The God Delusion

[Whaleboy]

Maybe we should discuss the relative merits of the Arian Controversy, seeing as everyone round here apparently knows all about Constantine...

Except me

I know that there were atheists before Darwin.. I think that they were fools of the highest order. In all actuality.. I don't really see how people could be atheist before Hawking..

Why Hawking? I think you could have happily mounted a good argument as a criticism of Descartes, and that wouldn't answer Epicurus way back in the B.C.

Well, Whaleboy, does this book honestly strike you as more persuasive than Russell's "Why I am not a Christian?" Because it certainly sounds like it uses many of the same arguments, and that book didn't impress me.

More persuasive? No. Better written? Yes.

There are arguments I would have included that he hasn't, but then it's not strictly the purpose of the book to just list arguments against the existence of God, instead it is to propose a certain hypothesis, which is that God is a delusion. The concept of a self-replicating memetic delusion is a fascinating one, different to anything else I have seen. I should think that the way in which one disproves God is a highly individual process, it's just that easy.

As for not impressing you, I don't think that any proof (in that sense) would suffice for you. I'm not saying you bury your head in the sand, but would I be right in saying a disproof of the existence of God would only satisfy you if it answered the questions of Theodicy once and for all? (That's a question, not a leading question, since I'm not qualified to offer such an argument at this point, it'll take years more thought).

When presented with that style of "religion is a sci-fi alien brain-worm that makes you crazy and evil be afraaaaid," anyone who's had an overall positive religious experience is faced with the dilemma of whether to be offended or amused, or perhaps just bored depending on how many times s/he has encountered it before.

Actually, I agree with you. Dawkins point of "religion is a delusion" is in my view, absolutely correct. The way he words it is too inflammatory (the only part of his book that is too inflammatory before people start kicking up). A novellist would be better at convincing theists that their religion is a delusion than a biologist, but I applaud the attempt .

Atheists should do the same. In fact, they seem to attack only a subset of monotheism.

True, but it would be too time consuming and for my purposes, I'm happy to attack the most virulent form of theism, i.e., Abrahamic monotheism.

I would call that creationist..

Agreed, though you're in danger of heading off into Pantheism there, which I think is rather beside the point here.

[Elok]

Theodicy? According to wiki, that's the branch of theology that determines why evil exists given a benevolent god. I don't get it. If I had couldn't find a satisfactory answer to those kinds of questions, wouldn't that make me inclined to be atheist rather than theist? My chief objection to atheism, at least at the moment, is that I believe any system of morality must presuppose the supernatural in order to make sense.

[Nostromo]

Whaleboy, did you read Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by the French philosopher Michel Onfray? I admit, I didn't read it yet, but some people in France threatened to kill him. When they lose their cool, its a good sign

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Theodicy? According to wiki, that's the branch of theology that determines why evil exists given a benevolent god. I don't get it. If I had couldn't find a satisfactory answer to those kinds of questions, wouldn't that make me inclined to be atheist rather than theist? My chief objection to atheism, at least at the moment, is that I believe any system of morality must presuppose the supernatural in order to make sense.

Why most a system of morality "make sense"? All it has to do is work, ie. maintain social order.

Second, why isn't man's nature sufficient to justify any moral system?

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Why most a system of morality "make sense"? All it has to do is work, ie. maintain social order.

Second, why isn't man's nature sufficient to justify any moral system?

Er, there aren't enough posts remaining in this thread to continue that discussion (which I've had many times before), but okay.

1. Morality as I see it has an end not necessarily identical with social order. The caste system is wonderful for maintaining a stable society but it's still thoroughly immoral IMO. Is it immoral only now that it has broken down and thus no longer functions to control society?

2. Because the logical part of my mind revolts against basing my life around an unjustified neurosis. Also because man's nature is not entirely moral to begin with. We have moral urges, but we also have thoroughly immoral inclinations. The immoral inclinations typically win, but the moral ones hound us afterwards. Which is another reason why I believe; my religion's description of man's fallen nature is the best explanation I've encountered for the peculiar insanity of the human race.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
1. Morality as I see it has an end not necessarily identical with social order. The caste system is wonderful for maintaining a stable society but it's still thoroughly immoral IMO. Is it immoral only now that it has broken down and thus no longer functions to control society?

Yes.

Any individual will accept their current code as the correct moral one. The fact is thought there are many moral codes. Any moral code that maintains social stability works, and will perpetuate itself until some change occurs that undermines it. The Caste System existed for many centuries, if not longer. It is obviously a rather effective moral system.

A personal opinion based on personal ethics about a moral code is just that, and not a logica arguement against any one moral code.

2. Because the logical part of my mind revolts against basing my life around an unjustified neurosis. Also because man's nature is not entirely moral to begin with. We have moral urges, but we also have thoroughly immoral inclinations. The immoral inclinations typically win, but the moral ones hound us afterwards.

Of course man's nature is not "moral", anymore than the nature of any other animal is moral. Those neuroses are the gift of sentience, which allows us to comtemplate all sorts of things, and make things up. Its a wonderful tool, but it also seems to not like the facts of our existence as animals in a material universe.

Moral codes are artificial things built upon a foundations of urges and sentiments given to us by biology due to our nature as highly sociable animals. All social beings have a tug of war between actions that benefit them directly and actions that benefit their group, specially when those actions are in opposition. And yes, most of the time selfish actions prevail, but then of course, the point of any being is survival long enough to pass on its genes.

Which is another reason why I believe; my religion's description of man's fallen nature is the best explanation I've encountered for the peculiar insanity of the human race.

Our insanity is our unwillingness to admit our limited animal nature and surrended the hubristic conceit that we can connect with some created perfect sentience.

[Elok]

You're shifting into the descriptive, though, rather than the prescriptive. Talking like an anthropologist is just dandy from a scientific perspective, but it completely castrates moral judgment by turning it into an academic game. Are you telling me that you see nothing wrong with any kind of institutionalized behavior, provided it works? Just to be perfectly clear: a Hatfield-McCoy style blood feud, killing the deformed for bearing the evil eye, or killing a raped woman to preserve her honor, is not objectively wrong except insofar as it may undermine social order? So, if such things are an accepted social institution and do not cause excessive damage to the population as a whole, they're "good?"

Honestly, do you actually think that way? I find it hard to imagine a human being who looks at life in such a manner (as opposed to just feeding himself a line of BS and pretending to believe it).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
You're shifting into the descriptive, though, rather than the prescriptive. Talking like an anthropologist is just dandy from a scientific perspective, but it completely castrates moral judgment by turning it into an academic game. Are you telling me that you see nothing wrong with any kind of institutionalized behavior, provided it works? Just to be perfectly clear: a Hatfield-McCoy style blood feud, killing the deformed for bearing the evil eye, or killing a raped woman to preserve her honor, is not objectively wrong except insofar as it may undermine social order? So, if such things are an accepted social institution and do not cause excessive damage to the population as a whole, they're "good?"

Yes.

The behaviors you described were normally accepted human behavior for most of the existance of humanity. The very source of the moral system you espouse is filled with rather immoral or bloodthirsty actions that are praised as divinely inspired and supported.

That is one of the reason I have the Avatar I do. NIetzsche may have been wrong in my opinion about certain things, but his prescription on how morality comes into being is the closest to what I see out there. There is a distinction between Good and Bad, and Good and Evil.

Honestly, do you actually think that way? I find it hard to imagine a human being who looks at life in such a manner (as opposed to just feeding himself a line of BS and pretending to believe it).

Of course I do view life that way. There is a material world out there that exists, period. A world whose existance is not predicated on humanity or its whims, the merely physical world.

Humans don't really 'live" in that world. We inhabit it, yes, but our actions are driven by a whole set of artificial conciets and inventions of our sentient mind. This artificial world of meaning that human beings create is just as powerful an influence on our actions as the desires and needs that our physical nature gives us. In that sense, that world becomes "real" for all intent and purposes, but it's reality is based on humanity's continued willingness to believe in it and act accordingly.

If anything, I view this as a far more empowering view than seeing man as inherently flawed or insane, because at the end of the day, all that is needed to change this world of meaning is not divine revelation, or armageddon, or "enlightenment" but simply a paradigm shift in general opinion.

In fact, that is what occured with those behaviors you singled out at the top of the post. As I said, for most of human history they were accepted. MOst humans no longer accept them. Did we all of a sudden become enlightened? Was the "real truth" finally revealed? No. Over centuries, the general opinions changed, as people were forced to adjust their world of meaning when confronted with new physical realities.

[Whaleboy]

Theodicy? According to wiki, that's the branch of theology that determines why evil exists given a benevolent god. I don't get it. If I had couldn't find a satisfactory answer to those kinds of questions, wouldn't that make me inclined to be atheist rather than theist? My chief objection to atheism, at least at the moment, is that I believe any system of morality must presuppose the supernatural in order to make sense.

