Blind faith and resonable faith. LOL

That's like drawing a line between blind racism and reasonable racism.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

I highly suggest this review of Dawkins' book, written by Terry Eagleton, the renowned marxist literary critic. Dawkins is coming from an overly rational POV--one that presupposes the existence of the objects of science, believes to understand the nature of perception, and one that believes in neverending progress through science and atheism. If only we could purge the age-old longing for meaning through God! But his presuppositions require faith, and a faith of similar nature to that of christian faith. The existence of the objects of science is a matter of faith. Have you and Dawkins no knowledge of the history of philosophy after Descartes? Faith is all around us--I say this as an agnostic--faith in justice, equality, freedom. From where do these values spring? Is it common sense that people should have an equality of opportunity? Religion isn't categorically illogical because of any lack of empirical varifiability, and positive knowledge of anything (except that we exist) is impossible. Dawkins' posturing makes him look arrogant and sophomoric to anyone with the least bit of knowledge of the philosophy of Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine, Barthes, Kierkegaard, or any other philosopher/theologian who is much more brilliant than he.

This was such a great reading and Q&A. I was shocked at the number of Liberty University people -- even a ~Professor!~ -- who asked some of the most ridiculous questions.

I really liked when one questioner said he'd never been more insulted and enjoyed the way in which he was -- to which Dawkins replied that the person shouldn't feel insulted, because Dawkins wasn't insulting him personally. He was insulting God. Great moment, and a great point.

Now Marcos read Sean Carroll's response to the Eagleton review.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,255,The-God-Conundrum,Sean-Carroll

Goodness me, how I wish I even had a fraction of Dr. Dawkins' brainpower:)

I'll keep it simple.

You have the best blog I've ever read.

Oh my, that was delightful. How many of us had that very same discussion about causality and decree by fiat - with a child's vocabulary, of course - back in junior school? I remember it vaguely. I could only scowl at the kids trying to convince me that God existed outside of space and time. I looked at them with a sort of scowl and said "what makes him so special?" and they couldn't answer ... were I still that smart today.

Norm, that's great that you have offered up your video clips to richarddawkins.net!! Atheists working together... yay!

Dawkins can answer just about anything thrown his way. Very interesting series of clips, thanks.

Every time Dawkins uses the "Well isn't that just too easy" argument, I chuckle, because of that's one of the few times he drops the rational argument line of debate. How easy or not the argument is has no bearing on its feasibility or likelihood of being true. It's really a different way of phrasing, "I don't like that possibility."

If (hypothetically) God exists, and (hypothetically) he does exist outside nature, then he's not somehow 'cheating' by violating (our) natural laws - he's acting in accordance with his own nature.

This response from Dawkins always reminds me of Einstein's comments on quantum theory ('God does not play dice with the universe'). The idea that quantum particles didn't obey Newtonian laws really irked Einstein. Dawkins likewise displays an inability to even rationally consider something that doesn't fit in the frame of his argument.

I too chuckle every time Kevin presents this straw man Dawkins is certainly not dropping rational argument. He is simply saying we have no evidence to believe that. He acknowledges it as a possibility as he did in the God vs Science piece in Time Magazine The problem is the unjustified transition from there is a God (whatever the hell that means) outside of time and space and to the idea that it is human like, that it listens to your prayers, that it gives a damn whether you live or die. If it was simply an intellectual construct it would be a non-issue, it is the anthropomorphizing of that God he is reacting too.

I didn't present a strawman. I said "How easy or not the argument is has no bearing on its feasibility or likelihood of being true."

If you'd really like to argue on this point, please provide the rational justification for the statement "Well isn't that just too easy." Man, insinuating that every utterance Dawkins makes isn't profound sometimes makes me feel like, well, like I've insulted someone's religion.

He doesn't 'simply' say, "We have no evidence to believe that" as (presumably) it would immediately be followed by, "Well, of course we don't. How could you have evidence of something that existed outside nature?"

But the "Well isn't that just too easy" comment sounds more punchy. Makes it sound like his opponent was trying to be devious and slide one past everyone, as opposed to someone who just honestly holds a belief in something beyond what they can prove. And by the way, the person asking the question didn't anthropomorphize God, so why would you (or Dawkins) assume you already knew what type of 'God' the questioner was referring to?

Marcos There is absolutely no need to have faith in science. They can be proven. That's the point.

Sorry, that last one should have read:

Marcos There is absolutely no need to have faith in the objects of science. They can be proven. That's the point.

