The GOD Delusion: Dawkins' Atheist Handbook

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and other related works on atheism and naturalism. Participants express their views on Dawkins' thesis, which argues that the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is highly unlikely and not supported by modern science. There is debate about whether one can prove or disprove God's existence, with some asserting that Dawkins focuses primarily on biblical interpretations rather than a broader concept of God. The conversation also touches on the nature of belief and the challenges of addressing all forms of theism in a single work. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of discussing religion and atheism in a philosophical context.
  • #51
I think it is safe to say that Einstein was a agnostic atheistic pantheist in some degree or another. In any case, I think it can be safe to say that he did not really believe in the classical theistic god of the three monotheisms. I seem to remember that Evo had some nice quotes from some volume of letters or such by Einstein?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
falc39 said:
Tying it to the topic. Franklin, although not religious never tried to smear religion. I mean people said he was the "true champion of generic religion". In a way, religion and science did co-exist in his world. He understood the values but kept it separate from science and didn't get too literal with it.

Then its no longer religion. If you are going to water down religion to the point that its just a bunch of stories, its NOT religion. Thats not what religion pretends to be. Religion is praies god, wallow for your sins, and maybe he will forgive you and perform a miracle. THATS religion. I understand what you are proposing, and its no longer religion. Thats like reading old greek mythology to learn a story. Sure, you can do it. Thats fine. But your not praising that book as some higher, untestable truth.
 
  • #53
Moridin said:
I think it is safe to say that Einstein was a agnostic atheistic pantheist in some degree or another. In any case, I think it can be safe to say that he did not really believe in the classical theistic god of the three monotheisms. I seem to remember that Evo had some nice quotes from some volume of letters or such by Einstein?
He made it very clear in a number of letters that he was at best an agnostic.
 
  • #54
falc39 said:
...Have you read much of Benjamin Franklin? Although not religious, he and his peers understood and praised the importance of religion and the values contained in it.

Cyrus said:
:smile: HA-HA-HA-HA. Benjamin Franklin went to paris and had sex and gambled. He was NOT a religious man by any stretch of the imagination.
Its not clear then what you mean by religious here. The disciple Peter lied repeatedly and Judas cashed out. Were they also not religious?

The guy was a diest.
Correct. No one said anything different. So?
 
  • #55
If your a religious guy, you don't go around doing unholy things. Otherwise your just a hack.

Ill give you diest. Thats leaps and bounds better than a thiest.
 
  • #56
Two great pages

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4493/pg16gq8.jpg

HAAAAHAAA! "fairyologist'.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8382/pg19ki8.jpg

Great page, love the Sagan quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Cyrus said:
Then its no longer religion. If you are going to water down religion to the point that its just a bunch of stories, its NOT religion. Thats not what religion pretends to be. Religion is praies god, wallow for your sins, and maybe he will forgive you and perform a miracle. THATS religion.
Yuck. Sounds like something one might hear a snake handlers convention. But one might be a bit skeptical of the source, as one might be of physics definitions at Free Energy conventions.

Cyrus said:
If your a religious guy, you don't go around doing unholy things. Otherwise your just a hack.
Per my observation and view we all go around doing 'bad' things sometimes, without exception.
 
  • #58
Ok even better and more silly mheslep. Religion is a belief in a god who is always there for you. He holds your hand and guides you. He smiles and beams heavenly light so that you can see through the darkness. He does everything for a reason. He loves you so much, because you are so special to him! He wants only the best for you, like a...father. He even gave up his own son for you, because that's how much he loves you. Now let's all hold hands and sing kumbaiah. To steal again from religion, 'god help me.' :rolleyes:

Is this not as 'silly' as the other end of what I wrote?

Per my observation and view we all go around doing 'bad' things sometimes, without exception.

But I say bad people do bad things. Religious people say good people do bad things because of satan :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: (Im not making this up, I know a guy who is an engineer in my class that really REALLY believes this kinda nonsense. Sadly it makes me feel like my science degree is worthless when I have guys like him in my class)

Ooo, better watch out for satan, he's not just doing halloween anymore boys and girls.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
 
  • #60
"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov
 
  • #61
mheslep said:
"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov

One word, PAH-LEASE...:rolleyes:

Dawkings goes over than in chapter 6. (Im starting chapter 2. Perhaps you should read chapter 6 mheslep).

