The Dawkins Delusion

by brotherdan 181 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  digderidoo

  Great thread, i've just started to read The God Delusion myself so was interested in what you had to say on it. I am finding myself disagreeing with some of the things that Richard Dawkins has said. I really want to challenge my conceptions of God after having spent a few years trying to create my own definition of what God is. I guess at the moment i'm what Dawkins calls a Pantheist, that the universe and God are one, but not necessarily something existential.

  I'm interested in a comment you made in your opening post BrotherDan,

  Dawkins criticism of religion revolves around his view of "blind faith". Almost all of his arguments are based arounnd this claim of faith. If he accepted the CORRECT definition of faith, he woul dhave to completely change or at least seriously reconsider his views on so much in his book. How scientific is Dawkins actually being in his analysis? I have say, "Not at all!"

  What in your opinion is the correct definition of faith?

  Paul
• 

  hamsterbait

  What pray tell, is the "quantum singularity"?

  What pray tell is "dark matter".

  If I dont believe in them will THE GOD kill me?

  As far as anybody else is aware, people were not killed for refusing to believe in tne "Luminiferous Ether" , but they were killed (presumably by THE GOD) for insisting that our planet revolved around the Sun.

  Scientists do not massacre those who contradict them.

  I did not see my father push his penis into my mother 50 years ago either.

  Will I be killed by God for doubting this too?

  Will The God kill me for not believing that Mary had a baby without the aid of Joseph's penis?

  HB
• 

  TheClarinetist

  If I wrote a book called, "Why Unicorns are fake"...then yes I would show what unicorn believers believed and I would show how they are most likely wrong due to my own belief and experience.

  Fair enough.

  Do you have faith in the quantum singularity? You have not beheld that. Do you have faith in dark matter? Do you have faith that there is not a God? Again, something not beheld. But you've seen proofs that these things could exist or not exist. Religious faith is the same. I have seen proof that God exists.

  In the end, it comes down to what constitutes proof for you... assuming you don't try to thrust it down other peoples throats... Then its GO TIME.

  I really wasn't trying to turn this into a atheist vs theist debate. It was supposed to be more like a friendly game of Dawkins bashing.

  We should at least debate whether he needs bashing or not.
• 

  TheClarinetist

  Edit: Sorry. Double Post.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Brotherdan

  You have a PM.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  I don't think Dawkins is straying from the definition of faith that is in common usage. I think you are twisting the definition of faith, Brother Dan, when you say that it is based upon scientific evidence. It could be (as in your faith that the earth will rotate around the sun each day) but it doesn't have to be. The whole premise of Dawkins argument is that theists faith is not based upon any type of credible evidence that is measurable by a scientific (hence rational) methodology. Therefore, it is irrational.

  His comments about atrocities committed by religious zealots is intended to prove that belief in God can be and has been a force for justifying tremendous evil and destruction in the world. He provides examples. It's not rocket science to figure out his argument that it is worth taking up the fight against ignorance when this ignorance has been at the core of so much violence in this world.

  Here is the dictionary definition of the word "faith" that I pulled out of my new Oxford dictionary. It reflects, common, modern usage of the word and has no bias in this argument.

  faith: complete trust, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, trust.

  Please notice that it says nothing about evidence. There could be evidence but not necessarily.

  You also accused Dawkins of intellectual dishonesty because he doesn't acknowledge that theists have an argument. You use the word argument as if it were interchangeable with evidence. One can have an argument and argue until the cows come home. That does not mean your argument is based upon any evidence, any credible evidence, or any scientific evidence. Again that is the entire premise of Dawkins argument, that deists argue without evidence. If you think that is intellectual dishonesty, then you don't know what intellectual dishonesty is.

  Falsifying evidence is intellectual dishonesty. Taking credit for others work is intellectual dishonesty. Using logical fallacies in your arguments is intellectual dishonesty. Incidentally, attacking Dawkins character by saying he is out for fame, fortune and influence is an example of this, called "ad hominem" attack. It does absolutely nothing to attack the credibility of his arguments, but deflects attention to his character.

  He may very well be egotistical, rude, out for money, power, etc. So what? That doesn't make his arguments any less factual or correct.
• 

  Chalam

  Your holy book has as much bearing on the nature of reality or the structure of the cosmos as this weeks TV Guide.

  I think you still have missed the point of the verses. The point is this, go outside, take a look around, God's handiwork is clear to see.

  If you are looking, you will see God's hand is at work all around.

