That is what Richard Dawkins claims in his new book “The God Delusion”.
Here is the basic argument that Dawkins in making:
Here is an interview of Dawkins that will give a better idea of his views on religion:
So what do think about Dawkins argument? I have been thinking about the existence God lately and I cannot think of any evidence that establishes the existence of God (and purely logical arguments don’t seem to work either). So is there any evidence that can establish God to point where belief in God is not not a delusion?
Dawkins makes a logical point. The problem, if he is basing the use of evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth, that there is no evidence disproving the existence of God, either. So the devout and the atheist are pretty much on a level playing field. Neither can prove their key assertions. Stanley Fish wrote and outstanding (and very philosophically dense) essay on this fundamental conflict: February 1996 | Print Edition | First Things
Dawkins is being, I think, deliberately provocative. Not a bad idea when your goal is to sell books, remember. But he does have a strong opinion about (against) religious belief, so it’s kinda par for the course for him. I tend to agree, although I think his analogy isn’t a good one. The imaginary friend is something kids deliberately make up, whereas most people just accept religion because someone told them about it and it sort of makes sense (unless you really start thinking about it).
You could almost say children think more aggressively than adults. At what point do children stop inventing and start accepting the inventions of others? Maybe that could be a (negative) definition of adulthood.
To be fair to Dawkins he does say that God cannot be disproven. Just like Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Dawkins leaves open the possiblity that God could exist and is ready to accept God’s existence if evidence is brought forth.
And he has no patience for those who would mix religion and science. Rightly so, IMO. He can be pretty abrasive, though, and sometimes pisses off people who are religious. But he’d still be pretty mild compared to some of the folks around here!
It would be interesting to know the devlopmental stage at which imaginary friends happen and then disappear. My older daughter had them, my younger, more social, daughter did not. If we found that out, we might find traces of this same effect in the brains of god believers. Certainly many of them talk to Jesus just like my daughter talked to her friends Augie, Sofa Wofa, and Sofa Couch.
First of all, evidence can never prove or disprove anything. No atheist I know of claims that a disproof of god exists or is even possible - at least not for the general case. However there is no reason to act as if something exists if there is no evidence for it - that is something theists do and atheists don’t, and that is the real distinction between them.
He’s using a standard atheist argument I’ve seen used and heard dozens of times. He’s going to sell a lot of books to atheists who think he’s great, and he’s going to sell a lot of books to theists whom he has inflamed with his abrasive and over generallizing approach. Personally, it looks like he’s just trying to make a quick buck off of an old argument.
Well, the good old arguments haven’t been refuted - got any better ones? It’s interesting that we’re beginning to see reasonably well selling books about atheism for the mass market, and not just works of philosophy. Some publishers must think they’re going to sell - quite encouraging, really.
And, to continue Dawkins’ argument as quoted in the OP, atheists characteristically continue to try to depend on reasoned arguments (or at worst name-calling) rather than violence when involved in an argument on the existence of God. There are a lot of places where I would be genuinely afraid for my safety from religious violence if I were to espouse my atheist point of view. My only cite for these points is my personal experience and what I know of current events and world history.
This would seem to discount the many people who are brought up in religious households and later leave the faith they were taught. It also discounts the many people who are brought up in “nothing” or atheist households and who become religious in adulthood. If faith only exists because it is transmitted through generations, then there is quite a bit of explaining to do for these large populations.
I am always curious as to why atheists don’t seem to know what to do with people who become religious as adults. I have frequently seen people on these boards simply shrug their shoulders about it. And yet, their proportions grow ever larger, as people feel less and less social pressure to attend church and begin to only attend if they want to.
I believe that our way of thought has a big genetic component. It is quite possible for a child in a household where logical reasoning is not valued to be a logical reasoner, and the opposite is also true.
