The God Delusion - Chapter 4

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

The God Delusion - Chapter 4

Post #1

Post by otseng »

What arguments does Dawkins present that God does not exist?
Are they valid arguments?

McCulloch's questions:
Does evolution by natural selection demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong? He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

bunyip
Student
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post #81

Post by bunyip »

> "Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel" who put in an astonishing amount of research into those views

> "Sounds like another candidate for a book debate.

You don't know the half of it. I made "Spotlight" on that [Blind Io alone knows how!] and the postings are enlightening to say the least. You might go cruise through them if you have a moment. I don't know if i can do a "product tag" here, so you'll have to search it out in "Books".

I was surprised that Richard didn't put it to use. It certainly substaniates his views on Yank Christianity.

the bunyip

bunyip
Student
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: The God Delusion - Chapter 4

Post #82

Post by bunyip »

[i hope i'm in the correct pew, here . . . ]

Right. Here's the penitent bunyip kneeling before you all, clad in hairshirt and suffused with contrition. Somewhere in this intellectual Moebius Strip, i stated that Richard's best argument against the notion of a god was that there is "not a shred of evidence" for one.

That expression has been properly derided as not a "direct quote" from the book. I wish to amend my post by withdrawing it and substituting the following:

The best argument[s] against the idea of a god resides on page 118 [this chapter]. The two quotes, one from Leonard Susskind and one from Peter Atkins sum it succinctly. Susskind says today's cosmology rests on Darwin-Wallace's concept, and Atkins that what we know of Nature has left no role for deity. These two points are not supported in detail on that page, but throughout the book.

It's well to go back to the book's opening and remind oneself that Dawkins is addressing the deity familiar to his readers. That deity's existence and definition are spelled out in The Books. THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE. [i'm sorry to have to shout, but it seems necessary to keep that reminder before us as we follow through]. All the commentary, theological works, ID and the lot derive their claims for deity from those volumes.

Now that some of Nature's functions are revealed with more emerging all the time, we know that the deity's claims for origin and tinkering have no validity. The stars aren't moved by a god's hand and the pimple on the back of my neck isn't divine punishment for typing these lines. These are natural manifestations of material things.

Those functions of Nature we don't yet comprehend, still offer no indication of divine interference. To try to attribute these [such as the Big Bang] to supernatural influence [as Denton and McGrath do] is simply "plugging in" supernatural forces that aren't there.

The "debate" here rests on the premise that either "The Books" and what has been derived from them have validity or they don't. TGD summarises the many arguments from many views, and concludes that they don't.

Hence, no "shreds" to provide a foundation for belief. There aren't even any "weak reeds" to build on. If you "believe", then i suggest you ask yourself why.

Which suggests, perhaps, that we consider Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" as the next book to discuss.

the bunyip

Locked