[ 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: 101 KB, 400x609, GodDelusion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2020514 [Reply] [Original]

Anyone read this? Is it any good?

also whats your favorite non-fiction book?

>> No.2020527

Just by the title you should be able to tell what it is about: nu-atheist bitches about "stupid" people.

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

>> No.2020530

Scientific atheism preachy bullshit.

>> No.2020543

>>2020527
HOWEVER his books about memes are good. Just sayin.

>> No.2020546
File: 39 KB, 264x418, emergencysex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

It's the memoirs of three UN workers from the mid-nineties. They start out seeing it as a way to do some travelling and take drugs and screw around then get more and more disillusioned with the UN's policies.

>> No.2020548

Read it after a good year or so of enduring the same pattern in friendly arguments:

Friends:"hurp God doesn't exist because Dawkins"
Me:"you know, the arguments he raises aren't exactly anything revolutionary; he's just a populist hack who should stick to his discipline."
Friends: "have you actually read it?"
Me: "well no, but I haven't read Twilight either, life is too short to fully investigate every bullshit opi-"
Friends: "omfg man how can you talk about it if you haven't read it??!!"
Me: "Well, uh, I don't actually WANT to talk about it...you guys keep browbeating me with it."

I read it and all my initial suspicions were confirmed. If you have never given a thought to religion or philosophy then it would make a nice, easy, introductory read, but if you've ever done any philosophy you'll realize that most of Dawkin's arguments are simplistic, dated, and no serious threat to sophisticated religious thought. Sure it shits all over creationist-believing Christians, but who the fuck didn't already know they were retarded?

To give him his dues, he doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater as much as his followers do - but if one were to read Dawkins at all, I'd only really bother with what he writes on evolution, because there he actually knows his stuff.

>> No.2020553

>>2020514
>The God Delusion
>non-fiction.
Pick one.

>> No.2020563

>>2020514

>creationists suck
>I'm a condescending asshat
>mildly interesting book recommendations

Everything you need to know. Also, logical fallacies everywhere.

>> No.2020576

Do yourself a favor and read some Thomas Aquinas instead. He actually makes serious philosophical arguments (for the existence of God). Whether or not you're an atheist, it's stuff worth reading. You'll at least know what you're up against and why books like "The God Delusion" are pathetically argued.

>> No.2020585

>Also, logical fallacies everywhere.

Butthurt christfag detected.

>> No.2020589

>but if you've ever done any philosophy you'll realize that most of Dawkin's arguments are simplistic, dated, and no serious threat to sophisticated religious thought.

Give an example of one of his dated arguments.

>> No.2020608

Anybody wanna suggest some more good non-fiction? Preferably something with a valid, non-opinionated point to make that can keep me interested.

>> No.2020613

>>2020589

That God is a Delusion. God requires context. For there to be a delusion in God means all context, whether is be the idea of God as the highest form of human being or a deity, is wrong. This includes all other contexts of God being wrong as well. You cannot simply state that there is a delusion of/with God without being a fucking moron.

He certainly didn't sell me on this book.

>> No.2020617

I recommend that people read this piece of criticism of the book even if you're not a fan. No, it's not by a fundamentalist Christian. It's by an evolutionary geneticist.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/

>> No.2020621

>>2020576
lol no, if you had actually read the god delusion you would know that he provides arguments against aquinus's proofs (which are all silly as fuck).

ITT: /lit/ is arguing against a book it has not read to make itself appear smarter. oh wait thats every /lit/ thread.

>> No.2020629
File: 52 KB, 227x300, 1303669463644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Hey guys, let's all believe in a mysterious invisible man in the sky based on absolutely no empirical evidence.

>> No.2020636

>He actually makes serious philosophical arguments (for the existence of God).

>implying there are any good philosophical arguments for the existence of god.

>> No.2020638

>>2020621
I'm not sure whether to laugh at you or cry for you. He provides counter-arguments to plenty of theories of God's existence. Most of them do not actually address the central point and sidestep it with logical cleverness. The point of philosophy isn't to "win"; it's to prevent reasoned ideas worthy of discussion and consideration. Dawkins is not even in the same league as Aquinas. Even bothering to compare their philosophies is laughable.

>> No.2020640

>>2020629
Neat black and white viewpoint there. Nice to get some interjections from middle school students sometimes. Just to remind you, many of the most important scientists in evolutionary biology are pretty religious.

>> No.2020645

>>2020636
>>2020629
>>2020621
>>2020585
Why atheists tend to be much more annoying than the evil Christians they hate so much.

>> No.2020650

>Just to remind you, many of the most important scientists in evolutionary biology are pretty religious.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.2020651

>>2020638
>The point of philosophy isn't to "win"; it's to prevent reasoned ideas worthy of discussion and consideration.

>prevent
...

>prevent

>> No.2020653

>>2020638
You're going to give these kids who have never read Aquinas the impression that he actually said anything worth remembering.

>> No.2020657

>>2020650
Ronald Fisher, who Dawkins has described as "the greatest biologist since Darwin", was a devout Anglican.

>> No.2020658
File: 21 KB, 373x330, 1287021788288.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Why atheists tend to be much more annoying than the evil Christians they hate so much.

>> No.2020659

oh god.....Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist. But when he dabbles in philosophy it is embarrassing.

If you're 13 and have never in your life been exposed to someone asserting god doesn't exist then it will be worth a read, otherwise skip that sophomoric hogwash

>> No.2020663

>>2020621
>>2020589

This is a good example.

He cites Aquinas - how fucking oldschool can you get! - to set up his pro-God strawman, and then proceeds to knock it down using arguments you will encounter if you ever do philosophy 101.

It'd be like me writing a book disproving 'science' and citing Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics before proudly pointing out limitations of these concepts that have been well known for a good century.

>> No.2020664

>>2020651
I wonder what word that was supposed to be. Should I guess or make a post about it?
>>2020653
Not really sure what you're on about. Dismissing Aquinas as unmemorable would be as foolish as dismissing Plato and Aristotle. At this point they're required reading, at least because so many have argued against them.