Kevin,

I think your analysis lacks proper context. What context you do provide is in my opinion skewed to support your point of view. I'm really not interested in discussing it further with you, been there done that.

Marcos, I don't mean to be rude, but you're an idiot! Faith comes from the Middle English word feith, meaning trust in God. Modern meanings of the word are; having trust and loyalty to God, or to a person. By those definitions, faith cannot be used to describe a secular scientist. The beauty of science is that it constantly evolves. Science does not have an allegiance to any theory, if it is disproved then it is discarded with. Unfortunately, what blinds you to to reality is that you are a fanatic, one who has "uncritical devotion" (Merriam-Webster).

Hi all. I thank Kevin for expressing my disappointment at Dawkins's casual remark.Indeed, it's not so easy to come forward as a believer, to challenge this scholar with the question that is deeply rooted in both science and faith: what is reality? So that guy deserved a wittier answer. M. Dawkins tells us that Richard Feinman ‘s way to illustrate the stupefying accuracy of Quantum theory (QT) is “Predicting the width of North America to the width of one human hair” … and he also said “ If you think you understand QT, well, then, you don’t understand it.”. Ok, Feinman is not much of an orator nor a poet. Dawkins concludes “It leaves one in no doubt that in some sense, QT must be right” …Certainly unconvincing for people who teach and believe that dinosaurs were alive and kicking 6,000 years ago.

But then, Dawkins also tells us about the Multiverse theory and is pointing at scientist’s sheer wonder in front the beauty of the mathematical concepts their minds were able to produce while trying to explain the sheer marvel and utter mystery: the world. Even if, unlike Quantum physics, the Multiverse theory has yet to be proved (Notice he doesn’t refer to string theory, thank God!)

Likewise, when spiritualists brush aside the accuracy of the laws of physics to refer to a dogma and when they proselytise and come to you with myths, heavens and hells and a code of conduct, it doesn’t provide much food for thought. Scoffing at the Darwinian theory is as lame as shrugging at faith even if sometimes both deserve it. Science is more often than not pervaded by power and clans which has proverbially led to the debunking of valid theories and unfortunately, it has also led them to ignore deliberately large spots in the scope of their research. As for religions, they have proved to be so bellicose, infatuated and little prone to share their views that many an atheist is reluctant to even listen to them. Only some mystics have avoided those traps.

So what is someone like me (non-scientist/non-religious – but curious –so a onegoodmove addict) supposed to ask to leaders of both camps? Conversation. Challenging thinking. Bridging the gap. That’s why I enjoyed the books of dialogues between David Bohm a Quantum physicist and Krishnamurti, a mystic (both very high-profile) 1999. Limits of Thought: Discussions,. 1985. The Ending of Time which I recommend to you. Dawkins’ lecture was alsoa treat for me, but not in the way I had expected. At least, it did give me food for thought.

Kevin,

You are arguing semantics and applying the wrong context. When Dawkins states that a suggestion is 'just too easy', the context is not the liklihood of the argument itself, but rather the observation that in a complex and dynamic universe, simple explanations rarely yield simple solutions. Put another way, I have heard time and time again the Occham's Razer argument for the statement that 'god created everything'. That statement is certainly NOT the simplest explanation just because it is a simple statement. In fact, it poses more illogical and unexplainable complexities if further thought through, which is not conducted as long as someone pulls the 'faith' card. It's an outlet to not thinking.

There has been a fair amount of discussion about the phrase 'just to easy'. The conjecture that 'God' exists outside of time and space is an interesting one, but it lacks any explanatory ability. In that sense it is no better than 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster' exists outside of time and space equally interesting but also lacking in the ability to explain anything. The thing that is really offensive and I suspect at the root of Richard's statement is bizarre leap of faith from there to that it is evidence of the God most Christians, Muslims, and Jews attribute to the word.

The answering the question as to where the universe came from with god only complicates the matter even more.

You automatically must ask, then who created god, then who greated the creator of god..

The normal answer is, I do not know or he just has always existed ...

Why then could the universe not have always existed?

Kevin, His "isn't that just too easy" comment is not at all an example of him dropping the rational line of debate. While he doesn't say it in these exact words, his basic statement is that an argument which assumes no observable rules, and has no basis except in it's own claim that it is correct, is not rational. If your argument is analagous to 'I'm right because I/God/my argument/the cookie monster say(s) I'm right'--then you can believe what you want, but he's certainly not going to argue with you.

