how some of you misunderstand Dawkins

[_Scottie]

1. There is no good evidence that there is a God.

Is he stating that there IS evidence for God, but it's just not GOOD evidence?

What if we call it a higher, more sophisticated being, without labeling it "God". Do we now have any kind of "good" evidence of this being?

[_Coggins7]

One of the best ways to help theists understand atheism (if they are open to doing so) is to tell them that atheists believe in one less god than they do.

The only problem with this is that the existence of many religions and gods throughout history is nothing more that what we would expect in a world filled with a vast plethora of cultures, societies, and unique individuals within those cultures and societies.

Pointing this out tells us nothing about the truth claims relative to any particular religion. All it tells us is that there are many of them and there are many of them because human beings are highly intelligent, imaginative, and creative beings.

The claims of revealed religion are that God has communicated with mankind and that he communicates with any individual within that class upon certain principles and according to certain rules. We have access to him within the precincts of those principles. But why should we expect that any person or society, whether or not they (or some sub-group within that society) had access to him, or understood the principles, would not go ahead and create religious systems of there own in lieu of this? All cultures have their own art, architecture, philosophy, customs, mores, myths, cuisine, and any number of other things, so why then, is the presence of many religions evidence to doubt that at least some of what many of them are saying is true, or that there may be one true religion the truth of which can be accessed upon certain principles (if one could find it)?

I see no logical reason to conclude that the existence of 1,000 religions precludes the existence of 1 divinely appointed true religion, or that each of the 1,000 could not contain truths of divine origin.

One may perceive psychological reasons for this, and they may seem compelling, but I see no reason to believe that God does not exist because x number of human societies have worshiped or do worshiped n number of gods. One of them may be the true one. None of them may be. The point is that the fact that many gods are thought to exist and are inconsistent with one another provides no rational point of departure for the primary questions of religion, which is does God exist, and, if so, how can I know it?

In other words, if Zeus doesn't exist, tough titty. Ditto for Cronus and Rhea, Apollo, Mercury, Wotan, Shiva, Demeter, Hecate, Innna, Allah, Huan Ti, or whoever. What I'm interested in is the God that does exist; If he exists,what he's like, and how I can communicate with him.

The existence of many religions and gods is a bare anthropological fact, not evidence of anything relative to those 'terrible questions" who am I, what is the meaning of my existence, and where am I going after this life is over that is at the center of the Church's messege.

[_beastie]

Well, as I've said before I have evidence that the Gospel is correct. I would have to "turn off" either my critical thinking skills or delete extensive portions of my memory to agree that there is no God.

I would say that what you are willing to consider "evidence that the Gospel is correct" is the very crux of Dawkin's issue.

[_wenglund]

Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coggins7]

Well, as I've said before I have evidence that the Gospel is correct. I would have to "turn off" either my critical thinking skills or delete extensive portions of my memory to agree that there is no God.

I would say that what you are willing to consider "evidence that the Gospel is correct" is the very crux of Dawkin's issue.

Which is precisely the point: what Dawkin's may consider admissible "evidence" for or against the existence of God may be neither relevant to the question or, in the case of evidence for his existence, obtainable within the constraints of the methodology and tools of natural science.

Its an ironic paradox that the bright light shed by science can also cast such deep shadows.

[_Coggins7]

5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.

The very obvious problem with this is that rational thinking can quite easily lead to belief in things for which there is clearly no evidence or even things that are patently false. All one needs is an initial faulty assumption or premise, and all else following will be intellectually crippled, regardless of how internally consistent one's system is logically.

Rational thinking per se, is no guarantee of the truth value of a body of belief. Following certain premises to their logical conclusion and holding to it can doom one to belief in fantasy as easily as lead one into the clear light of day.

Rational thought is an imperfect and limited intellectual tool used by very imperfect human beings who are always being influenced by other factors such as emotion, ego, psychological dynamics, and cultural assumptions and predjudices and blending these with their use of critical reason.

Please, enough of the great god reason and his church of pure objectivity.

The nineteenth century is over.

[_beastie]

It is the rules of logic and the scientific method that have allowed human beings to progress beyond the stage at which we were stuck for many centuries. Religion didn't pull us out of that stage - science and logic did, both of which provide ways to DISCIPLINE our thinking in order to avoid the very errors to which we are all susceptible - and which religion does nothing to control.

[_Jason Bourne]

One of the best ways to help theists understand atheism (if they are open to doing so) is to tell them that atheists believe in one less god than they do.

I am sorry but this is not some big revelation and rather obvious.

I agree that you summarize Dawkin's main point, but I would also add that another of his primary points in his last book was that the belief in god encourages superstitious and ill-formed thinking in human beings.

Of course a believer thinks there are all sorts of evidence for God particularly in the majesty of the creation, order of the eco-system, complexity of life itself, etc. I am curious. What sort of evidence does a non believer want for proof of a God?

However I do believe that belief in GOd does foster a lot of ill informed thinking and do forth. Not for all who believe but for far too many.

[_Jason Bourne]

In order to believe in something for which there is no evidence, one must "turn off" the will to think critically and analytically - in a disciplined way. Once the tendency develops to "turn off" that faculty, it becomes easier and easier to turn it off in general.

Again the believer finds much evidence for God in many things. What qualifies as evidence really is the question.

[_beastie]

I am sorry but this is not some big revelation and rather obvious.

You wouldn't think so by how some theists react to atheism.

Of course a believer thinks there are all sorts of evidence for God particularly in the majesty of the creation, order of the eco-system, complexity of life itself, etc. I am curious. What sort of evidence does a non believer want for proof of a God?

The sort of evidence that will be in accord with the rules of logic and science.* This is the only way human beings can eliminate - or at least control - all the errors in thinking to which we are naturally prey.

Like Dawkins, I believe everything in the universe can be explained without the existence of a godbeing, so the addition of a godbeing is an necessary, extraordinary, complication. So the type of evidence I want will not only be in accord with logic and science, but will be inexplicable by anything other than the godbeing.

What we have now is the same sort of evidence that people offer for things like alien abductions. All anecdotal - no hard evidence, despite the many opportunities these people would have to obtain hard evidence.


*the main benefit of applying evidence to this standard is that it will result in repeatable, reliable results - and that eliminates a great deal of the problem of bias