• In total there are 7 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 7 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

If Theism isn't a Delusion, Then What Is It?

#35: Jan. - Mar. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
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: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Mad: Quote:The question implicit in this whole thread -- and to some degree, in this forum as a whole -- is whether or not there are some things that our senses, even extended by our tools, are insufficient to perceive with any confidence.But that does not leave room for us to just invent gods and the supernatural.I do not buy the rest of your argument, but I may decide to respond in the near future. But it is plain that the rest is just speculative blah blah. Whether or not someone CALLS blue and green by those specific names, the colors still have a different quality on the eye.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
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

me: I'm not saying that our sense are flawed.Frank: It sure sounds that way.To contend that our senses are flawed, I'd first have to establish that they're supposed to be doing something that they're not. My vision is, in that sense, "flawed", because it requires some kind of corrective to bring it to the standard that most humans were evolved to see.What I'm saying is that the kinds of questions that our senses are being employed to answer are not the sort of problems that they were evolved to deal with. That's only a flaw if you take it as given that humans were evolved to know things like how matter works, what's the origin of life, etc.AKA, there is no rational belief no matter what information its based off of, or how logically arrived at.Again, this is a difference in how we conceive of the topic. I don't see reason as some sort of objective knowledge of things. Rather, I see reason as a procedure for elaborating on premises by interrelated, continuous cognitive steps. So a rational belief would be one that derives a conclusion from a stated premise by steps that any rational person could follow. That doesn't mean that the argument is objectively true, only that z follows from a. The truth value of a may still be in question, and that calls z into question by association....but that does not automatically mean that our process is fundamentally faulty or untrustworthy.And I'm not saying that it is. I'm trying to counter a swing in the opposite direction, ie. one that takes that process to be fundamentally trustworthy and essentially infallible as a guide to truth.Science is a process and the things science offers as theory have been tested literally millions, billions, even trillions of times with the same results. These results have been shown to be universal 100% of the time.I think you may have an inflated sense of the operation of science. I'd be interested to see some evidence to the effect that any assertion has been scientifically tested even a quarter as many times as you say they've been tested (unless you're counting high school science lab), or that any tests have been made to confirm the "universality" of the results of any scientific theory.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Quote:MadThat doesn't mean that the argument is objectively true, only that z follows from a. The truth value of a may still be in question, and that calls z into question by association.You seem to be assuming that "a" is faulty without any evidence to support that claim. Quote:MadAnd I'm not saying that it is. I'm trying to counter a swing in the opposite direction, i.e. one that takes that process to be fundamentally trustworthy and essentially infallible as a guide to truth.Again, for all we know it might very well be the truth, and even if it isn't it a far cry more truthful than religion. In any case trying to claim that "z" is faulty without knowing that "a" is faulty is not a rational argument because "a" does have data to support it.Any counter claim has to show flaws in "a" before it should be seriously considered.from my experience most religions try to teach things that are contrary to my personal observations of my reality, science has never done this.Quote:MadI think you may have an inflated sense of the operation of science. I'd be interested to see some evidence to the effect that any assertion has been scientifically tested even a quarter as many times as you say they've been tested (unless you're counting high school science lab), or that any tests have been made to confirm the "universality" of the results of any scientific theory.I am counting every lab in middle school and high school, every chemistry set, makeshift lab and professional lab on this planet. For example, When I was in middle school we did a gravity test, we set up several vacuum chambers and dropped a metal ball and a feather side by side. We witnessed exactly what everyone who conducts this experiment does, the feather and the ball falling at exactly the same speed. This simple experiment is conducted in classrooms all across the nation and when conducted correctly every class without exception experiences the same phenomena. (universal)There are other examples such as MOSI (Museum Of Science and Industry) in Tampa that houses similar experimental equipment for use by visitors, some of these experiments can be preformed hundreds of times in a day at a single location.Other science museums do the same. And these are only the lab experiments there are countless examples of people taking 2 objects of varing weight and dropping them off of something to see if this gravity theory holds weight. (heh, that works on 2 levels) Later
