The God Delusion

[YummyHoney]

In thinking that Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion should be compulsory reading for all secondary school children?

Not only would it put paid to all the religious nonsense some parents spout, it would also put an end to a lot of wars and violence in the world.

Actually Niecie he does in his The God Delusion state that he acknowlages one cannot be 100% athiest as we have no proff but states he is as far to it as he can get. He mentions a scale of belief which i cannot recall just now but it is in there.

*oh dear, proof. Iphone. sorry ladies.

oiwheresthecoffee - that is what I said - he plays lipservice to agnosticism but he doesn't for one second write like there is any doubt in his mind that God doesn't exist. Atheism is still just his opinion but he is trying to present it as fact which for a scientist is pretty poor really.

Ok so can I ask about quantum physics then?

.
I wonder whether Darwin would be quite so sure if he had lived to see that?

Spider, please elaborate.

There is a very strong record of evidence for evolution.

Darwin never categorically stated that life as such had natural origins - just individual species. Do yiu mean Dawkin? I think he's alive and kicking.

Furthermore, even if Darwin, or Dawkins, was a devout Shia Muslim (for example) this would not in fact be evidence of there being a god.

And, yes, quantum physics and relativity is an interesting issue. But if that's what you're getting at we're going to have to define god as "explanation for stuff we haven't been able to explain yet". That may be semantically valid but is not a proof of the supernatural.

Sorry for my spelling. iPad.

For all the people who say Dawkins is militant/objectionable/fanatical, I'm afraid I can't agree.

Most people pussy-foot around the subject to religion, for fear of offending. They afford it some sort of special protection from criticism.

I think it just seems a bit shocking when someone argues about religion as if it were any other subject.

What a sad, grey world we live in if we can only believe in things if a someone in a white coat can measure it in a lab.

I agree MrsBethel

Cocoflower - who on earth only believes things measured in a lab?

Cocoflower, no one is saying that. Everyone is, of course, free to believe in whatever they wish - whether true or not.

However, generally speaking you can't really argue for the existence of god on the grounds of preference. "A world without god is in my opinion sad, therefore god exists" is not really any more sound as an argument than "unicorns make the world a cuter place, therefore unicorns exist."

I have a bit of an issue with this idea that atheists are somehow people whose lives a devoid of joy or imagination.

Can't we give them Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not a Christian instead? Much better written than Dawkins, and less inclined to shoot itself in the foot by being in a constant rage. Or there's a brill philosophy starter textbook called Does the Center Hold?

However, Big Wars last century and Big Massacres were largely though not entirely the result of leaders who had renounced religion. Hitler, Heydrich, Rudolf Hoss, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Difficult to argue then that if more people renounced religion there would be fewer wars. And hoping that any single book can jockey people into being utterly rational is not rational nor borne out empirically.

Agreed on both counts, Sieglinde. I love Russel's book! And teapot.

Funny enough I often actually think I see less religion in conflicts and wars than many others - even theists.

I agree that religion can be an aggravating factor or identifying rallying cry. I'm not really sure about conflicts that are purely religious by nature. At the end of the day even Al-Qaeda have a set of political grievances essentially.

What evidence would you consider as worthy enough for proof of the supernatural?

Hmm, a whole bunch of stuff would do IMHO, although I obviously cannot speak for other atheists or skeptics.

If double blind studies consistently showed a statistically significant improvement in outcomes of patients not only treated medically but also prayed for by members of a particular religion - and only them - that might not be ultimate proof but a good pointer.

If a holy book contained scientific knowledge that was impossible at the time of the text's origin. In a way that is not vague and open to interpretation. I.e. No "paths in heaven" being declared to be orbits in hindsight or similar. Something like genetics and the structure and number of chromosomes perhaps?

Any direct manifestation of a god, of course. I'd probably insist on witnesses and would want to make sure that no drugs could have been involved. But simultaneous direct experiences of a god witnessed by myself and two other critically minded people in an identical fashion would definitely cinvince me. Why not, I ask. According to the bible god used to be a pretty chatty type until a few thousand years ago.

Okay, I can't write evrything down. But I pretty much entirely agree with re. proof of religion/god.

I revel in the colourful mythology, legend, and folklore, that enriches and brightens my world Coco, but I do not believe in the religious and cultural dogma that has been, and continues to be, manufactured by men in frocks and used to oppress and suppress others.

Charles Darwin came from a time when naturalists saw scientific research as religious natural theology - effectively, that God worked through nature spider.

Before he died, Darwin wrote 'I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God - I think that generally an agnostic would be the correct description of my mind'.

I wonder how many of those who profess to believe in the gods of man made religion would do so if they had not been indoctrinated as children?

Neither do I. I believe what Jesus said.

"I do not believe in the religious and cultural dogma that has been, and continues to be, manufactured by men in frocks and used to oppress and suppress others."

Izzy, doing away with religion will not stop men oppressing or suppressing others.

Cocoflower - if there is evidence that can been seen, smelt or detected in some reliable way (no need for lab coats etc...) what you are looking at isn't supernatural at all it is natural.

Building up of evidence tends to shift things from the category of 'supernatural' (e.g. curses, demon possession) into 'natural' (viruses, mental ilness), not the other way around. If we found there was solid evidence for ghosts or unicorns whatever then we would have to rethink what we thought we knew about the nature of biology not continue to call them 'supernatural'.

If there is no serious evidence that something exists you can go ahead and call it 'supernatural' but you could also just call in make-believe.

Given that man made religions have been a constant for many thousands of years, and that regligious and cultural differences have been used to instigate countless wars, I do not see how you can make that assertion with any confidence Dione.

Without the smokescreen of organised religion, oppression and suppression of the majority by a minority can be seen for what it is: naked greed, as evidenced by the Catholic Church's accumulation of obscene wealth and riches at the expense of the poor:

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwikicompany.org%2Fwiki%2F911%3AVatican_%26_Jesuits&rct=j&q=estimated%20wealth%20of%20the%20catholic%20church%20wiki&ei=OiVUTqyXKMOxhQf51rycBg&usg=AFQjCNF0vwGKOptFzsqP8CQiJ2pOroUALA&cad=rja

Izzy, in the 20th century, wars were not not religious. They were what wars have been throughout the ages, about power and resources. Neither of the World Wars were religious.

As you say, for thousands of years religious and cultural differences have been used, but as justification of wars. Make no mistake, the reason for the wars were power and resources. Getting rid of religion will not make any difference. Greed will continue to exist, wars will continue to be waged, people will continue to oppress and suppress.

Yes, NotADude. Hard to say that current events in Libya are caused by religion either. And izzy, surely we can see that the British monarchy has done exactly the same thing, but we aren't mounting the barricades on that, and not because the queen is notionally the head of the C of E? Nor do I think even VATICAN bankers motivated by religion, and even less so the other bankers. I love Bertrand Russell, but he is smart enough to know that eliminating God will not solve everything in and of itself.

and izzy, that link is very very far from rationality, I'm afraid. Very very far. Further maybe than Rome. The obelisks....

Totally agree with IzzyWizzy re Catholic church - it's just a means of making money, a job for life and a great hunting ground for peodophiles (I know I've spelt that wrong) fed by a load of Suckers.

But yummyhoney, even if this is true, it's true of a lot of non-religious stuff as well. Most old institutions will keep their hands on the money if they can.