Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[M. Bréqs]

Who would have thought that 43 pages into a thread with the word "god" in the title we would still be so civil to one another.

A pat on the back for everyone, I think!

...That's because I'm not taking part in this debate...



But seriously, it's good reading, I've just stated my points on the whole "god" thingy on this forum already somewheres, so I don't have much to contribute.

[conny]

On the other hand, the belief in a 'personal' god puts humans very much at the centre of everything. I've often wondered what will happen when we (inevitably) find life on other planets (even very simple orgnaisms like bacteria). To me, this SHOULD be the end of this type of belief, since it automatically removes human beings from their place at the centre of everything

I was today thinking the other way around:
Suppose science detected that we were planted here, just to be hervested by some alien culture..?
Would that influence our morals? Love to our kids?

There was a quest for defining "God", and I will try a simple fomula:

God is you (make it a big "Y" to your taste)

I don't care really if God created the universe.
I do to some extent care about us.
And in my mind, God is (just) the uttermost wall of self, the nearest and last respondent.

By that I also mean that "God" is a function in language close to "you".
And: try to define "you", please!
It's a referent, a placeholder.

We are communicating beings.
Communicating for facts and believes.

// C

[NorthernMonkey]

I'm a firm believer that lack of education is the tool that has kept religion going all these years. That's not meant to imply that religious people aren't intelligent, but simply to state the fact that (near) universal access to higher education has only become possible in the very recent past. Even today there are clear inequities in this regard; I wasn't 'rich' growing up by any means, but I always had access to education.

I gonna disagree with you on this one Edge. I don't have the facts and figures to hand, but I'm fairly certain there are several million intelligent and very well education people out there that are also firm believers in one religion or the other. I'm also willing to bet there are also a hell of a lot of highly successful and wealthy people (intelligent but not necessarily well educated) that are continually contributing financially to their chosen religion as their faith is that strong. Regardless of the level of education one might receive, there is still a subconsious desire within certain individuals to cling to the hope of a higher being, whatever that might be - the chosen religion is often a means to end to satisfy that need. This is really the main reason I brought up the subject of a viable alternative because that need will always exist in some people, probably fueled by the normal (and rational) human fear of the unknown. Take death for instance, many people perceive it to be going alone to an unknown place, which can be a frightening thought - religion provides an answer for this of course - heaven, with angels waiting to help you settle into the next level. Removing religion in this case, and there are many other areas religion does help to provide comfort against human fears and uncertainties, would leave, in certain people's minds, unanswered questions. These people, without religion, would still search for an alternative answer regardless of their education - the mind has to be separated from the heart, and one's emotions are a very powerful force against the logical or rational mind.

[conny]

the mind has to be separated from the heart, and one's emotions are a very powerful force against the logical or rational mind.

That's Descartes, trying to save soul from science.

// C

[Tone Deft]

the mind has to be separated from the heart, and one's emotions are a very powerful force against the logical or rational mind.

That's Descartes, trying to save soul from science.
// C

The meatballs of the mind are separate from the noodly appendages of the heart. Just as the sauce that binds the Flying Spaghetti Monster (hallowed be thy name) to us we must encompass the noodles and the meatballs but always keep them seperate.

Ramen.



http://www.venganza.org/

[Machinesworking]

All christians believe homosexuality is a sin.

And Jews, Muslims...

Anyone white-washing Machineworking's observation is being dishonest. However Machineworking is missing the point completely. You see, I have tons of friends who eat shell fish, drive on the Sabbath, etc. All big no-no's. Am I a Sabbath-o-phobe if I disagree with their choice? A shell fish-o-phobe? I do believe that man/woman relationship are what God desires...same as Sabbath observance and dietary laws. Last time I checked, I don't remember throwing any stones at my gay, pork eating friends.

Ok you're not getting my point. The point is the decision (IMO it was a decision), to call homosexuality a sin by the Judeao-Christian religions of the world creates an atmosphere where hatred grows. You can say you personally don't hate people that are sinning in the eyes of your religion, and I commend you for that, but the nature of man is to distrust and fear those they feel oppose their beliefs. That cannot be overlooked because of your personal feelings or your local denominations teachings.
Basically it was the reason Hitler was able to get Europe in general to look the other way while he systematically executed gays, jews, and Gypsies for being different. You don't believe Jesus was the son of god? then you are a heretic and sinner in the eyes of the real true god. Hitler literally said that he was revenging Jesus in private conversations.
Of course there were plenty of other reasons. Usury laws that the pope passed made it impossible to loan money as a christian, jewish people were literally begged into northern europe and russia etc. to become bankers, then systematically blamed when the king destroyed the economy through general excess. I'm sure you know that though.
Basically religious hatred based on branding this or that people a sinner etc. is nothing new, and not just a product of male fear of homosexuals, or other religions etc. but can be attributed to fundamental interpretations of religious text.

