Explicable by phyical laws. Non-supernatural. Non-mgic.
You can ask whatever you want. You just can’t assert that those questions have demonstrable answers.
Why does there have to be a why?
This is a tautology. You’re saying that “If God created the universe, then God created the universe.”
We can observe and appreciate our surroundings without presupposing a magical creator as well.
It doesn’t have to be so chronological. When I used the phrase, I was referring to your assertion that something as “magnificent” as the universe requires a creator. If that’s the case, then the creator, being even more magnificent, would require its own creator…and that creator would require a creator…and on and on…turtles all the way down.
Nothing makes sense at t=0. Why is an infinite number of causes harder to accept than infinite density or for that matter the freaking beginning of time?
What I’m saying is that no matter how hard it is to imagine it happening, you haven’t ruled out infinite causes. Nor infinite time, for that matter, though the evidence seems to be leaning against it.
See, I always knew I knew nothing, and could only hope to have my best understandings be ripped to shreds in search of more knowledge, but this was unexpected. Infinite regression.
Blut Aus Nord - do you realize you’re arguing for deism? You specifically said theism. They are very different.
The way I look at theism is: absolutely not, no way, no how. Settled matter. Period.
Deism: Maybe, possibly, I guess, I’m not going to rule it out but . . . what difference does it make? It’s a thought exercise for the stoned. That’s all.
This is, in fact, why there has been no outpouring of support for this book from the philosophical community. Quite the contrary; apart from Daniel Dennett (who, I contend, did a poor job of reading the book), I haven’t found any who are willing to lavish praise on his book. Rather, philosophers have been largely critical of this work. Perhaps the clearest example is the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, whom I have cited previously. Ruse famously said,
“Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science).”
and
“Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth. Does he honestly think that no philosopher or theologian has ever thought of or worried about the infinite regress of the cosmological argument?” (ISIS volume 98, Issue 4, Page 814–816, Dec 2007)
Religious people and agnostic/atheist be-nice-to-everybody people think he’s rude because he dares to say that the core beliefs of billions of people are wrong not slightly, but totally. It wouldn’t matter if he stated his views with nauseating pleasantry. They would still say he’s rude because deep down they just don’t want Dawkins to say the truth: religious beliefs are totally wrong.
The trouble with that is that Richard Dawkins doesn’t understand religion nearly as well as he thinks he does.
In answer to the OP: I have read The God Delusion. I gave my opinions, comments, and critiques on the book in this thread: “The God Delusion” discussion thread.
Also, The Selfish Gene has been sitting on my bookshelf for a couple of years now with a bookmark about halfway through. For some reason it never really grabbed me enough that I felt like finishing it, but the reason I gave up on it was much closer to boredom than to disagreement.
I think I see where you and the others diverge. When they say that it’s logically possible for there to have been an infinite time before now, they’re saying that in that scenario, the universe had no beginning; it just always has been.
In your description, it seems that you are assuming that THERE WAS A BEGINNING, and it was infinitely long ago. In that kind of a case, then I agree that we couldn’t “get to” now. But that’s a very different thing from a universe that has always existed, with no beginning.
And it’s still a different idea from the infinite chain of causes that the “first mover” argument implies.
Dio, I’ve never liked the quote-reply form of developing positions, especially when there are multiple points under discussion, so I’m going to reply narratively. For convenience, if you want to refresh your recollection of the exchange, my post was here and yours was here.
Name calling. My main point is that delusional is a loaded word, deliberately insulting. Putting aside whether believing something you can’t prove scientifically is delusional (I think it isn’t), it’s bad tactics. I would never expect anyone to listen to anything I said after “that’s delusional.” It’s a rule I follow in all cases, including debates with Truthers and astrology buffs. Bear in mind the ad hominems and belittling comments permeate the book. I’m not just complaining about the title.
Faith based on scripture. You’re missing the point. The complex process by which the NT developed is news only to lay Christians. It’s taught in almost all divinity schools. Dawkins’ making much of it is like the old “your epidermis is showing” joke. As for proof, that’s your standard, not the Christian one. If we want to convince Christians, we have to meet them on their ground. I’m not saying we have to grant their premises. Only that we have to explain why the premises aren’t sound and/or don’t support the conclusions.
