Time Magazine Dawkins, Collins debate.

[James R]

Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher.

Are philosophers the only people qualified to talk about God?

Reducing God to a creator discusses none of the finer aspects of God.

Then it's a good thing Dawkins doesn't do that, isn't it?

Have you read The God Delusion yet?

Moreover, Dawkins ethics are just bland utilitarian. Not even interesting.

So, good ethics must be interesting. Interesting standard of judgement you have.

Yes, no one can doubt his excellent biological knowledge. Just his whole Atheism is poorly constructed as he knows so very little about philosophy and theology, that he really ought to take the time out and study.

What deficiencies do you see in his analysis?

Be specific.

 

[Satyr]

Satyr: Dawkins entertains the possibility of a multiverse, of which I would assume there are an infinite amount of universes, as well as an infinite amount of parallels and probabilities. Is it not okay then to say that at in at least one universe there is the probability of say, the flying teapot God?

If that were the case then this Teapot God would not be THE God but only a superior being.

God, as He is defined by /Christian dogma is omniscience, omnipotence and creator of all – including multiple universes.

A God that is only a God in one universe is no god at all.

 

[Ogmios]

Satyr,

1. No. My perceptions of leprechauns has no effect on the possibility of their existence (which was my point).

2. By "higher level of existence" I mean existence not limited by matter and it's classic limitations (need to eat, gravity etc.).

And existence is simply that; It exists. Is in being. A higher level of existence has no need to be in any contact with "lower" levels of existence, in order to be.



And be it noted that I don't believe in anything a priest (man that gets paid if people believe him), christian or otherwise says. I am just saying that the lack of proof is never proof of anything.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Yes, no one can doubt his excellent biological knowledge. Just his whole Atheism is poorly constructed as he knows so very little about philosophy and theology, that he really ought to take the time out and study.

Doesn't he teach at Oxford or Cambridge? Surely he can get one of his fellow professors to tutour him in the subject, or enroll in one of their classes likely for free?

Prince James (and by extension w1z4rd): I find it highly pompous that you think Dawkins is unqualified to discuss religion or even a god for that matter (ironically, this haughtiness is exactly the stereotype I have in my mind of philosophers or those who pretend at philosophy). I for example am an IT professional, with no background in philosophy or even biology. Yet still I can hold my wheedling little unphilosophical self in a similar discussion.

Face it, anyone with some intelligence and a maybe a little googling can discuss this topic, and Dawkins is turning theisms on their ears. It is folks like Collins who aren't being "interesting" and bringing up ancient arguments.

The topic start gave me an unrealistic expectation thinking that Collins was actually going to bring something new, and prompt Dawkins to respond with something new. Dawkins is only quoting himself word for word because he has anticipated Collins a long time ago. If humanity found a way to animate inorganic objects, Dawkins' book could have debated with Collins, leaving the good professor time to indulge in his hobbies.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

Are philosophers the only people qualified to talk about God?

Yes.

Then it's a good thing Dawkins doesn't do that, isn't it?

Actually, most of his arguments that I have heard have revolved around Darwin's "refutation" of teleology.

Not to say that I myself support teleology, but Darwinism hardly refutes God.

Have you read The God Delusion yet?

Only parts. However, I've also read summaries of many points and frankly, his lack of philosophical acumen shows.

So, good ethics must be interesting. Interesting standard of judgement you have.

They must not be a common belief that lends itself towards topsy-turvy contradictions.

What deficiencies do you see in his analysis?

For Dawkins in general:

God as a creator disproves the notion of God.

Darwinism refutes the notion of God.

Utilitarianism as the supreme ethical system.

His Kantian refutation of the ontological argument.

His rejection of Pascal's wager (although Pascal's wager is nonsense his rejection of it is very poor, relying on a concept which the wager doesn't deal with).

His association of God with Abrahamic religion.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Face it, anyone with some intelligence and a maybe a little googling can discuss this topic, and Dawkins is turning theisms on their ears. It is folks like Collins who aren't being "interesting" and bringing up ancient arguments.

Dawkins hasn't even created an original argument against God. He is hardly turning "theisms on their ears".

Also, it requires a lot more than "a bit of googling and a little intelligence". Generally speaking, theology takes years of study to appreciate the full depth of the controversies and arguments on both sides.

 

[Satyr]

Satyr,
1. No. My perceptions of leprechauns has no effect on the possibility of their existence (which was my point).