Ha, I can't put this god damn book down, I love it!
 
  • #62
mheslep said:
"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov

That's not an argument for the existence of God- that's only an argument for pretending that God exists whether he does or doesn't.

It's also not true. I am an atheist and yet for some reason I'm still forbidden by society from robbing banks.
 
  • #63
mheslep said:
"If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov

One person said it! It must be true!

Joking aside, it is actually the other way around. If you believe that God is on your side, everything is permitted. After all, nothing ought to stops a theist from rape and murder if he is under the assumption that a god will always forgive him or her for his or her actions. Furthermore, theism always leads to ethical subjectivism and moral relativism, but that is another story.

Read my post in this thread on objective natural morality, or read Richard Carrier's Sense and "Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism". Morality is the result of evolution. A completely objective natural theory of morality and ethics is possible.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Where do you live Moridin, we should get a beer sometime :smile:. A nice sinful beer at a nice sinful strip club, smoking nice sinful cigars.
 
  • #65
Cyrus said:
Where do you live Moridin, we should get a beer sometime :smile:. A nice sinful beer at a nice sinful strip club, smoking nice sinful cigars.

Sweden; been up all night; high on Pepsi; don't drink; don't smoke; but I could go for some strippers :biggrin:
 
  • #66
jostpuur said:
But I had a good point. The mentors of this forum would not openly admit that they disagree with major scientifical authorities, but in reality they do.

Perhaps you and Evo could be more specific. Who are you talking about?

If you mean me, then you had better start apologizing right now.
 
  • #67
Now now, you did call evo a republican. That is unforgivable! :-p
 
  • #68
Cyrus said:
Now now, you did call evo a republican. That is unforgivable! :-p

I was also talking to her directly and didn't bury it on the third page of a thread.
 
  • #69
Cyrus said:
One word, PAH-LEASE...:rolleyes:

Dawkings goes over than in chapter 6. (I'm starting chapter 2. Perhaps you should read chapter 6 mheslep).
Perhaps you should read some Dostoevsky. I know he's a lightweight who wrote some gibberish (Crime and Punishment & Brothers... ) which has somehow remained classic after hundreds of years but just for fun sometime give it a try.
 
  • #70
What is it about? The same can be said about the bible, so...?

My thread ant about Dostoevsky, I never said he's a lightweight, or that his work is gibberish. But I did point out that single line you provided from him is blatantly wrong in the context of how society works.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
Cyrus said:
I don't know, have not read the book yet, but maybe you should Ivan?

Why would I want to? I seriously doubt that he makes any points that I haven't heard a hundred times already. And if you haven't even read it, then why would you suggest that other do? It does seem to say something about motive as well as bias on your part.

As I said, from his blog, his thesis sounds like complete nonsense to me. Maybe once you read it you can help to sort out the details.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
Because I think you would enjoy it. Its a really really good book so far. Full of magnificent quotes and points. The quotes in the book are just gold.

His thesis, I guess (correct me if I am wrong Moridin)

TGD said:
Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is a delusion; and, as later chapters will show, a pernicious delusion.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Cyrus, good luck on keeping the thread going.

Ivan Seeking said:
Perhaps you and Evo could be more specific. Who are you talking about?

If you mean me, then you had better start apologizing right now.

I know that the Dawkins has not received very warm welcome in America compared to the attitudes in Europe. In Europe he is just a scientist, and bit more actively against religions than many other scientists are. In America, he has already got the reputation of the "atheist fundamentalist".

Besides this I know that the mentors here are mostly Americans.

When I look the guidelines, I see that you have chosen to be neutral with religious issues, although according to people like Dawkins the scientifical way would be the atheist way, and not neutrality. (okey, I know this is in contradiction with Evo's atheism concept)

When I put all these pieces together, I can conclude, that PF mentors have a conflict with Dawkins.

