The God Delusion - ongoing review

[kenworth]

the only problem with this book is that richard dawkins is arrogant and a bit of tool. so people who are very sure of their opinions will not be swayed at all by this book and will just be rubbed the wrong way.
the reason he concentrates on christianity (as he says) because it is the religion of his culture so he is more familiar with the beliefs and feelings of christians.if he would have gone into such depth with another religion he would doubtless have had to face far more tiring criticism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting and pehaps even revealing if I was clever enough.
But who can we reach on either side of that divide?
I see competing madnesses.

The way I see it, there are two options:

One way leads to more exploration, the other way comes to a standstill without (ever) reaching any conclusions. I think, personally, it is the cowards way out to fear the truth on either side. At the very least, to me, it is worth the endeavor. The problem with a lack of faith is, by definition, it is prejudicial. If you lack faith in someone/something, it interferes with your ability to be objective about it. This happens with too much faith too, but sitting on the fence gets us nowhere.

 

[(Q)]

I think, personally, it is the cowards way out to fear the truth on either side.

Then clearly, you are a coward.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The way I see it, there are two options:

One way leads to more exploration, the other way comes to a standstill without (ever) reaching any conclusions. I think, personally, it is the cowards way out to fear the truth on either side. At the very least, to me, it is worth the endeavor. The problem with a lack of faith is, by definition, it is prejudicial. If you lack faith in someone/something, it interferes with your ability to be objective about it. This happens with too much faith too, but sitting on the fence gets us nowhere.

But who can we reach?

 

[S.A.M.]

But who can we reach?

Why do you need to reach someone, isn't it enough to reach yourself?:shrug:

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Why do you need to reach someone, isn't it enough to reach yourself?:shrug:

I was responding to this:

Then they're missing the whole point of the exercise, aren't they?

As such, its unlikely you'll ever reach them, anyway.

 

[iceaura]

The problem with a lack of faith is, by definition, it is prejudicial. If you lack faith in someone/something, it interferes with your ability to be objective about it.

How to put this gently - - - Generally, it's thought to work the other way around.

 

[S.A.M.]

I was responding to this:

Ahh I see, I was referring to the futility of polemic.

How to put this gently - - - Generally, it's thought to work the other way around.

Hmm, thats strange, I always look for something only when I believe its there, if I don't think its there, I don't bother. Perhaps you function differently.

 

[iceaura]

Hmm, thats strange, I always look for something only when I believe its there, if I don't think its there, I don't bother. Perhaps you function differently.

So you find indifference conflicts with objectivity ?

I often look for things when I'm not sure where they are.

And I've noticed that the more certain I am that I put them where inspection apparently (in the shallow, circumstantial interpretation) shows them not to be,

the more faith I have in their location despite not being able to lay hands on them,

the longer it takes me to find them where - as it turns out - they ended up, somehow.

 

[Gustav]

"The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.(dawkins)"


so ahh
any physicist types in here wanna explain their gods?

 

[everneo]

From your Dawkins' quote it seems better if Dawkins stick to his version of god than assuming what sort of god physicists supposedly believe.

 

[Gustav]

i swear to frikkin god...

/swear

if you have a xmas tree in your frikkin house. do not frikkin come back
if you perpetuate santa by lying and giving gifts to children

never darken this door again

integrity/honesty/rationality and unquenchable thirst for knowledge
those are the qualities, the prerequisites, desired

those lacking, those in a festive mood........get the hell out of dumbf**ksci!!

"we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions"
"and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals,"
"We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage." (dawkins)


ja
i am hardcore
dawkins, hypocritical

 

[everneo]

bizzare festivals of delusionals get so real and lovely..

 

[S.A.M.]

So you find indifference conflicts with objectivity ?

I often look for things when I'm not sure where they are.

And I've noticed that the more certain I am that I put them where inspection apparently (in the shallow, circumstantial interpretation) shows them not to be,

the more faith I have in their location despite not being able to lay hands on them,

the longer it takes me to find them where - as it turns out - they ended up, somehow.

You're talking about car keys you put somewhere, I'm talking about exploring the unknown. :shrug:

"The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.(dawkins)"

so ahh
any physicist types in here wanna explain their gods?

Brahman, of course

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Didn't Oppenheimer say:I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

All Hindus apparently

 

[Gustav]

secondly....

simple, unified, explanatory, beautiful, elegant, harmonious, non-ad hoc, conceptually coherent, invariant, symmetrical, organic, inwardly perfect

got more?

so ahh, whats all this?

hark
did someone mutter, "hallelujah?"

i submit once again to a physicist. any physicist

 

[SnakeLord]

Oh my goodness... win a copy of the God Delusion!

www.snakeystew.com

Shameless advertising, but it's relevant.

 

[James R]

"The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason."

so ahh
any physicist types in here wanna explain their gods?

Dawkins is referring to the concept of God as described by Einstein, who himself called this conception "Spinoza's god". The idea is of a God who plays no direct role in human affairs. At the most, he creates the universe, setting the laws of nature in motion and then disappearing, never to be heard from again. i.e. no miracles, no answering of prayers, etc. etc.

 

[Gustav]

fuck me charlie!

what do you think, james?
what are your ideas?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Dawkins is referring to the concept of God as described by Einstein, who himself called this conception "Spinoza's god". The idea is of a God who plays no direct role in human affairs. At the most, he creates the universe, setting the laws of nature in motion and then disappearing, never to be heard from again. i.e. no miracles, no answering of prayers, etc. etc.

But actually a rather fantastic God, as fantastic as the one who sticks around.

And, until further notice from scientists, creating a universe, setting up specific laws of nature and disappearing would all be miracles.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Ahh I see, I was referring to the futility of polemic.

I thought so.
So what are we doing?