My mistake, I'm confusing you with Ben Kenobi .

The area your interested in is perhaps one I'm on firmer ground to talk about, so I'd ask why you think the various humanistic and other moral systems which are naturalistic are insufficient?

EDIT: GePap got in there before me...

2. Because the logical part of my mind revolts against basing my life around an unjustified neurosis. Also because man's nature is not entirely moral to begin with. We have moral urges, but we also have thoroughly immoral inclinations. The immoral inclinations typically win, but the moral ones hound us afterwards. Which is another reason why I believe; my religion's description of man's fallen nature is the best explanation I've encountered for the peculiar insanity of the human race.

I think we're having very similar thought processes about the same thing; yours has lead you to man's fallen nature, and so has mine in a similar sense. I consider morality to be emotive in nature, perhaps originating as a result of our evolutionary history. It is society with its marvellous perversities which presents us with the moral conflicts, the misfiring of natural biological tendencies to produce "immoral" acts, and the conflict between these pressures and our evolutionary biology.

This is a far more satisfactory explanation than one which evokes the supernatural, which I think begs far more questions than it answers.

Also, you criticised GePap because he went from prescriptive to descriptive. All that needs to be done at this point, remember, is describe the basis for a naturalistic moral system (and remember you're not limited to my emotivism, you've got Kant's duty-based imperative not to mention the myriad versions of Utilitarianism/Consequentialism). I don't think you can expect us to sit here and magically induce a Ten Commandments Sans God. That would be far too easy!

[curtsibling]

About Dawkins book claim - Baloney.

Atheism is not something you can make someone adopt against their will.

Any more than you can make a person into a true theist against their will.

You either believe in some divine cosmic being, or you don't.

I choose the don't option, and don't need a book to reinforce that.

.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Elok
Honestly, do you actually think that way? I find it hard to imagine a human being who looks at life in such a manner (as opposed to just feeding himself a line of BS and pretending to believe it).

A scene from Proletarians of the Caribbean:

GePap points to himself. "Commie..."

[Whaleboy]

Atheism is not something you can make someone adopt against their will.

No-one said anything to the contrary. You can read a book and have it change your mind, surely that has happened to you before? Various books have changed my mind before in the past, not to mention posters here.

I'm not talking about clamping someone's head to a table, pinning their eyelids open and forcing them to read a book page by page. That would be a form of evangelism. There is a fundamental difference between the communication of your views and evangelising them.

I choose the don't option, and don't need a book to reinforce that.

I don't think the book's sole purpose is to “convert” people, for want of a better word. A person who holds a certain view must be extremely narrow minded and set in his ways if he isn't willing to look at arguments in favour of his view.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You know, Whaleboy, that most Christians are not creationists?

I am completely aware of this, but this brings up as many issues as it resolves.

If this issue has been resolved and Christianity has 'revised' its stance in the face of insurmountable evidence (although not all sects of Christianity, it must be pointed out) - how can you have any faith in any of it. If the story of creation is a parable, why not the whole of the bible?

[Kuciwalker]

While I think he's over-simplifying, certainly I'd have included more detail, he hits the nail right on the head that a fundamentalist (or American Taleban) when faced with superior arguments and evidence* would rather bury their heads in a bucket of sand.

Like communists.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No-one said anything to the contrary. You can read a book and have it change your mind, surely that has happened to you before? Various books have changed my mind before in the past, not to mention posters here.

Perhaps a book might give you data or a viewpoint that
affects the way you see things. It might make you rethink
the way you regard an issue...

But I cannot see how a book can completey overthrow
a person and make him change his worldview totally....

Unless the person has been cut off from differing views
for the entire span of his life.....

Originally posted by Whaleboy I'm not talking about clamping someone's head to a table, pinning their eyelids open and forcing them to read a book page by page. That would be a form of evangelism. There is a fundamental difference between the communication of your views and evangelising them.

Indeed.

I never mentioned these forms of enforced conversion either.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I don't think the book's sole purpose is to “convert” people, for want of a better word. A person who holds a certain view must be extremely narrow minded and set in his ways if he isn't willing to look at arguments in favour of his view.

That is for that person to decide.

My point was that you cannot overthrow a persons ideals
by force and just expect them to adopt the new order.

A true follower will adapt by choice, and not force.

That is all.

.