That is all I was thinking. Apologies for all other provocation.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
RE Cyrus: But if his thesis is fundamentally flawed, why would I care?
 
  • #75
See my edit on his thesis.
 
  • #76
jostpuur said:
Cyrus, good luck on keeping the thread going.



I know that the Dawkins has not received very warm welcome in America compared to the attitudes in Europe. In Europe he is just a scientist, and bit more actively against religions than many other scientists are. In America, he has already got the reputation of the "atheist fundamentalist".

Besides this I know that the mentors here are mostly Americans.

When I look the guidelines, I see that you have chosen to be neutral with religious issues, although according to people like Dawkins the scientifical way would be the atheist way, and not neutrality.

When I put all these pieces together, I can conclude, that PF mentors have a conflict with Dawkins.

That is all I was thinking. Apologies for all other provocation.

Going with what Dawkings writes, then YES. You are CORRECT. According to him, in chapter 1, religious views get NO special treatment and are not 'safe' from criticism from the scientific community. And that is, quite a good point! :biggrin:
 
  • #77
jostpuur said:
I know that the Dawkins has not received very warm welcome in America compared to the attitudes in Europe. In Europe he is just a scientist, and bit more actively against religions than many other scientists are. In America, he has already got the reputation of the "atheist fundamentalist".

All that I know about the man is what I read in his blog. My opinion is based on simple logic - you can't prove a negative. There is no way to disprove the existence of God because the "God the trickster" argument can undo any scientific argument. This is also an elemenatary concept to understand.

Besides this I know that the mentors here are mostly Americans.

When I look the guidelines, I see that you have chosen to be neutral with religious issues, although according to people like Dawkins the scientifical way would be the atheist way, and not neutrality.

The scientific way is to avoid religion altogether because it has nothing to do with science.

When I put all these pieces together, I can conclude, that PF mentors have a conflict with Dawkins.

I only have a conflict with elementary philosophy errors. And considering that I have devoted a good part of my life to science and science education, I take great offense from your statements. I don't like people telling lies about me.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Its not you per-se that jostpuur is talking about Ivan. Its the fact that PF 'sheilds' religion because its not supposed to be talked about specifically in any of the threads. And this is, according to Dawkings, an unjust no-no. Specific religions do not get any special pardons or 'respect' because they are somehow 'special' and thus cannot be criticised. He subtitles it in chapter one as Undeserved Respect. Which techincally, is what PF gives to religion by 'protecting' it from being discussed.

He argues, why is it one can argue about your political views with no problems, but when it comes to religion, one has to show respect. We have a section on P&WA, yet religion gets a special 'safe' card.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
All that I know about the man is what I read in his blog. My opinion is based on simple logic - you can't prove a negative. There is no way to disprove the existence of God because the "God the trickster" argument can undo any scientific argument. This is also an elemenatary concept to understand.

It is good to dispel myths wherever you find them, and, unfortunately, this is one of them. You can certainly prove a negative. Take a box. Make the proposition "There are no unicorns in this box". Investigate the box. Find no unicorns. In fact, every time you prove a positive (A), you are actually proving a negative (~(~A)).

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html (see the article "You Can Prove a Negative").

Strictly logically speaking, you are always proving a negative in science.

A -> B
~B
Ergo, ~A

If rain (A), then wet sidewalk (B).
No wet sidewalk (~B).
No rain (~A).

You just proved a negative.

Now when it comes to universal negatives, it gets a bit tricky. You can prove that no unicorns exists in the box, but can you prove that no unicorns exists at all?

"1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed."

Provided the other person agrees with A and B, you have proved a universal negative.

When it comes to gods, one can certainly disprove some gods (which wouldn't then really be gods, just like invented concepts like rain dance), like the young-earth creationist god. If you answers that god-is-a-trickster, one has suddenly made an ad hoc hypothesis and changed the definition of god. This new version is not disproven, although the old one seems to be.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
Cyrus: That's right. By definition, religion is not a subject of science.
 
