The Dawkins Delusion (page 13)

brotherdan

Back at you Damocles. I'll buy you a beer or 8 anytime!

SweetBabyCheezits

I'm honestly not sure, Cheeze. All I can do is try and simulate that same blank slate now.

That, to me, is the very essence of critical thinking for people who are seeking truth after surviving a cult.

Now if only I could get my parents and brother to say those words....

leavingwt

cognizant dissident:

Your outsider test was interesting to read. It was applying this test that ultimately led me to leave the WTBTS.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I can say that my Christian faith did not survive the OTFF. I had accepted the Bible as a special book, upon the words of my parents, without having examined the claims. The test was put forth by Loftus, on page 66 of his first book.

cognizant dissident

If I, as many others have done, decide that God is the best explanation of all the available evidence, then my belief, my "faith", is grounded in fact.

My apologies Dan, I see that you didn't not actually say you had reviewed ALL the evidence, you just strongly implied it. Again, that is nothing to do with being "huffy" on my part. If you had just pointed out that misperception on my part without the attempt at deflecting with personality characterization, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I can admit when I'm wrong. I never claimed to review all the evidence. I've barely touched the surface.

Incidentally, this is the same problem I had with the analysis of Dawkins. Attack his "tone" and not his arguments.

As far as reviewing all the evidence that you have come across, that doesn't mean much. My father reviews all the evidence he comes across too. He just makes sure he only comes across WTBTS literature. The other problem with your statement above, is the conclusion that if people review all the evidence available and decide God is the best explanation then their faith is is grounded in fact.

Please tell me you don't consider that a logical conclusion. Let me substitute another example and insert it into the same argument and then tell me again if you think it makes sense.

If I live in prehistoric times and I examine all the available evidence that the sun revolves around the earth and rises and sets each day, does that make my faith grounded in fact?

brotherdan

Fact is perception. Something viewed by science as "fact" today can be proven to NOT be fact tomorrow. Here's a definition of "fact:

The term fact can refer to, depending on context, a detail concerning circumstances past or present, a claim corresponding to objective reality, a provably true concept, or a synonym for reality.

So if I review the available evidence that I have and I make an honest observation, and I try to put all presuppostions out of my conclusions, and there is evidence to support my belief, then I can say that I have based my faith based on the back of available facts.

cyberjesus

So if I review the available evidence that I have and I make an honest observation, and I try to put all presuppostions out of my conclusions, and there is evidence to support my belief, then I can say that I have based my faith based on the back of available facts.

Like what? What evidence do you have to support what belief? Just because you observe facts and use those to support your faith doesnt mean that the facts support your faith. In other words you can observe any fact and then claim that those facts support your faith. But faith is not supported by facts, thats the whole purpose of faith.

If you have facts that prove a point then you dont need faith! :-) you only need faith when the facts are non-existant :-)

Damocles

I think we ought to tread lightly when we attempt to work out our beliefs in our own mind and when we argue them. The most common argument is that the other person simply refuses to accept the evidence and apply the simple rules of logic. I don't think its that simple.

Since the Holy quantum has previously been invoked, I'll note that Einstein and Shrodinger never accepted quantum theory as a final explanation of atomic theory, yet Bohr and Heisenberg argued heatedly that it most certainly was. Now I doubt too many people will charge Einstein and Shrodinger as illogical and harking to an unproven faith (although thats probably what they were). Einstein saw that particular abyss and recoiled where Bohr dove in head first.

Similarly, Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking have published argumentative books on whether the universe is fundamentally based on mathematical principles or whether we humans have made a useful mathematical map of the world that works pretty well in different circumstances but math is a human invention, not an underlying principle of the world. Again, these are two very bright learned people who see the same evidence, use the same rules of logic and come to very different opinions.

I think we, as individuals, need approach the subject of god with some humility and a willingness to learn. It's also helpful to be specific. I have studied a few gods - jehovah, the mormon god, catholicism, some judaism, a bit of Islam. I don't believe in any of those constructions. Further, after being raised catholic and being a dub most of my adult life, I find it strange that, in fact, my life in unbelieve is really not that different than my life in belief. Except I don't feel so quilty all the time. So the question becomes 'If my life is the same with or without a belief in god, what is the use of belief?' For me, none. I can see though that others might conclude differently.

I do resent the idea that because I stopped believing JW theology, then JW rationalization requires that I must have fallen into all sorts of immorality. I keep waiting for the sin to carry me places I've never been before (but daydreamed about plenty). But it just doesn't happen. If so, my deliciously lovely stewardesses would have invited me to a nite of sin - with three stewardesses, ahh the heart skips a beat- instead of an intellectual discussion on god. Point is, I'm not the person JWs require to be. My morality is not tied to fear of destruction at Armageddon. Its just who I am.

jaguarbass

You think that it takes religion to get people to do bad things?

I went on the atheist board of craigs list the other day and the atheist were talking about having sex with their cats

and laughing about it.

jaguarbass

Dawkins is a materialist.

He doesnt believe in miracles.

You cant beat him if you fight him on his terms.

Hes not going to believe in miracles.

The bible is based on faith and miracles so debating Dawkins and the bible is like comparing apples and oranges.

Or maybe its like comparing an apple and a lion.

THe bottom line is if you have faith you cant beat Dawkins.

ANd most likely you have to be ware he doesnt take your faith from you.

Because that is his mission, right or wrong.

Faith comes from god and at this point in time he didnt give Dawkins any.

The Dawkins Delusion

Share this