[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 300x300, 410UkKG0LcL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1827164 No.1827164 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think of this book?

>> No.1827169

It's fine, but Richard Dawkins and his pretensions are pretty insufferable. Why would you make a work using pure scientific inquiry as a mantle so emotionally charged.

>> No.1827168
File: 88 KB, 600x800, orthodoxy or death.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1827168

Never read this book but since the author is used as their shield by militant atheist trolls and given the fact that I'm Christian, probably the book doesn't suit me.

>> No.1827180

I guess I enjoyed the book. He put a lot of my own thoughts into words, when I hadn't do so.

>> No.1827193

I thought that he was pretty harsh I guessq

>> No.1827214

Religion is only mildly interesting when studied as a part of human psychology. Reading about it is pointless, and boring. I'm not an internet atheist so I see no point in having arguments against theism already prepared.

>> No.1827215

The End of Faith by Sam Harris is better.

>> No.1827220

It's full of logical fallacies. He just can't keep himself from using strawman arguments.

>> No.1827228

I read half of it and couldn't continue on. I'm an atheist, too, and found it pretty boring. I prefer Sagan's approach to religion, which isn't militant, is understanding and actually explains his thoughts as opposed to doing whatever Dawkins does. (I imagine the book was written in all caps at one point, but at the request of the publisher, changed into normal capitalisation etc.)

>> No.1827267

It's a rational, thought-out book.

The only thing that makes people think he's angry is the fact that he talks about religion in a very matter-of-fact way, like a scientist would and most religious people (even many non-religious people) think religion should get a special treatment.

In one chapter he's dismantling all of the most common arguments for religion. Since not all religious people agree with every of those argument they claim he's using strawman arguments.

What's interesting are the negative comments and reviews about the book because in every case (yes, I'm going so far as to say EVERY) the points people are making have been addressed by Dawkings. Those people have either not read the book or didn't understand it. Dawkings pulls nothing out of his ass, everything he says is backed up by facts or logic. People who are not able to follow those rational trains of thought are, indeed, delusioned.

(Not a native English speaker)

>> No.1827275

>>1827267
this here is true

people who bash dawkins without any good reasons just don't understand how logic works. from an objective point of view, there is very little you can call bullshit in his thoughts

>> No.1827276

Name them, or you're the straw man.

>> No.1827291

>>1827275
just keep telling yourself that, just keep clinging to that "objective viewpoint".

>> No.1827307

>>1827291
Perfect example. This poster ,instead of trying to disprove anything Dawkins said, just put what someone said in quotations as if to suggest that it was in some way false or ridiculous. In a way it proves that there is no point arguing, as one side has no evidence. Either they accept the truth or they don't.

>> No.1827313

Rather dumb book IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY&feature=related

>> No.1827319

>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307
>>1827307

>> No.1827322

>>1827291
>implying there's good reasoning behind anything other than the proven scientific viewpoint.

>> No.1827343

It's a terribly juvenile book. It is heavy handed, sometimes fallacious, and filled with straw-men. The worst thing about it is that there is no novelty in it whatsoever. Dawkin's contributes no new thought to the matter - he just rehashes all the same phil 101 'god doesn't exist' arguments.

The fact that he is so egomaniacal and arrogant makes this even worse.

It shouldn't be interesting or compelling to an intelligent person because the kinds of theism that Dawkins attacks are the kinds that no intelligent person would believe anyway.

All the babby-atheists I know throw the baby out of the bath water, and assume that Dawkin's line of attack (that convincingly discredits creationism - as if anyone needed to do that) delivers a knock down blow to any form of religious thinking.

I'm no theist, but religion has been central to the human condition since pre-history. Most of the greatest intellectuals in human history have spent a substantial portion of their lives taking the issue rather seriously. To dismiss the question with the weak answers Dawkins gives is absurd.

tl;dr popularist book written for pseudo-intellectuals who enjoy getting buttfrustrated at creationists. Adults would be better off reading some actual theology/philosophy.

>> No.1827344

>>1827322
Scientific reasoning isn't critical.

>> No.1827349

>>1827313
you do realize that that video doesn't really make any claims, except saying that atheists aren't intellectual?

>> No.1827353

>>1827343
like what? You think outdated ontological arguments from the likes of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas are still relevant today?

>> No.1827354

>>1827349
No, that while Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris are fine people, they're shitty theologians and philosophers.

>> No.1827357

>>1827354
i don't think they ever made a claim of being so. In any case, from what I've read from Dawkins, he speaks on behalf of science, as an 'expert' on biology and evolution. Being an expert in philosophy isn't that important if you're offering the counter-argument/explanation--that is, evolution, in the face of creationism.

>> No.1827360

Dawkin's entire argument for atheism is based on an argument from ignorance. There's no sound logic involved.

>> No.1827362

>>1827357
Neither evolution nor creationism are philosophical claims. One is only a counter to the other if you come at the argument from either a purely scientific or purely theological perspective.

>> No.1827363

>>1827357

That was one of my points. Creationism isn't WORTH attacking. It is patently illogical and the people that believe in in aren't amenable to logical argument.

Evolution ISN'T a counterpoint/counterargument to any sort of higher theology. It is perfectly possible to believe in the validity of science and still be a theist. To deal fairly and accurately with these more subtle and defensible positions would require more expertise than Dawkins possesses.

>> No.1827365

>>1827349

They're overwhelmingly not intellectual. Dawkins doesn't even try to engage with the best arguments for religion. If you are as easily impressed as the poster who insists that he deals with all of the best religious arguments, it's only because you don't understand the religious arguments.

Most people who claim to be atheists could not offer a convincing -- or even a coherent -- refutation of Kalam's cosmological argument, for example. Dawkins deals with a similar (cosmological) argument in his book and believes himself to have responded to it sufficiently within ten pages or so. Just as a point of comparison, Kant spent a lifetime agonizing over the problem and wrote many hundreds of pages on it just to arrive at the conclusion that such a question is beyond our understanding. So that makes Dawkins, what? Fifty times more intelligent than Kant, right?

Just to be clear: Dawkins decides that a reasonable refutation of the cosomological argument is as follows:

a) Invoking the cosmological argument leads to an infinite regress.
b) ???
c) *mumble* Who created the creator? *mumble*
d) Therefore the cosmological argument is defeated.

So, if we have a causal chain that we try to follow backwards, that ultimately ends in.. er, what? Dawkins doesn't bother to fill in the second premise of that argument, of course. He hasn't thought it through very clearly at all.

Of course, positing that a creator needs a creator entirely misunderstands the First Cause argument, so all that Dawkins has done is to avoid the argument, not to refute it. Positing that a creator must have a creator might be a valid DEDUCTION, but it is not a REFUTATION because it merely creates another infinite regress, and the proposed solution must be the same as before.

Dawkins should stick to his own academic discipline, although I understand that it passed him by some time in the 1980s.

>> No.1827367

>>1827343
>I'm no theist, but religion has been central to the human condition since pre-history
so has murder

>> No.1827368

>>1827353

I don't believe that you could write a paper refuting either Anselm or Thomas. It's very bold of you to insist that things 'aren't relevant' when you don't understand them, couldn't respond to them coherently, and probably don't even know whether anyone else has refuted them sufficiently.

Just to be clear: the atheist philosopher Colin McGinn accepts that there has never been a convincing refutation to Anselm's ontological argument. I'm sure you're much more well-versed in the philosophical and theological literature than he is though.

>> No.1827369

>>1827367

Since 'murder' is a legal term, you've managed to be both wrong and stupid in equal measure. Congratulations.

>> No.1827371

>>1827365
>Kant spent a lifetime agonizing over the problem and wrote many hundreds of pages
So? Just because an argument can be revised, or elucidated in exhausting detail doesn't make it sophisticated, it makes it sophistry. Case in point, teleological arguments, for example.

We recognize the brilliance of Kant and even Aquinas but, with the benefit of retrospect, the owl of minerva and all that, we don't have to think ourselves smarter than them to feel we are allowed to dismiss their arguments.
Keep in mind also that Dawkins isn't writing for academia.

>> No.1827370

>>1827367

so what?

>> No.1827372

>>1827369
murder isn't an exclusively legal term. Was it even originally a legal term? Also you seem strangely hostile. Why is that?

>>1827370
so this doesn't necessarily give it laudability

>> No.1827374

>>1827372

Lawfag here. It actually is an exclusively legal term. Murder is a form of homicide. Under common law it is the actus reus of killing a person, and the mens rea of either intention or recklessness. Killing another person is not murder in every circumstance, as pretty much everyone knows.

More importantly, >so is murder, misses the point.

>> No.1827377

>>1827374
there is a commonsense understanding of murder, such that it is possible to call something murder in the abscence of a legal system.

But if I missed the point, please make the point clear to me.
All I'm saying is that a concept's fundmentality to some sort of naturalistic conception of a man doesn't equate to it's legitimacy in a contemporary context.

>> No.1827378

>>1827371

1) To call an argument 'sophisticated' is to invoke sophistry, so thanks for making a distinction without a difference.

2) His name is not 'Aquinas' any more than Jesus' name was 'of Nazareth' or Leonardo's name was 'da Vinci' -- this is important, and nobody who has actually read Thomas, or even bothered to read about him, would make that elementary mistake.

3) If you're going to invoke Hegel, at least know what he's talking about. The owl of Minerva refers to the understanding of historical epochs, not to the understanding of rational arguments. He did not mean that later philosophical arguments somehow supersede earlier ones just by virtue of their chronology.

4) I still don't know why you feel you're "allowed" to dismiss their arguments. Do you have a basis for saying this, other than the fact that you don't know how to refute their arguments and you're not comfortable engaging with them? In what sense are you "allowed" to do this? I mean, sure, you can pretend that the opposing arguments don't exist and then claim arrogantly to be an "atheist", even though you can't engage with the best metaphysical arguments of your opponents, but that seems like rather a dishonest sort of atheism to me.

>> No.1827380

>>1827365
You are a pants-on-head retard.
Kalam's cosmological argument has no place in modern debate.
>Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
Quantum mechanics proves this is not the case.

>1. (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
>2. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

The intellectual leap here is so retarded that I don't know why anyone would waste that time.

>> No.1827382

>>1827378
1) are you saying there is no distinction?

2)
>this is important, and nobody who has actually read Thomas, or even bothered to read about him, would make that elementary mistake
Demonstrably untrue. Indeed, this seems petty when you know precisely who I'm talking about.

3) the owl of minerva invokes philosophy in general, and Hegel's retrospective view of it. Again you're being petty by being so particular.

4)
>I still don't know why you feel you're "allowed" to dismiss their arguments
because, depending on the argument, their are simply understood counterarguments that have been developed and refined over time.

>Do you have a basis for saying this
see above

Look, why don't you give me an example of one of these 'best metaphysical arguments', though please, no revisionist ontological arguments

>> No.1827384

>>1827365
what he does do however is highlight the arbitrariness of god as a first cause as opposed to the big bang

>> No.1827386

>>1827380
>>Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
>Quantum mechanics proves this is not the case.
This is the case on the3 macro level.

>> No.1827388

>>1827380

That's not really an argument, but I'll just try to address the fleeting points that you did make (very effective argumentative tactic, by the way; if you don't know much, don't say very much and people will assume you've made a cutting point).

Quantum mechanics does not prove that things can exist without a cause. What you're referring to here are 'virtual particles' which exist on 'borrowed energy'. They exist in vacuums, which are not true vacuums at all (in the sense that there is literally nothing there), but spaces where there is an infinite set of particles with negative energy (ref. Dirac). I'm not sure by what definition this is 'nothing' so the premise stands.

The second element of your non-argument did not even rise to the level of your previous (wrong) assertion. I'm not entirely sure how it is 'retarded'. 'God' does not imply a theological deity, it only implies a First Cause, and it is necessitated by the premises of the argument. If you can refute the premises -- which you can't -- then you can challenge the conclusion. Jumping straight to the latter premises and the conclusion and then asserting that it's 'retarded' is not an argument though. Just to be clear: it doesn't matter whether you call it 'God' or whatever else -- it still has the same properties that Kalam attributes to 'God' in this instance.

>> No.1827391

>>1827388
the word God has a strong subtext, so using and not referring to a theological deity is quite deceptive

not the guy you were responding to

>> No.1827395

>>1827382

>Demonstrably untrue. Indeed, this seems petty when you know precisely who I'm talking about.

I don't see how it's petty. It's the sort of thing someone who had read Thomas would know, so I assume you haven't read him at all, let alone read any of the literature on him (in none of which is he referred to as 'Aquinas'.

>the owl of minerva invokes philosophy in general, and Hegel's retrospective view of it. Again you're being petty by being so particular.

Er... yes, he 'invokes philosophy' as a way of understanding historical epochs which are drawing to a close. How is this relevant when assessing the relative merits of more and less recent philosophical arguments about the existence of God?

>because, depending on the argument, their are simply understood counterarguments that have been developed and refined over time.

Really? Why don't you stop avoiding the question and refute the Kalam cosmological argument then? Another poster has already tried to give you the basis for your refutation by repeatedly calling it 'retarded', and I'm sure you'll bring a similar level of insight. I have no idea what "revisionism" is in philosophy -- presumably it just refers to the strengthening of arguments which is, you know, kind of the point. So, your refutation of Kalam then...

>> No.1827399

>>1827391
Well boohoo you can't follow a fucking theological argument.

>> No.1827401

>>1827395
not the guy you're talking to but relying on the kalam argument as a basis for god is pretty weak. It can't be argued against, because any proponent of the kalam argument will go on and say, well then the genesis of 'whatever' will be God. It can't be 'properly' argued against because the 'meaning' of 'God' according to the Kalam Argument will change along with anyone's understanding of how the universe began. God has no 'precise' description other than being the 'genesis' of the universe, which is VERY open to interpretation. But if this inability to argue against the existence of God is what you think is sufficient in supporting the existence of God, I must simply accuse you of playing with semantics and going nowhere with this nonsensical and meaningless argument.

