[luvluv]

So why do you think anyone else should care about your thoughts on Dawkins thoughts on religion? If you lack interest, silence seems to be preferable no?

Not if you have an engaging personality and an electric rhetorical style, like yours truly. :D

At any rate, I'm not arguing to change your position. Just highlighting that your reducing yourself into an already established caricature, and this is as far as my maxims carry me. What you do beyond my pointing it out is your own decision, and my part of my intent is met.

Fare thee well, Hiawatha. Fare the well, mighty warrior.

[luvluv]

Whose to say, for instance, that we're not all being consistently deceived by Descartes' Demon?

How would an atheist know that we're not all being consistently decieved by Descartes' Demon?

[Cheerful Charlie]

Excuse me, the question is not "how much do you need to study to declare religion crap" the question is "how much do you need to study to declare that there is no evidence for any concept of god"?

Keep your analogies consistent with what Dawkins claims.


You need to study just enough to know why god is not possible and how to prove it. Then you can stop. A god that is supposedly, by revelation, all good, all knowing, creator of all or omnipotent, is impossible as these attributes create fatal contradictions. Every thing else about such gods is irrelevant at this point. Other god classes are also vulnerable.

How long ARE you going to try to argue around these facts without admitting them anyway?

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

[thedistillers]

So you admit in advance you can't prove your case.

I'm not trying to prove my case. What is "my case"?

You know, presuming the lack of integrity of your opposition is not really an argument, either.

That was an hyberpole. But the point is that it's hard to provide an evidence to someone with a certain worldview.

If you are strongly naturalist (note the word strongly), then if Jesus is written in the sky, you can easily conclude you're hallucinating. If a lot of people saw it, then it could be that something weird happened in the sky that gave the illusion that stars were moving around and forming words.

[thedistillers]

You need to study just enough to know why god is not possible and how to prove it. Then you can stop. A god that is supposedly, by revelation, all good, all knowing, creator of all or omnipotent, is impossible as these attributes create fatal contradictions. Every thing else about such gods is irrelevant at this point. Other god classes are also vulnerable.

How long ARE you going to try to argue around these facts without admitting them anyway?

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

Name me all the philosophers who proved convincingly that god is not possible.

[JamesBannon]

How would an atheist know that we're not all being consistently decieved by Descartes' Demon?
We don't and that's precisely my point about the other possibilities. Since they are unfalsifiable they are, by definition, not ameanable to evidenciary based methodologies.

[SkepticBoyLee]

Theology is useless for determining whats real and what isnt.

Theology is the intricate pontification upon make believe concepts.

Who gives a shit if or if not Dawkins knows the most complex arguments that are given by a field whose supposition is false to begin with? Dawkins annihilates the theologians supposition, making his knowledge or lack of in the realm of theology moot.

If Invisible Microscopic Anal Dwelling Gnomes existed and were believed in for thousands of years by the majority of folks in history and a complex academic discipline was created around that concept -- a belief whose basis was false in the first place -- one need not know the most complex arguments made in favor of MAD-Gnomes in order to point out that there is no good evidence for them in the first place and why.

[luvluv]

Understand, I'm not asking for Dawkins to prove that theism is false. I'm asking him to show that his claim that there is no evidence for theism is true. His claim that there is no evidence for theism is falsifiable, so he should provide evidence for it, by your own standards.

[luvluv]

Dawkins annihilates the theologians supposition

So he proves God doesn't exist in the book? How does he do that?

[SkepticBoyLee]

No. He proves that the sum of the evidence points overwhlemingly to "Gods" non-existance.

"God" is a nonsensical concept whose definition is not even agreed upon by theists.

If you want to play the "you can't prove God doesnt exist" game we can.

You also cannot prove that Microscopic invisible anal dwelling gomes do not exist. Nor can you prove that the flying, urinating crocodile who seranades us with his sweet, sweet golden showers of salvation does not exist. But you can show where the evidence leads with regards to these beings.

[madmax2976]

If you are strongly naturalist (note the word strongly), then if Jesus is written in the sky, you can easily conclude you're hallucinating. If a lot of people saw it, then it could be that something weird happened in the sky that gave the illusion that stars were moving around and forming words. Of course those on either side of the issue can believe those on the other are immovable, willfully obstinate, and unshakably biased. It's an easy charge to hurl - an just about impossible to prove.

I tend to think that such arguments, ironically, only show the advocate to be the immovable one.

[luvluv]

No. He proves that the sum of the evidence points overwhlemingly to "Gods" non-existance.

Okay, how does he do that? What's the evidence he considers?

"God" is a nonsensical concept whose definition is not even agreed upon by theists.

Irrelevant to Dawkins, since he's only going to attack the weakest version he can find anyway and then falsely claim it's the most popular.

If you want to play the "you can't prove God doesnt exist" game we can.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just wondering how exactly Dawkins "annhilates" the theists supposition. Please, enlighten me.

[SkepticBoyLee]

Okay, how does he do that?


Read the book.

[luvluv]

I've read absracts and reviews of the book. Here's his argument as I understand it: life definitely evolved, the universe maybe evolved, therefore God doesn't exist. That about right?

[thedistillers]

The why-there-is-certainly-no-God is chapter 4, and it doesn't have much substance. He complains about creationists and stuff, like if it's somewhat relevant to the issue.

"Once again,
this is because the designer himself (/herself/itself) immediately
raises the bigger problem of his own origin. Any entity capable of
intelligently designing something as improbable as a Dutchman's
Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a
Dutchman's Pipe."

And after some people say you don't need to care much about theology to write a "God delusion" book. Errr, okay.

[BioBeing]

My point is only that Dawkins doesn't know much about theology or advanced religious philosophy. Dawkins himself admits this.
Dawkins position (and I agree) is that theology is worthless. Anyone can stand up and claim their theology is correct, but how can one test between them? You can't. I can say anything about any made up creature, and you cannot prove me wrong. So, in the book, he spends very little time on theology. It's all been said elsewhere anyway, so why bother? Does every book on atheism have to reguritate the same old tired refutations of the same old tired religious claims for it to be taken seriously?

[luvluv]

I'm embarrased for every atheist who thinks you can prove that there's no existence for any god while not knowing anything about theology. I'm embarassed for you because you don't have the sense to be embarassed for yourselves, and somebody has to do it.

Things like knowing the attributes of God? Yeah, see, that's theology. And you can't actually disprove something without knowing what its attributes are? See how that works? And not all notions of creation are the same, and for some, Dawkins arguments are completely useless? So, can you see how it would kind of be a problem if he didn't know this?

