Is belief in God a delusion? - Richard Dawkins

Great Debates
141

Neither really, as I said, all other things never are equal… I guess that a 100% reason based politician would be a computer, and even that would be running programs that humans had written…

Do you know any atheists who are 100% reason based ? Are the religious people you know noticeably irrational ? Maybe belief in the sacred is a necessary part of sanity for a lot of people - maybe it actually makes them more rational :slight_smile:

Now if I had to choose between Stalin and the Pope as world leader… well that’s a tough one.

142

Great. Got any support for this theory? Or are you now being careless and insulting atheists?

Gee, that’s not exactly “All other things being equal” now is it?

143

Sorry, I really don’t know what you mean - my position is basically tolerance of diverse belief systems. YMMV

144

Very kind of you to be tolerant of those who might be less sane because they’re not spiritual. Very rational of you to think that holding non-rational beliefs might make one more rational.

145

Powerful stuff there:

Is the information as strong on the other links? I couldn’t even find the evidence on the first site.

146

Sigh. Just so you know, those arguments have been around for a long time and all of them IMHO have been thoroughly debunked. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt a point-by-point refutation. If you’re interested, The Secular Web is a good resource.

147

We’ll hit the highlights, point by point:[ol]
[li]The “Intelligent Designer” argument suffers from the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratiam, i.e. “I don’t see/can’t explain how this would come about in the absence of a God, therefore, there must be a God.” One might, by analogy, misquote Decartes as, “I am, therefore I think.” It’s true that the world is–more or less–perfectly designed for us, but then, we are clearly involved to life and thrive in it. Extinct life forms (almost all anaerobic life) weren’t so suited to a water-covered, oxygen-rich planet and they died off. True, it’s unlikely that they were worshiping any god, much less the Christian one, but it demonstrates that the the potential for life that is not particularly like modern Earthlife and cannot live in the “optimal” conditions can exist and even thrive.[/li][li]The same issue applies to argument #2. Again, without sufficient intellect, we’d not be able to ask such questions; that we are doesn’t prove any particular answer to the question. It is noteworthy, as well, that in blatant contradiction to Biblical creation (and indeed most creation myths) Homo sapiens was not immediately disgourged from the heavens/formed from mud/conjured together out or the aether/whatever, but in fact evolved much far much less complex organisms without sufficent cognative capability to question or worship a god. The purpose of worship isn’t ever really made clear (beyond vague arguments to faith being an end onto itself) but it is beyond explication to explain why an omnipotent god would create life but allow it to languish for four billion years (give or take a few hundred million) before it has the capability to fulfill this requirement rather than just plop it down fully formed. (We’re assuming that arguments for young Earth creationism and the like are discounted for the factually-contradicted claims that they are.)[/li][li]Life and natural selection are not “random” processes in any reasonable sense of the word random. It is appropriate to say that they are not directed teleologically; however, life is inherently an organizing principle; it has to be in order to replicate, and versions of life that replicate most efficiently will dominate. Human beings, for instance, were not formed in full from a random collection of proteins, but instead evolved in a virtually uncountable series of steps from the simplest of bacteria (and our genotypes–mostly nonfunctional–still show latent history of those simple organisms.)[/li]
There are certain processes which are, within certain limited parameters, random–the action of mutation, for instance–but even within this, such randomness merely feeds the selective forces; a “random” mutation which is beneficial will tend to find itself propogated to the next generation, whereas one that is lethal or seriously detrimental will find itself removed from the gene pool in short order. (This is all relative, of course; a “lethal” gene like that which causes sickle cell anemia but provides a protective benefit permitting successful survival in a particular environment may continue to exist based upon the cost v. benefit of its phenotypical expression.)

