Dawkins` book is meant for the majority of people on this planet who happen to be un-read and without a post-secondary education,for sales basically.This argument that it is sophmoric is stupid.
Like Dr Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist you are pointing out how vulnerable people in our culture are because the philosophical underpinnings of arguments are lost in the slippery rhetoric. You are making very fair and reasonable statements that are quite true. Dawkin's appeal is certainly not on an intellectual level. He's a nearly complete ignoramus in such matters and can convince only people who are similarly uneducated. His argument from complexity actually disproved atheism.
I can make the same argument you made for the "invisible pink unicorn", which is also said to be spirit. Supposing god exists, what brought him into existence?
@danielodors That is a good question, but one that is irrelevant to the scope of this video. Note that the video specifically discusses the problems with Dawkins' arguments. It does not purport to prove God's existence; quite the contrary, it points out that even ATHEIST scholars recognize the errors in Dawkins' thinking.
As for what brought God into existence, that is covered by the Kalam cosmological argument and other cosmological arguments we can cover some other time.
@grammastola actually, the video does NOT discuss any problems with Dawkins' arguements. Can you point me in the direction of ONE atheist scholar that disagrees with Dawkins? There actually is NO arguement that even comes CLOSE to explaining how god would create himself, if he existed.
@PalulukanMakto With all due respect, I don't think that you were paying attention. I specifically cited Michael Ruse, for example -- a scholar, a philosopher and the world's foremost atheist debater. You also have H Allen Orr, another atheist scientist-philosopher. In contrast, scarcely an atheist philosophers have come out to support Dawkins (Daniel Dennett being the notable exception).
Respond to this video...As for your comment that no argument explains how God would create himself - with all due respect, this shows that you haven't studied the literature on this topic. Theists do NOT typically claim that God created himself; rather, they say that God is eternal and uncreated.
Besides, your objection is irrelevant. The point of this video is that Dawkins' arguments are illegitimate. The question of whether God exist is vital, but it's another question altogether.
I am sorry but, I listened to this very clearly and carefully and I you can make a pretty big list of assumptions you have made. You accuse Dawkins of assuming a lot when your whole point is an assumption. How do you assume God is a spirit to begin with? For example: Eastern byzantine churches think god is three forms for instance:the father, son, and the holy spirit.
God's existence is highly improbable.There is NO evidence for this claim.As I would discuss,it is asymptotically unprovable.
@Entertainmentwf I have addressed that several times now. As the creator of all things material, God cannot be material himself; which makes him a spirit. Second, Dawkins claims to disprove the Christian God, which is spirit in nature. For his objection to be valid, he cannot assume a material deity. Even his fellow atheists -- the philosophers I mentioned -- noted this fallacy in his reasoning, even though they themselves reject God.
You lost me at "God is a spirit". You also go on about how Dawkins makes the assumption that intelligence had to evolve beforehand, while you are guilty of the assumption that it doesn't have to. The only difference is that there isn't any proof intelligent life can exist without having to evolve first, so it's illogical to assume otherwise.
@Xentecks The traditional concept of God is that of a spirit. If Dawkins assumes that God is material, then he is not attacking God as depicted by most religions. In other words, he is attacking a strawman.
Moreover, as I have stated numerous times now, the creator of all things material must necesssarily be non-material, i.e. a spirit. That is why it is fallacious for Dawkins to treat God as though he were material, and then attack that specific depiction of God.
Biology is not a philosophy. Science is not a philosophy. Dawkins applies both biology and science to refute religious claims. Dawkins is presenting biological and scientific facts not arguments. This guy would do well to study a little neurological science...philosophy as one of the best (Wittgenstein) put it, be descending to nothing more than debate about the meaning of words. This guy is still claiming spiritual beings exist simply because he says so...where is the evidence?
@daleshankins You are incorrect. Dawkins does not merely use science and science along in his arguments. Rather, he makes philosophical arguments, some (but not all) of which use scientific tenets as part of their premises. When he talks about all the evil that has been committed in the name of religion, for example, he is stepping far beyond the realm of science. That's precisely why there has been precious little support for his work amongst real scholars -- because his work is so sloppy.
Please provide me with evidence for a scientific experiment which doesn't presuppose logic, rationality and, specifically, the laws of causality and universality.
@uvauva2 Fella, there's no easy way to say this, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to learn about the history and scope of logic before you go around insisting that it comes from mathematics. (Hint: read about Aristotelian logic, modal logic, etc., none of which are mathematical.)
I don't mind contrary views, but honestly, I don't waste time with fruitless discussions? There's no point in debating if the other person doesn't first learn the fundamentals of the topic.
@uvauva2 Fella, you don't know what you're talking about. Modal logic can be represented symbolically, but it is not purely mathematical in nature. Moreover, the Wikipedia article ITSELF emphasizes that modal logic came out of philosophy, not mathematics. The mathematical representations (and this is using the word "mathematics" in a broad sense) came LATER (again, according to Wikipedia).
But even if we disregard your case, you still haven't addressed Aristotelian logic or similar forms.
@uvauva2 I already addressed your points. Your objection regarding complexity was tackled in the video itself. Your claim that logic came from mathematics is wrong, as evidenced by your own Wikipedia link. Your claim that philosophers don't understand logic is proof that you don't grasp philosophy, and so forth. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
BTW, if you're going to invoke Wikipedia, then you should turn to the Wikipedia entry on logic. It quite clearly states that some forms of logic are philosophical in nature, and that some are mathematical; ergo, logic is not purely about mathematics. (In its broadest sense, logic came from philosophy, not from math.)
As I've said before, I believe in being patient with folks who are simply misinformed. Your claims are another matter though, and I'm not going to waste time with them. Bye.
Your critics are so poor and repleted with strawmen that I am really forced to conclude you did not really the god delusion, or at least, that your bias makes you unable to read the actual words that are there.
Whatever naivite there is in Dawkins and his arguments, and I do find some at certain points, the god delusion is for the most part a fairly solid book. I rather feel the reason philosophers feel insulted is that he does not pay homage to their silly concepts.
@uvauva2, you've demonstrated that you know how to criticize me. You've also asserted that these philosophers must surely be feeling insulted, and that this is the reason why they object to Dawkins.
What you have NOT done is demonstrate how their criticism are incorrect. It's one thing to say "All these critics of Dawkins are wrong!" It's yet another thing to systematically demonstrate the errors in their thinking.
Let's pick a specific, like your refutal of the "ultimate boeing 447" argument (3:20).
Dawkins argument is not that all complexity must have evolved, but that the complexity we can objectively observe has. By shifting this claim you create a strawman.
The actual point is that no plausible mechanism for how god does what he does is ever presented. (...)
@uvauva2 I already answered that one -- in considerable detail, I might add. The whoe notion of complexity is irrelevant when dealing with God. It assumes that God is necessarily composed of multiple interacting parts, and I provided multiple reasons why this assumption is unwarranted. Professional philosophers -- including atheistic ones -- have also noted the same fallacy in the argument that you mentioned.
I do not particularly care what professional philosophers say or not. In my experience their understanding of logic is, quite frequently, next to none. Logic is the area of expertize of mathematicians, not philosophers. Guess which one of them I am.
And since you seem to be incapable of properly reading my comment and responding accordingly, here is a shorter version to make it simple:
You can axiomatize properties for god all you want (...)
@uvauva2 Logic COMES from philosophy, not mathematics. (Math employs some logic, but only tiny subset thereof.) It's also utterly fundamental to philosophy. It would be quite foolish to dismiss the grasp of professional philosophers with regard to logic.
Fella, it's clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's also clear that you are not making a serious attempt to understand the objections of Dawkins' critics (again, both theists and atheists).
(ctd) And I am highly unimpressed with your attempt to dismiss me with appeals to authority. I might as well point to philosophers who do not agree with those objections, of which there are plenty.
If you think there is a flaw in what I said, do actually point it out. But you don't get to do appeals to authority.
@MihaZ, I have ALWAYS moderated the comments on these videos. I do not prohibit hostile comments, but I do ask that the comments be kept on topic. I say this because many hostile responders use scattershot argumentation; that is, raising angry objections that do not directly pertain to the video contents.
I also ask that the comments be kept civil, though I do sometimes allow responses such as yours. I do ask that if you're going to object, do so with civility instead of just anger and venom.
Religion is just a waste of time, what a waste of brain power. Grammastola, I'm disapointed. I expected something relevant to the topic, but you are just another theist poorly attemping to justify some bronze age nonsense with poor excuses.
So, Dawkins faith in the empirical method and it's application in matters of a transcendental nature, as mentioned in this fine video presentation, deserves ridicule by a layman such as myself. It should not have even reached this level of recognition.
By demanding proof for the existence of God, the atheist not only reveals a lack of understanding of the theists position, but show a lack of understanding of his own framework for reasoning.
The empirical method of enquiry applies only within the scope of the energy --"matter". In point of fact, it's (empiricism) limits is defined not only by the limited scope of the knowledge aquiring faculties, but also by our tendency as humans to be deceived, to cheat and lie.
The materialist-atheist's ideology is predicated on the claim there is only one energy -- "matter". The theist on the other hand posits there are two energies, "matter" and "spirit" (anti-matter). For this reason alone, theists do not require empirical proof for the existence of the individual as spirit-soul, or God.
Philosophy is weak. You can Find a valid argument for most anything, That is internally consistent, logically perfect and completely wrong.. Observation and determination of probability is a far better guide to what is, or is likely..
The God Delusion is a piece of popular culture and is unable penetrate high culture and for good reason. Dawkins is about as relevant as Dr.Phil and that's why they can be found on the same shelf.
A certain recent poster complained at great length about the fact that I have not yet posted his most recent response. Well, considering that he posted this two hours ago, and that I only got up an hour after that, I find that objection to be kinda petty.
As I've said in several other videos, I don't waste time with fruitless sniping. When someone complains that I did not immediately respond to his postings, I think that's a pretty good indication that these discussions are a waste of time.
Following up on my previous post... if a skeptic is willing to engage this discussion in a civil manner and gives indications of actually attempting to grasp the matter at hand, then I will be pleased to engage him/her. I won't necessarily give this top priority though -- after all, I have other priorities -- so if someone continues to act pettty or belligerent, or keeps raising points that were already addressed at length, then that's good reason to abandon the discussion.
With all due respect, you have it backwards, fella. There is no reason why only a physical entity can create physical matter. In fact, if something is the creator of all material things (as God is normally considered to have done), then he would have to be NON-physical. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that he created himself.
You apparently insist that only physical beings can create physical objects. Where is your proof of this claim, though? Honestly, I see no reason to accept this.
Sorry, fella, but you are making no sense. You ask me for evidence that only physical objects can create physical onjects?
Then I'dfirst like to hear YOU give us some evidence that a non-physical object can create a physical object, since it is YOU who is positing the existence of God. I make no claims whatsoever as to how the universe came into existence...but you are.
So let's hear it, fella:
Evidence that a non-physical entity can create physical things.
Fella, your ENTIRE argument hinges on the notion that only physical objects can create other physical objects. I'm asking you to back that claim up.
For my part, it's sufficient to note that there is no reason -- either scientific or philosophical -- why non-physical objects can NOT create physical ones. We have no reason to preclude this possibility, which is one of many reasons why Dawkins' argument fails.
singring76 says, "... since it is YOU who is positing the existence of God."
No, I did not. I do believe in a God, but I did use this as a premise in rebutting Dawkins. In fact, I took great pains to emphasize that even atheist scholars can see how his logic fails.
Dawkins is attacking a caricature rather than the traditional concept of God. It's easy to disprove that his caricatured version does not exist, but he does nothing to disprove God as the vast majority of religions depict him.