Yes but….

I am just saying that the lack of proof is never proof of anything.

...…and so, in accordance with your views, you must accept the existence of leprechauns as possible even if you have no reason to believe in them and no supporting evidence.
In your mind all exists until proven otherwise.
This is a form of reverse reasoning.
It’s not that reality is discovered in increments and based on evidence and sensual information but all is assumed possible, using the imagination, and then if not proven to not exist is taken as probable.
Excellent.
You are on your way to stupidity 101.
Congratulations.

2. By "higher level of existence" I mean existence not limited by matter and it's classic limitations (need to eat, gravity etc.).

Not “limited” by matter?!
Wow!!!
What is, in your mind, matter?

Air doesn’t need to eat and it is not as limited by gravity, is this a “higher form of existence”?

Tell me…have you ever communicated with your brain, ‘cause I sense that you need to reestablish contact?

Matter is temporality manifest.
Existence is that which has a temporal character and, therefore, a spatial possibility, unfolding as dimensional space.
As such it is appearance – that which appears and is apparent (phenomenon – φαινομενον).

Matter is a temporal phenomenon which appears in relation to another phenomenon as the disparity of temporality and stands out in relation to the background flux.
Thusly matter is temporal and, therefore, has special dimensions as a projection of its temporal character.
That which is hard is changing slower than that which is soft or airy.

Life is temporality made conscious of its self.

A timeless phenomenon, an eternal God, a perfection would have no temporal character, it would never change, and so it would have no spatial possibility - it would lack a spatial signature.
By our definition of existence it would be non-existent.

Now, you trying to maintain its possibility – its spatial signature – while still maintaining its absence in time is, to say the least, delusional.

Using multiple dimension theory to place God there is precious.
In the unknown and hypothetical is where man has placed God since he thought God was fire.

If God exists outside time and space, time being the flux, the phenomenon of entropic decay, and space being the temporal direction the possibility and potential of this flux, then he doesn’t exist in anything, he doesn’t move, he doesn’t think, because thought is a temporal characteristic, and he has no possibility, since he is perfect.
A perception would be inert.
What would the perfect change into?
Why would the perfect need to think?
Thought is a survival mechanism meant to guide a temporal, ephemeral unity along the path of its Becoming – intellect is a tool.
What purpose would a tool serve to a hypothetical Being, that has ceased Becoming and IS, how would it work, when this mind exists outside temporality and what would it think about, when it already knows everything?

And existence is simply that; It exists. Is in being. A higher level of existence has no need to be in any contact with "lower" levels of existence, in order to be.

What?!!!

Is “in” being?
What does that mean?
In what?
You are using more ambiguity to hide your inability to define existence.
All that exists interacts with everything else that exists and so is dependant on it.

No, seriously, what kind of drugs are you taking?

Let me recap your thoughts:
Something “exists” because it “exists”; it is “in” “Being”.
So, existence is in existence, whatever existence means.

And so God is outside existence and exists.
Fascinating.
If I lobotomize my brain, I might find that this line of reasoning makes sense.

And be it noted that I don't believe in anything a priest (man that gets paid if people believe him), christian or otherwise says. I am just saying that the lack of proof is never proof of anything.

How wonderful for you that you’ve escaped institutionalized stupidity.
Now let us see if we can deal with the individual type.

So, if I’m understanding you correctly, in your mind everything exists until proven otherwise. That is the burden of proof lies with the one denying a possibility rather than with the one proposing one.
Then proving a negative is rational.

Fascinating.
I’m learning so much on this forum.
Thanks sciforums.

I mean, has anyone adequately proven the non-existence of Olympian gods?
Has anyone proven that Santa Clause doesn’t exist?
Has anyone proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth is not the center of the universe?

I think not.
Let us take Ogmios’s advice and keep on believing, people!!!!

Whew...I feel enlightened already.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Rubbish, Princie, god is a general topic since ALL humans would like to know their origins. It is quite sanctimonious to say philosophers are the only people who can discuss god. By this logic I can tell a philosopher that he isn't qualified to discuss with me that his internet connection is "slow". Regardless of what his perception of "slow" or "change of speed" is. Or that you aren't qualified to tell a chef that his dish tasted bad (or great for that matter), unless you yourself went through the years of training in the hospitality arena and chef qualifications; you just have to accept the food into your gullet and move on.


