Theistic discussion of "The God Delusion"

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Ever wondered what happens when "The God Delusion" ends up in the hands of theists?

    Interesting audio recording
    on examining Dawkin's philosophy .... or lack there of.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Cant even hear it...bad audio quality.


    Tell us...what do the Hare Krishnas have to say about Dawkins???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Whoever is doing the side of Dawkins doesn't understand the argument. The Krishna guy phrases the argument that since people are mistaken about the interpretations of what they experience, people are also mistaken about "experiencing" God. The actual argument is that personal experience alone is not a reliable data point by which to judge the question of God, since people are subject to all sorts of delusions, mass hysteria, and illusions of many sorts.

    The idea of the devine and the supernatural is a mental shortcut, the same as saying, we don't know, or can't know. The prevelence of ignorance doesn't support the idea of God either, since alternative theories about the origins of life are relatively recent.

    Actually, this is no debate at all, just one guy rambling on and on. Maybe I'll listen to the whole thing sometime, but it doesn't seem worth it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    I think this is true insofar as the supernatural is, by definition, mysterious. I doubt that this is the sole characteristic of our experience of "supernatural" phenomena, though. There are plenty of unknown things that we don't attribute to gods or spirits.

    I think a crucial difference is this: whereas the unknown can only be accessed by negating its quality of mysteriousness, most religions provide a means of purportedly interacting with a supernatural realm that preserves and even enforces its mystery. So the merely unknown and the supernatural are experienced differently. The unknown is usually confronted with wonder or curiosity. The supernatural is unknown, so these attitudes are also present; but even though it cannot be explained, the thing in question is still significant in a very personal way. We might say that there is a sense of sacredness, or as Joseph Campbell wrote, a symbolic, dreamlike expression of universal psychological truths. The method of evoking these images is ritual, and it is distinguished from the intellectual quest to explain a wondrous thing by not actually focusing on the object of wonder. A religious person is not interested in explaining his deity, nor is he interested in ensuring that his deity remains unexplained; a sacred object is, to him, inherently unexplainable, and so any attempt to delve into its specific nature would be futile. The utility of the sacred object, then, is not in its explication but in its ability to reflect and illuminate the human psyche through the power of myth.

    The reason why God is a mental shortcut for the unknown is not due to intellectual laziness but an earnest lack of interest in the thing it fails to prove. The explanation's use is not as an explanation in the same sense as science -- indeed, most myths take place in a very distant, otherwise forgotten antiquity, whose factuality would be in the traditional cultures a hopelessly moot discussion -- but in the lessons encapsulated within the mythical system, which is a metaphorical map of the unconscious landscape. The idea is to have an explanation that is believable, since an unbelievable myth lacks credibility and is quickly forgotten. Scientific fact was never around to be taken into account, although certainly our future mythologies will have to do that successfully.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    so to use the eg given in the talk, how would you propose to establish that a world exists outside of your mind then (IOW I don't think your revised explanation changes anything since it's practically impossible to present anything that corresponds to "reliable data" outside of personal experience)
    yes, that is Dawkins general idea, but like him, you have failed to provide any premise why that is so
    hence there arises the argument for god based on personal experience

    it is a bit lengthy, but it does a good job at covering practically every argument one is likely to encounter on this sub forum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if you continue listening to it for more than 3 minutes, after they have cleared up the technical hitches, you can find out for yourself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Scientific observation isn't observer dependent. Different observers will observe the same thing regardless of their beliefs.
     
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    to reiterate your suggestion, since people are subject to all sorts of mass hysteria and delusion this alone is not reliable data - this will be more clear if you begin to try and explain how the world exists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Regardless of their beliefs. A fundamentalist and an atheist would both observe a photon detector registering a one rather than a zero, for instance. A measurement on a ruler is not commonly subject to mass hysteria.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Confusion, denial, hypocrisy. Is this supposed to be surprising? :shrug:
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Observation is not subjective - only the interpretation is.

    Remove subjective interpretation and you are left with the facts of the observation. Unsurprisingly, this is why science is generally conducted with rigorous controls - to minimise any subjectivity creeping in.

    The more one leaves the door open for subjective interpretation (tautological phrase, I guess) the more one allows for mass hysteria, delusion, peer pressure and other generally unscientific thinking etc.
     
  15. baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    Observation is interpretation. (Paraphrasing Heidegger)
    Just throwing that out there.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Unless the observation is digital in nature.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    provided of course both of them were well versed enough in reading such instruments - actually your real argument is that there is no singular "reading" when it comes to theistic claims of knowledge - this is dealt with in the discussion (basically it boils down to - its no coincidence that persons who claim that theistic knowledge has no central or similar foundation are also persons who have failed to make a serious study of world religions)
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    no more surprising than your inability to discuss philosophy outside of sensational claims

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    once again, get back to us when you have something philosophical to say ....
     
  19. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    as indicated by baum, it seems you are under the grips of the "empirical delusion"
     
  20. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    observation occurs before digital registration
     
  21. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    That was a scary recording. The message appeared to be that the subjective should be valued more than the objective because 'real==delusion'.
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Are you suggesting that different people will look at a number on a screen and see different things? One person may look at a finch and see a finch, another may see an eagle? This level of skepticism is an intellectual dead end.

    The advantage of digital information is that it can be transmitted without error, which is why DNA is so great.
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    no

    I am saying that before you say "this is one" you have to observe something, unless you are talking about the mere conceptual substance of numbers
     

Share This Page