>> No.1827402

>>1827395
because you are implicitly denigrating the arrogance of someone who dares to believe centuries old arguments contradicted, while tearing into misuse of a referent which you understand perfectly. It's as if you think a character attack will strengthen your point, but it doesn't help, it makes you and not others seem arrogant. It's been a while since I've read philosophy of right, so what if I don't perfectly quote Hegel's intentions, his view of the role of philosophy was retrospective anyway, and in the context, you clearly understand what I'm talking about

>How is this relevant when assessing the relative merits of more and less recent philosophical arguments about the existence of God?
Because we can look back at them and, even though a great deal of time was spent on them as you mention with Kant, realize that contemporary philosphy is in a different place

> your refutation of Kalam then
is it in this thread? I'll look for it but if you will, link me to the version of it you'd like me to address.

>> No.1827403

>>1827399
why not?

>> No.1827404

>>1827402
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:[9]
1.(1)Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2.(2)The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Therefore:
1.(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
2.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

Therefore:
1.(5) God exists.

hmm.
Let's first justify premise 1 and 2.

>> No.1827405

>>1827403
>God always has the subtext of the character from the Bible
Ughhh....

>> No.1827406

>>1827405
not sure what you're getting at

>> No.1827421
File: 5 KB, 102x140, 1303395723920.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1827421

>mfw christfags still using Kalam and Aquinas

>> No.1827424

>>1827421

Wow. That's my face when atheistfags still use the 'problem of evil'

>> No.1827428

>>1827424
>implying christfags have been able to produce any kind of response to it that isn't ridden with paradoxes and unjustified premises.

>> No.1827431

>>1827424

Well then show me why it isn't a problem and I'll stop using it.

>> No.1827440

Stick to playing wiht the dummies at /mu/ lol d4rk000fag

>> No.1827441
File: 13 KB, 212x123, 1295340381358.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1827441

>>1827440

>> No.1827448

slinging shit to retards is easier than scientific research, and pays better.

>> No.1827457

>>1827441

What happens when you let a Christfag into a philosophical foundations of the material world.

It turns into a pseudo-intellectual rant about the fallacies of atheism, yet continues to fail to present them. While at the same time to ignore various philosophical problems of theism and deism.

Also, stay at /mu/. It's filled with low IQ idiots like yourself.

>> No.1827460

Well, but we can all agree a world without religion, at least the big three, would be better, right?

>> No.1827463

>>1827460
>Well, but we can all agree a world without religion, at least the big three, would be better, right?

That's a given lol

>> No.1827478

>>1827428
Backing this. If the problem of evil is such a tired old argument, than any Christfriend used to arguing on the internet would presumably have an irrefutable answer to it ready to paste...

>> No.1827483

>>1827478
>implying these is an answer to "the problem of evil" this that doesnt sound moronic.

besides there are a number of variations on the problem which all pose their own problems, "aids babies, etc"

>> No.1827499

>>1827365
>Kalam's cosmological argument
>>1827378
>His name is not 'Aquinas'... nobody who has actually read Thomas, or even bothered to read about him, would make that elementary mistake

Assuming these are the same anon, I'm trying to think of a reason for him using "Kalam's" that's not "he thought Kalam was a person"...

>> No.1827505

The world is not logical. God is not logical. Logic doesn't exist outside of human mind.

>> No.1827512

>>1827505
>The world is not logical.
>God is not logical.
>Logic doesn't exist outside of human mind.

1 out 3 is not bad I suppose

>> No.1827514

>>1827505

That doesn't make sense unless you define logic.

>> No.1827532
File: 22 KB, 640x475, blonde.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1827532

>>1827505
>Uses logic to prove logic does not exist

>mfw

>> No.1827550

>>1827505
'Logic' is a distinctly human concept and, in fact, many of our most logical conceptions of how the Universe operates tend to fall apart at the sub-atomic level, as evidenced by the head-scratching that frequently goes on in particle physics. In that sense, I agree with you . . I like to imagine the world as a huge mass of squiggles and nonsensical lines. 'Logic' is a net, with uniformly spaced holes, that we toss over those squiggles . . All of a sudden, what once was random bullshit with no sense to it at all, can now be mapped out with points, relationships can be extrapolated from those points, etc . .

>> No.1827554

>>1827550
That's Alan Watts, I think . . the squiggles with the grid.

>> No.1827567

>>1827550
>I like to imagine the world as a huge mass of squiggles and nonsensical lines

good for you. personally i imagine it as a giant pizza.

>> No.1827602

>>1827567
sarcasm detected

>> No.1827648

Hold your palm out in front of you and stare at it. Imagine a small dot in the middle of your palm and imagine that that dot is The Point. Now think of Dawkins' argument, concentrate on it, and then look out of the window and imagine that argument whizzing by at high speed and disappearing off over the horizon.

>> No.1827712

lol god sux guise

fuk religion lololol stooooopid people