I'm not asking Dawkins to be able to give a dissertation on Neo-Molinism. But he should know that "who created God" is not a serious reply to sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument. He should know that 75% or more of the world's Christians, as a matter of public, accessible, official policy, do not define faith as "believing witthout evidence".

But it seems to me you're saying that Dawkins doesn't know anything about religion. I agree, which is why I wouldn't bother with the book.

[Atrus]

And after some people say you don't need to care much about theology to write a "God delusion" book. Errr, okay.

That section is from a Creationist book that several helpful Creationists sent him. It's one of several taken to show why the argument from improbability is silly, and that citing God is equal to citing chance due to a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and natural selection.

'Arguments for God' takes a look at classical arguments for God; Aquinas, Bayesian, Scripture, Pascal etc. 'Why there is almost certainly no god' is about theistic pleadings; arguments from improbability, gaps etc.

[luvluv]

That section is from a Creationist book that several helpful Creationists sent him.

I happen to know that Alister McGrath wrote two books on Dawkins misrepresentation of theism and gave them both to Dawkins. Did he mention anything from those? No? Just the creationism books? Shocker.

It's one of several taken to show why the argument from improbability is silly, and that citing God is equal to citing chance due to a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and natural selection.

That's completely wrong, if that's what he said. There's a thread on this on the philosophy forum presently. Join us, and be enlightened. Besides, why would he take on a Creationist concept of God? That's both a strawman and uncommon among theists.

'Arguments for God' takes a look at classical arguments for God; Aquinas, Bayesian, Scripture, Pascal etc.

He mention a theistic philosopher from, say, the last 200 years?

[thedistillers]

'Arguments for God' takes a look at classical arguments for God; Aquinas, Bayesian, Scripture, Pascal etc. 'Why there is almost certainly no god' is about theistic pleadings; arguments from improbability, gaps etc.

So the idea that theology is worthless doesn't make any sense, as it's actually what he's doing by adressing those issues.

[Atrus]

I'm embarrased for every atheist who thinks you can prove that there's no existence for any god while not knowing anything about theology. I'm embarassed for you because you don't have the sense to be embarassed for yourselves, and somebody has to do it.

Things like knowing the attributes of God? Yeah, see, that's theology. And you can't actually disprove something without knowing what its attributes are? See how that works? And not all notions of creation are the same, and for some, Dawkins arguments are completely useless? So, can you see how it would kind of be a problem if he didn't know this?

I'm not asking Dawkins to be able to give a dissertation on Neo-Molinism. But he should know that "who created God" is not a serious reply to sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument. He should know that 75% or more of the world's Christians, as a matter of public, accessible, official policy, do not define faith as "believing witthout evidence".

But it seems to me you're saying that Dawkins doesn't know anything about religion. I agree, which is why I wouldn't bother with the book.

What absolutely egotistical stupidity. The gall to simultaneously be condescending yet justifying why your illegitimate understanding of a book requires you to voice an uneducated opinion of it.

You cite the veracity of theology. Which theology? The Christian theology? The Buddhist? The Jewish? By what framework do you suggest that this theological view has any validity or has a validity that is superior to the empirical understanding on reality. Because YOUR beliefs say it is? No doubt I suppose YOUR beliefs somehow make YOUR theological definition superior to that of equally absurd beliefs of others religions?

Intuition? Divine revelation? Two historically impoverished definitions that have been connected to the death of absurd gods. Theology lacks any tacit basis to judge the existence on God, because it's definitions are far too poor and far too imprecise. It is neither explanatory or falsifiable and as such useless.
Unless theology ascribes to a framework that is more accurate than intuition and revelation it cannot be taken seriously.

[Atrus]

He mention a theistic philosopher from, say, the last 200 years?

It is not my place to pander to someone who bathes in his own willing ignorance. I've said what I've said on your tacit unwillingness to read, so your criticisms of such are vapid and needless of address.

[Atrus]

So the idea that theology is worthless doesn't make any sense, as it's actually what he's doing by adressing those issues.

The book focuses on the empirical reasonings, hence the focus on logic, math, history, biology and scientific arguments that try to prove god. He doesn't consider theology an actual field, and it is not. An expert of fiction doesn't have much to add to a problem of non-fiction.

[thedistillers]

The book focuses on the empirical reasonings, hence the focus on logic, math, history, biology and scientific arguments that try to prove god. He doesn't consider theology an actual field, and it is not. An expert of fiction doesn't have much to add to a problem of non-fiction.

I'm not even sure at this point if you understand what theology is, honestly. If you're discussing about the arguments of God, God attributes and such, it doesn't matter if you're using logic, math, science or your penis. You're actually doing theology.

[Atrus]

I'm not even sure at this point if you understand what theology is, honestly. If you're discussing about the arguments of God, God attributes and such, it doesn't matter if you're using logic, math, science or your penis. You're actually doing theology.

Taking a scientific look at religion is taking a scientific look at religion, you could classify it as theology but as I said before, theology is an impoverished term due to unfounded acknowledgment of mysticism more suited to train clergy than educate.

[someotherguy]

I'm not even sure at this point if you understand what theology is, honestly. If you're discussing about the arguments of God, God attributes and such, it doesn't matter if you're using logic, math, science or your penis. You're actually doing theology.

One can do theology with one's genitals? My, my, I may just have to give this god stuff another look!:D

[luvluv]

What absolutely egotistical stupidity. The gall to simultaneously be condescending yet justifying why your illegitimate understanding of a book requires you to voice an uneducated opinion of it.

I'm a card.

You cite the veracity of theology. Which theology? The Christian theology? The Buddhist? The Jewish? By what framework do you suggest that this theological view has any validity or has a validity that is superior to the empirical understanding on reality. Because YOUR beliefs say it is? No doubt I suppose YOUR beliefs somehow make YOUR theological definition superior to that of equally absurd beliefs of others religions?

You misunderstand me. Theology defines god-concepts. To repeat: theology defines god-concepts. Now, you can't refute a thing without knowing what that thing is. Thus, to refute a god-concept, any god-concept, one must know some theology. Dawkins is assuming a theology in the debate, he's assuming a Creationist theology. That's the only reason he thinks that a refutation of design as a scientifically detectable fact is a refutation of God. The problem is that a belief in scientifically detectable design isn't necessary for a belief in God for some 90% of theists. Thus, his ignorance of theology has led him to make a fallacious argument. That's why theology is relevant. You don't need to know everything about theology to make an atheistic argument, but you need to know basics about how God is defined. And if you're going to make a ridiculous claim about the total lack of evidence for any god, you're going to take on the massive burden of knowing something about how all gods are defined (but you'd only have yourself to blame, for making the claim).