The claim that “Pasteur proved centuries ago (and science still confirms it) that life cannot arise from non-life,” is factually untrue. While the abiogenesis life has not (yet) been replicated in a laboratory, we can certainly induce spontaneous generation of the precursors of life, the essential proteins which make up our genetic structure, and they in turn will join into structures which are prototypical of DNA. The notion that there is something chemically unique about life (other than being based, as far as we know, exclusively on carbon chains) was long ago disproven. The only thing that Pasteur demonstrated was that complex life doesn’t form spontaneously from the environment; specifically, that bacteria don’t just form out of air, but grow from a small population at an exponential rate based upon available nutrients. To extend that argument to a complete dismissal of abiogenesis is gross misrepresentation at best, and a deliberate attempt at scientific perfidy at the worst.
[li]Argumentum ad populum: “Everybody believes _____,” is no satisfactory arguments. Virtually all children in North America (save for a few unlucky souls) believe at one time or another in Santa Claus; his existance, as of yet, remains unproven save as a manufactured marketing tool. [/li][li]Totally meaningless as a rational argument in any way that can be measured or verified. You’re free to believe that God loves you, or that your neighbor peers in your window at night, or that flying monkeys threaten to accost you as you walk down the street, but unless the police catch your neighbor, Tom, peeping in your windows or you suffer the effects of an airborne simian attack, your argument has no value in logic and is unpersuasive on a rational level, though it certainly is a good sell to people who are looking to fulfill the human need of being wanted and loved.[/li][li]When people start quoting the Bible or claiming that alleged events (documented only in one heavily edited book without any independent corroborating evidence) I can’t help but smile awkwardly and try not to roll my eyes. Such arguments have strong semantic draws–who wouldn’t want to be loved so much by someone that this person was willing to sacrifice himself to save one?–but have no logic external to their own self-created story (and often little within it). This is, quite literally, preaching to the choir, and often in a way that is exclusionary and dismissive. One wonders what happens to all of the lost souls who didn’t get Jesus’ teachings, either by proceding him or otherwise being out of touch. (The explainations of Christain aplogists like Lewis have the hollow ring of post hoc rationalizations designed to shoehorn in all the people who don’t otherwise fit. It’s like being included on the Mormon register and thus being saved, despite not believing in any of the precips of Mormonism.)[/ol][/li]
I see nothing persuasive about anything on this list. The arguments, far from being powerful, are rather tired and overused, not to mention demonstratably fallicious in construction. It remains unclear–despite all the impassioned arguments for “the proof in the pudding”–why an omnipotent god or gods who demand worship (for reasons unknown and allegedly unknowable) can’t just pop in and say, “Hey, Yahweh here…don’t forget about Temple on Saturday. Thanks for the support; see you guys there!” The whole business about having faith in something you’re not allowed to see or touch smacks of nothing more than a confidence game writ large, and interestingly, provides substantial income to those willing to play the part of mouthpiece. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

Stranger

148

It’s better than religion. Science can at least help you understand what the world is really like, and what the effects of your decisions will be and have been. Religion has nothing to offer; being based on the denial of reality, it can only promote good or useful behavior by accident.

Eugenicists were bad scientists, as well as bad people. Otherwise they would have tested their racist theories and given them up when proved wrong. Fundamentalists, however, are good religionists; the absolute submission to dogma is at the heart of religion.

Really ? I see no evidence religion reduces violence anywhere.

149

Reminds me of the Douglas Adams description of the puddle that suddenly becomes sentient, and is in awe that the hole it occupies fits it exactly. The puddle concludes that the hole it’s in must have been specifically designed just for it.

150

Maybe we should get together and buy a goodle ad for The Official God FAQ.

151

John Mace, I didn’t miss your reply, but was pressed for time when I replied to our Guest’s post. (And his, after all, is the OP.) Sure, I agree that one purpose of religion always has been to answer the question, “Where did we come from?” FWIW, I don’t think this has ever been its main purpose. Rather, I think that, in most times and places, religion has mainly been a way to bring higher powers to bear in wringing order out of chaos and to achieve some small measure of control over our destiny. I have in mind traditions as disparate as consulting Greek oracles, shaman folk remedies and Christian prayer. Meanwhile, to varying degrees, a third purpose has been to reconcile ourselves with death and, often though not always, to develop some rubric for overcoming death. This, in my observation, has been the main drawing card of Christianity, Hinduism and (to a lesser extent) Buddhism.

IOW, I think belief in religion is adaptive because it gives people peace of mind in several thorny areas for which, to be candid, the answers of logic and science aren’t particularly comforting (though, to my eye, they’re more true). This is why I’m not a prostelyzing atheist. If it makes our Guest happier to go through life believing in an illusion or placebo, who am I to take that away?

BTW, nice post Stranger. That’s more-or-less what I would have said. Except I would emphasize, per CurtC’s comment, that it’s not so much that our environment is perfect as that we and our fellow denizens on this little blue marble have adapted to the particular environment in which we find ourselves. As for Der Trihs’ last comment, I have to say I disagree. Religious belief is by no means an assurance of nonviolence or other good behavior, but I agree with John Mace that it tends to be a stabilizing influence.

