Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Moonshoe
Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 3,783
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 6 months, 30 days
|
 The God Delusion 
#8126717 - 03/10/08 07:40 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion” guides us on a multifaceted exploration of the topic of religion. I say exploration and not critique because Dawkins is so carefully fair minded, and so thorough in presenting the arguments of his opponents and testing them on their own merits, that the book does not read as a critique. It is not that one sided, not that simplistic in its intentions. However, it is unified by an overarching thesis: that belief in God, in anything other than a metaphoric, pantheistic sense, is a dangerous delusion. After proving this thesis at some length, and making some interesting detours, Dawkins will provide us with a moving, passionate appeal to fill the “God shaped hole” (347) in our minds and societies with something new, positive and enlightened.
Dawkins begins by making an important distinction between what he calls “Einstein’s God”, which is described as a kind of “poetic naturalism (15)”, really a feeling of religious awe that a purely material universe could give rise to such an awesome spectrum of phenomenon, even “minds, beauty, emotions and moral values (14)”. This kind of poetic naturalism, or “sexed up atheism” is not the target of Dawkins’ examination, and must be clearly distinguished from supernaturalism in all its forms. Ultimately, what Dawkins’ is setting out to disprove is the “God Hypothesis”, and this he defines as the view that “there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it (31)”.
His own position, however, holds that “any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution” and thus can evidently not be responsible for the creation or design of the universe that gave birth to it. Monotheist, Polytheist, Islamic, Christian or Jew, all supernatural religions promote some version of the God hypothesis. In his effort to show that this hypothesis is in fact a delusion, Dawkins begins by asking what defences or justifications of the hypothesis have historically been put forward.
Concisely and effortlessly, Dawkins dissects a variety of these arguments. Granted, a number of them are so weak that they virtually disprove themselves, nevertheless his treatment of them is enjoyably skilful. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs are revealed to postulate God as a supposed solution to the problems of infinite regress. However, Richard notes that this imaginary creator or first cause is himself merely an extension, not a termination of this problem. The ontological argument is perhaps even weaker, and claims that because the most perfect thing can be conceived, it must exist, because if it did not it would not be the most perfect thing. Dawkins notes that this is nothing but an empty word game, and even so it rests on the unfounded assumption that perfection correlates with existence (77).
Pascal’s Wager is rightly dealt with as an exercise in both intellectual and moral cowardice, and can not really be refuted in logical terms because it is based not on truth but on a deluded form of risk analysis. Similarly, Dawkins explores a so called “Bayesian” argument for God’s existence, which is found to consist of a mathematical formula all of the variables of which are arbitrarily assigned based on one person’s subjective judgements, a from of evidence that Dawkins considers worthless. The argument from scripture makes no logical claims whatsoever, and reduces to “because it was written down, it is true” but Dawkins generously dedicates a short chapter to revealing the countless inconsistencies and contradictions within scripture itself. As Dawkins rightly observes, this whole section reads something like a “joke…but that is really how (they) proceed”. Regardless, Dawkins treatment of these classical and modern defences of theology is both thorough, convincing and entertaining.
The arguments from beauty and personal experience are more interesting, but can be summarized just as quickly. Arguments from personal experience are fascinating, but they fall into the realm of psychological phenomenon and thus belong in the same category as hallucinations, illusions and misperceptions. Personal experience of God or angels is no more an argument for Gods literal existence then a hallucination of a “pink elephant” or any other insane phantasm would indicates its actual objective reality. The argument from beauty, which can be summarized: “there is beauty in the world thus God must be responsible” falls far short of being and argument and no evidence is given (or possible) as to why beauty is more likely to be divine in origin then natural or for that matter diabolic.
Dawkins now moves on to explore “the big one”, namely “the argument from improbability” (113). The argument from improbability has traditionally been a pillar of the theistic worldview in general and creationism in particular. I can attest to this as I have myself been perplexed by it. The basic idea is that the existence of complex life forms such as we know is so wildly improbable that chance could never have been responsible for it, and that life’s emergence on earth by natural means is no more possible then “a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard and… (assembling) a Boeing 747 (113)”.
Dawkins insightfully rebuffs this claim on two equally powerful grounds. Firstly, Dawkins notes that postulating a divine designer in order to escape the problem of life’s extreme improbability is very similar to Thomas Aquinas’ mistake in postulating the same designer as a termination of infinite regress. Just as Aquinas’ God is not immune to the very regress he is invoked to resolve, the creationist’s God is in every respect subject to the same improbability that he is seen as explaining. In other words “no matter how statistically improbable the entity you try to explain by invoking a designer, the God himself has got to be at least as improbable (114)”. In this way Dawkins effectively shows that the improbability of life in no way lends itself to the existence of a creative intelligence, as this would be even more improbable.
