SD on 13/1/2007 at 03:24
Okay, I just finished reading this excellent, excellent book. If you've been living under a rock for the last six months, it's the latest work by the eminent scientist Professor Richard Dawkins (he of The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker fame).
Now, I was somewhat sceptical about the book's central premise (treating the hypothesis of God as a scientific hypothesis like any other) but actually that's what I'd been unconsciously doing for years, and Dawkins quite brilliantly debunks the existence of God with science that everyone can understand.
However, while it's as witty and entertainingly acerbic as one might expect, Dawkins was pretty much preaching to the converted with me, and indeed this book is primarily aimed at curing theists of their "God delusion".
So I suppose my main question is to those believers who have read the book: were you cured of your religion, or did the book not convince? And of course, everyone else's views are welcome (but please don't turn this into a shit-flinging-fest, thanks :)).
Scots Taffer on 13/1/2007 at 03:29
Asking a believer if they were "cured" of their religion like it's an STD is probably not the best way to start a thread you wouldn't like to degenerate into shit-slinging.
Aerothorn on 13/1/2007 at 03:36
Scots beat me to it. No, I won't make some stupid "in before" joke about this.
It's my understanding that one cannot 'disprove' God. You can disprove parts of various religeous texts, yes, but the idea of a deity as a whole? Can't prove a negative. Course, I never read the book - presumably he addresses this?
Dr Sneak on 13/1/2007 at 03:40
God to be God is the Creator of the known universe. Because of that he is above and beyond that which he creates, so any scientist that thinks he can disprove His existence is a fool because the normal laws of the known universe don't apply to Him-he's outside the loop so to speak.
ignatios on 13/1/2007 at 03:48
Sheesh guys, I'm pretty sure Stronts just used the word "cure" not because he wants to start a fight (and get all rowdy like the aliums in Independence Day), but because that's how Dawkins approaches it.
Aerothorn on 13/1/2007 at 03:54
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
God to be God is the Creator of the known universe. Because of that he is above and beyond that which he creates.
Wait wait hold - what makes creators automatically 'above' that which they create? Are therefore all parents 'above' their children? And their parents above them? And, following the line, a bunch of cavemen in African above all of us?
Scots Taffer on 13/1/2007 at 04:00
Quote Posted by ignatios
Sheesh guys, I'm pretty sure Stronts just used the word "cure" not because he wants to start a fight (and get all rowdy like the aliums in Independence Day), but because that's how Dawkins approaches it.
But considering as he's inviting people to discuss it (believers, no less), surely he should approach it a little more tactfully - especially if he doesn't want to encourage a shit-slinging approach. I'm not going to be involved in the debate since I've not read the book and I'm not trying to stir shit here, I already think the prognosis for this thread is:
Inline Image:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7478/2uoq61wmt7.jpgConvict on 13/1/2007 at 04:06
Dawkins is a rather bitter twisted old man isn't he StD. Although IIRC he observes the Sabbath which seems hypocritical given his views.
SD on 13/1/2007 at 04:07
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
It's my understanding that one cannot 'disprove' God. You can disprove parts of various religeous texts, yes, but the idea of a deity as a whole? Can't prove a negative. Course, I never read the book - presumably he addresses this?
It's not about disproving God (you cannot yet disprove the existence of God any more than you can disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy or dragons) but about placing the likelihood of God's existence on the scale of probabilities. Needless to say, when all of the evidence is examined, the "probability of God" is something approaching zero.
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
God to be God is the Creator of the known universe. Because of that he is above and beyond that which he creates, so any scientist that thinks he can disprove His existence is a fool because the normal laws of the known universe don't apply to Him-he's outside the loop so to speak.
So, umm, who created God? And why are people fools for endeavouring to solve the mysteries of the universe?
Quote Posted by ignatios
Sheesh guys, I'm pretty sure Stronts just used the word "cure" not because he wants to start a fight (and get all rowdy like the aliums in Independence Day), but because that's how Dawkins approaches it.
Sorry, yes, I ought to have qualified that. Dawkins argument is that religious belief is a delusion akin to a psychiatric disorder (the appendix gives a list of addresses "for individuals needing support in escaping from religion") which is why I used the word 'cure'.
Quote Posted by Convict
Dawkins is a rather bitter twisted old man isn't he StD.
No, he's one of the most brilliant thinkers on this planet who deserves respect for standing up for atheists like me in the face of increasingly vile hostility.
Gingerbread Man on 13/1/2007 at 04:13
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
Wait wait hold - what makes creators automatically 'above' that which they create? Are therefore all parents 'above' their children? And their parents above them? And, following the line, a bunch of cavemen in African above all of us?
Different kind of "creation" we're talking about here. The Prime Creator would necessarily have to pre-exist, and it would have to create something from nothing -- not even of itself, because then it's not an archetypal creator, it's just a manipulator of things already existant.
I think more appropriate to say a creator would be
outside of the creation and the created, not the more colloquial "above and beyond" or whatever.
