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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by Mithrae]

It seems that there are a number of variables/fundamental constants for which only a very narrow range of values would permit - a long-lasting universe, stable matter, formation of stars and second-generation stars, formation of heavier elements - all necessary preconditions for the existence of biological life.

If the design is for the purpose of biological life, then how come Earth is the only place with life? How come the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life? Try living in the vacuum of space, or on a different planet with no space suit or no alterations to the local environment.
Basically, how is it an indication of fine tuning, of intelligent design, for a universe some 90 billion light years wide (going off of memory here), with life on only the one planet?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 69 by Mithrae]

It seems that there are a number of variables/fundamental constants for which only a very narrow range of values would permit - a long-lasting universe, stable matter, formation of stars and second-generation stars, formation of heavier elements - all necessary preconditions for the existence of biological life.

If the design is for the purpose of biological life, then how come Earth is the only place with life? How come the vast majority of the universe is hostile to life? Try living in the vacuum of space, or on a different planet with no space suit or no alterations to the local environment.
Basically, how is it an indication of fine tuning, of intelligent design, for a universe some 90 billion light years wide (going off of memory here), with life on only the one planet?

What [strike]on earth[/strike] in the world makes you think that there's no other life out there? With probably billions of planets in our galaxy alone, it wouldn't be surprising if there were life or even advanced civilizations on some. Even on worlds that we can't inhabit; just because a planet is hostile to human life doesn't mean it's hostile to all life. Even our own planet would have seemed utterly uninhabitable to us three billion years ago.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 72 by Mithrae]

Your response was expected. If you're going to stretch the definition of life to include what we currently do not recognise as life, then the statement of "The universe is fine tuned for life" becomes all but meaningless.
As it is, if one is going to talk about life in the universe, one must be talking the same language as the other person. When I say life, I mean life similar to or identical to what is on Earth. If one is going to talk about silicon-based life for example (instead of carbon based), then one needs an actual example of such life-forms for the purposes of this conversation.

With probably billions of planets in our galaxy alone, it wouldn't be surprising if there were life or even advanced civilizations on some.

Neither would I be surprised. However, until we have evidence of said life or civilisations, they cannot be used to support the statement of "the universe is finely tuned for life". You're jumping the gun here. Counting your chickens before they hatch. Insert metaphor here.

Even on worlds that we can't inhabit; just because a planet is hostile to human life doesn't mean it's hostile to all life.

Then what does the term "finely tuned" even mean then, if all these different conditions can apparently fit under the term?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 72 by Mithrae]

Your response was expected. If you're going to stretch the definition of life to include what we currently do not recognise as life, then the statement of "The universe is fine tuned for life" becomes all but meaningless.
As it is, if one is going to talk about life in the universe, one must be talking the same language as the other person. When I say life, I mean life similar to or identical to what is on Earth. If one is going to talk about silicon-based life for example (instead of carbon based), then one needs an actual example of such life-forms for the purposes of this conversation.

Silicon-based life still requires all the same preconditions; a cosmological constant in which the universe doesn't immediately collapse or inflate into virtual nothingness; nuclear forces which permit stable matter; gravitational vs. nuclear forces which permit the formation of stars; supernovae and second- or third-generation stars by which planets with heavier elements can form. The basic precondition for life on earth was reproducing systems with some variation on which natural selection could work, so while we might quibble over when such systems 'become' life (eg. viruses), there's really no question that heavier elements on planets around 2nd+ generation stars are necessary for any kind of biological life.

Like I said, I pretty much just went with Dawkins' lead on the matter - didn't even have time to read the Wikipedia article I posted, since I was at work. Perhaps you have done even less reading on the subject.

[Revelations won]

Dear Jagella,

Thank you for the issues you have raised in your post of December 31,2018.

Obviously you have not yet seen all views on the above quoted subject. My observation is that there is no theologian who relies solely on mans understanding of the very deep and thought provoking issues regarding the creation of God.

As the Bible teaches: For what man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of man which is in him, even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God.

Putting it simply, man can learn many things about man by many sources available.

As to the things of God or as we sometimes say the mysteries of Godliness , these things are only discerned by the spirit of God. (The spirit of God has a purpose of revealing light and knowledge pertaining to heavenly things. This requires one preparing to receive personal revelation via one or more of the gifts of the spirit as promised in the Bible to those who are willing to obey the commandments.

The things of God are of deep and solemn import and to be understood require deep and solemn searching, study, pondering and meditation to discover the mysteries of godliness

Now, I ask you some questions :

Do you think you can learn these things by any other means?

If you were to discover one or more of the mysteries of godliness would that then cease to be a mystery to you?

Would it be a good or bad thing to share those answers with others who were not yet prepared to receive them?

If, as the Bible states, we are the children of God our Father, then is there anything that would stop us from becoming like him?

Having carefully considered the above, what then, is the obvious intended destiny of man?

Kindest regards,
Rev1