However, Dawkins will take us a step farther. Not only does he show us how God fails to solve the improbability problem, he clearly illustrates how natural selection does. “What makes natural selection succeed where chance and design both fail?…it is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces…when large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product…is very improbable indeed”. Dawkins hammers home the point with his metaphor or parable of “mount improbable” one side of which is a sheer and impossible cliff, the other a gentle slope. On top of the summit is “a complex device such as an eye”. The traditional problem of improbability invokes the impossibility of leaping from the base to the summit. Natural selection’s solution is the gentle and gradual cumulative ascent (123).
This insight is combined with a final crucial piece, namely the anthropic explanation for the origin of life. In a nutshell, the idea is simply that despite the immense improbability of life’s emergence from inanimate matter, it only had to happen once, and the vast size and age of the universe make it less improbable then it would seem. In short, our perception that this phenomenon is so unlikely as to be impossible stems from our lack of familiarity with such scales of number and time. However, when we escape that limitation we see that the emergence of life is not impossible but in fact quite likely, and Dawkins notes that life has quite probably “arisen on a billion planets” (138).
Let us recap. So far Dawkins has established his thesis: that the God hypothesis is false. he has effectively refuted the major arguments in favour of God’s existence, and he has shown how God is not an effective solution to the observable problems of life’s existence and complexity. Furthermore, he has shown how those same problems are elegantly and efficiently solved by the material process of natural selection. He does not claim to have disproved God, rather he has simply eliminated all compelling reasons for suspecting that God exists. The rest of his work deals with three further important questions.
First, Dawkins addresses the idea that even if God is not real, religion plays a necessary role in society, perhaps as a source of morality. His refutation of this argument is enlightening, and effective in demonstrating that theology is not a likely cause for morality. In addition to noting the vastly immoral behaviour of many religious believers, Dawkins posits some very plausible Darwinian origins for morality, such as kinship and reciprocal altruism, among others. This is another example of Dawkins adeptness at showing how God fails to answer certain questions, as well as demonstrating how natural selection succeeds more admirably.
Dawkins also asks the question: if religion is not true, why is it so prevalent? This section is absolutely fascinating, and opens many intriguing corridors of investigation. He discusses whether religion persists because it is directly evolutionarily advantageous, or whether it is a by-product or malfunctioning of some quality that is, such as obedience, other centered love or agent-identification. Convincing arguments are presented suggesting that religion could be just such an excess or misfiring of these normal and adaptive tendencies. Fascinating as these ideas are, they are outside the scope of this essay.
Finally, Darwin concludes his work with a humane, sensitive and observant admission that for many people, giving up “the God Delusion” is a frightening, even terrifying prospect. He notes that imaginary friends, such as those experienced by some children, can give a very real sense of comfort and security. Perhaps God plays a similar role for adults? Dawkins wryly notes that his contribution “fills a much needed Gap” in our understanding. The dual meaning is that on the one hand, Dawkins and others have removed the need for God to fill these voids in our comprehension, but on the other hand, those who feel they need God also needed the gap where he resided.
Dawkins proposes that this Gap can be filled in a variety of ways, through human friendship and love, intellectual curiosity, art and literature. But his most moving and profound insight is that science, the human enterprise of expanding our power and comprehension, opens up vistas or cognition and perception that are truly and deeply mysterious and indeed, present a mystery much deeper and more relevant then the so called mysteries of religion. As such, Dawkins succeeds not only in dispelling the dull illusions of the past, but also in at least hinting at a freer, brighter future (374).
How then does this argument and the conclusions drawn from it hold up to my scrutiny? Impeccably. In proving his thesis, Darwin appeals to science, mathematics, statistical studies, personal experience, anecdotes and pure reason. He uses all of these tools skilfully and in appropriate proportion. He gives his opponents their fair say but exceeds their eloquence by far. He not only succeeds in eroding old superstitions, but in building up elegant and secure intellectual structures to replace them. In reading Dawkins, I was moved intellectually and emotionally, I found my comprehension of numerous topics expanded, and lastly I was moved almost spiritually by Dawkins vision of a humanity embracing the dizzying adventure of scientific inquiry. Dawkins won me with his logic, not one piece of which I can find reasons to criticize, but he moved me even more with his combination of pragmatic humanistic compassion and mystical wonder in the face of truth and science.
In conclusion, I found this book to be of immense quality, proceeding logically along clearly defined lines by use of superb logic and scientific insight, while simultaneously retaining a human, compassionate quality. Dawkins has challenged and enhanced my own thinking, and also stirred me emotionally. His combination of science’s sceptical and visionary aspects was enough to convince me that his atheistic future could indeed represent a finer chapter in human history, one worth striving for.
-ch/UR/ch D.//03/10/08 1154028
--------------------
|
 WhiskeyClone
Not here
 
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,474
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Ca...
|
 Re: The God Delusion [Re: Moonshoe]
#8127007 - 03/10/08 10:06 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Great essay, thanks 
It looks like the author mistakenly typed "Darwin" instead of "Dawkins" in a few locations 
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
Cameron
Too Many Words
Registered: 10/31/07
Posts: 4,437
Loc: Canada
|
|
Great review, The God Delusion will definitely be one of my next reads
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed
Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: Moonshoe]
#8127428 - 03/10/08 12:08 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I've read The God Delusion. If you like that, check out Sam Harris's books The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both are great reads. Don't waste your time with Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great, it doesn't even compare to the above titles.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,206
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
|
 Re: The God Delusion [Re: Moonshoe]
#8127514 - 03/10/08 12:35 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"The ego delusion!"
|
Neanderthal
Philosopher
Registered: 03/02/08
Posts: 57
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
vigilant_mind said:
I've read The God Delusion. If you like that, check out Sam Harris's books The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both are great reads. Don't waste your time with Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great, it doesn't even compare to the above titles.
I couldn't agree more.
I found Sam Harris's book valuable for novel and clever arguments, whereas Dawkins's book was more of an encyclopedic compilation of well-known philosophical arguments.
And, I consider Hitchens's book to be absolute garbage.
--------------------
"I will give you consciousness expansion that will turn your blood to ice water." -- Terence McKenna
|
awesomebastard
Lost
Registered: 12/15/07
Posts: 4,891
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: Gomp]
#8127578 - 03/10/08 12:55 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gomp said:
"The ego delusion!"
essentially what religion is, not spiritaulity just religion and the idea that we humans are the reason for the universes existance.
--------------------
"Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics." ~ C.J. Keyser
Mr. Cypher said: "I just tell the girls how sexy I am and their panties melt."
|
ChiefGreenLeaf
Cherriest of All Humans
Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,409
Loc: Pineal Gland
Last seen: 7 months, 10 days
|
|
I know a good book on this subject. The God Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper reminded me of your post. Alper logically concludes that the belief in an after life was a product of natural selection. He says that when humans became aware of their eminent death, it placed a great deal of stress on their unconscious mind. Some minds created religious concepts to deal with this stress. It turns out that believing in after life gave those who did so evolutionary advantages. Alper also looks into the anatomy of the brain and what biochemical pathways might be at work.
--------------------
ABSENCE OF EVIDNCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"the fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: Gomp]
#8127876 - 03/10/08 02:13 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gomp said:
"The ego delusion!"
"The egod delusion!"
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,206
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
|
|
If God could do all God wanted to do.. Would God not do this?
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: Gomp]
#8128372 - 03/10/08 04:29 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I KNOW it would.
This and that equally a chance at bat.
No rabbit out of a hat.
Just trust that that will do this and this will do that.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor
|
|
Channeling Dr. Seuss?
--------------------
This is your drain on brugs.
|
backfromthedead
Activated
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
Hell yes.
You see, we have stars...
Shmoopies don't.
--------------------
|
bradmassive
KingOfTheHill
Registered: 11/03/07
Posts: 866
Loc: VA
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: Gomp]
#8128552 - 03/10/08 05:20 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gomp said:
If God could do all God wanted to do.. Would God not do this?
God sits on his cloud and smokes crack all day and all night.
--------------------
"In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson
"Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
|
ZOSO
Stranger
Registered: 01/19/08
Posts: 102
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days
|
|
When he says "any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution” hes referring to anything that has the facility to create is the end product of an evolutionary process, how would that put to rest any notion that god is not the creator of existence, because something still had to create the beginning of everything,or at least a building block which could be worked off of, if as simple as that. Or is the writer not trying to disprove the notion that some force or "God" did create a beginning or initial building block but did not necessarily take part in its actual development and evolution, or is still concerned with the results? I'm new to philosophy in general so I'm wondering if anyone can just help me understand the concept, I'm probably completely off base to begin with.
|
vigilant_mind
unfazed
Registered: 01/19/07
Posts: 1,717
Loc: boco
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: The God Delusion [Re: ZOSO]
#8129334 - 03/10/08 07:45 PM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
PhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
backfromthedead said:
Just trust that that will do this and this will do that.
Heh.... You said "that that" in a sentence, and it worked.....!
I am still trying to figure out this fleeting enigma....
>^;;^<
--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry.... 
"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,206
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 3 days, 14 hours
|
 Re: The God Delusion [Re: PhanTomCat]
#8145151 - 03/14/08 07:20 AM (4 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PhanTomCat said:
Quote:
backfromthedead said:
Just trust that that will do this and this will do that.
Heh.... You said "that that" in a sentence, and it worked.....!
I am still trying to figure out this fleeting enigma....
>^;;^<
Could have used a comma though.. 
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Mr. Middle, Diploid
665 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