>> No.2020669

>>2020663
You're just making mindless distortions here. He pretty clearly said it was simply good to read if you're going to be reading self-affirming criticism of religion.

>> No.2020679

>>2020669

Well excuse me for not remembering verbatim every single sentence in a book that I found to be intellectually fruitless. You'd be mad if I expected you to know every word in my bible (were I Christian - rather than playing devil's advocate), so don't expect me to know every single word of yours.

Point is - I distinctly remember him raising outdated proofs of God; refuting them with sophistic, juvenile arguments, and then calling the victory in favor of his bloat-headed self.

>> No.2020683

>>2020679
Wait, who are you talking about right now? I thought you were deriding the earlier anon for saying Aquinas but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

>> No.2020695

>>2020683

Oh, I assumed you were calling me out for claiming Dawkin's sets up Aquinas as a strawman - something I vaguely remember him doing but wasn't certain enough about to contradict you.

No. I was asked to provide an example of Dawkin's using dated, simplistic arguments. Someone mentioned his (mis)treatment of Aquinas, and so I referred to that to furnish evidence for my earlier point. Hope this clears the matter up.

"In the future; read my posts before you accuse ME of 'mindlessness'

>> No.2020700

>>2020695
Really sorry about that. I tend to not pay attention to tripcodes.

>> No.2020703

>>2020679
Can you give an example of one of these sophisticated pro-theistic arguments that he fails to address?

>> No.2020706

mediocre book by a relatively smart dude. should stick to evolutionary theory imo

>> No.2020720

>>2020700
Well, to be honest, I really can't blame you for that.

>>2020703
No I can't. The point is they are sophisticated. Beyond the scope of Dawkin's popularist book, and certainly beyond the scope of an ill thought out 4chan post. If you really give a shit, do a philosophy degree, and throw some theology in for kicks.

>> No.2020729

>>2020720
So you are not aware of any sophisticated pro-theistic arguments, but you are sure they exist, and you are willing to make the assertion that Dawkins is using dated, simplistic arguments that wouldn't stand up to these alleged sophisticated arguments that you've never heard?

>> No.2020746
File: 57 KB, 500x429, Greatest Show on Earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Why so many chritsfags fucking up threads like this? I don't fuck with your bible hreads.

>>2020514
I have too many books to read, so digested the beeb version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVr9bJ8Sctk

I also have [pictured] on audio. He and his wife trade off narration, so as to please the ear better. Good stuff all.

>> No.2020753

>>2020720
"Your tower is built on sand."
"How can you say that when you don't even know how tall it is?"

>> No.2020754

>>2020720

I know that is unsatisfying though, so I'll throw in my personal perspective for what it's worth.

As far as I am concerned science and religion are not diametrically opposed - they are two completely separate systems, with their own axioms, and they don't need to come into conflict.

Of course, a fool's conception of religion, which tries to use religion as a 'how things work' tool, will clash, and in these instances science clearly prevails. People that think the world is 6000 years old, or that evolution isn't tenable, are pretty moronic.

On the other hand, a fool's conception of science is equally detestable. What is a fool's conception of science? It is one where science is used as a 'why things work' tool. That is, the fool in question believes that 'the big bang' satisfactorily answers the existential, the philosophical 'why' of our being.

Science is a descriptive tool - it seeks to provide models that explain how the universe works. In terms of the greater 'why' question, we are like people who have lived in a dark room our whole lives, trying to extrapolate what lies outside from our limited observations of the interior.

>> No.2020755

>>2020746
I'm not trying to be an asshole but the thing about not fucking with Bible threads is blatantly false. Maybe you don't do it but every time someone tries to start a legitimate discussion on the Bible, a bunch of random faggots come out of nowhere to say shit like "LOL ENJOY YR FANTASY BEWK" or "BIBLES SHOULD BE IN THE FICTION SECTION." Hell, sometimes people even start threads about the Bible with the intent to bash it.

>> No.2020758

>>2020754


Atheism is really just denying that this "why" is a valid question. Religion is believing that it is a valid question to ask, and answering it with a hypothetical concept we call "God." Religion accepts that the question cannot be positively answered, hence 'faith.' Science doesn't come into it - the question remains open - unless you can prove it is invalid qua logic (which no one has done satisfactorily) - and as long as it remains open, it is just a matter of personal choice whether you answer it with God or nothing. You can believe in God and still believe everything science has to say about our position.

Those that have a limited understanding of both science and religion also tend to knock the concept of faith - this is because they don't understand epistemology. Even in regards the most basic things we 'know' we would be blind without faith.

>> No.2020767

>>2020758
When you stop talking about humans why and how become sort of indistinct.

>> No.2020770

>>2020746

OP asked if the book was any good, not if we could jack off to it together. Not even Christian btw.

>>2020753

That's quite nice; I'm going to have to store that away for future use. That isn't what I'm doing though, as I shall explain.

>>2020729

No. I am aware of them. I did my BA in philosophy, theology and English lit. The point is, they are too detailed for me to do credit to here - I can already imagine where that would go.

I make the assertion that Dawkin's is using outdated simplistic arguments with total confidence. Why? Because his arguments are all counterarguments - to outdated, simplistic theological apologists. I know HIS arguments are juvenile because the arguments he is disproving are juvenile. It isn't a question of whether his arguments would stand up to more sophisticated theistic positions - his arguments are irrelevant to these positions. Dawkin's can point out that the tower is built on sand (even if he can't see the top of it). The problem is, he is looking at the wrong tower.

>> No.2020776

>>2020770
>It isn't a question of whether his arguments would stand up to more sophisticated theistic positions

uhhh, yes it is.

>> No.2020780

>>2020767

I agree entirely. But religion is one possible human answer, to a uniquely human question. The question of 'being' transfixes philosophers for a reason. Even in my most atheistic moments, I still find it beyond all comprehension, purely amazing (I would say miraculous were it not for the negative connotations) that we, this tiny part of the universe, is somehow conscious of ourselves and our surroundings. Even if consciousness is chimerical, we are still this absurdly complex pattern in matter; capable of reshaping our surroundings. Not to mention our act of observation has material quantum effects. Maybe it's just a curio. Maybe its just an inevitability under the multiverse theory. Those are valid answers. But at the very least, I feel anyway, that it makes 'why' a valid question.

