Article: The Atheist's Dilemma (page 5)

Gladring

I too have strong objections to this article. Right from the start he makes a massive assumption saying: "So why does [Dawkins] seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?" - how does the author know this. Perhaps Dawkins does understand, but rejects his arguments as false.

From this poor start, things only get worse. Anyone familiar with reviewing WT publications will recognise the fallacies in this article.

I cannot claim to speak for Dawkins himself, but I can speak for myself as an atheist and a humanist, and I will draw on some arguments advanced by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others.

If we grant the existence of a deity, the christian still has all his work ahead of him. Sam Harris asks - if the whole population of the planet suffered a simultaneous amnesia, at what point would we discover that Jesus was born of a virgin, or Muhammed flew to Jerusalem on a horse, or Moses spoke to a burning bush ....? How will you distinguish which set of myths are true? However, scientific knowledge would be rediscovered in time.

Whether God exists or not does not affect the principles by which I live my life. My life is lived based on principles rooted in human values and search for truth. Suppose God appeared to me and asked me to kill my son (a la the Abraham story). I would have indisputable evidence for his existence, but it would not change how I live. A celestial dictator is still a dictator and should be treated just as any other dictator, benevolent or otherwise.

If moral truth and meaning depend on a god to establish them, then you admit to life having no intrinsic meaning. If moral truths are universal and independent of God then God is irrelevant and unnecessary.

One last point, written from Dawkins perspective - The only process that we know of that can produce complexity from simplicity is Darwinian natural selection (a crane). Intelligence appears late in the history of the universe, not at the beginning. If we were approached by a vastly superior intelligence (that some may call God) then it too must appear late and be the result of a long process of natural selection. A creator, a "sky god", who is eternal, always existing, is a sky hook - a non-explanation.

Gladring

He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.

Strawman: Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God.

After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick - in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question).

Fallacy - No true scotsman. see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots If we are allowed to re-write the dictionary we can win any argument.

Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears - but it just so happens none ever has.

RAmen! One of the few statements that I agree with.

What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence?

What, for Campos would constitute evidence of God's existence? This article is full of baseless assumption and no proof is offered. Dawkins has given examples of evidence which would contradict his worldview and make him reconsider his opinions. Rather than offer proof, the author is attacking Dawkins character.

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Epicurus

BarefootServant

"The only process that we know of that can produce complexity from simplicity is Darwinian natural selection"

Sorry to be pendantic, but this is not quite correct. It is not possible for Darwinian natural selection to produce complexity by itself (and I'm here taking the word complexity as commonly understood, complicated but organised). Natural selection has to select from variation, which is itself normally limited by what is specified in the DNA (hence you can't selectively breed dogs until you create a new species). The only variation that we are aware of that can create something new is mutation (in which we include DNA copy errors etc.). It is alleged that selection from a range of such mutations gives rise to complexity, but to state categorically that selection of mutations over a long time period is the origin of complexity is pushing it too far, since this is very difficult to demonstrate scientifically. For example, much is made of the ability of bacteria and viruses to 'adapt' to pathogens, but in every case this is a result of reduction in the organism's complexity, as pointed out by Michael Behe in 'The Edge of Evolution'.

Strawman: Dawkins does not consider there to be proof for atheism, simply that there is no proof for God.

I don't think Dawkins would agree, since him saying that there is no proof for God would make him an agnostic. Dawkins' view is surely not just that there is no proof for God, but that he definitely does not exist. Which, as the article points out, is a statement of belief since it is not possible to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

Gladring

I don't think Dawkins would agree, since him saying that there is no proof for God would make him an agnostic. Dawkins' view is surely not just that there is no proof for God, but that he definitely does not exist. Which, as the article points out, is a statement of belief since it is not possible to scientifically prove that God does not exist.

In the God Delusion, Dawkins gives the scale

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist.
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God.'

Dawkins places himself in the category 6 "Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist." He has many times said that one cannot say with absolute certainty that God does not exist.

drwtsn32

8. King atheist. 'I killed God.'

Gladring

0. I am God

Jankyn

Different magesteria.

Scientific atheists like Dawkins are operating from a completely different (Cartesian) world view; it's evidence-based. Religion is, by definition, faith-based. It relies on personal experience, not quantifiable (and falsifiable) results.

Same planet, different worlds. That's why the argument gets so heated; both sides use the same language, but words (like "evidence" and "theory") mean completely different things.

Elsewhere

The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

FAIL.

These dumdass "what if's" mean NOTHING until they actually happen.

Call me when this actually does happens.

The same goes for any bears who suddenly decide to pray just before eating the atheist in the woods.

Homerovah the Almighty

There is another apparent dilemma that permeates are modern social culture and that is

protectionism of ideology of the gods by the religionists such as the JWS and alike.

Once power and money is structured and cultivated around the belief of a god its extremely rare

that men are willing to break themselves off and leave that strive for agenda alone.

This is one of the reasons why many leaders of these religious faiths bemoan and discourage higher education

for they instinctively know that there is information out there that can easily lay to waste the information they put

out to their followers, which could have the potential of lessening their power and control.

For some men the gods have to exist because its at the very heart of their survival.

Call it an occupation of indulgence.

The prevalence of ignorance always seems to injure humanity, as history has shown.

Gladring

Different magesteria.

I don't agree. Religious believers like to think their beliefs are based on evidence - until that evidence is shown to be false or unreliable. At that point they fall back to the non-overlapping magesteria argument.

If a tomb was found in Jerusalem containing bones of a 33 year old male who had been crucified some 2000 years ago, and that DNA from the bone marrow showed that he had no biological father - you can be pretty sure that beliefs would soon become evidence based!

Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

Share this