#23590: craig — 05/01  at  03:02 PM

(no worries, Craig) Hopefully you only lost those few hours, and don't have to run up a fortune in polaroids and tattoos (although I'd think a digital camera and a blog would be better suited for reconstructing personal narrative these days).

It was weeks, not hours, and I'm still not really right in the head... but then I didn't have anything important to try to keep track of anyway.

#23592: — 05/01  at  03:26 PM
There is just no evidence for the existence of God.

And what does "existence" have to do with it? Is there really evidence for the "existence" of consciousness or gravity? How about evolution, does it "exist"? Of course it doesn't, it's a reconstruction of various existent (adopting the vernacular sense of "existent" for the sake of argument) moments that have collectively produced the present.

To be sure, the "existence" of God might be said to be important in some manner or other, but Dawkins is treating the whole matter in a decidedly un-philosophical manner when the issue is often highly philosophical. Plotinus' God's (if we take his "One" to be God, which in fact is not how he portrays the "One") over-riding feature is that he does not "exist", rather the "One" is responsible for what does "exist".

This gets to the heart of the matter of "God" for many people, that it isn't so much an infantile psyche that is responsible for, say, theology, but a rather infantile device to end questions about "existence". God, being beyond existence, is simply invoked to explain "existence". Many of us find this to be highly unsatisfying, of course, but this "God" provides the closure needed for many absolutist ideas about language, and is perpetuated for the sake of the perceived need for solidity in speech and writing. The whole matter is far more complex than Dawkins imagines it to be, inevitably, since language and culture (including religion) happen to be evolved structures.

Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed.

Dawkins apparently accepts the Freudian view of religion. But in the first place, identifying religion as a relic of childhood is not actually an argument against it, and in the second place, the Platonic and neo-Platonic evolution of childhood fantasy changes religion into something quite distinguishable from childhood illusions and delusions. This doesn't make it better or worse in any obvious way, but it does change its complexion.

Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.

Yeah, whatever. Dawkins ought to learn how difficult it really is to distinguish between "delusion" and the lack of truth to be found in scientific modeling. Many honest and excellent scientific models of the past, and perhaps even the present, could be considered to be "delusions" under reasonable definitions of "delusion", but who cares as long as the process was honest? So religion is often dishonest? Fine, but that isn't much of an argument against honest religion.

The fact of the matter is that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion. And like Dembski or Salvador Cordova on biology, Dawkins would do better if he'd keep quiet on subjects that he does not understand well.

#23597: Buridan — 05/01  at  04:09 PM

"The fact of the matter is that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion. And like Dembski or Salvador Cordova on biology, Dawkins would do better if he'd keep quiet on subjects that he does not understand well."

I tell ya what, as soon as you religious wingnuts shut up about science, we'll shut up about religion. What do ya say? Do we have a deal?

#23598: Chris Clarke — 05/01  at  04:14 PM
And what does "existence" have to do with it?

Thus you refute not only your own argument, but any argument you might ever make on anything else ever again.

Is there really evidence for the "existence" of consciousness or gravity?

I could suggest a way you might test the existence of both at the same time.

#23599: — 05/01  at  04:22 PM
I tell ya what, as soon as you religious wingnuts shut up about science, we'll shut up about religion. What do ya say? Do we have a deal?

If you ever learn how to read I might have some reason to discuss things with you. How can you be so stupid as to think that I'm religious?

#23600: — 05/01  at  04:27 PM
Thus you refute not only your own argument, but any argument you might ever make on anything else ever again.

Why do dimwits constantly believe in "existence" after God has died? It's what Nietzsche said, that we are not rid of God because we still believe in grammar. But believe your little theology-inspired doctrines, just don't suppose that you have any right to criticize those who openly embrace theology.

I could suggest a way you might test the existence of both at the same time.

And I bet it'd be as naive as all of your other comments. There is a reason why science doesn't claim to provide ultimate truth, one being that perception of "something" does not equal its existence. It's for you to continue to believe in creation of existence even without a creator, however, just as it is with all unwitting believers in metaphysics.

#23610: Daniel Newby — 05/01  at  05:20 PM

Ken Cope said: The pamphlet provided by the hospital for bereaved parents not-to-be included not only religious homilies, but an astronomical metaphor about brown dwarves; potential suns that only just failed to ignite.

That's pleasantly surprising.

Chris Clarke said: In other words: those flyover country bumpkins you stereotype have enough interest in biology to sink their hard-earned cash into observing it on a regular basis. Maybe - just maybe - you could work with us with that in mind, rather than assuming that the only thing that will motivate our attention is our direct self-interest.

I was discussing whether calling churchgoers irrational idiots is an effective way to educate them about science. Those you talk about, who have a serious interest in nature, are even more likely to be turned off by the insulting, combative approach that seems to be favored by the reactionary wing of evolutionists.

Alon Levy said: Apparently in northern Europe people are as fulfilled as they are everywhere else even though they don't go to church on Sunday mornings; still, they meet people, get entertained, and find emotional support in times of distress.

My question was not whether churches are optimal or unique, but whether insulting people is an effective way to educate them.

This only describes a tiny minority of theists: those living in the first world. In the third world people really forego birth control because the Catholic Church says no, for example.

While significantly higher than in the First World, fertility rates in less-developed Catholic countries have nevertheless dropped significantly, and are expected to continue dropping.

PZ Myers said: People naturally want to know and understand. Religion claims to offer a shortcut to that, and people grab at it for that reason. I think the message we need to get out is that science offers a more honest route to the truth...and I think many will respond positively.

I'd rather see useful emphasized over honest. If you don't call somebody dishonest, they can't use it to change the subject. All they're left with is objective results that anybody can see. Does prayer reduce mosquito-borne diseases? Nope, not at all. Does science? Yes, to some extent.

craig said: I don't see anyone advocating going door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses and beating people into atheism.

Of course not. Handing out pamphelts on Secular Humanism, though...

#23627: The Liberal Avenger — 05/01  at  09:36 PM
Best layman's article on the topic that I have read in a long time. I can't wait to see the wingnut pile-on about it this week.

Trackback: Dawkins, God's Epidemiologist Tracked on: Newton's Binomium (72.9.234.70) at 2005 05 01 23:25:44
Richard Dawkins has just given a long interview to Salon where he discusses his recent book "The Ancestor's Tale" and gives a taste for his forthcoming "The God Delusion". As usual it is a pleasure to read.

#23654: jdanrold — 05/02  at  07:02 AM
There is a a new book by Michael Ruse, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that got pretty prominent coverage in my local paper (The Boston Globe). The link is here, although it is only good for today:

<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/01/evolutionary_war>

In this book, Ruse (something of a polemicist, I guess, as he co-authored a book with Dembski, an ID man), says that evolutionary proponents are too critical of the religuous nuts belief systems, and ought to tread more gently on them when deriding Creationism and ID.

To which I say - BAH! It's a pretty evenhanded article though.