  Who cares? I do. God is cool and quite unlike the picture portrayed of Him by the WT or Richard Dawkins. If you got to know Him you'd find out he's the best dad you could ever had.

  Anyhow, I'm out. These atheist threads are about as much fun as debating the Trinity with theMadJW and Reniaa.

  Blessings,

  Stephen
• 

  leavingwt

  The Outsider Test for Faith

  What is the outsider test? . . . I’ll highlight it for you:

  The outsider test is simply a challenge to test one’s own religious faith with the presumption of skepticism, as an outsider. It calls upon believers to “Test or examine your religious beliefs as if you were outsiders with the same presumption of skepticism you use to test or examine other religious beliefs.”

  Its presumption is that when examining any set of religious beliefs skepticism is warranted, since the odds are good that the particular set of religious beliefs you have adopted is wrong.

  This is how religious people evaluate other religions. It’s why they think they are all absurd — well, all except for their own.

  When we are on the outside of a religion, we see its errors and absurdities as obvious proof of its falsehood. But when we are on the inside, we attribute those same errors and absurdities — if we admit them at all — to our own limitations.

  Here is the challenge of the outside test to Christians:

  To the Christian theist the challenge of the outsider test means there would be no more quoting the Bible to defend the claim that Jesus’ death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian theist must now try to rationally explain it. No more quoting the Bible to show how it’s possible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over. The Christian theist must now try to make sense of this claim, coming as it does from an ancient superstitious people who didn’t have trouble believing Paul and Barnabas were “gods in human form” (Acts 14:11; 28:6).

  The Christian theist must not assume prior to examining the evidence that there is an answer to the problem of horrendous suffering in our world either. And she’d be initially skeptical of believing in any of the miracles in the Bible, just as she would be skeptical of any claims of the miraculous in today’s world supporting other religious faiths.

  Why? Because she cannot start out by first believing the Bible, nor can she trust the people close to her who are Christian theists to know the truth, nor can she trust her own anecdotal religious experiences, since such experiences are had by people of all religious faiths who differ about the cognitive content learned as the result of these experiences. She would want evidence and reasons for these beliefs.

  Christian, just ask yourself whether the initial reasons you had for adopting your faith were strong ones. Just think about the problems you’ve experienced in your churches along with the intellectual problems you wrestle with in meetings like these. If you could go back in time knowing what you know now about how Christians behave in the church would you still choose to believe? And those initial arguments that convinced you to believe would surely be thought of by you as simplistic and unworthy of your consideration today. Just ask yourself if you would’ve become a Mormon instead, had a joyous friendly Mormon group approached you at that same vulnerable time in your life.

  Most all of us, most all of the time, do not have good initial reasons to accept our religious faith, which from that time forward acts like a set of blinders with regard to how we see the evidence. We just end up believing what we were taught to believe by people we trust in a Christian dominated culture.

  If more people were willing to honestly submit themselves to the outsider test, I think our debates and conversations would be far more intelligent and productive. Don’t you?

  http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/28/the-outsider-test-for-faith/
• 

  brotherdan

  Too long for my laziness cofty. I've been involved with TONS of threads dealing with the proof of God. It goes nowhere. For example, if I was to tell you (and this has NOT happened... :-) ) that God spoke to me and told me what would happen in the future, you would say that I am delusional and you would not believe my claims. So I cannot argue with you using personal experience.If I was to tell you that I know God exists because information cannot come from non-information, so information can only be generated by prior information, you would either ignore this FACT or come up with another argument.

  But if you want it, well here is what I think about the proof. Please bear with me as I get to the point:

  I believe that the law of logic exists. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way. I belive in the law of mathmatics. For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things. I believe in the law of science. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation. I also believe that there are absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.

  So what do I believe ABOUT these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things? They are immaterial non-physical things. So do I believe that these laws are universal or individual? Is 2+2 = 4 only true to ME where I am at, or is it a universal truth? I believe they are universal. And I believe that these laws are unchanging.

  Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

  The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

  Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

  The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

  The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore...

  The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

  Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

  This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Chalam,

  I go out side and I view the world in all its beauty and its ugliness and I think it's pretty cool too.

  (Beauty, ugly, and cool, are just personal subjective judgements, I acknowledge).

  However, I don't see God's handiwork. I see the forces of the universe in dynamic action culminating in this moment in time that I'm experiencing.

  Where those forces originated is not evident and to attribute it to God is just more subjective storytelling.