>> No.2020782

>>2020758
>Atheism is really just denying that this "why" is a valid question

Plenty of atheists still get worked up about having a reason for being. People can nominally swear off religion, but fail to shed the religious impulse.

>>2020767
Why are they distinct when it comes to humans?

>> No.2020797

>>2020782
I don't know that they are distinct when it comes to humans just that we act as if they are.
>How did you shoot that guy?
I bought a gun, went to his house, pointed it at his head and pulled the trigger.
>Why did you shoot that guy?
He fucked my wife.

I guess when you talk about people it seems the action is different from the intention.

>> No.2020801

>>2020770
Future use? Who said you could use my aphorisms?

>> No.2020805

>>2020746
>implying you have to be remotely religious to realize how pitiful his philosophic musing are.

A sharp biologist, and he should stick to writing about biology.

>> No.2020806

>>2020782

I'd agree with that. I'm typing thoughts out fast, but I guess I meant "strong-atheists." I'm speaking at a pretty 'meta' level - for me, God is just a variable that stands for an acceptable answer to 'why?'

>>2020776

What part of what I just said did you not get? Point it out specifically and I'll try to address it. To clarify - Dawkin's arguments are 'counter arguments' they are aimed at refuting very specific positive arguments that HE chose to deal with. It doesn't even make sense to talk about these counter arguments standing up to something else.

Look:

A. "God is real because how else do you explain rain??"
B. "That is silly. I'll tell you how we get rain <provides evidence>"
C. "God is real because X"
You. "Fuck d4rk000kingof/mu/ how does argument B stand up to argument C?! tell me!"

As an aside, in terms of the whole 'debunking the bible' thing, I always find it funny when people point to passages where it says "god makes rain" or the like, and then mention the scientific explanation. The bible never says HOW God makes the rain, now, does it? not that I believe in the Bible lol

>> No.2020809

>>2020801

Who said I couldn't? It's a good one though; although you must concede my riposte wasn't too shabby either.

>> No.2020818

>>2020770
not the guy you are talking to but I got my BA in Biology and Philosophy. And yes, Dawkins philosophical arguments wouldn't stand in a high school level philosophy class.

But his book The Selfish Gene was a brilliant biology book. So basically I am agreeing with everyone in the thread that he's a sharp guy and should stick to writing about things he has been trained in

>> No.2020824

>>2020809
Christ, just get to these so called sophisticated arguments already so we can scrutinize them.

>> No.2020830

Who would have known /lit had so many religiousfags. Maybe they wandered in here by accident...

>> No.2020834

>>2020824

I've already explained my refusal to do so. If I was to bother typing out two or three pages of argument, with all the nuances and technical detail, one of you would simply cite one sentence out of context, misinterpret it, and voila! Argument refuted, mo' fo'.

I've told you what "I" think, I've typed out lengthy answers - there must be some grounds for educated dissent amongst it.

This guy supports my appeal to authority, if that gives you any solace:
>>2020818

And yes, I agree, The Selfish Gene was a wonderful book; I just wish it was as widely read as The God Delusion - it would be a shame for one of the age's best evolutionary theorists to go down in history ignominiously.

>> No.2020839

>>2020830

I think maybe you wandered in here by accident; seeing your post is direct evidence that you can't read. At what point did "atheist" become appropriated to mean "blindly follows the words of St. R. Dawkins?" I'm no Christian, but I'm willing to be intellectually honorable.

>> No.2020840

>>2020834
lol

>> No.2020843

>>2020780
Being isn't nearly as amazing as you make it out to be. There is nothing special about mankind or even life as a form of matter. Your invocation of quantum mechanics is strange. You realise that observation in that sense has nothing to do with conciousness right?

>> No.2020844

>>2020839
oh d4rk 000 king of /mu, there's that sharp sarcastic wit of yours again. I amend my statement: some of you may not be religious; you just happen to be as annoying as many of those who are.

>> No.2020848

>>2020830

>I think /pseudosci/ has infiltrated /lit/ possibly with the motive of trolling.

>> No.2020851

>>2020780
Life isn't that amazing. If we didn't live on a planet with the pre-existing conditions for life, we wouldn't able to discuss it. This life only seems amazing and perfectly put together because it's the only one we've ever known. If we all walked around with 8 arms and legs and reproduced by sneezing on each other, that would seem just as perfect to us. Life is quite odd, if you really think about it.

Also, given the situation and numerous galaxies and planets and conditions, life is not only be likely to happen, it would have to be inevitable. The material rules of the universe and its laws don't change from place to place.

>> No.2020856

>>2020834
Are you trolling the shit out of me or what? How can you follow up this utter cop-out with some bullshit about being "intellectually honorable?"

>> No.2020858

>>2020840

olo

>>2020844

>I get annoyed when someone doesn't think the same thing as me especially when I don't understand them

>>2020843

Ok, I was being silly re. quantum. I personally know very little about it, but some other dude interpreted it like that in one of these debates once - I was very skeptical, but I thought I'd chuck it in and see if it got called out. While you're here, would you mind telling me what its really about?

I admit that its perfectly admissible to not see anything amazing in our being, but just out of interest, what is it about our conscious existence that you see as unremarkable?

>> No.2020864

>>2020851

I'm familiar with those arguments, though they are worth raising. I don't mean 'amazing' in terms of 'statistically unlikely.' I don't mean 'amazing' in terms of the specifics. I mean the brute fact that our universe is such, for whatever reason, that it allows for any kind of conscious being. I don't believe life seems perfectly put together, or designed - I think life seems inefficient and messy. But like you say, "life is quite odd" and conscious life is even odder. Even if consciousness is an illusion caused by our brain function, the illusion itself is odd. Now something is only odd if it doesn't seem rational or explicable. Hence, amazing.

>>2020856

I told you what I personally believe. I refuse to besmirch the arguments of my betters by poorly formulating them for you to ape. What about that is not intellectually honorable?

