Dawkins' The God Delusion

[Jagella]

I just got done reading for the second time Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion. If you're not familiar with this work, then allow me to explain that it spearheaded the "new atheism." The title of The God Delusion, according to Wikipedia, was inspired by Robert Pirsig saying in his Lila: "...when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

The God Delusion has had a significant impact on culture. According to Wikipedia:

In early December 2006, it reached number four in the New York Times Hardcover Non-Fiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list. More than three million copies were sold. According to Dawkins in a 2016 interview with Matt Dillahunty, an unauthorised Arabic translation of this book has been downloaded 3 million times in Saudi Arabia.The book has attracted widespread commentary, with many books written in response.

So this response to The God Delusion is what I would like to discuss. Needless to say, any book calling God a delusion that sells millions of copies is a big threat to Christianity. Apologists have gone on the defensive attacking Dawkins himself as well as his book. They've written books with titles like "The Dawkins Delusion" to assure the faithful that they need not be shaken by people like Dawkins; Dawkins is wrong and Christianity is right.

One criticism in particular that has been leveled at Dawkins is that he just doesn't understand Christianity. He doesn't get the arguments for God by great theologians like Anselm and Aquinas. Since Dawkins doesn't have the credentials to critique these amazing arguments for the existence of God, his The God Delusion need not be taken seriously.

Unfortunately for apologists, Dawkins has a clever rejoinder for these claims against him. He states: "Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" I agree with Dawkins here. Apologists flatter themselves claiming that one needs to be an expert in "God-ology" to see the strengths and potential weaknesses in their arguments for the Bible god. In reality, simple common sense is most often quite adequate to see that the arguments for theism are baloney.

But enough for now about my opinion on The God Delusion...

Question for Debate: What impact if any has The God Delusion had on your opinions on the existence of the gods?

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by Guy Threepwood]

being able to examine your own beliefs is crucial to critical thought, and hence to the scientific method, is it not?

Rather, I would say critical thinking is an aspect of thought processes which can be applied to both scientific and metaphysical/philosophical subjects.

[Jagella]

No, science is provided that something must be falsifiable in the first place for it to be falsified. Multiverse is never made to be falsifiable scientifically. Mainly because humans lack the ability to go outside of our own universe to a completely chaotic and destructive universe to confirm its truth to the extent that this process can be predictably repeatable.

I'm not really a "multiverse believer," but I have read in Scientific American that it might be possible to detect the gravitational effects of other universes on our own.

But anyhow, multiverse or no multiverse, there is no good reason to believe that any god is anything more than a delusion.

[Guy Threepwood]

No, science is provided that something must be falsifiable in the first place for it to be falsified. Multiverse is never made to be falsifiable scientifically. Mainly because humans lack the ability to go outside of our own universe to a completely chaotic and destructive universe to confirm its truth to the extent that this process can be predictably repeatable.

I'm not really a "multiverse believer," but I have read in Scientific American that it might be possible to detect the gravitational effects of other universes on our own.

But anyhow, multiverse or no multiverse, there is no good reason to believe that any god is anything more than a delusion.

Well that's what all this has pretty much come down to- the random generator (of some kind) v creative intelligence (of some kind)


If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, and no sign of anyone ever being there. Do you conclude the random action of the waves did it?

Why not?

Is your conclusion delusional? wishful thinking? or based on rational, logical, deductive reasoning?

[Jagella]

What Dawkins has missed out in his line of reasoning is a simple question. If God is a truth, how can humans reach such a truth?

Well, I think Christians have made it tough to know what truth lies behind their god. They've hidden him away so we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or even smell him!

By the Bible, God is an invisible super entity not living inside our space. So how can humans detect such an entity under the circumstance that He's an almighty who has all the capability to effectively hide from humans, such that humans need faith in Him to be saved?

It might not be hopeless. I understand the Bible god does on occasion talk to people telling them to write books quoting him and telling stories about him. Those faithful authors have written that he has drowned both people and animals, meted out plagues on entire civilizations, impregnated virgins, and raised people from the dead.

So we have something to work with here. We can search for revelations from all-knowing beings, see if any magical floods are drowning animals or people, check if any civilizations are threatened by miraculous plagues, examine virgins for pregnancy, and see if any of the dearly departed have come back to visit us.

God may then not be a delusion after all!

