Eagleton on Dawkins

[_The Nehor]

Ok, fair enough. But then, how do you teach, within the framework of Mormon belief, believers to discern between emotions and the spirit if there's no words to describe the latter? Would not one reasonably expect, therefore, a large error rate in discerning between the two?

Good question. I have not had that problem since I found the Spirit. I have means to tell them apart.

There are some members of the Church though who either never get the difference or have never had the Spirit and thus anything that effects them emotionally is spiritual. These are the kind who are 'inspired' to say something all the time and who claim the Spirit confirms Mormon Myths to them. Some of the more eccentric ones also claim to prophesy a lot and are wrong a good deal of the time.

In general (this is just my anecdotal observations) these personalities tend to be on the fringe of the Church.

In many people I've noticed a learning curve as they discover the Spirit and learn to tell the difference. My feeling the Spirit seems to be much more direct than most peoples and I don't know why. I have tell-tale sensations that only hit me when the Spirit is there in addition to a different mood of the 'emotions'.

[_wenglund]

Uh, earth to Nehor, psychology is a science. Knowledge about the brain, human behavior, effects of environment on human behavior and psyche, etc. have a knowledge base in science and are understandable via the scientific method.

Belief in God has not a single one of those attributes; it is completely anti-thetical to the scientific method.

Speaking of psychology and science, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines "delusion" as: "A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith)."

In other words, the science of psychology specifically disagrees with Dawkin's claim that religion is a "delusion".

Be that as it may, I have a question for the Dawkin disciples: "Dawkins claims that religion is not only delusional, but 'pernicious'. Assuming you believe that to be true, then on a micro level, were I to stop believing in God, in what ways would my beliefs and actions become less incidious, harmful, or ruinous to me and/or others?" In other words, how would my life be bettered and more safe? How would my chances be improved for satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved and to respect and be respected?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_why me]

One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.

Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.

To be very honest, and I rarely chime in on these matters and I'll delete this in the morning, I just can't imagine God looking like a man.

Which man? Why not a woman? Is he hairy? Does he have all his *parts*?

I just can't wrap my mind around it. Which guy does he look like? Is he a stud? Or an old/wise man?

I vote for old/wise. I may have to start to worship if that's the case.

God having once human form would be perfectly natural. For Catholics, Christ was god in human form. I hope that I got that right. When I think of god, I have to think of god in human form. Someone who knows me because he was like me. I see no problem here. It all makes sense than in supposing that God is different from me in form and mind. I assume that he has all his parts, especially when he appeared to Joseph Smith.

[_why me]

Dawkins knows that there isn't any good evidence that a God exists, and that scientifically, there's nothing about the Universe for which there being a God is a necessary, or indeed even a very good answer.

Silly Seth, that's because Dawkins hasn't had a witness of the Spirit! If only the Holy Ghost would talk to him through a warm sensation in his bosom, then he could give up all his science nonsense and really know the really true truth that Catholicism is the really true church! Or, wait, was that the JW's? No, the Mormons...?

KA

Dawkins is too intellectual to have his heart and mind open to the holy ghost. We all know what the Bible says about wise and learned people and the danger of being wise and learned and arrogant.

When the exers were members, most if not all cherished that warm sensation in the bosom. Now of course, it is mocked. It is all apart of that cognitive what you call it I suppose. Or is it just being an exer?

[_Jason Bourne]

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

Can you or any other believer in this thread give us an example of a "nuanced" belief about God that is 1) compatible with Mormonism at all, 2) makes a difference to the question regarding his existence, and 3) has been overlooked by Dawkins, to his folly.

Eagleton gives a couple examples but, 1) I don't see how they are compatible with Mormonism and 2) I don't see any apologist demonstrating an understanding of his points.

(I'd like to learn from the Mormons full of great nuanced understandings of god, in what way, in Mormon theology, is God the Father, a being of flesh and bone, is non-existent particularily in some kind of mode as "the condition of possibility" for all existence.)

I recommend anything be Blake Ostler but especially his book Exploring Mormon Thought-The Attributes of God.

But aside from that, this had nothing to do with the point the Dawkins, while perhaps not needing a Phd in theology does not appear to really know his subject all that well.

[_Jason Bourne]

You compare apples to oranges. Yes when one goes out to write a book called the God Delusion he should have some working knowledge of what he seeks to debunk. Dawkins had not done this. His book seems more a popular appeal to debunking God without really exploring what the nuances are about a belief in God. I have never read him nor seen him where he does not seem rather arrogant and condescending. And it is clear he has not done his leg work.

I've watched Dawkins in probably at least four hours worth of interviews, in videos available on the web through youtube, Google video, etc., in addition to reading his book. He is certainly not arrogant. That charge, IMHO, is simply an excuse by a lot of people not to take Dawkins' arguments seriously, because they really are devastating. If you can just say he's arrogant and dismiss him, you don't have to address his arguments. The theologians, and the religious leaders who stand up and talk about God are very strong and forceful in uttering their positions, but if Dawkins just tells it how he sees it, he's somehow arrogant. How do you expect him to act? Is he supposed to be all timid and unsure of himself as he speaks?

Read my other thread about how people misunderstand Dawkins. His main points include that there is no evidence that a God exists at all, and that the universe appears to be running just fine without a God, so that there is no apparent "need" for a God. That is to say, there isn't a problem of explaining the universe, including human development and intelligence and whatnot, for which there being a God is a good, or necessary, answer. And there are numerous examples of how belief in things for which there is no evidence has subverted critical and rational thinking skills in people, and even lead to justification of acts which are without question harmful to society and other people.

Those people complaining that Dawkins hasn't addressed all the nuanced arguments made by theologians haven't themselves, IMHO, understood the nuances of Dawkins' arguments. I think he's spot on, and laser-like in the precision with which he undermines arguments for God.

Dawkins doesn't have to have studied all the fine little details of every different religion's claims in order to see through the BS clearly enough to undermine the whole subject of religion, and I think he's done just that.

And to you TBMs out there, I would remind you that you don't believe in Hinduism, despite not knowing much about all the nuanced arguments in favor of Hinduism, precisely because you believe that the "truth" you know about Mormonism automatically precludes Hinduism being true. This is no different an approach than Dawkins believing that what he knows about the state of evidence and there being no "need" for God undermines all religious claims, whether he knows or engages all their specific nuanced arguments or not. Be very wary of accusing Dawkins of arrogance for dismissing religion without address each and every religion's claims, because in so doing, you're being hypocritical.

I do not think anyone is saying he needs to know all the theological intricacies in detail and be able to write a thesis on them. But the essay points out his flaws.

I will stand corrected on the arrogance issue as I have only seen a few U Tube vidoes but those he seemed arrogant in.

Last of all I may not believe Hinduism but if I write a book to tear it apart you can be sure I will study it out very well and come to know much of the dogma as well as how people live it in their lives.