>> No.2020868

>>2020858
I'm not a physicist so I'm not an authority on QM but a particle can be "observed" by another particle for instance. Concious existence is unremarkable to me because I don't think it is what we describe it as, organisms in a petri dish will respond to stimuli how is that different from human beings? The human mind is a piecemeal fallible machine that often doesn't know when it is failing. What exactly am I concious of? Certainly not myself in any deep sense, when the mind fails it often fails to sense it's failure. You have a blind spot when it comes to your own mind you can't say that you are "concious".

>> No.2020881

>>2020864
>What about that is not intellectually honorable?

The part where you refuse to meet arguments head on and instead appeal to some hidden knowledge that you supposedly have and are unable to communicate which we are just expected to accept on trust. As if bold assertions by some random dude on 4chan counted as evidence that should make us adjust our beliefs.

>> No.2020905

>>2020868

Ok, fair game. I'll try to articulate what still gets me, you'll have to forgive this for being clumsy.

We live in a universe that has the potential for complexity. A universe in which we can have a process like evolution, that starts with very basic biochemistry, and leads to all manner of biological complexity. Now, I know evolution is not geared toward complexity as such, I'm not under the misapprehension that humanity is some evolutionary pinnacle. Nevertheless, this process has created something that is conscious of its own existence - maybe we are imperfect consciousness, and maybe somewhere, or some time evolution may lead to something far more complex than we are.

I can see your point though - no matter how you look at it, it is just information transfer, just cause and effect, everything playing out according to the laws of physics. If some other being with a very different way of thinking encountered our planet, they might see it just like your agar plate; just processes without awareness. But why then, this illusion of consciousness, why do we feel we exist? Why is there a 'we'? Everything could be just as it is, and be purely automatic, consciousness seems so superfluous.

I'm not even convincing myself though really - but this is the enigma that underlies human philosophizing and religious thought.

I personally think that the notion of "I" the notion of some conscious, distinct entity, is false. Interestingly, my study of world religion has lead me to understand that the dissolution of the ego is a common theme in religious thought... but that's another topic.

>> No.2020912

>>2020881

I'm not asking you to trust me about it. I furnished a separate argument as to why Dawkin's arguments are unsatisfactory. I'm not refusing to meet arguments head on - I'm just setting the parameters within which I am comfortable to debate.

>> No.2020927

>>2020912

What you mean this post?
>>2020806
>A. "God is real because how else do you explain rain??"
>B. "That is silly. I'll tell you how we get rain <provides evidence>"
>C. "God is real because X"
>You. "Fuck d4rk000kingof/mu/ how does argument B stand up to argument C?! tell me!"

This doesn't help at all. You still need to know what X is to know whether or not it is a sophisticated argument worth taking seriously and if Dawkins fails to address it.

>> No.2020951

>>2020927

Well, you see, pretty much any argument that X stands for would be completely incompatible with the explanation given in B.

In much the same way, because Dawkins' arguments are all of B type - that is, they are counter-arguments - they are irrelevant to other arguments for God.

With regards to whether Dawkin's fails to address these other, better, arguments, the answer is 'yes'. That was my original point. I've already refused to deal with any of the "X"'s. I can't be any more explicit.

>> No.2020964

>>2020951
>With regards to whether Dawkin's fails to address these other, better, arguments, the answer is 'yes'. That was my original point. I've already refused to deal with any of the "X"'s. I can't be any more explicit.

Exactly! You ARE asking me to trust you on this.

>> No.2020974

>>2020964

I told you, or someone else, way, way back that if you don't want to accept my testimony, go do a degree in philosophy and theology.

All I did was make a throwaway observation about what I think of Dawkins' book. I don't really care if you remain under the illusion that he deals with sophisticated arguments - but my testimony is corroborated by plenty of other posters throughout the thread.

>> No.2020995

>>2020974
>I told you, or someone else, way, way back that if you don't want to accept my testimony, go do a degree in philosophy and theology.

I also reject this bullshit. If you cannot explain these ideas to me in your own words at least link to where someone else has.

I refuse to accept that it is impossible to understand them without having studied them in university, since in the past I have found that claims like this be false. The other guy who agreed with you even said it was high-school level shit.

>> No.2021004

>>2020995

Actually, he said that Dawkin's arguments are high school level shit. Your lack of basic comprehension furthers my suspicion that writing out all the arguments would be pretty pointless, but I might link something.

>> No.2021012

>>2021004
He said Dawkins arguments wouldn't stand in a high school class. In other words the arguments that he fails to address are high school level.

>> No.2021016

>>2021012
Seems to me you're taking hyperbole too seriously.

>> No.2021026

>>2020905

Not the same guy. But you're superfluity notion is interesting. There is something it is "like" to be conscious. Ask anyone to deny this, not even the most stone cold determinist will be able to.

You claim that our concept of "I" is a false one. If our mind/consciousness (I use these two interchangeably here) is identifiable with our physical brain then it seems that our mind can be reduced to trillions of constituent physical parts. Yet how do we deny the holism in our consciousness? There is a seeming unity. Ponty called it a "directness of consciousness". The mind is intentional. Of course one could dive into phenomenology here, and I wont. However it is worth noting this directedness.

>> No.2021027

>>2021016
Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? Even if these arguments were PhD level shit, you could still probably find someone on the internet who could explain them.

>> No.2021038

>>2020658
um, he's just saying that the people who constantly talk about how atheists are more annoying than christians are saying so for the same reasons atheists talk about how annoying christians are.

and it's funny how often you see it on 4chan.

>> No.2021055

>>2021027

OK, I thought I had something in mind that would interest you, but I can't find it, so I'll take a different approach.

One of the arguments Dawkins deals with is the ontological argument. Now, I don't like this argument at all, and I feel, like Dawkins that it ultimately fails. In his book however, the version he deals with is Anselm's (the original), and he flippantly dismisses it with a very basic argument that was raised during Anselm's lifetime. The ontological argument however, has been significantly developed over its history and is still being debated today. The more developed versions are robust enough to withstand all of Dawkins arguments, and there is still contemporary debate about whether the ontological argument is vaild. Within the discipline of philosophy it is still an open question (although I think Kant dealt with it sufficiently when he argued that existence isn't a property). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

So there you go. Regardless of the ultimate status of the argument - it should be easy to see that Dawkins refutation of it is insufficient.

>> No.2021068

>>2021026

Yeah. I personally think that one of the problems of our focus on deconstruction is that we forget that things can be more than the sum of their parts - relational properties may give rise to important properties.

I think the concept of "I" is false not because it is some sort of illusory thing that arises out of our neuro-chemistry, but because it over-simplifies. Really, it is impossible to delineate my consciousness from anyone elses. Even now, via these messages, we are directly effecting each other's mental states no less than our brains effect themselves - it is just movement of information - it doesn't matter whether that be via nerve signals, sound waves or vision.

I was thinking about why I consider "why?" to be a valid question re. existence, when there are those who would say otherwise. One of my reasons is that "why?" seems to be the essence of our being. Man is a creature that asks questions. (am I quoting someone?) To deny the question, is to deny our humanity.

>> No.2021075

>>2021055
>So there you go. Regardless of the ultimate status of the argument - it should be easy to see that Dawkins refutation of it is insufficient.

Okay, you've convinced me.

>I thought I had something in mind that would interest you, but I can't find it

What is it called?

>> No.2021082
File: 121 KB, 2000x2500, inhibit clarity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2020514
>>2020514

As someone who has actually read it:

it was good. What he says is thoroughly internally consistent. His major argument is on why we should believe, not what.

This read is full of people who haven't read it and give stupid reasons for not reading it.

>>2020621
>>2020621
>>2020621
>>2020621
>>2020621
True. True. True

>> No.2021097

>>2020905
What makes you think that what we call conciousness is superfluous? When you live among groups of individuals with often conflicting but sometimes convergent interests you need a sense of self in order to determine what you should do to survive. Most animals probably have a conciousness of some kind.

>> No.2021101

>>2021082

I like the image you posted with that post.

It's funny because guess which sort of people find academic language confusing and therefore assume its purpose is to obfuscate not clarify? the same sort of people who think that Dawkins makes any valid points

Problems:

1. Dawkins says nothing that hasn't been said better before him, therefore he is redundant, therefore not worth reading.

2. Internal consistency isn't enough.

All men like beer
I am a man
Therefore I like beer.

That argument is internally consistent but it isn't sound. that means its wrong For an argument to be sound it has to be externally consistent as well. Unfortunately, Dawkins isn't.

>>2021075

Sorry, I forgot the name of the dude, its this recent argument for theism that takes quite an interesting approach, but I can't remember shit about it except that it was thought provoking.

>> No.2021103

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jG95XQfetM

>> No.2021104

>>2021097

Superfluous if it is merely chimerical. That is, if consciousness is a real property of our minds then it is probably has an evolutionary advantage like you say, rather than being a spandrel. However many argue that consciousness is illusory, that we don't really have it - we are mechanistic. This is where I argue that if this is so, the feeling of consciousness, the illusion of it is superfluous. You can imagine the everything functioning exactly as it does now, without this extra 'beingness.' Maybe you are claiming that the illusion itself is evolutionarily useful - but I confess that I find this slightly different to grasp...for reasons I am struggling to articulate fully.

>> No.2021112

>>2021101

>All men like beer
>I am a man
>Therefore I like beer.

Thanks for reducing the argument to absurdity. This isn't what Dawkins does at all.

In that book he in fact goes through half a dozen established justifications for belief in God and in turn responds to them. If some of the responses see contrived, then that's because it is difficult to respond so some logic (i wasn't moved by his rebuttle of Watchmaker argument, but I think that's because i found the whole Watchmaker argument stupid to begin with).

And calling him unoriginal and redundant isn't really a criticism of content, more style. it doesn't disprove what he says. In fact, int he book he cedes almost immediately the utter disproving of God as impossible, and declares himself a doubting agnostic of sorts.

>> No.2021128

>>2021104
Is this basically your whole argument? Does it rest on your inability to understand or even define conciousness? It seems quite a logical leap to take a single trait of a single species on a single planet (that may as you say be an illusion) and deduce from it some fact about the entire universe. This whole thing positively stinks of anthropocentrism.

>> No.2021134

There probably is no god of any kind.

Just saying.

>> No.2021138

>>2021112

Don't you mean: "thanks for calling me out on my ridiculous assertions in a comical way?"

I wasn't addressing what Dawkins actually does ( I dealt with that earlier); I was addressing what YOU claimed he did (and showed you were a moron)

=)

>And calling him unoriginal and redundant isn't really a criticism of content, more style. it doesn't disprove what he says.

No it isn't you fucknut. I'm calling his CONTENT redundant. How is that a criticism of style? It's like that Woody Ellen skit:

Francis Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald came home from their wild new years eve party. It was April. Scott had just written Great Expectations, and Gertrude Stein and I read it, and we said it was a good book, but there was no need to have written it, 'cause Charles Dickens had already written it. We laughed over it, and Hemingway punched me in the mouth.

If you think he "goes over established justifications for a belief in God", and adequately answers them, you are in sore want of an education my friend.

>> No.2021147

>>2021134

Thanks for clearing that up, thou walking billboard. Now humanity can go back to doing what it did before it asked the 'big' questions: fornicating rabidly and murdering each other.

>>2021128

I wasn't making an argument, I was making a clarification.

>> No.2021148

>>2021147
>Thanks for clearing that up, thou walking billboard.

You're perfectly welcome, my friend.

>> No.2021163
File: 6 KB, 207x208, 1313612018283.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

You will never know if you don't go for personal mystical experiences. Read up on astral projection. I recommend Robert Monroe and Robert Bruce (not the one from Braveheart). Just sayin'.

BTW Dawkins is a hack. He doesn't know shit about the consciousness. And proof of intelligent design is everywhere. Enjoy your habitable planet.

>> No.2021180

>>2021163
>And proof of intelligent design is everywhere.

I had no idea /lit/ was filled with this many morons. Or is it just the philosophy students here?

>> No.2021186

>>2021180

You know, I get this vague feeling, given the picture that dude posted with, that maybe, you know, just maybe, he might have been another one of you Dawkins fags being sarcastic. I guess that makes you both retards, huh?

If you're so sharp, homeschool, get in here and dazzle me with the beauty of your logic.

>> No.2021187

>>2021180
Nice counterargument bro.

>> No.2021189

>>2021138

get.ting.MAD

>> No.2021194

>>2021189

Getting desperate. You know you've won once "U Mad" enters the arena.

And lets face it, I know it, you know it, I completely destroyed you. At least have the generosity of spirit to admit defeat.

>> No.2021198

>>2021186

No, I have no incentive to troll anyone. I'm not religious or a Christian either. I'd describe myself as a panentheistic (google it) agnostic mystic. I have practiced meditation and trance states for over a decade, and have many experiences you would call BS--therefore, like I said, only personal experiences can be considered "valid" (and even then the skepticfags will chime in with their controlled hallucination theories, heh).

Skepticfags might wanna browse the archives on these sites:
http://www.nderf.org/
http://www.oberf.org/

>> No.2021202

>>2021186
I'm liking your arguing so far, though I remain unconvinced. Do you have any responses to the burden of proof argument? Also, is there any argument for the Theodic God and not Spinoza's "God"?

>> No.2021203

>>2021198

LOL. Well that's a first. I apologize profusely to: >>2021180

Anyway,

I'm not even going to wade into that arena. I am convinced that mysticism is BS, and neither your links, nor your personal testimony, have any power to change that. Might I suggest that maybe you're just having lucid dreams? They are pretty trippy, and you can experience them through meditation; but it's just amusing neurological fun, nothing spiritual.

>> No.2021204
File: 95 KB, 766x762, neuro sensation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2021198
Yeah, all the people who put all of their faith in scientific abstractions when they have experienced their whole life through terms that are beyond anything science can describe (sensations, color, emotions) amuse me. Who is the greater skeptic - the materialist who takes for granted the laws in his textbooks, or the mystic who realizes everything beyond one's senses and thoughts (and sometimes even then) is suspect?

>> No.2021206

>>2021204
That's more an argument for Phenomenology then Positivism(empirical science) or Religion.

>> No.2021207

>>2021203
>I'm not even going to wade into that arena. I am convinced that mysticism

>not even going to wade into that arena
>convinced

I didn't expect anything more.

Anyway, I'm not trying to make you think otherwise. I believe that everyone is where they are meant to be, and if the early 21st century science has all the answers for you right now, then that's how it's supposed to be, and no weirdo on the internet will change that. Have a nice night / day / evening. :)

>> No.2021208

>>2021207
Nice tautology bro.

>> No.2021212

>>2021202

I'm mainly arguing to hone my rhetoric, and to entertain myself at this point, but I'll continue to answer questions honestly.

As above, my own position is that "God" is only a serious concept at a pretty abstract level. I don't know quite where I sit on the issue, because it varies day to day for me, but I am convinced that it ultimately comes down to a question of "faith."

My response to the 'burden of proof' flows from that. Burden of Proof is a scientific concept - not some irrefutable logical rule - it's just a convention to allow things to run smoothly and logically. My earliest point is that science and religion are two completely separate systems of thought. One of the fundamental axioms of religion is that you can't "prove", you have to have faith. This is not as radical as it sounds. Please see: >>2020754

I don't believe there is any tenable argument for the Theodic God...well, that isn't entirely true. There is no argument that currently convinces me; but I am formulating one currently as an intellectual exercise which I believe takes a new approach.

Dawkins, you may note, has a similar position - he doesn't outrule Spinoza type "God' - my criticisms of Dawkin's specifically are that a. he contributes nothing new. b. in simplifying things, he fools people into a false understanding. c. this leads to a lot of very annoying, very ignorant people.

>> No.2021215

>>2021206
It is the lens through which one must see the world if you want to understand the roots of religion and why reason/logic is of secondary concern to the religious. Everything is spiritual matter first and becomes material only if we agree it to be.

>> No.2021224

>>2021212

>Burden of Proof is a scientific concept
>science and religion are two completely separate systems of thought

herping and derping all over the place.

That you can dismiss reason as not being integral to believing something inherently means you cannot be reasoned with.

And simply saying that Religion isn't Science so cannot be tested or probed gives religion no value. It would be pretty easy to throw up a dozen examples of this, but we've all heard them before.

>> No.2021225

>>2021215

apologists apologising for his apology

>> No.2021235

LOL god.

Really /lit/?

>> No.2021239

>>2021225
But it's right. Do you have no interest in your fellow humans, anon? Or only if they have pre-approved beliefs?

>> No.2021241

ITT: Language-game

>> No.2021243

>>2021204
People put their 'belief in scientific abstractions' because they make RATIONAL sense.

>or the mystic who realizes everything beyond one's senses and thoughts (and sometimes even then) is suspect?
Philosophical semantics and this argument is not unique to mysticism anyway. You can justify just about ANYTHING with this realisation.

>Who is the greater skeptic - the materialist who takes for granted the laws in his textbooks
You misunterstand scientific method. Everything ever conceived by science and accepted as "fact" for the moment is suspect and has undergone intense scrutiny, and will be replaced if better answers are found. Materialism is just accepting this method to be by and far superior to the belief that magic exists.

There is no quantifiable way to examine claims made by mystics who never provide anything that can be qualified as evidence in the slightest. This is the opposite of skepticism. Which would you rather believe in the face of mystery, the guy who yells "<insert a deity or a spirit or whatever> told me it's like this" or the other one who approaches the problem in an objective manner, trying to disprove himself on every thesis he can come up with.

>> No.2021247

>>2021224

Fuck you're dense. Every discipline has it's own axioms, language, and focus. I never said that theology doesn't have a system of logic.

You can dispute my calling 'burden of proof' a scientific concept if you want, I only called it that for want of a better word. But what you can't dispute is that it is a logical convention, not an irrefutable argument. Further, we are talking about a concept that ALL REASONABLE PARTIES AGREE IS BEYOND PROOF. Something that is beyond proof by very definition, due to being outside, and greater than, any system we can observe or make observations about. Raising burden of proof it raising a logical convention in an inappropriate context. This is what distinguishes the assertion from say "unicorns exist."