[Mithrae]

Well, like it or not, scientific discoveries are leading us away from religious myths. As astronomer Carl Sagan has said, the more we learn, the less there is for God to do.

Besides, people made up all the gods including yours. Made-up gods can't create universes.

no more than steady state, big crunch, or any other 'made up' theory-

You seriously think that scientists come up with theories the same way that primitive, superstitious people came up with their gods?

From inference based on observation? Broadly speaking the same, yes. While there's no direct evidence, it's reasonable to suppose that primitive humans recognized that since volition was the cause of their own actions, it would likely be the cause of action for streams, clouds and so on also; these animate objects must have minds behind them just as beasts and humans have minds behind our own animation. And like any good theory it probably evolved over time as knowledge, reasoning and comprehension became more sophisticated: The animism supposing a mind behind every rock and tree developed (at least in some societies) into polytheism supposing greater minds, gods, governing rocks and trees generally... and ultimately into the grander yet more parsimonious hypothesis of a single Mind behind all of reality.

Sagan was a great guy, but wrong about this unfortunately. The 'laws of nature' or 'laws of physics' were so named in a time when most scientists believed in a Law-Giver, and have seemingly shaped the way that many folk in subsequent generations have thought of them. They should more appropriately but less grandly be called the Patterns of Nature: They are descriptive models, and so far as we have yet discovered there is little basis for supposing that they must be prescriptive (let alone proscriptive as naturalists assume!).

The question of ultimate causality remains just as open today as it was ten thousand years ago, if not moreso: Deterministic laws? Chaotic randomness? Conscious choice? Or something else entirely? Even if we decide to assume that all of the many, many reported observations contrary to the 'laws of nature' are false - a dubious enough assumption in itself - we're still only left with what are really Patterns of Nature which, particularly given the infinitesimally tiny fraction of nature we've actually observed, are a pretty flimsy basis for concluding determinism.

If anything, conscious choice remains the more reasonable hypothesis; it is, after all, the only form of causality which we experience directly and thus the only one which we can really know (inasmuch as we know anything) actually does occur. There's ultimately "no evidence" for any other form of causality!



Edit: What's particularly curious is the relationship between this question of teleology and the question of ontology discussed in my earlier post #15. Thought/consciousness as a mode of being seems to go hand in hand, at least in our experience, with choice/volition as a mode of doing or causation. Choice is meaningless without thought, and (a little more dubiously) thought is meaningless without choice, a mere script-following charade.

However a similar relationship does not seem to exist in the alternative views; there's no particular reason why physical matter should behave in a patterned, deterministic manner rather than chaotically, randomly. So while I would argue that for both the question of ontology and (slightly less so) the question of teleology/causation a broadly panentheistic hypothesis is the most plausible, it's also interesting that each 'side' of this ultimate question reinforces the other for that hypothesis, in contrast to materialism. It amounts to little more than an internal coherence or elegance I suppose, but it's still worth noting.

[Jagella]

If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, and no sign of anyone ever being there. Do you conclude the random action of the waves did it?

Why not?

That's an interesting question. Although I might not see other signs of other people on that island, the HELP on the rock would be an obvious sign that people had been there.

But if I am to assume that I have good reason to believe the island was never before inhabited or even seen by people (a dubious assumption), then I'm left wondering how the HELP was inscribed on the rock. It's entirely possible that some natural process is responsible, but depending on the quality of the lettering, natural processes might seem unlikely.

So I might just need to reserve judgment not knowing how the lettering was inscribed on the rock.

Is your conclusion delusional? wishful thinking? or based on rational, logical, deductive reasoning?

I'd describe my non-conclusion as "humble." I'm not so arrogant as to pretend I know what I don't know.

By the way, aside from humans, we see no symbolic writing in nature. There are no planets or stars that spell out HELP. A personal god might very well spell her word out on a cosmic scale, but we see none of that. Nature is a very random and impersonal thing that shows no concern at all for us people. It is then a delusion to think that the cosmos was created for us.

[Guy Threepwood]

If you see HELP spelled with rocks on a deserted island beach, and no sign of anyone ever being there. Do you conclude the random action of the waves did it?

Why not?

That's an interesting question. Although I might not see other signs of other people on that island, the HELP on the rock would be an obvious sign that people had been there.

But if I am to assume that I have good reason to believe the island was never before inhabited or even seen by people (a dubious assumption), then I'm left wondering how the HELP was inscribed on the rock. It's entirely possible that some natural process is responsible, but depending on the quality of the lettering, natural processes might seem unlikely.