It makes perfect rational sense--if one is making up rules of existence which are not observable, there's no point in further discussion with someone who bases his understanding of reality on observable phenomena.

I generally quite respect Richard Dawkins and I think he makes a lot of great arguments. Sometimes I wish he would handle the religious peoples questions a little differently. In my opinion when he is confronted by these slippery questions from people demanding he prove that their chosen entity doesn't exist he should simply say, "Look, if you choose to believe in any entity, based completely on faith, then I wish you the best. Many other people, however, choose to view all things, including religion, as subject to reasonable criticism. Those are the people to whom I'm trying to make my arguments." He knows that there are many people that will never be swayed by his arguments and I think he doesn't need to concern himself with fighting those unwinable battles any more than is necessary.

Norm, thanks so much for your blog and especially the video clips. I get a lot of my news through you here in China.

1. When Dawkins says "That's too easy...", I pretty sure he's referring to the argument itself, not the statistical likelihood of it's being true (although I could be wrong). But if he's referring to the statistical likelihood of it's being true, aside from communicating somewhat poorly, his argument would be suspect, as he'd be applying Darwinian evolutionary principles to God (i.e. applying our natural laws to something that exists outside of our natural universe).

2. I think we're all clear on the fact that there's no scientific proof for a supernatural god (and hopefully all equally clear in the realization that there should be no expectation one could find such proof if such a god existed).

And just to rebut a really tired point (which I've mentioned before), God is not the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster! The only benefit in comparing the FSM to the idea of God is to show that there is no more conclusive evidence of one over the other. So it's a great argument to make against someone who thinks they can prove God exists. However, it's usefulness ends there.

So fundamentally, the question comes back to, "Is it acceptable for someone to hold a belief in something they can not prove?" followed by "Is there any value in such beliefs?"

What if I believe that art is beautiful? Or that free will exists? Or that the life of a newborn baby is worth more than that of a mayfly? Or that humility is more noble than arrogance? Are discussions of those unprovable arguments meaningless?

This question isn't one of science, unless you're arguing with creationists (in which case, more power to you). I understand why some religious people get worked up over the fact that people hold different opinions than they do - it's inherent in a lot of religious culture (though not all). What consistently amazes me is how many atheists demonstrate the same intolerance for people not sharing their unprovable beliefs (even if you want to define the goal of not having any 'beliefs' as a belief in itself).

Jazneeto, I appreciate your comment, and I think that many average atheists involved in discussions about religion DO take that perspective, saying, as you said,

"Look, if you choose to believe in any entity, based completely on faith, then I wish you the best. Many other people, however, choose to view all things, including religion, as subject to reasonable criticism. Those are the people to whom I'm trying to make my arguments."

It's a great statement. Average folks like myself can say this and mean it. I often do. I'm a "live and let live" kind of person. But I think Richard Dawkins actually aims beyond preaching to the already converted. He wants to take on the arguments of folks that have faith, and attempt to break off little bits and pieces of their illogical thoughts, so that they are forced to see the rationality behind science, and the irrationality of faith. We NEED someone like him to stir up the hornets' nest. We really do.

And Kevin: Your first comment didn't really have a lot of thought behind it. I agree that Dawkins often makes statements that sound "punchy." He has a sharp wit, and he is famous for his skill with the English language. He immediately followed his punchy statement, "Well isn't that just too easy" with a description of how the questioner was talking his way out of having to provide a rational argument. Dawkins definitely stuck with rationality in this case.

And then, getting back to Jazneeto's comment, Dawkins even said, "If you're convinced by that kind of thing, you're welcome." So there it is. Dawkins recognized a person that "will never be swayed" and acquiesced.

BTW, I'd like to know, specifically, the ways in which "God" is not the same as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Can this statement be backed up?

Dawkins' dismissing of the God-lies-outside-of-time claim is probably a result of his earlier conversation with Stephen Colbert, where he offered the same response, though admittedly under more pressing time constraints.

This is my first visit to the site, came here via Mike's Skeptic Rant and really appreciate you posting these clips. Some good questions being asked in a reasonable environment with excellent answers from Dawkins.

You've an excellent site here with what seems to be a very nice community of posters.

(feel free to not post this comment, it's more a case of me saying thanks than wanting to join the discussion)

"What if I believe that art is beautiful? Or that free will exists? Or that the life of a newborn baby is worth more than that of a mayfly? Or that humility is more noble than arrogance? Are discussions of those unprovable arguments meaningless?"

Yes except to the individual.

I don't care if you think art is beautiful, or the value you put on human life over other life or what traits you find appealing. These are inconsequential to me just as whether or not you choose to believe in fantasies.

Once your fantasies affect the society I live in you are no longer entitled to promote them without challenge.

Jamey: BTW, I'd like to know, specifically, the ways in which "God" is not the same as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Can this statement be backed up?

The idea of god goes back as far as recorded history (with personal testimonies over that period numbering in the tens of thousands if not millions) and has been one of the single most influential phenomena in human culture. FSM is a cute idea that originated a few years ago to make a point during a highly publicized court case dealing with the subject of evolution vs. creationism in schools. When the two get dropped in the same sentence without any context as if they are equal, it demonstrates an incredibly narrow field of vision on the part of the speaker. They are equivalent in that they are both propositions which have no scientific basis, but not much more than that.

And my first comment had a great deal of thought behind it. I thought that Dawkins gave a crummy answer to an honest question. Many (most?) people who believe in God believe that he exists outside the confines of this universe. Dawkins' response to that was, "Well, isn't that too easy." I said that I thought that was a poor response (especially from a scientist), as how 'easy' it is has zero bearing on whether or not it's true. Dawkins then went on to imply that this description of God was arrived at (in a cause & effect fashion) to avoid a logical argument, as opposed to conceding that it's simply a question science isn't adequately equipped to address.

Dar: Once your fantasies affect the society I live in you are no longer entitled to promote them without challenge.

First of all, your use of the word 'fantasies' doesn't speak well towards you demonstrating tolerance for people who disagree with you. But beyond that, do you not think that things like art and the perceived value of human life don't affect the society you live in? It's hard to find beliefs people hold that don't affect society. And if those things are meaningless except to the individual, I've got a lot of philosophers who'd like to talk with you.

My big complaint with Dawkins has always been that he doesn't target creationists, or radical fundamentalists (whom I'd agree negatively affect society). He singles out anyone and everyone who holds a belief in God. Which makes it appear like he's as concerned with the belief itself as with the behavior of (some) people who hold it.

Sorry I'm not going to pretend it's anything less. I don't tell anyone what to think or believe so I tolerate it until it affects me, at that point I require more proof than someone's imagination.

What does art have to do with religion? As far as the value of human life you're going to have to be more specific if you want a response. Religion does not have a monopoly on that topic either so I fail to see your point.

Your first comment about Dawkins response is the same argument a child would make if the existence of their imaginary friend were to be challenged.

Dawkins addressed the question as any rational person would. You can't make up the rules as you go along and therefore the question is silly but like he said at the end if that works for you then you're welcome. It just won't hold up when challenged.

First of all, your use of the word 'fantasies' doesn't speak well towards you demonstrating tolerance for people who disagree with you.

Again we find the argument of the conflation between respect and tolerance. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than Norm has been doing but here goes. I can 'tolerate' a Flat-earther, a conspiracy theorist, or a Holocaust Denier, but I do not for one second respect their position nor have to for that matter. The right to free speech and of religion does not also grant you by default the right to be taken seriously.

Dar,

Everyone's beliefs affect them and society. If you mean you only care when people's beliefs directly affect you in a negative fashion, I'm with you. Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't confine his criticism to only those religious people who do what you describe, but to anyone who merely chooses to believe in some form of god.

What does art have to do with religion, etc? Nothing aside from the fact that their relative truths can not be scientifically proven. If you decry the notion of belief in god on that basis, there's a great deal of societal 'baggage' that comes with it.

And I stand by my first comment. The 'too easy' comment is how someone with a clear bias responds. A truly rational response would be (as it would for questions of art & philosophy) that the notion is something science isn't adequately equipped to address.

Erick,

You can prove Flat-earthers & Holocaust Deniers wrong. Can you do the same to someone believing in God?

I was just commenting that your use of the word 'fantasies' communicates a clear predisposition which many people would find a hindrance to further discussion. If you want to begin every discussion with someone who believes in God (something you can not disprove) with the same lack of respect you'd show to a Flat-earthers or Holocaust Deniers (something you can disprove), that's your business.

Just don't expect people to ignore the inconsistency.

Kevin, Can you prove the existence of God? Before you try to mock Erick or others, remember, the burden is upon YOU to prove to the rest of us that God exists. You can't honestly expect rational people to believe everything that others pull out of their ass? By that standard I would have to follow every cult that comes about. If the burden was upon people to disprove irrational thought, then, you must first disprove Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, and every other God out there. All of those gods have the same likelihood of existing as your god.

By the way, the only inconsistency that I have seen is from you and the Church. Enough is enough, we have had it with your allegations and your purges of our scientists. You just need to watch one episode of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) to see who the bigot really is. Just like the Holocaust deniers, and David Irving, you and the Church can only provide pages and pages of hollow evidence that amounts to nothing!

Kevin, Can you prove the existence of God? Before you try to mock Erick or others, remember, the burden is upon YOU to prove to the rest of us that God exists. You can't honestly expect rational people to believe everything that others pull out of their ass? By that standard I would have to follow every cult that comes about. If the burden was upon people to disprove irrational thought, then, you must first disprove Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, and every other God out there. All of those gods have the same likelihood of existing as your god.

By the way, the only inconsistency that I have seen is from you and the Church. Enough is enough, we have had it with your allegations and your purges of our scientists. You just need to watch one episode of CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) to see who the bigot really is. Just like the Holocaust deniers, and David Irving, you and the Church can only provide pages and pages of hollow evidence that amounts to nothing!

Bob hit the bullseye.

To quote Jon Stewart, "Now, I may not be a big, fancy, city lawyer, but don't you have to prove everyone else in the country didn't do it?"

We laugh at that sentence (at least some of us) because it's silly to think that it's everyone else's challenge to disprove other people's claims. This is what brought problems for the people in Salem, Massachusettes who had to disprove the claims that they were witches. The burden of proof rests with the person who made the claim. Moreover, most people believe in the personal God of the three major religions and not the philosophically sophisticated one very few adhere to which is still irrational. Absolutist beliefs are the beliefs which I don't respect, but you can smoke any belief you'd like so long as they don't affect me. Your welcome to do so.

If someone finds it a 'hindrance to further discussion', well that's unfortunate. I'm going to continue calling a spade a spade until people can upgrade their belief to something grounded on evidence.

Kevin, I give you credit for not stooping to name calling. A lot of frustrated believers on this site can't respond rationally to the people who demand evidence. So I give you applause for that alone. Thank you.

But often your choice of words is like a clever dance... never using any sort of logical argument. Validating the concept of "God" by describing it as having millions of personal testimonies and having been an influential phenomenon in human culture... that sounds pretty (and punchy) but it adds up to a whole lot of nothing. "God" as a concept is not convincing-- think Zeus or Amun-Ra or FSM. They all have equal evidence of existence: zilch. Why is the "god" of Abrahamic faith any different?

I would have liked you to back up your claim that "God" is not the same as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," but your response did not deliver. Sorry, "personal testimonies" and "influential phenomena" have no relevance to what I asked, nor do they provide a logical argument. We were talking semantics, were we not? You were unhappy with the context in which "God" and FSM are used together. But aren't we just splitting hairs? When educated people drop the two in the same sentence, it is really to make a point in semantics. Your response bolsters the argument that FSM and "God" are equally imaginary. And I assume now that there is no need to further pursue this.

To quote Dawkins (something he said immediately after the "too easy" comment you were displeased with), "You talk your way out of having to provide a rational argument."

Why don't you have a problem with the student's original question? I think that telling Dawkins that he can't apply natural laws to God because he exists outside of them is pretty ridiculous. Let's pick that apart instead.

Bob, go back and re-read my posts, please. I didn't mock anyone, and I've been very clear (multiple times) that the existence of God can not be proven. I don't have any burden of proof (nor have I suggested you do), because I've said (from the beginning) it's not something that can be proven.

I also don't lump 'you' in with all atheists, even the wacky ones, so please don't lump me in with CBN, and quit demanding evidence for my belief in something beyond what science can prove. Please refer to my earlier question: "Is it acceptable for someone to hold a belief in something they can not prove?" followed by "Is there any value in such beliefs?"

I would have liked you to back up your claim that "God" is not the same as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," but your response did not deliver.

When many atheists throw out the FSM, it's to make the idea of God seem as ridiculous as the FSM (as I'm sure many here will argue is the case). My point is that they are only equal in regards to the question of definitive verifiable evidence. For example, lets assume (for a moment) that you wanted to read every piece of literature referencing these two topics before making a decision. While you could probably do this for the FSM, you probably couldn't even read every piece of religious literature in a lifetime. Now, to be clear I AM NOT saying this shows one to be more likely than the other. I AM saying this makes them unequal.