152

As mentioned, conflicts arise time and time again where religion is involved. The very religious middle east is not what you would call “the most stable” area. Also as mentioned the data from USA says that more religion correlates with more violence. Could you give us one reason to think that religion tends to be a stabilizing influence?

153

Just to be clear, I didn’t say anything about “where did we come from” and, in fact, was saying pretty much the same things you are saying above-- ie, looking for order in what may seem like chaos. I think we’re pretty much in agreement on this subject-- not sure if you were disagreeing, but I kinda read it that way.

As for the idea that atheists are inherently more peaceful, I would remind folks that two of the 20th century’s most powerful athesits (Stalin and Mao) were also responsible for the most deliberately orchestrated loss of human life this planet has ever seen. Now, I’m not inclined to believe that this was because of their atheism, and that it’s “better” to be religious, but just that humans have a capacity for violence that is independent of religion.

154

I’m glad to read this from someone else. I’m weary of people trying to blame most of the worlds ills on religion and somehow thinking that if we only got rid of it then reasonable people would solve all the problems. I don’t see that as a very realistic view. Religion like many other types of organizations can be misused by bad leaders. It’s the nature and cycle of the human animal.

I’ve seen a few on this board claim that communism in essence was a religion because of certain traits. I strongly disagree. IMHO the traits are held in common with certain man made organizations where the focus is us vs. them, a fairly common tool by self serving leaders. It’s a problem held in common by humanity which includes believers and non believers.

155

Thanks for adding the bit about their actions not being because of their atheism.

I still think that atheists have fewer reasons to conflict with their neighbors, but the way I see Stalin and Mao, their “religion” was communism, and brought with it all the ugly aspects of religion.

Maybe what would be better is to say that dogmatic beliefs lead to violence, whether those beliefs are of gods, or politics. Atheism itself has no dogma.

156

John Mace, what you said (Post #121) read to me as the cosmological or first-cause proof of God. Whether or not that’s what you really meant, I was saying that I think the larger appeal of religion is the prospect of getting an interventionist God’s (or gods’) help in dealing with life’s little problems. Followed closely by relieving fear of death.

As for the violence thing, did someone post a study that I missed? Meanwhile, all the examples raised in the past few posts were adequately dealt with (IMHO) upthread. PEOPLE are violent. Sometimes they’re violent over religion. Sometimes they’re violent over soccer matches. To state the obvious, correlation is not causation. And most violence is one-on-one, where religion rarely comes into play, except as a moderating influence.

157

Maybe I worded that poorly, but was I was alluding to was how “religion” first came about. And I don’t mean religion in the modern sense-- with all the trappings of a church-- but belief in the supernatural.

Yep. It’s in our natures to use violence to settle disputes and to jocky for power within a hierarchy. That’s the reason we need to establish customs and laws and governments in the first place. We’re smart enough to know that without those institutions, there cannot be any society for an animal with a brain like ours.

158

I haven’t done a GD in a while, so, for those who don’t know me…

  1. I’m a New Age pantheist (to wit, God, insofar as there is one, is That Which Is).
  2. I do not believe is a personal monotheistic “God” and believe that such a concept can be logically disproven.
  3. Organized religion, “faith,” and submission to the group will make me sick.
  4. I believe that many things that skeptics call “paranormal” have been empirically proven to the point where the skeptics are embarrassing themselves by denying them (psi, ghosts, the afterlife, etc.).

That said, people here obviously don’t understand what “religion” is or what’s really at work there, so I’d like to clear a bunch of things up.

Misuse of word by Dio: Religion is a "scam."
Sure, some cults are a scam. But if the people running the thing sincerely believe in what they are doing, it’s not a scam. The concept of a scam includes willful deception on the part of the perpetrator.

I wouldn’t raise this point except to inform the next:

Mistake by Dio: No one turns to religion for rational reasons.
People fall for scams for rational reasons. False claims are made, people believe them, they behave accordingly. To people untrained in critical thinking, the threat of hell as stick and salvation by Jesus as carrot is very compelling–for rational reasons.

If I am told there is a disease and I need a shot to prevent it by people I deem credible, I roll up my sleeve. It could all be bullshit, but I wouldn’t know. Same thing.

But it’s true that most people get into religion for reasons having nothing to do with facts or reason, which brings us to our next point:

Misconception: Religion’s primary purpose is to serve as a belief system.
I see religion’s role in history as primarily that of social and political control. The values of society were projected into the myth, not the other way around. But I do not view this control as being entirely a negative thing, as I think society has evolved over the millenia and has used its myths to that end. Still, as a rabid individualist, I hate being controlled and hate to control as well.