And while I agree somewhat that Dawkins hasn't presented an original argument, he has

1. Brought a fresh vision on them
2. Been forced to rehash a bit since theists are still harping along with fallacies and blind faith.

 

[Prince_James]

Enterprise-D:

Rubbish, Princie, god is a general topic since ALL humans would like to know their origins. It is quite sanctimonious to say philosophers are the only people who can discuss god. By this logic I can tell a philosopher that he isn't qualified to discuss with me that his internet connection is "slow". Regardless of what his perception of "slow" or "change of speed" is. Or that you aren't qualified to tell a chef that his dish tasted bad (or great for that matter), unless you yourself went through the years of training in the hospitality arena and chef qualifications; you just have to accept the food into your gullet and move on.

Someone who is not an active philosopher, hardly can discuss something that requires acquaintance with philosophy, following of the philosophical method, education in it to at least a limited extent, et cetera, et cetera.

Simply because we want to know "what our origins are" does not mean we have the right method to discern this. If that were the case, we'd have to agree that Theistic claims that are contradictory are right.

 

[Enterprise-D]

More holier-than-thou clap-trap. Any topic can be discussed by persons armed with intelligence, or why even bother with these forums. By your argument, all of us should go do something else than worry with sciforums.com. I'd be surprised that there are more than 5 academic or 'professional' philosophers present at any one time in either the Religion, Pseudoscience, Parapsychology or Philosophy subheadings of this website.

 

[Ogmios]

(this is fun!)

Satyr,

...…and so, in accordance with your views, you must accept the existence of leprechauns as possible even if you have no reason to believe in them and no supporting evidence.
In your mind all exists until proven otherwise.

No? Like I said, Lack of proof is never proof of anything. Or if it makes more sense, lack of proof is always proof of nothing.

Not, as you said, lack of proof is proof of existence.

Not “limited” by matter?!
Wow!!!
What is, in your mind, matter?

At this case, I meant that God, by popular belief, does not require a body in order to exist, nor food to eat, nor air to breath, but survives without matter. But...

Matter is temporality manifest.
Existence is that which has a temporal character and, therefore, a spatial possibility, unfolding as dimensional space.
As such it is appearance – that which appears and is apparent (phenomenon – φαινομενον).

THIS is intresting view. I'll disagree on existence; It says all that exist is, in fact, matter. (see below)

Matter is a temporal phenomenon which appears in relation to another phenomenon as the disparity of temporality and stands out in relation to the background flux.
Thusly matter is temporal and, therefore, has special dimensions as a projection of its temporal character.
That which is hard is changing slower than that which is soft or airy.

I can almost understand what you are saying; I recommend using words that do not require intense training in order to understand them.

But if I understand correctly, you are saying existence (as matter) is only noticable by how it deviates from the normal, or empty space? Isn't that subject to subjectivity, in the sense that you can't tell whether an object is motionless, or simply not moving in relation to you? As such, it would be impossible to know the real "unexistence", only unexistence in relation to you.

Now, you trying to maintain its possibility – its spatial signature – while still maintaining its absence in time is, to say the least, delusional.

And that's where I point out the higher level of existence: As non-material, and above time I guess, he would not NEED matter. His existance is not dependent on spatial signature. Do you see now of what I speak of?

If God exists outside time and space, time being the flux, the phenomenon of entropic decay, and space being the temporal direction the possibility and potential of this flux, then he doesn’t exist in anything, he doesn’t move, he doesn’t think, because thought is a temporal characteristic, and he has no possibility, since he is perfect.
A perception would be inert.
What would the perfect change into?
Why would the perfect need to think?
Thought is a survival mechanism meant to guide a temporal, ephemeral unity along the path of its Becoming – intellect is a tool.
What purpose would a tool serve to a hypothetical Being, that has ceased Becoming and IS, how would it work, when this mind exists outside temporality and what would it think about, when it already knows everything?

I agree with everything you just said. So why are you saying this? God would not need intellgence, he would by definition KNOW EVERYTHING. And the perfect thing to do in any given situation.

You are using more ambiguity to hide your inability to define existence.

Perhaps.

Let me recap your thoughts:
Something “exists” because it “exists”; it is “in” “Being”.
So, existence is in existence, whatever existence means.

And so God is outside existence and exists.
Fascinating.
If I lobotomize my brain, I might find that this line of reasoning makes sense.

