Dawkins relies on ignorance

[bankside]

I think you misunderestimate his argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

Omniscience also negates the concept of free will since a being that created you in your context created you in such a way, in such a place as to guarantee every choice you will ever make, you were made to sin exactly as you have sinned, by a deity that knew in advance exactly how you would fail it. It would have predetermined every choice you will ever make. In order for there to be choice, there must be freedom from that.

No it doesn't. That's like saying that because I can predict when the sun will come up tomorrow it didn't do so because of the operation of the laws of physics, or that because you knew ahead of time what your friend was going to order at a restaurant, he didn't make the choice himself.

My older brother has an elegant mathematical explanation of the nonsense of this common claim, but it's one of those things I manage to follow while he's going through it, but it's sufficient to know that the argument fails because of being dimensionally restricted.

 

[Kulindahr]

Any Christian who believes in a factual God, is a literalist on that point, the only place that says a Christian God exists is in Christian literature - that Christians accept as fact concerning God. So why is it that Genesis is myth or metaphor, but God isn't. And if God is metaphor, what is the point of your religion?

You don't understand what "literalist" means.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think you misunderestimate his argument.

His argument boils down to "I think you're delusional" -- his own words. And the fact that a large audience applauded those words shows the depth of the problem: they don't see that by resorting to that accusation, he's done away with any validity of human knowledge; one need only cling to one's own beliefs and say everyone else is delusional.

 

[mightbe]

You don't understand what "literalist" means.

Here you're using "No true Scotsman". Literalism can take many forms. To believe that the god of the Bible is real is to have a literalistic view of that point. It doesn't have to mean that you take every "a", "an", and "the" as literal truth.

 

[mightbe]

His argument boils down to "I think you're delusional" -- his own words. And the fact that a large audience applauded those words shows the depth of the problem: they don't see that by resorting to that accusation, he's done away with any validity of human knowledge; one need only cling to one's own beliefs and say everyone else is delusional.

No, you've definitely missed the meat-and-potatoes of the argument.

 

[bankside]

You don't understand what "literalist" means.

In your dictionary, "literalist" means "Anything but the plain and easily discernible meaning which is fatal to my position."


Dawkins' critique of young-earth creationists is a trivial footnote in his writing. He has not stumbled upon some sectarian difference within christianity and then ignorantly or, worse, cynically based his arguments on positions advanced by the wrong side in some obscure theological debate within christianity. He doesn't care about that. He means to take on all forms of theism. To hold otherwise would be to believe he secretly thinks some version of theism has merit that could not be overcome by his argument.

 

[rareboy]

I think that Dawkins is a refreshing and necessary antidote to the idea that the universe has to have a sentient Creator.

Humans have invented God so many times in so many different ways that you'd think that by now we'd be content with the poetic necessity instead of the 'scientific' necessity for an omniscient and designing creator.

 

[Telstra]

You're buying into Dawkins' reliance on ignorance here, because you're relying on it. Science never "prove[d] religion wrong". Evolution was never contrary to Catholicism, or to the Bible.

Your whole position here is a beautiful illustration of the ignorance Dawkins requires.

You keep calling people ignorance LOL
Do you know how long it took people to become an atheist ?
Most people took 20, 30 plus years to become an atheist. They looked at all the evidence provided and concluded they DON'T believe. That is not ignorance.

 

[Stardreamer]

But an all-knowing sentient creator would surely take no interest in the vastly inferior individual life-forms he created. Do you think a god that designed the whole of the universe would take attendance? Of course not! That'd be ludicrous. He'd be about as interested in you as you are in the millions of bacteria swarming your mouth. If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, I can't imagine he'd be too interested in socializing. First of all, it'd be redundant. Second, it would be so vapid and low that I doubt he'd even want to listen. Your assumption rests on God having infinite intelligence (to create the universe) but relatively human intelligence (there'd be absolutely no point in him listening if that wasn't the case). You can't have both.

The reason it's expressed in parental metaphors is because humans are comforted by the notions of having eternal parents. Humans wrote the Bible, regardless of alleged divine inspiration.

It's a really nice feeling--having somebody looking out for you, someone to hold you and make it better. Everyone wants that. It has nothing to do with God's relative position to you. You'd be next-to-worthless. The Abrahamic religions try to bypass this by asserting that we are all God's children. Well, when you've had many trillions upon trillions of children (all life-forms), it'd be really hard to care about each and every one, especially given the increasing number of dead ones.

We were talking about an individual's Human's relationship with the divine, not how the divine interprets that relationship. Whatever form the divine may take though, I rather doubt it is contained in the box you would attempt to contain it in so you can readily dismiss it so as to ridicule those individual's belief.

 

[Stardreamer]

Which is where your Divinity that can't be traced is irrelevant anyway argument n'est pas?

I tend to agree. If a divinity is acting in a REAL way on the faithful (and of course the unfaithful) there has to be a way to measure that. I vote we make a bunch of Christians turn some water into a nice Cabernet (no using grapes, that's cheating) and document the process.

An interesting note is that a study done to see if prayer was similar to the beneficial effects of non-prayer based meditation found some interesting results. It monitored brain activity of those engaged in prayer and those engaged in meditation and found that the state the mind enters in both is very similar BUT in the case of those in prayer, additional activity was found in the parts of the brain associated with communication as if the person were engaged in discussion with another.

 

[Stardreamer]

This is the core of the issue. For the MAJORITY of people of faith in America, their faith is literal. Those who take a more abstract approach would be viewed by that majority as CINOs, and ultimately, I find waving them around as the "enlightened" Christians that Dawkins unfairly ignores, to be disingenuous, if for no other reason, than because in order to be one of them, you HAVE to accept that the Bible (or any other religious text that isn't pure philosophy) is factually wrong. The Earth was NOT created 6,000 years ago, nor was it created in 6 days, there was NO Noah's Arc, etc.

