Just got The God Delusion

[Rayaan]

When I first heard of "The God Delusion," and what people were saying about it, I thought it was going to be something awesome.

So I went to the library and checked it out. I was looking through the book for about 5 minutes. But then, I didn't find it interesting. I was reading about things which I already heard before.

However, I do like his books on biology and my favorite was "The Selfish Gene." In that book, he talks about DNA, molecules, evolution, memes (self-replicating ideas), game theory, and lots of interesting stuff.

[The Magic Pudding]

So the fact that Dakwins gets these 'stupid' arguments so completely backwards must suggest he's a bit of an idiot too, right? I mean if they're so obviously 'stupid' he's really got no excuse for failing to represent them accurately and then making arguments against his own straw men that still don't work... In some of his arguments it's literally like an open invitation to theists to "refute this bullshit" and seeing as how bad his philosophical arguments are even a half-ass apologist can deal with a great number of them with ease.

Far from being 'pretty fucking stupid' a great many of them are complicated, well thought out and are even intellectually impressive - Some of them when tackled honestly do in fact raise the prior probability of a God relative to alternative explanations, lending a degree of credibility to the general idea - None of them manage to establish existence and seeing as there is no strong evidence the prior probability is often all they have to work with, but as far as improving the debate on metaphysical, mental, experiential and conceptual issues many theist philosophers, especially Plantinga and Swinburne in my view, have done a great service to philosophy.

Hell, even William Craig manages to fucking destroy the like of Hitchens and Harris on conceptual and philosophical issues - As evinced by the debates he had with both of them - and Craig with his KCA (which is NOT one of the impressive arguments) isn't even near the quality of Plantinga.

So how come these wonderful theists philosophers haven't managed to make a concise summary of these great works. I don't respect the ability to befuddle, to create such long and convoluted arguments that make you doze and not notice their intrinsic curvature until the circle is complete. Religious leaders have told us for millennia they are the keepers of truth, I'm not going to surrender it now to Atheists who dismiss others as first year philosophy equivalents. The God Delusion suffices for me, the argument doesn't seem to deserve much more exploration, there are more practical things to be explored as dear old Dawkins does.

[Minimalist]

So the fact that Dakwins gets these 'stupid' arguments so completely backwards must suggest he's a bit of an idiot too, right?

No it means he recognizes mental masturbation when he sees it and treats it accordingly.

[Violet]

I've been meaning to do a video explaining deism to Dr. Dawkins. He seems to be relying on the dictionary too much, the same dictionary that also gets atheism wrong.

And just about everything else on top of that.

Dictionaries are guidelines and naught more. A shame that many see them as the all knowing expert on language.

[theVOID]

So how come these wonderful theists philosophers haven't managed to make a concise summary of these great works.

Oh, and you have a concise summary of all the great works on naturalism tucked away somewhere do you?

I don't respect the ability to befuddle, to create such long and convoluted arguments that make you doze and not notice their intrinsic curvature until the circle is complete.

What about the ability to make us re-examine our assumptions? To make us come up with new solutions to exposed problems? To think about concepts that would have otherwise gone unexplored? They have achieved a great deal of that. The philosophical work on Atheism and Naturalism wouldn't be a fraction as impressive, creative and thoughtful were it not for those in opposition.

Religious leaders have told us for millennia they are the keepers of truth

And religious leaders with their unwavering dogma are not the same people as those in the school of natural theology. You've got nothing but a red herring here, it's just like the Gnu Atheists who go from debating moral philosophy to preaching about the horrors of genital mutilation in the same paragraph, a needless distraction that has fuck all to do with the arguments from the other side - If you wan't a stunning and rather embarrassing example of this I suggest you go and watch the following debate by William Lane Craig and Sam Harris (Atheist commentary included);

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15167

I'm not going to surrender it now to Atheists who dismiss others as first year philosophy equivalents.

I couldn't care less whether or not someone has studied philosophy at a university, I care about the quality of the arguments. Dawkins philosophical arguments are pretty bad, if you want to contest that statement then feel free to present one of his arguments from the book that you feel is of a good quality and I'll gladly discuss it.

