Is belief in God a delusion? - Richard Dawkins

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@badchad

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. You agree with me but what?

What I meant was that I believe the POE is a logical proof against a specifically omnimax God, but is not technichally a proof against a God who is not omnimax.

I don’t buy your first justification. I recall you arguing wholeheartedly against those claiming psychic powers, yet those people don’t really impede science, nor abridge civil liberties. Your wife being a “nominal” I think explains a lot.

Well, claims about psychics do represent scientifically falsifiable claims about the universe, so I believe they do impede science.

Would you think that an author who hopelessly muddles and sometimes just got his facts wrong, would be any better at teaching the will of god?

Hypothetically, yes, as long as the muddled facts were not germane to the message.

That’s a charitable underlying message. Equally derived, if not better supported, is “stay faithful to god” or god will smite you dead as fried chicken.

I agree with this. It’s not a God that I want anything to do with but that doesn’t mean it’s dishonest to believe in that message without believing in the literal truth of a narrative device.

Ask your wife why she thinks the writing of tablets is a hyperbole but the resurrection of Christ and a pleasant afterlife of believers isn’t.

I’ll ask her about the Resurrection. I know that she doesn’t think you have to be a believer to go to Heaven, though.

I also don’t think divine “laws” need to be read as rigidly literal either. There is a spirit or intent behind those laws which can largely be intuited (in some Christian traditions, this can be facilitated by prayer and the guidance of the “Holy Spirit”) but can also be elucidated by concordant texts or traditions (such as the Mishnah in Jewish tradition and similar traditions in Catholicism).

Do you have a high opinion of this belief?

Honestly, I think it’s a little delusional (please don’t tell my wife I said that ), but again I’m only defending the sincerity of it. I’m not trying to say that it’s anything I would buy into. If people feel like the spirit is guiding them, I can say I think they’re deluded but I can’t say they’re lying about how it feels to them subjectively.

I’m sure you and I both know that this “guidance” is just Christians accepting what they wish to accept.

I agree, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.

[badchad]

@Diogenes the Cynic

What I meant was that I believe the POE is a logical proof against a specifically omnimax God, but is not technichally a proof against a God who is not omnimax.

I’ll agree with that. That’s why I will often comment that the Greek god’s are more probably than the Christian god, because the Greek gods are not burdened with concept of omnimax qualities. BTW, is omnimax a real word?

Well, claims about psychics do represent scientifically falsifiable claims about the universe, so I believe they do impede science.

Most psychics have learned to make their beliefs non-falsifiable in much the same way as Christians have regarding their unscientific beliefs. A psychic says he can’t perform such and such deed in when watched by those with negative energy, while a Christian often says god won’t answer prayers unless it is in accordance with his will, etc. I would wager I could go tit for tat comparing psychics to the religious on just about any matter. Both believe in magic and I can see no reason why one should want to fight one over the other. Comparing religion to psychics, if anything psychics come out smelling like roses as you don’t see psychics bombing abortion clinics, wanting to discriminate against gays, killing unbelievers, or worshiping a being they think is going to send most of humanity to hell. Heck they don’t even ask that their beliefs be taught in school, printed on money, confirmed in a national pledge, etc.

Hypothetically, yes, as long as the muddled facts were not germane to the message.

Hypothetically, why would you think an author who can’t get his facts straight would be any better at teaching an inerrant moral lesson?

I agree with this. It’s not a God that I want anything to do with but that doesn’t mean it’s dishonest to believe in that message without believing in the literal truth of a narrative device.

But many of the nominals here would probably argue that my characterization here is faulty, while it is, as you agree, a very easily derived moral message taken from the bible. Once certain Christians start doubting morals and lessons taught in the bible then it becomes especially hard for them to justify their statements that they will not challenge the authority of scripture by distinguishing between historical facts and moral guidance. Heck, I bet Tom even goes to church on Sunday instead of Saturday, making a mockery of commandment number 4.

I’ll ask her about the Resurrection. I know that she doesn’t think you have to be a believer to go to Heaven, though.

What did she say? Regarding the afterlife, while I won’t fault your wife, if Tom made a statement like that I would certainly jump on him for challenging the authority of scripture as Jesus was pretty clear that unbelievers will go to hell.

Honestly, I think it’s a little delusional (please don’t tell my wife I said that ), but again I’m only defending the sincerity of it. I’m not trying to say that it’s anything I would buy into. If people feel like the spirit is guiding them, I can say I think they’re deluded but I can’t say they’re lying about how it feels to them subjectively.

I would agree.

I agree, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t sincere.

I’ll agree to that too. What I don’t buy as sincere, is a person frequently challenging facts taught in scripture and living a lifestyle that probably does not accord with what is taught in the bible or by Jesus in particular, while at the same time maintaining to have never challenged the authority of the bible.