Aww. It's kind of sad that you have to wreck your brain in order to see this. I do understand you, and myself, see? I AGREE with all you say (well except the parts about me being in drugs...) but, IN ADDITION say that there is levels of existence BEYOND those. And that there sits Mr. G.

I mean, has anyone adequately proven the non-existence of Olympian gods?
Has anyone proven that Santa Clause doesn’t exist?
Has anyone proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth is not the center of the universe?

Again you are correct, asides from inverse logics, which I never really said. Nothing indeed prevents one from pointing that these things might exist. Maybe fear of ridicule, as these things are "popularily accepted facts". Nothing does prevent anyone from pointing that these things might NOT exist, either.

But I think faith is called FAITH because you have to believe WITHOUT LOGICAL PROOF. Or because you feel like it. That is what separates faith from knowledge. Or logic. But unlike you seem to assume, faith and logic are not opposite, rather one only works outside the other (and the other does not work outside itself..). In this case logic can neither prove that god exists, nor that god does not. Hence logic never comes with a solution, and where faith, intuition or subconscious thinking does.

Also, you spend too much time and effort on this. Did some bad faith-man do something bad to you? Are you reformed? Did you grow up amongst men of faith?

 

[Ogmios]

Someone who is not an active philosopher, hardly can discuss something that requires acquaintance with philosophy, following of the philosophical method, education in it to at least a limited extent, et cetera, et cetera.

Define philosophy (okay don't, that would derail the thread completely).

I find the attitude that one requires training and/or status, in order to say things which are true, somewhat arrogant. Can not a man stumble on an idea by random, and while it may break every rule and thesis in existence, still be correct?

And can not a proficient philosopher attack the statements made by statements he has studied, or spend few seconds to recite the correct answer, if he knows it? Must he, instead, proclaim how this man is not aware of the progress made in whatever, waste time and cause outbreaks of violence?

If the statement made has been handled already, then the philosopher SHOULD be able to counter it perfectly in seconds. And if he cannot, then is the philosopher correct in assuming that the thesis is incorrect, for "surely I would have heard of that were it correct"?

Must the argument be about whether the man can or cannot possibly be correct rather than whether or not he IS correct?

 

[Michael]

Matter is a temporal phenomenon which appears in relation to another phenomenon as the disparity of temporality and stands out in relation to the background flux.
Thusly matter is temporal and, therefore, has special dimensions as a projection of its temporal character.
That which is hard is changing slower than that which is soft or airy.

Life is temporality made conscious of its self.

A timeless phenomenon, an eternal God, a perfection would have no temporal character, it would never change, and so it would have no spatial possibility - it would lack a spatial signature.
By our definition of existence it would be non-existent.

Saty,

I'm not sure if I'm following the temporal part of your argument. So, I'm going to have to ask a question about time.
If, lets suppose, I have a perfectly round sphere and it rests in the middle of an otherwise empty universe. The sphere is not moving, this is because there is nothing relative to it (nothing else exists) and so it is impossible to detect any change - therefore it is not temporal. I'm not sure if one would say it is eternal as there would be no time because there is no change.
Sorry about the wording but you get the drift, aka Am I correct so far?
But it is so it exists.

Does this fit within your argument? It doesn't seem so - maybe I missed something.

Thanks,
Michael

PS: Pardon me if there was a blatantly obvious answer (of which I truly hope there is

 

[Michael]

Ogmios

Do you define God as both omnipotent and omniscience?

Michael

 

[w1z4rd]

Prince James (and by extension w1z4rd): I find it highly pompous that you think Dawkins is unqualified to discuss religion

I said he is bad at is, not unqualified in it. His basic theory is good, but not excellent. My opinion. Whats with the "haughty" comment? Because we are critical of his work doesnt mean we dont respect it.

or even a god for that matter (ironically, this haughtiness is exactly the stereotype I have in my mind of philosophers or those who pretend at philosophy). I for example am an IT professional, with no background in philosophy or even biology. Yet still I can hold my wheedling little unphilosophical self in a similar discussion.

Face it, anyone with some intelligence and a maybe a little googling can discuss this topic, and Dawkins is turning theisms on their ears. It is folks like Collins who aren't being "interesting" and bringing up ancient arguments.