  • #81
Moridin said:
It is good to dispel myths wherever you find them, and, unfortunately, this is one of them. You can certainly prove a negative. Take a box. Make the proposition "There are no unicorns in this box". Investigate the box. Find no unicorns. In fact, every time you prove a positive (A), you are actually proving a negative (~(~A)).

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html (see the article "You Can Prove a Negative").

Strictly logically speaking, you are always proving a negative in science.

A -> B
~B
Ergo, ~A

If rain (A), then wet sidewalk (B).
No wet sidewalk (~B).
No rain (~A).

You just proved a negative.

Now when it comes to universal negatives, it gets a bit tricky. You can prove that no unicorns exists in the box, but can you prove that no unicorns exists at all?

"1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed."

Provided the other person agrees with A and B, you have proved a universal negative.

When it comes to gods, one can certainly disprove some gods, like the young-earth creationist god. If you answers that god-is-a-trickster, one has suddenly made an ad hoc hypothesis and changed the definition of god. This new version is not disproven, although the old one seems to be.

God-the-trickster is not changing any definition of God. It is simply a means by which it can be shown that faith can always be justified. That is the luxury of an omnipotent God. God the trickster is completely within the accepted defintion.

You cannot apply an if-then statement to the existence of a God. And of course I was referring to a universal negative. One cannot prove that unicorns do not exist. We can only say that we have no evidence for the existence of unicorns.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Ivan Seeking said:
All that I know about the man is what I read in his blog. My opinion is based on simple logic - you can't prove a negative. There is no way to disprove the existence of God because the "God the trickster" argument can undo any scientific argument. This is also an elemenatary concept to understand.

You can't disprove the existence of fairies, either.
But, we have very good reasons to regard the belief in fairies as irrational.

As Dawkins argues, there are very good reasons for regarding the belief in God as irrational as well.
 
  • #83
Well, sure we can. A unicorn is a mythical beast created by a random person. Its no different than me thinking up some RANDOM creature right now and drawing you a picure of it. OF COURSE it does not exist. I just MADE IT UP.

The same can be said of God. Its an invention of man, so why SHOULD it exist? Its not a matter of it might or might not exist. It does not, I CREATED it. That does not make it real. A real thing is something we SEE and THEN give it a name. NOT the other way around.
 
  • #84
arildno said:
You can't disprove the existence of fairies, either.
But, we have very good reasons to regard the belief in fairies as irrational.

As Dawkins argues, there are very good reasons for regarding the belief in God as irrational as well.

That would require, as Dawkings says, a 'fairyologist'. :smile:
 
  • #85
arildno said:
You can't disprove the existence of fairies, either.
But, we have very good reasons to regard the belief in fairies as irrational.

As Dawkins argues, there are very good reasons for regarding the belief in God as irrational as well.

Either way it can never be proven or falsified, so Dawkings argument is nothing but philosophy, which is also not a science. If it makes you feel better to read it, that's great, but don't try to pass it off as anything but philosophy - that would be crackpottery pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
That only makes the probability of its existence exceedingly low, Cyrus.

How do you KNOW that you didn't receive a subconscious thought signal from the entity in question that inspired you to "make up" the entity falsely assuming you were the original source of the idea?
 
  • #87
God-the-trickster is not changing any definition of God. It is simply a means by which it can be shown that faith can always be justified. That is the luxury of an omnipotent God. God the trickster is completely within the accepted defintion.

Indeed, but let us separate God (as in the Abrahamic God) from a god (any random possible imaginary mythological god, let us take Apollo for this example). So I'm not talking about big g god, but little g god.

Let us say that we define a Apollo as "creator of the Earth 6000 years ago (1)" with nothing else. Then we see that the Earth is > 6000 years old. Then Apollo if defined as "creator of the Earth 6000 years ago" has to be redefined as "creator of the Earth 6000 years ago, but makes the Earth appear old (2)" to evade. Apollo-the trickster (2) would not necessarily be the same as unmodified Apollo (1). Since Apollo isn't actually supernatural or even true, we could argue against it.
 