I don't want Dawkins to believe any theology. I could care less. I'd like him to narrow his claim to a reasonable level, concentrate on the one or two theologies that had content but were difficult to refute (the position of a John Polkinghorne or a Richard Swinburne, for example) and go to town on that.

You're acting as if I'm saying that he has to refute my version of theism. Well, I guess that's probably true because the moron claims to be showing that all god-concepts are wrong with his argument. But personally I'd ask nothing of the sort from him, only that he's explicit about his defintions. that he takes the definitions from actual philosophically educated theists, and that he attack the strongest version of theism (from his perspective) that he can.

It is not my place to pander to someone who bathes in his own willing ignorance. I've said what I've said on your tacit unwillingness to read, so your criticisms of such are vapid and needless of address.

Well, you are getting kind of repetitive. I wasn't going to say anything, but...

[spamandham]

Atheism is like a solvent, it washes away the BS. Religions need hammers and someone with authority to beat ideas into people. While the idea of a atheist leader might seem appealing, our passive, relentless, fact based BS solvent will prevail at the end of the day.

From what I've gathered from history, the best arguments only win if they have charismatic proponents. We humans are dumb as dirt and easily manipulated.

[thedistillers]

Taking a scientific look at religion is taking a scientific look at religion, you could classify it as theology but as I said before, theology is an impoverished term due to unfounded acknowledgment of mysticism more suited to train clergy than educate.

Theology is using reason while discussing God, religion and spirituality.

"Taking a scientific look at religion" is theology, period. And dawkins book is a poor attempt to do theology, because he doesn't care much about theology. His book is simply not interesting.

[luvluv]

Taking a scientific look at religion is taking a scientific look at religion, you could classify it as theology but as I said before, theology is an impoverished term due to unfounded acknowledgment of mysticism more suited to train clergy than educate.

You don't get it.

We're not saying theology is a source of truth, we're saying it's a place to find out what theist's actually believe.

Please, by all means, disbelieve all theology, and totally discount it as a source of truth. It doesn't matter if you believe neo-molinist, Hegalian, transcendental open theism. What matters is that if you claim to have a proof against all god concepts, that this argument would work against neo-molinist, Hegalian, transcendental open theism. Or, preferably, you could dial down your rhetoric and only claim to be able to refute those god-concepts your arguments are actually relevant to.

The point is, if you're not interested in theology enough to even be sure you're not misrepresenting your theistic opponents, you should leave the book-writing and argument-making to somebody else.

[Red Expendable]

Okay, how does he do that? What's the evidence he considers?



Irrelevant to Dawkins, since he's only going to attack the weakest version he can find anyway and then falsely claim it's the most popular.



I'm not saying that at all. I'm just wondering how exactly Dawkins "annhilates" the theists supposition. Please, enlighten me.

And please tell us what exactly is the strongest claim for god(s) existence. I've got my copy of God Delusion right here in front of me. I'll reference it after you post your reply with quotes and page numbers.

From all the theists that I've ever met, the strongest proof or evidence or whatever you want to call it, is no proof or evidence at all.

They just read stupid ancient books written by a bunch of dead fucks and read into it however they want to make it try to apply to modern times, and try to DESPERATELY, to try to make it fit reality. It never works, but hey it makes a great organizing / socializing tool. Oh yeah, it also puts the believer right at the center of the universe. How convenient.

Or even better, they read some about their religion and get some little bits of bullshit here and there from the preacher, priest, rabbi and just accept it.

Faith sure as fuck ain't proof or evidence of god.

Anyway, if Dawkins doesn't reference the strongest argument for god existence, I'll be glad address it in another thread.

I eagerly await your reply.

RedEx

[Atrus]

Well, you are getting kind of repetitive. I wasn't going to say anything, but...

Why should anyone take anything you have to say with a modicum of validity? An idiotic attack on something you admit to never have read yet are all too ready to make ad hominem attacks. Why should this type of silly framework even be tolerated? Should I pander to such a disgusting methodology?

No. It's a mockery of the theistic side of the argument.

[luvluv]

And please tell us what exactly is the strongest claim for god(s) existence. I've got my copy of God Delusion right here in front of me. I'll reference it after you post your reply with quotes and page numbers.

Okay. How about Swinburne's Culmulative Case Argument (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html), Father Copleston's Argument from Contingency (the one he used in this discussion with Bertrand Russell (http://ditext.com/russell/debate.html)), Victor Reppert's (Or C.S. Lewis's, or Robert Adams', or Richard Swinburne's) Argument from Reason (http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/afr.html), any of Plantinga's two dozen or so proofs of God (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf) (including the argument from intentionality, counterfactuals, proper function), William James' argument from Religious Experience, Robert Koons Argument from The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf), and William Alston's Argument from Religious Perception (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html).

More available on request.

I eagerly await your reply.

I eagerly await the page numbers.

I feel certain I'll have a longer wait.

[luvluv]

Why should anyone take anything you have to say with a modicum of validity? An idiotic attack on something you admit to never have read yet are all too ready to make ad hominem attacks. Why should this type of silly framework even be tolerated? Should I pander to such a disgusting methodology?

I think we get the point by now.

[Red Expendable]

Okay. How about Swinburne's Culmulative Case argument, Father Copleston's Argument from Contingency (the one he used against Bertrand Russell), Victor Reppert's Argument from Reason, any of Plantinga's two dozen or so proofs of God (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf) (including the argument from intentionality, counterfactuals, proper function), William James' argument from Religious Experience, Robert Koons Argument from The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf), and William Alston's Argument from Religious Experience.

More available on request.



I eagerly await the page numbers.

I feel certain I'll have a longer wait.

Oh boy, Philosophy my favorite!! :)
Not really, however, just a quick search o'the web reveals the deabte between "Father" Copleston, and Russell.

The FATHER says:

"Well, for clarity's sake, I'll divide the argument into distinct stages. First of all, I should say, we know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence. There isn't any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. That reason must be an existent being. Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. If it is, well and good. If it is not, then we must proceed farther. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there's no explanation of existence at all. So, I should say, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist."

His first point saying that there are some beings that exist that do not contain a reason for their own existence, within themselves. Well duh! Know why? Because some things don't NEED a reason. Not everything has to have a reason for existence, let alone contain that reason in itself.

He then states in the next sentence that he depended on his parents, then food, air, etc. When in reality he depended on ALL of those things at once. It wasn't first his parents and then little things like nourishment and air. Also, what does this have to do with a REASON for existence?

It sounds to me like he's trying to sneak in or imply purpose and uses reason instead. But maybe I'm reading this wrong.

He bases his whole argument that everything needs a reason for existence which is more bullshit than most people can handle. He doesn't even offer any kind of evidence or proof that an entity needs a REASON to exist.

He just says that entities don't have reasons for their existence, and then on that house of cards he tries to build a weak case for existence of god.

