God Delusion - Comments

Connections List
 * References - Apologetics

The God Delusion itself is too long to fit in here, so these are my comments

Comments on “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins From book found at http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/index.html and on my computer I have not seen the 1.5hr video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

Preface: Sees religious people are largely so due to indoctrination and not knowing they could disagree or call themselves atheists

Chapter 1 A Deeply Religious Non-Believer Deserved Respect: “…the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals”. Most faiths do not exalt the grandeur of the universe Most/all things considered valuable to humanity simply emerges from natural matter Einstein quoted to not believe in personal God /I wonder if deist?/ no – ‘nonbeliever’ but he still uses God quite liberally “God does not play dice” etc. Some extremely shaming quotes from religious people, including saying religion is not based on knowledge and that doubts are suppressed for the good of the other people in the faith Undeserved Respect: Religion to be treated as other argumentative subjects (like politics) /good/ People shy from disagreeing with religious view. E.g. ease of pacifism draft exemption Point of evidence: religions help create cultures, help ethnic cleansing but not total separator //move down to common law and such privileges to religious people are less or clearer// ///freedom of speech levels, noise ordinances, hate speech, whatnot///*

Chapter 2 The God Hypothesis Polytheism The misogynistic rant One of books main points to argue any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. Religion evolved from animism and is “founded on private revelation rather than evidence” /we argue Adam and eve, which should have some form of evidence (e.g. flood)/ Theory of the trinity is not distinct enough to argue against /dimensional theory/ Catholics have large, unbased systems of saints and angels (polytheism) /true, not my belief/ God is very male /eh…maybe…yes. Shadow of wings, love strong, but mostly male seeming. Point accepted as part of my belief/ Monotheism God is very patriarchal and subduing of women (where in bible? Maybe Hagar, sarah calling Lord, but think the 3 sisters who slept with father, God said do not accumulate wives) Paul founded Christianity /…ok…what about the 12? Ethiopia, India. Catholic church looks to Peter (it has a bunch of other stuff wrong, but eh)/ Christianity spread by the sword Constantine /did he use sword? Typical roman cares not what you believe/, crusades, conquistadores. /Sure, and Hitler killed Jews in the name of the Aryan race. There is a little value from looking at this stuff yes, but perhaps look at the first 100 years more closely./ Deists used to be rejected by theists. /Ok./ America NOT founded on Christianity… “the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” America more religious than England due to Pvs.C wars, id hold by immigrants, free marketing in US, Religious fanaticism rampant in America /please describe/ Jefferson was deist, possibly atheist /by Wikipedia, he believes that God is made out of matter/ Atheists are discriminated against, harassed, whatever. Admission by a candidate would be political suicide. Christian beliefs unbased The Poverty of Agnosticism Agnostic is ok for things without evidence (like alien life and the end-Permian /flood/ extinction) TAP – temporary agnosticism in practice, the evidence isn’t in yet PAP – permanent agnosticism principle, question not answerable, all evidence not applicable Even if conclusion unknowable, probabilities may help 7 belief types: 100, close to 100, >50, 50 less than 50, close 0, 0 probability of a belief (PAP off scale) Russell’s teapot > if impossible to discover ever we should be PAP about the teapot, if possible TAP. However probabilities still apply, burden of proof to believers //hm, in what sense can probabilities be calculated? A little with design clocks…// Says God isn’t disprovable /say we scientifically ‘prove’ JC did not rise? It’s not a viable explanation of the evidence/ NOMA Science and religion are not Non-Overlapping MAgisteria, science can comment on God Appears to base his argument on the fact that he’s read so many books /I agree with your point but your method is invalid/ Concedes science may have problems saying stuff about morals /but if science >> God, then it can because God >> morals/ Says theology has nothing else but morals to contribute to human wisdom Cannot base religion on morals b/c what religion? How choose? /assumes religion not objective findable truth/ Science can comment on God, denial of such is PAP. Universe w/God is very different from without /maybe…the universe is so saturated with God science must make accommodation with such regularity I’d guess neither side would notice/ miracles > science applicable Entities /I assume organism of some sort/ exist for which no other explanation save evolution currently exists /please name (he will in chapter 4 I think)/ The great prayer experiment Satirically Francis Galton sees British royal family no more statistically healthy than average, though many churches pray for it. Also personally prays for random plots of land which exhibit no extra growth Templeton Foundation, Russell Stannard, Dr. Herbert Benson, 3 churches pray for 3 groups (1 prayer, 1 not, 1 pray and patient knows (placebo)). Patients are 1082 coronary bypass at 6 hospitals. Told to pray for same things. No response but placebo worked reverse. Quotes dude explaining suffering in Gods world /relevant right now??/. Quotes bad defenses of no results. The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists Theists who agree with evolution, I think. He’s just quoting a ton of people, describing political positions and people quoting people quoting people. Dang. Get to the point. Can’t teach theistic biology (evolution) or physiology (virgin birth) in class b/c separation of church and state. /virgin birth is in violation of physiology, so that’s ok. Let the theists explain that miracles can happen. In the event of biology/universe, if there are Christians who are also evolutionists, then teaching evolution is also a violation of church and state. Get over it/ Little Green Men Russells teapot change to alien life. Now consider how probability applies. We now have a little more data on how many planets there are. /still don’t know spatial, time, or material limits to universe, has the calculation been affected at all? I mean, I kind of agree with you. This was the first chapter that I really enjoyed, but…/ Radio communication with aliens… whatever.
 * /now we get to some real stuff/

Chapter 3 Arguments for God’s Existence Yes finally Thomas Aquinas: Ontological and other A Priori Argument from Beauty /I’ve never given this much credit or thought, but let’s see what goes/ Argument from personal experience Argument from Scripture Admired Christian Scientists /irrelevant flat out I don’t care/ Pascals wager /yes yes, sore subject, let’s see if you admit the one point/ Bayesian arguments /never heard of these/
 * Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Costnological (there must have been a time without matter). These do not necessarily prove the Christian God /yes, and you can deify the universe…maybe./ Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible because then he can’t change his mind. /That’s just a recursive like make a rock too big to move, you don’t change your mind if you’re outside of time/ God is not an adequate terminator to this regress like the atom is to splitting gold /um…I don’t see why not. Split gold smaller and still be gold. Go back in causal string and still obey laws. Reach atom and stop b/c gold defined at atom level. Reach infinite or limit God causality and stop b/c laws defined at God level. Sounds legit J/
 * Degree need infinite or perfection to measure. He just dismisses. You could use smelliness or some other measure. There has to be an ultimate stinker? /I agree. Positive or negative? Things are measured relative and with numbers. 1.2inches. Relative to inch measure and number. There is something to be said for abstract satisfactory measures though from the futility of purpose and similar.
 * Design. Naturally Darwin gave us all something to think about.
 * Perfection ontological: traditional takedown /yes I agree it’s an embarrassment how this erroneous argument has been trumpeted (if it has) and how poorly better similar ones have been communicated. That something of greatest perfection need not have being (that is, the greatest perfection must exist in reality if it has being, but that doesn’t mean it has being.) Please see my version from Descartes wax./ Russell explains in a way that sets up for the wax.
 * Just because I found it funny, doesn’t inf*0 = n prove an infinite God out of nothing made a measurable universe?
 * Doesn’t Shakespeare >> God? No, it just proves Shakespeare exists. Neither is God to credit for Michelangelo, because it was just a product of the time. Why not make a mural to science? Whatever. /Sure, yep. Still, would we have an appreciation or hunger for or ability to create beauty w/o God? Idk/
 * Man hears ‘satan’ in Sottish isles, later probably is Devil Bird.
 * Easy to have imagined experiences /hm, yes/ /other indicators of madness not present in Christians/
 * Hollow mask rotating. Auditory illusions too. He hears ‘male voice praying’ wind through keyhole. /perhaps the option here is to use changed behavior/
 * 70ppl see sun plunge to earth at once. Discredited b/c sun didn’t actually fall, we’re still alive /god could have made visual miracle. But idk the circumstances/
 * Fourth option to liar lunatic lord is that JC is honestly mistaken. /lunatics are honestly mistaken that they are Charlie chaplain. One does not simply guess wrong whether or not you are god/
 * Questions vs. scripture: who wrote it and when? /mostly close observers within 50 years of occurrence, with the exception of the pentuatech/ how did they know what to write? /what they saw, heard, and divine inspiration/ have we interpreted their intent correctly? /we have whole degrees to study that, probably yes/ were they biased /pretty much yes. But e.g. tax collector and extrabiblical records, also biblical facts that are hurtful to apostles and such/
 * Place of JC birth: [Dawkins sees a contradiction between the accounts] /matthew does not mention that mary and J were in Nazareth before (mentions no town), birth in beth and flight to Egypt go to Nazareth. Luke has origin in Naz, census to beth, stuff, boom JC is a young boy/. Why required to go to Naz if David lived 1000yrs before? /idk, good point. Not like census happen frequently though/ Says local quirinius census AD6, after death of Herod and too late. /hm, I should look into that/. DOCS: Dec 2004 mag Free Inquiry editor Tom Flynn.
 * http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/flynn_25_1.htm
 * Most legends of the time had virgins births, kings adoration in crib, death and resurrection. /interesting. Please list/. Many details only recorded in one and not the other. Josephus does not have record of Herods massacre. Place of birth /dealt with, no contradiction/ Geneologies are different /yes, wow. One follows Joseph, the other mary, and both may omit generations. Esp matt who wants to form 14s./
 * Gospel writers never met JC. /um… where’d you get that?/.
 * Admits to Farday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Mendel (genes). Some modern people I don’t recognize, lawyers, biologists, etc.
 * Side note: life without purpose is ok, I’m anticipating having a good lunch.
 * Only a couple nobel prize winners out of several hundred are Christian /hm, what a shame/. 12 vs. 213 in the Fellows of the Royal Society (british equivalent of US natl. academy of science).
 * http://www.answersingenesis.org/
 * Overall in US, religiosity is negatively correlated with education, interest in science, and political liberalism. /may make sense if ppl who don’t think they have it together accept god easier/. Also with parents religion
 * Believing cannot be motivated by probability fire insurance /yup, probably the best point/
 * Why does God reward believing instead of works /because works don’t cut it you fool, read the bible/
 * Due to sheer number of Gods, probability lies with no god (probably)
 * Pascal was probably joking /well…making a point that you should investigate it maybe/
 * Bayes theorem is a mathematical probability engine for determining truth with percent certainty like a detective case
 * Bayes considers 6 elements and assigns probability. 1 innate sense of good 2 ppl do evil 3 nature broken 4 minor miracles 5 major miracles 6 religious experiences /why not include science stuff? Makes me sad/. Ends up with 67% probability then somehow hikes it to 95% with faith but seems to give no reasoning. Dawkins says yeah, that’s why it’s called faith /makes me sad. Bayes should include science and not blind faith/
 * Dawkins does not include goodness as a part of the god hypothesis /ok…sure. So…does evil still convince you if there is a god he isn’t good? Misogynistic…/

