Dawkins on Evolution

@richrf,

And what do you mean by "float your boat", it doesn't make sense to me?

0 Replies

@richrf,

That was actually in the text of the Richard Dawkins essay that we are discussing. If you go back to the second or third post in the thread and follow the link, you will see that this is a saying used sarcastically, as always, by Dawkins, to try and belittle 'sophisticated theologians' whom he suspects might actually see through his bluff and bluster.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91760 wrote:

Did not Richard Dawkins write a best-selling book, called the God Delusion, in which he claims that the theory of evolution disproves the existence, or requirement, of a deity? I have read the book, and this is what he says. The book is called, after all 'The God Delusion', not 'Delusions about God', or 'Religious Delusions', both of which I fully accept are real.

So please kindly explain why my statement is 'a lie'.

You said "a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion".

However, the God Delusion is not a book devoted to explaining why evolution shows God is a delusion.

It is a collection of atheistic essays - most of which do not even mention evolution.

Most of them concentrate on debunking religious arguments about atheists - such as explaining that atheists are more likely, statistically speaking - to refrain from crime or murder than religious people.

A large section is devoted to religions such as Cargo Cults - showing how people without technology can come to see people with it as divine.

It also deals with the same sort of "you can never KNOW 100% the God doesn't exist" type agnostic quibbles that hardcore phenomenologists use.

It isn't marketed as a science book, or a book on evolution.

It's been a while since I read it - I didn't think it was a good book, I was OK I suppose. One thing it definately wasn't was a book about evolution - evolution hardly gets a mention in The God Delusion.

Which is why you were lying when you said it was "a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion".

It's much the same sort of book as Hitchens' "God is not Great" or Schopenhauer's essays "On Religion" - an atheistic polemic that is not scientific even if scientific understanding might have informed the decision of the authors to embrace atheism.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I hate to say this, but I don't think you and I are referring to the same book. Check out The God Delusion. Basically it says 'God is a delusion'. When you have looked it up, you might reconsider calling me a liar.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I am not denying he wrote the book.

I am denying - having read the book myself - that it is "based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion". Your words, which are misleading.

It is a collection of essays giving numerous reasons to dislike, distrust and reject theism, some of them better than others, that barely mentions evolution.

Is that understandable?

0 Replies

@richrf,

Not in the least. It is completely incoherent. Richard Dawkins has written a book called the God Delusion, which shows that the evolution of life can be completely explained by Darwins Theory of Natural Selection, and that, therefore, any notion of Divine Creation is entirely false. He says this a number of times, in a number of ways. His meaning is unmistakable. I don't know how you can even pretend to deny that he is saying this, what are you trying to defend, exactly?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91763 wrote:

And Aedes being 'smarter than both of is', he may indeed be a very highly trained scientist, but I have never detected much in his writing by way of philosophy, as such.

There's more to Philosophy than "ooh is anything really real anyway" hardcore phenomenology, of course.

Though I suppose since science and philosophy went their seperate ways it might be all philosophy has left to play with.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Actually I am not asking any more of philosophy that philosophical reasoning, and an appreciation for the traditional questions of philosophy, concerning the meaning of existence, and our place in it. I see myself as quite a traditionalist in this respect. But I see none of this whatever in Dawkins.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91779 wrote:

Not in the least. It is completely incoherent. Richard Dawkins has written a book called the God Delusion, which shows that the evolution of life can be completely explained by Darwins Theory of Natural Selection, and that, therefore, any notion of Divine Creation is entirely false.

I know I'm obviously in a position of complete ignorance - having actually the read the book we are discussing - bit it doesn't say this in the book.

Quote:

He says this a number of times, in a number of ways. His meaning is unmistakable. I don't know how you can even pretend to deny that he is saying this, what are you trying to defend, exactly?

In this case - the truth.

You are just spreading lies.

The book does not attempt to demonstrate evolution, let alone argue that it renders deities irrelevant.

The book concentrates on various arguments, some logical, some philosophical, some based on the way that the messages believers say they receive from texts are very different to the actual words, it looks at proven charlatans and zealots and cults and compares them to successful religions.

But it does not say evolution disproves notions of diety.

It does not say this anywhere.

It barely mentions evolution other than in passing.

I have actually read it - it's not brilliant by any means - but it certainly doesn't make the claims you erroneously say it does.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Then what do you think, in as few words as possible, is the meaning of the title 'The God Delusion'?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91783 wrote:

Actually I am not asking any more of philosophy that philosophical reasoning, and an appreciation for the traditional questions of philosophy, concerning the meaning of existence, and our place in it. I see myself as quite a traditionalist in this respect. But I see none of this whatever in Dawkins.

Well, you haven't read him widely and clearly have your blinkers on when you do - so you wouldn't.

For example, the first chapter of the God Delusion admits that it is phenomenologically impossible to dismiss God. That you can only be so sure about anything.

0 Replies

@richrf,

A quote from the essay that started this thread:

Quote:

God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.

So - are you saying, or are you not saying, that Richard Dawkins denies the existence of God, on the basis of evolution?

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91787 wrote:

Then what do you think, in as few words as possible, is the meaning of the title 'The God Delusion'?

It refers to the authors personal opinion - divorced from his understanding of evolution - that theists are almost certainly deluding themselves.

0 Replies

@richrf,

And what 'lies' am I spreading? You have said this twice now. I am saying 'Dawkins is an atheist' - he is the most famous atheist in the world right now. How is that a lie?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91790 wrote:

So - are you saying, or are you not saying, that Richard Dawkins denies the existence of God, on the basis of evolution?

As a point of order: I wasn't discussing the essay, but claims you made about his book.

The essay isn't as good - it was obviously rushed off as far as I see it. It's an opinion piece and I'm not that impressed by it. I think he's pretty sloppy in it.

This doesn't mean I don't think it's a lie to claim that the God Delusion "shows how evolution disproves God", or whatever.

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 07:54 AM ----------

[QUOTE=jeeprs;91793]And what 'lies' am I spreading? You have said this twice now. I am saying 'Dawkins is an atheist' - he is the most famous atheist in the world right now. How is that a lie?[/QUOTE]
Well done, you're right, that particular utterance of yours is not a lie.

But it isn't the particular lie we have been discussing, that was your assertion that the God Delusion is an attempt to show that evolution disproved god.

I'll find your exact words so that I don't get caught out.

"Richard Dawkins has written a book called the God Delusion, which shows that the evolution of life can be completely explained by Darwins Theory of Natural Selection."

Lies.

"a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion"

Lies.

He is an evolutionary biologist, and an atheist. It is you who conflate the two, however, not him. His book The God Delusion is about atheism, not evolution, and it doesn't conflate the two things.

0 Replies

@richrf,

OK Dave Allen, I am going to ask for moderation on this topic. I have been accused of lying, which I do take seriously. I will await moderation. If the moderator does agree that I have in fact lied, I will accept the verdict. However, if s/he does not, I will ask that you acknowledge the fact that the what I said about The God Delusion was not a lie.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I'm sorry to sound ungracious, but whilst the moderators decision about how or what I post on the forum is something I'll honour - they don't get to make up my mind for me.

You are being dishonest about a book you have not read - and whether I get slapped wrists, or banned, or whatever, that fact will not change.

Why I should be bound to agree with a moderator's verdict on a book they may not have read either is beyond me - though I will abide with any decisions they make about keeping the peace.

Frankly, I think it'd be better for you to just admit that, as you have not actually read the book in question, you might know less about it's content than someone who has.

But whatever - let's have the mods deal with it instead.

0 Replies

@richrf,

"The God Delusion" (and I have read it, although now someone will claim I did not understand it) is neither a popular scientific text nor a philosophical treatise.
The book is Dawkins personal take on and a polemic against supernatural theism and organized religion. Generally speaking he detests both. Dawkins has written excellent popular science books on general evolution and done outstanding work in the field of evolutionary biology but in "The God Delusion" he displays his personal preference with respect to worldviews.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I would sort of agree (I think worldviews are philosophical treatese by definition - though not necessarily impressive ones).

My point is that it is misleading to claim that it is "a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion". It's a decent but not great argument for atheism covering the subject from a multitude of angles, but it doesn't argue that evolution 'shows' anything about God or godlessness.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91860 wrote:

I would sort of agree (I think worldviews are philosophical treatese by definition - though not necessarily impressive ones).

My point is that it is misleading to claim that it is "a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion". It's a decent but not great argument for atheism covering the subject from a multitude of angles, but it doesn't argue that evolution 'shows' anything about God or godlessness.

Well, Yes and No. Part of the problem is that Dawkins respected professor and evolutionary biologist that he is seems to be saying that evolution shows that "god is a delusion and an unncecessary one at that". He does not say that directly but his position implies that anyone completely familiar with the theory of evolution would not rationally believe in God. See his comments about Francis Collins.

I think if pressed Dawkins would admit that there is a difference between what the theory of evolution says and the case he makes in "The God Delusion" but he takes no great pains to do this. I think this is purposeful on his part.

I think Dawkins is also making an important point in that "religous beliefs" which are promoted in a public forum should not be "priveleged belief". Religous beliefs should be subjected to criticism, rationality and evidence just like any other belief. The fact that something is claimed as "a religon" does not exempt it from examination and scrutiny. If you do not want your religious beliefs questioned they should remain private not public convictions. Part of what Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett have done is make public criticism of religon mainstream and acceptable.
This may prove to be the needed impetus for religion to change and adapt to a more modern worldview and more sophisticated (non supernatural) theology.

2 Replies

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know