The God Delusion suffices for me

Suffices how? As an introduction to atheism? As a response to creationists? As a guide to secular thinking? As an advocate of humanism? In all these aspects it's pretty good, it suffices for me too - What it fails at is the philosophy of it all.

the argument doesn't seem to deserve much more exploration

Which one? There are multiple arguments in that book. Are you referring to the main argument, the typical "who designed the designer"? If that is what you think doesn't deserve more exploration then you're dead wrong, it's a BAD argument. I'll issue you a challenge, go read through his book and try to determine what exactly it is he is saying, then present it here in your own words.

there are more practical things to be explored as dear old Dawkins does.

Right, I agree, I've already said that - However, his contributions to other areas does NOTHING to change the fact that his philosophical arguments are shit.

So the fact that Dakwins gets these 'stupid' arguments so completely backwards must suggest he's a bit of an idiot too, right?

No it means he recognizes mental masturbation when he sees it and treats it accordingly.

Bollocks, he treats their arguments in the same light as if someone responded to string theory as "the idea that the universe is made from cotton wool". A theory of 11 dimensional spacetime with multiple universes and extraordinarily complex mathematics could just as easily be called "mental masturbation".

[leo-rcc]

I've been meaning to do a video explaining deism to Dr. Dawkins. He seems to be relying on the dictionary too much, the same dictionary that also gets atheism wrong.

And agnosticism.

I particularly do not like the Dawkins scale, I think it was rushed and left wanting.

[DaveD]

I've been meaning to do a video explaining deism to Dr. Dawkins. He seems to be relying on the dictionary too much, the same dictionary that also gets atheism wrong.

And agnosticism.

I particularly do not like the Dawkins scale, I think it was rushed and left wanting.

That scale was like a poll that doesn't include cheese or bacon in the list of options. I can't opt for 7, but 6 falls far short for me.
TGD isn't a bad book, if you regard it as a primer, rather than the last word on atheism, though I think Hitchens' book is better.

[The Magic Pudding]

Oh, and you have a concise summary of all the great works on naturalism tucked away somewhere do you?

All is asking a bit much, I think the gist of evolution and natural selection can be conveyed quite briefly, a paragraph should be enough.

What about the ability to make us re-examine our assumptions? To make us come up with new solutions to exposed problems? To think about concepts that would have otherwise gone unexplored? They have achieved a great deal of that. The philosophical work on Atheism and Naturalism wouldn't be a fraction as impressive, creative and thoughtful were it not for those in opposition.

I don’t really care about the philosophical work on “Atheism,” I don’t even recognise it as an ism. Theist philosophy may give Atheist philosophy a reason to be, but it hobbles scientific progress, I have no time for it. A thoughtful twelve year old should be able find sufficient reasons to reject the idea of god by just living in the world, the same reasons that are in The God Delusion.

Religious leaders have told us for millennia they are the keepers of truth

And religious leaders with their unwavering dogma are not the same people as those in the school of natural theology. You've got nothing but a red herring here, it's just like the Gnu Atheists who go from debating moral philosophy to preaching about the horrors of genital mutilation in the same paragraph, a needless distraction that has fuck all to do with the arguments from the other side - If you wan't a stunning and rather embarrassing example of this I suggest you go and watch the following debate by William Lane Craig and Sam Harris (Atheist commentary included);

So the leaders delegate the thinking that seeks to justify their delusions to the Jesuits or some university department. You seem to respect these guys as worthy competitors, I don’t it’s as relevant to me as an argument over the power of a Borg Cube as compared to a Star Wars death star.

Suffices how? As an introduction to atheism? As a response to creationists? As a guide to secular thinking? As an advocate of humanism? In all these aspects it's pretty good, it suffices for me too - What it fails at is the philosophy of it all.

Well that doesn’t sound so bad, it sounds like something I’d recommend to the 15 year old OP. Can’t philosophy find something more productive to do, a discussion of heavy petting perhaps?

Which one? There are multiple arguments in that book. Are you referring to the main argument, the typical "who designed the designer"? If that is what you think doesn't deserve more exploration then you're dead wrong, it's a BAD argument. I'll issue you a challenge, go read through his book and try to determine what exactly it is he is saying, then present it here in your own words.

