Ch. 2 - THE GOD HYPOTHESIS
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Chris OConnor |
Ch. 2 - THE GOD HYPOTHESIS |
Lead | ||
|
Indisputable BookTalk Master
Posts: 9504 12/24/06 21:28:17 BookTalk Owner |
Please discuss Chapter 2, THE GOD HYPOTHESIS, within this thread.
|
|||
|
|
||||
misterpessimistic |
Re: Ch. 2 - THE GOD HYPOTHESIS | #1 | ||
|
Indisputable BookTalk Master
Posts: 4113 01/01/07 13:41:34 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
Quote: I just love this quote. Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!
Mr. P's Bookshelf. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper |
|||
|
|
||||
Dissident Heart |
Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #2 | ||
|
Posts: 1868 01/03/07 04:27:20 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
TJ: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
Hardly...ridicule is malice, and malice is not the only way to respond to human error. Unintelligible propositions may be malicious, thus making ridicule an intelligent response...but not all are; some spring from genuine curiosity, imagination, best guesses, and damned important hope. In these case ridicule would be stupid and dangerous...especially since malice so often requires dangerous stupidity. TJ: Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them Distinct ideas are important, and reason matters...but neither matter more than everything else; some things matter more. TJ: no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity I don't think a distinct idea of the Trinity is possible: nor is it important...it doesn't matter, at least not as much as some argue. Then again, I don't think it possible to get a distinct idea of oneself either: especially in relation to the rolodex of relations in your life...intimate friends, aquaintances, customers, bosses, strangers, the whole of human history...as it relates to you, and you to it...all of it matters. Better, in defining these endless relationships, you are defining yourself. What matters about these relationships is why you matter. What matters about the relationships of the Holy Trinity is why God matters. |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #3 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/03/07 10:26:11 Masters |
Dear DH:
Quote: Evidently... Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
Niall001 |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #4 | ||
|
Posts: 897 01/03/07 11:07:06 Smarty Pants |
Just a quick thought, it's very frustrating that even though Dawkins claims he's going to examine the God Hypothesis as he defines it, he spends most of his time rambling on about things that have nothing to do with it.
Some much of what he includes is just padding, entertaining padding, so long as you're not the target of his tounge, but so far I'm getting the impression, that the whole book could have been cut down to a relatively short essay. Diatribes are fun, but not productive. Full of Porn*
http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #5 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/03/07 11:35:08 Masters |
Niall:
Yeah, I got pretty much the same thing from chapter seven where he launches into a seriously long rant about Biblical stories that are obviously immoral from contemporary Western points of view. It is not that his argument is fallacious, only that he could have accomplished the same thing in a paragraph or two (rather than pages) and without the mocking and derisive tone. Fiske PS: I'm going to have to start concentrating on some of the good nuggets, though, or everything I have to say about the book will be negative... |
|||
|
|
||||
Niall001 |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #6 | ||
|
Posts: 897 01/03/07 11:47:07 Smarty Pants |
That's the problem, there's a lot of good stuff in the book, but it's difficult to get past the gaffs.
To be honest, I don't think anybody here on booktalk would get anything new out of the book, with the possible exception of the reverse argument from design, which I don't personally find very convincing. I'd like to send copies of the book off to some fundies though, just to see if it might be possible to get them to try and think a little harder about the shit they spew. Then again, that little miracle might in itself invalidate the Dawkins' hypothesis. Full of Porn*
http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #7 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/03/07 15:35:31 Masters |
Niall:
Well, one of the problems with the good parts is if they aren't self-contained, that is, if they rely on any sort of external reference, you have to freaking check the reference directly to make sure old RD hasn't misrepresented his source material! (I have to wonder how much of the source material he has even read!) I think we're in violent agreement. Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #8 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 02:42:44 Masters |
Niall earlier made a point that the arguments Dawkins provides in this book are weak and one doesn't have to go far to find an example. Page 31 provides a definition of the God hypothesis referred to in the book's preface on page 2:
Quote: Here is how the hypothesis is defined on page 31: Quote: I'm going to overlook the deliberately designed redundancy -- is it possible to "accidentally" design anything? (I guess I didn't overlook it.) Why super-human? Could anything about the putative creator of our universe be human? Consider the definition of theist provided on page 18: Quote: When I reread this section, the latter part of the definition, the part about God still influencing his (its?) creation startled me. I recognized that I have been defining a theist as someone who only asserts the existence of God. I checked the definition of "theist" in my dictionary (an American Heritage), and found that RD's paraphrase is surprisingly accurate -- I guess the difference between a theist and a deist, subsequently defined by RD in the same paragraph on page 18. So, a question: why doesn't the God hypothesis include the second part of the theist definition -- that God