I think you also underestimate the great waves of religion which wash over all of us in the US - atheist and theist alike. Take a look at the ratio of religious books to atheist books in your average book store - it is even higher than the proportion of theists to atheists. It’s very easy for someone who doesn’t spend a lot of time reflecting on this to be pulled into the majority. There is enough of it in my current neighborhood, which is majority non-Christian, and I’ve lived in enough places more like the standard old USA town to know what it must be like. I grew up in a majority Jewish neighborhood, and I suspect if we got taught to recruit at least oneof my friends would have been roped in. He was the only kid in our group who didn’t have a bar mitzvah. It seemed very normal to me back then.
The problem is, these arguments never get anyone anywhere:
Atheist: There’s no proof that God exists, so you’re a fool for believing in him.
Theist: There’s no proof that God doesn’t exist, so you’re a fool for not believing in him.
It looks like all this proves is a lack of understanding of the debate at hand. Atheists are trying to use science to attack faith. Theists are trying to use faith to attack science. I don’t think these sorts of books are encouraging at all, for either side of the argument because I think it will only continue to add fuel to the fire without really adding anything; I think it will serve to further polarize people around the issues.
Honestly, do you think a Theist will read a book like that and think “Wow, and to think, all this time I was believing in a delusion that had me believing even though there was no evidence. I’m not an atheist.” I think using a broad brush with statements like “No wonder religious zealots … have resorted to torture and execution, to crusades and jihads…”, is self-defeating because it preaches ignorance about religion. Atheists have commited attrocities too, but who cares? I think statements like that will, rather than encouraging a reasoned religious debate, encourage hatred from Atheists toward Theists, or vice-versa.
Is it encouraging that publishers know a book on a hot button topic from an abrasive author will sell? Only if you own stock in the publishing company.
I’m not sure I buy this argument. You can’t compare religious and non-religious literature directly. First of all, there’s no “holy text” for atheism, unless you’re going to include books on biology, physics, etc. Second, for theists, there’s generally a requirement of some sort for studying, meditating, praying, worshiping, etc. Thus, theists will purchase books and material to help them do this. To my knowledge, you can be an atheist and not have to read a single book on it, or meditate or pray etc. so there’s no incentive to have an “Atheist Prayer and Worship” book.
Further, if you’re going to assert there’s a genetic basis for religious belief, I’m curious… why? Was it an adaptation that helped us survive? Or perhaps its a genetic predisposition to atheism that was an adaptation away from religious belief to help us survive. Maybe I’m missing something…
I caught the episode of the Daily Show the other day when he said just that. Like he scored a huge point for clear-thinking atheists and of course the audience obediently applauded. I wonder what would happen if he’d mentioned Jews are fanatically clinging to a worthless piece of dirt in the Middle East primarily for faith-based religious reasons?
He’s making such an old tired out point. You can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove there isn’t not an invisible dragon in my living room and using that argument will simply get you accused of mocking the faith of the faithful.
Do you really think that is basically true of either group? Most atheists and “Theists” that I know aren’t interested in attacking anyone or anything in particular. Most of the Christians that I know also have a healthy respect for science or are scientists themselves.
The science teachers that I know personally, including those who are Christian, wish to preserve science classes specifically for traditional academic scientific study. Those standards are high. That’s good. They do this to preserve science, not to destroy faith.
I’m using teachers as an example because I was an educator.
So your assumption is that all adults (I didn’t say kids) who convert to some form of religion do so because they are just going with a flow, not thinking about anything? That strikes me as both simplistic and insulting.
I don’t know about genetics. I know that there is a part of the brain that is ‘wired’ for religious experience, but that strikes me as perfectly reasonable in a universe with a God in it; it seems to me that we usually have brain areas for a reason. I am in no way saying that such things are evidence for God; IMO God is unproveable, and that’s for a reason too. But neither does it seem to me to be evidence for not-God.
Such statements as yours, Voyager also fail to explain why, say, a Buddhist from Korea would convert to some form of Christianity despite societal and familial disapproval. That’s not going along with any majority, and yet it happens.