Science and religion are *obviously* separate disciplines. I have no idea why you greentexted that. English literature isn't science. Psychology isn't science. Anthropology and history aren't science. Are you saying that because we don't adhere to scientific methodology that those disciplines are worthless and can't provide knowledge?

I would go on. But there really isn't much point because you haven't grasped any of the nuances or subtleties of my earlier posts. I'm so far above you that you can't see me, and therefore think I'm beneath you. You're like a 12year old reading Shakespeare for the first time.

>> No.2021250

>>2021243

Suddenly, a dogmatist!

Everything you accept about science you accept on the basis of testimony. Your beliefs about science are based on faith in your fellow man. U Mad?

>> No.2021252

>>2021068

>
I think the concept of "I" is false not because it is some sort of illusory thing that arises out of our neuro-chemistry, but because it over-simplifies. Really, it is impossible to delineate my consciousness from anyone elses. Even now, via these messages, we are directly effecting each other's mental states no less than our brains effect themselves - it is just movement of information - it doesn't matter whether that be via nerve signals, sound waves or vision.

I rather like this argument - a neat review of the kind of hindu-buddhist which says we are all one consciousness, and that consciousness unified is something we may as well call god or whatever.

My mind's kind of blown, but then again, I'm pretty scorched. This weed is quite strong.

>> No.2021258

>You misunterstand scientific method. Everything ever conceived by science and accepted as "fact" for the moment is suspect and has undergone intense scrutiny, and will be replaced if better answers are found.

Every attempt at replicating abiogenesis so far not only has failed but pointed more and more conclusively towards "this is impossible" conclusion. Yet abiogenesis is still accepted as fact.

>> No.2021261

>>2021252

I've studied quite a lot of world religion, and as far as religious stories go, the Hindu's got things pretty right in more ways than one. =)

>> No.2021264

>>2021252
Read some Lacan. He thought the same thing. I
(lol hard to escape it) think that reasoning is too idealistic(the philosophic term) and ignores the material body. It is the case that I suck on my mom's tit, not a conscious sucking it's own tit.

>> No.2021265

>>2021264
Replace "conscious" with "consciousness"

>> No.2021268

>>2021261

Fritjof Capra certainly thought so, and he's some kind of particle boff.

>> No.2021269

Confessions of a Thug.

>> No.2021270

>>2021247

Alright, smart guy:

What is a science?

Because 2 centuries of thought hasn't answered that yet. Or is Western thought dense too.

>> No.2021272

>>2021247
>I'm so far above you that you can't see me, and therefore think I'm beneath you. You're like a 12year old reading Shakespeare for the first time.

Not who you were replying to, but you really need to learn the subtleties of trolling. You're too obvious. Your first step should be getting rid of your tripcode, it's a dead giveaway.

>> No.2021273

>>2021270

When all fails; derail!

It's irrelevant whether we can accurately define the parameters of a discipline. That doesn't refute any of my points.

>> No.2021277

>>2021272

I'm not trolling; I'm simply mingling honest opinion with lighthearted insults. It makes the debate more lively.

I trip because I find that arguments are more fun when you can't back out because you're losing.

If you think I'm trolling, then highlight the opinion I've expressed that is so absurd I couldn't reasonably entertain it, and tell me why it's wrong.

>> No.2021281

>>2021273

Yes, it does. you're saying that religion can't be judged as a science but you don't know what a science is. Feyerabend published a very fine book showing that there is no such thing as a "scientific method", and since then kuhnians/popperians/etc have been negotiating what this means

>> No.2021283
File: 173 KB, 1920x1200, 1313739309155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>Implying being a tripfag isn't solely an ego thing.

>> No.2021284
File: 33 KB, 350x439, baby_superman_costume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2021281

i thought science was something that adds value.

>> No.2021285

>>2021277
>I'm so far above you that you can't see me, and therefore think I'm beneath you.

>> No.2021286

I haven't read it

My favorite non-fiction book is the new testament of the Holy Bible

>> No.2021288

Bottom line is guys, you believe in a god, you're a retard.

>> No.2021289

>>2021258
Abiogenesis might be a problematic subject, but this does not refute any other scientific finding. Not even evolution, which can and has been observed to have happened.

>>2021250
>Your beliefs about science are based on faith in your fellow man.
Again semantics. You can argue that everyone lies about everything ever, and that anything that makes sense is just an elaborate lie. It is possible. My "beliefs" in science are a result of accepting the fact that my sensory systems are the only meaningful relationship I have with reality, and that these sensory systems have provided me with logically sound proof for a multitude (in other words a fuckton) of questions. I would rather believe the sources I have gotten logical answers from before, even if I don't understand their proof for the concepts at hand (i.e. quantum mechanics), than believe in some fucktarded shaman who charges 500$ a session for reading the future.

>> No.2021301

>>2021281

Just because we can't provide a watertight definition of something, it doesn't mean we aren't able to define things sufficiently to delineate them. Otherwise why would we even have words like 'Science', 'Religion', 'History'?

If the wider context of my comments don't allow you to understand me (a common aspie trait), let me be specific.

Religion, in its highest and most simple form, begins with the question "why do we exist?" - note - "why" do we exist, not "how do we exist?" which is to say that "big bang, lots of shit happens, evolution, us!" isn't a sufficient philosophical or religious answer.

Religion then puts forth the proposition that this question is unanswerable via any form of inductive or deductive logic.

It then posits a hypothetical thing, we will call this "God" that would provide a sufficient answer to the question.

The central point of religion is that because the question is unanswerable, it requires "faith" to believe in this positive outcome.

Now, whatever you call 'science', you have to agree that it is purely limited to the "how" of the universe. It has no desire, and indeed no tools, to go any further.

This is why I say that while they are distinct, they are not diametrically opposed. Science allows us to greater understand the universe; but it is irrelevant to the question religion is trying to answer.

>> No.2021303

>>2021285

Well, that would be one of the lighthearted insults (with a grain of truth), wouldn't it?

>> No.2021306

Nice argument dude.