[edge100]

I gonna disagree with you on this one Edge. I don't have the facts and figures to hand, but I'm fairly certain there are several million intelligent and very well education people out there that are also firm believers in one religion or the other. I'm also willing to bet there are also a hell of a lot of highly successful and wealthy people (intelligent but not necessarily well educated) that are continually contributing financially to their chosen religion as their faith is that strong. Regardless of the level of education one might receive, there is still a subconsious desire within certain individuals to cling to the hope of a higher being, whatever that might be - the chosen religion is often a means to end to satisfy that need. This is really the main reason I brought up the subject of a viable alternative because that need will always exist in some people, probably fueled by the normal (and rational) human fear of the unknown. Take death for instance, many people perceive it to be going alone to an unknown place, which can be a frightening thought - religion provides an answer for this of course - heaven, with angels waiting to help you settle into the next level. Removing religion in this case, and there are many other areas religion does help to provide comfort against human fears and uncertainties, would leave, in certain people's minds, unanswered questions. These people, without religion, would still search for an alternative answer regardless of their education - the mind has to be separated from the heart, and one's emotions are a very powerful force against the logical or rational mind.

I think perhaps by thoughts didn't come across quite as I had intended.

By 'education', I didn't necessarily mean a formal higher education. I mean that the general level of knowledge of the human population has increased with time. People today are more knowledgeable about the basics of their own existence. And while they don't know any great detail, I think most people are aware that most disease is caused by microscopic organisms or by changes in the genetic material, which most people know is DNA. Most people are aware that universe is expanding, for instance.

Clearly, a belief in god is based on emotion more than fact. But my hope is that the more people come to know about how different their world is than they THOUGHT it was, the more they will come to recognize that their simple solutions don't cut it. Of course, I recognize that this may never really come to pass, but I think we may see at least some victories of reason over emotion.

[Seyser Koze]

, but I think we may see at least some victories of reason over emotion.

And therein lies the whole point of Dawkins book. Reasonable and rational evaluation of the probability of a god existing and of the arguments put forward by religious groups to try and prove their point.

It is an excellent book and one that should be read (as part of the national curriculum) by all school children alongside religious texts at "religious education" classes throughout the UK.

Atheism, agnostiscism and humanism are also part of our culture and should be taught on an equal footing with the main religions.

Thank Poseidon!

[shtreimel]

The point is the decision (IMO it was a decision), to call homosexuality a sin by the Judeao-Christian religions of the world creates an atmosphere where hatred grows.

And that's where we differ. I believe the Torah/Bible was divinely inspired. The question of hatred has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather, how people interpret the Bible. A tree gives birth to apples, provides shade...it also forms the butt of many rifles.

but the nature of man is to distrust and fear those they feel oppose their beliefs

To an extend I'd agree. But why stop at sexual preference? I'm disturbed by lots of behavior/ideas that conflict with things I value. Hell, if you post that you prefer pc's to mac's on this bb, folks treat you like you're a witch that should be burned at the stake. I won't even get into the rioting during sporting events, etc. etc. So unless atheism has devised a strategy in which we remove values from choices we make, we'll continue to view certain things as "good" and other things as "bad".

[shtreimel]

It is an excellent book and one that should be read (as part of the national curriculum) by all school children alongside religious texts at "religious education" classes throughout the UK.

Funny because that's exactly what a few folks in my book club are doing...mainly reading:

The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder
and:
The God Delusion

at the same time. We've also invited a crazy bright dude from our synagogue (post doc in astrophysics) to partake in these discussions. Should be interesting.

[edge100]

The point is the decision (IMO it was a decision), to call homosexuality a sin by the Judeao-Christian religions of the world creates an atmosphere where hatred grows.

And that's where we differ. I believe the Torah/Bible was divinely inspired. The question of hatred has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather, how people interpret the Bible. A tree gives birth to apples, provides shade...it also forms the butt of many rifles.

The Torah/Bible has nothing to do with hate if, and only if, you accept it as divinely inspired. If you don't, they most surely are hateful. Again, if god literally exists and really does find homosexuality to be an abomination, then the correct thing to do is to obey the very clear laws given in the OT. I would, however, suggest (as I have done repeatedly) that while 'belief' in this is one thing, actions based on these beliefs are quite another. Once again I'll say this: god may really exist, in precisely the way the bible/torah/qu'ran/whatever describe. However, THIS world can only be governed based on what THIS world literally tells us; and THIS world does not, in any way, provide evidence suggesting that god really exists. That is, what YOU believe based on no worldly evidence cannot be used to justify worldly policies.

So unless atheism has devised a strategy in which we remove values from choices we make, we'll continue to view certain things as "good" and other things as "bad".

This implies that a belief in god is required to make the distinction between "good" and "bad", or at the very minimum, that we get our sense of "good" and "bad" from god. This is simply inconsistent with reality; religious people do bad things in the name of god, and atheists do good things without referencing god; and vice-versa, I might add. I would argue that there isn't even a strong correlation (never mind a causal relationship) between religiosity and "goodness".

