Atheism and Richard Dawkins
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
Um... what?
Can you explain what you find confusing about this summary? I don't see a problem with it.
dawkins shows why the designer idea is wrong.
It says, that something like the eye, so complex, must have a designer as it could not occur by chance.
BUT the creator must be more complex than the created, so that complex being must also have a creator more complex and can not occur by chance...
see the problem?
However, natural selection is the other idea that can be applied. It shows a slow process of building these structures. look at a primitive life form and you will discover a early eye. only detects light but no picture. as you go along, more complex versions evolve.
I believe one thing Dawkins is trying to say that even if god exists he is very much redundant.
Also, darwinsm is applicable OUTSIDE biology. no really, read the book and he shows other areas effected by darwins ideas.
_________________
so...
It says, that something like the eye, so complex, must have a designer as it could not occur by chance.
BUT the creator must be more complex than the created, so that complex being must also have a creator more complex and can not occur by chance...
see the problem?
However, natural selection is the other idea that can be applied. It shows a slow process of building these structures. look at a primitive life form and you will discover a early eye. only detects light but no picture. as you go along, more complex versions evolve.
I believe one thing Dawkins is trying to say that even if god exists he is very much redundant.
Also, darwinsm is applicable OUTSIDE biology. no really, read the book and he shows other areas effected by darwins ideas.
Read -Darwin's Dangerous Idea- by Daniel Dennett. He an Dawkins are on the same wavelength. Dennett makes quick work out of god notions and intelligent design.
ruveyn
It's not intended as a summary, it's intended as an argument.
The most important thing about an argument is that it should be valid. This means that the conclusion should follow from the premises. Even on the most charitable interpretation, it is clear that the conclusion ("God almost certainly does not exist") has nothing to do with the premises. The premises are about humans, and the conclusion is about God.
And that's ignoring the fact that you're really not supposed to mix statements of probability ("almost certainly") into a logical argument. Probability is about human knowledge of the world, not about how the world actually is. You need a different system (Bayesian reasoning) to deal with probability.
Dawkins acts as if his ideas are powerful but really he is just saying what half the population is thinking but not saying. His ideas are old and tired and kind of dumb in some cases. I guess you have to give him some credit though for being amouthpiece
I mean, if I could write a book and make a whole bunch I would do it but I wouldn't act like I was saying anything extraordinary. I mean, he's ideas are plainly obvious. I wish I could make money writing a book like the God Delusion.
I like Dawkins because what I think he finds most aggravating is Faith based thinking. I thought this was illustrated very well when Dawkins was on the O'reilly Factor which has to be one of the most insane interviews I've ever seen. Yet, despite the reputation that seems to follow Dawkins, I thought he was firm but fair in presenting his position.
I know there is another side of him that comes out when he is in the position of Preaching to the Choir at Atheist Gatherings. I don't hold that against him. I think many atheists take such events as a venue to get on a soap box and vent their frustrations.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuYjczbfbsc[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r17HiXjPk0s[/youtube].
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Okay, I don't really know much about that, or how it relates to atheism, which is the topic that I was referring to. I understand he coined the term "meme" but I don't know how involved he was in introducing the theory. Does he act as though this idea is extraordinary, when it is actually plainly obvious?
To the one saying dawkins is a mouthpiece, really?
How come no one else has spoken out?
Still, the meme theory is dawkins and it is in a way , memorys or legacy. he is not rephrasing memorys as meme theory is moreon how it works. read 'selfish gene' it will explain the idea.
with that, the idea is to show natural selection is workable outside its original place. Natural selection is applicable in other areas
true, dawkins is very aggressive in his opinions, but would he be noticed if not. he is a genuine threat to religion.
_________________
so...
How come no one else has spoken out?
Still, the meme theory is dawkins and it is in a way , memorys or legacy. he is not rephrasing memorys as meme theory is moreon how it works. read 'selfish gene' it will explain the idea.
with that, the idea is to show natural selection is workable outside its original place. Natural selection is applicable in other areas
true, dawkins is very aggressive in his opinions, but would he be noticed if not. he is a genuine threat to religion.
Why does anyone need to be aggressive in order to be noticed? Look at Neil deGrasse Tyson for example. Definitely more pleasant than Dawkins and is almost just as noticeable as he is.
Anyway, it isn't that Dawkins is that aggressive. It's just that he's somewhat a snob.
But i am more interested in his ideas, what do you think on memes, 'the god delusion' etc.
His philosophical arguments concerning the existence God weren't the best to be honest. But he knows his science at least. The meme theory makes a lot of sense to me.
Those politicians in the first video are horrible. Why do we need to treat every opinion with respect? Sometimes ridicule is very much deserved. And that desire to appear balanced by calling both sides extremist is just silly.