To quote Dawkins (something he said immediately after the "too easy" comment you were displeased with), "You talk your way out of having to provide a rational argument."

Let's (hypothetically) discuss whether man truly has free will. In response to whatever position you take, I will respond that your position can not be proven, and that you have just 'talked your way out of having to provide a rational argument.' Would that be true, or would it be more appropriate to say that science is simply not equipped to settle the matter?

Erick, you threw out Flat-earthers & Holocaust Deniers, and lumped them together with everyone who believes in god. I merely pointed out a rather critical difference between the two. That you would immediately try to then take me to task for suggesting that you had a burden of proof (when I did not) is disingenuous.

I suggested that referring to every unprovable belief as a 'fantasy' is a hindrance to discussion, and I stand by that. If you automatically have a problem with any person holding any belief without evidence, that's your right. But that eliminates a whole range of human experiences, and there's a whole host of topics beyond religion (art, philosophy, morality, etc,) that are pointless to discuss with you in that case.

Kevin writes:

My big complaint with Dawkins has always been that he doesn't target creationists, or radical fundamentalists (whom I'd agree negatively affect society). He singles out anyone and everyone who holds a belief in God. Which makes it appear like he's as concerned with the belief itself as with the behavior of (some) people who hold it.

Dawkins doesn't confine his criticism to only those religious people who do what you describe, but to anyone who merely chooses to believe in some form of god.

Kevin correctly notes that Dawkins criticizes all religious people but fails to explain that he criticizes them for different things. It would be nice if Kevin would acknowledge the distinction that Dawkins makes between moderate Christians and fundamentalists. Not to do so is intellectually dishonest. Dawkins problem with the moderates is that they provide cover for the fundamentalists. That someone like Kevin who is willing to accept belief in God on faith hardly has the high ground to criticize someone else who believes that faith, the belief in something without credible evidence, supports a fundamentalist view. Both Kevin and the Fundamentalist believe that faith is a virtue. The other point I would make is that Kevin although he says that his belief is based only on faith injects what he thinks passes for evidence for his beliefs. It's that waffling between the two views one that it is only faith, and the other providing what he implies is not only reasonable but based on evidence. What evidence does he offer in his attempt to prove what he acknowledges is based only on faith

The idea of god goes back as far as recorded history (with personal testimonies over that period numbering in the tens of thousands if not millions) and has been one of the single most influential phenomena in human culture.

He can't have it both ways. He attempts to argue for the existence of God on a basis other than faith and then when called on it reverts to the claim it is only faith based.

I think Kevin is conflating God and Religion in a recent interview this exchange with Dawkins took place. I think it is a better explanation for what Kevin seems to attribute to God and faith.

Simon Mayo
Would you accept that in some cases goodness does come from faith I was thinking specifically a couple of stories from last year G. Walker the mother of Anthony Walker was killed in that horrendous racist attack forgave the attackers because she said that is what her Christian Faith told her to do. Abigal Witchells similarly forgave her attacker and quoted her faith as the basis for that forgiveness. Surely the world is a better place for people like that.

Richard Dawkins
I would not deny that her Christianity probably motivated her to that wonderful act of forgiveness. I would prefer to say thought that it wasn't faith, but modeling herself on the role model of Jesus Christ who was a quite exceptionally good man and who has taught us lessons in moral philosophy which were centuries, millennia ahead of their time so yes I think there is a great deal to be learned from great teachers of whom Jesus was certainly one, and forgiveness is one of the things that he taught.

Simon Mayo
They would say it's this is an intrinsic part of their religious faith doesn't that undermine some part of your argument that religion is the root of some or most evil

Richard Dawkins
Well, I think I've made it clear that I think it's admiration of Jesus and wishing to follow the example of Jesus, but it's perfectly possible for an atheist to admire Jesus and wish to follow his example as one might wish to follow the example of Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King .

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/02/irrelevant.html

Personally, I think the main problem with the "philosophical god" is that the second you accept him as being real (because if you believe that he exists, then he becomes real to you), the second you accept him as being real you start wondering about his(her?) attributes :

"Hey, this guy/gal/FSM must be quite something if he's created the WHOLE universe ! That's unbelievable ! He's perfect ! Omniscient ! There's NO WAY He could have done that without being outside of space and time ! He's SO over us ! We really have to think about him all the time ! Let's all bow down right now to this improbable yet exquisite super(non?-entity) ! Etc.

And all this without any fear of being proven wrong (say, even by god himself).

On the other hand, with scientific evidences, you can/will only do so with concrete facts or phenomenons that are suffiencitly demonstrated; it's only when you are facing suffiencitly demonstrated (experimental) facts that it's safe to discuss/study them further.

This is why I choose not to believe in any god, even the "philosophical" one, even if I agree that he remains a... possibility of sorts.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin! Thanks for keeping things interesting. Everyone wants to have at you. I'll agree to disagree with you. Thanks for contributing. Makes me think. Regards from Seattle.

DomChodhe, You make an extremely amusing, and interesting point.

Thanks Bob. I find it very irritating and ironic to see atheism being constantly portrayed as a sort of "religion of hopelessness", full of bitterness and sourness, while in actuality it's probably the "religion" (comparison needed) in which there's the most fun to be had - and while monotheisms are loaded with forbidding dogmas, heresy, heretics and infidels, and with morals the like of "love thy neighbour or go to Hell" (and lots of other things that good people HAVE to ignore to go on and that evil people just love underlining).

Let's have some more fun, since we can :

So with our acknowledgedly limited reason, we can't hope to figure the very beginning of things; the thing is, I'll not be convinced that God (this supreme intelligence) can either. This is a problem that is obvious to everyone, but I feel like it needs to be put that way (if it has already been done, I'd like to know !) :

RD - Another question for you God : just how did you come into existence ?

-Scenario #1 (expected answer) :

God - HA ! I have always existed ! I have a perfect memory, but nope ! seems like there was never a beginning to my existence ! No matter how hard I try to figure out how the hell I got here, there's simply no answer to be found ! And it's very puzzling, 'cause all the answers are in me. I guess it has to be because I'm so perfect.

-Scenario #2 (unexpected answer) :

God - Weeeell, for a time I wasn't there, or I was into nothingness, whatever, and one (day?) POOF ! I just came to be. Weird huh ? RD - Indeed.

I can't think of a #3.

(Why do I have to keep writing "suf-fien-ci-tly" ?! It's not like I don't know the proper spelling !)

Can I get this clear? God pervades everything in the Universe even down to the very atoms of which we are comprised. Would that be a reasonable statement to make from a religious point of view?

Great discourse here!

I am not nearly as smart as all of you, but isn't Dr. Dawkins a classic logical positivist or scientific empiricist?

He sounds a lot like Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer and G.E. Moore who all built their philosophy upon the writings of Ludwing Wiggenstien (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus).

Dawkins calls Wiggenstein the greatest 20th century philosopher on page 367. That is the red flag to me that he is a logical positivist.

From reading "The God Delusion" he also sounds as if he champions the verification principle of logical positivism: that a proposition has meaning only if some empirical experience would suffice to determine its truth. This is also called the Principle of Empirical Verifiability.

It appears to me that this principle is the presupposition of all his argumentation in the book. He accepts no knowlege outside of empirically verified knowledge.

However, it seems to me that his presupposition is self-defeating. Why?

Because the verfication principle is not empirically verifible. It does not meet its own standard.

But what do I know, I only have a master's degree in theology. Wait a minute that's not really a degree is it?

I think it is quite clear that Dawkins is not a logical positivist. A logical positivist would maintain that we shouldn't try to answer the question of whether God exits, but should reject it as meaningless. I think he is probably closer to a scientific realist, but hey I suppose I should defer to someone with a masters in theology.

i don't have a masters in anything. i was merely a philosophy major at a small liberal arts college, and a poor one at that (meaning completely out of my mind at all times on sex, drugs and/or rock and roll. its traditional). but i too have found it convenient to view dawkins position as essentially that of a logical positivist- which, i think, is the one that any scientific rationalist would have to take. though he is deeply involved with the question of whether god exists, i think its only from the viewpoint of how much damage has been done over the ages by humanities' insistance on taking this non-question so seriously. as we have seen elsewhere on this blog, the non-existence of a thing is a rather moot point when enough people believe it to be so. behind all his arguments, however, i detect someone who holds the perfectly rational belief (love using those two words together) that an undefinable thing cannot be talked about. thats why he keeps ahowing how other peoples definitions (christians mostly) evaporate under scrutiny, as they must. i don't envy him his task.