I love it when he say, there MUST be a reason external to itself (a being) for it's existence. Why MUST there be because "Father says so?"

OK, well, sorry, I'm not convinced by the Father.

I'll look into your next sources and try to reply in a timely manner. I'm not buying any books on any of these subjects, just going to surf the net and see what I can see, a la luvluv style!!!

RedEx

[spamandham]

How would an atheist know that we're not all being consistently decieved by Descartes' Demon?

How would anyone know? You're beliefs don't determine what you are capable of knowing, your perceptions do that.

[luvluv]

He bases his whole argument that everything needs a reason for existence

He so doesn't. His argument is that if there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being. I provided a link, it's all right there. If this is the level at which you're going to rebutt, don't bother. I'm not actually going to make you read all of those (some are very long and involved) but to point out that neither you nor Dawkins have a grasp of the number and power of the arguments out there. And these are just the arguments for the Christian God, much less for every other concept of god. Maybe all arguments for all god concepts fail, but that's not something a human being could know.

I'm not buying any books on any of these subjects, just going to surf the net and see what I can see, a la luvluv style!!!

Am I to take this to mean there are no pages in Dawkins book responding to any of these arguments, despite the fact that most of them are pretty well known? I'm shocked. Shocked.

[spamandham]

Point being, Dawkins' religious attacks are clearly focused on American-style fundamentalists. He argues that this type of Christianity is widest spread in the Western world.

...

Well, I guess that's probably true because the moron claims to be showing that all god-concepts are wrong with his argument.

...

I've read absracts and reviews of the book. Here's his argument as I understand it...



For someone who hasn't actually read the book, you seem to be quite the critic nonetheless. Considering the demands you are making on Dawkins to back up his claims, does it seem unreasonable that you do the same?

Perhaps you should cite where he actually makes the claims you attribute to him, before calling him a moron and demanding he back up what your interpretation-via-abstract method attributes him to have said.

[luvluv]

Perhaps you should cite where he actually makes the claims you attribute to him, before calling him a moron and demanding he back up what your interpretation-via-abstract method attributes him to have said.

The claim that his arguments apply to all concepts was not originally made in the thread by me. I claimed he was only attacking the Fundamentalist conception of God. Atrus rebutted, on page 1 of this very thread:

In The God Delusion, Dawkins clearly states that he is targeting all gods, in all forms, and even those to come. There is no God he is not referring to.

And then Atrus quoted the man himself, from page 36 of The God Delusion:

I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.

You might ask yourself how a person could intend to mount an argument against a concept of God (or anything else) that hasn't been invented yet, but I don't make Dawkins' claims for him, I just point out how ridicuclous they are.

[openlyatheist]

More available on request.
I for one would like to see the whole list you have, just so I can have them. I don't think that would be a derailment of the thread. Much thanks. (You could PM me, I suppose.)

[Cheerful Charlie]

Oh boy, Philosophy my favorite!! :)
Not really, however, just a quick search o'the web reveals the deabte between "Father" Copleston, and Russell.



I'll look into your next sources and try to reply in a timely manner. I'm not buying any books on any of these subjects, just going to surf the net and see what I can see, a la luvluv style!!!

RedEx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Its the ol' argumment from contingency which was on of Aquinas's Five Ways. Its been debunked for CENTURIES. It has been dead since Kant knifed it between the ribs and Hume drove a stake through the corpse's
heart.

Every thing has a cause, everything is contingent. Except God, now we do a bit of special pleading. Of course, if the Universe has always existed in an infinite chain of cause and effect, God is not necessary and the world is not contigent on a necessary God. Theists claim that there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect but can't say why. Empty assertion, special pleading again. To say God is necessary, we have to prove God exists, and is also necessary. After all, maybe God has a beginnining, maybe there are many Gods. Hume. Theists cannot prove anything here. Since we cannot prove god is contingent, this species of cosmological proof fails. To say God must be necessary assumes god exists and is argument by definition. A no-no. A logical falllacy. There is no reason the Universe as a whole isn't necessary. We don't see god but we see the universe.

It seems luvluv is not one for doing luvluv's homework before wasting everybody's time on heavily debunked 'proofs' that died centuries ago at the hands of Kant, Hume, and others.

Bizarre that luvluv brings up one of the most well debunked 'proofs' as if it matters. It was dead when Copleston used it. But to some theists, no proof is so dead they aren't willing to dig the corpse up and shake it like a ghastly sock puppet to fool the atheists.

Cheerful Charlie

[Red Expendable]

Okay. How about Swinburne's Culmulative Case Argument (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html), Father Copleston's Argument from Contingency (the one he used in this discussion with Bertrand Russell (http://ditext.com/russell/debate.html)), Victor Reppert's (Or C.S. Lewis's, or Robert Adams', or Richard Swinburne's) Argument from Reason (http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/afr.html), any of Plantinga's two dozen or so proofs of God (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf) (including the argument from intentionality, counterfactuals, proper function), William James' argument from Religious Experience, Robert Koons Argument from The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf), and William Alston's Argument from Religious Perception (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html).

More available on request.



I eagerly await the page numbers.

I feel certain I'll have a longer wait.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html

Looking this link here on Swinburne his first argument talking about Inductive arguments and uses the example of someone robbing a safe, and little bits of evidence showing how this character John burgled a safe.
I'm still looking for gods fingerprints. Where are they? How is he relating this to proof of god existence I don't know.
Where are the clues? He provides none.

Next he moves onto orderly universe and arguments from existence:

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, but how is this proof for god existence? He states the science doesn't explain why there are any state of affairs at all. IOW, why does anything exist as opposed to not existing.

Positing the question doesn't make it a valid question. Asking why something rather than nothing is meaningless. Unless of course, you already believe in a god, then why becomes relevant.

Regarding orderliness, he states that science can't explain why general laws of nature can't be explained by a "wider law". OK, what does this prove? That science can't answer everything at any given moment, but science does progress does it not? So this proves god how?

His quote:

"But there might so easily not have been a universe at all, ever. Or the Universe might so easily have been a chaotic mess. That there is an orderly Universe is something very striking, yet beyond the capacity of science ever to explain. Science's inability to explain these things is not a temporary phenomenon, caused by the backwardness of Twentieth Century science. Rather, because of what a scientific explanation is, these things will ever be beyond its capacity to explain. For scientific explanations by their very nature terminate with some ultimate natural law and ultimate arrangement of physical things, and the questions which I am raising are why there are natural laws and physical things at all."

Once, again, adding the why is there something rather than nothing. If there was nothing we wouldn't be here to discuss this bullshit. There is no "why" necessary, unless you are already convinced of a god. The fact that there is something instead of nothing is not proof or evidence of a god or gods, simply proof of existence. How does WHY fit into this?