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Frank 013: You seem to be assuming that "a" is faulty without any evidence to support that claim.Why do you keep harping on the word "faulty"? You're like a broken record. I didn't bring that term into play. What I'm saying is that a is arational. Even if a is substantiated by logical argument, it's only substantiated in reference to another alogical premise. That's "faulty" only if you assume that logical arguments should be devoid of any arational premises, and if that's your assumption, then it makes sense to say that there is no logic.Again, for all we know it might very well be the truth, and even if it isn't it a far cry more truthful than religion.You're right. For all we know, it might be the truth. My point is, "for all we know."For example, When I was in middle school we did a gravity test, we set up several vacuum chambers and dropped a metal ball and a feather side by side. We witnessed exactly what everyone who conducts this experiment does, the feather and the ball falling at exactly the same speed.The real test of the theory would be to craft a different experiment that tested the same principle. Practicing scientists may repeat a published experiment in order to check the original experimenters results, but if they want to challenge their conclusions or the theories derived therefrom, they devise a new experiment that isolates and tests those conclusions in application. Repeating exactly the same experiment only illustrates the conclusions drawn from that experiment. It tests the repeatability of the experiment, but the theory is an interpretation of phenomenon, and its application across the board depends on the assumption that it is applicable in a variety of situations.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Quote:MadWhy do you keep harping on the word "faulty"? You're like a broken record. Why the personal slight? Are you offended by the word faulty?Quote:MadI didn't bring that term into play. What I'm saying is that a is arational. But only if you assume that it is somehow flawed. There is no evidence that it is in anyway flawed or lacking. (Is that a better word) Quote:MadEven if a is substantiated by logical argument, it's only substantiated in reference to another alogical premise. The premise is only alogical if there is reason to believe that it is incomplete, there are no such reasons, not through our senses, not through our technology and not statistically.If you want to keep harping on our sensory limitations that's fine, but until there is some reason to conclude we have missed something that will change the very nature of the theories that seem to rule our universe I am going to argue from the standpoint that they exist as detected, because it is the most rational standpoint available. Quote:MadIt tests the repeatability of the experiment...So it's a test enough said. Later
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Frank 013: Why the personal slight? Are you offended by the word faulty?No; I'm frustrated at constantly seeing you try to fit my arguments into some mold that they weren't intended for. You've decided somewhere along the line that I think our senses are inherently faulty, logic is inherently faulty, we ought to behave as though we can't trust either, religion is blameless and science is worthless. And it doesn't matter how often I connect my actual arguments to more moderate viewpoints, you continue to argue as though I were arguing for those extreme points of view.me: What I'm saying is that a is arational.Frank: But only if you assume that it is somehow flawed. There is no evidence that it is in anyway flawed or lacking.No; you don't have to assume that it is somehow flawed. Arationality is a flaw only if you assume that total rationality is a pre-requisite for any practical application of logic. If that were the case, then having an arational premise would be a flaw. But I don't make that assumption; neither does logic as a philosophical discipline. It's an unreasonable exectation to have, because we are, as finite beings, incapable of building a logical argument on a completely logical foundation.The premise is only alogical if there is reason to believe that it is incomplete, there are no such reasons, not through our senses, not through our technology and not statistically.I get the feeling that you're not understanding what I mean by alogical. I don't mean illogical -- that would imply that the premise contradicts itself in some way. What I mean by alogical is that the premise is supplied by something other than logical argument. Sense datum is, in that sense, alogical -- it's provided by sensory perception rather than logical thought. Hypotheticals and assumptions are also alogical.You can look at logic as a kind of machine -- a copy machine, say. It performs a specific function, and does that consistently, but it requires external input. That input can be, itself, a photocopy (that is, a premise arrived at by logical argument), but that photocopy is of something that was not itself a photocopy. And in this analogy, whatever was not a photocopy (that is, not made by the machine of logic) is alogical.That's what I mean when I say that we don't have access to a purely logical argument. We can't make an argument that doesn't ultimately derive from something provided by some faculty other than logic.
User avatar
Frank 013
Worthy of Worship
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
18
Location: NY
Has thanked: 548 times
Been thanked: 171 times

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

MadI get the feeling that you're not understanding what I mean by alogical.I think you are correct, I thought you were explaining it as I was debating against.And I agree with the premise, except when it is used in a debate to allow for logic leaping.Later
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6498
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Dawkins emphasises the definition of theism as 'supernaturalism'. Supernaturalism most certainly is delusional, as natural evolutionary science provides a sufficient explanation for truth without postulating miracles or a Creator being who is more complex than the creation. I saw a review of The God Delusion in the New York Review of Books where the critic elides from rational natural theology (God as Einsteinian ground of being, etc) into illogical and baseless beliefs in supernaturalism. You cannot use arguments for a naturalistic God (= universe) to critique Dawkins' demolition of supernaturalism! I am convinced that Christianity still has not come to terms with Copernicus, as the idea of "salvation = going to heaven" only makes sense in a flat earth universe. Since Luther described Copernicus as "an upstart astrologer" Protestantism has remained in thrall to a delusional idea of heaven. And the Catholics are worse - eg limbo. Despite these comments, I continue to call myself a Christian, because we need a new naturalistic concept of salvation, understood as evolutionary adaptation. The story of Jesus is to me at the centre of human history, in terms of the confrontation between truth and power. Taking this story in natural terms, I believe we can re-write Christian theology to exclude supernaturalism while retaining the Einsteinian God. For example, Jesus taught us (Matt 6:10) to pray 'thy will be done on earth as in heaven'. This can be interpreted to mean that heaven is our ideal vision of love and justice and wholism, so our efforts should go to transforming the earth to align it with this vision. Similarly, Jesus said (John 3:17) 'I came not to condemn the world but to save it'. This idea of saving the world (not saving souls) entirely conflicts with the supernaturalist error, and with its crazy ideas such as the rapture. As Paul said (Rom 8:22), 'creation groans in travail' - meaning the eschaton should be expected as a rupture in our current world view, not a magical rapture. And when Malachi (3:2) speaks of the refiners fire, it is precisely the Dawkinsian robust and rigorous focus on truth that the prophet is demanding.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: If Theism isn\'t a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

Niall001 wrote:Frank, that\'s because there isn\'t really a definition for delusion. It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean most of the time.Generally, something is thought of as being a delusion if it is an uncommon perception, which brings into focus the fact that when people speak of reality, they generally speak of a bunch of things the vast majority of people agree about.
I think there is a clear definition of the word "delusion"
Oxford Dictionary:

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder:

From the mouth of a scientist in particular, the word is clearly being utilized with the intent to both ridicule and dismiss religion as anything but an irrational meme.
Why don't scientists dismiss string and M theory as "delusional" guess work till direct evidence becomes available?
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: If Theism isn't a Delusion, Then What Is It?

Unread post

All semantic games aside, and all of the "What the bleep do we know" type of BS aside, it's rather obvious that supernaturalism is a delusion world view. It may even be a dominant world view at present, but that doesn't make it any less delusional. It does represent a psychological problem in the mind of the person believing it. Science may be struggling to completely understand the structure of matter but that in no way puts the scientist on the same delusional grounds as the supernatural religionist.

The creation story contradicts itself as of the first day of creation (see signature below). The creation story is completely unsupported when observing the actual geological record of the earth. The earth is very old, plain and simple. The only position warranted towards religious claims is an agnostic one, as Interbane has demonstrated time and time again on these forums. There isn't enough information to move past an agnostic position.

Can the same be said of the structure matter? What exactly are we talking about here in terms a - z? Does a represent space, or matter, or some type of Aether / substance theory? I'd like to better understand where that argument is coming from.
Post Reply

Return to “The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins”