EPIC FAIL: The God Delusion

[Dorian Gray]

I love the book. I think Dawkins nailed the majority of it. EXCEPT....

Except the part where he was supposed to present an argument regarding what might replace religion.The last bit of the book.

Educated people can easily grasp his sections on the Burka Slit, Consolation, and Inspiration, but, it is insultingly lacking any clear or simplified tagline. Which is what simpletons require.

Instead, Dawkins delves into this science-driven yada yada that speaks only to the converted. WE KNOW THIS. The choir has been preached to already, WE KNOW.

What interests me, is a philosopher who can swing the guillotine down on those moderates whose gigantic argument is rooted in the question: "What are you gonna replace it with?" In this, Mr Dawkins fails, pathetically.

The strongest rebuttal remains rooted in reality. "Religion is required if we are to keep the dregs in order. Most people are too stupid to understand science anyway."

When you lost your virginity, what did you replace it with?

 

[Resume]

I replaced religion with sleeping in on Sundays, and having pre-marital sex. Perhaps I aimed low.

 

[hgc]

I replaced religion with sleeping in on Sundays, and having pre-marital sex. Perhaps I aimed low.

Of course most self-professed religious sleep in on Sunday with their pre-marital sex partners too. So there must be something else religion does for them.

 

[Xephyr]

Of course most self-professed religious sleep in on Sunday with their pre-marital sex partners too. So there must be something else religion does for them.

Yes.

I can think of a few 'something elses' off the top of my head :

- It gives them the ultimate excuse to hate others not like them.
- It gives them the ultimate umbrella to hide under.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to segregate.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to sin horrendously, repent, and still be loved/forgiven/accepted by their peers afterward. (What I like to call circular narcissism)
- It gives them the ultimate crutch to lean on rather than biting the bullet head on.
- It gives them the ultimate place to hang out and be accepted no matter how f'd up and dysfunctional they are.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to place one's self up on a pedestal.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to prosthelytize whilst standing up on that pedestal.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse for a tax write-off (church donations).


Have I missed any ?

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes.

I can think of a few 'something elses' off the top of my head :

- It gives them the ultimate excuse to hate others not like them.
- It gives them the ultimate umbrella to hide under.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to segregate.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to sin horrendously, repent, and still be loved/forgiven/accepted by their peers afterward. (What I like to call circular narcissism)
- It gives them the ultimate crutch to lean on rather than biting the bullet head on.
- It gives them the ultimate place to hang out and be accepted no matter how f'd up and dysfunctional they are.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to place one's self up on a pedestal.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse to prosthelytize whilst standing up on that pedestal.
- It gives them the ultimate excuse for a tax write-off (church donations).


Have I missed any ?

Most likely, but not to worry, they will find them.

Paul




The old version of that cartoon in your avatar was with a baby boy and girl and the caption was, "What's Yours", use at bars for asking what's your drink.

 

[The Man]

When you lost your virginity, what did you replace it with?

I think there are books, magazines and videos that could show you what it might have been replaced with, unless it is very, very, very kinky (then there is probably and internet site or two).

 

[cienaños]

When you lost your virginity, what did you replace it with?

My hymen is still intact thank you very much.

 

[Marduk]

My hymen is still intact thank you very much.

well, hello there

 

[cienaños]

So, you'd rather have allies who are on your side only as long as some invisible sky daddy tells them to...

Wow. And no.

Sorry, I'd rather have allies who do stuff because it's the objectively rational thing to do.....

Me too.

Plus, I'd first like to see any actual evidence that that's where morals come from, as opposed to, say, these mirror neurons we now know about. Otherwise, solving a problem that may not even exist kinda smacks me as Tooth Fairy Science.

The clearest, most sound evidence points to 'morals' being bourne out of the need for species survival, NOT religion. I'm not sure if or why you're insinuating I said or believe such a ridiculous thing.

Plus, boring as it may sound to you when formalized, essentially enlightened self-interest is what most members of society apply. They do something for neighbours X, Y and Z in the hope that they'll get something in return when they need it. You don't need any boring formalism to explain to a housewife ideas like "if you're nice to people they might help you move" or "... they might help you find a job for your son" or "if you don't go to the wedding of A's son and B's daughter, nobody will come to your kids' wedding." In fact, you may find that she had those ideas all along, and religion had exactly zero to do with it.

Networking as a way to land a better job, for example, is all but formalized for even the most unenlightened and least philosophical people, for example.

Heck, by now even in games people understand ideas like that if you want 24 people to help you raid for your epic equipment in WoW or EQ2, you have to help them get theirs. Or that if you do antisocial stuff like ninja-looting, you're forfeiting any such help from them in the future. That's the most basic form of enlightened self-interest right there.

But ultimately, even that's basically rationalization. People are nice first and foremost because for some 97% of the population the mirror neurons work as designed. We have that "treat others like you'd want them to treat yourself" built right into the brain's wiring. You actually see what's happening to them partially as if it were happening to you.

I already know this. But thanks.

You may need some rationalization to explain why you're doing something nice, but you'd likely do it without a rationalization anyway.

Not following you here. Would you elaborate?

Heck, most rules and systems weren't needed to get humans to play nice, they were needed to convince people that sometimes they should go against that instinct and be a-holes. The hard part wasn't to get people to lend a few berries to a neighbour who's starving, but that sometimes the right thing to do is to go kill half the neighbouring tribe. Or that you're actually doing the right thing by sitting and spinning your prayer wheel instead of giving some food to a starving soul, because you'd be interfering with their karma if you did help.

I think you're half-right here. The "versus the other tribe" aspect of your argument holds. I would just add that a somewhat equal measure should be given to the rules and systems that were created within any said tribe.

 

[cienaños]

well, hello there

I'm alive!

I had to pull away and get some work done. Was I missed by the Mods? Did they not have anyone to 'edit' or 'warn?'

Any interesting new-ish threads I should check out?

Peace

 

[valis]

The belief that observing the world around you does not reveal evidence of the existence of God is every bit as much a religion as the belief that everything you observe is part of God's creation.

Unless you have a known God positive or known God negative universe to compare our current one to there is no way to know what proof, or lack there of should look like.

The attitude I had when I was an atheist 'I don't see any reason to believe therefore I don't' was just another article of religious faith.

 

[godless dave]

It's religious faith to only believe in things that are supported by evidence?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

It is true that religious beliefs can lead people to do bad things (this is one of the themes of the God Delusion). Yet if I wanted a truly insightful and devastating critique of 'Christendom', I would rather turn to Kierkegaard who was earlier and superior in his critique and who well understood the inherent paradoxes of a 'Christian people' or a 'Christian Nation'.

As much as it is true that religious beliefs can lead people to do bad things, they can also lead people to do good things. Here is a quote from Henning Von Trecksow, one of the key German plotters of the July 20th assassination attempt on Hitler:

"The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours' time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. No one among us can complain about his death, for whoever joined our ranks put on the shirt of Nessus. A man's moral worth is established only at the point where he is ready to give up his life in defense of his convictions."

Now some of you may disagree that attempting to assassinate Hitler was either a good or 'Christian' thing to do. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian who struggled mightily with this question. Yet the point is, although we are always going to disagree about what is right and wrong, it is dishonest to say that religious belief never leads someone to do good things. Dawkins generally ignores the good side of Christianity and focuses mainly on the bad things, but then as I have said, we already have Kierkegaard to give us an analysis of what has gone wrong here.

It is a matter of contention as to whether Atheism leads people to do good or bad things. Certainly it doesn't work in the same way as religious conviction in promoting/censoring certain types of behaviour. Atheism is a statement of belief (or a lack of belief if you prefer), and has no moral content. It is true that certain monstrous tyrants have been Atheists, but it seems unfair to ascribe their tyranical behaviour solely, or mostly to Atheism. Certainly they also had other moral beliefs and understandings (such as National Socialism or Communism), plus probable psychotic or sociopathic personalities to boot.

If 'God is Dead', what replaces the moral function of religion? What comes next? This is worth asking as many of us are interested in questions of morality. Atheism has no moral content. Science cannot tell us what moral values we should have (Although Sam Harris erroneously thinks otherwise). If God is dead, is goodness dead, or morality dead? Obviously some Atheists believe they do good things and have a sense of right and wrong, but is this justifiable? Why shouldn't Atheists be nihilists? Is nihilism dangerous and to be avoided? These are questions I'm interested in.

 

[cienaños]

The belief that observing the world around you does not reveal evidence of the existence of God is every bit as much a religion as the belief that everything you observe is part of God's creation.

What the world (and the cosmos) reveals is a sense of awe and an acknowledgment of uncertainty. Speaking for myself, an agnostic with pantheist tendencies, I can say with confidence that I do not know. I suspect things, but I do not know. If you wish to argue the whole "religion is equal to no religion" thing, I wish you luck in trying to debate that angle with self-proclaimed atheists.

That said, if you are arguing for the existence of an "interceding sky-daddy," well, beliefs such as that have been thoroughly debunked on this website by minds more qualified than mine on the subject. Also, there are a couple of good 'starter books' I can point you to if you like.

 

[godless dave]

If 'God is Dead', what replaces the moral function of religion? What comes next? This is worth asking as many of us are interested in questions of morality.

Asking what comes "next" implies that there have not been discussions of morality independent of religion in the past, yet thousands of years of recorded history say otherwise. We already have the humanities - art, literature, and philosophy have always dealt with what humans feel about morality, among other aspects of the human condition, often without recourse to the supernatural. If you have read Kierkegaard, then I assume you have heard of Sartre, Camus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epicurus.

Most people don't learn morality from philosophers or from religion. They learn most of it from their parents, supplemented by various relatives, other adults, and peers. But for those who want to think about it more deeply, there's a lot of existing material to study. It's not as if nobody has asked this question before, or attempted to come up with an answer.

 

[Aitch]

When you lost your virginity, what did you replace it with?

I did not lose my virginity; I gave it freely, joyfully and, to be honest, somewhat nervously to a very nice young lady.

It did not need replacing.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

_Inside_ the tribe, you actually don't need that many rules to get people to play nice. As long as the tribe is below Dunbar's number -- and the vast majority of pre-agriculture tribe are -- it works just because everyone knows everyone and interacts with them daily. Being the tribe's world-class a-hole doesn't work well when they all know you, and they all know each other. You might find yourself ostracized or worse faster than you can blink if you don't play nice with the rest of the tribe.

Having formalized and impartial and non-retroactive rules would actually be counter-productive there, as it would mean a tribe would have to put up with someone who found a loophole.

Rules and organization to keep it working only became necessary when we discovered agriculture and suddenly had cities of 1500 or 15000 people instead of tribes of up to 150. Then you had to deal with the fact that everyone can only have any meaningful relationship with 1% of the city at most, and reaching such an ad-hoc consensus was nigh impossible.

But at any rate, I wouldn't worry too much about why and how rules appeared inside a tribe. Below Dunbar's number even formalized pure anarchy works, and really you don't need anyone to tell you some philosophical or religious reason for why you should play nice to the other tribe members.

 

[cienaños]

_Inside_ the tribe, you actually don't need that many rules to get people to play nice. As long as the tribe is below Dunbar's number -- and the vast majority of pre-agriculture tribe are -- it works just because everyone knows everyone and interacts with them daily. Being the tribe's world-class a-hole doesn't work well when they all know you, and they all know each other. You might find yourself ostracized or worse faster than you can blink if you don't play nice with the rest of the tribe.

That is what a 'system' is. That is what 'rules' is. No offense, but check the definitions. Merriam Webster's is a good source.

Having formalized and impartial and non-retroactive rules would actually be counter-productive there, as it would mean a tribe would have to put up with someone who found a loophole.

Wrong. And to be clear, I never said anything about "non-retroactive." Check the Late Pleistocene. Pack mentality prevailed over the individual in the midst of cataclysmic climate changes and migrations.

Rules and organization to keep it working only became necessary when we discovered agriculture and suddenly had cities of 1500 or 15000 people instead of tribes of up to 150. Then you had to deal with the fact that everyone can only have any meaningful relationship with 1% of the city at most, and reaching such an ad-hoc consensus was nigh impossible.

Wrong again. The change here was that it (rules and organization) advanced at an alarming rate, but that does not imply that there was not a rudimentary system already in place.

But at any rate, I wouldn't worry too much about why and how rules appeared inside a tribe. Below Dunbar's number even formalized pure anarchy works, and really you don't need anyone to tell you some philosophical or religious reason for why you should play nice to the other tribe members.

'Worry' has nothing to do with it. It is what it is. Surely there were early tribes of men (packs) that fell into anarchy and disappeared as a result. More specifically, with regards to the time frame that we are speaking of, the survival of the species had nothing to do with philosophy or religion - as consciousness was only budding at/around this time.

As for Dunbar's Number, well, it has been noted that as little as 6 gibbons can and do function successfully as a pack in a dense forest. They maintain a system that benefits their chances for survival. Baboons also fall well under Dunbar's number - and succeed sans anarchy.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually, it's more like Dunbar's number for baboons is lower than for humans. So, you know, if you want to tell me to check definitions first, it couldn't hurt to take your own advice and look up Dunbar's number.

But really, by now I wonder exactly what _are_ you arguing. By message #103 you seem to confirm that you want something to replace religion as a source of morals for the masses, and in #105 confirms it yet again. But in #129 you basically come back claiming you never said all I was answering to, and you're aware that morals were born out of the species' need for survival and not from religion. Umm... so why did you need a substitute for religion to give them morals, then?

Dunno, maybe it would help to clarify the exact claim first.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I find the OP extremely condescending, probably because I'm one of the "simpletons" who didn't quite understand why Dawkins all of a sudden started raving about burkhas and electrons and quantum mechanics at the end of a book about gods and religion.