is still influencing our universe? Here is the next part of the argument on page 31: Quote: Of course, that assertion is based on causal observations of the natural world: that the same causal relationships apply to a supernatural realm is presumed by RD with no proof. I'll let that go because the next statement is the real howler. Quote: What in the heck does this statement have to do with God? God, being supernatural, would not be part of the universe. If he did create the universe, he must have existed before it did. If it was necessary for God to evolve, why is it that the evolution could not have taken place before our universe was created? Of course, there is no empirical way to test or observe any of this but so what? The underlying assumption here (MadArchitect is laughing already, I'm sure) is that if we don't have empirical proof of something it couldn't have happened. Really? And how would one prove that? This isn't a rational argument. In fact, it's not an argument at all. The final assertion, that "God, in the sense defined, is a delusion" is meaningless because an argument concerning the recent development of creative intelligence in the natural world cannot be meaningfully applied to a supernatural creator. So, in fact, the title of this book rests on a meaningless argument. Impressive. Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
Saint Gasoline |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #9 | ||
|
Posts: 220 01/04/07 03:53:58 Ph.D. |
Quote: I don't think this is a very good criticism of Dawkin's argument. For instance, let's phrase it in terms of something more secure, in order to see why the objection is so startlingly wrong: Let's say that I assert that A=A and A cannot equal ~A ever. Someone responds to me arguing that this assertion is only based upon my being part of a "logical" world--I assume without reason that the same logical relationships would apply even to an "alogical" world. Of course, I think Dawkins misses this finer point because he doesn't really go to any depths with his argument. Essentially, it is not an objection to say, "But this argument doesn't apply in 'magic realm' where 'causality/logic/whatever' does not apply." It is not an objection for the same reason that it is no objection to the person who asserts that A can never equal ~A for one to remark that maybe the laws of logic don't apply in some mystical land of illogic. What reason do you even have to bring up such a realm of existence? Does it even make sense? Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence or a "supernatural" existence? Quote: I think that the point Richard is making is one that is frequently made in debates concerning contingency and necessity in regards to existence. The question asked is, "Why does something exist rather than nothing?" And the answer is supposed to be that God explains this. But then we are left with the question, "Why does God exist rather than nothing?" and the stock response is that this question does not apply to God, it would only apply to contingent matter and energy. In terms of Richard's point, the question is, "Why does complexity exist", and the answer critiqued is "God creates complexity." Richard is essentially arguing that this doesn't really answer that question, because God himself must be pretty complex. Instead of answering the question, the theist is essentially saying, "Complexity doesn't need to be explained, I can posit a being that lives in a realm that dodges these explanations". Does this mean that Dawkins' argument doesn't apply? Not really. He at once proposes an answer to the question verified by experience and all we know, "Complexity exists because it is the end product of selective pressures and random changes", and at the same time shows how the "God hypothesis" doesn't really answer the question at all, and instead just avoids it. The fact that God is complex, that God is not nothing, only goes to show that positing him isn't a very good explanation for ultimate existence or the order of the universe. Why posit a complex entity outside of the world we know when we can posit entities within our experience that fulfill these functions--we can explain complexity with evolutionary functions and we can explain existence by making "energy" a necessity (it can't be destroyed or created) or else noting that seeking a "necessary" existence isn't really...well...necessary. |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #10 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 11:58:29 Masters |
Dear Saint:
Quote: The first observation I would make about this argument is you are comparing an analytic statement (A=A etc.) with a synthetic statement about a hypothetical supernatural world. You next invoke "logic" which is fundamental to analytical statements. In fact, you couldn't have an analytical statement without logic. But logic is not fundamental to synthetic statements (only to the analysis of synthetic statements). In other words, natural laws are alogical. Supernatural laws can be assumed to be equally alogical. Although I may not have made this clear, my intent was to suggest that a supernatural realm might reasonably be supposed to operate by other laws than our natural universe. In fact, this argument is no different than arguments about alternative universes posited by string theorists which operate according to laws totally different from those governing our own universe. Quote: Let's turn this around. Why is it more reasonable to assume the Big Bang was uncaused than caused? Either position rests on foundational assumptions which cannot be proved. Can one conceive of an "illogical" existence? Sure. Dissident Heart... Can one conceive of a "supernatural" existence. Well, er, yes. We have about a zillion religions demonstrating that fact. Not to mention a whole raft of horror stories (RD doubtless includes the Bible among their number), fantasy stories, supernatural tales, etc. Quote: The debate over contingency and necessity is an interesting and vexing problem for theists and non-theists alike, but since Dawkins does not reference the problem in his argument on page 31, I see no reason to include it in a critique of that argument. Quote: Agreed. Quote: Some theists make this argument, which I agree is illogical. However, the argument isn't necessary to theism per se. Here's what I mean: Quote: That is only partially correct because "selective pressures and random changes" must occur within a framework of natural laws to operate. Science is well equipped, in fact perfectly equipped, to understand natural laws. But science cannot offer an explanation for why there should be natural laws in the first place. Ignoring the question because science can't answer it is metaphysical naturalism, pure and simple. It is not an unreasonable position, but it is also not the ONLY reasonable position. Asserting that a question must be ignored because an empirical answer is not possible is a philosophical position, not a fundamental truth. Finally, you haven't responded to the real show stopper in Dawkins' argument, which is that he confuses natural creative intelligences that evolved in the natural world with a hypothetical supernatural intelligence which, by definition, could not have evolved in the natural world. That's what makes the argument meaningless. I don't object that other arguments can be made, but RD didn't make them on page 31, which is where he explicitly concludes that God is a delusion. The problem I have with that whole idea, and, in fact, the title of the book, is that belief in God cannot shown to be false. Ultimately, what RD is trying to do on page 31 (what he promised to do on page 2) is demonstrate that belief in God is a scientific hypothesis. I would say his demonstration fails. Utterly. Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
Saint Gasoline |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #11 | ||
|
Posts: 220 01/04/07 13:30:36 Ph.D. |
I think that a lot of what you say about the applicability of logic to empirical reality and so on is misguided, but for now I am just going to focus on your remarks about Dawkins. You say:
Quote: I think that Dawkins ultimately would justify his position in a manner similar to the way I have. He isn't trying to confuse these two concepts--he realizes that people can remark that "natural laws don't apply to God". But like me, he wouldn't see these remarks as saving the God hypothesis, but damning it further. If we are really trying to answer the question about the origin of complexity, we can posit a more complex being that creates it--but Dawkins shows that this answer doesn't work, because we still have to explain the complexity of that being. Now, the next response is to say that the question isn't applicable to that being. This type of remark isn't trying to explain complexity, but to argue that extreme complexity, at some basic, fundamental level, doesn't need to be explained. But then this remark is self-defeating, because it removes the original reason for positing God in the first place! So, if God is really an explanation for complexity, then God's complexity needs to be explained as well. However, if one wants to argue that "complexity" is evidence of God's existence, but that God's complexity need not be explained, then they are doing away with the only justification for even positing God--if we ultimately don't need to explain complexity, why even posit God as an explanation? Why not say the some level of complexity in the natural universe simply need not be explained? So you see, Dawkins is focusing on the first prong of this argument--that God doesn't really explain complexity, and that positing a more complex thing to explain it is pretty much absurd. He doesn't delve into the second prong, most likely because he finds it obvious. (In his lectures, when confronted with such arguments, he often responds, "But you are just dodging the question!" or with something similar.) This is why I think his argument is pretty solid. The first prong shows that God almost certainly does not exist. (If God is a legitimate explanation for complexity, and not a mere avoidance of the question, then we are still left having to explain God's complexity.) The second prong removes the only reason given for positing the God hypothesis in the first place, by stating that God's complexity need not be explained. (But then why would we need to explain the universe's complexity if at some basic level complexity needs no explanation?) Either way, theism is in some big trouble. |
|||
|
|
||||
MadArchitect |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #12 | ||
|
Posts: 3169 01/04/07 15:46:44 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
Hey, guys. Just to let you know, I am following the discussion, though since I'm not reading the book, I'm going to try and avoid getting too involved. I do feel, however, that one comment was warranted, specifically in response to the text Fiske quoted from the book: 'the God hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe, which should be analysed as sceptically as any other.
Fiske made quite a few criticisms about the passage starting with that criticism, but I think he missed (or at least neglected to emphasize) the basic assertion being made in that quote: namely, that there is a "God hypothesis" that can be (or, more to the point, simply is) modeled along the same lines as a scientific claim. Everything about that sentence comes across as an attempt to present the God concept as an idea as the same sort of idea that crops up in science. |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #13 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 16:26:08 Masters |
Gas:
None of this gets around the problem that the argument stated on page 31 is fallacious. Quote: This is NOT what theists are asserting, and it very definitely does confuse naturally evolved intelligences with a hypothetical supernatural intelligence. You know, that's just a problem with shock jocks -- they rarely bother to get their facts right and their arguments straight before launching into people with whom they disagree. Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #14 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 16:31:52 Masters |
Hi Mad!
Thanks for lending a hand. I think I did mention that but it probably wasn't emphasized as much as it should have been. Of course, the reason why RD wants to cast God as a scientific hypothesis is to put himself in the position of disproving it. What the argument in this book really comes down to, is the idea that in the absence of any empirical evidence, people who don't agree with RD are delusional. Fiske PS: You know, you could save me a lot of work by reading the book and participating in the discussion -- I wouldn't have to be making all these arguments... |
|||
|
|
||||
MadArchitect |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #15 | ||
|
Posts: 3169 01/04/07 16:37:10 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
PS: You know, you could save me a lot of work by reading the book and participating in the discussion -- I wouldn't have to be making all these arguments...
No thanks. I feel like I've made a lot of these arguments before -- in reference to other books. Take a look at some of the threads in the "Breaking the Spell" forum. Dawkins is probably more egregious, but I definitely made the argument that Dennett was disingenuous in his intentions for the book. |
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #16 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 17:29:24 Masters |
Quote: Dennett bores me to tears... Fiske |
|||
|
|
||||
MadArchitect |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #17 | ||
|
Posts: 3169 01/04/07 17:32:22 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
Yeah, well, I read the whole damn book. I've read a lot of books that I didn't particularly want to read, for the sake of participating in BookTalk discussions. It's nice to take a quarter off every once in a while.
|
|||
|
|
||||
FiskeMiles |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #18 | ||
|
Posts: 167 01/04/07 17:37:36 Masters |
Dear Mad:
I take it you HAVE read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God? If not, make haste to the bookstore... Fiske PS: I think it should be required reading for anyone who reads The God Delusion. |
|||
|
|
||||
MadArchitect |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #19 | ||
|
Posts: 3169 01/04/07 17:40:34 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
No; I haven't, but I'll try to remember the recommendation. You seem to be a pretty demanding reader, so that recommendation carries some weight. You might think about suggesting it for a future reading.
|
|||
|
|
||||
misterpessimistic |
Re: Ridicule, Malice and What Matters about God | #20 | ||
|
Indisputable BookTalk Master
Posts: 4113 01/04/07 19:42:43 Indisputable BookTalk Master |
Looks like we have a genuine butt-kissing contest!!
Relax...just kidding guys! Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!
Mr. P's Bookshelf. I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P. The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets" I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper |
|||
|
|
||||
- Member Introductions & Journals
- BookTalk News & Development
- Religion, Philosophy & the Arts
- Politics, Current Events & History
- Science, Nature & Technology
- General Discussion & Miscellaneous Topics
- Naked Atheism
- Moderators Den
- Book Suggestions, Polls, & Reviews
- Additional Book Discussions
- Godless in America: Conversations With an Atheist - by George A. Ricker
- Interventions - by Noam Chomsky
- Religious Expression and the American Constitution - by Franklyn S. Haiman
- Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future - by Bill McKibben
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
- The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal - by Jared Diamond
- The Woman in the Dunes - by Abe Kobo
- Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction - by Eugenie Scott
- The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals - by Michael Pollan
- I, Claudius: From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius, Born 10 B.C., Murdered and Deified A.D. 54 - by Robert Graves
- Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - by Daniel Dennett
- A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East - by David Fromkin
- The Time Traveler's Wife - by Audrey Niffenegger
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris
- Ender's Game - by Orson Scott Card
- The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - by Mark Haddon
- Value & Virtue in a Godless Universe - by Erik J. Wielenberg
- The March: A Novel - by E.L. Doctorow
- The Ethical Brain - by Michael Gazzaniga
- Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism - by Susan Jacoby
- Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed - by Jared Diamond
- The Battle for God - by Karen Armstrong
- The Future of Life - by Edward O. Wilson
- What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live - by A.C. Grayling
- Civilization and It's Enemies: The Next Stage of History - by Lee Harris
- Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space - by Carl Sagan
- How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God - by Michael Shermer
- Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain - by Antonio Damasio
- Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right - by Al Franken
- The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - by Matt Ridley
- The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - by Stephen Pinker
- Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder - by Richard Dawkins
- Atheism: A Reader - edited by S. T. Joshi
- Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century - by Howard Bloom
- The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History - by Howard Bloom
- Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies - by Jared Diamond
- Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark - by Carl Sagan
- Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West - by Dee Alexander Brown
- Future Shock - by Alvin Toffler