The topic start gave me an unrealistic expectation thinking that Collins was actually going to bring something new, and prompt Dawkins to respond with something new. Dawkins is only quoting himself word for word because he has anticipated Collins a long time ago. If humanity found a way to animate inorganic objects, Dawkins' book could have debated with Collins, leaving the good professor time to indulge in his hobbies.

Um.... ok. :/

Seriously, you might wanna pull that carrot out of your .... and lets just allow each other our opinions.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

Are philosophers the only people qualified to talk about God?

Yes.

If you actually believe this, then why are you posting on the topic?

Actually, most of his arguments that I have heard have revolved around Darwin's "refutation" of teleology.

Not to say that I myself support teleology, but Darwinism hardly refutes God.

It's a good thing Dawkins never argues that "Darwinism" refutes God, then, isn't it?

So, good ethics must be interesting. Interesting standard of judgement you have.

They must not be a common belief that lends itself towards topsy-turvy contradictions.

What topsy-turvy contradictions do you see in Dawkin's ethical positions?

Be specific.

For Dawkins in general:

God as a creator disproves the notion of God.

Don't know what you mean by this. Explain.

Darwinism refutes the notion of God.

Dawkins makes no such argument.

Utilitarianism as the supreme ethical system.

Dawkins makes no such argument.

His Kantian refutation of the ontological argument.

What's the problem with that?

His rejection of Pascal's wager (although Pascal's wager is nonsense his rejection of it is very poor, relying on a concept which the wager doesn't deal with).

A minor and relatively unimportant point, I think.

His association of God with Abrahamic religion.

He specifically deals with that accusation early on.

Dawkins hasn't even created an original argument against God. He is hardly turning "theisms on their ears".

He has never claimed to have created an original argument against God, so this is a straw man.

Also, it requires a lot more than "a bit of googling and a little intelligence". Generally speaking, theology takes years of study to appreciate the full depth of the controversies and arguments on both sides.

Have you done years of theological study? Are you qualified to comment?

Someone who is not an active philosopher, hardly can discuss something that requires acquaintance with philosophy, following of the philosophical method, education in it to at least a limited extent, et cetera, et cetera.

You do realise that "acquaintance with philosophy" is very different from being an "active philosopher", don't you? Your conflating of the two is a neat rhetorical device, nothing more.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

If you actually believe this, then why are you posting on the topic?

I'm an academic philosopher in training. I'm on track to pursue a Ph.D. I have also had significant training in philosophy through reading, discussion, debate, writing, et cetera, throughout both my education and on my own.

It's a good thing Dawkins never argues that "Darwinism" refutes God, then, isn't it?

When doesn't he? He explicitly affirms that evolution denies God as a creator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#Why_there_almost_certainly_is_no_God

What topsy-turvy contradictions do you see in Dawkin's ethical positions?

Be specific.

Suffering = Evil.

Ergo, exercise is evil, as it induces suffering.

Not to mention the difficulty of creating an objective hedonistic calculus.

Don't know what you mean by this. Explain.

Claiming to refute God by making arguments against the notion of Biblical or otherwise creation.

Dawkins makes no such argument.

Apparently you are incorrect.

Dawkins makes no such argument.

He affirms utilitarianism in the interview. Apparently you did not read throughout it?

What's the problem with that?

"Existence is not a predicate" is wrong because:

1. Something can exist both in intellectu (in the mind) and in re (in physical existence).

2. To lack existence in either is to be deficient.

3. The greatest coherent conception cannot have deficiencies which are not impossible.

4. Existence in both in intellectu and in re is not impossible (puppies are a good example).

5. Ergo, the greatest coherent conception necessitates existence in intellectu and in re.

This is a refined part of the Prince James Ontological Argument that I posted a year ago or so.

A minor and relatively unimportant point, I think.

It's one of his critiques to destroy the notion of God.

He specifically deals with that accusation early on.

Then where are the contra-Zeus arguments? Or contra-Brahman?

He has never claimed to have created an original argument against God, so this is a straw man.

I was refering to Enterprise-D's accusation that he is turning theisms "on their ears". This requires a new argument, not poor rehashes of classical ones.

Have you done years of theological study? Are you qualified to comment?

Yes, actually.

I am rather well educated in philosophical topics. I've read dozens of books and am pursuing a doctorate.

You do realise that "acquaintance with philosophy" is very different from being an "active philosopher", don't you? Your conflating of the two is a neat rhetorical device, nothing more.

