• In total there are 11 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Ch. 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

#35: Jan. - Mar. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Ch. 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

Please use this thread for discussing Chapter 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD.
irishrosem

1E - BANNED
Kindle Fanatic
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:38 am
17

Re: Ch. 4 - WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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).
Federika22

WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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 HypothesisI hope so.
SC98007

Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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-VERSETry 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
ginof
Sophomore
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:06 am
20
Location: San Francisco, CA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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.
User avatar
tarav

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Genuinely Genius
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:25 pm
20
Location: NC

Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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!
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

--

Unread post

Pretty busy at the moment, still. So I've little net time. I'll just share my thoughts on chap 4 as I posted on my blog a few weeks ago.plainofpillars.blogspot.com/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
User avatar
George Ricker

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
Junior
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:21 am
17
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD

Unread post

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."Godless in America by George A. Ricker
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Re: --

Unread post

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 CarlinI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

--

Unread post

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.
Post Reply

Return to “The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins”