What do you think of this view of Richard Dawkins?

If you want to use the occams razor approach, then if we believe in materialism, we have to cut away all ideas of a subjective experience or 'inner world' a la dennet, skinner etc. I'm afraid however I do have have a subjective experience (I'm subjectively experiencing right now), and an 'inner world' (which I'm also experiencing right now), so I really don't think it's just a case of 'occams razor' to suggest that all that exists is observable matter in motion, I think it's just plain craziness.

God must be extremely complex.

Occams razor has absolutely nothing to do with materialism. As far as what you mean by "inner world", I assume you mean thoughts or emotions? If you mean something else, perhaps you need to further define what you mean by it otherwise I'll have to stick with this next argument.

Thoughts and emotions do follow occums razor for the most part. They are not outside the issue of using the most likely explanation. Thoughts and emotions are easily explanable. We know how emotions arise and their effects. So what exactly are you referring to that can't follow occums razor?

If you are referring to something like a soul, then you are in error. There is absolutely nothing substantial that points to a soul existing. So if you are trying to claim that the soul can not be explained using occams razor, you have been mistaken. In fact occums razor is the tool by which we would deduce that the soul is probably nothing more than other human attributes substituted to be the soul, ie, the mind.

But theology insists that God is perfectly simple.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.

Yes, I know occams razor has nothing to do with materialism. I meant that IF all that exists is matter, then things like subjective experience have to be cut out of the equation, becuase you can't explain this with matter in motion - read skinner, dennet etc. Dawkins as far as I know never once touches upon the subject of his materialism, and all of the arguments throughout the centuries against it, and so he argues on the assumption that all that exists is matter. But all religions disagree with this, hence all his rants against religion have no relevance, and not only that, they mislead his readership into thinking that religious people believe in a material god rather than a transcendent one.

extremely material consequences

Thoughts and emotions are easily explanable. We know how emotions arise and their effects.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.

It's funny, isn't it, how believers in a so-called non-material god nevertheless tend to have a particularly unpleasant penchant for imposing extremely material consequences of their belief in his existence on everyone else.

Hi All,

Richard Dawkins is an out-and-out Atheist of the highest degree, on a mission to annihilate any and all concepts of God (Any God). I smile when he confronts religious figures (from all walks), attempts to convince them of the rational and then quivers in shock, spitting blood almost, when they inevitably and conclusively, not only, disagree, but attempt to convince him that he is irrational. Brilliant!

You are a little bit of a sensationalist?

I find it interesting how you put it without considering it from his point of view. Why is it that his talks generate death threats against him? I mean if theists were all loving and god fearing people why do they always insist on death threats to silence their opposition?

Not to mention that he is constantly quote mind and has to spend a large portion of his time correcting statements made against him from things that he said which were taken out of context or bent in ways in which he did not say them.

When you sit in a room and try to have a rational discussion with a bunch of irrational people, eventually things are going to get heated. That an apologetic will keep rehashing the same argument over and over even after they have been clearly proven wrong.

The final thing that annoys him and many of the people within the scientific community is that religion an religious people are trying to undermine science all together. They want to infuse the science class rooms with dogma and things that are not scientific. They want to retard the education system to spread their theocracy. When they oppose these actions they get branded as being inconsiderate to religious views when clearly it is the other way around.

I don't even like dawkins but I am here defending him because you are clearly a lopsided sensationalist.

I do, nevertheless, believe it would be wiser of him to ignore what he so openly attacks, on the principle that - he is wasting his wisdom on fools.

But theology insists that God is perfectly simple.