His acquaintance with philosophy is admittedly limited, do you not agree? I would be surprised, truly, if he has read more than one or two books on the topic. He is, after all, a scientist, who has written purely on science until now.

Also, to speak of philosophy publically ought to necessitate at least some degree of real association with the field. Just as we do not expect to hear Britney Spears tell us the finer aspects of the Human Genome Project.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

I'm an academic philosopher in training. I'm on track to pursue a Ph.D. I have also had significant training in philosophy through reading, discussion, debate, writing, et cetera, throughout both my education and on my own.

See at the end for comments on the matter of "qualifications".

He explicitly affirms that evolution denies God as a creator.

We need to be a little more specific. Creator of what?

Clearly, evolution denies God as "creator of all current life forms in more-or-less their present form, at one single time". On the other hand, evolution says nothing about God as potential "creator of the universe at the big bang", for example.

I think you're confused about what Dawkins is actually saying. But, that's not surprising, seeing as you haven't bothered actually reading his book. How can you be expected to be able to summarise his arguments, when you haven't even read them?

Dawkins makes no such argument.

Apparently you are incorrect.

Apparently not.

He affirms utilitarianism in the interview. Apparently you did not read throughout it?

I read it.

Utilitarianism, more generally consequentialism, is a common feature of many secular ethical systems. In the interview, I believe Dawkins uses it as an example.

"Existence is not a predicate" is wrong because:

1. Something can exist both in intellectu (in the mind) and in re (in physical existence).

2. To lack existence in either is to be deficient.

This is a major point of disagreement among philosophers, as I'm sure you're aware.

He specifically deals with that accusation early on.

Then where are the contra-Zeus arguments? Or contra-Brahman?

They are contained in many of his general arguments. Moreover, he explicitly states why he concentrates on Christianity and Islam, as I said above.

I was refering to Enterprise-D's accusation that he is turning theisms "on their ears". This requires a new argument, not poor rehashes of classical ones.

Then we both disagree with Enterprise-D's assessment in this regard.

His acquaintance with philosophy is admittedly limited, do you not agree?

I really have no idea. Perhaps he has read widely; perhaps not.

Also, to speak of philosophy publically ought to necessitate at least some degree of real association with the field. Just as we do not expect to hear Britney Spears tell us the finer aspects of the Human Genome Project.

I disagree with this. You seem to place great store in pieces of paper. If somebody has a piece of paper with "Ph.D" written on it, then, according to you, they are an "expert", more qualified that anybody else to talk about all kinds of things, including, presumably, things outside the immediate topic of their specialised thesis.

I have met many Ph.D's in my time who, despite being very knowledgable about their particular niche of academia, exhibit varying degrees of stupidity in other areas.

Merely having a piece of paper doesn't make one a general "authority". But more importantly for the present discussion, lacking the same piece of paper does not mean that one is "unqualified" to make educated comments on a topic, either.

The quality of any work must ultimately be judged on its own merits, and not on the basis of the presumed "authority" or otherwise of the author.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

We need to be a little more specific. Creator of what?

Clearly, evolution denies God as "creator of all current life forms in more-or-less their present form, at one single time". On the other hand, evolution says nothing about God as potential "creator of the universe at the big bang", for example.

I think you're confused about what Dawkins is actually saying. But, that's not surprising, seeing as you haven't bothered actually reading his book. How can you be expected to be able to summarise his arguments, when you haven't even read them?

According to the link I provided you:

"He states in Chapter 4 that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong. He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain, and that any theory that explains the existence of the universe must be a “crane”, something equivalent to natural selection, rather than a “skyhook” that merely postpones the problem. He uses an argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to suggest that "God almost certainly does not exist": "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747."[19]

The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement made by Fred Hoyle: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747".[20] Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. Here, he furthers this argument by presenting examples of apparent design. Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so".[21] Dawkins reports that Daniel Dennett calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries.[22]"

Utilitarianism, more generally consequentialism, is a common feature of many secular ethical systems. In the interview, I believe Dawkins uses it as an example.

He uses it to as leverage against a "moral absolutist" conception of ethics.

This is a major point of disagreement among philosophers, as I'm sure you're aware.

The only critique could come from subjective idealists. If we want to fix it to work with that, we can say "those things held normally to exist outside the intellect".

They are contained in many of his general arguments. Moreover, he explicitly states why he concentrates on Christianity and Islam, as I said above.

So then I was right: His arguments are mostly, if not really exclusively, against Abrahamic religion?