  • #88
Ivan Seeking said:
Either way it can never be proven or falsified, so Dawkings argument is nothing but philosophy, which is also not a science. If it makes you feel better to read it, that's great, but don't try to pass it off as anything but philosophy.
Wrong.

Science has little to do with proofs; rather, it concerns itself with cautious estimates of probabilities of differing hypotheses.

Proofs have to do with math and philosophy, not the sciences..
 
  • #89
arildno said:
That only makes the probability of its existence exceedingly low, Cyrus.

How do you KNOW that you didn't receive a subconscious thought signal from the entity in question that inspired you to "make up" the entity falsely assuming you were the original source of the idea?

Ockham's Razor.
 
  • #90
Cyrus said:
Ockham's Razor.

Which is the aesthetic principle of parsimony, not a truth-guaranteeing principle
 
  • #91
As I said, it is nothing but philosophy. That what he claims can't be proven, and that it's not science because of this, was redundant, of course.

What I said was entirely correct.
 
  • #92
Cyrus said:
Ockham's Razor.


This would be an improper application of ochams razor, actually. More crackpottery? Also, that is not a scientific principle.
 
  • #93
arildno said:
That only makes the probability of its existence exceedingly low, Cyrus.

How do you KNOW that you didn't receive a subconscious thought signal from the entity in question that inspired you to "make up" the entity falsely assuming you were the original source of the idea?

Technically, the false version of the entity would still be false. The real entity would be "false version + modified ad hoc". So basically, we are talking about two different entities. If that makes sense?

Can astrology be disproven by science? Can dowsing be disproven by science? Remember that both of these are claimed to be supernatural.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Ivan Seeking said:
As I said, it is nothing but philosophy. That what he claims can't be proven, and that it's not science because of this, was redundant, of course.

What I said was entirely correct.

And what do you think he's saying?
Clearly, you haven't read the book..
 
  • #95
Ivan Seeking said:
This would be an improper application of ochams razor, actually. More crackpottery? Also, that is not a scientific principle.

How so? I am responding to arildnos question. He proposed a very complicated alternative for unicorns. My answer is that there are no unicorns, as it is the simplest answer. His answer, is much too complicated to explain the same problem.
 
  • #96
I am basing my statements on yours and Cyrus's, and what I read in his blog.
 
  • #97
Moridin said:
Technically, the false version of the entity would still be false. The real entity would be "false version + modified ad hoc". So basically, we are talking about two different entities. If that makes sense?

Well, but if we to our "false" entity add "it surely has many properties we don't know about", then our true entity is fully compatible with our mental image of it. :smile:
 
  • #98
Cyrus said:
How so? I am responding to arildnos question. He proposed a very complicated alternative for unicorns. My answer is that there are no unicorns, as it is the simplest answer. His answer, is much too complicated to explain the same problem.

That is not a proof. It is a guide. It cannot be used to rule out alternatives; it is used at most to deteremine the most likely to be correct. But this can't be used as a point of logic to argue against something like the existence of God.
 
  • #99
arildno said:
Well, but if we to our "false" entity add "it surely has many properties we don't know about", then our true entity is fully compatible with our mental image of it. :smile:

Indeed, but it does not correspond precisely to it.
 
  • #100
Again, IvanSeeking, proofs have basically no place in science.

Rather, science concerns itself with probabilities.

It is maths and philosophy that concern themselves with proofs.
 

Similar threads

What Did Dawkins Mean by Us Being Waves in The God Delusion?
Replies
23
Views
7K
Seeking a nerd well-versed in Cosmology and Dungeons & Dragons
Replies
6
Views
2K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
Replies
19
Views
7K
Punk Science: Proving God with Quantum Physics - A Great Read!
Replies
9
Views
3K
The atheist smiled. "Welcome to my world."God and the Atheist: A Story
Replies
7
Views
4K
Studying Is This a Good Route to MSc Level Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Recommend me Physics/Philosophy Books?
Replies
6
Views
10K
Atheist Prof Debates Faith with Student: What Side Are You On?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Has anyone read "Willful Ignorance" by Herbert Weisberg?
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Optimization problem with multiple outputs: impossible?
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top