Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

A metaphor, perhaps.

Depends how you define purpose, this is also covered in the interview (its only 9 minutes long, check it out). It is our purpose in that the reason why genemobiles (or bodies) are put together by genes is to propagate the genes. That is the role that 'we' play, that is our purpose. It isn't a purpose in the sense that theists would have it - and Dawkins makes that clear in the interview.In the same vein one might say the termite mound's purpose is to shelter the termites to allow them to survive. One might say that this could hardly be called a 'purpose' but only in a theistic sense.Dawkins approaches the term purpose from a utilitarian perspective, not a spiritual one.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I have not read this book but using the word "purpose" was probably done "on purpose" ("natural purpose"(Kant) vs vernacular useage)to do 'damage control' for Gould's claim that he is only doing "bookeeping" adding the notion of human body as an AFTER THE IDEA, idea, he(Richard) called a "vehicle." What is the purpose of the Yaris commericals? I think Dawkins would find one in the flesh than the iron or steel. I do not. Regardless, metal is not silicon.I see now Modulus confirmed this suspicion. Thanks for the info, Mod.Edited by Brad McFall, : refreshing thread

A Freudian slip?

Hi Archer Opterix I'm about 180 pages into it at the moment and am enjoying it thoroughly. What I like so far is the way he is making his case in small steps, building his argument with individual points that are each difficult to refute. This reminds me of the 'one long argument' tactic used by Darwin in 'Origins'.After explaining in chapter 1 why he does not think that religous beliefs are immune to criticism ("I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently than I would handle anything else" he proceeds in chapter 2 to address the different manifestations of theism. He is (rightly in my mind) scathing of the fence-sitting 50/50 kind of agnosticism that is considered to be politically correct in many circles nowadays, preferring to asign a sliding scale of probability to different ideas. He happily accepts 50/50 agnosticism about, for example, whether there is intelligent life on other planets because we have insufficient data to make an informed assessment. Gods, orbiting teapots and fairies are a different matter altogether, however. Maybe surprisingly for those who consider him a rabid atheist, on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being 'Strong theist; 100% probability of God' and 7 being 'Strong atheist, knows there is no God') he classes himself as a 6 (very low probability, but short of zero) tending towards 7.In chapter 3 he states the major arguments that have been made throughout history for the existence of God, and proceeds to thoroughly demolish them. In chapter 4, which is as far as I have got so far, he presents his damning refutation of the 'improbability of abiogenesis/life-friendly universe' argument often used by creationists - indeed he shows how this same argument can be used to demonstrate 'Why there almost certainly is no God' (the chapter's title).Anyway, I highly recommend it for entertainment value to those already convinced of his point of view (like me) and for those theists with minds open enough at least to read and address his arguments. I don't think that it will make any 'converts' from the YEC camp, but it'll be a breath of fresh air for waverers and 'closet' atheists.CheersSteveEdited by SteveN, : to correct typos

Not surprisingly he is happy with such a 50/50 view. The capability of a planet to support life says nothng at all. Even the discovery of a copycat planet earth somewhere says nothing at all about the probablility of life arising out of non-life. It is the only view. No one can know that God doesn't exist so 7 is non-sensical score to include. He is as atheistic as a person can rationally be. A 7 scorer isn't an atheist he is a lunatic.

Hi iano Yeah, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. He is just saying that there are situations where it's perfectly reasonable to be 50/50 agnostic, i.e. when we genuinely have no evidence one way or the other. He mentions, for example, that the discovery of many extrasolar planets in the last few years has moved the likelihood of life on other planets slightly closer to 'yes' on the sliding scale of agnosticism. I mentioned this because I have read over and over again in commentaries and fora that Dawkins is unreasonably 'fundamentalist' in his atheism, leaving no room for doubt. I agree, of course, that no rational person would be a 7 scorer, but a 7 scorer is how he is often portrayed in the media.Cheers!Note added in edit: I forgot to say that he states "I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated"Edited by SteveN, : to add a bit at the endEdited by SteveN, : typo