Chapter 4 Why There Almost Certainly is not God Thinks that a designer God requires being designed himself. /hm…any different from the universe needing to be designed? Occam for and against. Universe without God requires explanations that approach god/ This is his main rebuttal I think Boeing 747. Natural selection as a consciousness-raiser Irreducible complexity /alright, some examples?/ The worship of gaps The anthropic principle: planetary version /I like this one/ The anthropic principle: cosmological version /even better/ An interlude at cambridge Chapter summary 1)*A great challenge has been to explain complexity in nature 2)*It’s tempting to say it is design, to infer design because we see so much human design 3)*A designer is more improbable and is not a solution 4)*Darwinian natural selection provides the explanation 5)*The equivalent in physics has yet to be found, possibly helped by multiverses and the anthropic principle 6)*These ill-formed physics explanations are still better than a designer
 * Really, natural selection does not depend on one change but many many chances to make very small changes. /good call. However we consider thresholds like the beginning of life to require 747s to cross, with no intermediates/.
 * God is the ultimate 747.
 * Opposite north-south maps, feminism language pronouns, Douglass Adams’s conversion, Archaeopteryx is not a hoax, astronomy scales, if God used natural selection he’s not necessary and can be omitted
 * Goes over too many examples of complex plants which creationists claim as evidence for design. Repeats that God requires a designer so ‘science says’ natural selection. /moot point, he’s not addressing irreducible complexity yet, just design. Whatever. He’ll probably get to it./
 * Walk up gradual slope to summit instead of jump precipice.
 * Quote of Darwin doubting due to eye was rhetorical device for him, he explains after. There do exist intermediates in natural (some good example of photosensitive cells and pinhole eyes) /idk how to resond/
 * Gaps in current knowledge (not just specifically geological column). Religion makes us satisfied with not understanding /aww, shame on thee. Religion maybe, but hopefully not JC follow/
 * Fossil record. Certainly not just to demand explanation of every transition /hm..yes, at least not now/ Falsification possible by fossils in the wrong layer. Says creationists have posed a few false ones.
 * Argument from personal incredulity /well, neither can you just pose anything and ask us to wait for an explanation…sometime later. Be reasonable/
 * From Dawkins and video, irreducible complexity explained by small steps, parts that served to bridge gap now disappeared, lesser uses,
 * Quotes Augustine as discouraging curiosity. See http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-lies-illiteracy-or-just-bad-scholarship/33.html for the proper quote. Augustine is discouraging sorcery.
 * /which is better, laws that never lead to anything besides more questions, or a God who definitively is not caused (but yet asks us to investigate him and his nature)/
 * Goldilocks zone orbits from suns where planets could have liquid water >> our kind of life. Anthropic principle says duh we live on a good planet, we wouldn’t have got here otherwise.
 * Same principle applies to origin of life. /so…posit enough chances in the universe and time to come up with one life spark happening, then we’re it. That’s what you need/
 * Probably in a semi-sarcastic tone says God struck the soup with lightning to make life happen. /no, in case there was confusion. He made life fully complex already (if we hold to 7 days literal, which is ok with me)/
 * A billion*billion planets in universe, large estimate 3k*b^2. He posits if life was 1/b /but it’s not that probable, please show me/
 * “We can safely predict that, if we wait another ten million years, a whole new set of species will be as well adapted to…” /ok, has anyone got close to seeing 10m yrs back? Ok yes, geo column fossils. This fruit fly thing. Have you yet got any variations? Anyway, just me being skeptical/
 * Says there are other thresholds to cross: eukaryotic cell (our kind), consciousness, other parts of cells like mitochondria. So he posits a few out of the billion (from the b^2) succeed with these to have us w/anthropic principle. /don’t stretch it man, don’t hurt yourself/
 * Martin Rees Just Six Numbers constants which if slightly off would make life impossible.
 * [Just Six Numbers] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFaPo2Z0KNc [1) N = b^4 is elect F/gravity between them, affects 2) e=0.007 binds atomic nucleus, affects formation of elements, 3) omega affects amount of matter, gravity vs. expansion, affects collapse vs. no formation, 4) lambda antigravity creates expansion 5) q ratio of two energies, small > inert, large > violence w/black holes, 6) d=3 number of spatial dimensions, near black holes time stands still] [btw at begin universe superstrings in 10 spatial dimensions] [any untuning stifles life. He says infinite other universes, anthropic principle] [2 basic forces, 2 size and texture and time, 2 space]
 * [10x frames: human size, surrounding grass, public park, buildings, city, earths horizon,, whole earth, , , inner solar, entire solar, , , , star among neighbors, , , , start see milky way, , , whole milwy way spiral galazy, ?, more galaxies in virgo cluster, virgo among others, full picture, 25 more frames to full visibility (deep empty space). Now go in, arm, patch of skin, texture, cell, molecules dna, atoms, find by colliders, 17 more to strings or quantum foam. Total 60 frames top to bottom? Same qty humans in sun as atoms in a human. E78 atoms within telescopes.] [hm, fun that physics works everywhere in universe] [finding planets by Doppler shift wobbles in their stars] [try to find life to see if somewhat probable to start such that other lifes around, still intelligence may be near impossible]
 * Always sets up theist explanation vs. anthropic principle. /Now I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you’re just asking for a false dilemma when you so strongly state two soft options not defined as y or n Boolean/ Always goes back to God needing an explanation. /Zikes, I got it already. Can you find one or two more debunkers and interchange them for variety?/
 * Possibly no knobs to twiddle. We know so little about the 6 numbers, they could be dependent on other stuff.
 * But again, you can still wonder why all 10 firing squad ppl missed you. /funny you use analogies like this when it pleases you. I’m all for the anthropic principle, but you just go and dodge it when you want to bring up an interesting point that supports you. Come on, man/
 * Possibly there’s quite a few universes, and we’re just the lucky one. Or there’s been a series of explosions, and this is a special one in the series. But the tendency is that we’ll expand forever. Also possible that universes reproduce in black holes, natural selection on the universe scale, and universes with black holes promote life as well.
 * “Nobody understands what goes on in singularities such as the big bang,” /well yes, you’re in the process of discovering it. But please, if this is true, don’t get on your high horse about how certain you are about the big bang/
 * Occams razor stuff /Why does he mostly quote theologians in response to beginning of time stuff? They study nonphysical stuff about God (I’d guess). Whatever/ Hm.. theologian guy says it’s odd that all electrons are the same. They should be chaotic /what an odd idea, maybe/ So god sustains their properties /yes, in the absolutist sense/ God is a single substance. /sort of…eh…lack of definition/ Dawkins says phooey.
 * Simplicity, some definitions include indivisibility and heterogeity of parts /?applicable to indivisible objects >> w/o parts?/
 * Fun event regarding occam at Cambridge. He riles it for having too many Christians and audience paid /lay off, that’s just who they wanted?/ Quotes other agnostic at conference about some of this. More screwy quote on quote on quote. 6 layers.
 * He raises occam objections at said conference. He says best reply was NOMA, theo says God is simple. /yes, that’s a bad reply, but that’s probably your filter. You don’t understand the nature of God because he’s more complex than science. 3d on 2d/
 * 2nd main method of knowing theists pose is personal experience. Dawkins says this is within science /yup…eh depending on your def of science/
 * Says first cause should be simple, not God. /if there is a required object for first cause, it might as well be God, for it’s just as unlikely to be a simple/
 * Says theologians in 19th century began doubting historicity of bible. /please show me/
 * Says 747 is pretty much irrefutable argument /appears to be a main foothold, I counter with god not created, out of physics, etc/

Chapter 5 The roots of religion The Darwinian imperative Direct advantages of religion Group Selection Religion as a by-product of something else (this is Dawkins pet) Psychologically primed for religion Pg 139
 * Why has natural selected Religion? What natural pressures? /would it so readily eliminate wasteful things that have little cost?/ Quotes dude saying “virtually impossible to do a better job than an organism is doing in its own environment” /but then why does it change ever? The environment changes at least, and there is some lag until the organism changes. Depending on the relative rates, a LOT of lag, like thousands of years/
 * What is the benefit of religion? It seems a very advertising sort of thing, like peacock plumage. Pretty wasteful too /erhm yes, I’d say the essence isn’t really, but since it’s very important and an artistic happiness expression, it has the potential for waste and often does/
 * 3 facts: survival of individual genes, group selection, parasites manipulate to transfer to next host. So generally state, factors that aid replicating units (individuals through themselves or others they control and groups)
 * Aborigines have good survival but also witchcraft and other disgruntled superstition. Why? All cultures seem to have this junk.
 * Probably helps stress. Placebo effect, basically, actually useful to a small degree. He doesn’t think it’s the main reason though by any means.
 * /Dawkins is pretty happy to point out and enumerate in colorful lists the hurts of religion while only describing in theory the benefits…whatever/
 * Comforting illusions are not enough, they must actually be useful.
 * Mentions theory that high religious experiences are related to temporal lobe epilepsy
 * Possibly used as a tool to subjugate or appease the masses
 * /Dawkins doesn’t seem to finish the issue, it’s like he set it up and then just left it for the next idea. Perhaps he’s just putting this stuff ahead of his main pivot, the parasite/
 * Not just individuals, specie units as well. Religion causes interconnectedness and loyalty. Dawkins doesn’t actually support this theory either though, overcome by lower level selection /unless as I said, the sacrifices are small, where symbiosis or synergy may be still be pretty advantageous/ Distinct from elcological replacement where tendencies of ppl in groups to make group survive make those ppl more plentiful (as opposed to actually multiplying the group itself).
 * E.g. insects flying into candle flames. Trying to fly parallel (or acute angle) to sun or moonlight at infinite distance for compass, do so for candle and spiral into it. /fun/.
 * He more loves the idea rather than any particular solution (any particular underlying useful trait which has a by-product in religion).
 * Children, to learn from past, should believe their parents without question. /hm…but if originally there was no religion, how did children learn the religion? I can see bodies of advice eventually being venerated into a system./ Dawkins says then any errors in communication, odd junk along the way, will be retained and accumulate into religion /but why so much commonality in religion then?/ Again, this is only the kind of thing that can do it.
 * Other mechanisms than child blind belief could be theories of other minds, forming groups, forming discriminatory groups.
 * Tendency towards dualism in people, especially children /why?/ Sees dualists as animists, personifying even things like clouds. Mind distinct from body. Also disposition towards creation (sort of) or teleologists, everything has a purpose. /also why, but I know why/ these trains due to predicting else behavior and quickly predicting behavior of objects (interpreting not by pure pysics but by design, and higher at intent level).
 * Dualism and teleology >> religion /how?/ if everything has a purpose, well it must be a disembodied mind God