BTW, you might want to look up the Kalam cosmological argument, among other philosophical arguments for God's existence. The Kalam argument demonstrates why God's existence is extremely probable AND why this God must be both non-material and capable of creating matter ex nihilo.
But even without that argument, your objection still hinges on the unproven notion that only matter can create matter. As long as that claim remains unproven, Dawkins' argument remains invalid.
the kalam argument as any argument demonstrates the probability of god only if you come from the perspective that you want a god to exist. there are lots of unanswered questions, but using god as an explanation is not at all useful, because there is no need for further inquery. looking for actual answers is much more useful, although much more time consuming and difficult.
bigbrownb says, "the kalam argument as any argument demonstrates the probability of god only if you come from the perspective that you want a god to exist."
That is completely false. The Kalam argument provides principled reasons for their being a creator of some sort. When people make petty objections like that, it shows that they have not made any serious effort to understand the philosophical arguments in question.
Dawkins probably intentionally wrote his text in TGD so that his readers(majority not being bonified biologists) would eat obliviously from his manipulative hand. what a poor man indeed.....
I dont agree with Dawkins' stance on religion. However, it does make me wonder why so many people of incredible intelligence are/were secular. We've learned so much about the universe by saying, "Let's put god aside for this one."
I'm compelled to disbelieve because the constant advances in biology and neuroscience have not had a serious, organized and well-reasoned critique by any theistic scientist.
Look up research by VS Ramachandran concerning religion and the brain. Respond once you do.
sharethewealth03 syas, "...but please give the answers and not a holy book."
Did I, at any point in this discussion, cite the Bible to defend my point. NO! Not once.
You say that I should give a positive case for theism. That is EXACTLY what I do in several other videos. The point is that those who don't believe in God can see the flaws in Dawkins' argument.
The problem with Dawkins goes far beyond incomplete knowledge. His reasoning is simply fallacious, not just incomplete.
You say sloppy thinking. Obviously Dawkins does not have the answers to the fine tuning and other theories mentioned. Science builds on knowledge, you know that. Just like you know 40 yrs ago we didn't have the answer to watching videos on an ipod, or our minds believing the world was flat etc. etc. The point is you shoot him down along with the scholars but please give the answers and not a holy book. "I don't have to prove it!" Your job must be easy then, huh?
sharethewealth03: Did you even watch the video? Also, why do you bring up red herrings like the Bible when it has nothing to do with this discussion?
On topic: I honestly don't see how a smart guy (well... biology wise he is smart...) Dawkins can make such flawed arguments. Please, Dr. Dawkins, keep to the science and let the rational minds discuss God and philosophy.
Notice how bigbrownb keeps saying things like "religion belong in creative arts" and "if you have a rational mind, there is no reason to discuss god at all"? That is ad hominem argumentation, pure and simple. Instead of demonstrating the falsitiy of theistic arguments, one simply declares that they're irrational without providing any support.
I believe in God & Jesus but that doesn't mean I believe Jimmy Swaggart is an intelligent Christian thinker compared to let's say Augustine. Well bottom line Atheists. You can DENY religion & the Existence of God & STILL ADMIT Dawkins is a crappy apologist for Atheism. Because he IS! Do yourselves a favor burn your copies of TGD & go out & buy Ruse or Thomas Nagil Atheists with a brain who Theist will find genuinely challenging. Not Dawkins who is the Pat Roberson of Atheism.
I think the atheist/theist debates that attempt to PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of God hinge upon the fundamental category mistake that Dawkins makes.
You reason well, but I would say that you still show some flaws yourself. I'm a rationalist, and therefore I'm quite certain that there is no God (unless I'm shown proof for the opposite). However, you make the classic mistake of giving religion a "get out of jail free"-card. Just because we can't yet explain all the details of what free will is (it might be an illusion, and there is no clear definition of what it is), this doesn't mean it's a work of a non-materialistic spirit.
"Just because we can't yet explain all the details of what free will is (it might be an illusion, ... this doesn't mean it's a work of a non-materialistic spirit."
This goes far beyond merely being unable to explain how free will operates, Eirikizer. Free will is FUNDAMENTALLY imcompatible with everything that we know about the material world. This makes a non-material explanation far more plausible than a materialistic one.
Is that really so hard to believe? Not all philosophers do, mind you, but a significant number do. For example, one cannot account for free will in a purely materialist worldview.
Besides, as I emphasized repeatedly and at great length, even atheistic philosophers such as Michael Ruse dismiss the logic of Dawkins. Hence, even if one doesn't believe in spirits, one can still see how Dawkins' philosophizing fails to hold up under scrutiny.
"And why cant one account for free will in a purely materialist worldview?"
The answer is a matter of common sense. In a purely mechanistic view, everything is completely enslaved by the laws of physics.
And no offense, but this really is not the right forum to tutor you on the basics of philosophy. It cannot be adequately done in 500-char responses. I suggest that you do some reading on what the various philosophers believe regarding materialism.
"You lost your credibility... when you made the claim that 'God is spirit.' How do you expect anyone to take you seriously..."
I've addressed that concern repeatedly. The creator of all matter must, by necessity, be non-material, i.e. spirit (among other standard philosophical arguments). Second, Dawkins himself presupposed that God IS material. One might as well ask how anyone can take Dawkins seriously when he implicitly claims that God IS material!
You're claiming that God must be non-material. It's such a cop out and a "god of the gaps" thing to do, to claim he is non-material. To claim that he is not tangible allows you to quite conveniently dodge the awkward questions regarding his nature. If, as the religious claim, that god answers prayers and intervenes in the world, then he is very much physical by nature. Or does he switch from "spirit" to "physical" mode as he sees fit since he is infinite in scope and ability? Please.
"You're claiming that God must be non-material. It's such a cop out and a "god of the gaps" thing to do..."
No, it's not. The logic is simple: The creator of all material things must be non-material, for otherwise, he would have to create himself. This is easy to grasp, which is why I do not believe that your response is based on any serious intellectual objection.
Moreover, since Dawkins implicitly claims that God is material, then it's up to him to show that this is necessarily so.
Incidentally, as I said earlier, I find it amusing that when a theist says that god is immaterial, you get skeptics saying, "How can you possibly claim to know what God is like?"... yet when Dawkins implicitly claims that God is material, there's nary a peep of objection. I'll be discussing this type of double-standard in an upcoming video.
Clearly you are influenced by Christianity, so how on earth am I supposed to take your arguments as objective? You infer on a few occasions that God already exists. That's where the conversation must end. Until you've got objectivity, you're just a fool.
"Clearly you are influenced by Christianity, so how on earth am I supposed to take your arguments as objective?"
Whereas you -- and for that matter, Dawkins -- are clearly influenced by atheism. Does this means that we should dismiss your criticisms as being unobjective?
I, for one, do not dismiss someone's arguments simply because the person isn't objective. By that logic, we should dismiss every argument put forth by an atheists; after all, they are biased against God!
Atheism is a non-belief. I don't believe in god with as much conviction as I don't believe in Zeus or cheese fish. Therefore, my claims and my world-view are founded purely on evidence and evidence alone. My criticisms are built not on an atheistic foundation, but on a foundation of rationalism. It's all very well arguing for the existence of a deity from a metaphysical standpoint, but the fact that it can't be falsifiable ultimately diminishes any claim that god exists.
That's how SOME people use the term; however, reputable encyclopedias of philosophy specifically describe it as active disbelief. More importantly though, Dawkins himself goes far beyond mere lack of belief. He specificaly argues for God's non-existence.
And even if we granted your claim, that does nothing to refute my point that Dawkins employed sophomoric logic and philosophy -- a point that even prominent athiest reviewers agree with.
Now, darthclimo, let's suppose you're right. Let's suppose that we can logically dismiss any criticisms of Dawkins that come from the mouth of Christians on the grounds that they believe in God. (That's specious reasoning, but let's assume that it be true.)
Did I not emphasize that, by and large, even ATHEISTS like Ruse and Orr echo those same criticisms of Dawkins? Dismiss my arguments if you wish, but have I not gone to great lengths to emphasize that even atheists offer the same arguments?
Well the challenger below claims that you are yet to produce any evidence. In any case, I've read Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" and I think you should keep in mind that he is an evolutionary biologist above all else. Philosophers tend to focus more on the validity of arguments and semantics which can take away from the main point. I challenge you to answer me this: why would God not need to be something so infinitely complex and evolved? The usual answer I hear is, "'coz he's God." Ludicrous.
"Well the challenger below claims that you are yet to produce any evidence..."
And that challenger is wrong for reasons covered here and in my other videos. As for Dawkins being an evolutionary biologist above all else, that is not under dispute. The issue is whether his anti-theistic arguments hold up. They don't, which is why even fellow atheists scholars consider his work to be embarrassing.
Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you. Try dismissing the work of Christopher Hitchens. Try convincing me that Christianity is not simply absolute plagiarism from the Egyptian god, Horus. As I say to all Christians: put up or shut up. You have ZERO proof. You claim you are rational, but you're clearly not. You still believe in the the pagan solar deity, Jesus Christ. Where is the evidence? There is NONE so you attack arguments...
"Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you."
The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. This includes Dawkins when he says that there is no God.
Besides, I devoted numerous other videos to defending God's existence. Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately ignoring this fact. I don't mind debating, but I'll only do so with people who make a good faith effort to represent their opponents accurately.
"Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you."
"The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. This includes Dawkins when he says that there is no God." Dawkins DOESN'T say that there is NO GOD. He says that the chances are small that there is one. Those are two different things. "ATHEISTS can see how Dawkins is wrong." Really? I haven't meet many...
In response to the statement that even atheists can see how Dawkins is wrong, crazykb replies, "Really? I haven't met many..."
crazykb, that remark makes me think that you didn't watch the video. I devoted considerable time to documenting how an atheistic philosopher and an evolutionary biologist both expressed extreme disappointment in the quality of Dawkins' arguments. In fact, I made this point explicitly and on multiple occasions. At least one respondent even expressed anger at this.
crazykb says, "Dawkins DOESN'T say that there is NO GOD. He says that the chances are small that there is one."
Actually, he makes a stronger claim than that. He says that "there is almost certainly no God."
I'll admit that he didn't specifically say that there is NO God, but given the emphatic nature of his claim, that's ultimately a minor distinction. Besides, either way, the burden of proof is on him. He did a poor job of defending his claim, as even the atheists I mentioned emphasized.
ohh, the good all appeal to Horus and Egyptian gods. Never fails to amuse.
For further inquiry as to why these claims are borderline idiotic, check out the writings of Habermas, william lane craig, and even to "Zeitgeist refuted" here on YouTube.
For your own sake, do some research. It's easy to spout off garbage you gullup down without question from Hitchens.
I know what you're trying to accomplish here. Rather than formulate any hypothesis of your own to prove that God exists, you are left with no choice but to dissect the arguments of others for reconciliation. Since you are aiming to approach the matter philosophically and with sophistication, in which an argument can still be valid whilst not true, it is your aim to discredit to gain the upper hand. I'll concede his arguments are flawed for argument's sake, but so what? Show me your little god.
darthclimo says, "Rather than formulate any hypothesis of your own to prove that God exists, you are left with no choice but to dissect the arguments of others for reconciliation."
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I addressed the issue of God's existence in several other videos. I emphasized this repeatedly, and with all due respect, if you had been honestly attempt to follow this discussion, you would have noted that fact.
Moreover, the point remains... even ATHEISTS can see how Dawkins is wrong.
I can find criticism of the book by such, but I cannot find one shred of evidence, anywhere that Ruse said what you claim he did. Care to elaborate? Where did you get this source? Where did you find this source?
If you want to start bitching to the scientific community, you need some credibility, until then, you're a laughing stock, and you make me proud to be an Atheist.
Chuck, the quote by Michael Ruse is featured prominently on the cover of the book, "The Dawkins Delusion." The full quote says, "The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why."
You call me a laughingstock and challenge me to produce this quote so that I can have credibility. Well, the quote is there and readily verifiable. I don't wish to be harsh, but with all due respect, it seems to me that you're the one who is bitching without credibility.
BTW, chuckawobbly, if you want to see more about what Michael Ruse has to say regarding "The God Delusion," you can read his review in the Dec 2007 issue of the journal, ISIS. He even says, "Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth."
Y'know, you were awfully quick to dismiss me as a laughingstock unless I "establish credibility" -- and yet my claims are readily verifiable by any competent researcher who knows how to use Google and the library. What does that say about your hasty accusation?
So..let me get this straight... On the book it self, it's one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find?
Assuming that is true, it holds zero merit, and I found a review of the book by Ruse him self that actually shows the complete opposite opinions, although he does say there are contradictions with his study, he does NOT say anything this extreme.
"So..let me get this straight... On the book it self, it's one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find?"
I said nothing about it being the worst cricisism. 'Sides, you insinuated that Michael Ruse said no such thing, and I pointed out where he did.
You say that Ruse said the opposite. I suspect that you're in error, especially since I cited the ISIS journal article where he spoke disparagingly of Dawkins' work. You say that I fail, and yet you have not cited the source for your claim.
You lost your credibility at around 4:42 when you made the claim that "God is spirit." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you are making claims about the substance, material, or the essence the mythical being, God? Clearly you know more about the nature of God than Professor Dawkins does since you've encountered Him yourself. I don't know what you are actually attempting to do with this video, but I have to say, it's pretty weak.
You can critique "the God delusion" but to say Richard Dawkins books show sloppy thinking is totally fallacious! The ideas behind the selfish gene are now widely accepted as fact, "The blind watchmaker", was nothing really new but like his other books built on the idea of Evolution by natural selection and showed that apparent design in nature is just the end result of Evolution.
Dntcare84, you cannot logically defend "The God Delusion" by insisting that his other books ("The Selfish Gene," "The Blind Watchmaker") are widely accepted as fact. It's that kind of reasoning which is fallacious! Moreover, some of the ideas contained therein are not yet accepted, such as his theory of memes.
Moreover, I presented multiple reasons why "The God Delusion" is fallacious, as supported by even atheist scholars. You ASSERT that these are false, but that's only an assertion.
@grammastola; Memes are by far the most unscientific analogies created by an Atheist to describe the gradual process of passing virus' of the mind from one to another.
And since your representation is incorrect, that is an irrelevant objection.
It is NOT 'one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find.' Dawkins did not search for this criticism; rather, Ruse offered it voluntarily.
You said that I would be a laughingstock if I did not substantiate my claim regarding Ruse... and yet you have not substantiated your claim. What does that say? That strikes me as a serious double standard.
So Chuck, please do cite the review in which Michael Ruse said "the complete opposite opinions." Remember, we're not looking for an article where he merely had a few positive things to say about Dawkins. Rather, I ask you to cite a review wherein he applauded Dawkins for the extreme quality of his research and logic.
You dripped with contempt as you called me a laughingstock. I won't stoop to that level, but I do expect you to follow the same standard that you demanded me to uphold.
One more things, Chuck... Let's say that you DO find a review by Ruse which says the exact opposite of what he said elsewhere. Why should we assume that your review automatically trumps the ones I cited? One could just as easily say that my cites contradict yours and so YOU lose.
I hope you see that I won't let you get away with making unsubstatiated statements, esp since you harsly accused me of that very thing. Let's examine this review that you mentioned and see what it SPECIFICALLY says.
Holy shit, all that and all you managed to accomplish was completely DODGE my question, AND and the SAME TIME reverse the argument?
I am impressed!
You fail to tell me where the quote is from. The cover of a book, is not enough. I did not tell you, that you said it was his worst criticism, anything plastered on the cover of your book that pisses people off isn't the best either.
Epic fail, weightless arguments, I asked for material, and you gave me crab shit.
"You fail to tell me where the quote is from. The cover of a book, is not enough."
Nonsense. It is more that sufficient, ESPECIALLY since it is corroborated by similar comments that Michael Ruse made in his ISIS paper.
You expressed doubt that Ruse ever made such a comment, and I pointed out where he did. Your refusal to accept it is not based on a lack of evidence; rather, it's based on an obvious refusal to accept the possibility that Ruse is not a fan of Dawkins's book.
"Holy shit, all that and all you managed to accomplish was completely DODGE my question, AND and the SAME TIME reverse the argument?
I did not dodge the question. You asked where the quote was from and I told you. You might not like the fact that it appeared on the cover of "The Dawkins Delusion," but that doe snot make in inauthetic.
As for 'reversing the argument,' I merely ask that you abide by the same standard to which you hold me. I think that's fair, even though some don't like it.
One more thing, Gramma, why are you even bothering? All I asked, was the source, and your responce? The cover of a freakin book. Yes, I agree that if he hadn't of said it why would Dawkins put it there in the first place, but you FAIL to tell me where it came from.
I found no evidence of where it came from, and found a review that contradicts what you're telling me.
Burden of proof. You claim it's there. Prove it. Christians, you believe anything you read.
"One more thing, Gramma, why are you even bothering? All I asked, was the source..."
Oh, you did quite a bit more than that, and you know it. You also went into a diatribe about how I'd be a laughingstock if I could not produce the source, which is obviously more than a simple request for information.
You demand burden of proof yet refuse to substantiate your own claim about some review where Ruse spoke glowingly of Dawkins' book. I won't waste time with you if that's how you want to play.
I see what you mean with these comments grammastola, atheists are impossible to debate with. It's like talking with the pig in "Pearls before Swine" LOL.
I found Dawkins' book to be more of a childish rant trying to justify why he doesn't like religion than anything else. However, I do hope you are not lumping Dawkins in with other atheists or atheism. It's a common tactic, and it's dishonest. To your credit, you say yourself that atheist philosophers think the work is poor, and I myself, as a sceptic, was not impressed with it either.
Good scientist, poor philosopher. I think most serious thinkers take him as a populariser than a revolutionary.
"However, I do hope you are not lumping Dawkins in with other atheists or atheism. It's a common tactic, and it's dishonest."
No, I'm not doing that. As you yourself observed, I emphasized that various atheists are disgusted with his work.
As far as I'm concerned, if other atheists are wrong, it won't be because of Dawkins' beliefs. Dawkins is in a whole 'nuther class. Michael Ruse and company are right to be embarassed by his work.
Very good video, very well presented. I have also found that a lot of atheists simply use flawed arguements, fail to show balanced information and use straw man type arguements
unclexbob is making a big deal of the fact that I said that the Bible says that God is spirit, not a physical entity. In his mind, this is "using the Bible to prove the Bible."
That's an intellectually dishonest objection. First, I was citing this as one of *multiple* independent arguments for God's non-corporeality. Second, my objection is that Dawkins attacks a strawman distortion of the Christian God. Moreover, my other videos show that I do not use that argument for believing the Bible.
Great video Dean, I am an avid watcher, and concur with most of your points. My only contention would be to the statement you made regarding atrocities committed in the name of religion. I contend, that by biblical standards, the acts such as the Inquisition, and so forth cannot be attributed to being Biblically inspired, but the actions of depraved sinful man using the name of God to promote man's purposes. There is also a great distinction between world religion,and Christianity.
Actually, Boanerges, I agree with you on that point. I agree that the Inquisition, etc were not based on true Biblical standards. That's why I take care to blame them on 'religion,' which is a broader term.
Also, in a previous video, I emphasized that when people who call themselves Christian commit such acts, they are VIOLATING Christian teaching rather than acting it out.
Agreed my brother, and yes I have heard you allude to this point as well in previous videos. For the non theist mindset, such as Dawkins, they have a tendancy to compile religion into one mass of myopic false assertion, and then pull tenets of multiple denominationally unrelated babble, and then put the proverbial cherry of Christianity on top. It completely exposes their ignorance of any doctrine, much less Christian doctrine. Keep up the good work Dean!
I'd love to debate dawkins about weather or not casu marzu cheese deserves to be placed in an art museum next to marcel duchamps "fountain", if I were better educated and prepered i might debate him on the existence of God. Still if you can get dawkins to debate Dr. Ravi Zacharias or grammastola, and Dr Zakir Naaik I'll bring the popcorn .
Thanks for asking, bluevaines. I've seen a good number of theist-atheist debates, but I haven't seen any where Dawkins was involved.
I would certainly consider debating Dawkins, but I'd prefer it if a more experienced and seasoned debater were to do so. It's been many years since I've been in a formal debate. I think the main challenge with Dawkins would be dealing with his wild, somewhat scattered argumentation style, which more careful atheist debaters avoid using.
Let me break it down for ya Einstein. If you want to believe that before anything existed there was a spirit floating around in the nothingness who at some point waved his magical arm and poofed the universe into being thats fine. When you have evidence for this other than an old, over-edited, self-contradicting, story book let me know and I might take you seriously.
Congratulations, floydoid. You have demonstrated that you can hurt insults, invectives, and flat-out asssertions around. Perhaps you consider that an accomplishment.
What you have NOT done is refute anything I said in this video. As for proving the Bible to be true, I did not attempt such a proof in this vid, and you know it. That's because I specifically chose to focus on a different issue: Dawkins. If you consider this to be some grievious failing though, then obviously, I can't stop you.
Excuse me, but you've gotten Dawkins's position on the apparent fine-tuning of the universe completely backwards. You suggest that his unwillingness to come to any conclusions, and willingness to wait and seek out more evidence, is "poor philosophy"? You suggest by not coming to the conclusion that "God-did-it", he has jumped the gun somehow... just plain backwards, man.
Looking for answers the line up with reality is not a bad goal to have, yet you make it sound like his mind is closed.
"Excuse me, but you've gotten Dawkins's position on the apparent fine-tuning of the universe completely backwards"
You are the one who is misconstruing the position of Dawkins. Dawkins does not merely say that we should not come to any conclusions. Rather, he insist that there IS a naturalistic explanation, and that we must continue searching for it. This is a far, far cry from saying that he is merely unwilling to arrive at any conclusions.
To underscore what I said about Dawkins and the fine-tuning problem, one need only consult pages 157 and 158, in which Dawkins offers his central argument against God's existence. Point #6 in this argument says "We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology" -- and based on this, he says that God almost certainly does not exist. That is a far, far cry from mere "unwillingness to come to any conclusions"!
Steven J.Gould was quoted in "The Language of God" by Dr. Francis Collins, to give scolding remarks towards his colleagues who keep using evolution to disprove the existence of God.
All evolution disproves is a literal interpretation of Genesis and nothing else. It speaks nothing of the existence of God or the relationship between God and creation.
As Dr. Francis Collins put it, Dawkins likes to erect Christian straw men and tear them down with great relish.
"Dawkins likes to erect Christian straw men and tear them down with great relish." Seems he'd be fun to see debate Dr Zakir Naaik. Dr. Naaik likes to erect atheist strawmen and tear them down with great relish.
I don't know who Dr. Zakir Naaik is, so your statement means nothing to me. Intellectual dishonesty, be it by a theist or an atheist is still simply that, dishonest.
A more relevant debate to review would be the one Dawkins had with Collins, since those are the two figures being mentioned first. You can find it in Time Magazine's archive.
"I don't know who Dr. Zakir Naaik is, so your statement means nothing to me. Intellectual dishonesty, be it by a theist or an atheist is still simply that, dishonest."
With all due respect, I strongly suspect that this is exactly why joness105639 said that it would be interesting to see Dawkins debate Dr. Naaik. They use the same tactics, but are on different sides. Joness105639 is not the type of guy who would endorse the tactic itself.
If this is true about doctors Dawkins and Naaik, then I think the debate would probably be pointless and go nowhere, because any debate worth watching would enlighten both sides and engender deeper understandings in the subject.
However, I see your point. It would be like having two straw men fight each other in the Roman Colosseum. They would annihilate each other, and all you'd have left would be ash.
Good video. I've really never understood why he or this book is so popular. To be completely honest I think it just shows how philosophically illiterate most people are. If we use just a bit of critical thinking on his argument, 5 of his 6 premises don't even contribute to the argument itself, and the conclusion completely comes out of left field.
Absolutely fantastic video Dean. This is one of my favorites. I wanted to make a video on The God Delusion but you really hit the nail on the head here man. Excellent job.
Appreciate the carefully thought out videos. This one is particularly interesting because there are so many members of Richardanity nowadays. No offense.
Regarding to the various evils ascribed to religion, Dawkins' point was not that religion was necessarily evil, but that it is not the purveyor of morals, but rather it reflects the morals of society. If there is an evil to this its that by ascribing supernatural origins to these morals, it allows possibly detrimental ideas to persist.
"... Dawkins' point was not that religion was necessarily evil, but that it is not the purveyor of morals..."
Not true. In fact, in 2006, Dawkins produced a two-part documentary titled "The Root of all Evil" in which he lambastes religion. This goes far beyond merely saying that religion does not purvey morals.
And even if that were his intent, it would still be invalid to ignore the good done by religion or the evils done when it is absent. Any thorough discussion should consider those.
BTW, some would insist that Dawkins did not choose the title of that video. That's beside the point, though. In that video and in his other writings, he argues that the world would be better off without religion -- yet fails to consider what does happen when religion is eliminated. Even in the God Delusion, his caustic remarks go far beyond merely saying that religion isn't sufficiently good (and he paints religion with an extremely broad brush to boot!).
sadly, religious people are so busy connecting everything with religion, then have given it a much larger role in the world than it really has.
Dawkins point is pretty simple. Whether or not you label good things under it or bad things under it, its very nature breeds isolation, discourages rational thought and knowledge, falsely projects "absolutes", things that can't be questioned, and is in general much easier to use abusively than what is opposite of religion. That being, rational thought
unclexbob says, "Dawkins point is pretty simple. Whether or not you label good things under it or bad things under it, its very nature breeds isolation..."
No, he says a great deal more than that, and you know it. Moreover, he falls far short of substantiating his points, which is why even atheist philosophers are disgusted with his work.
I had thought I had responded to this earler, but hadn't noticed before that you have comment approval on. So I don't know if you didn't approve my last comment or not
Either way, the fact that you DO have comment approval on, proves my case exactly. Its very popular for the religious to severely limit speech.
That being said, (assume you allow this comment) I'm going to stop wasting my time. You aren't interested in open dialog.
"Its very popular for the religious to severely limit speech."
Sir, I moderate the comments in order to keep the discussion on track -- to limit off-topic remarks, gross misrepresentations, and ad hominem remarks. Those happen a lot in discussions like this, as evidenced in this discussion. Of course, this will cause some peopel to complain, but if they're not going to act that way, then I'm not going to waste time with them. They can speak their mind, but I don't have to provide their venue.
Regarding your comments on probability, you are confusing the overall probability with specific probablity. In your example, any person has a 1 in 3 chance of having an STD based on their nationality. If I take into account other variables, then of course the original percentage is not accurate. It doesn't change that it is valid for its original parameters. In addition, you will find that Dawkins considers the overall probability of God to be small by taking all arguments into account.
"Regarding your comments on probability, you are confusing the overall probability with specific probablity."
No, I'm not. Moreover, why would you settle for the less accurate "general" probability over more specific probability that is based on more data? The only possible motivation for doing so would be to stack the deck in one's favor, which is something that Dawkins does often.
As to your assertion that God is spirit, twhat is that but speculation on your part? And the classification of God as a spiritual being does nothing to explain omnipotence, omniscience, and the ability to interact with the physical world. These are all assumptions you must make in order for the God hypothesis to be true, but there is no evidence for that. It is believed that humans have a spirit. Does that mean that all humans are deified upon death? If not why not?
"As to your assertion that God is spirit, twhat is that but speculation on your part? "
No, it's beyond mere speculation. First, it's what the Scriptures say. If Dawkins is going to say that the Biblical concept of God is wrong, then it's specious of him to paint a god that is non-spirit.
Second, any God that created all matter and energy must be something other than matter and energy. Ergo, this is not just mere speculation.
That's right, which is why I don't assume the Bible to be true in order to prove it's truthfulness. As you know full well though, I made no such claim in this video.
Is this going to be yet another situation in which someone challenges me to defend a position that I have not endorsed? That happens an awful lot around here.
With all due respect, unclexbob, you are the one who is not paying attention. I did NOT use the Bible to prove the Bible. In fact, as I have already emphasized, I did not attempt any proof of the Bible at all in this video. Rather, I was addressing the claims of Dawkins -- as the title of the video implies.
Please show us where I attempted to prove the Bible in this video. Take your time though, because you'll be searching for an awfully long time.
"again, I didn't say you said it in the video. I said you said it in the comment I replied to.
'First, it's what the Scriptures say.'"
Fella, that is NOT the same as using the Bible to prove the Bible. I was presenting the Christian concept of God, which is what Dawkins was attacking. If he's going to attack that concept, he needs to present it accurately. That's just common sense.
I'm 100% convinced that you know this distinction, but are deliberately ignoring it.
He was referring to where you said, "No, it's beyond mere speculation. First, it's what the Scriptures say. If Dawkins is going to say that the Biblical concept of God is wrong, then it's specious of him to paint a god that is non-spirit." It was a knee jerk reaction on his part left unsubstantiated and IMO displays a misunderstanding of your argument.
I disagree, it is speculation, as we cannot quantify a spirit. How do you know that spirits are not complex? As I said above, we are supposed to have a spirit that leaves the body after death. Ddoes that make us equal to god after death? Not according to the Bible. Therefore the term spirit is inadequate, it is non-descriptive and it is conjecture to award it the contradicting properties that you need to make your argument work.
"I disagree, it is speculation, as we cannot quantify a spirit."
What a bizarre argument! We cannot quantify love, or thoughts, or dreams, or insight, or inspiration, yet nobody would call them speculative. Heck, Dawkins himself complains about religious evil, yet we cannot quantify evil -- and you know it.
This is how I know that you're not arguing honestly. Instead of using first principles, you're taking a position and then arguing backwards to plug up it's leaks. It's a waste of time.
Dawkins' complexity argument comes to counter the argument that God must exist because the world is complex. You are free to consider that a simpler structure can create a more complex one (I agree, as evolution shows exactly that) but then you can't use complexity as proof of God (You didn't do that here of course, but the argument exists, and therefore Dawkins is justified in his attempt at refuting it)
Regarding the anthropic principle, I do not see why it is sloppy thinking, unless it is because it nullifies a quest for meaning that you consider important. That doesn't follow. It may not disprove the existence of deeper meaning, but it is a valid possibility.
Dawkins` book is meant for the majority of people on this planet who happen to be un-read and without a post-secondary education,for sales basically.This argument that it is sophmoric is stupid.
PAULOcbi 9 months ago
Like Dr Anthony Rizzi, a distinguished physicist you are pointing out how vulnerable people in our culture are because the philosophical underpinnings of arguments are lost in the slippery rhetoric. You are making very fair and reasonable statements that are quite true. Dawkin's appeal is certainly not on an intellectual level. He's a nearly complete ignoramus in such matters and can convince only people who are similarly uneducated. His argument from complexity actually disproved atheism.
Youdamana 11 months ago
I can make the same argument you made for the "invisible pink unicorn", which is also said to be spirit. Supposing god exists, what brought him into existence?
danielodors 1 year ago
@danielodors That is a good question, but one that is irrelevant to the scope of this video. Note that the video specifically discusses the problems with Dawkins' arguments. It does not purport to prove God's existence; quite the contrary, it points out that even ATHEIST scholars recognize the errors in Dawkins' thinking.
As for what brought God into existence, that is covered by the Kalam cosmological argument and other cosmological arguments we can cover some other time.
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola actually, the video does NOT discuss any problems with Dawkins' arguements. Can you point me in the direction of ONE atheist scholar that disagrees with Dawkins? There actually is NO arguement that even comes CLOSE to explaining how god would create himself, if he existed.
PalulukanMakto 8 months ago
@PalulukanMakto With all due respect, I don't think that you were paying attention. I specifically cited Michael Ruse, for example -- a scholar, a philosopher and the world's foremost atheist debater. You also have H Allen Orr, another atheist scientist-philosopher. In contrast, scarcely an atheist philosophers have come out to support Dawkins (Daniel Dennett being the notable exception).
grammastola 8 months ago
Respond to this video...As for your comment that no argument explains how God would create himself - with all due respect, this shows that you haven't studied the literature on this topic. Theists do NOT typically claim that God created himself; rather, they say that God is eternal and uncreated.
Besides, your objection is irrelevant. The point of this video is that Dawkins' arguments are illegitimate. The question of whether God exist is vital, but it's another question altogether.
grammastola 8 months ago
oh dear what a load if nonsense.........i was bored after two minutes!!
happyhammer43 1 year ago
I am sorry but, I listened to this very clearly and carefully and I you can make a pretty big list of assumptions you have made. You accuse Dawkins of assuming a lot when your whole point is an assumption. How do you assume God is a spirit to begin with? For example: Eastern byzantine churches think god is three forms for instance:the father, son, and the holy spirit.
God's existence is highly improbable.There is NO evidence for this claim.As I would discuss,it is asymptotically unprovable.
Entertainmentwf 1 year ago
@Entertainmentwf I have addressed that several times now. As the creator of all things material, God cannot be material himself; which makes him a spirit. Second, Dawkins claims to disprove the Christian God, which is spirit in nature. For his objection to be valid, he cannot assume a material deity. Even his fellow atheists -- the philosophers I mentioned -- noted this fallacy in his reasoning, even though they themselves reject God.
grammastola 1 year ago
You lost me at "God is a spirit". You also go on about how Dawkins makes the assumption that intelligence had to evolve beforehand, while you are guilty of the assumption that it doesn't have to. The only difference is that there isn't any proof intelligent life can exist without having to evolve first, so it's illogical to assume otherwise.
Xentecks 1 year ago
@Xentecks The traditional concept of God is that of a spirit. If Dawkins assumes that God is material, then he is not attacking God as depicted by most religions. In other words, he is attacking a strawman.
Moreover, as I have stated numerous times now, the creator of all things material must necesssarily be non-material, i.e. a spirit. That is why it is fallacious for Dawkins to treat God as though he were material, and then attack that specific depiction of God.
grammastola 1 year ago
Biology is not a philosophy. Science is not a philosophy. Dawkins applies both biology and science to refute religious claims. Dawkins is presenting biological and scientific facts not arguments. This guy would do well to study a little neurological science...philosophy as one of the best (Wittgenstein) put it, be descending to nothing more than debate about the meaning of words. This guy is still claiming spiritual beings exist simply because he says so...where is the evidence?
daleshankins 1 year ago
@daleshankins You are incorrect. Dawkins does not merely use science and science along in his arguments. Rather, he makes philosophical arguments, some (but not all) of which use scientific tenets as part of their premises. When he talks about all the evil that has been committed in the name of religion, for example, he is stepping far beyond the realm of science. That's precisely why there has been precious little support for his work amongst real scholars -- because his work is so sloppy.
grammastola 1 year ago
@daleshankins
"Science is not a philosophy."
Please provide me with evidence for a scientific experiment which doesn't presuppose logic, rationality and, specifically, the laws of causality and universality.
Birdieupon 1 year ago
@uvauva2 Fella, there's no easy way to say this, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to learn about the history and scope of logic before you go around insisting that it comes from mathematics. (Hint: read about Aristotelian logic, modal logic, etc., none of which are mathematical.)
I don't mind contrary views, but honestly, I don't waste time with fruitless discussions? There's no point in debating if the other person doesn't first learn the fundamentals of the topic.
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola Ignorant and arrogant about it... you're going to go a long way.
Google for the wikipidea page on "modal logic", where you be able to see it's mathematical axiomatization.
Furthermore, the rigor of any common speech form of logic is dependent on it's expressibility in terms of formal(=mathematical) logic.
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 Fella, you don't know what you're talking about. Modal logic can be represented symbolically, but it is not purely mathematical in nature. Moreover, the Wikipedia article ITSELF emphasizes that modal logic came out of philosophy, not mathematics. The mathematical representations (and this is using the word "mathematics" in a broad sense) came LATER (again, according to Wikipedia).
But even if we disregard your case, you still haven't addressed Aristotelian logic or similar forms.
grammastola 1 year ago
@uvauva2 I already addressed your points. Your objection regarding complexity was tackled in the video itself. Your claim that logic came from mathematics is wrong, as evidenced by your own Wikipedia link. Your claim that philosophers don't understand logic is proof that you don't grasp philosophy, and so forth. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola
And I still wait for you to stop with the evasives and actually address the points.
Plus, your appeals to authority are rather week when you make demonstrably false claims, like modal logic not being mathematics.
In fact, small note: Don't try to tell a mathematician what mathematics is when your knowledge of the subject is void.
uvauva2 1 year ago
BTW, if you're going to invoke Wikipedia, then you should turn to the Wikipedia entry on logic. It quite clearly states that some forms of logic are philosophical in nature, and that some are mathematical; ergo, logic is not purely about mathematics. (In its broadest sense, logic came from philosophy, not from math.)
As I've said before, I believe in being patient with folks who are simply misinformed. Your claims are another matter though, and I'm not going to waste time with them. Bye.
grammastola 1 year ago
Your critics are so poor and repleted with strawmen that I am really forced to conclude you did not really the god delusion, or at least, that your bias makes you unable to read the actual words that are there.
Whatever naivite there is in Dawkins and his arguments, and I do find some at certain points, the god delusion is for the most part a fairly solid book. I rather feel the reason philosophers feel insulted is that he does not pay homage to their silly concepts.
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2, you've demonstrated that you know how to criticize me. You've also asserted that these philosophers must surely be feeling insulted, and that this is the reason why they object to Dawkins.
What you have NOT done is demonstrate how their criticism are incorrect. It's one thing to say "All these critics of Dawkins are wrong!" It's yet another thing to systematically demonstrate the errors in their thinking.
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola
Fair enough.
Let's pick a specific, like your refutal of the "ultimate boeing 447" argument (3:20).
Dawkins argument is not that all complexity must have evolved, but that the complexity we can objectively observe has. By shifting this claim you create a strawman.
The actual point is that no plausible mechanism for how god does what he does is ever presented. (...)
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 I already answered that one -- in considerable detail, I might add. The whoe notion of complexity is irrelevant when dealing with God. It assumes that God is necessarily composed of multiple interacting parts, and I provided multiple reasons why this assumption is unwarranted. Professional philosophers -- including atheistic ones -- have also noted the same fallacy in the argument that you mentioned.
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola
I do not particularly care what professional philosophers say or not. In my experience their understanding of logic is, quite frequently, next to none. Logic is the area of expertize of mathematicians, not philosophers. Guess which one of them I am.
And since you seem to be incapable of properly reading my comment and responding accordingly, here is a shorter version to make it simple:
You can axiomatize properties for god all you want (...)
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 Logic COMES from philosophy, not mathematics. (Math employs some logic, but only tiny subset thereof.) It's also utterly fundamental to philosophy. It would be quite foolish to dismiss the grasp of professional philosophers with regard to logic.
Fella, it's clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's also clear that you are not making a serious attempt to understand the objections of Dawkins' critics (again, both theists and atheists).
grammastola 1 year ago
@grammastola
(ctd) And I am highly unimpressed with your attempt to dismiss me with appeals to authority. I might as well point to philosophers who do not agree with those objections, of which there are plenty.
If you think there is a flaw in what I said, do actually point it out. But you don't get to do appeals to authority.
uvauva2 1 year ago
Oh and you are moderating comments? Wow, way to fail!
MihaZ 1 year ago
@MihaZ, I have ALWAYS moderated the comments on these videos. I do not prohibit hostile comments, but I do ask that the comments be kept on topic. I say this because many hostile responders use scattershot argumentation; that is, raising angry objections that do not directly pertain to the video contents.
I also ask that the comments be kept civil, though I do sometimes allow responses such as yours. I do ask that if you're going to object, do so with civility instead of just anger and venom.
grammastola 1 year ago
Religion is just a waste of time, what a waste of brain power. Grammastola, I'm disapointed. I expected something relevant to the topic, but you are just another theist poorly attemping to justify some bronze age nonsense with poor excuses.
MihaZ 1 year ago
(..cont)
So, Dawkins faith in the empirical method and it's application in matters of a transcendental nature, as mentioned in this fine video presentation, deserves ridicule by a layman such as myself. It should not have even reached this level of recognition.
mhearstify 2 years ago
Wow my first encounter with moderated comments...
Have no idea my 2 part comment took oe messed up. Heh. Anyway my 2 cents worth
mhearstify 2 years ago
By demanding proof for the existence of God, the atheist not only reveals a lack of understanding of the theists position, but show a lack of understanding of his own framework for reasoning.
The empirical method of enquiry applies only within the scope of the energy --"matter". In point of fact, it's (empiricism) limits is defined not only by the limited scope of the knowledge aquiring faculties, but also by our tendency as humans to be deceived, to cheat and lie.
(cont..)
mhearstify 2 years ago
The materialist-atheist's ideology is predicated on the claim there is only one energy -- "matter". The theist on the other hand posits there are two energies, "matter" and "spirit" (anti-matter). For this reason alone, theists do not require empirical proof for the existence of the individual as spirit-soul, or God.
(cont..)
mhearstify 2 years ago
Philosophy is weak. You can Find a valid argument for most anything, That is internally consistent, logically perfect and completely wrong.. Observation and determination of probability is a far better guide to what is, or is likely..
TommyPrimate 2 years ago
@TommyPrimate
"Philosophy is weak."
Then please explain the rise of science.
"You can Find a valid argument for most anything, That is internally consistent, logically perfect and completely wrong.. "
Give us one please.
"bservation and determination of probability is a far better guide to what is, or is likely..."
Is that your philosophy?
Birdieupon 1 year ago
The God Delusion is a piece of popular culture and is unable penetrate high culture and for good reason. Dawkins is about as relevant as Dr.Phil and that's why they can be found on the same shelf.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Run away best-seller, shows the state irrationality in US
Pdrum2 2 years ago
A certain recent poster complained at great length about the fact that I have not yet posted his most recent response. Well, considering that he posted this two hours ago, and that I only got up an hour after that, I find that objection to be kinda petty.
As I've said in several other videos, I don't waste time with fruitless sniping. When someone complains that I did not immediately respond to his postings, I think that's a pretty good indication that these discussions are a waste of time.
grammastola 2 years ago
Following up on my previous post... if a skeptic is willing to engage this discussion in a civil manner and gives indications of actually attempting to grasp the matter at hand, then I will be pleased to engage him/her. I won't necessarily give this top priority though -- after all, I have other priorities -- so if someone continues to act pettty or belligerent, or keeps raising points that were already addressed at length, then that's good reason to abandon the discussion.
grammastola 2 years ago
You accuse Dawkins of sloppy philosophy, yet at 4:50 you pull out the biggest whopper of inconsistent reasoning I have ever come across:
You say that 'God is incorporeal' and that God is spirit. Yet you also postulate that he created the universe. The universe is physical.
Explain to me how a non-physocal entity can impact or let alone create a physical universe, please.
singring76 2 years ago
With all due respect, you have it backwards, fella. There is no reason why only a physical entity can create physical matter. In fact, if something is the creator of all material things (as God is normally considered to have done), then he would have to be NON-physical. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that he created himself.
You apparently insist that only physical beings can create physical objects. Where is your proof of this claim, though? Honestly, I see no reason to accept this.
grammastola 2 years ago
Sorry, fella, but you are making no sense. You ask me for evidence that only physical objects can create physical onjects?
Then I'dfirst like to hear YOU give us some evidence that a non-physical object can create a physical object, since it is YOU who is positing the existence of God. I make no claims whatsoever as to how the universe came into existence...but you are.
So let's hear it, fella:
Evidence that a non-physical entity can create physical things.
singring76 2 years ago
Fella, your ENTIRE argument hinges on the notion that only physical objects can create other physical objects. I'm asking you to back that claim up.
For my part, it's sufficient to note that there is no reason -- either scientific or philosophical -- why non-physical objects can NOT create physical ones. We have no reason to preclude this possibility, which is one of many reasons why Dawkins' argument fails.
grammastola 2 years ago
singring76 says, "... since it is YOU who is positing the existence of God."
No, I did not. I do believe in a God, but I did use this as a premise in rebutting Dawkins. In fact, I took great pains to emphasize that even atheist scholars can see how his logic fails.
Dawkins is attacking a caricature rather than the traditional concept of God. It's easy to disprove that his caricatured version does not exist, but he does nothing to disprove God as the vast majority of religions depict him.
grammastola 2 years ago
BTW, you might want to look up the Kalam cosmological argument, among other philosophical arguments for God's existence. The Kalam argument demonstrates why God's existence is extremely probable AND why this God must be both non-material and capable of creating matter ex nihilo.
But even without that argument, your objection still hinges on the unproven notion that only matter can create matter. As long as that claim remains unproven, Dawkins' argument remains invalid.
grammastola 2 years ago
@grammastola; I love Dr Williams Lane Craigs work! I just spent $150 on getting "Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity".
I am guessing you have read "Reasonable Faith"?
dimic 2 years ago
dr. craig is an idiot. talk about false arguments. belief in god doesn't belong in science. nor in philosophy. it belongs in creative arts.
brownbigb 2 years ago
the kalam argument as any argument demonstrates the probability of god only if you come from the perspective that you want a god to exist. there are lots of unanswered questions, but using god as an explanation is not at all useful, because there is no need for further inquery. looking for actual answers is much more useful, although much more time consuming and difficult.
brownbigb 2 years ago
bigbrownb says, "the kalam argument as any argument demonstrates the probability of god only if you come from the perspective that you want a god to exist."
That is completely false. The Kalam argument provides principled reasons for their being a creator of some sort. When people make petty objections like that, it shows that they have not made any serious effort to understand the philosophical arguments in question.
grammastola 2 years ago
Dawkins probably intentionally wrote his text in TGD so that his readers(majority not being bonified biologists) would eat obliviously from his manipulative hand. what a poor man indeed.....
JONK1NG 3 years ago
I dont agree with Dawkins' stance on religion. However, it does make me wonder why so many people of incredible intelligence are/were secular. We've learned so much about the universe by saying, "Let's put god aside for this one."
I'm compelled to disbelieve because the constant advances in biology and neuroscience have not had a serious, organized and well-reasoned critique by any theistic scientist.
Look up research by VS Ramachandran concerning religion and the brain. Respond once you do.
flayktheone 3 years ago
sharethewealth03 syas, "...but please give the answers and not a holy book."
Did I, at any point in this discussion, cite the Bible to defend my point. NO! Not once.
You say that I should give a positive case for theism. That is EXACTLY what I do in several other videos. The point is that those who don't believe in God can see the flaws in Dawkins' argument.
The problem with Dawkins goes far beyond incomplete knowledge. His reasoning is simply fallacious, not just incomplete.
grammastola 3 years ago
You say sloppy thinking. Obviously Dawkins does not have the answers to the fine tuning and other theories mentioned. Science builds on knowledge, you know that. Just like you know 40 yrs ago we didn't have the answer to watching videos on an ipod, or our minds believing the world was flat etc. etc. The point is you shoot him down along with the scholars but please give the answers and not a holy book. "I don't have to prove it!" Your job must be easy then, huh?
sharethewealth03 3 years ago
sharethewealth03: Did you even watch the video? Also, why do you bring up red herrings like the Bible when it has nothing to do with this discussion?
On topic: I honestly don't see how a smart guy (well... biology wise he is smart...) Dawkins can make such flawed arguments. Please, Dr. Dawkins, keep to the science and let the rational minds discuss God and philosophy.
CmRoddy 3 years ago
religion belong in creative arts, not in philosophy. and if you have a rational mind, there is no reason to discuss god at all.
brownbigb 2 years ago
Notice how bigbrownb keeps saying things like "religion belong in creative arts" and "if you have a rational mind, there is no reason to discuss god at all"? That is ad hominem argumentation, pure and simple. Instead of demonstrating the falsitiy of theistic arguments, one simply declares that they're irrational without providing any support.
grammastola 2 years ago
Dawkins is lame.
megawolf7 3 years ago
I believe in God & Jesus but that doesn't mean I believe Jimmy Swaggart is an intelligent Christian thinker compared to let's say Augustine. Well bottom line Atheists. You can DENY religion & the Existence of God & STILL ADMIT Dawkins is a crappy apologist for Atheism. Because he IS! Do yourselves a favor burn your copies of TGD & go out & buy Ruse or Thomas Nagil Atheists with a brain who Theist will find genuinely challenging. Not Dawkins who is the Pat Roberson of Atheism.
jamesms4 3 years ago
Very good video. Very well done and well presented, and well argued.
chrisman737 3 years ago 2
Sure, God is not complex. He is MAGIC! :)
A3A3adamsan 3 years ago
I think the atheist/theist debates that attempt to PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of God hinge upon the fundamental category mistake that Dawkins makes.
DJAnihilist 3 years ago 2
You reason well, but I would say that you still show some flaws yourself. I'm a rationalist, and therefore I'm quite certain that there is no God (unless I'm shown proof for the opposite). However, you make the classic mistake of giving religion a "get out of jail free"-card. Just because we can't yet explain all the details of what free will is (it might be an illusion, and there is no clear definition of what it is), this doesn't mean it's a work of a non-materialistic spirit.
Eirikizer 3 years ago
"Just because we can't yet explain all the details of what free will is (it might be an illusion, ... this doesn't mean it's a work of a non-materialistic spirit."
This goes far beyond merely being unable to explain how free will operates, Eirikizer. Free will is FUNDAMENTALLY imcompatible with everything that we know about the material world. This makes a non-material explanation far more plausible than a materialistic one.
grammastola 3 years ago
wait why do philosophers believe in spirits
matthewdarklord 3 years ago
"why do philosophers believe in spirits"
Is that really so hard to believe? Not all philosophers do, mind you, but a significant number do. For example, one cannot account for free will in a purely materialist worldview.
Besides, as I emphasized repeatedly and at great length, even atheistic philosophers such as Michael Ruse dismiss the logic of Dawkins. Hence, even if one doesn't believe in spirits, one can still see how Dawkins' philosophizing fails to hold up under scrutiny.
grammastola 3 years ago
yes, i am sorry to say it really is that hard to believe
matthewdarklord 3 years ago
And why cant one account for free will in a purely materialist worldview?
mortenlu 3 years ago
"And why cant one account for free will in a purely materialist worldview?"
The answer is a matter of common sense. In a purely mechanistic view, everything is completely enslaved by the laws of physics.
And no offense, but this really is not the right forum to tutor you on the basics of philosophy. It cannot be adequately done in 500-char responses. I suggest that you do some reading on what the various philosophers believe regarding materialism.
grammastola 3 years ago
I wont argue that. I just didnt know. I'll do abit of reading.
mortenlu 3 years ago
Good stuff man!
xuadobiht 3 years ago
"You lost your credibility... when you made the claim that 'God is spirit.' How do you expect anyone to take you seriously..."
I've addressed that concern repeatedly. The creator of all matter must, by necessity, be non-material, i.e. spirit (among other standard philosophical arguments). Second, Dawkins himself presupposed that God IS material. One might as well ask how anyone can take Dawkins seriously when he implicitly claims that God IS material!
grammastola 3 years ago
You're claiming that God must be non-material. It's such a cop out and a "god of the gaps" thing to do, to claim he is non-material. To claim that he is not tangible allows you to quite conveniently dodge the awkward questions regarding his nature. If, as the religious claim, that god answers prayers and intervenes in the world, then he is very much physical by nature. Or does he switch from "spirit" to "physical" mode as he sees fit since he is infinite in scope and ability? Please.
darthclimo 3 years ago
"You're claiming that God must be non-material. It's such a cop out and a "god of the gaps" thing to do..."
No, it's not. The logic is simple: The creator of all material things must be non-material, for otherwise, he would have to create himself. This is easy to grasp, which is why I do not believe that your response is based on any serious intellectual objection.
Moreover, since Dawkins implicitly claims that God is material, then it's up to him to show that this is necessarily so.
grammastola 3 years ago
Incidentally, as I said earlier, I find it amusing that when a theist says that god is immaterial, you get skeptics saying, "How can you possibly claim to know what God is like?"... yet when Dawkins implicitly claims that God is material, there's nary a peep of objection. I'll be discussing this type of double-standard in an upcoming video.
grammastola 3 years ago
Clearly you are influenced by Christianity, so how on earth am I supposed to take your arguments as objective? You infer on a few occasions that God already exists. That's where the conversation must end. Until you've got objectivity, you're just a fool.
darthclimo 3 years ago
"Clearly you are influenced by Christianity, so how on earth am I supposed to take your arguments as objective?"
Whereas you -- and for that matter, Dawkins -- are clearly influenced by atheism. Does this means that we should dismiss your criticisms as being unobjective?
I, for one, do not dismiss someone's arguments simply because the person isn't objective. By that logic, we should dismiss every argument put forth by an atheists; after all, they are biased against God!
grammastola 3 years ago
Atheism is a non-belief. I don't believe in god with as much conviction as I don't believe in Zeus or cheese fish. Therefore, my claims and my world-view are founded purely on evidence and evidence alone. My criticisms are built not on an atheistic foundation, but on a foundation of rationalism. It's all very well arguing for the existence of a deity from a metaphysical standpoint, but the fact that it can't be falsifiable ultimately diminishes any claim that god exists.
darthclimo 3 years ago
darthclimo says, "Atheism is a non-belief."
That's how SOME people use the term; however, reputable encyclopedias of philosophy specifically describe it as active disbelief. More importantly though, Dawkins himself goes far beyond mere lack of belief. He specificaly argues for God's non-existence.
And even if we granted your claim, that does nothing to refute my point that Dawkins employed sophomoric logic and philosophy -- a point that even prominent athiest reviewers agree with.
grammastola 3 years ago
Now, darthclimo, let's suppose you're right. Let's suppose that we can logically dismiss any criticisms of Dawkins that come from the mouth of Christians on the grounds that they believe in God. (That's specious reasoning, but let's assume that it be true.)
Did I not emphasize that, by and large, even ATHEISTS like Ruse and Orr echo those same criticisms of Dawkins? Dismiss my arguments if you wish, but have I not gone to great lengths to emphasize that even atheists offer the same arguments?
grammastola 3 years ago
Well the challenger below claims that you are yet to produce any evidence. In any case, I've read Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" and I think you should keep in mind that he is an evolutionary biologist above all else. Philosophers tend to focus more on the validity of arguments and semantics which can take away from the main point. I challenge you to answer me this: why would God not need to be something so infinitely complex and evolved? The usual answer I hear is, "'coz he's God." Ludicrous.
darthclimo 3 years ago
"Well the challenger below claims that you are yet to produce any evidence..."
And that challenger is wrong for reasons covered here and in my other videos. As for Dawkins being an evolutionary biologist above all else, that is not under dispute. The issue is whether his anti-theistic arguments hold up. They don't, which is why even fellow atheists scholars consider his work to be embarrassing.
grammastola 3 years ago
Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you. Try dismissing the work of Christopher Hitchens. Try convincing me that Christianity is not simply absolute plagiarism from the Egyptian god, Horus. As I say to all Christians: put up or shut up. You have ZERO proof. You claim you are rational, but you're clearly not. You still believe in the the pagan solar deity, Jesus Christ. Where is the evidence? There is NONE so you attack arguments...
darthclimo 3 years ago
"Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you."
The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. This includes Dawkins when he says that there is no God.
Besides, I devoted numerous other videos to defending God's existence. Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately ignoring this fact. I don't mind debating, but I'll only do so with people who make a good faith effort to represent their opponents accurately.
grammastola 3 years ago
"Okay, let's assume the Professor's arguments are flawed. So what? The burden of proof is still on you."
"The burden of proof is on ANYONE who makes a claim. This includes Dawkins when he says that there is no God." Dawkins DOESN'T say that there is NO GOD. He says that the chances are small that there is one. Those are two different things. "ATHEISTS can see how Dawkins is wrong." Really? I haven't meet many...
crazykb 3 years ago
In response to the statement that even atheists can see how Dawkins is wrong, crazykb replies, "Really? I haven't met many..."
crazykb, that remark makes me think that you didn't watch the video. I devoted considerable time to documenting how an atheistic philosopher and an evolutionary biologist both expressed extreme disappointment in the quality of Dawkins' arguments. In fact, I made this point explicitly and on multiple occasions. At least one respondent even expressed anger at this.
grammastola 3 years ago
crazykb says, "Dawkins DOESN'T say that there is NO GOD. He says that the chances are small that there is one."
Actually, he makes a stronger claim than that. He says that "there is almost certainly no God."
I'll admit that he didn't specifically say that there is NO God, but given the emphatic nature of his claim, that's ultimately a minor distinction. Besides, either way, the burden of proof is on him. He did a poor job of defending his claim, as even the atheists I mentioned emphasized.
grammastola 3 years ago
ohh, the good all appeal to Horus and Egyptian gods. Never fails to amuse.
For further inquiry as to why these claims are borderline idiotic, check out the writings of Habermas, william lane craig, and even to "Zeitgeist refuted" here on YouTube.
For your own sake, do some research. It's easy to spout off garbage you gullup down without question from Hitchens.
Good hunting.
regelemihai 3 years ago
I know what you're trying to accomplish here. Rather than formulate any hypothesis of your own to prove that God exists, you are left with no choice but to dissect the arguments of others for reconciliation. Since you are aiming to approach the matter philosophically and with sophistication, in which an argument can still be valid whilst not true, it is your aim to discredit to gain the upper hand. I'll concede his arguments are flawed for argument's sake, but so what? Show me your little god.
darthclimo 3 years ago
darthclimo says, "Rather than formulate any hypothesis of your own to prove that God exists, you are left with no choice but to dissect the arguments of others for reconciliation."
ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I addressed the issue of God's existence in several other videos. I emphasized this repeatedly, and with all due respect, if you had been honestly attempt to follow this discussion, you would have noted that fact.
Moreover, the point remains... even ATHEISTS can see how Dawkins is wrong.
grammastola 3 years ago
I can find criticism of the book by such, but I cannot find one shred of evidence, anywhere that Ruse said what you claim he did. Care to elaborate? Where did you get this source? Where did you find this source?
If you want to start bitching to the scientific community, you need some credibility, until then, you're a laughing stock, and you make me proud to be an Atheist.
chuckawobbly 3 years ago
Chuck, the quote by Michael Ruse is featured prominently on the cover of the book, "The Dawkins Delusion." The full quote says, "The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why."
You call me a laughingstock and challenge me to produce this quote so that I can have credibility. Well, the quote is there and readily verifiable. I don't wish to be harsh, but with all due respect, it seems to me that you're the one who is bitching without credibility.
grammastola 3 years ago
BTW, chuckawobbly, if you want to see more about what Michael Ruse has to say regarding "The God Delusion," you can read his review in the Dec 2007 issue of the journal, ISIS. He even says, "Dawkins is a man truly out of his depth."
Y'know, you were awfully quick to dismiss me as a laughingstock unless I "establish credibility" -- and yet my claims are readily verifiable by any competent researcher who knows how to use Google and the library. What does that say about your hasty accusation?
grammastola 3 years ago
despite everything, I keep getting messages from people who say "You haven't proven that God exists."
I say, "I'm not using that as a premise in my critique. Heck, as I've pointed out, even atheist philosophers agree that Dawkins' book is shoddy."
"You wrong! You haven't proven that God exists!"
"I'm not using that as a premise. If anything, I've pointed out that Dawkins subtly presumes God's non-existence in his 'proof'."
"You have no proof that God exists!"
Good grief.
grammastola 3 years ago
So..let me get this straight... On the book it self, it's one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find?
Assuming that is true, it holds zero merit, and I found a review of the book by Ruse him self that actually shows the complete opposite opinions, although he does say there are contradictions with his study, he does NOT say anything this extreme.
You fail, and so do your arguments.
chuckawobbly 3 years ago
"So..let me get this straight... On the book it self, it's one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find?"
I said nothing about it being the worst cricisism. 'Sides, you insinuated that Michael Ruse said no such thing, and I pointed out where he did.
You say that Ruse said the opposite. I suspect that you're in error, especially since I cited the ISIS journal article where he spoke disparagingly of Dawkins' work. You say that I fail, and yet you have not cited the source for your claim.
grammastola 3 years ago
You lost your credibility at around 4:42 when you made the claim that "God is spirit." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you are making claims about the substance, material, or the essence the mythical being, God? Clearly you know more about the nature of God than Professor Dawkins does since you've encountered Him yourself. I don't know what you are actually attempting to do with this video, but I have to say, it's pretty weak.
darthclimo 3 years ago
You can critique "the God delusion" but to say Richard Dawkins books show sloppy thinking is totally fallacious! The ideas behind the selfish gene are now widely accepted as fact, "The blind watchmaker", was nothing really new but like his other books built on the idea of Evolution by natural selection and showed that apparent design in nature is just the end result of Evolution.
dntcare84 3 years ago
Dntcare84, you cannot logically defend "The God Delusion" by insisting that his other books ("The Selfish Gene," "The Blind Watchmaker") are widely accepted as fact. It's that kind of reasoning which is fallacious! Moreover, some of the ideas contained therein are not yet accepted, such as his theory of memes.
Moreover, I presented multiple reasons why "The God Delusion" is fallacious, as supported by even atheist scholars. You ASSERT that these are false, but that's only an assertion.
grammastola 3 years ago
@grammastola; Memes are by far the most unscientific analogies created by an Atheist to describe the gradual process of passing virus' of the mind from one to another.
dimic 2 years ago
"Assuming that is true, it holds zero merit..."
And since your representation is incorrect, that is an irrelevant objection.
It is NOT 'one of the worst criticisms Dawkins can find.' Dawkins did not search for this criticism; rather, Ruse offered it voluntarily.
You said that I would be a laughingstock if I did not substantiate my claim regarding Ruse... and yet you have not substantiated your claim. What does that say? That strikes me as a serious double standard.
grammastola 3 years ago
So Chuck, please do cite the review in which Michael Ruse said "the complete opposite opinions." Remember, we're not looking for an article where he merely had a few positive things to say about Dawkins. Rather, I ask you to cite a review wherein he applauded Dawkins for the extreme quality of his research and logic.
You dripped with contempt as you called me a laughingstock. I won't stoop to that level, but I do expect you to follow the same standard that you demanded me to uphold.
grammastola 3 years ago
One more things, Chuck... Let's say that you DO find a review by Ruse which says the exact opposite of what he said elsewhere. Why should we assume that your review automatically trumps the ones I cited? One could just as easily say that my cites contradict yours and so YOU lose.
I hope you see that I won't let you get away with making unsubstatiated statements, esp since you harsly accused me of that very thing. Let's examine this review that you mentioned and see what it SPECIFICALLY says.
grammastola 3 years ago
Holy shit, all that and all you managed to accomplish was completely DODGE my question, AND and the SAME TIME reverse the argument?
I am impressed!
You fail to tell me where the quote is from. The cover of a book, is not enough. I did not tell you, that you said it was his worst criticism, anything plastered on the cover of your book that pisses people off isn't the best either.
Epic fail, weightless arguments, I asked for material, and you gave me crab shit.
chuckawobbly 3 years ago
"You fail to tell me where the quote is from. The cover of a book, is not enough."
Nonsense. It is more that sufficient, ESPECIALLY since it is corroborated by similar comments that Michael Ruse made in his ISIS paper.
You expressed doubt that Ruse ever made such a comment, and I pointed out where he did. Your refusal to accept it is not based on a lack of evidence; rather, it's based on an obvious refusal to accept the possibility that Ruse is not a fan of Dawkins's book.
grammastola 3 years ago
"Holy shit, all that and all you managed to accomplish was completely DODGE my question, AND and the SAME TIME reverse the argument?
I did not dodge the question. You asked where the quote was from and I told you. You might not like the fact that it appeared on the cover of "The Dawkins Delusion," but that doe snot make in inauthetic.
As for 'reversing the argument,' I merely ask that you abide by the same standard to which you hold me. I think that's fair, even though some don't like it.
grammastola 3 years ago
One more thing, Gramma, why are you even bothering? All I asked, was the source, and your responce? The cover of a freakin book. Yes, I agree that if he hadn't of said it why would Dawkins put it there in the first place, but you FAIL to tell me where it came from.
I found no evidence of where it came from, and found a review that contradicts what you're telling me.
Burden of proof. You claim it's there. Prove it. Christians, you believe anything you read.
chuckawobbly 3 years ago
"One more thing, Gramma, why are you even bothering? All I asked, was the source..."
Oh, you did quite a bit more than that, and you know it. You also went into a diatribe about how I'd be a laughingstock if I could not produce the source, which is obviously more than a simple request for information.
You demand burden of proof yet refuse to substantiate your own claim about some review where Ruse spoke glowingly of Dawkins' book. I won't waste time with you if that's how you want to play.
grammastola 3 years ago
I see what you mean with these comments grammastola, atheists are impossible to debate with. It's like talking with the pig in "Pearls before Swine" LOL.
braino2000 3 years ago
I found Dawkins' book to be more of a childish rant trying to justify why he doesn't like religion than anything else. However, I do hope you are not lumping Dawkins in with other atheists or atheism. It's a common tactic, and it's dishonest. To your credit, you say yourself that atheist philosophers think the work is poor, and I myself, as a sceptic, was not impressed with it either.
Good scientist, poor philosopher. I think most serious thinkers take him as a populariser than a revolutionary.
Clutchology 3 years ago 4
"However, I do hope you are not lumping Dawkins in with other atheists or atheism. It's a common tactic, and it's dishonest."
No, I'm not doing that. As you yourself observed, I emphasized that various atheists are disgusted with his work.
As far as I'm concerned, if other atheists are wrong, it won't be because of Dawkins' beliefs. Dawkins is in a whole 'nuther class. Michael Ruse and company are right to be embarassed by his work.
grammastola 3 years ago
I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
Clutchology 3 years ago 2
Very good video, very well presented. I have also found that a lot of atheists simply use flawed arguements, fail to show balanced information and use straw man type arguements
davegarret 3 years ago
Love your videos, but maybe you should record in a smaller room with better acoustics :D God bless
tonebot 3 years ago
unclexbob is making a big deal of the fact that I said that the Bible says that God is spirit, not a physical entity. In his mind, this is "using the Bible to prove the Bible."
That's an intellectually dishonest objection. First, I was citing this as one of *multiple* independent arguments for God's non-corporeality. Second, my objection is that Dawkins attacks a strawman distortion of the Christian God. Moreover, my other videos show that I do not use that argument for believing the Bible.
grammastola 3 years ago
Great video Dean, I am an avid watcher, and concur with most of your points. My only contention would be to the statement you made regarding atrocities committed in the name of religion. I contend, that by biblical standards, the acts such as the Inquisition, and so forth cannot be attributed to being Biblically inspired, but the actions of depraved sinful man using the name of God to promote man's purposes. There is also a great distinction between world religion,and Christianity.
Boanerges7 3 years ago
Actually, Boanerges, I agree with you on that point. I agree that the Inquisition, etc were not based on true Biblical standards. That's why I take care to blame them on 'religion,' which is a broader term.
Also, in a previous video, I emphasized that when people who call themselves Christian commit such acts, they are VIOLATING Christian teaching rather than acting it out.
grammastola 3 years ago
Agreed my brother, and yes I have heard you allude to this point as well in previous videos. For the non theist mindset, such as Dawkins, they have a tendancy to compile religion into one mass of myopic false assertion, and then pull tenets of multiple denominationally unrelated babble, and then put the proverbial cherry of Christianity on top. It completely exposes their ignorance of any doctrine, much less Christian doctrine. Keep up the good work Dean!
Boanerges7 3 years ago
Very well stated brother. Good video!
NephilimFree 3 years ago
Grammastola-have you ever seen a debate with dawkins?if you have could you maybe list one?.
I have looked for debates with dawkins and can't seem to find any.just ones wher he is alone talking and no one to argue his claimes.
I can see why as he makes no real case for his arguments just pointless rants that dawkinbots are more than willing to swallow.
Q.would you ever debate dawkins if given the oppertunity?about religion or what ever?
bluevaines 3 years ago
I'd love to debate dawkins about weather or not casu marzu cheese deserves to be placed in an art museum next to marcel duchamps "fountain", if I were better educated and prepered i might debate him on the existence of God. Still if you can get dawkins to debate Dr. Ravi Zacharias or grammastola, and Dr Zakir Naaik I'll bring the popcorn .
joness105639 3 years ago
Thanks for asking, bluevaines. I've seen a good number of theist-atheist debates, but I haven't seen any where Dawkins was involved.