I think John Mace had an excellent point about religion filling in the gaps of our knowledge. Sometimes you see religions accepting new knowledge into the myth, sometimes you don’t. Catholicism has had much less of a problem with evolution than the fundies (who have a BIG problem). But even with the fundies, the reason they oppose evolution is not really that they have an issue with science itself, but that they refuse to adapt their myth.

Poor reasoning: The religious are more violent than atheists.
I see lots of handwaving when people bring up the Nazis or the communists. I agree that both movements were, in effect, secular religions, but that merely makes clearer the point that people can’t help but act religiously when they act on a large scale. To put it more accurately, they act based upon their shared myths and rituals.

The ideal atheist, perfectly rational and autonomous, is like the ideal gas: he doesn’t really exist. In any case, such creatures certainly have never existed in numbers great enough to raise history-making hell. Nor will they ever.

You could also say that true Buddhists have never started or participated in a war. It’s not much of a point.

Stupid point: Scientists don’t fight each other or cause violence.
Right, not in their role qua rational researcher. But if a scientist is a general, then… If he’s building a nuke, then…

Unstated but impossible ideal: You can get rid of religion.
Dawkins clearly states that he’d like to get rid of it, but does he think it’s possible? It’s not. Soccer hooliganism is religion. People will always want to belong to something, and they will always crave excitement, even violence. If having a theistic belief system goes out of style (as it did in Soviet Russia), you’ll see the same behaviors using other types of myth (North Korea and its Dear Leader) and other types of ritual (sports, military, etc.).

There are countries in which myth, ritual, and religious belief systems have largely been eliminated. I lived in one for eight years: Japan. Contrary to those stats you see about a large percentage of the Japanese population being Buddhist or Shinto, most Japanese people simply believe nothing much at all. Their last crack at myth and ritual was WWII. And I think you see a lot of people there who are myth- and ritual-starved and who don’t feel a lot of purpose in life. There’s a malaise there.

But in the opposite direction, New Age beliefs like my own are resurgent and on TV more and more you see psi, ghosts, mediumship, etc., treated as facts of life, not anything strange at all. You can skeptics can take this as demonstration of my point that you really can’t get rid of religion (or irrational beliefs, or whatever you like). I see it as healthy and a step forward for science.

159

Apparently.

Really, every study I’ve heard of shows a correlation between religion and bad behavior, from a lack of compassion to violence to dishonestly. I’ve never seen any evidence that religion is a net benefit or a moderating influence, besides the baseless assertions of believers that it is so.

:rolleyes: And of course, the fact that religions and religious leaders demand violent action is purely coincidence. The fact that people who commit violence say that they are doing it for religion, scream religious or religion derived slogans while doing so, and wear religious symbols and mottos while they do so, that is also pure coincidence. And smoking doesn’t cause cancer, either.

There is no evidence I’ve seen that religion moderates personal violence; quite the opposite. You’ve got spare the rod, spoil the child; “beating the devil” out of people; beating women to teach them to submit; “God Hates Fags”, and so on.

Well, you’re wrong, they haven’t.

Many of these people simply oppose reason and logic of any kind; you are simply supposed to believe, end of story.

The Nazis were Christian, not secular.

I see it as part of America’s slide into a new Dark age of ignorance and madness. Nor do I see any reson to consider “New Age” beliefs “the opposite direction” from traditional religious beleifs.

160

Der Trihs, as it happens, I did read that link, but had forgotten. My reaction was essentially as I posted above, so perhaps I did remember at a subconsious level. Correlation does not equal causation. The US and UK are different in lots of ways and for lots of reasons. The larger proportion of Bible-thumping fundamentalists is only one (and it’s not as if they’re the majority). Far more significant are that the US has a self-selected gene pool of people willing to take risks and a long cultural tradition of self-autonomy and settling disputes mano a mano. Also contributing are our respective histories with respect to race relations, the nature and extent of our drug problems, etc. And “etc.” here is a long list. For example, the far greater resistance in this country to gun control is much closer to the issue of violence than religious belief. Not that resistance to gun conrol causes violence, but they’re probably both rooted in an overlapping cluster of causes. IOW, this issue is a good deal more complex than cigarettes and cancer.

Bear in mind that I’m an atheist. I’m not defending religion, though I am in a sense defending religious belief. I’ve not followed your posts on religious issues closely enough to know why you’re on this hunt. But I think you’re mistaken. To be blunt, I think you’re being opportunistic.