The God Delusion

[Crunchy]

though it is funny to see Christians try and prove that science in on their side, saying the world is 10-12,000 years old and man existed along side the dinosaurs and all that BS.

Science and Religion are at odds, mainly because science proves religion to be wrong.

Though this may seem a bit blunt, i think its time to pick a side and stick to it. if you're not sure then educate yourself, research secular sources (as religious ones are often heavily bias and false), and more than anything, openly debating and respecting each others beliefs is key, but remember respect and acceptance are two completely different things.

[Ozzy420]

Im still of the opinion that science and religion are in opposition.

I hear alot of people say that science and religion are just two different ways of knowing, they answer different questions about the world.

But if the role of science is to understand the physical universe, then what is religions role? Understanding the non physical universe? What the hell is that even meant to be?

 

 

That is why this debate will go on until the end of time, no matter how u were brought up what u believe in or don't believe in ppl will have diffrent views, and IMHO that is what has started wars since history has started as we know it...

[BaronS]

Ocelot, science can explain both the physical and non-physical (energistic?) universe. Belief systems are 'outside' the realm of science.

[coughmaster]

Ocelot good topic great book im a dawkins fan and hitchens i just got rational thought on dvd a good watch as well

[Nooby]

I own this marvelous book, Richard Dawkins lays out his personal critique of religion and belief in god and never misses with any of his points, first and foremost he is an evolutionary biologist/geneticist, and claims that the fact of evolution was enough to convince him at a young age that there was almost certainly no god.

What do you think of this book if you have read it? If not what is your opinion of the so called "new athesits", authors like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet? If your not familiar with them hop onto youtube and watch some of the debates they engage in, its really quite facinating.

 

 

Yup, I've read it, thought it was rubbish and simply preaching to the choir, I realise it's a controversial topic so I wont get into it too much. For those who are interested a much better read was 'The Dawkins delusion' by McGrath, although he doesn't address EVERY fault in dawkins' book he addresses the main ones.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

 

Also some decent books starting come out addressing the so-called 'new' Atheists.

 

http://www.amazon.com/God-New-Atheism-Crit...e/dp/066423304X

 

http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/16/two-new-boo...he-new-atheism/

 

And:

We've already heard from some classic atheists that the "new atheists" were an embarrassment in their reckless and sweeping claims and judgments about religion, science, and reason. And now there seems to be a third camp of atheists - perhaps reviving the spirit of classical atheism, so maybe it's back to v 1.0. These atheists want to engage the discussion about God, religion, and morality rather than dismissing theists as irrational. They express the classical sense of tolerance for different views in the public square, rather than the desire to eradicate religion from public life.

 

USA Today reports:

 

Bruce Sheiman doesn't believe in God, but he does believe in religion.

 

Setting aside the question of whether God exists, it's clear that the benefits of faith far outweigh its costs, he argues in his new book, An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off With Religion than Without It....

 

"More than any other institution, religion deserves our appreciation and respect because it has persistently encouraged people to care deeply — for the self, for neighbors, for humanity, and for the natural world — and to strive for the highest ideals humans are able to envision," Sheiman writes.

 

Another atheist makes this intriguing point:

 

Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative.... A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.

 

"If they privatize faith, they also won't be able to criticize it," Dacey said of the New Atheists an interview.

 

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/10/the-...w-atheists.html

 

 

And for Ocelot,

 

Im still of the opinion that science and religion are in opposition.

 

They're not, real science doesn't conflict with 'religion' at all IMO, the battle is about competing philosophies.

 

Maybe this will help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 

 

Peace.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Nooby

[GIY]

i am atheist. I recognise the potential harm religion can cause (holly war, intolerance) but also recognise the generally greater good it does.

 

Although religion is not for me i believe we are psychologically predisposed to believe in a "god". However, the day we ban the teaching of religious beliefs to children is the day "god" will die. The developing childs brain accepts anything an adult tells it. THis is a useful mechanism that we have evolved, for instance, how can a child know from experience that a nice looking body of water may contain a big green monster aka a crock. It cant therefore children who listen survive to have children (thanks mr darwin) Religion exploits this otherwise useful psychological mechanism of children.

 

Try teaching an adult who has grown up without religion about christianity. Or try teach an adult who grew up with christianity about scientology. the concept of is the same unless u were exposed as a child it sounds preposterous

[Nooby]

So you are espousing then that we brainwash all the kids into one stream of faith rather than actually teaching them how to think, discern and figure things out for themselves but discussing and examining everything? But what you are proposing has already been tried, communist China comes to mind as a place where the kids are taught athiesm from day one, and yet China has the fastest growing Church in the world, go figure.

 

Those who seek the truth will find it regardless of circumstances, those who seek to justify themselves will do that as well.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Nooby

[Ocelot]

Yup, I've read it, thought it was rubbish and simply preaching to the choir, I realise it's a controversial topic so I wont get into it too much. For those who are interested a much better read was 'The Dawkins delusion' by McGrath, although he doesn't address EVERY fault in dawkins' book he addresses the main ones.

 

 

 

And for Ocelot,

 

 

 

[science and religion being in opposition]

They're not, real science doesn't conflict with 'religion' at all IMO, the battle is about competing philosophies.

 

Maybe this will help. /wiki/Scientism[/url]

 

 

Peace.

 

A book can be "rubbish" for any number of reasons, but until those reasons are outlined, its tough to take it seriously as a criticism.

And if you listen to Richards interviews on this book you'll be surprised to find out that "preaching to the choir" is harldly what he had in mind. The book was intended to be read by people who were on the fence about the existence of god, it was never intended to be read by dyed in the wool faith heads for the simple fact that most of them have already decided that their religion is 100% true and are immune to any arguments or evidence which contradict their faith.

 

As for Mcgrath, i have never read his book however ive listened to him twice now being utterly dismantled by both Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in public debates, there is nothing he offers to the discussion which hasnt already been thoroughly kicked out the door.

He was interviewed by Richard for the BBC documentary "Root of All Evil", much of it was left on the cutting room floor, but the full interview can be seen on youtube; once cornered, he like most theologians can only resort to evasions, by the 40 minute mark he begins tripping over his own arguments.

 

In truth, there are really only three ways to argue in defence of god or religion.

 

One way is to argue that a particular religion is true.

 

The second way is to argue that religion or belief in god is somehow usefull.

 

And the last way is to attack reason or non belief as itself another form of religion.

 

Im happy to go into the problems each of these claims contain, but it should be understood that all arguments for faith end up finding one of these rutts.

 

The main reason why religion and reason are fundementally in conflict with one another nooby, is simply because our religions come to us from a time and place when humans didnt know a damn thing about the natural events which really concerned them. Religion was in effect our first attempt at science.

There has never been a question which we once had a scientific answer to, which was then replaced by a religious one. However there are countless examples which run the other way, where religious authority has been battered and nulified by scientific explanation. For obvious reasons i would add.

 

Ocelot

[Ocelot]

Ocelot, science can explain both the physical and non-physical (energistic?) universe. Belief systems are 'outside' the realm of science.

 

IM not sure what you mean when you equate non physical with energistic? The study of energy is the study of the physical world, albeit at a much smaller scale.

 

And what is it to say that belief systems are outside the realm of science? Do you mean that beliefs themselves are not able to be directly observed by science? If so how does this prove that there is a supernatural or non physical realm? there are many things which we are not yet able to directly observe through science, but that does not mean you have immediately jumped the gap into the supernatural...

 

Or maybe you mean that certain belief systems cannot be analysed scientifically, which i would disagree with, there are many religious beliefs for instance which are directly disproved by science.

 

i dislike this whole "outside the realm of science" stuff, since nobody i have ever met has been able to give a consistent definition of what that realm is and has never been able to provide any evidence to suggest that such a realm exists in the first place.

 

I can only quote Thomas Jeffeson here

 

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise [...]. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter"

[Nooby]

A book can be "rubbish" for any number of reasons, but until those reasons are outlined, its tough to take it seriously as a criticism.

And if you listen to Richards interviews on this book you'll be surprised to find out that "preaching to the choir" is harldly what he had in mind. The book was intended to be read by people who were on the fence about the existence of god, it was never intended to be read by dyed in the wool faith heads for the simple fact that most of them have already decided that their religion is 100% true and are immune to any arguments or evidence which contradict their faith.

 

As for Mcgrath, i have never read his book however ive listened to him twice now being utterly dismantled by both Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in public debates, there is nothing he offers to the discussion which hasnt already been thoroughly kicked out the door.

He was interviewed by Richard for the BBC documentary "Root of All Evil", much of it was left on the cutting room floor, but the full interview can be seen on youtube; once cornered, he like most theologians can only resort to evasions, by the 40 minute mark he begins tripping over his own arguments.

 

In truth, there are really only three ways to argue in defence of god or religion.

 

One way is to argue that a particular religion is true.

 

The second way is to argue that religion or belief in god is somehow usefull.

 

And the last way is to attack reason or non belief as itself another form of religion.

 

Im happy to go into the problems each of these claims contain, but it should be understood that all arguments for faith end up finding one of these rutts.

 

The main reason why religion and reason are fundementally in conflict with one another nooby, is simply because our religions come to us from a time and place when humans didnt know a damn thing about the natural events which really concerned them. Religion was in effect our first attempt at science.

There has never been a question which we once had a scientific answer to, which was then replaced by a religious one. However there are countless examples which run the other way, where religious authority has been battered and nulified by scientific explanation. For obvious reasons i would add.

 

Ocelot

 

Cheers dude,

 

I wasn't going to go into all the flaws in Dawkins book for several reasons, 1) I'll be away for a week or so from tomorrow, 2)it's already been torn to shreds by plenty of people far more qualified than me and 3)It was while ago since I read it and i probably don't remember most of his arguments anyway. My point was that unless you are already committed to the atheistic faith or faith in scientism then Dawkins' book just doesn't hold water. And just as people who hold to other worldviews wont be pursuaded by reason, logic and evidence, any arguments against High Priest Dawkins will simply fall on deaf ears. What also doesn't hold any water is this belief that there is a conflict between reason and religion, between 'science' and 'faith', it is simply a tool that evangelical atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens etc employ to befuddle the unthinking masses.

 

Anyway, there's plenty of info out there for those who care to look, as i said I'll be away for a week or so so it's up to the rest of you to solves all the universes mysteries before I get back.

 

Cheers