Stating that there must be a why, presupposes that some being had an intention to make the universe. If that's the case, then you can ask WHY and it's valid, but using that as evidence with no evidence of a creator to begin with is not working with me sorry. Not very convincing.

Then he goes onto evolution, actually agrees with it, but, there's alway a but, he states why are the laws that govern evolution the laws we see and not some other laws.

He states he line of bullshit, and here it is:

"Perhaps because they follow from the most fundamental laws of physics. But the question then arises as to why the fundamental laws of physics are such as to give rise to laws of evolution. If we can answer this question we should do so. There is again available the same simple answer-that there is a God who makes matter behave in accord with such laws in order to produce a world with animals and men. To develop my earlier point-God has an obvious reason for producing men. He wants there to be creatures who can share in His creative work by making choices which affect the world they live in and the other creatures who live in that world."

OK, so more assertions. If we can answer the question, we should do so? Maybe we will one day. Religion isn't going to answer any question like that, and science at least has a chance. However, the "simple answer" to this schmuck is that god makes it so. OK? And he knows this how?????

He also makes a distinction between animals and men, which is wrong, because men are animals. Humans are animals. But let's not fault the Father.
Also, I noticed his god is a He. How does Father know this? From the Bible perhaps. Ahh yes, it's becoming so clear now.

And "His" reason for producing us is for us to crawl around in our little hampster cages for the amusement of HIM, the sky-daddy, the grand mo-fo of the universe. How does he know this? Maybe I should start reading the Bible and it will tell me....hmmm....

These really are some great arguments, I'm still not convinced...
I love his point he pukes up about why evolution didn't just create unfeeling robots, as opposed to men with feelings.

There are some animals that don't experience all the emotions that humans do, and some that might experience a great many of them. But why is this supposed to be something special? We know that emotions "make" us do things, and from an evolutionary POV there are explanations as to why altruistic feelings, love, etc actually help to make sure our genes survive.

They CAN and are being explained by evolutionary psychology. Some good things will probably come out of that field. Maybe feelings aren't necessary, but there are some critters without the range of feelings that humans have, we just fill another niche.

What's his explanation? GOD DID IT! Of course! I wonder which god he knows did it? God on a stick perhaps?

Next up, argument from Miracles and Religious experience:

OK, his "examples" are spontaneous cure from cancer. As one. Which example would this be? Cancer going into remission? Coincidences? Maybe this was before tests were done showing that prayer really does change nothing. Although it might make a person think they are feeling better. There's no proof or evidence that prayer has ever cured cancer. EVER.

Then he goes on to discuss god-on-a-stick resurrection as a proof. Do we REALLY need to discuss this? I mean, some bullshit is written down in a book written by ignorant peeps from almost a couple thousand years ago about some fuck they call Jesus who was crucified and then comes back to life.

So, in other words, we don't see that happening now, but we should take it seriously, if let's say, someone makes up a story of the death and "resurrection" of any person nowadays, and 2000 years from now, someone reads it a believes it. Even though it NEVER happened. That's proof of god how exactly??

I'm not going to address each and evey lame point, however, he ends with this:

"It is very unlikely indeed a priori that there should be a Universe made of matter behaving in totally regular ways, giving rise to conscious beings capable of changing themselves and others, making themselves fit for the Heaven of which they have a glimpse in religious experience. Hence the reason which we use about science and history demands that we postulate a simple explanation of these phenomena in terms of a creator and sustainer God. Mackie's reasons for rejecting that view are not adequate."

Maybe it is UNLIKLEY, but it did happen. Maybe there was or is other universes in the past that were not behaving in "regular ways" and we are just in one version of it. Version 56747683.3 perhaps?

I really dig the line about "making themselves fit for the heaven which they have a glimpse...."
Wow that's really convincing to me, hold on Jeebus!! Here I come!

RedEx

[luvluv]

For those who have read the book, would you consider the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) a fair summation?

I for one would like to see the whole list you have, just so I can have them.

I don't have that kind of time, brother. There's a lot here on infidels, and you can search leadership university, and a few other spots. I've gathered links for like 10-ish years, I have nary the time nor inclination to post them all.

[Red Expendable]

He so doesn't. His argument is that if there is a contingent being then there is a necessary being. I provided a link, it's all right there. If this is the level at which you're going to rebutt, don't bother. I'm not actually going to make you read all of those (some are very long and involved) but to point out that neither you nor Dawkins have a grasp of the number and power of the arguments out there. And these are just the arguments for the Christian God, much less for every other concept of god. Maybe all arguments for all god concepts fail, but that's not something a human being could know.



Am I to take this to mean there are no pages in Dawkins book responding to any of these arguments, despite the fact that most of them are pretty well known? I'm shocked. Shocked.

If there is a contingent being, which there isn't because there is no evidence of one.
If there is evidence of one, where is it?

And if you're going to respond to my responses with the crapiness you have thus supplied don't bother to waste your time.

I do have a grasp of the number of bullshit lame argument for existence of god there is, and also have come to the conclusion that you have brought nothing new to the table that hasn't already been refuted by greater minds than you or I.

Have a nice day!!

RedEx

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Having read that article, I think I'm going to borrow the God Delusion from my father when he's finished with it.

[spamandham]

The claim that his arguments apply to all concepts was not originally made in the thread by me.

Hold up. Page 36 does in fact say that (it's actually the closing paragraph in the section on polytheism), and it is exactly what he means, and he does in fact say he is attacking all gods and supernatural concepts.

But you went further than that. You claimed that he claimed his argument proved all god concepts wrong, when the claim in question is merely that he is attacking them. He is in fact attacking all god concepts, but that isn't the same as a claim of having defeated all such concepts as you stated. Where did he say that? Anyone can build strawmen.

You have also not adressed where he said that fundamentalism was the dominant position in the West as you implied. Quotes please. You are held to at least the same standard you hold others to, particularly when you refer to Oxford professors as morons.

The book may actually have significant holes in it, but they are not the strawmen you are composing.

[luvluv]

Every thing has a cause, everything is contingent. Except God, now we do a bit of special pleading. Of course, if the Universe has always existed in an infinite chain of cause and effect, God is not necessary and the world is not contigent on a necessary God. Theists claim that there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect but can't say why. Empty assertion, special pleading again.

Copleston answers these objections in the discussion. The argument is not that every thing needs a cause but God. The argument is that if there is an object which does not have it's cause in itself, then there is an object that does have its cause in itself. And the argument doesn't depend on the impossibility of infinite regress (at least later versions of Coppleston that I can't find on the net don't), it claims that an infinitely regressive universe would still not have its cause in itself.

To say God is necessary, we have to prove God exists, and is also necessary. After all, maybe God has a beginnining, maybe there are many Gods. Hume.

Do you not realize that Hume's criticisms have been criticized, and no competent philosopher accepts his or Kant's critiques of the ontological argument anymore? If any god is contigent, then that god is not God.

Theists cannot prove anything here. Since we cannot prove god is contingent, this species of cosmological proof fails. To say God must be necessary assumes god exists and is argument by definition. A no-no. A logical falllacy.

The argument doesn't say God must be necessary. The argument says if something is contingent then someting is necessary. Something is contingent, therefore something is necessary. Modus Ponens. Nothing fallacious about that. The argument then goes on to say that the universe is nothing more than the real or imagined collection of all physical entities, and all of these are contingent. Therefore ithere must be a necessary cause outside of the physical universe, and this is God.

There is no reason the Universe as a whole isn't necessary.

There's a pretty good reason called the big bang.

[Red Expendable]

I'm not going to even bother spending any more time on the replies to that particular post, however, if you can give me a summation of some other arguments from self-induced ignorance that has been put forth so far, I might give it a shot.

RedEx

[luvluv]

If there is a contingent being, which there isn't because there is no evidence of one.

There's no evidence that anything could have been different than what it is? There's no evidence that anything that exist could fail to exist, or that anything which exists ever changes form? Because that's what the lack of contingency as a category would mean.

[luvluv]

I'm not going to even bother spending any more time on the replies to that particular post, however, if you can give me a summation of some other arguments from self-induced ignorance that has been put forth so far, I might give it a shot.

Why would I do that? I've heard the critiques of those arguments before, and yours aren't really worth the trouble of reading, frankly. My only point was that Dawkins doesn't address them and isn't aware of them. I think it's pretty appaling that he addresses Aquinas's version of each of the five ways, for example, when at least 4 of the 5 have been updated and strengthened by other theists over the years, and his critiques wouldn't apply to the strengthened versions.

[Red Expendable]

Copleston answers these objections in the discussion. The argument is not that every thing needs a cause but God. The argument is that if there is an object which does not have it's cause in itself, then there is an object that does have its cause in itself. And the argument doesn't depend on the impossibility of infinite regress (at least later versions of Coppleston that I can't find on the net don't), it claims that an infinitely regressive universe would still not have its cause in itself.



Do you not realize that Hume's criticisms have been criticized, and no competent philosopher accepts his or Kant's critiques of the ontological argument anymore? If any god is contigent, then that god is not God.



The argument doesn't say God must be necessary. The argument says if something is contingent, someting is necessary. Something is contingent, therefore something is necessary. Nothing fallacious about that. The argument then goes on to say that the universe is nothing more than the real or imagined collection of all physical entities, and all of these are contingent. Therefore ithere must be a necessary cause outside of the physical universe, and this is God.



There's a pretty good reason called the big bang.

He didn't use the word cause, he used the word reason.

Go back and look at the link.

OK, so "god" is not necessary, something is necessary, and that something is god? OK....nice gymnastics you're doing there.

Philosophy the art of baffling with bullshit.
And if something is physical in the universe it is not "imagined" it is real.
And from THERE, there's no link to this" therefore there must be a cause outside the universe and this is god.

That argument, does NOT show that there is a god, or a billion gods. It just shows that we don't know what the fuck. Period.
You just assume there is. Maybe the universe alway existed in one form or another? From big bang to big crunch, etc etc.

Just because there is something, the universe - it exists, doesn't make it NECESSARY. Why is the universe or anything in it necessary? To who??!??

Oh right, to GOD. It's necessary for him. I mean, Him. Sorry about my "h".

RedEx

[luvluv]

But you went further than that. You claimed that he claimed his argument proved all god concepts wrong, when the claim in question is merely that he is attacking them. He is in fact attacking all god concepts, but that isn't the same as a claim of having defeated all such concepts as you stated. Where did he say that? Anyone can build strawmen.

He doesn't attack all god concepts. Neither he nor any other human being is aware of all god concepts. From reviews and summaries of the book, he doesn't even attack all of the very well known and widespread god-concepts.

And it being that he has a chapter entitled "Why it is Almost Certainly is no god" it seems to me that he's making rather explicit the claim that the chapter will show why no god concepts are exemplified.

So he doesn't claim to show as a matter of conclusive certainty that no gods exist, he just claims to show why it's "almost" certain. And at that I know he fails miserably, site unseen, because he's set himself an impossible task. Further, I know he didn't do it, because the argument of that chapter is the argument against design. That's it. Now if he wanted to name the chapter "Why There Almost Certainly is No Creationist God" then he'd be bearing his burden of proof. But he didn't, he claimed on 36 that he was attacking all god concepts, and you agree that he is, and in the chapter entitled "Why There Almost Certainly is No God" he utterly fails (miserably, pathetically, I'd say) to prove such a massively overstated claim.

[Red Expendable]

Why would I do that? I've heard the critiques of those arguments before, and yours aren't really worth the trouble of reading, frankly. My only point was that Dawkins doesn't address them and isn't aware of them. I think it's pretty appaling that he addresses Aquinas's version of each of the five ways, for example, when at least 4 of the 5 have been updated and strengthened by other theists over the years, and his critiques wouldn't apply to the strengthened versions.

And you bring up stale old arguments that certainly don't convince me in the least.

God MUST exist, because there must be something, because I say so, and that something must be God, because something must exist, because I say so, etc. etc. until I vomit.

Nice argument.


RedEx

[luvluv]

Red, you have absolutely no idea what the terms even mean. When you say something like "necessary to who" you expose yourself to those with understanding of modal terms as a complete philosophical neophyte, who would take longer to instruct than to refute. Don't even make your head hurt by reading the arguments. I don't care what you have to say about them. Sincerely. If I were looking for critiques, there are much better read atheists than yourself I would (and have) turn to. I don't even buy all of the arguments myself. My only point, again, is that if someone is claiming that there's no evidence for theism, he has to have a grasp of all profferd evidence. You don't, Dawkins doesn't, heck nobody does, so you guys should stop claiming things you can't back up.

[Red Expendable]

They aren't you're arguments, so you can be forgiven. We all borrow from the past. But it's important for me to point that out.


To assume there is a purpose or reason for anything and do this based on the assumption that there is actually a purpose or reason for the universe and THEN go onto to posit god is not a very good argument.

However, you can't PROVE that there is a purpose or reason for something rather than nothing. You can only assert.

So it's necessary to believe in a "contingent" being to prop up your purpose / reason for the universe argument.

You do see why this argument is not very convincing now?

