Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
I comprehend quite clearly what Tommy said, and have done for some time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
I'm not trying to argue dishonestly, I just think that the argument of Aquinas only makes any sense if you start from "god exists". The rest of it is simply assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is a ludicrous argument:

quote:

---

Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:

quote:

---

only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation

---

Or, "you must accept god to believe any of this - after all, divine revelation can only happen through a god.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Spectacular!!!! Bravo.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

.... Dawkins is wrong to ignore such arguments entirely, if he is attacking a faith position. For if the believer can show that his faith position is "error free" - a valid deduction from the faith axioms not at odds with other known facts - then Dawkins critique inevitably reduces to "But I just don't believe that." Which has no more power than the believer saying "I believe that."

So Dawkins must engage with theology, if he claims that his position concerning faith is more than a more or less arbitrary choice he has made. He must demonstrate that mistakes are being made in theology, or he will always be properly defeated by a simple. "But you are wrong, God exists." He knows that, at least subconsciously (presumably he has not read Aquinas). But what he apparently mostly does is to attack caricatures of the weakest theology out there, avoiding anything more challenging. And that is simply intellectually dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Don't try to defend big claims with theology. It won't work in a reasoned argument where he got to determine in his book (not yours) what is reasonable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins has defined the terms. If you don't like those terms, than we are done. Don't try to defend big claims with theology. It won't work in a reasoned argument where he got to determine in his book (not yours) what is reasonable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If all Dawkins says is "I do not believe in God," then he is indeed cutting off theology at the root. Fine, end of discussion. But then nobody gives a shit about that.

---

quote:

---

What is it to me if Dawkins does not believe in God?

---

quote:

---

"Religion is LIKE Art, Richard. Not Science. Yes, some people think it is Science, but they are delusional. Some people think you can use reasoning to determine whether Art is art, they are also delusional. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

So if you want to argue about whether Art is Art, using science, than you are being absurd. You are trying to use science to tell me if something is Art or not. You're being silly. You can tell me if the paint is red, maybe. You can tell me if the plaster is of a certain hardness. But I will tell YOU if it is Art or not, and you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can give me your opinion, and I will ignore it, or not, but you are not right about whether it is art."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Nice misquote. He defined the terms of the reasoned debate in his book. If you want to argue those terms, write your own book.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
He must demonstrate that mistakes are being made in theology, or he will always be properly defeated by a simple. "But you are wrong, God exists."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
.... So he does that all the time to gain fame and fortune.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
[QB]Hence Dawkins needs to understand theology sufficiently to attack it. Or he could simply say that he does not believe in God. And nobody would give a shit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If all Dawkins says is "I do not believe in God," then he is indeed cutting off theology at the root. Fine, end of discussion. But then nobody gives a shit about that.

---

Look at that! You got it and in ONE paragraph. You could have stopped there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails. Perhaps he is hitting close to home?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You want to think that your beliefs are based on reason, well they aren't. There is no reason in "Here there be dragons". You simply say "I believe" and walk away. You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The problem of course is that you are playing the game on his field. You and Tommy are trying to assume that it is reasoned, or that it is able to proved somehow. It's not. You believe in Faeries. It's at best, art, not a science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To continue to believe in what you can't see, is inherently UN-reasoned-able.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
I see Aquinas's as the dishonest argument (statement, if you prefer) - it's tantamount to a homeopath saying, "You won't be able to understand this unless you accept the truth of molecular memory first." I repeat - the same argument can be used to justify Leprechauns and fairies and the FSM. Surely, you'd rate god above that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
Dismissing Dorkins with one hand, while holding Tommy up with the other isn't a good look.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Atheist:
This is the biggie, right here, but I have to side with Geo and Dorkins rather than you and Tommy. I see Aquinas's as the dishonest argument (statement, if you prefer) - it's tantamount to a homeopath saying, "You won't be able to understand this unless you accept the truth of molecular memory first."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
And so Dawkins: he is perfectly entitled to say ``Theology is bullshit because I don't believe in any kind of non-material person''. And that's fine. But there's no book in that.

So he finds himself engaging with theology as a subject, which he needs to do in an intellectually honest way. And that means taking on the finest minds, not ignorant dickheads. Even if Dorkins thinks that believers are, in the overwhelming majority, ignorant dickheads, he still has to take on the best arguments for belief, not the worst, to be playing fair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
You tell me. You and others have set here for how many days flogging him because he literally questioned your holy grails. Perhaps he is hitting close to home? You want to think that your beliefs are based on reason, well they aren't. There is no reason in "Here there be dragons". You simply say "I believe" and walk away. You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Do you [MG] have any comprehension of how ignorant and offensive you are being here? Yes, I absolutely DO care about the things that Dawkins says, because implicitly he insults my intelligence.

---

quote:

---

I can't speak for the others on this forum, but I never - NEVER - say "I believe" and walk away. It is unimaginably insulting to suggest I do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originall posted by Mad Geo
You don't whip out Tommy for Athena's sake, that just makes your argument look absurd.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
With the greatest respect, I think you're completely missing the point that IngoB is making about Aquinas (and Dawkins). <snip: actual point>

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Do you [MG] have any comprehension of how ignorant and offensive you are being here? Yes, I absolutely DO care about the things that Dawkins says, because implicitly he insults my intelligence.

---

What utter crap. On that basis I could say that your endless repetition of other people's arguments insults the intelligence of everyone reading this thread.

Why should anyone give your sensitivities the time of day when you attack a book you proudly claim you haven't read (because you just know it's not worth reading, because, oh yes, lots of people who disagree with the author tell you so), and dismiss with sarcasm comments pointing out your errors of fact?

quote:

---

I can't speak for the others on this forum, but I never - NEVER - say "I believe" and walk away. It is unimaginably insulting to suggest I do.

---

What planet are you on. Haven't you heard of agreeing to disagree?

---

Dave,

I gotta tell you that I am so glad you were here to remind me that I wasn't losing my mind, and that to the greatest irony I have possibly observed on the Ship that Dawkins predicted nearly to the exact detail in the very book that I read and teh detractors here have not, the arguments that they would use. It has happened over and over and over. Makes the man look bloody brilliant and prescient, again ironically. Thanks!

They just can't seem to help to gloss over the "Insert god into argument A HERE" in any argument that is broached. It's utterly fascinating. We/Dawkins say "Yes, your argument is fine, except for the part where you inserted "God" there in argument A, which we/Dawkins don't grant you because it requires Faeries to float about the room.

Everyone detracting,

Dawkins has a point and he has your number. Any argument, any argument at all that requires Faeries to float about the room, can certainly be pointed out as having questionable reasoning if any reason at all. Every argument presented here to date was Faery-ridden.

See my art argument. It really will help in future discussions with non-believers that have been taught by Dawkins to argue with the likes of you. That is not me btw, I have been taught by the likes of you to deal with the likes of you all on my own.

P.S. "Reasonable Faeries".



That's rich.

[ 24. May 2007, 14:47: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
you attack a book you proudly claim you haven't read (because you just know it's not worth reading, because, oh yes, lots of people who disagree with the author tell you so

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins has a point and he has your number.

---

quote:

---

Every argument presented here to date was Faery-ridden.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
We/Dawkins say "Yes, your argument is fine, except for the part where you inserted "God" there in argument A, which we/Dawkins don't grant you because it requires Faeries to float about the room.

---

1. It follows from known facts that there is no God.
2. An argument that makes use of God is not correct apart from its use of God.
3. The conclusions reached from a correct argument that uses God are at odds with known facts.

1. Is untrue. (No conclusive disproof of God is known to mankind.)
2. Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.
3. Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
And so Dawkins: he is perfectly entitled to say ``Theology is bullshit because I don't believe in any kind of non-material person''. And that's fine. But there's no book in that.

So he finds himself engaging with theology as a subject, which he needs to do in an intellectually honest way. And that means taking on the finest minds, not ignorant dickheads. Even if Dorkins thinks that believers are, in the overwhelming majority, ignorant dickheads, he still has to take on the best arguments for belief, not the worst, to be playing fair.

But he doesn't. Not only does he take on the weakest of opponents, he ascribes to them beliefs which many do not, in fact, hold. If Dawkins thinks that all theology is bullshit, he should say that and shut up. If he would rather take it on as a subject, he should do it fairly. He is not in any sense compelled to accept the axioms of theology (eg., that there is a God) to do this, any more than I am compelled to accept that homeopathy works to have a reasonable discussion about the mechanisms that are said to underly homeopathy.

---

quote:

---

"There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So Dawkins is forced to write about one or more of the following:

1. It follows from known facts that there is no God.
2. An argument that makes use of God is not correct apart from its use of God.
3. The conclusions reached from a correct argument that uses God are at odds with known facts.

Unfortunately for Dawkins:

1. Is untrue. (No conclusive disproof of God is known to mankind.)
2. Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.
3. Showing this requires knowledge of the (theological) argument.

Since Dawkins has basically no clue about theological arguments, and has not found the "magic bullet" argument against God, his book can only contain drivel. And so it apparently does...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Now I am not doing justice to Dawkins arguments, I may have even not understood them entirely either, as they do not really matter to me other than as sport. Unlike apparently many people on this thread, I understand that Religion, like art, is not subject to the games that Dawkins is trying to play, but can appreciate his arguments from his perspective. So please do not argue his points with me as I understood them. Buy the book, choke through it, and then come back and shred it here. “Dawkins is an ass because I said so” while not having actually read his arguments is as lame an argument, as any of his. Lamer in fact.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
What you forget, oh mad one, is that Dawkins regularly contributes articles to the press, the book has been widely excerpted and he recently appeared on a two part TV programme so we do have an idea where he's coming from here. Most of us have read a number of his books which are pretty good as science and rather less good as philosophy of religion. The point is, given his form, quite a few of us are disinclined to part with a tenner of our hard earned cash to pay for a re-boiled version of his articles in the Independent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Mad Geo: I like the art analogy. However, it seems to me that RD is not so much saying "x is not Art" as saying "Art is crap. In fact, there's actually no such thing as art, and anyone who claims to be an art critic is full of crap. I know, because I can see that it's just all paint and plaster, and there's nothing else."

The above statements are all true from a strict reductionist viewpoint, but terribly unhelpful to anyone looking at a painting. Would you agree?

---

quote:

---

Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response? I mean, he's opinionated, arrogant and overexposed, but that's hardly unique. As a matter of fact Douglas Adams held very similar views (see the Salmon of Doubt), and I've never seen people getting as angry about that...

- Chris.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
And to you Papio old boy (I think that's a complement on your side of the pond IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong).

I swear to Zeus if this was a debate on being Gay I'd be tempted to out you for protesting too much. For a proclaimed non-Christian, you sure can't walk away from this thread defending it. It's downright hillarious watching you flop around like a fish getting worked up defending that which you allegedly don't believe from it's biggest detractor. May want to have that position checked. It seems to be lacking some salt.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
I genuinely think that Dawkins gives athiests a bad name, and I genuinely think that he hates all religionist of every stripe (including Dave Marshall) and that he hates agnostics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response? I mean, he's opinionated, arrogant and overexposed, but that's hardly unique.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
What you forget, oh mad one, is that Dawkins regularly contributes articles to the press, the book has been widely excerpted and he recently appeared on a two part TV programme so we do have an idea where he's coming from here. Most of us have read a number of his books which are pretty good as science and rather less good as philosophy of religion. The point is, given his form, quite a few of us are disinclined to part with a tenner of our hard earned cash to pay for a re-boiled version of his articles in the Independent. I propose to get it out of the library when my reading schedule is a little less heavy because I am pretty certain I won't read anything in there that I haven't already encountered in some form or other. So I consider myself qualified to comment on Dawkins' views, but not to give a full review of his latest book which, you'll notice, I haven't done.

The nearest analogy is Nick Cohen's book 'What's Left' which is also based on his newspaper articles, the thesis of which, is that people who opposed the Iraq war are objectively pro-Baathist or pro-Islamofascist, which I have no intention of reading because, again, I don't think there's anything original that he hasn't said time and again in his articles. The obvious difference is that, notwithstanding his views on religion, I rather admire Dawkins as an author. I just think he does more good as a scientific writer than in popularising a rather tired history-of-ideasy bourgeois secularism.

---

I am very aware that you all are subjected to probably a more-than-healthy dose of Dawkinsanity on a regular if not daily basis. I feel your pain.

The problem is that not everyone here apparently has because they are continuing to post arguments that Dawkins address in the book being discussed at hand "The God Delusion". The OP was actually about a book that argues Dawkins positions in TGD.

In a sense TGD is the Magnum Opus regarding his beliefs on god/theology/etc. Soundbites on the tellie or even in magazine/newsprint/etc. I usspect hardly do it justice. This thread has been like watching people comment on the entire bible via the rantings of a few preachers on tv and a magazine article. Hardly a fair and reasonable reading, if one can call it a reading at all.

I often wonder if Dawkins was American how he would be received. I wonder if our culture is more (or less) immunized against the rantings of such on tv? More or less used to a heated debate on whatever. Or at least direct talk/debating techniques like Dawkins uses. I certainly do not find him as obnoxious as clearly as some posters do here. I wonder if he's a misplaced American?

In whatever case, I like having Dawkins around. During the 60s there were feministas running around man-bashing and being assholes. From that a lot of wrongness being done to women was corrected. Everyone moved a little towards feminism while the freaky feminists eventually chilled out (more or less). A cause often requires a polemic to drive the cause, to get people impassioned, and to create new ways of thinking about things.

I live in a country where the Christian Fucking Freaks actually rule the roost. We get their stupid faces all the time from Haggard preaching gays are going to hell while screwing the poolboy. We get Bush calling for Crusades. We get a crossdressing divorcee (Giuliani) running to the right in order to appease the likes of that pseudo-christian fuck James Dobson.

It all makes Dawkins look like the voice of reason on a bad day.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Here's the most amazing part of your debate there. Yet again, you have no idea of Dawkins argument. NONE. NYET. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You haven't read it, so you are claiming all sorts of things that he addresses in his book through various ways and your arguments look absurd accordingly. How many times do I have to say it? Actually I’ll start with Number 1, since Dawkins clearly does and I remember his argument somehwat there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Certain things are exceedingly unlikely. Faeries are unlikely. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is unlikely. We certainly can agree on that. Any argument that derives from an exceedingly unlikely thing such as Faery needs to have its core assumption (the Faery) proven by the one making the assertion, FIRST. Great claims require great proofs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
So let’s say that a scientist asserts that since he can’t explain how the Big Bang occurred, and how the universe is set so precisely to make it possible for life to appear. The scientist inserts “Faery” into the gap where he can’t explain it. Well that’s absurd. Faery is a mythological creature, right? We all KNOW that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins goes on to discuss the case that any god that creates the universe certainly has to be more complicated than the universe it creates. It had to create all the rules, all the material, all the design, blah, blah, blah. So we are inserting something more complex to explain away complexity that we can’t explain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Buy the book, choke through it, and then come back and shred it here.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike fairies, God is not postulated by faith as some being inhabiting this universe. Hence any sort of probabilistic calculation of the likelihood of such a Being fails on principle: we cannot meaningfully compare with any known data, for we only have data about beings inhabiting this universe. I'm not well versed in FSMology, but likely the FSM can be shown to be either self-contradictory or leading to false conclusions about the world. This is not the case for God. Further, God is a solution to the fundamental metaphysical puzzle that anything exists at all. Finally, one can make a decent case that neuroscience and physics cannot derive the human mental experience from the human body (in particular: the brain), even in principle. This suggests that personhood is at least partly non-material. Putting all this together: it makes no sense to talk about a probabilistic likelihood of God's existence, but the existence of God is well motivated by human experience and metaphysics, and does not lead to any contradictions with known facts. Hence to claim that God exists is not extraordinary in any sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Unlike fairies, Santa Claus is not postulated by MY ARTISTIC SENSE as some being inhabiting this universe. Hence any sort of probabilistic calculation of the likelihood of such a Santa Claus fails on principle: we cannot meaningfully compare with any known data, for we only have data about beings inhabiting this universe. I'm not well versed in FSMology, but likely the FSM can be ARM WAVED to be either self-contradictory or leading to false conclusions about the world. This is not the case for Santa Claus. Further, Santa Claus is IN MY OPINION a solution to the fundamental metaphysical FANTASY that anything exists at all. Finally, one can make a decent case that neuroscience and physics cannot derive the human mental experience from the human body (in particular: the brain), even in principle. This suggests that personhood is at least partly non-material. Putting all this together: it makes no sense to talk about a probabilistic likelihood of Santa Claus existence, but the existence of Santa Claus is well motivated by human EMOTIONAL UNRATIONAL experience and METAFANTASY, and does not lead to any contradictions with known facts. Hence to claim that Santa Claus exists is not extraordinary in any sense.

---

• Santa Claus is outside the universe. Says who? If this god is a creature that we cannot actually know anything about in any real sense (and it is) than your assumption is as likely as not. Perhaps Santa Claus limited itself to this Universe as it created it. Perhaps it IS the universe, we are a part of its mind. You’re trying to remove the artist from the art.
• I hereby posit that Faerie are outside the known universe too (Santa Claus lives at the North Pole of course, so I had to switch back to the Faeries). By your “logic” Faerie therefore actually exist.
• Science hasn’t figured out how gravity works either. This suggest that gravity is at least partly non-material. It must be produced by faeries.
• “Human experience” tells me that if I take a little bit of a certain mushroom, I can actually see Faeries and possibly even god. Doesn’t mean it’s so.
• “does not lead to any contradictions with known facts” Rubbish squared. All manner of claims are made for god that contradict with known facts. Creation, Miracles, Virgin Births, Walking on water, etc. etc. The entire bible or any other religious text of your choosing contradicts with known facts.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noiseboy:
Let's say for a moment that I don't believe that physics is real. To prove my point, I find the oddest, maddest physicists in the history of the world, and selectively quote them. I then go on, on that basis, to ridicule every lay person who believes in physics - "They are all deluded! Look at the mad people they follow!"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Dawkins thinks that any faith position ultimately reduces to "God says...". Sometimes what God is alleged to say is reasonable (by a logical or ethical measure) and sometimes it isn't - but illogic and immorality, as a matter of actual fact, are no necessary discouragement to faith positions. "All apostates should be killed" might be challenged on ethical grounds, but a very large number of people will still believe it, regardless of the ethics, if they can be induced as a matter of faith to think that it is a commandment of God.

Which is why Dawkins thinks that faith is an inherently bad way to reach conclusions. It will lead to real-world decisions of utmost gravity being made on criteria which simply cannot be challenged outside the context of particular beliefs, and which (outside that context) appear absurd. He is well aware that most believers do not think that God is telling them to kill anyone - that's not the point. They are still thinking in the same way as those that do - believing things to be true which they would reject if they were not convinced that God had said it.

I don't think he's right. I also don't think it is a weak, dishonest or lazy objection to faith. It seems to me to be a weighty argument deserving of serious consideration.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
With the greatest respect, I think you're completely missing the point that IngoB is making about Aquinas (and Dawkins). <snip: actual point>

---

This is just to note that CrookedCucumber has indeed perfectly represented the point I've been trying to make with his explanations above.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Why yes!

You are very appropriately named btw.

As I said in my art analogy: "if you (Dawkins) want to argue about whether Art is Art, using science, than you are being absurd. You are trying to use science to tell me if something is Art or not. You're being silly. You can tell me if the paint is red, maybe. You can tell me if the plaster is of a certain hardness. But I will tell YOU if it is Art or not, and you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can give me your opinion, and I will ignore it, or not, but you are not right about whether it is art."

But the funny thing is that the people here are not engaging him on the "painting is crap" level.

---

Thanks. I think the analogy is helpful, because it's an area of knowledge which most people disagree on a great deal, but most people believe exists. The problem that I see on this thread is that RD would like to disallow the entire field as invalid, which to the theologically-minded comes across a bit like someone trying to deny that language exists when discussing Shakespeare!

I think the problem is one of epistemology: if you think (as RD seems to) that the only valid way of finding out about the universe is by scientific empiricism, then you invalidate (and then loudly rubbish, in his case) everyone else's claim to derive valid knowledge ("truth" if you must) about the universe in different, higher levels and more holistic ways. A bit like claiming that all biology is physics because animals are made up of atoms.

I'm reading John Polkinghorne at the moment on exactly this subject. He manages to be a particle physicst, FRS and an ordained minister, and he has a rather more "nuanced and subtle" approach to the question. In fact, he uses an analogy rather similar to yours . His contention is that theology and science are a lot more similar than most people allow: they are both attempting to create meaning and signifcance out of our experiences of the universe.

quote:

---

[Dawkins] cites his appreciation for Douglas Adams quite strongly in the book. He misses him.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by merechristian:
I haven't read any Dawkins, but from talking to a coworker who read the God Delusion, his main argument seems to be an ad hominem attack on faith, he attacks the actions of the people who are faithful, as opposed to the truth claims of the faith itself. Does any know if he's tackled the transcendental argument for the existence of God? And if he has, what does he say about it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
Everyone else: What is it about Dawkins that inspires such an emotional response?

---

I suspect that, on this thread, people are responding to Mad Geo, rather than Dawkins.

---

quote:

---

....If ever I was tempted in my darkest hour to believe that Richard Dawkins spoke about some kind of actual reality, then this is definitively the moment where my mind is at rest. The most incredible thing about the quote above is that he has had months to reflect on it. It is so factually baseless, verifiably incorrect and - well, let's call a spade a spade - WRONG, that for the first time I am seriously considering his own mental health, with no hyperbole. This man is a respected scientist, he is at home with data analysis. He cannot be afforded the excuse of ignorance.....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:
In fact, he uses an analogy rather similar to yours . His contention is that theology and science are a lot more similar than most people allow: they are both attempting to create meaning and signifcance out of our experiences of the universe.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Dawkins aside, the assumptions in [IngoB's] post are legion...

---