My point was that such discoveries move the answer in no direction at all. Naturally for there to be life on other planets life has to be supportable. Such discoveries indeed slide the answer to the question "are there life supporting planets out there" towards the yes.But with no indication that life can arise from non-life (except the belief that it can) the second, equally necessary question "Can life arise from non-life on planets which are capable of supporting life" remains completely unaffected.You need both elements to form the question: life supporting planets and life arising from non-life. Silence an one or other means the slider towards 'yes' stays right in the middle. Fair enough. He is as fundemental as one can be without being declared insane. A bit like me but in the opposite direction I love his humor but his logic is shoddy. Knowing God does not exist in not logically possible. Knowing he is is. The killer is: even if God doesn't exist you cannot find this out. When you die you won't know you were right Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Well I'm not sure whether The Book Nook is the place to discuss these things, but to clarify the point, Dawkins was referring to the (in)famous Drake equation which attempts to calculate the probability of life on other planets by multiplying a series of 'probabilities`- mostly just wild guesses, of course. As (I assume) one of the numbers in the equation is the likelihood of other solar systems having planets (unknown at the time of its inception) their demonstrable existence now does move the slider towards 'yes' (even if was previously at 99.99" 'no'). It's just math. Of course, if any of the numbers turn out to be zero (which you seem to imply might be the case for "Can life arise from non-life on planets which are capable of supporting life") then everything else is of course irrelevant. In no way is his logic shoddy. He is fully aware that it is not possible to prove a negative (as are all scientists, of which I am one), he "merely included it for symmetry". The same is true for Zues, Ra, Odin and any of the other thousands of humankind's deities. Which of us, I wonder, will be worse off when we stand before Odin - I, who worshipped no-one, or you who worshipped a rival?

This is simply not so. It is, for example, possible to prove that it is not possible to square the circle.

Good grief, I'm going to have to learn to be more precise with my statements here. I know of course, that proofs are the bread-and-butter of mathematics. In science, however, it is usual to accept that absolutely proving the non-existence of something is not possible. To be honest, I'm actually not convinced that this is necessarily true. It would seem a trivial task to demonstrate the non-existence of a 5 km high blue gorilla in New York City, for example, but I guess 'proof' in the stictest sense of the word would still be lacking.

Hi Steven,Thanks for the precis. Have you read Gould's Rock of Ages? I'd be interested in seeing someone make a comparison between the highly conciliatory Rock (which I've read), and Dawkins' apparently unconciliatory Delusion (which I have not). In any event, thanks again for the outline you provided.

Hi Quetzal No, I'm afraid that although I've read many of Gould's books, I haven't read 'Rock of Ages'. To be honest, I was put off Gould by 'Wonderful Life' because I thought he mis-interpreted the Cambrian fossil evidence from the Burgess Shale, suggesting (if I remember correctly) that evolution was acting during that period in overdrive at the genus level. I also strongly dislike his 'nonoverlapping magesteria' stance for science and religion, which I guess is the central message of 'Rock of Ages'. I'm afraid that I fully agree with Dawkins: 'the God Hypothesis' IS a scientific hypothesis. However, I guess I should really make the effort to read 'Rock of Ages' myself - Gould was a brilliant writer, after all, and I am proud to wear my 'Project Steve T-shirt'. To stay on topic, by the way, Dawkins has about 6 pages dedicated to Gould's NOMA in 'The God Delusion'CheersSteve

I'm afraid it is. A 7 score is an athiest who says he knows God doesn't exist. This is not a question of whether he is able to prove it or not. He cannot actually know God doesn't exist either. To know that he would have to know everything there is to be known (for if he didn't know everything then God could be in the place he doesn't know about. If he does know everything there is to know then he himself is God (meaning he couldn't know God doesn't exist anymore)On the other hand a person can know God exists. All that has to happen is a) for God to exist (possible) b) for God to reveal himself to a person (also possible)1 and 7 are not symmetrical positions thus.

Dawkins simply meant 'symmetry' with respect to his sliding scale (100% theist to 100% atheist), not symmetry with regard to the how reasonable it is to be a 1 or to be a 7. He often and openly states that one can never be certain of the non-existence of God, and also states that given sufficient evidence, he would himself believe in God. This, in my mind, is not an unreasonable point of view and does not smack of shoddy logic. We may have to 'agree to disagree' on this one though.Cheers,Steve