So I might just need to reserve judgment not knowing how the lettering was inscribed on the rock.

Is your conclusion delusional? wishful thinking? or based on rational, logical, deductive reasoning?

I'd describe my non-conclusion as "humble." I'm not so arrogant as to pretend I know what I don't know.

By the way, aside from humans, we see no symbolic writing in nature. There are no planets or stars that spell out HELP. A personal god might very well spell her word out on a cosmic scale, but we see none of that. Nature is a very random and impersonal thing that shows no concern at all for us people. It is then a delusion to think that the cosmos was created for us.

To clarify the analogy; 'HELP' is spelled with rocks not inscribed on one-

the point being that the random action of the waves represents the multiverse, it is capable of producing any pattern. And while you are granted this mechanism as 100% existing, we need only allow the possibility that intelligent design could have been involved to conclude that as being the less improbable explanation

This is not meant to be a slam-dunk case for God in itself, but why this conclusion is reached is an interesting question, and regards the phenomena of coded symbols, information systems- and the capacity of naturalistic v intelligent phenomena to create them- there is an objective mathematical measure here which has nothing to do with the preferences and biases of world views either way

aside from humans, we see no symbolic writing in nature

are you quite sure? You could argue that particular assertion with this guy:

"The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . .
"
Richard Dawkins

DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.

Bill Gates

[Jagella]

the point being that the random action of the waves represents the multiverse, it is capable of producing any pattern. And while you are granted this mechanism as 100% existing, we need only allow the possibility that intelligent design could have been involved to conclude that as being the less improbable explanation

You're making a very common mistake made by apologists; you seem to think you know what these probabilities are. We have no idea how probable either the multiverse or "intelligent design" are. I'd place my bet on the multiverse as more probable, though, because scientists say it follows directly from quantum mechanics while gods are the products of human cultures. Gods created by people cannot create universes or anything else.

aside from humans, we see no symbolic writing in nature

are you quite sure? You could argue that particular assertion with this guy:

"The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code...

You're making another common mistake I see being made by apologists and in particular the ID people. I said that aside from human activity, there is no symbolic writing in nature. The genetic code is not symbolic but is made up of atoms that make up a functioning molecule. Symbolic writing, by contrast, is made up of things that represent sounds to intelligent agents like people. So these very letters you are reading now are symbols that some humans invented as a way to visually represent spoken language.

To reiterate, we see none of this kind of symbolic writing in the cosmos except on the part of people. DNA and RNA are molecules that no doubt evolved via natural processes, and unlike symbolic writing, we need not posit any "intelligent design" to explain them.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 58 by Jagella]

You're making a very common mistake made by apologists; you seem to think you know what these probabilities are. We have no idea how probable either the multiverse or "intelligent design" are. I'd place my bet on the multiverse as more probable, though, because scientists say it follows directly from quantum mechanics while gods are the products of human cultures. Gods created by people cannot create universes or anything else.

What is the probability that the waves produced 'HELP'? .. Difficult to calculate, we only know that there are vastly more arrangements of the stones which would not convey any meaning.

i.e. it's not that spelling HELP is any less probable than any particular random pattern.. it's that the coded meaning implies a less improbable explanation - ID


Similarly 4 royal flushes in a row, is no less likely than any particular sequence of 20 cards is it?, but if it happens we know someone is probably cheating- because the specific outcome provides a potential motive and hence a far LESS improbable explanation- unless we can utterly rule cheating out- which we cannot

so simply ask yourself how certain you have to be, that no ID could possibly be involved, before you would be forced to conclude the waves washed up "HELP' and the 4 royal flushes were a fluke?

Both examples are selling the universe extremely short, so are you at least this convinced that God cannot possibly exist?


After all by your own logic, our universe, ourselves, and hence the phenomena of creative intelligence- follows 'naturally' from quantum mechanics... yet you know of some restriction that prevents this system creating other intelligent beings beyond what we are aware of?

You're making another common mistake I see being made by apologists and in particular the ID people. I said that aside from human activity, there is no symbolic writing in nature. The genetic code is not symbolic but is made up of atoms that make up a functioning molecule. Symbolic writing, by contrast, is made up of things that represent sounds to intelligent agents like people. So these very letters you are reading now are symbols that some humans invented as a way to visually represent spoken language.