I disagree with this. You seem to place great store in pieces of paper. If somebody has a piece of paper with "Ph.D" written on it, then, according to you, they are an "expert", more qualified that anybody else to talk about all kinds of things, including, presumably, things outside the immediate topic of their specialised thesis.

In matters that require a great deal of specialized knowledge, surely experts should be given superior weight in their arguments. Or again, do you expect us to listen to Britney Spears' explanation of the human genome project with the same respect we would give Collins, the head of it?

I have met many Ph.D's in my time who, despite being very knowledgable about their particular niche of academia, exhibit varying degrees of stupidity in other areas.

Certainly agree - like Dawkins with philosophy.

Merely having a piece of paper doesn't make one a general "authority". But more importantly for the present discussion, lacking the same piece of paper does not mean that one is "unqualified" to make educated comments on a topic, either.

The quality of any work must ultimately be judged on its own merits, and not on the basis of the presumed "authority" or otherwise of the author.

I agree it must be judged on its own merits. But the sophomoric analyses given by Dawkins seem to imply that his book is not worthy of serious merit. There exists a slew of better things on the topic available. Why they pick Dawkins instead of someone else.

 

[Satyr]

I agree with most of your post. But on the narrow points in the quote:

Points, Lines, surfaces and 3D volumes (which would include humans) don't exist in 10 dimensions. We exist in 4 dimensions (including time).

Space-time is 4-dimensional. Therefore by definition any dimensionality beyond those 4 would be "outside space time."

First off the ten-dimensional universe is theoretical.

Secondly we do not percieve the other dimensions even though we are products of a universe with ten dimensions (hypothetically) and therefore ten-dimensional ourselves.

Thirdly the ten-dimensional universe theory includes folded time, which is one of the other dimensions, as is folded space.
They are but extensions to the dimesnions you percieve and not seperate from them.

Fourthly the concept of time is that of change and movement - flux.
A God lacking temporality, being timeless, would be unmoving, innert and so unthinking and inactive and non-existent.
Thinking is but the temporal succesion of sensual awareness and memory.
Space is but the possibility of an active phenomenon. Therefore an inanctive God would also be spaceless; He would lack dimenson altogether, Being a singularity, and so would not exist.

Furthermore a God existing within a dimension is not outside anything. He is inside and, therefore, determined and contained by it.
He is no God at all; at least not a Christian or a Muslim God.

Existence is characterized by Nothingness trying to become Something.
This is the flux, the endless change and movement we call existence - time is this movement towards andsapce the possibility or potential of aquiring this hypotheticasl and unatainable 'I' or Absolute.

The flux seeks out its own end, its own absolution, its own perfection - along the path of least resistance - trying to Be but failing to do so because this would constitute it non-existent.
Existence is the imprfect, unstable, Nothing seeking its finality : identity.
This is why the concepts of 'here' and 'now' and 'self' and '1' are really generalizations with no real meaning.
The phenomenon moves towards a moment and a place and a self but never reaches it because this would make it a singularity, a perfection, a point, an Absolute and it would then drop out of existence.
An absolute would be Absolute mass, and so would absorb existence within itself.
That it hasn't happened means that there is no Absolute and that, perhaps, the Absolute is impossible.
The impossible possibility - the ideal, utopia, perfection.

A phenomenon is that which appears in relation to another phenomenon, thusly it is a juxtaposition, a relationship of temporality with itself.
Different temporal curents moving at different speeds create the illusion of substance, matter. But matter is but an appearance - phenomenon.
Hard matter is temporality moving, changing, at a much slower speed than the observing temporal unity.

Life is temporality made conscious of its own Nothingness, its own state of constant Becoming.
Need is the awarenes of the flux, the awarenes of emptiness and lack.
Suffering is an extreme form of need.
Thinking, consciousness, is a manifestation of a temporal unity in the process of Becoming, (autopoiesis) and a tool for guiding this temporal unity more efficiently through the flux.

Thusly thinking is not required by what has already aquired perfection and is absolutely powerful.
What would an omniscience think about when it knows everything and is everything?
What would it move towards when it occupies all possibility at once and so is timeless and without dimensions?

Creativity is an imperfect unity trying to complete itself and find an identity, a self.
Thusly, a creator God is an absurdity, since a perfect Being would have no reason to create anything and no need to do so; it is completed and so not needing.:bawl: