A few general thoughts on The God Delusion

[MotK]

I listened to the unabridged audiobook of The God Delusion not long after it came out. Since it has been so long, please forgive me if my quotes are not precise or verbatim. I do remember a hope of Mr. Dawkins presented early in the book that believers in God would approach The God Delusion honestly and see the alternative that is atheism. I accepted this challenge as I listened.

I will be up-front with you all. I am a firm believer in God. I believe - based on the data I have come to believe as evidence - that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Although I do believe in a God who created the universe, I am not by definition a creationist. I say that because I do not believe - as they do - that the Earth was created some six thousand years ago in six literal 24-hour days. Provable science confirms that the creationist understanding of the original Hebrew in Genesis to be an error. (For further details, please PM me.) As a believer in God, I am sure there are many - thought probably not all - reading this that have many preconceptions about my religious beliefs. To be fair, there are probably a few preconceptions I have about atheists being considerably hostile to my views. After all, posting my thoughts about God here in a room full of atheists is like walking into a lion's den!

However, I wish to present some of the problems I have with Richard Dawkins' book, and I wish to express them respectfully. I do hope that your responses will mirror the respect I am attempting to show you all.

First, I would be remiss if I did not agree with Mr. Dawkins on a number of points he presented in his book. For one, horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Most of the world's religions are guilty of the worst atrocities ever befallen humankind, and all of these crimes done in the name of God. I whole-heartedly share his disgust with these religions. For one thing, many of these religions claims to be Christian, yet many of them fail to comprehend the seriousness their leader, Jesus, placed on staying out of the political arena. It is my contention that true Christians remain politically neutral, as history shows the first-century Christians were.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that just because these horrible things have been done in the name of God precludes the existence of God. After all, just because someone commits murder or robbery in the name of Richard Dawkins does not mean that Richard Dawkins does not exist, nor does it mean that he approves of what has been done in his name. Instead, my view is that the crimes against humanity committed by professed Christians merely shows the effect of false religion has on mankind. There is nothing in the New Testament (or Greek Scriptures) that tells Christians to convert by taking up arms. (In the Old Testament, the taking up of arms was only tolerated because the nation of Israel had borders to defend. Not so with Christianity which is open to all nations.) The fact that these religions have so blasphemed the name of God is despicable in my view.

However, the problem I have with many of the views presented by Mr. Dawkins is the same as that of the scientific community - in fact, much of academia in general. And that problem can most simply be described as arrogance (although that word may be perhaps too strong). I myself am a student of many sciences. I understand the fundamentals of science and have a respectful awe for what this tool has been able to afford us in our understanding of the natural world. Yet, like any other tool, I believe science can be used properly, as well as abused (as I'm sure many of you would say that creationists and literalists are guilty of).

There are some inherent flaws in the scientific method. For one, science is limited to the study of what can be observed. Secondly, the conclusions made by scientists can - and sometimes do - result by way of their interpretation of the data.

On the first point mentioned above, science serves to understand the natural world by virtue of what can be observed and studied. This is an excellent method, except that it does not take into account that which - at present - can not be observed. For example, imagine if you were able to travel back in time two hundred years. Now imagine trying to explain to someone the concept of radio waves or quantum mechanics. The technology of the time would limit your ability to present a convincing argument. Thus, as far as the people of that time are concerned, those things did not exist. However, we now know that they do exist and based on many of the principles of those discoveries, we enjoy many of the conveniences of the modern world. My point though is that just because something can not be studied by direct observation does not mean it does not exist. There were once many things that could not be studied, and there may be many things that do exist that we do not - at present - have the technology to observe. To say categorically that what cannot be observed does not exists is disingenuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

My other concern with the scientific method is the human tendency to suppress or otherwise excuse away the existence of data that goes against many preconceived notions and assumptions. One must be honest and admit that scientists - no matter how prestigious the schools they attended - are just as human as the rest of us and are just as prone to making mistakes and false conclusions based on misleading or unavailable evidence. As just an example, consider some of the archaeological digs done around the world, particularly in Egypt. Since the authorities over that land have closed off many areas for explorations, archaeologists are forced to come to conclusions based on the evidence they do have available. However, those conclusions might be completely false. In fact, there have been some occasions where such a thing has happened. The discovery of the existence of the Babylonian king Belshazzar (widely dismissed up to that point) is just one example. Regardless, the important point I am trying to make is that data is subject to interpretation (as is much of the world around us) and as such, there is a need for scientists to be willing to abandon their previously held views if and when new evidence comes to light. Granted, there are many scientists - including many here I imagine - that are willing to do just that. However, I believe that letting go of prior conclusions can be very uncomfortable for anyone - including those in academia. I believe there is a reluctance on the part of many to ignore evidence that comes along that goes contrary to their conclusions.

For example, consider Mr. Dawkins conclusions regarding the seemingly intelligent design of the natural world. He declares this as merely an illusion, that there is no actual design around us, except that brought along by natural selection. My contention here is that Mr. Dawkins seems to be disregarding one conclusion in favor of another based on previously held conclusions. If the natural world appears to be designed, then why is it so difficult to conclude there to be a Designer, other than that such a conclusion runs contrary to one's prior conclusions. I understand the simplicity of the Bible verse in Hebrews that says, "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God," may put some of you off, but I implore you to understand the principle behind that verse, namely, that if something appears to be intricately designed, then it is not so far-fetched a conclusion (or the very least a theory) that a Designer exists.

Overall, though, I did enjoy listening to The God Delusion since it allowed me into the mind of someone who I couldn't disagree more with on most of his conclusions. One point in particular that bugged me (and my apologies in advance if my quote is not perfect) is on a point Mr. Dawkins made regarding the origin of life. As I remember, the spontaneous spark of life coming about by chance is on an astronomical order so large as to be considered impossible. However, as Mr. Dawkins concluded, "it only has to happen once, and it did at one point, because here we are." Again, this is a conclusion I believe Mr. Dawkins wants to assume instead of having any facts to support it. In the absence of real evidence on the origin of life - that first moment life began - scientists are left to make bold assumptions and conclusions based on the available evidence (of which, admittedly by most, there is none). This is not too dissimilar to the archaeologist mentioned above who is forced to make conclusions based on missing data and that may in fact be completely wrong. Again, since little actual evidence exists on those first moments of life on this planet, it is only fair that if Mr. Dawkins assumption about life spontaneously coming into existence is valid, then an assumption that someone Eternal caused it should be considered equally valid. That is, of course, if you are willing to abandon previously held conclusions. As a result of this logic, I don't see how anyone can call themselves an atheist - that is, one who is certain there is no God. I believe, if one is approaching the matter honestly, that they are either a believer or at most, an agnostic. After all, without evidence one way or another, how can anyone be certain?

In listening to the audiobook concerning the origin of life, I was reminded of the experiment conducted by Dr. Miller in the 1950s. I'm sure you are all aware of his attempt to crudely produce life by zapping a beaker filled with proteins with electricity to symbolize lightning. Yet, I can't help but wonder that if the beaker represented an early earth, and the electrical spark represented lightning, then who did Dr. Miller represent?

Nevertheless, I have to say that despite some obvious reservations going in, I did try to approach Mr. Dawkins book with an open mind. However, I am happy to say that my faith in a Creator has not been shaken. I am sure there are many reading this who cannot believe that I could reach such a conclusion.

I believe, before and after reading The God Delusion, that true science and true religion are not at odds with one another. Provided, of course, that science is used responsibly and religion is as well. Again, I have no axe to grind with the conclusion that the Earth may be millions - if not billions - of years old. After all, this is proven science. Where my problem lies is with those who attempt to explain the nature of the universe with unproven or dishonest science. And there are many out there that attempt to do so. I believe they do themselves and indeed the rest of us a great disservice by ignoring one theory categorically when - on the matter of the origin of life - there is no "proven" evidence.

I am sure many of you by now have comments so I will retire my observations for the moment.

[John_Geeshu]

Hi MotK, welcome to the forums and thank you for posting your thoughts. And thank you for your tone, it's refreshing to see. You're right, I do have a lot to say about what you've written because there is a lot to reply to. I'm going to abridge it a lot and zero in on a few points only. Others, if they choose to can address the issues I don't.

If you do some browsing of the forums, you will find objections to all of your arguments. Indeed, while I have no reason to believe you have not listened to the audio book, I have every reason, based on what I read here, to think that you have not understood Richard's points at all. This is an all-to-common problem, and I think that it stems largely from several different sources, amongst them fallacious reasoning indemic in many believers', and the faith-buttressed insulation to reasoning from years of indoctrination, which the believers I encounter exhibit almost universally.

There are critical flaws in your arguments, and I hope that my comments, and others', will prompt you to abandon them, or at least modify them so that they are of a more robust nature.

You're right of course that showing how organized religion is responsible for crimes against humanity is not an argument against the existence of God, however, this is not the purpose of the argument and so you are knocking down a straw man. The purpose of this argument is to show that religion exacerbates tribalism leading to increased disagreements between groups, and that belief in propositions that have no evidence in favor of them is dangerous. This is faith, and religious belief is founded on it.

