Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 528
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: Ch. 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
I am not a great reader of the sciences, so this is perhaps an idea that's been raised before. But I liked Dawkins' idea of natural selection being a "consciousness-raiser." He touches on the significance of consciousness-raising (although "herstory" and "niggardly" are awful examples). I remember specific examples, with delight, when my consciousness was raised. (Some of them I would be embarrassed to admit.) He writes how natural selection "raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance" (116). Dawkins also refers to Daniel Dennet's point that "evolution counters one of the oldest ideas we have: 'the idea that it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing'" (117).
Ever since learning about evolution and genetics I understood this idea. However, it wasn't until reading it in this context of "consciousness-raising" that I understood the significance of the idea. As Dennet says, everything we see, all perceptive reasoning, programs humans to believe that it is the great big thing that makes the smaller thing. Darwin raised our conscious to make us understand that the very construction of life is a result of the opposite process. If we progress that new consciousness to the very foundation of life, wouldn't we have to, at least, consider the alternative of our accepted perceptive reasoning? Consciousness-raising can be a fun game; I, also, think it could be an important contribution to atheism. If people can recognize that the knee-jerk idea that each thing is created by a "big fancy smart thing" is flawed, then perhaps they can raise their consciousness to consider alternatives to the God Hypothesis. As Dawkins claims, "Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very counterintuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary, and so loaded with the power to raise consciousness" (117).
Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 111
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
I really like how Dawkins turns Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 idea around on creationists who use it as an argument.
Quote:...Darwinism is accused of trying to get something for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinism natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes from. It turns out the be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
I also agree think that if people truly understood natural selection it would blow their minds, as the gradual better understanding of it is doing to mine.
Irishrosem:
Quote:If people can recognize that the knee-jerk idea that each thing is created by a "big fancy smart thing" is flawed, then perhaps they can raise their consciousness to consider alternatives to the God Hypothesis
Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 1
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
As Dawkins writes, the most compelling argument for non-existence of God is I guess the most obvious one : "If God Created Us who Created God?"
At first glance it does appear too simple and childish but forming more complex arguments are at very least superfluous.
The argument delivers the "mate" to believers since :
1) If something can arise from nothing than the simplest and best explanation is that our UNIVERSE is all there is.
2) If something can arise only from something else than the simplest and best explanation is that our UNIVERSE arouse from a MULTI-VERSE
Try substitute the previous alternative with "God" and their falsity becomes apparent:
1) If something can arise from nothing than the simplest and best explanation is that our GOD is all there is.
2) If something can arise only from something else than the simplest and best explanation is that our GOD arouse from a SUPER-GOD Edited by: SC98007 at: 2/8/07 5:51 am
Joined: Feb 2004 Posts: 212 Location: San Francisco, CA
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 1 time in 1 post
Gender:
Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
as a recovering catholic, I still remember with great clarity my 8th grade nun telling us that evolution had to be wrong: we could not have decended from monkeys because they have no chins! Even as an 8th grader, I knew enough about evolution to say (to myself) that evolution could have brought about that change.
It was only later that i found out that evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys, merely that we have a common ancestor.
What was REALLY interesting was getting to high school one year later and having a priest tell us that there was no conflict between catholic teaching and evolution. I think the nun would have exploded to hear it.
Joined: Jun 2003 Posts: 806 Location: NC
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Country:
Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
I'm not trying to be nit picky, Gino, because I enjoy your posts, but... The monkey/ape confusion thing is a pet peeve of mine. We actually evolved from a common ancestor with apes, not monkeys. Apes are actually more closely related to humans than monkeys. We did not evolve from monkeys. We did not evolve from apes. We (along with apes) evolved from a common ancestor we share with apes. I know, I just can't help it!
If there is anything new in Dawkins' The God Delusion, then it is Dawkins reverse argument from improbability. Though referenced in earlier chapters, it is in Chapter 4 that he outlines this argument in a detailed manner.
According to Dawkins, the argument from improbability states that complex things could not have come about by chance. This argument is often used by Intelligent Design theorists such as the famous mad scientist, Fred Hoyle. Apparently Fred argued that the possibility of life originating on Earth was no greater than that of a hurricane assembling a fully functional Boeing 747 after passing through a junk yard. Richard points out the obvious flaws in this argument, namely that it assumes that natural selection is akin to chance, when in fact it is anything but.
Dawkins also tackles the cosmic version of the argument from improbability late in the chapter. The cosmic version of the argument is based on the fact that had any of the universal been different, the universe would not have been hospitable to life. The possibility that this situation occurred by chance would be extremely improbable, and theists sometimes use this fact as evidence for the existence of God.
However, Dawkins then goes on to reverse the argument. He writes:
However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
Now before I attempt to show the flaws in this reverse argument, let me first put this argument into context. In Dawkins' mind, it applies to every conception of God, not just to medieval or creationist versions.
On the blurb printed on the back cover of the book (which I presume Richard approved) it states:
In The God Delusion Dawkins presents a hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types.
Early on in the book, he writes:
I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Also, when outlining The God Hypothesis he plans to attack, he defines God as
...a superhuman intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
Finally, when ranting about an old bearded man in the sky, he promises us to tackle all versions of God.
I am not attacking any particular version of God, or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Let there be no question, Dawkins intends for his reverse argument from improbability to apply to all conceptions of God, with the exception of pantheists definitions. Now, having established this fact, let us move on to examine the argument.
Dawkins argument fails because he does not seem to have a grasp of what supernatural means. Late in the chapter Dawkins discusses a quote from the theologian Keith Ward.
Sir John Polkinghorne, in Science and Christian Belief, quotes Ward's earlier criticism of the thought of Thomas Aquinas: 'Its basic error is in supposing that God is logically simple
Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 311
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD
In The Ancestor's Tale Dawkins used the term "concestor" (a word coined by one of his assistants to whom he gives credit in the text) to refer to common ancestors.
I think The Ancestor's Tale and Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennett are two of the best works on evolution.
The clear message of evolutionary theory is that all life is related. We have no more evolved from monkeys or apes than we have evolved from squid, but we are related to all of them, and most closely to the apes, specifically the chimps. Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee is a brilliant exposition of that idea.
George
"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: --
Quote:Instead, he puts forward a pretty solid argument against the existence of very particular God, one that nobody really believes in.
I have seen this quote stated by many theists looking to defend the idea of god as a more evolved concept than it "used to be".
How does one justify making this statement? How does one state that no one really believes in this type of god when my experience of the religious folk I know points to exactly this type of god? Am I just unlucky enough to meet these few people? Well, by the statement, NOBODY believes in this god, so I must be hallucinating huh?
As for the misunderstanding of the supernatural...IT DOES NOT EXIST!! To flaw an argument that is trying to refute something that does not exist is kinda silly. Just as silly as those who try to placate those who believe in it in the first place by even dignifying it with a treatment in the first place.
Dawkins is trying to answer to those who present silly arguments in thier own language. That is where I think he is getting himself into trouble. See the "Watchmaker" argument.
Still, by referring to teapots and the like, I think he does a great job in showing that the supernatural is just wishful thinking by all too many of the members of our species.
Mr. P.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 716
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
--
Nick, it may well be that you've had different experiences to me, so I'd really be interested to know, what religious person have you met that professed a belief in a god that was subject to the laws of the universe he created?
The supernatural may or may not exist. It's impossible to verify either claim, so I'd love to know on what basis you claim to know that it does not exist. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good reasons not to believe in it, but none that I know of to indicate that you can declare that it does not exist.
And regardless of whether or not theism is correct or not, it is still essential to understand it before you try to refute it. How the hell would you refute Lamarckian evolution if you didn't understand it?
As for your statement that Dawkins is trying to refute silly arguments with silly language, well, I agree that Dawkins is being very silly, but I doubt that it is intentional. Take into consideration the fact that he has spoken with pride of his Ultimate 747 argument as something of a deathblow to the concept of God. He has said that his argument applies to every possible conception of God. He has spoken about how he bested a room full of theologians with this argument.
Make no mistake. Dawkins may be writing the book in a fashion he thinks would accessible to the average reader, but he thinks that his arguments apply to every possible conception of God any philosopher or theologian has ever dreamed up.
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: --
Quote:Nick, it may well be that you've had different experiences to me, so I'd really be interested to know, what religious person have you met that professed a belief in a god that was subject to the laws of the universe he created?
No, no. Your posing a question that had nothing to do with my comment. The cop out that god is exempt from any physical examination based on the laws of science is absolutely used to fend off true inquiry. I am not saying that. This tactic was used to apply to any unexplained thing prior to scientists finding the acutal cause behind said mystery.
What I was referring to was your statement that people do not believe in the god of the Xtian (or any other interventionist god) faith. A god that interacts with humans and can cause direct interference with our lives. There are TONS that believe in the 'old bearded chap' in the sky. So a refutation of that god is valid, unfortunately.
Mr. P.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
I suppose that religion should also be given a pass regarding the Crusades and Inquisition?
Given two systems, I will take the one that bases itself on reality and substance than something (the supernatural) that we cannot even say definitly exists...and are told that we cannot EVER hope to detect. Even if that other system has its drawbacks, at least we are being honest with ourselves as much as we can at any given time.
Mr. P.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Joined: Sep 2003 Posts: 716
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
Re: --
Quote:So your saying that witch hunts are not the offspring of religious thought? And I am going back to the witch hunts prior to Salem too.
What? How the heck did you manage to take that from what I said?
What I said was that it is about as fair to blame religion for things like witch trials as it was to blame secularism for particular wrongs carried out in its name. In which case, if your main problem with religion is the abuses carried out in its name, then maybe you should show a similar level of anger toward secularism.
Point being, it doesn't make sense to judge an ideology/worldview using particular abuses of it.
Quote:Given two systems, I will take the one that bases itself on reality and substance than something (the supernatural) that we cannot even say definitly exists...and are told that we cannot EVER hope to detect. Even if that other system has its drawbacks, at least we are being honest with ourselves as much as we can at any given time.
Oh right. Well if you manage to come up with such a system, let me know.
Joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 3552 Location: NJ
Thanks: 1 Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts
Gender: Country:
Re: f
Ditto to the "Lion's" statement.
And Niall, do not get me wrong. I am one to challenge and smack any type of ignorance and assholeishness in the face. I would, in my daily life, even turn my aggression on an atheist who unnecessarily abuses a theist that is otherwise not being a ass herself. Despite my chosen method of operation here at booktalk, I am a very fair and decent guy.
I am not stupid enough to think that 'no religion'='no human strife'...but I do think that getting rid of it would help to do away with one of the bigger causes of ignorance and predjudice.
Mr. P.
I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana Boditharta (former booktalk troll)
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
What is all this shit about Angels? Have you heard this? 3 out of 4 people believe in Angels. Are you F****** STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? - George Carlin
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
“The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnÂ’t
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
EbrimaÂ’s house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnÂ’t
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
‘Sacred Are the Brave’ a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend TrippersÂ’ is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on TedÂ’s diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