[shtreimel]

If you don't, they most surely are hateful

Again, as a Jew, there's tons of things that are considered "kosher" and "unkosher". Not "hateful" and "loving". It's ideals you grow towards. The rabbis interpreted the "stone by death" behaviors i.e. not obeying the sabbath, having sex with your child, homosexuality, as things that you should avoid. I've never, not once, in all the synagogues I've visited hear a rabbi use the words "hate (____________)" in a sermon. Never.

I would argue that there isn't even a strong correlation (never mind a causal relationship) between religiosity and "goodness".

And I would absolutely disagree. I could go on about interest free loans within Chassidic communities, the "visiting the sick" roaming groups visiting strangers in hospitals, and all the other Tikkun Olam (Save the World) projects happening in very quiet ways all over the world.

And since I live in the secular world with secular friends, what do we do. Hmmm. Give our 3% to our company so they leave us alone at Christmas time. Oh yes, and volunteer every now and again to boost a resume. A huge generalization perhaps, but it's what I see. I'm stunned by the differences b/w religious and secular folks with respect to generosity, selflessness and community contribution.

[Keyser Soze]

I was today thinking the other way around:
Suppose science detected that we were planted here, just to be hervested by some alien culture..?
Would that influence our morals? Love to our kids?

There was a quest for defining "God", and I will try a simple fomula:

God is you (make it a big "Y" to your taste)

I don't care really if God created the universe.
I do to some extent care about us.
And in my mind, God is (just) the uttermost wall of self, the nearest and last respondent.

By that I also mean that "God" is a function in language close to "you".
And: try to define "you", please!
It's a referent, a placeholder.

You haven't been hitting the bottle again, have you?

[edge100]

If you don't, they most surely are hateful

Again, as a Jew, there's tons of things that are considered "kosher" and "unkosher". Not "hateful" and "loving". It's ideals you grow towards. The rabbis interpreted the "stone by death" behaviors i.e. not obeying the sabbath, having sex with your child, homosexuality, as things that you should avoid. I've never, not once, in all the synagogues I've visited hear a rabbi use the words "hate (____________)" in a sermon. Never.

Again, it depends what value you place in those things. If death by stoning is what god REALLY wants, no amount of modern-day maneuvering can get around this. In this case, it isn't hate.

I'n my world, it's hate.

Which brings me to my next point...

I would argue that there isn't even a strong correlation (never mind a causal relationship) between religiosity and "goodness".

And I would absolutely disagree. I could go on about interest free loans within Chassidic communities, the "visiting the sick" roaming groups visiting strangers in hospitals, and all the other Tikkun Olam (Save the World) projects happening in very quiet ways all over the world.

And since I live in the secular world with secular friends, what do we do. Hmmm. Give our 3% to our company so they leave us alone at Christmas time. Oh yes, and volunteer every now and again to boost a resume. A huge generalization perhaps, but it's what I see. I'm stunned by the differences b/w religious and secular folks with respect to generosity, selflessness and community contribution.

Once again, I would hasten to use anecdotal evidence as "proof" of something (see our discussion re: religious scientists). Are crime rates inversely correlated with religiosity, as evidence by attendance at church/synagogue/mosque (or any other metric you want to use)? I mean in the grand scheme, not in our respective communities. Are theocracies by definition more "caring" places than countries in which there is a clear separation of religion and state? THESE are the types of metric I would use.

And incidentally, this whole argument hinges around what we define as "good". I think acceptance and tolerance of people who do nothing to harm me (or my marriage, for example) as "good". You may see this as "bad" because it isn't in line with what your god has expressly decreed.

As we did with god, let's come to a common understanding of what "good" is. Let's look at an example of someone who was typically seen as "good": Mother Teresa. She directly supported the poverty of the poor she ostensibly helped, by removing the ONE barrier to escaping poverty that we KNOW works: effective family planning. She called abortion "the biggest threat to world peace". She did not favour the use of condoms, furthering the problem. She was interested in making new Catholics out of the dying. She encouraged that people accept their poverty.

These things seem "good" if, and only if, you accept that god really does hate abortion, contraception, and loves poverty. A similar scenario is currently being played out in sub-Saharan Africa, where the "good" Catholic church (with help from US-based protestants) is killing millions of people every year, in the name of a god for which they have no evidence exists AT ALL.

Médecins Sans Frontières does good work, without any religious pretext. Again, specific examples prove nothing, except that "religiosity" is in no way synonymous with "goodness".

[TomTom]

This implies that a belief in god is required to make the distinction between "good" and "bad", or at the very minimum, that we get our sense of "good" and "bad" from god. This is simply inconsistent with reality; religious people do bad things in the name of god, and atheists do good things without referencing god; and vice-versa, I might add. I would argue that there isn't even a strong correlation (never mind a causal relationship) between religiosity and "goodness".

I don't think that argument is valid. Yes, religious people have done and will continue to do bad things "in the name of God". The therefore of that though is not "God is not our source of the definitions of good and bad."

The big struggle in the lives of "religious" people is distinguishing between God's will and their own will. People often get confused regarding their motives..people often delude themselves into thinking their actions are in God's will. Because of this I do agree that there isn't a strong correlation or causal relationship between religiosity and "goodness".