Page 2 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

10 Jan 2013, 5:04 pm

Declension wrote:
I think Dawkins is out of his depth when it comes to questions like whether God exists and what God's properties are. He hasn't had training in philosophy, and it shows. In fact, his "central argument" in the book doesn't make sense at all! Here is Dawkins' summary of his so-called central argument:

Richard Dawkins wrote:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
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.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,547
Location: Reading, England

10 Jan 2013, 5:21 pm

The summary is good (only contestable bit is "who designed the designer?"), but the conclusion does not follow from his points.

Darwinism does not mean there is almost certainly no god.



Question14
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

10 Jan 2013, 6:48 pm

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...


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jan 2013, 6:53 pm

Question14 wrote:
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.


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



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

10 Jan 2013, 9:24 pm

yellowtamarin wrote:
Can you explain what you find confusing about this summary? I don't see a problem with it.


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.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

11 Jan 2013, 7:17 am

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.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

11 Jan 2013, 7:32 am

^^^ I've always thought he acts more like his "ideas" are plainly obvious. And he doesn't claim anything is a new idea of his, as far as I know.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,547
Location: Reading, England

11 Jan 2013, 3:12 pm

yellowtamarin wrote:
And he doesn't claim anything is a new idea of his, as far as I know.
What about meme theory?



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

11 Jan 2013, 3:44 pm

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.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

11 Jan 2013, 4:05 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuYjczbfbsc[/youtube] :lol: [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


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

12 Jan 2013, 1:58 am

The_Walrus wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
And he doesn't claim anything is a new idea of his, as far as I know.
What about meme theory?

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?



Question14
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

12 Jan 2013, 9:12 am

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...


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Jan 2013, 9:25 am

Question14 wrote:
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.


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.



Question14
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 164

12 Jan 2013, 9:34 am

Your opinions on him are okay, not every one will like him.

But i am more interested in his ideas, what do you think on memes, 'the god delusion' etc.


_________________
so...


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 Jan 2013, 9:51 am

Question14 wrote:
Your opinions on him are okay, not every one will like him.

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.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

12 Jan 2013, 10:28 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuYjczbfbsc[/youtube] :lol: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r17HiXjPk0s[/youtube].


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.