RedEx

[luvluv]

And you bring up stale old arguments that certainly don't convince me in the least.

I'm not intersted in convincing you of anything, except that Dawkins is a boob. If you just want to read those arguments so you can sleep at night knowing there isn't some scary proof out there waiting to overtake you in your sleep, feel free to read them. But don't bother critiquing them to me, because I don't care what you think about them. At all. Really. I've read critiques of all those arguments by atheists who get paid for doing philosophy and science. I've heard much better critiques of those arguments than you could come up with. That's not the point.

[luvluv]

To assume there is a purpose or reason for anything and do this based on the assumption that there is actually a purpose or reason for the universe and THEN go onto to posit god is not a very good argument.

You're so off it's painful. Just stop. Look up "modal logic" on wikipedia and stop embarassing yourself with a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms. Everybody reading your posts knows you don't even understand how the terms necessary and contingent are being used in the argument. You're lost. It happens. Walk away.

[Red Expendable]

Red, you have absolutely no idea what the terms even mean. When you say something like "necessary to who" you expose yourself to those with understanding of modal terms as a complete philosophical neophyte, who would take longer to instruct than to refute. Don't even make your head hurt by reading the arguments. I don't care what you have to say about them. Sincerely. If I were looking for critiques, there are much better read atheists than yourself I would (and have) turn to. I don't even buy all of the arguments myself. My only point, again, is that if someone is claiming that there's no evidence for theism, he has to have a grasp of all profferd evidence. You don't, Dawkins doesn't, heck nobody does, so you guys should stop claiming things you can't back up.

luvluv-

The arguments you have presented are NOT your own, and they are worthless.

You present zero evidence for god existence. Zero proof for god existence. Only tired old mental gymnastics by ignorant people who already have a belief in christ-on-a-stick.

The argument from Christ-On-A-Stick by Red Expendable:

Christ died on the cross. He was resurrected. It says so in the bible.

Proof of god.

See?

Wow.
That's brilliant. That's from one of your links!!

RedEx

[luvluv]

Hey Red.

When did I say I was going to prove God exists?

Is that how it happened? Did I say "Hey Red, I'm going to prove God exists?"

Or did it go down like this: you challenged me to bring up arguments for God's existence that Dawkins didn't refute in his book, and I brought up about 10 well-known ones that Dawkins failed to address.

Now, for some reason, you think I care what you think about the arguments, or whether or not you're convinced. As if this was the point of your asking me to present the argument, and not your showing me that your hero was comprehensive in his approach (still waiting for those page numbers btw). You take it upon yourself to attempt to refute arguments that are way, way, way above your head. I don't know why. You don't even know the terms. Do you know what intentionality is? Qualia? Tropes? Counterfactuals? Modus ponens? Modus tollens? Do you know anything about philsophy of the mind? Epistemology? Do you know anything about theories of perception? Can you distinguish indirect realism from naive realism? These are just some of the concepts you'd need to have a working grasp of to absorb the few arguments I linked, and I could link you 100 more. And you don't even know what modal terms mean. You're way over your head.

But this is not the point. The point is that you and Dawkins shouldn't let your keyboard write checks that your philosophically-dormant brains can't cash.

[Red Expendable]

You're so off it's painful. Just stop. Look up "modal logic" on wikipedia and stop embarassing yourself with a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms. Everybody reading your posts knows you don't even understand how the terms necessary and contingent are being used in the argument. You're lost. It happens. Walk away.

Everyone can watch for all I care.

From wikipedia:

A sentence is said to be

* possible- if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it actually is true or false);
* necessary- if it is not possibly false;
* contingent- if it is not necessarily false but not necessarily true either. In formal contexts, therefore, contingency refers to a limited case of possibility.

So assuming that god is possible, with no contradictions, because something with contradictions can't exist, that leaves out the Christian god.
Oh well.
So if work with a god with no contradictions, god is possible.

So as long as I can think of something that has no contradictions, it's possible right got it. Alright, hopefully I'm on the right track with this logic thing, I'm such a noob, it's painful. :)

Yet I don't see any proof or evidence for god existence in that wiki link there. You're right I just don't understand. Oh well!

RedEx

[Red Expendable]

Hey Red.

When did I say I was going to prove God exists?

Is that how it happened? Did I say "Hey Red, I'm going to prove God exists?"

Or did it go down like this: you challenged me to bring up arguments for God's existence that Dawkins didn't refute in his book, and I brought up about 10 well-known ones that Dawkins failed to address.

Now, for some reason, you think I care what you think about the arguments, or whether or not you're convinced. As if this was the point of your asking me to present the argument, and not your showing me that your hero was comprehensive in his approach (still waiting for those page numbers btw). You take it upon yourself to attempt to refute arguments that are way, way, way above your head. I don't know why. You don't even know the terms. Do you know what intentionality is? Qualia? Tropes? Counterfactuals? Modus ponens? Modus tollens? Do you know anything about philsophy of the mind? Epistemology? Do you know anything about theories of perception? Can you distinguish indirect realism from naive realism? These are just some of the concepts you'd need to have a working grasp of to absorb the few arguments I linked, and I could link you 100 more. And you don't even know what modal terms mean. You're way over your head.

But this is not the point. The point is that you and Dawkins shouldn't let your keyboard write checks that your philosophically-dormant brains can't cash.

And yet, you've provided evidence or proof of what again?
If I'm not mistaken the book is Dawkins tackling the god question. So it's inevitable that it will be about proof or lack of proof god. No?

And all of your links are about god existence and trying to show that "yes there is a god, see!" You really think those links provided aren't trying to do that?

Nope didn't find any references to your arguments in the book. Oh well. Maybe I'm too tired to look anymore...

So anyway, I guess I need to take courses in logic in order to understand the mental gymnastics spewed forth by your keyboard?

And from there, I'll find you arguments from lack of proof and evidence to be more convincing?

Bottom line: Most people aren't philosophers. And get along fine without it.

And everyone gets along fine without god, because he/she/it doesn't exist except in the minds of believers.

Lack of evidence and proof are tough to overcome, even with logic obviously.


RedEx

[David B]

The strongest version of the design argument, the strongest version of the cosmological argument, the strongest version of the moral argument, the strongest version of the ontological argument, and the strongest version of the argument from religious experience, at the very least. And given Plantinga's influence among evangelicals, I would throw in the strongest version of reformed epistemology.

The claim that there is absolutely no evidence at all for any god-concept is a remarkably strong claim. Depending on how you define evidence, that claim is nearly as strong as theism. On the face of it, it seems impossible to establish, but Dawkins at least owes us a demonstration by refuting the main arguments and showing how his critiques of those arguments could reasonably be thought to apply to all theistic arguments. Other people have attempted this (Martin, Smith, Parsons, etc.) so it's not impossible.

