What do you like about Dawkins books?

Amazing, this is one great cake here. Ad hominem, non sequitur AND a vacuous truth.Know what that is? It's like saying; "If I were superman I would fly to the moon".It is vacuously only true because I will never be superman.The problem is that it does not matter that the universe doesn't care about me. Neither does my washing machine, but how on earth does this disable a knowledge of allele frequencies, and the phylogenetic tree?Have we missed something?Like the OP guy, I don't find Dawkins to be particularly special. Everytime I hear his interviews I can think of several fallacies he jumps right into.I think your attitude is a prime example of exactly WHY you guys are not at all objective.If all you can offer is angry personal attacks then is it any wonder you don't understand reason? Did the guy tell you if he had any knowledge of biology?If he did - would this make him an evolutionist? Answer; no, as there are qualified creationists also.PS. I should also state that understanding that the universe is indifferent because it has no brain, bares no relationship to evolution. That the animal kingdom has some nasty conclusions does not prove evolution, it proves a nasty system.This is called the "problem of evil" and is a philosophical objection that only supports evolution in a tenuous capacity, as a circumstancial evidence might help in a murder case, but not tell us much about anything, nor prove anything directly.That mikey was eating ice cream in the same park where an arrogant atheist was murdered with a bible, really doesn't say much. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks for the info.I don't have knowledge of Syamsu, or very little, but alas, I have no right to state anything about him from such ignorance.I do think most people could see that Dawkins has a very specific agenda. He searches out creationists, and interviews them from a position of incredulity. He asks them things such as; "you can't really believe what you're saying".I can't take much of what he says seriously, even as you can't take much of what Syamsu says seriously.Understanding "nature" first requires an assumption that things are only understandable "from" nature's point of view. But even the bible directly states that man has no advantage over the animals.I don't think it is consequential to see things from the point of view of an indifferent universe, anymore than to see things from the point of view of my washing machine, my washing machine, being, "nature". But then, "we" are nature, and the whole area of the ontological problem will come into play. Just why would humans care? Do we give a reason for why humans care? Is it then fair to give a reason why the universe doesn't care, as we also are "nature".Thanks anyway, though, I have not read all of Dawkins, but I have heard his debates and interviews, some being quite lengthy seminar-type jobs.

I wasn't being literal.My point is that if you look at everything from a position where naturalism is incharge, then there is no innate reason for anything, from a conclusion coming from observing the natural world. This only deals with the bad stuff ofcourse, I will assume, and a disregard for any beauty "counting" against such a system of innate futility.It doesn't follow that God would not care about me, given the Gospels, as historical accounts because of brilliant manuscript authority.It should not follow that the bible exists, written over thousands of years, in a Godless universe, or that humans should care.As for Syamsu not being a scientist and Dawkins being a scientist, I don't believe God qualifies as a scientist because he does not have the necessary PHDs, but he is still omniscient.I am not really defending Syamsu, I am stating that it is a very narrow viewpoint, to believe that naturalism is consequential somehow, or a view of a universe having no innate purpose because it doesn't care.My motorcycle has purpose but it doesn't care even as the universe doesn't. (assume the allegorical). It can't care - ofcourse! You are correct, therefore it only matter as a truth-value, because it can't. It's called a "vacuous statement" and can be difficult to grasp. The concentration must be on the fact that the universe can only be regarded as indifferent. even as I can never be superman. Cruelty and beauty are both part of the composition, but if there is no innate purpose only because of this indifference, then it's only a vacuous truth. It doesn't follow because an outside entity could have a "plan" for the universe.The bible says that the creation groans in earnest expectation of the revealing of the sons of God. Why should I NOT take that viewpoint rather than a naturalist one?Would you say that it follows that if the universe is indifferent, then the universe has no value to God? Or that there is no innate meaning.To me that's a non-sequitur no matter how eloquent Dawkins is, because the room I am in and it's "nature" doesn't affect purpose.He is eloquent, but he makes mistakes, and in his interviews he quickly changes the subject when he is asked something problematic like he has license because of credentials.P.s. I'm not hanging around, we both already know what this is all about without hair-splitting. I am being slightly allegorical.Is it the cruelty within nature, or nature itself? How is nature define, if we are nature and we are not indifferent. Is it more that the system is cruel, such as carnivores? I assume it is. This is easily explicable even via a basic reading of the biblical verses that tell us about such things, such as the "curse", and "suffering", the "present system of things". There is an explanation both in Genesis and Revelation, that explain how suffering and cruelty came in and how usually cruel creatures will lie down with more peaceable ones and a little child shall lead them.There are other ways of seeing this other than Dawkins' opinions, which are neither scientific nor necessarily logical.I agree we are all biased. Naturally you might find his work agreeable, your worldview matching his more than mine.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Ofcourse it looks that way. We only have what it looks like. He is trying to "prove" that this is consequential Mod'. It is not.The universe looks as it is, it does not look like a universe that wouldn't have purpose, or there would be no organisms at all. You have to "assume" that is correct to see organisms and order as irrelevent, does it not?The universe doesn't favour his POSITION which is an atheistic-motive to argue that there is no innate meaning.You can only logically infer that the universe, from a relative athesitic position, does not care or have purpose, but from my relative position, even though it doesn't care, God has shown me personal evidence that he does.it's not at all objective. Do you honestly believe it is?You have to "argue" that the universe is consistent, and you have to disregard facts such as the earth, and it's organisms, being "purposeless". This flies in the face of some solid arguments by Aristotle, and his causes. Even if organisms only have a purpose to survive and reproduce - why would they have such purpose in an innately puposeless world?Philosophically, and logically, it's a can of worms and in the end all you have is how much Dawkins can persuade you of his own opinions that obviously stem from his worldview.I might get back to you, apologies if I don't too soon. My time must end here for now.ps. I should note that on one interview with Dawkins, i agreed with 100% of what he said. Sorry I haven't elaborated. I am sure his books are very interesting, but I am after the book, "In the beginning was information". Naturally I will find it more agreeable, because my whole being sees design everywhere. but I also have read and listened to atheists.I think if you read Numbers, I doubt it will convince you it was at all true.Try not giving an answer to me such as; "ofcourse....all of the evidence shows it's nothing more than myth and this won't affect my objective evaluation".You're stating things in a manner that appears to make it look like I don't know what I am stating, or that I have mis-stated something. Or atleast it seems that way.Sorry if that's not your intention. but I've made some sound logical points here that deserve consideration.In the end - you will have to state "something" and when I have the information, I will analyze it correctly.You have now stated clearly that there is a a viewpoint that the universe shows what it should show if it is without purpose.This is a start for me, because now I can see if that is truly a fact or more of an argument. We can ofcourse, do semantics untill we are both grey-haired but in the end, it's what is meant that counts, not how I put my words.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

sorry about the short response, I chose to reply to two lengthy posts in another thread and am getting into skimmed milk territory rather than clotted cream, so i apologize if I start to "race" a bit.When Dawkins says things, I don't particularly get the flags out.Example; My answer to this is, "so what". Firstly, there is an alternative way to think about it, as I have previously indicated.One dog might die, one might get lucky, should we judge "purpose" based on these facts. If good results favour Dawkins and bad results favour Dawkins, then what can I say? What can I offer, if he won't allow any facts to "show" purpose.Can we define purpose at this stage then? If function in an organism is not purpose then philosophically, "why" does an organism bother to eat at all? The only answer to this I've heard from Dawkins, is that the alternative is death.It seems that stating tautological things is supposed to impress me.This is the problem for me Mod - that essentially you are seeing "things" from a very particular type of reasoning. But my problem is - sure, he might think those things, but again, so what? If there is no sound syllogism which deductively proves his assertions to be true, then as a practical honest person, I can say that I have no reason to believe those things, because they are seen only when you wear a certain pair of glasses.If something follows, as you know, we have only established a circumstanical and tenuous evidence because of the tollens-rule.Sure, I can, having read a bit of the reasoning, see how you might have proved his books good as a read. I concede that they are interesting. You win.But that's about it.--- Believe it or not, I believe death and suffering, and pot-luck, does favour a random system. If this doesn't mean that it is a Godless system, we have no problems here mod.---So now mikey has provoked a reductio ad absurdum-moment. Does Mod glean anything "more". Does Mod, believe this way of looking at things has any God-consequences?
I now need to got out of the house, and do other things. I will look forward to reading your response.I think we have agreement. You have defended Dawkins writings pretty successfully, but I am still think a vacuous element is involved here, or an allusion to circular reasoning, in that we only have the universe as it is now. Logically, it would change if the universe could have been different at another time, and we still need to define what would constitute an evidence of a system with purpose. That's still a can of worms.