So yes, I believe the scientific bashing of religion SHOULD focus on literalists, as they ARE the ones that harm and impede progress.

I keep wondering where the idea that the Bible says anything about how old the Earth is comes from other than some folks sitting around counting begats for no good reason.

 

[TX-Beau]

No it doesn't. That's like saying that because I can predict when the sun will come up tomorrow it didn't do so because of the operation of the laws of physics, or that because you knew ahead of time what your friend was going to order at a restaurant, he didn't make the choice himself...

Bullshit analogy, you aren't proposing yourself as an all knowing, all powerful, creator of all, agent that set the sun in the sky on it's course in the first place and wrote the laws of physics, because if you were such a personage, you are the mover not the laws and not the sun, which also you aren't proposing has any ability to choose to come up or not, so fail all around there. So no, do not pass go do not collect $200.00.

If god created you, he created your flaws, created the environment that would cause you to sin, then put you in it, with no possibility of him being wrong and you not sinning when he KNEW you were going to sin. Omniscience, what a bitch. With just a little effort, he could have created a different you that would not have sinned in the first place. You have no ability to surprise god, who made you the way you are, and put you in the position to sin, and didn't give you the option of acting in any other way than commuting the sin he knew you'd commit. YOU can't surprise god who made you to do exactly what he knew you were going to do, in every instance, omnipotence, what a bitch. WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE A YOU THAT WOULDN'T SIN?

Because it's a necessary plot point for the rest of the mythology that's why, if you can't sin, there's no need for salvation, if there's no need for salvation, there is no need for Christ, who is only needed because man sins. It's just an illogical circular justification for the whole she-bang.

 

[Stardreamer]

If there were an all-knowing deity, it would have no choice but to be aware of our every action. Taking attendance would be an inherent property of being all-knowing.

Of course for the same reason socializing would be redundant; there is nothing extra that can be gleaned by socializing for a being that is already omniscient. Not even "the effects on a sentient being of socializing with god" would be a novelty to an omniscient being who could have extrapolated them perfectly in the first place.

Moreover, there is no reason to imbue anything with intelligence, nor withhold it, when one is omniscient. There is no possible application of free will that would be novel to an omniscient being: all possibilities are understood simultaneously with equal alacrity.

This assumes that all the omni- descriptions applied to the God of the Bible are true, there is actually a religious debate on that subject. That God might NOT be all knowing and even (gasp) capable of error. But even a near perfect God might desire to create potential companions through a process of evolved sentience with free will. Indeed that seems to be the most likely goal I can see in creation.

 

[TX-Beau]

An interesting note is that a study done to see if prayer was similar to the beneficial effects of non-prayer based meditation found some interesting results. It monitored brain activity of those engaged in prayer and those engaged in meditation and found that the state the mind enters in both is very similar BUT in the case of those in prayer, additional activity was found in the parts of the brain associated with communication as if the person were engaged in discussion with another.

God, Vishnu? Buddha? Amaterasu? Allah? Which mutually exclusive deity was doing the talking. Religions deny the existence of each other, and all religious people exhibit this kind of thing, so obviously they can't all be right, so who's talking? Or is that just a manifestation of the way they are thinking and not divine in the least little bit?

 

[TX-Beau]

This assumes that all the omni- descriptions applied to the God of the Bible are true, there is actually a religious debate on that subject. That God might NOT be all knowing and even (gasp) capable of error. But even a near perfect God might desire to create potential companions through a process of evolved sentience with free will. Indeed that seems to be the most likely goal I can see in creation.

If I was going to believe in a Deity, it would have to be the kind of deity who's divine finger stroked the primordial ooze one fine afternoon, and has since been handing out the odd epiphany now and then. Why? Curiosity, probably just because, boredom, amusement? Certainly nothing noble or altruistic.

 

[Stardreamer]

God, Vishnu? Buddha? Amaterasu? Allah? Which mutually exclusive deity was doing the talking. Religions deny the existence of each other, and all religious people exhibit this kind of thing, so obviously they can't all be right, so who's talking? Or is that just a manifestation of the way they are thinking and not divine in the least little bit?

It is an interesting question is it not? Perhaps they are just talking to themselves, perhaps they are talking to a single divine presence that quite frankly could care less what church they go to, perhaps there is more than one divine presence that intercedes below the creator? I cannot say. I have a particular philosophy I am attracted to that NONE of the religions are literally true but they may have pieces of the truth.

 

[Stardreamer]

If I was going to believe in a Deity, it would have to be the kind of deity who's divine finger stroked the primordial ooze one fine afternoon, and has since been handing out the odd epiphany now and then. Why? Curiosity, probably just because, boredom, amusement? Certainly nothing noble or altruistic.

I find the idea of boredom and a desire for a level of companionship even if it is with 'lessor' beings is the likely motivation. Can you think of anything more boring and lonely to be than God?

 

[Kulindahr]

Here you're using "No true Scotsman". Literalism can take many forms. To believe that the god of the Bible is real is to have a literalistic view of that point. It doesn't have to mean that you take every "a", "an", and "the" as literal truth.

No, literalism has a definite meaning. You can't just take it off and make it mean what you want to, as you do here. It means to read a document literally, without regard for the type of literature, the use of idiom, or anything else.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, you've definitely missed the meat-and-potatoes of the argument.

I've listened to hours of Dawkins, and his argument boils down to "If it doesn't look like science, you're delusional".