I think the book’s argument is it is very unlikely that a god creator exists, and religion is doing us harm. I think the fear of hell is a good example of the harm of religion, it is covered pretty well I think. If the who designed the designer argument is bad, well the alternative of there’s an Earth and a Sun and a Moon so some father figure must of created it, is just absurd. There is no evidence of god, there are the reasons to create god, fear, the need for explanation, power for priests. The stories of god look like the creation of men. There are many differing explanations of god, unlikely they are all right, it seems likely they are all wrong.

[theVOID]

Oh, and you have a concise summary of all the great works on naturalism tucked away somewhere do you?

All is asking a bit much, I think the gist of evolution and natural selection can be conveyed quite briefly, a paragraph should be enough.

So one set of standards for them and another for you right? The 'gist' of the concept of string theory can be conveyed quite briefly too, that does not mean that to give it any real justice you have to delve into extremely unintuitive and confusing and seemingly incoherent reasoning. Is string theory a much better and more concise explanation? Sure, but it's also analogous how we should consider other unusual concepts.

I don’t really care about the philosophical work on “Atheism,” I don’t even recognise it as an ism.

Oh come one, that's a pretty petty complaint. You know precisely what I mean without getting into semantic noise.

Theist philosophy may give Atheist philosophy a reason to be,

I never said that. Our natural curiosity would lead to this question with or without religious philosophers making arguments for God.

but it hobbles scientific progress, I have no time for it.

Oh really, go find me one professor of natural theology who advocates not doing science! It's as if you have it in your mind that all Christians, even the professors, are wilfully ignorant idiots like the Ken Ham types.

A thoughtful twelve year old should be able find sufficient reasons to reject the idea of god by just living in the world, the same reasons that are in The God Delusion.

And now you're imposing your subjective experience onto the cosmos as if your perception is just some obvious matter of fact! Whatever comes to mind just by living your life constitutes sufficient reason to reject the concept of a deity? You know how easily someone can flip that on it's head and just as baselessly assert the opposite right?

So the leaders delegate the thinking that seeks to justify their delusions to the Jesuits or some university department.

No, most of them couldn't give a flying fuck because they're not curious about their beliefs, there are many theistic philosophers or scientists who are in contrast to that

You seem to respect these guys as worthy competitors, I don’t it’s as relevant to me as an argument over the power of a Borg Cube as compared to a Star Wars death star.

And you keep asserting that they're all the same and all the arguments are of the same quality. That's bullshit.

All I ever said is that arguments against your own position, especially the creative, complex and interesting ones, makes you think about your own position, about how much you really know on the matter and about what the potential problems in defending our beliefs are - This is beneficial for not only being aware of your own assumptions and biases, but gaining and understanding about how people think.

Well that doesn’t sound so bad, it sounds like something I’d recommend to the 15 year old OP.

Sure.

Can’t philosophy find something more productive to do, a discussion of heavy petting perhaps?

Are you really this ignorant, or was that a bad joke?

I think the book’s argument is it is very unlikely that a god creator exists, and religion is doing us harm.

No, that's the book's conclusion.

I think the fear of hell is a good example of the harm of religion, it is covered pretty well I think.

Sure, it's also got nothing to do with whether or not a deity is possible.

If the who designed the designer argument is bad, well the alternative of there’s an Earth and a Sun and a Moon so some father figure must of created it, is just absurd.

You do get how this works, right? Dawkins was attempting to convince people that believe in God that he probably doesn't exist, he attempted to do so using a number of points in his book, this specific philosophical argument happens to be bad - Nobody should be rationally convinced to accept that there is no god based on this argument. Whether or not we can consider the concept of God is unlikely is a matter of whether or not there are better arguments suggesting that he does not exist or that phenomenon we encounter are better explained via other mechanisms, that is what all of the knowledge we have gained has done, given us progressively less and less reason to assume that a deity is a reasonable thing to believe exists - As it stands I find it extremely unlikely that a god exists.

There is no evidence of god, there are the reasons to create god, fear, the need for explanation, power for priests. The stories of god look like the creation of men. There are many differing explanations of god, unlikely they are all right, it seems likely they are all wrong.

Again I agree, but this has fuck all to do with whether or not Dawkins is a good philosopher...

[Napoléon]

Unfortunately Grug was killed before completing his tour to promote his God He Not There cave art.

I laughed out loud at this. You sir are getting a rep point!