The three fallacies were not just stated. I explained what a vacuous statement is.It's a statement that is true BECAUSE part of it will never be true.I reallt WOULD fly to the moon if I was superman. That part is true. I will never be superman.It's the same with the universe. Some atheists claim that the indifference of nature proves that it's a Godless universe. At most it "favours" a Godless universe, in that the universe can't tell us if it has purpose. In that sense it's vacuously true, because nobody can actually "know" whether it has no innate purpose.So the statement is actually true, but vacuously. Sorry if it appearred I was attacking you, I just thought your attack was a bit personal.As for ad hominem. That just means you attacked Syamsu instaed of his argument, by expressing that he had a lack of biology knowledge.Logically, I can still have a true conclusion in debate, without knowing the subject that indirectly effects the topic. So a knowledge of biology would only directly matter if the conclusion was solely biological.But these debates are usually speculative, based on certain worldviews, and involve conclusions that are philosophical, such as, "God might not therefore exist", or, "God certainly therefore exists".And the non sequitur because the universe "not giving a shit" about you does not allow for any inference about evolution, as a cruel system is not what evolution is, evolution is variation of species and changes in allele frequencies leading to all species from a common ancestor.There is no logical "link" between a random cruel system, as it doesn't follow that evolution is consequential to this or vice-versa.So - I am not babbling, I only state things if I know what they mean.Have you a sound argument that proves that such a system is consequential, and that I should care that the washing machine doesn't care for me? You stated that the universe doesn't give A SHIT. Modulous has since then conflated this, as though I was responding to Dawkins, but you said it, and i'm afraid that logically, it's entirely moot because my car doesn't care for me. And? Does that prove, "evolution", a different subject and theory?

Thanks, i will read the quotes later (I really will don't worry, they interest me.)You give me a little more to chew on. I think logically, the point about an anaesthetic is a good one. Apparently a high adrenaline rush can lead to such an effect but I am not completely sure that's the case. I do know that from reports, people have not felt pain while in the situation where they are close to death.It's a can of worms, because as you have stated, if there is an "end" then there is a purpose. Therefore the roles of organisms on this planet, are purposeful. Symbiosis for example, might be an example of a harmonious world. It seems that the "chance" game is dependent upon the situation. for example, all of the animals in my house are harmonious.Since, as a bible-believing Christian, I believe that God does not necessarily "care" for an individual animal, and suffering is supposes to be the result of a fallen world, then I think those answers might infact give us another conclusion.This is why I mention this "present" universe. Afterall, the example of the cruelty of life is only looking at one planet, over a certain period of time. One might look at the order of design, the order of the universe, and almost come to a paradoxical position.This is why there are two main philosophical problems for the two positions of Theism and Atheism. Atheism has the problem of design, and Theism has the problem of evil, or "death and suffering".While Dawkins shows a consistency in a world that would have no innate purpose, as I previously said, this circumstancial consistency, is favourable in a tenuous capacity albeit relative, because you still have to see it from a certain angle. A certain angle of time, and an assumption that the universe is filled with violence, and always has been.the prime purpose for lifeforms, is more explicable as those being to fill the earth. This is so. Death occurs, and suffering, but the purpose of life goes on, even "through" this suffering. This can be seen as a "contingency" for a cursed world. An evil God? No - a God who would preserve species, rather than individuals, if animals do not have an eternal meaning, or eternal relevance. In this scenario you would choose to see the "purpose", as filling the earth, to be a living creation. This "purpose" has not ceased.So it's not like you have to see it Dawkins' way.Ofcourse, I admitt that you would have to assume bible-truth, but that's another way of looking at it, is it not?