To reiterate, we see none of this kind of symbolic writing in the cosmos except on the part of people. DNA and RNA are molecules that no doubt evolved via natural processes, and unlike symbolic writing, we need not posit any "intelligent design" to explain them.

Well again I agree with Dawkins and Gates on this one, DNA absolutely represents a symbolic digital code, uncannily similar to our own digital software systems, just in a different medium- we use lots of different mediums also.

Yes of course life does it differently, with 'biological' materials not silicon chips, or pits on a plastic disc, or rocks on a beach, holes in tape, ink on a page, or spikes on a drum in old musical devices- the medium doesn't matter- all represent coded hierarchical information systems: code which does not directly produce something itself, but symbolizes something to be translated by the information system - be it text color in this forum, eye color in a human, DiCaprio's face on a Titanic dvd, the position of legs on an insect..

We have an entirely distinct information system here in all these examples, and only one proven mechanism by which they can originate, and it's not by natural processes.

DNA and RNA are molecules that no doubt evolved via natural processes

^^^^

"atheistic beliefs" (whatever they might be)

[Jagella]

What is the probability that the waves produced 'HELP'?

Since it's possible that waves may create a pattern like HELP among rocks, then the probability is greater than zero, but that's about all I can say about the probability of wave motion creating the letters HELP with rocks.

i.e. it's not that spelling HELP is any less probable than any particular random pattern.. it's that the coded meaning implies a less improbable explanation - ID

The ID people here are assuming that there is intentional meaning in the rock formation, but we don't know that if there is intentional meaning in those rocks. Since there can only be intentional meaning as a result of something that has an intention, like an intelligent agent, the ID people are assuming what they are trying to prove.

Similarly 4 royal flushes in a row, is no less likely than any particular sequence of 20 cards is it?, but if it happens we know someone is probably cheating- because the specific outcome provides a potential motive and hence a far LESS improbable explanation- unless we can utterly rule cheating out- which we cannot

Why not just leave the four flushes to chance? It's possible that your cards came up that way. I'd only assume that somebody is cheating if I had some reason to think somebody is messing with the deck of cards. Getting an improbable hand of cards is not sufficient evidence to conclude that cheating is taking place.

so simply ask yourself how certain you have to be, that no ID could possibly be involved, before you would be forced to conclude the waves washed up "HELP' and the 4 royal flushes were a fluke?

Well, maybe you should tell me how improbable an event needs to be to assume chance cannot explain that event. Would you assume chance cannot explain an event occurring that has a probability of one half? How about a probability of one out of one hundred? One out of a million?

I hope you see where I'm going with this line of reasoning. The ID people, as far as I know, never specify where they think chance must end and purposeful intention must begin. Whatever the "cut off" probability might be, they would need to explain why anything less probable cannot be explained by chance.

In any case, Dawkins discusses how the structure we see in nature is not all left to chance but is a result of natural selection which is the very opposite of chance. So the ID people are beating on a straw-man when they suggest that science relies on chance alone to explain the form of living things.

Both examples are selling the universe extremely short, so are you at least this convinced that God cannot possibly exist?

Well, I suppose the god you believe in might be hidden away some place, but the same might be said for the Easter Bunny. But both the Bible god and the Easter Bunny, as the products of human imagination, cannot create universes. So it looks very obvious that any god or Easter Bunny does not exist outside of human imagination.

But are you convinced Thor doesn't exist? Your doubt about all gods except your own is the same as my doubt about your god.

After all by your own logic, our universe, ourselves, and hence the phenomena of creative intelligence- follows 'naturally' from quantum mechanics... yet you know of some restriction that prevents this system creating other intelligent beings beyond what we are aware of?

I never gave it much thought. Are you asking me to ponder if the principles of quantum mechanics can result in gods?

Well again I agree with Dawkins and Gates on this one, DNA absolutely represents a symbolic digital code, uncannily similar to our own digital software systems, just in a different medium- we use lots of different mediums also.

I see nothing mystical about people doing what works in nature. If people build shelters, do you conclude that caves must be intelligently designed because they work as shelters?

To sum up this post, I see that the fallacy in much of your reasoning is that you don't consider natural selection but misrepresent evolution as happening as a result of chance only. If chance cannot presumably explain something, then try natural selection. You'll be amazed at how well natural explanation explains the diversity of life and even nonliving things. No gods required!