>> No.2021309

>>2021303
Nope.

>> No.2021310
File: 25 KB, 300x387, 1313356655263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

I saw a pic on the front page and I never go to /lit/ but it appears you are all seeking the answer to the eternal question. Good luck with this. Any opinions from me on the subject would be opinions and my bet is so are yours. I heard a quote the other day "Were all the sane man in the asylum".

>> No.2021319
File: 23 KB, 429x410, 1293962340684.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2021310
If only people were just innocuously "seeking an answer", and not basically shoving their personal truth down everyone's throats, because that's what the passive-aggressive materialist dogmatists do IMHO.

>> No.2021324

>>2021319

Agreed.

It's funny given they all espouse truth and reason. Especially given when you look through this thread, almost all posts from people saying Dawkins isn't worth reading for whatever reason, and all the people defending the possibility of theism have written proper arguments, or attempted to justify their opinion.

Some of the other camp has done this too, but its amazing the number of comments like these: >>2020658
>>2020746
>>2021134
>>2021180
>>2021288

>> No.2021325

>>2021319
Well, the topic is kind of relevant in the current world. If creationists and the other crazies are allowed to freely spout their bullshit without being intellectually challenged, it's only a matter of time before fairies and santa clause are taught about in schools. Then again I don't live in a country where this is really an issue.

But this stuff is sometimes interesting to argue about as long as it doesn't reach the ad hominem stage (which it usually does).

>> No.2021344

>>2021325
>Points out ad hominem after using a slippery slope argument.

>> No.2021346

>>2021324
While those arguments are often, in a sense, well thought out and worded, philosophical abstractions are too often used to refute science's credibility at measuring reality. I don't mind anyone believing in fairy tales or such, but trying to rationalize them and put them on the same line with science makes me often cringe and join these threads. Also, using the word 'dogmatic' when referring to skeptics and materialists makes me facepalm.

>> No.2021350

As much as great philosophers keep claiming to destroy(Wittgenstein/Ayer) or make irrelevant(Heidegger) metaphysics, when you argue down to the furthest level it always ends up being metaphysical/epistemological.

>> No.2021353

>>2021346

>philosophical abstractions are too often used to refute science's credibility at measuring reality.

>I believe in logic, except when it is rallied against my beliefs.

Dogmatic: (of a statement, opinion, etc.) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable.

To dismiss any argument you can't refute purely because it "refute[s] science's credibility at measuring reality", is the very definition of dogmatic. I'm sorry.

Not that I have any real beef with you, because as you can see; the door I leave open for "fairy tales" in no way contradicts or dismisses science.

>> No.2021361

Why is everyone itt getting owned by a tripfag. What the fuck is going on.

>> No.2021405

>>2021353
What I meant was that these arguments rely on rationality to assert that a world might exist beyond what we can't perceive or measure (by no means impossible), which I think is just a mind game and has no relevance in this world we live in. There's often also a good deal of picking certain parts of rational thinking to bolster arguments while ignoring others.

Science is the use of rational thought to understand reality. If you perceive the acceptance that reality exists and that it can be measured as dogmatic, then by all means do.

>> No.2021414

>>2021405
"To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true of false. The world on its own - unaided by the describing activities of human beings - cannot." - Richard Rorty summing up my thoughts on truth, reality, and language-game

>> No.2021423

>>2021405

That's not what I perceive as dogmatic. I've told you what I perceive as dogmatic - discrediting things not on logic, but because they don't fit your rigid worldview.

Whether you believe in the possibility of a something beyond the observable world DOES have relevance to the world we live in - at least for some people. Just because it doesn't for you, you shouldn't deny it's possibility (and it seems, you don't).

If you think that sophistry is being employed, identify it - show where logic is being sidelined because it is suddenly inconvenient. That's what I've been doing to you - by all means do it back where possible.

Some would say that science is the use of rational thought to understand reality. Others would say that science is the practice of developing models that we superimpose onto reality in order to make sense of it in a way that is pragmatically useful. These models can overlap, (physics, chemistry, biology being umbrella models for instance), and we employ the appropriate model for a purpose. Science is paradigmatic, and these models change over time, and are often replaced or found incomplete (Newtonian Physics, Pre-Darwinian biology). The true scientific spirit should never invite certainty - that is the death of science.

I don't know what conception you prefer. But I've adopted mine from an acquainted who is a Distinguished Professor who is a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK), so I've always held it with a sense of deference.

>> No.2021432

>>2021414

Problem:

A. descriptions of the world (and their true/false status) can only exist in the human mind, not in the world on its own.

B. The human mind is concrete, biological, and mechanistic - there is no metaphysical 'consciousness' or 'soul.'

C. Ergo, descriptions of the world, and their true/false values, exist in the world.

The only way to refute this is to claim that 'mind' is a metaphysical substance, in which case you've really fucked your materialism up the jacksie.

>> No.2021443

>>2021432
Yeah, I attack point B. The mind is metaphysical; I find reductionist accounts lacking.

>> No.2021444

>>2021423
The problem is, you can argue just about ANYTHING with certain trains of thought. This is problematic for me, because while I agree that the human mind is not sufficient for truly understanding reality as a whole, and that science can never be complete or 'fact' in the strictest sense, simply stating that something MIGHT exist has no relevance, other than personal (or spiritual if you will), in the pursue for knowledge. It is just a mind game, and can be carried on to whatever extent one wants, making up more and more elaborate reasons why the subject at hand cannot be observed or measured in any meaningful way.

>> No.2021469

meh, the book was not that good, a bit boring if you're an atheist I think, and the same arguments that you've read over and over...


You should read The Greatest Show on Earth instead

>> No.2021471

>>2021469

stop answering the OP and feed the troll instead.

>> No.2021479

>>2021432
>descriptions of the world can only exist in the human mind
>The human mind is concrete, biological, and mechanistic
>descriptions of the world exist in the world.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. All you've stated is that the "mind" (defined as concrete, biological, and mechanistic) essentially "exists in the world". However, you said descriptions exist WITHIN the mind, and what doesn't follow is that the descriptions are of the same nature as their home. Fish are flesh though they swim in water.