You refer to "false" religion. Can you define what false religion is? I smell the no true Scotsman fallacy at work. Assuming you are a christian, do you consider the Islamic, Mormon and Jewish faiths to be false religion, or are you just talking about any religious person who does something identified as bad. Who decides what is bad, and where do you draw the line between the good and the bad, which makes you an adherent of false religion. Is it theft? Dishonesty? Murder? Assisted suicide? Selfishness? Greed? Homosexual marriage? Non-marital sex? Anal intercourse? Drinking blood and eating human flesh?

You appear to have only a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method, and of science in general based upon what you have written. The scientific method does not say anything about god, one way or another. And science is largely mute on the question of the existence of the 10,000 gods that have been worshipped down through history. You might check out Victor Stenger's, "God: The Failed Hypothesis."

It's meaningless, I'm sure you'll agree, to say that science cannot rule out the existence of something that cannot be observed. For instance, suppose I tell you that I can use the power of my mind to create tiny particles called "mini electrons," but these particles are so small that they cannot be seen under an electron microscope, and their effects on the world also cannot be observed or measured.

In what way is this claim different from my next claim?

I cannot create "mini electrons" with the power of my mind and you cannot observe them or measure their effects because no such thing exists.

You also state, quite correctly, that conclusions arrise from how scientists interpret the data. But science knows this and it uses controls, double-blind experiment design, peer review, and demands that data be replicable under identical conditions any time and any place. Science is self-correcting and goes to great lengths to protect against error. Theology, on the other hand, has none of these features.

The argument from design is tired and has been soundly refuted. Your reasoning to the illusion of design in the natural world is critically flawed. That we have a simple, yet powerful theory based on natural processes that explains how the complexity of life arose and that is supported by an astounding, overwhelming amount of empirical evidence and no evidence that contradicts it, as well as the fact that the theory can be used to successfully make accurate predictions, renders the supernatural creator hypothesis redundant. (Apologies for the run-on.) It was bad when it was first proposed, it is equally bad now.

Next you turn to abiogenesis, which we don't yet understand and can't explain. Of course we have only been at it a short time and because we can't go back to the beginning it is more difficult to design appropriate methodology to investigate it. However, this does not mean that we will not have an answer to abiogenesis in the future that is as powerful an answer to god didit, as the theory of evolution is in rebuttal of the argument from design.

Miller's experiment, while not closing the door on the debate, did show that amino acids could arise via these processes. If we accept that all that is needed is the right atmospheric elements and electricity, which in of themselves need no creator to exist, where is the need to posit god sending the spark. Are you suggesting that we are an experiment set up by some intergalactic Dr. Miller? Where's your evidence for this?

You reference unproven or dishonest science in the second to last graph of your post. Which science are you referring to? Please cite your sources/references.

Now two questions for you. Which god do you believe in? And on what basis do you accept that god and reject the other 9,999?

Thank you.

[Gallstones]

With regards to your second to last paragraph, which unproven and dishonest science are you referring to? I would like to see a list of verifiable examples. These allegations you make can not be rebutted without knowing the specifics. If you please, MotK?

[Gallstones]

MotK, I would like to refer you to a couple of references that directly address a portion of your argument.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.sto ... futed.html

RE: Panel 11

The pamphlet [Jack Chick's Big Daddy]falsely implies that if something has not been directly observed, it has to be taken on faith, and cannot, therefore, be scientific. In science, a large amount of indirect evidence is just as valid as a smaller amount of indirect evidence. Similarly, a court of law may convict someone in the absence of any direct evidence. (The accused was not seen pulling the trigger, but he did have a motive, he was in the area, and his fingerprints were found on the gun). Science doesn’t deal in absolute truths, but it can, like a court of law, prove things “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of the evidence available - even in the absence of direct evidence. Archaeologists have never met the people they study, but have ample evidence that they existed.

Also being discussed at RDnet, here:
Spot the Fallacy
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=46888#p977484

[Monkeyboy]

MotK wrote:

On the first point mentioned above, science serves to understand the natural world by virtue of what can be observed and studied. This is an excellent method, except that it does not take into account that which - at present - can not be observed. For example, imagine if you were able to travel back in time two hundred years. Now imagine trying to explain to someone the concept of radio waves or quantum mechanics. The technology of the time would limit your ability to present a convincing argument. Thus, as far as the people of that time are concerned, those things did not exist. However, we now know that they do exist and based on many of the principles of those discoveries, we enjoy many of the conveniences of the modern world. My point though is that just because something can not be studied by direct observation does not mean it does not exist. There were once many things that could not be studied, and there may be many things that do exist that we do not - at present - have the technology to observe. To say categorically that what cannot be observed does not exists is disingenuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

It may be arrogant to say that which cannot be observed does not exist but simply not being able to accurately disprove the existence of that something does not automatically promote it to existing. It simply renders it to a theory or hypothesis which needs proving. At best, since there is nothing to actually prove God exists other than the very strong faith many people have, all God is really is a thought, a wishful thought and an ideal. I could argue that to insist God is real without the evidence to support it is the height of arrogance, particularly given the grief this has caused the world.

[Will S]

May I take you up on what is, I think, one of your key points? (Somebody else has commented on it also.)

To say categorically that what cannot be observed does not exists is disingenuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

Judging by the context (you cite the fact that 200 years ago radio waves were unknown) you mean that: To say categorically that what cannot be observed, using current technology, does not exists is disingenuous at best, and arrogant at worst.

Yes, certainly that's true; it would be disingenuous or arrogant or just plain silly if anybody did say that. But who does? I am perfectly certain that Dawkins doesn't. Indeed, if I remember rightly, Dawkins has addressed this issue very specifically in connection with the James Randi $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate genuine paranormal phenomena. He expressed concern that someone might, possibly, be able, legitimately, to win the prize using some novel technology which is currently unknown to mainstream science. (For example, before knowledge of radioactivity became part of mainstream science, it would have been possible for somebody to produce 'paranormal' images on unexposed photographic plates using 'magic' rocks.)

So why do you (by implication, at least) attribute this view to Dawkins? Can you support it by quotes from The God Delusion?

One final comment. Obviously, it depends very much on the individual, but, if you are trying to take on board and to criticise a detailed set of arguments which some writer had put up, is listening to an audiobook the best way to go about it? I ask only because I'm sure that I myself couldn't do justice to an author in this way.

[MotK]

Well it looks like I've gotten a little more than I bargained for here. But allow me first to thank everyone who has replied so far for participating in a respectful manner.

I suppose the first thing I should do is admit that many of you were able to see the overall theme in my review of The God Delusion. And forgive me if some of the conclusions I made appeared to be slights against Richard personally. It doesn't take an atheist to see how sincere Mr. Dawkins is in his views and conclusions!

To respond to many of your objections, some of you will have to at least TRY to see things from my perspective - particularly, as a believer. Of course, to say "false religion" without any PROOF would be the height of arrogance. I suppose the best standard of determining false from true religions would be whether any religion teaches the truth. For example, what happens after we die? Is there an immortal part of us called a soul that lives on, either to continue a righteous life in heaven or suffer eternally in hellfire? I'm certain most - if not everyone - in this forum would say that either is rubbish, that put simply, nothing happens at death. We simply die. The ironic thing is that on this occasion, what most atheists believe is actually supported in the Bible. Namely, that the body dies and the soul is not immortal. (Ezekiel 18:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5)

Based on this conclusion, would you agree that any religion that teaches that the soul lives on after death is false in their understanding? Would it be fair to call them a "false" religion? (Naturally, most of you would be inclined to conclude that ANY religion is false, but bear with me here for a few moments.) Of course, many - if not all - of these religions have at one time or another gotten involved in the politics of their day and been at least partly responsible for the world's ills. Many atheists therefore believe that religion - if permitted to exist at all - should NOT be involved in the political system. Again, the Bible actually supports this view. Jesus told his followers to be "no part of the world." When some in his day tried to make Jesus king, he refused and later stated to a Roman governor that his Kingdom was no part of this world. History shows that Christians in the first century refused to meddle in political affairs and did not participate in the military.

For different reasons then, it APPEARS that atheism and what I will call "true religion" actually have some common ground. So please understand that I am not necessarily trying to attack your convictions in disbelief of any god.

If I am trying to attack anything here, it is the arrogance - apparent at least to my eyes - that exists in the scientific community today. I suppose it is only fair that science attempt to claim a monopoly on truth especially considering how false religion has misled people with their claim to truth over the centuries. Of course, nor am I trying to say that we are part of some experiment set up by God as one commenter alluded to above in my discussion about Dr. Miller. In that example, I was merely trying to suggest that if these experiments we conduct are meant to conclude anything, then it may not be in our best interest to assume that the scientist conducting the experiment is without a counterpart.

Anyway, like I said before, as a student of many sciences over my life, I have seen many attempts to categorically refuse to accept conclusions that go against preconceived notions. When this has happened, data has been suppressed and false conclusions are reached. This has occurred - albeit rarely - at times even with many of the "catches" put in place such as peer review. Of course, if many of your peers share the same preconceived notions as you do, how reliable then can their review be in catching your mistakes? Like I said, this hasn't occurred but a handful of times, but it does allow one to conclude that scientists CAN be just as susceptible as the rest of us in terms of succumbing to pride and dishonesty. More often than this rather extreme of scenarios, the aforementioned example regarding archeology suffices to exemplify what can occur when ALL of the evidence is lacking. To reach a dogmatic conclusion based on only SOME of the evidence is unfair.

Your thoughts?

[Zoron]

Your thoughts?

You make no sense, you write a lot but don't have any solid content and don't address anything. You are not intellectually equipped to even form proper questions, let alone have proper methods of answering them.

Let me summarize it for you.
Obviously the first notion of intention in nature was a necessity for early humans because human brain is a pattern seeking brain, only false correlations could be made(globally, not about survival obviously, that's why it's pattern seeking in the first place). Over time this notion evolved to an anthropomorphized monolithic concept-->god, with specifics derived from cultural idiosyncrasies.

The fact that we today discuss god is not a consequence of any validity for it on any avenue of reasoning, but it is a consequence of history, the ideas about governing structure of reality of early humans embedded itself in cultures and that is the primary source of its legitimacy-->tradition/mental habit, it is self constructing.
You mention bible, this is one such tradition and bible has been thoroughly debunked from every conceivable angle...

All this we can say now because we have anthropology, neurology, history, biology, psychology, sociology and physics, we didn't have any of those before.

But I don't think this is going anywhere, you just continue harping on about some silly arrogance not seeing the great irony.

[John_Geeshu]

Zoron,

I don't think you can conclude that MotK is intellectually unequipped to debate this topic based on two posts. Although I do agree that his response lacked content.

MotK, in my experience it is far more productive if you address as specifically as possible the objections raised to the OP. Otherwise all we are doing is making noise. You response was a long non-sequitur.

I'll condense my challenges to your positions here, you can refer back to my earlier post for more information.

1. Bad things religion has done do not show it's false straw man.
2. Define "false religion."
3. Difference between an effect that cannot be measured and no effect at all.
4. Evolution makes the "Designer hypothesis" redundant -- Ockam's Razor
5. You have now twice referenced unproven or dishonest science in your posts. Which science are you referring to? Please cite your sources/references.

And then the two questions you noticeably skirted.

6. Which god do you believe in?
7. And on what basis do you accept that god and reject the other 9,999?

You did address in part #3, but you deinition of a false religion was meaningless. I don't know what it means for a religion to be "false." I think that the god Hypothesis is false, yes. But how can a religion be "true" or "false," unless you are basing this proposition solely on the question of gods' existence? In which case you have yet to produce evidence of said god's existence. You offer that a religion can be judged to be true if it teaches the truth? This is as circular as an argument comes.

Islam is the true religion if it teaches the truth.
Islam teaches the truth.
Therefore, Islam is the true religion.

So you didn't address this question at all. So point #2 stands unchallenged.

You should avoid using Biblical quotations to buttress your arguments unless you are prepared to offer your argument that the book is anything but a bronze age collection of myths.

When I get a response to the rest of these the dialogue can advance.

P.S. Be careful using "proof," as many if not most here recognise only mathematical proofs in this area.

[Will S]

To respond to many of your objections, some of you will have to at least TRY to see things from my perspective - particularly, as a believer.

It may seem harsh, but why? Why will some of us 'have to at least TRY to see things from ... (your) ... perspective'.?

The world is stuffed full of people with no end of different ideas. If you take a historical perspective, you find an even greater variety of, discarded, ideas. These ideas cannot possibly all be true, since they contradict each other. Nor is it possible for anyone, in an ordinary human lifetime, to consider more than a tiny fraction of them.

So if you have some particular set of ideas which you want to recommend to other people (I presume that's why you posted the OP), then - sorry - you have to shoulder the burden of explaining to other people why you think these ideas are true. It's futile to demand that people 'try to see things from your point of view'.

It's fair to say, I think, that what you have, so far, not made much attempt to justify your own beliefs. What you've done, mostly, is to criticise Dawkins's beliefs. Or rather, what you think are Dawkins's beliefs, because as I said in a previous message (to which you haven't responded) I think you seriously misrepresent Dawkins in one important respect at least.

Forgive my cynicism, but, reading your messages, I get the impression that you are claiming some kind of 'benefit of clergy'. You may, or may not, be a minister of religion (I don't know), but you seem to be suggesting that we atheists have a duty to listen to what you, MotK, have to say. We don't, for we can't - life isn't long enough.

So, if you think that our atheism is mistaken, then what you need to do is to present the strongest evidence and arguments you can find about why it is mistaken. Presenting such a case clearly and persuasively gives you your best chance of being listened to.