|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 21, 2008 23:06:51 GMT -8
Okay, some thoughts on Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, chapter 2: The God Hypothesis. First off, Dawkin's writing style so far has been quite meandering. New topics or digressions seem to pop up rather randomly. And, as in chapter 1 but moreso now, I grow weary of his constant attacks on the stupidest/ most ignorant examples from the world of theism. Earlier he insinuated that because of the extreme popularity of religion, he needed to resort to some mockery. But I swear almost all the umph of his book so far has come from mocking his enemies, not rational argument. Hopefully that's about to change. A couple comments on random elements of chapter 2: 1) Dawkins assumes the primacy of polytheism early in the chapter (p. 58). For my thoughts on this, take this kind of assumption, see Polytheism or Monotheism: Which is Older?2) Dawkins says on page 59 that theists say of God that "He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean)..." First off, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows that God's transcendence is usually taken to mean by any theologian worth his salt that God exists both inside and outside the universe in some way. What I don't get is why Dawkins says "whatever that might mean". Doesn't he even admit that something must have existed outside of our universe in order to cause our universe to come into existence? 3. I agree with one of Dawkin's central points here that the idea that science and faith are separate "magisterium" that do not and should not overlap is wrong. I view science and faith as a Venn diagram, myself, with common territory in the middle. Science can speak to religious belief- religious belief can speak to science (I'm sure Dawkins would only accept the first part of that, but...) I also like what he says in the "poverty of agnosticism" section about when it is appropriate to hold an agnostic stance and when it is simply the woosy way out. Along these lines, I liked this quote: "There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can neither be proved or disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent." p. 77 4. Dawkins distains theology, seeing it as basically a bunch of "flapdoodlish"  ideas without any evidential backing. A quote from page 79: "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"What he fails to consider is that theology stands or falls not on the ideas it pulls out of thin air but on the source of those ideas. Theology claims to have a place at the table because it claims to be the study of God's self-revelation. It is revelation that is the theologians expertise, if that revelation can be evidenced. 5. Dawkins diverges a bit later and implies that Christians have no good criteria by which to decide which laws of the Old Testament should be accepted today, and which laws have been abrogated. It seems to me (so far) that when Dawkins moves into territory he is less familiar with, such as biblical history/ theology, he's not on his A game. Anyway, there's a discussion on this topic somewhere on the boars (I think on the Bible Study forum somewhere, I'll have to check). 6. It seems that Dawkins assumes that theists believe that miracles are defined as events in which God "breaks" the fundamental laws of the universe. In fact, here, he writes: "miracles, by definition, violate the principles of science" But certainly not all theists see it that way. I don't. For a discussion of this, see: Lightning and Love: Defining Miracles Go to town there. That would be helpful. On to chapter 3? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 22, 2008 3:30:42 GMT -8
I think this is a rather disappointing take on the 2nd chapter.
Here are a couple of important controversial points you didn’t comment on:
- Trinity (+ Mary + Saints) = Polytheism
- The secularism of the founding fathers in general and Thomas Jeffersons rejection of Jahwe.
- Dawkins’ counter hypothesis, namely that any creative intelligence which is complex enough must be the end-product of an evolutionary process
- The religious God-Hypothesis isn’t based on fact but on local tradition and private revelation and has hence by no means any authority.
- The critique of a personal God
- The scale of belief (or however you wanna call it)
- The burden of proof on Christians
- The hypothesis of the existence of God doesn’t stand on the same level as the hypothesis of his non existence. Many Gods are imaginable yet nobody believes in the flying teapot or the Titan Timmy (to revive my own contribution to the number of imaginable Gods).
- Religion accepts scientific fact only if it backs (or seems to back) religious belief. Wherever science disproves religious claims, the results are being dismissed (the prayer experiment).
- Rationalism vs. superstition
I'll comment on your review now.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 22, 2008 6:24:39 GMT -8
First off, Dawkin's writing style so far has been quite meandering. New topics or digressions seem to pop up rather randomly. I don't agree with that but that's merely a matter of opinion. As we can see on this forum, you like things separated and tidy. But as this forum shows as well religions arguments are interwoven. You can't touch one topic without reaching into another topic. maybe you'll explain what exactly appears random to you here? And, as in chapter 1 but moreso now, I grow weary of his constant attacks on the stupidest/ most ignorant examples from the world of theism. Well, just imagine how weary I am of "the stupidest/ most ignorant examples from the world of theism". Only that my definition of stupid and ignorant goes further than yours. What Dawkins is mocking is real. It's there. There's no getting around it. If you don't feel adressed to, that's fine. But the number of Christians that actually can be taken seriously is considerably small. The vast majority doesn't put much thought into what they believe. And even less bother to check if what they take for granted, not only in religious matters but generally, even rests upon fact. But I swear almost all the umph of his book so far has come from mocking his enemies, not rational argument. This is arrant falsehood. I'm wondering why you said that. Do you want to discredit the man? I don't want to accuse you of lying. But what you're saying simply isn't true. In the post above I posted a couple of issues that he rationally deals with. And this is only what I found by skimming throught the second chapter again. What is happening here is ever repeating when theists speak with or about Dawkins. You can observe it at youtube. People are constantly missing the points. They don't seem to read closely. Or they don't want to understand. Or they are unable to understand. I'm sure this isn't true for you, Josh. Maybe they just try to ship around his arguments by ignoring them. There's a lot of substance in the God Delusion. I reckon that people shut their eyes and ears because they feel attacked and offended. This is Dawkin's own fault. The harder you handle someone the lesser the possibility of reaching someone. It's One thing I would criticize him for. But he's well aware of that criticism*. On the other hand he's right, religion deserves no special priviledge in treatment. It's claims are preposterous and shall be treated that way. *I think the book isn't really adressing theists. It is adressing skeptics and atheists of all colour. I think he wants to create some awareness of what's really going on. And he wants to fight the terrible circumstance that religion is powerfully organized while non-believers aren't. Theists like you should read the book anyway if their love for "aletheia" is sincere. I doubt that every day more. I've commented in that thread. I don't see why it is important what came first though. Dawkins points out that both is equally wrong. 2) Dawkins says on page 59 that theists say of God that "He not only created the universe; he is a personal God dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that might mean)..." First off, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he knows that God's transcendence is usually taken to mean by any theologian worth his salt that God exists both inside and outside the universe in some way. What I don't get is why Dawkins says "whatever that might mean". Doesn't he even admit that something must have existed outside of our universe in order to cause our universe to come into existence? He states on the idea of things existing outside of the universe later. The transcendence of God is mere guesswork though. Many Christians don't seem to know how it's supposed to work either. I think that's why he says "whatever that means". Speaking for myself: I've often observed Christians having a hard time explaining how the transcendence is supposed to scientifically/ technically work. they always end up saying that God is almighty and can do whatever he pleases, including the physically impossible. That's begging the question as far as I understand it. It's definetly mere guessing. But I'm talking for myself here, not for Dawkins. 3. I agree with one of Dawkin's central points here that the idea that science and faith are separate "magisterium" that do not and should not overlap is wrong. I view science and faith as a Venn diagram, myself, with common territory in the middle. Science can speak to religious belief- religious belief can speak to science (I'm sure Dawkins would only accept the first part of that, but...) ...but what? What can religious belief tell science? Religious belief is the opposite of science. Religious belief needs no empirical fact, no proof, no truth. Dawkins points out fairly well how religion only relys on science when it's useful for for it. Science has a right to search for the truth in all aspects of life, including religion. Mere faith in something means nothing to the truth and hence can't mean anything to science. I also like what he says in the "poverty of agnosticism" section about when it is appropriate to hold an agnostic stance and when it is simply the woosy way out. Yeah, the 50%-agnosticism makes it pretty easy for itself. However, he isn't right to dismiss the idea that we can never be sure to know everyhting. He accepts the idea that we know very little right now, but reckons that we'll be able to find everything out one day. But many Agnostics think that we can never know when we reached that day. This isn't an opportunistic attempt to avoid a clear stand. It's a logical conclusion. Sir Carl Popper points out that we can approach the truth asymptotic, we can find out more and more and dismiss heaps of possibilities. But we can never ever know when we reached the final truth. It's impossible. I go along with Popper. That doesn't prevent me from going along with Dawkins too and state that I see the possibility for Jahwe (or any other manmade God) to exist close to 0%. Along these lines, I liked this quote: "There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can neither be proved or disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent." p. 77 You're well aware that he sees the possibilities for God's existence close to zero, aren't you? I'd like to see how you turn the tables. 4. Dawkins distains theology, seeing it as basically a bunch of "flapdoodlish" ideas without any evidential backing. A quote from page 79: "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?"What he fails to consider is that theology stands or falls not on the ideas it pulls out of thin air but on the source of those ideas. Theology claims to have a place at the table because it claims to be the study of God's self-revelation. It is revelation that is the theologians expertise, if that revelation can be evidenced. "...if it can be evidenced". Where's the evidence, brother? The REAL BIG evidence. I know you say there's still a lot of BIG evidence to come. But so far no evidence has been provided that would forcefully indicate the existence of a personal God. Only opinion, based on assumption, based on opinion. Why don't you finally bring it on? Dawkins asked: "What expertise can theologians bring to deep cosmological questions that scientists cannot?". If you read it over again, you'll see that Dawkins isn't dissmissing the possibility of Theology to contribute something to the truth. He is merely saying that Science can contribute the same bit and hence theology isn't needed. 5. Dawkins diverges a bit later and implies that Christians have no good criteria by which to decide which laws of the Old Testament should be accepted today, and which laws have been abrogated. It seems to me (so far) that when Dawkins moves into territory he is less familiar with, such as biblical history/ theology, he's not on his A game. Did I miss something? Is there suddenly a Christian consensus? Last time I checked there were people taking the bible entirely literally, others who took it partly literally, others again who took some parts literally the others didn't take literally, and so on. But this isn't my A-Game either. For the time being, I don't see why Jesus walking on the water is supposed to be symbolic and Jesus resurrecting is to be taken literally. That's nothing I just said, this is something I learned in church. Even if you don't share that view, it only emphasizes that there seems to be no real criteria. 6. It seems that Dawkins assumes that theists believe that miracles are defined as events in which God "breaks" the fundamental laws of the universe. In fact, here, he writes: "miracles, by definition, violate the principles of science" But certainly not all theists see it that way. I don't. For a discussion of this, see: Lightning and Love: Defining Miracles Go to town there. That would be helpful. Yes, there's a lot to be discussed. I read what you wrote in that post. Maybe I'll reply. For THIS discussion, EVERYTHING you wrote about miracles is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT! It's only your OPINION. And a very arbitrary opinion on top of that. Everything that can be explained without God's intervention indicates that it happened without his intervention. If YOU want to believe that a lightning was sent by God, that's worth nothing to the truth. Even if God exists it doesn't mean that he sent the lightning. No, relevant is only the amount of phenomenons or things that can't be explained reasonably or scientifically. And this amount has been shrinking dramatically and keeps on shrinking. This is Dawkins point and this is fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2008 8:54:57 GMT -8
Wow. I feel like I'm back in college. Okay, I'll start from the top. Things you thought I missed: I take this for granted. Nothing here was shocking from a historians perspective, but I can see how this stuff might be shocking to someone who thinks all the founding fathers must have been devout christians. Dawkins has some valid critiques of Roman Catholic notions about saints, etc.. but I wasn't impressed with his simple treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is a huge subject and involves, imo, a paradox (which I would still argue would rationally explainable if our brains were able to comprehend it). That a transcendent God would be more complicated than our four-dimensional minds can conceive is not suprising at all to me, though you'll call that logic escapism (and that's fine- this is not a first principle) If you want to talk more about the Trinity- we've done some of that already: [url= www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=evolution]What about the Trinity?[/url] He hasn't offered anything to support this yet, so not much to comment on so far. Honestly, I saw no argumentation on this stuff, just counter-claim opinion. If I missed some specific logical argument, please point it out (I could be wrong) Yes, some religious people do this, but I don't see that as very relevant to me (except to serve as a warning not to do likewise). Gotta go for now... I'll try to get back on the other points when I get a chance.... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 24, 2008 15:05:59 GMT -8
A little more while I've got a moment:
Christian faith is not blind faith. It is trust in things we can't know/ can't prove based on supporting evidence. So, it does need some empirical fact behind it.
Does he? Isn't there a scientific principle that mitigates against that? (is that Heisenburg's uncertainty principle- I can't remember exactly). I'd agree with you that that might go a bit too far for finite beings.
I've started to read through chapter 3. I definitely sense the book getting more "focused".
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 24, 2008 20:33:19 GMT -8
I don't think you got my point over on the miracles folder, so I'll go into this more there later, but my only point here was that Christians don't necessarily/ need not see miracles as events which "break" the laws of nature or contradict them- miracles need only be events which defy our scientific understanding or the understanding we have being finite beings trapped in limited space-time dimensions.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 29, 2008 6:44:37 GMT -8
I take this for granted. Nothing here was shocking from a historians perspective, but I can see how this stuff might be shocking to someone who thinks all the founding fathers must have been devout christians. How am I supposed to know you are aware of this? How are other people you read this thread supposed to know Dawkins is presenting this point? You made it sound as if Dawkins was merely ranting all the time without presenting arguments. The secularism of the founding fathers, may not mean anything to the existence of God, but it is an issue that leads to consequences when people try to bring about a Christian theocracy with Thomas Jeffersons permission. Dawkins has some valid critiques of Roman Catholic notions about saints, etc.. but I wasn't impressed with his simple treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is a huge subject and involves, imo, a paradox (which I would still argue would rationally explainable if our brains were able to comprehend it). That a transcendent God would be more complicated than our four-dimensional minds can conceive is not suprising at all to me, though you'll call that logic escapism (and that's fine- this is not a first principle) If you want to talk more about the Trinity- we've done some of that already: You see, if you subtract Roman Catholics from the Christian community, the community shrinks considerably. If you subtract all the Christians who merely know anything about their religion, Christianity will shrink to the size of sect again. Dawkins is making valid points against a lot of Christians throughout the book. Not only fundamentalists or Catholics. But you make it sound as if that isn’t important. I’m not surprised that you can neither explain God’s transcendence logically nor how 1+1+1 is supposed to equal 1. Yes, I call it escapism. Yes, some religious people do this, but I don't see that as very relevant to me (except to serve as a warning not to do likewise). I’ve seen you praying for the health of people on this board. Do you really think this has any influence on their recovery? If you believe so, why do you think God heals some people and doesn’t heal other people even if so many people honestly prayed for them? And why do so many people of other religions or even no religion recover without prayer? Josh, I don’t buy that it isn’t the claim about scientific backing and dismissal is irrelevant to you. You sure are going to dismiss the result of the prayer experiment yet you gave me the “reasons to believe page” in order to show how science backs Christianity. Maybe we can find more examples of scientific studies that dismiss Christian rationality, the free will experiments for instance. He hasn't offered anything to support this yet, so not much to comment on so far. There’ll be more to come Honestly, I saw no argumentation on this stuff, just counter-claim opinion. If I missed some specific logical argument, please point it out (I could be wrong) As far as I know, you’re either relying everything on personal experiences or on the Bible. What else do you need? Okay, maybe Dawkins doesn’t substantiate this, but it’s an important claim anyway. We’ll have to discuss it in the bible-author thread. A little more while I've got a moment: Christian faith is not blind faith. It is trust in things we can't know/ can't prove based on supporting evidence. So, it does need some empirical fact behind it. Such as? Please bring it on and please only bring on what's specifically backing religious belief. I don't want to hear anything about for example the big bang theory which could mean this or that. What is the empirical fact you're talking about? I don't know. At least he seems to reckon there is a definite answer to the question of whether a personal God exists or not. One that humans may find out one day. As I said, I disagree with that, unless God finally reveals himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 1, 2008 16:54:11 GMT -8
Quite true. But I feel so far away from that position (trying to establish a theocracy) and I don't really know anyone personally who wants to do that, so....
D'oh... thought I had more time, but gotta go. I'll finish replying soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 1, 2008 23:06:43 GMT -8
I don't and never would "subtract roman catholics from the christian community". I was just trying to point out that (some or most) roman catholic views on the saints are extra-biblical and therefor I don't feel any need to defend them- and don't see how attacking them is really a strike against "mere christianity" or "essential christianity". I'll respond to this on the What is the Point of Prayer sub-forum, on the Prayer vs. Magic thread. Suffice for here, the reason I wouldn't put much stock in the something like the "prayer experiment" is, as you'll see on that thread, that the "prayer experiment" assumes that prayer is something that it really isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 8, 2008 1:11:36 GMT -8
I don't and never would "subtract roman catholics from the christian community". I was just trying to point out that (some or most) roman catholic views on the saints are extra-biblical and therefor I don't feel any need to defend them- and don't see how attacking them is really a strike against "mere christianity" or "essential christianity". What does that tell us about the nature of belief? People add and add and add. Doesn't that ring a bell? To me, it's pretty hard to crack the christian nut especially because everybody believes something different. Saints yes, saints no, virgin yes, virgin no, bible literally yes, bible literally no, omnipotent yes, omnipotent no, church yes, church no...... You'll probably say all this doesn't touch the essentials. Yes, they all believe in the resurrection, but when you start to logically question the event of the resurrection it all goes back to nonessential belief in all its varieties: If you say it's physically impossible that somebody resurrects, one will say, it's possible because God is omni. If you then tackle omnipotence another will say: I don't believe he's omni. etc. etc. etc. Christianity is such a shapeshifter! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2008 20:35:56 GMT -8
I understand the bewilderment at the array of secondary beliefs, mo. I really do.
However, I don't think when it comes to the resurrection that things are that slippery.
I have a question for chris (or robin) on omnipotence which might help clear up that aspect a bit.
When you say you challenge the notion of God's omnipotence in some way, don't you simply mean that the Omnipotent God has purposefully limited His omnipotence in some ways (and also just that He cannot contradict Himself?)
In other words it's not that you don't think God in His essence isn't Omnipotent, it's just that you think in His actions He may not choose to excercise His omnipotence?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 15, 2008 1:24:20 GMT -8
I understand the bewilderment at the array of secondary beliefs, mo. I really do. So I'll ask my question again. What does the array of secondary beliefs mean to you? What does this tell us about the nature of belief? Let's take the yom controversary. I hope you'll agree that the majority of Christians in the past, especially before science became a free discipline, believed that the creation took 6 24-hour days. (I know not everybody believed this, let's not miss the point). Those who believed this did so, because their bible told them so. Or better, because those who translated the bible, translated it this way. IF this really was a translation error, then those beliefs were simply wrong. Just like other secondary beliefs that were brought along by religious authorities like clerics or theologians. I repeat: Take all the array of secondary belief. Take the firm belief and faith in the translation of others. What does that tell you about the nature of belief? However, I don't think when it comes to the resurrection that things are that slippery. Let's put this to the test. I don't think you'll be able to explain the resurrection without relying on secondary beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2008 21:34:18 GMT -8
We should first define what a secondary belief is.
When I'm talking about secondary beliefs I'm talking about theories on things that are either a) very unclear in Scripture or b) things that aren't touched on by scripture, but that have some kind of bearing on our faith.
Is that the definition you're working with?
With that in mind, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here:
What are you getting at? What do you think it tells us?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 17, 2008 2:51:42 GMT -8
We should first define what a secondary belief is. When I'm talking about secondary beliefs I'm talking about theories on things that are either a) very unclear in Scripture or b) things that aren't touched on by scripture, but that have some kind of bearing on our faith. Is that the definition you're working with? With that in mind, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here: What are you getting at? What do you think it tells us? I've asked you. I'll add my two cents soon enough. Right now I'm waiting for your reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 17, 2008 18:58:39 GMT -8
What I meant was I didn't really understand that sentence grammatically- esp. this part:
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 18, 2008 1:51:59 GMT -8
If only we could have this discussion in German. Or if only I dominated English as well as German  hm, how am I gonna explain this? I really don't know how to be clearer. I'm gonna try to modify my last example a bit. Maybe that'll help. Billions of people in the history of mankind have believed the earth was created in 6 24-hour-days because their bible/preacher told them so*. If it is true, that the author of Genesis never meant literal days, but rather ages, then all this belief in 24-hour-days is wrong, due to a translation error. Yet, people firmly believed it. What does that tell you about the nature of belief?** *This is not saying that there weren't people from the very beginning who didn't misinterpret that passage. This example is based on two assumptions: 1. The majority of Christians isn't saddle-fast in the original language of the Bible and relies on a translation. 2. The majority of translations speak of days and not of ages. ** The point of my example isn't that the Bible might be completely mistranslated (even though of course it arises the question of how much more translation errors might have been made). I'm talking about the nature of belief. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 18, 2008 7:56:05 GMT -8
Okay, first off, I think I've identified something which has unconsciously been unclear in this discussion.
You're assuming that I think the English translation of Genesis 1 should read "age" for "day". I don't necessarily think that. Since in Hebrew yom means both a 24 hr period and age, it was a perfect word to use in dual senses. For instance, only literal 24 days have literal evenings and mornings. But since yom has this double literal meaning (24 hour day and indefinitely long period of time), it can then be extended a metaphorical evening and morning.
It would probably be weirder in English to say "there was evening, there was morning, the fourth age". It would be doable in English, but since "day" in English can even (though not as much as in Hebrew) mean "age", it'd be better to just leave it at "day".
Okay, on to your point.
That a belief might hinge on a translation misunderstanding or error is definitely an important red flag for believers, so your point has force.
However, some beliefs are more important than others. The most clearly delineated beliefs in Scripture are arguably the most important- especially those having to do with the redemption we have in Christ.
It wasn't very important whether earlier believers interpreted Genesis 1 as 24 hour days or ages, because it didn't affect their faith in any substantial way and they had no way of checking it with the record of nature.
All they could do was explore the margins of interpretation, which they did.
All this is much more important for us in an age of scientific discovery, so here we are talking about the different ways the Hebrew can be read.
Still, one's view on Genesis 1 and 2 is not essential Christian belief- it's just an in-house debate.
I view it like a set of tantalizing clues that God left us to investigate. He's not being nasty by doing this-- it's not like my salvation or purpose in Christ is on the line if I don't get this right. It's rather an opporunity to use my intellect and faith to work on an amazing puzzle.
|
|
ideas without any evidential backing. A quote from page 79: 