I would certainly consider debating Dawkins, but I'd prefer it if a more experienced and seasoned debater were to do so. It's been many years since I've been in a formal debate. I think the main challenge with Dawkins would be dealing with his wild, somewhat scattered argumentation style, which more careful atheist debaters avoid using.
grammastola 3 years ago
Let me break it down for ya Einstein. If you want to believe that before anything existed there was a spirit floating around in the nothingness who at some point waved his magical arm and poofed the universe into being thats fine. When you have evidence for this other than an old, over-edited, self-contradicting, story book let me know and I might take you seriously.
floydoid 3 years ago
Congratulations, floydoid. You have demonstrated that you can hurt insults, invectives, and flat-out asssertions around. Perhaps you consider that an accomplishment.
What you have NOT done is refute anything I said in this video. As for proving the Bible to be true, I did not attempt such a proof in this vid, and you know it. That's because I specifically chose to focus on a different issue: Dawkins. If you consider this to be some grievious failing though, then obviously, I can't stop you.
grammastola 3 years ago
Excuse me, but you've gotten Dawkins's position on the apparent fine-tuning of the universe completely backwards. You suggest that his unwillingness to come to any conclusions, and willingness to wait and seek out more evidence, is "poor philosophy"? You suggest by not coming to the conclusion that "God-did-it", he has jumped the gun somehow... just plain backwards, man.
Looking for answers the line up with reality is not a bad goal to have, yet you make it sound like his mind is closed.
samlowry1971 3 years ago
"Excuse me, but you've gotten Dawkins's position on the apparent fine-tuning of the universe completely backwards"
You are the one who is misconstruing the position of Dawkins. Dawkins does not merely say that we should not come to any conclusions. Rather, he insist that there IS a naturalistic explanation, and that we must continue searching for it. This is a far, far cry from saying that he is merely unwilling to arrive at any conclusions.
grammastola 3 years ago
To underscore what I said about Dawkins and the fine-tuning problem, one need only consult pages 157 and 158, in which Dawkins offers his central argument against God's existence. Point #6 in this argument says "We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology" -- and based on this, he says that God almost certainly does not exist. That is a far, far cry from mere "unwillingness to come to any conclusions"!
grammastola 3 years ago
BTW, Blurry Video Is Blurry.
FlowCell 3 years ago
Steven J.Gould was quoted in "The Language of God" by Dr. Francis Collins, to give scolding remarks towards his colleagues who keep using evolution to disprove the existence of God.
All evolution disproves is a literal interpretation of Genesis and nothing else. It speaks nothing of the existence of God or the relationship between God and creation.
As Dr. Francis Collins put it, Dawkins likes to erect Christian straw men and tear them down with great relish.
FlowCell 3 years ago
"Dawkins likes to erect Christian straw men and tear them down with great relish." Seems he'd be fun to see debate Dr Zakir Naaik. Dr. Naaik likes to erect atheist strawmen and tear them down with great relish.
joness105639 3 years ago
I don't know who Dr. Zakir Naaik is, so your statement means nothing to me. Intellectual dishonesty, be it by a theist or an atheist is still simply that, dishonest.
A more relevant debate to review would be the one Dawkins had with Collins, since those are the two figures being mentioned first. You can find it in Time Magazine's archive.
FlowCell 3 years ago
"I don't know who Dr. Zakir Naaik is, so your statement means nothing to me. Intellectual dishonesty, be it by a theist or an atheist is still simply that, dishonest."
With all due respect, I strongly suspect that this is exactly why joness105639 said that it would be interesting to see Dawkins debate Dr. Naaik. They use the same tactics, but are on different sides. Joness105639 is not the type of guy who would endorse the tactic itself.
grammastola 3 years ago
If this is true about doctors Dawkins and Naaik, then I think the debate would probably be pointless and go nowhere, because any debate worth watching would enlighten both sides and engender deeper understandings in the subject.
However, I see your point. It would be like having two straw men fight each other in the Roman Colosseum. They would annihilate each other, and all you'd have left would be ash.
FlowCell 3 years ago
Good video. I've really never understood why he or this book is so popular. To be completely honest I think it just shows how philosophically illiterate most people are. If we use just a bit of critical thinking on his argument, 5 of his 6 premises don't even contribute to the argument itself, and the conclusion completely comes out of left field.
ScottyDstNo 3 years ago
Absolutely fantastic video Dean. This is one of my favorites. I wanted to make a video on The God Delusion but you really hit the nail on the head here man. Excellent job.
Veritas48 3 years ago
Appreciate the carefully thought out videos. This one is particularly interesting because there are so many members of Richardanity nowadays. No offense.
SavedTru8 3 years ago
very good.
reformedman 3 years ago
Regarding to the various evils ascribed to religion, Dawkins' point was not that religion was necessarily evil, but that it is not the purveyor of morals, but rather it reflects the morals of society. If there is an evil to this its that by ascribing supernatural origins to these morals, it allows possibly detrimental ideas to persist.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
"... Dawkins' point was not that religion was necessarily evil, but that it is not the purveyor of morals..."
Not true. In fact, in 2006, Dawkins produced a two-part documentary titled "The Root of all Evil" in which he lambastes religion. This goes far beyond merely saying that religion does not purvey morals.
And even if that were his intent, it would still be invalid to ignore the good done by religion or the evils done when it is absent. Any thorough discussion should consider those.
grammastola 3 years ago
BTW, some would insist that Dawkins did not choose the title of that video. That's beside the point, though. In that video and in his other writings, he argues that the world would be better off without religion -- yet fails to consider what does happen when religion is eliminated. Even in the God Delusion, his caustic remarks go far beyond merely saying that religion isn't sufficiently good (and he paints religion with an extremely broad brush to boot!).
grammastola 3 years ago
sadly, religious people are so busy connecting everything with religion, then have given it a much larger role in the world than it really has.
Dawkins point is pretty simple. Whether or not you label good things under it or bad things under it, its very nature breeds isolation, discourages rational thought and knowledge, falsely projects "absolutes", things that can't be questioned, and is in general much easier to use abusively than what is opposite of religion. That being, rational thought
unclexbob 3 years ago
unclexbob says, "Dawkins point is pretty simple. Whether or not you label good things under it or bad things under it, its very nature breeds isolation..."
No, he says a great deal more than that, and you know it. Moreover, he falls far short of substantiating his points, which is why even atheist philosophers are disgusted with his work.
grammastola 3 years ago
I had thought I had responded to this earler, but hadn't noticed before that you have comment approval on. So I don't know if you didn't approve my last comment or not
Either way, the fact that you DO have comment approval on, proves my case exactly. Its very popular for the religious to severely limit speech.
That being said, (assume you allow this comment) I'm going to stop wasting my time. You aren't interested in open dialog.
unclexbob 3 years ago
"Its very popular for the religious to severely limit speech."
Sir, I moderate the comments in order to keep the discussion on track -- to limit off-topic remarks, gross misrepresentations, and ad hominem remarks. Those happen a lot in discussions like this, as evidenced in this discussion. Of course, this will cause some peopel to complain, but if they're not going to act that way, then I'm not going to waste time with them. They can speak their mind, but I don't have to provide their venue.
grammastola 3 years ago
Regarding your comments on probability, you are confusing the overall probability with specific probablity. In your example, any person has a 1 in 3 chance of having an STD based on their nationality. If I take into account other variables, then of course the original percentage is not accurate. It doesn't change that it is valid for its original parameters. In addition, you will find that Dawkins considers the overall probability of God to be small by taking all arguments into account.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
"Regarding your comments on probability, you are confusing the overall probability with specific probablity."
No, I'm not. Moreover, why would you settle for the less accurate "general" probability over more specific probability that is based on more data? The only possible motivation for doing so would be to stack the deck in one's favor, which is something that Dawkins does often.
grammastola 3 years ago
As to your assertion that God is spirit, twhat is that but speculation on your part? And the classification of God as a spiritual being does nothing to explain omnipotence, omniscience, and the ability to interact with the physical world. These are all assumptions you must make in order for the God hypothesis to be true, but there is no evidence for that. It is believed that humans have a spirit. Does that mean that all humans are deified upon death? If not why not?
Cafeeine 3 years ago
"As to your assertion that God is spirit, twhat is that but speculation on your part? "
No, it's beyond mere speculation. First, it's what the Scriptures say. If Dawkins is going to say that the Biblical concept of God is wrong, then it's specious of him to paint a god that is non-spirit.
Second, any God that created all matter and energy must be something other than matter and energy. Ergo, this is not just mere speculation.
grammastola 3 years ago
circular: bible proves the bible
Next.
unclexbob 3 years ago
"circular: bible proves the bible"
That's right, which is why I don't assume the Bible to be true in order to prove it's truthfulness. As you know full well though, I made no such claim in this video.
Is this going to be yet another situation in which someone challenges me to defend a position that I have not endorsed? That happens an awful lot around here.
grammastola 3 years ago
I wasn't commenting on your video, but your comment where you used the bible to prove the bible
Pay attention
unclexbob 3 years ago
With all due respect, unclexbob, you are the one who is not paying attention. I did NOT use the Bible to prove the Bible. In fact, as I have already emphasized, I did not attempt any proof of the Bible at all in this video. Rather, I was addressing the claims of Dawkins -- as the title of the video implies.
Please show us where I attempted to prove the Bible in this video. Take your time though, because you'll be searching for an awfully long time.
grammastola 3 years ago
again, I didn't say you said it in the video. I said you said it in the comment I replied to.
"First, it's what the Scriptures say. "
Are you saying you didn't invoke the scriptures as evidence for God? Its right there, 4 posts up (the one I replied to originally)
unclexbob 3 years ago
"again, I didn't say you said it in the video. I said you said it in the comment I replied to.
'First, it's what the Scriptures say.'"
Fella, that is NOT the same as using the Bible to prove the Bible. I was presenting the Christian concept of God, which is what Dawkins was attacking. If he's going to attack that concept, he needs to present it accurately. That's just common sense.
I'm 100% convinced that you know this distinction, but are deliberately ignoring it.
grammastola 3 years ago
He was referring to where you said, "No, it's beyond mere speculation. First, it's what the Scriptures say. If Dawkins is going to say that the Biblical concept of God is wrong, then it's specious of him to paint a god that is non-spirit." It was a knee jerk reaction on his part left unsubstantiated and IMO displays a misunderstanding of your argument.
joness105639 3 years ago
I disagree, it is speculation, as we cannot quantify a spirit. How do you know that spirits are not complex? As I said above, we are supposed to have a spirit that leaves the body after death. Ddoes that make us equal to god after death? Not according to the Bible. Therefore the term spirit is inadequate, it is non-descriptive and it is conjecture to award it the contradicting properties that you need to make your argument work.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
"I disagree, it is speculation, as we cannot quantify a spirit."
What a bizarre argument! We cannot quantify love, or thoughts, or dreams, or insight, or inspiration, yet nobody would call them speculative. Heck, Dawkins himself complains about religious evil, yet we cannot quantify evil -- and you know it.
This is how I know that you're not arguing honestly. Instead of using first principles, you're taking a position and then arguing backwards to plug up it's leaks. It's a waste of time.
grammastola 3 years ago
Dawkins' complexity argument comes to counter the argument that God must exist because the world is complex. You are free to consider that a simpler structure can create a more complex one (I agree, as evolution shows exactly that) but then you can't use complexity as proof of God (You didn't do that here of course, but the argument exists, and therefore Dawkins is justified in his attempt at refuting it)
Cafeeine 3 years ago
Regarding the anthropic principle, I do not see why it is sloppy thinking, unless it is because it nullifies a quest for meaning that you consider important. That doesn't follow. It may not disprove the existence of deeper meaning, but it is a valid possibility.
Cafeeine 3 years ago