ETA: Also, since so much of his work critiques the concept of faith, he should not depend on his own defintion of faith, but take on the strongest and/or the most widespread concepts of faith. Not just faith as a lack of evidence, but faith as personal trust, faith as existential choice, etc.

I didn't say that there is no evidence for any god concept.

Just not any good evidence.

Once again - got any?

David B

[The AntiChris]

But I've read enough of him and been exposed to his arguments enough to know the guy is a lousy philosopher, and is entirely ignorant about theology. And if I want lousy philosophy from people ignorant about theology, I can always read this forum for free. ;)I don't understand the reasoning on which you're basing your objections.

It's undoubtedly the case that the vast majority of people who believe in god have never heard of let alone understand the kinds of theological theories you criticise Dawkins for not addressing. That being the case, is it your view that the god-beliefs of these philosophically naive people are unjustified?

If so, then you and Dawkins are in agrement.

If not, then it follows that your view must be that justified belief in god doesn't have to be based on philosophically sophisticated reasoning. In which case your criticisms of Dawkins arguments, that they're philosophically naive, are beside the point.

I'm no fan of arguments which insist that you should read all the literature before making any criticism. However, you really should read Dawkins' book. It may then become apparent to you that he hasn't written an academic treatise on the philosophical failings of modern theological thought. It's simply a book about mainstream popular religious belief.

Chris

[Cheerful Charlie]

I've heard much better critiques of those arguments than you could come up with. That's not the point.


Omnigenesis? Come on! If we atheists are all such "boobs" and you are so smart, show me where my rather decisive disproof of god of Bible, Vedas and Quran (among others) fails.

Did you read my new Carneadian style argment for the non-existence of god? Why do you come here? To sneer? You cannot present anything to prove God, you dare not deal with my arguments. It seems to be that you are not here to learn anything. Or teach anything. You stir things up with your condescending nonsense and when I go, "Here is very good proof god cannot exist", you refuse to debate the proof I present in any way at all.
How can you hope to prevail in debate if you refuse to debate issues?

Dawkins is a scientist, not an atheologian or philosopher with great strong atheist arguments against the existence of God. But I have the arguments, I am an expert to that degree. should I ever manage to get this all sorted out and written up and published, these will over time, become standard strong atheist arguments. All Dawkins will have to do is read the book and learn this omnigenesis disproof. Then, to debunk Dawkins, you (and others) will have to debunk me.

You get first crack at it before the William Craig Lanes or Alvin Plantingas, or other smart guys.

So far as far as I can see, all you do is drag up the hoariest, oldest,most thoroughly debunked "proofs" and throw them out here as if we atheists do not know your guff is the oldest, hoariest, most thoroughly debunked nonsense it is. I showed why Plantinga's FWD fails (omnigenesis and others) and you bailed. Even the new fangled version of an old and hoary debunked argument (Augustine's free will defense) doesn't work. Not least as its a strawman argument anyway, based on claim God values free will,while Romans 11 shows God does not.

But omnigenesis the new big dog on the block is unbeatable. I can critique all the old hoary standards and new wrinkles on the hoary old standards besides. Omnigenesis guts them real good and hard. Ontological proofs, the standard hoary Aquinas Five Ways, and a lot more besides. The Kalam version of cosmological arguments and Plantinga's believed modal version of all these failed, hoary old theological chestnuts.

My little omnigenesis disproof awaits your kind attentions.

[Cheerful Charlie]

You're so off it's painful. Just stop. Look up "modal logic" on wikipedia and stop embarassing yourself with a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms. Everybody reading your posts knows you don't even understand how the terms necessary and contingent are being used in the argument. You're lost. It happens. Walk away.


There are several versions of modal logic. Which one does Plantinga use?
Would you have the faintest clue?

Wikipedia! Snort!

Cheerful Charlie

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hey Red.

When did I say I was going to prove God exists?

Is that how it happened? Did I say "Hey Red, I'm going to prove God exists?"



Yes.

luvluv
"Okay. How about Swinburne's Culmulative Case Argument (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html), Father Copleston's Argument from Contingency (the one he used in this discussion with Bertrand Russell (http://ditext.com/russell/debate.html)), Victor Reppert's (Or C.S. Lewis's, or Robert Adams', or Richard Swinburne's) Argument from Reason (http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/afr.html), any of Plantinga's two dozen or so proofs of God (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf) (including the argument from intentionality, counterfactuals, proper function), William James' argument from Religious Experience, Robert Koons Argument from The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf), and William Alston's Argument from Religious Perception (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html).

More available on request."


All failed nonsense.

CC

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hey Red.

But this is not the point. The point is that you and Dawkins shouldn't let your keyboard write checks that your philosophically-dormant brains can't cash.

This is rather arrogant nonsense coming from somebody who refuses utterly to deal with my rather heavy duty proof the OEC class of gods of Bible, Quran and Vedas cannot exist. Either face my omnigenesis proof fair and square or stop the condescending and arrogant insults.

When I slapped down that Big Fat Ace down in the Plantinga FWD thread long ago, you ran from it. I still cannot get you to deal with it wriggling it in your face repeatedly.

If your brain is not (by implication of your insult) "philosophically dormant", you should be able to handle my little effort. If you cannot, stop insulting atheists here, please. Put up or shut up.

Cheerful Charlie

[thedistillers]

I'm still waiting for a list of all the philosophers who proved convincingly that god is not possible, Cheerful Charlie.

[madmax2976]

Yes.

luvluv
"Okay. How about Swinburne's Culmulative Case Argument (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html), Father Copleston's Argument from Contingency (the one he used in this discussion with Bertrand Russell (http://ditext.com/russell/debate.html)), Victor Reppert's (Or C.S. Lewis's, or Robert Adams', or Richard Swinburne's) Argument from Reason (http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/afr.html), any of Plantinga's two dozen or so proofs of God (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf) (including the argument from intentionality, counterfactuals, proper function), William James' argument from Religious Experience, Robert Koons Argument from The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf), and William Alston's Argument from Religious Perception (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth04.html).

More available on request."


All failed nonsense.

CC Whether these are "failed nonsense" is irrelevant to the main point luvluv has been making - that Dawkins didn't deal with them. I read his book - and it's a fact he didn't deal with them, or others for that matter.

On the other hand, did Dawkins have to deal with every possible argument for God, particularly those arguments that even the vast majority of believers aren't familiar with and which are way over their heads as well? I hardly think so.

If Dawkins didn't deal with a particular theists' favorite argument for God, then acknowledge that and move on, or assess whether he did a good job critiquing the view he did address. Simple.