Why religion is adaptive. You really don’t see how attributing the appeal of religion to childishly accepting what you’re told by elders is an insult? Indeed, it seems to me Dawkins chose that explanation precisely because it’s insulting and dismissive. Apparently you’re okay with that. Frankly, I’m disappointed.
Atheist apologetics. I guess I deserved the quip about trouncing, but again you’re missing the point. You like the book because you’re in the choir. I don’t think it discomfits the believers. A book which does is the one I’d like to see written. And, extending on Pleonast’scomment, it would be nice if it focused on mainstream Christianity, not the fundamentalists.
Where does this idea that Dawkins is only focusing on fundamentalists coming from? It’s false, in any event.
It’s also kind of an ironic challenge to the book. “You’re only talking about the crazy religious people” is clearly a matter of perspective, which is an implicit part of the God Delusion.
Because his arguments are based on things that aren’t necessarily true of non-fundamentalist religious practitioners. He is talking about belief in the existence of a supernatural deity, which isn’t important or relevant to a lot of observances.
Where does this idea that Dawkins is only focusing on fundamentalists coming from? It’s false, in any event.
It’s also kind of an ironic challenge to the book. “You’re only talking about the crazy religious people” is clearly a matter of perspective, which is an implicit part of the God Delusion.
Yes, we really shouldn’t have scientists attempting to explain the universe or why God is illogical. Dawkins isn’t even a philosopher! Or even much versed in the onanistic conceits that anyone authoritative enough to engage such a subject should be! Who the hell does he think he is! He’s even attempting to communicate with a general readership. How incredibly plebeian, excuse me whilst I’m sick.
delusional n. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.
The description would seem apt to me. It’s only insulting to those who believe their religious ideas should never be challenged, by virtue of being religious. In which case any argument is insulting.
Dawkins’ point concerning the indoctrination of children, was not chosen for the purposes of being insulting, but because it is fundamental to the way religious belief is propagated as an idea. Are you are uncomfortable with the critique itself, or rather its actual, demonstrable occurrence, where children are taught to believe unfounded ideas?
You are using “fundamentalist” in a very different way than I am if you feel that belief in a supernatural deity identifies fundamentalists. It seems, based on polling data, that 90% of Americans are fundamentalists. Is this your contention?
I thought that’s what you meant by “fundamentalist” in your post; sorry for the language mix-up. What do you mean by it?
I do think it’s important to separate “belief in a supernatural deity” from “religious observance”. What sort of polling data do you have about belief (not just religious practice or affiliation)? I’m honestly curious, as I think it’s an important question.
As I understand the term, “Fundamenalists” refers tp a specific group of zealous and rigid evagelical Christians. The term “fundamentalist” IMO has come to connote extremist religious beliefs, which I think is consistent with Pleonast and PBear42 's false charge against Dawkins, especially since the latter specifically contrasts “fundamentalist” and “mainstream.” I’d say 90% reflects the mainstream pretty well.
I don’t have or know of any data on religious observances off-hand. I’m sure some googling would turn some up.
You’re completely missing the point. Nobody said that scientists are not allowed to express any points of view on this matter. Nor did anyone say that only philosophers are allowed to debate the existence of God.
The problem is that The God Delusion amounted to a great deal of philosophizing – and lousily, at that. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga said,
“Despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he’s a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”
Ruse said, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.” Frankly, I don’t blame him.
Quoting philosophers who use words such as ‘jejune’ and who think that a contrived form of the ontological argument makes sense, doesn’t really support your, or their own, criticism. They don’t attack Dawkins on the basis of a point of logic, but simply dismiss his work as ‘sophomoric’ because he isn’t a philosopher, and by philosopher I mean someone who uses obfuscating language and logic to hide their own lack of sense. Ruse however thinks that Christianity and evolution can be conflated, despite the unequivocal scriptural evidence to the contrary. He would appear to lack a basic underpinnings of what logic, or an argument entails.
OK. I don’t think are “fundamentalist” or “extremist” are very useful words in the context of this conversation, as they don’t seem to have any solid definitions, so I’m not going to use them.
I think it is a valid critique of The God Delusion that Dawkins does not address religious non-belief, or religious questioning/debate, even when that agnosticism is so hard-coded into a religion’s practice. I do think a debate about religion as a cultural institution would be interesting, but Dawkins uses scientific arguments about the existence of a supernatural deity to argue that religion as an institution should be abolished, which is nonsensical.